Articles | Volume 15
https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-15-243-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-15-243-2017
25 Oct 2017
 | 25 Oct 2017

Results of an intercomparison for electric field strength measurements within the German calibration service

Reiner Pape, Uwe Karsten, Frank-Michael Lindner, Frank Rittmann, Joachim von Freeden, Thomas Kleine-Ostmann, and Thorsten Schrader

Related authors

Measurement and optimization of a continuously tunable 10×10 reflectarray antenna for 5G metrology in the K-band
Thomas Harz and Thomas Kleine-Ostmann
Adv. Radio Sci., 19, 215–220, https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-19-215-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-19-215-2022, 2022
Short summary
Design of a continuously tunable reflectarray element for 5G metrology in the k-band
Thomas Harz, Thomas Kleine-Ostmann, and Thorsten Schrader
Adv. Radio Sci., 18, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-18-1-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-18-1-2020, 2020
Results of the national antenna intercomparison 2017/2018 within the German Calibration Service (Deutscher Kalibrierdienst – DKD)
David Ulm, Thomas Kleine-Ostmann, and Thorsten Schrader
Adv. Radio Sci., 17, 35–44, https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-17-35-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-17-35-2019, 2019
Short summary
Results from the national intercomparison for rise time and bandwidth measurements within the German Calibration Service (Deutscher Kalibrierdienst – DKD)
Kai Baaske, Thomas Kleine-Ostmann, and Thorsten Schrader
Adv. Radio Sci., 17, 45–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-17-45-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-17-45-2019, 2019
Short summary
High-resolution signal-in-space measurements of VHF omnidirectional ranges using UAS
Thorsten Schrader, Jochen Bredemeyer, Marius Mihalachi, David Ulm, Thomas Kleine-Ostmann, Christoph Stupperich, Sergei Sandmann, and Heyno Garbe
Adv. Radio Sci., 17, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-17-1-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/ars-17-1-2019, 2019
Short summary

Cited articles

Cox, M. G.: The evaluation of key comparison data, Metrologia, 39, 589–595, 2002.
Eiø, C., Gentle, D., Fernandez, A., Le Sage, Y., Kleine-Ostmann, T., Camell, D., Borsero, M., Vizio, G., Pythoud, F., Mühlemann, B., Drazil, K., Zhao, D., Ji, Y., Kang, N.-W., Dabo, L., Ming, X., Morioka, T., Hirose, M., Kolotygin, S., Neustroev, S., Cetintas, M., and Sen, O.: Final report on key comparison CCEM.RF-K24.F: E-field measurements at frequencies of 1 GHz, 2.45 GHz, 10 GHz and 18 GHz and at indicated field levels of 10 V/m, 30 V/m and 100 V/m, Metrologia, 50, 01007, https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/50/1A/01007, 2013.
GUM: Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, JCGM 100:2008, GUM 1995 with minor corrections, Working Group 1 of the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM/WG 1), 1995.
IEC 61000-4-3:2006+AMD1:2007+AMD2:2010 CSV, Consolidated version: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-3: Testing and measurement techniques – Radiated, radio-frequency, electromagnetic field immunity test, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, April 2010.
IEEE Std 1309TM-2013: IEEE Standard for Calibration of Electromagnetic Field Sensors and Probes, Excluding Antennas, from 9 kHz to 40 GHz, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6673999, November 2013.
Download
Short summary
We discuss the results of an intercomparison for electric field strength measurements within the DKD. The comparison has been carried out on the field strength value required to reach a display reading of 20 V m−1 of the field probes. While the results agree well for the small field probe and when the larger commercial 3-axis field probe is oriented in the direction of the magnetic field, larger deviations occur, when the larger 3-axis field probe is oriented into the direction propagation.