Comparison of test methods for the characterization of shielding of board-to-backplane and board-to-cable connectors

Citation
L. Martens et al., Comparison of test methods for the characterization of shielding of board-to-backplane and board-to-cable connectors, IEEE ELMAGN, 42(4), 2000, pp. 427-440
Citations number
15
Categorie Soggetti
Eletrical & Eletronics Engineeing
Journal title
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
ISSN journal
00189375 → ACNP
Volume
42
Issue
4
Year of publication
2000
Pages
427 - 440
Database
ISI
SICI code
0018-9375(200011)42:4<427:COTMFT>2.0.ZU;2-W
Abstract
In this paper, we present the work carried out in the SOBITS project execut ed within the framework of the European Measurement and Testing program, Th e goal of the project was to compare different methods for characterization of the shielding performance of board-to-backplane and backplane-to-cable connectors used in telecommunication and computer systems. Four measurement methods have been selected, Dedicated test samples have be en designed and developed in order to enable the measurement of the shieldi ng characteristics of the connectors under test with all methods. Different shielding configurations were considered, in order to determine the influe nce of the quality of the shield. Single-ended as well as differential exci tations have been considered. Among the test samples, a nonshielded version was designed for each signal/ground configurations, This sample was used a s a reference. The definition of the quantities that describe the shielding performance is different for each of the measurement methods. Conversion formulas between these quantities have been formulated, They were verified by measuring a r eference device that is easy to measure by all methods, Thus we were able t o compare the relative shielding effectiveness of the various shielded boar d-to-backplane and backplane-to-cable connectors for all four measurement m ethods. The relative shielding effectiveness of a shielded connector was ca lculated with respect to the nonshielded version. We also compared the diff erent shielding performance results obtained with each measurement method i ndividually.