Vol. 83
Latest Volume
All Volumes
PIERB 105 [2024] PIERB 104 [2024] PIERB 103 [2023] PIERB 102 [2023] PIERB 101 [2023] PIERB 100 [2023] PIERB 99 [2023] PIERB 98 [2023] PIERB 97 [2022] PIERB 96 [2022] PIERB 95 [2022] PIERB 94 [2021] PIERB 93 [2021] PIERB 92 [2021] PIERB 91 [2021] PIERB 90 [2021] PIERB 89 [2020] PIERB 88 [2020] PIERB 87 [2020] PIERB 86 [2020] PIERB 85 [2019] PIERB 84 [2019] PIERB 83 [2019] PIERB 82 [2018] PIERB 81 [2018] PIERB 80 [2018] PIERB 79 [2017] PIERB 78 [2017] PIERB 77 [2017] PIERB 76 [2017] PIERB 75 [2017] PIERB 74 [2017] PIERB 73 [2017] PIERB 72 [2017] PIERB 71 [2016] PIERB 70 [2016] PIERB 69 [2016] PIERB 68 [2016] PIERB 67 [2016] PIERB 66 [2016] PIERB 65 [2016] PIERB 64 [2015] PIERB 63 [2015] PIERB 62 [2015] PIERB 61 [2014] PIERB 60 [2014] PIERB 59 [2014] PIERB 58 [2014] PIERB 57 [2014] PIERB 56 [2013] PIERB 55 [2013] PIERB 54 [2013] PIERB 53 [2013] PIERB 52 [2013] PIERB 51 [2013] PIERB 50 [2013] PIERB 49 [2013] PIERB 48 [2013] PIERB 47 [2013] PIERB 46 [2013] PIERB 45 [2012] PIERB 44 [2012] PIERB 43 [2012] PIERB 42 [2012] PIERB 41 [2012] PIERB 40 [2012] PIERB 39 [2012] PIERB 38 [2012] PIERB 37 [2012] PIERB 36 [2012] PIERB 35 [2011] PIERB 34 [2011] PIERB 33 [2011] PIERB 32 [2011] PIERB 31 [2011] PIERB 30 [2011] PIERB 29 [2011] PIERB 28 [2011] PIERB 27 [2011] PIERB 26 [2010] PIERB 25 [2010] PIERB 24 [2010] PIERB 23 [2010] PIERB 22 [2010] PIERB 21 [2010] PIERB 20 [2010] PIERB 19 [2010] PIERB 18 [2009] PIERB 17 [2009] PIERB 16 [2009] PIERB 15 [2009] PIERB 14 [2009] PIERB 13 [2009] PIERB 12 [2009] PIERB 11 [2009] PIERB 10 [2008] PIERB 9 [2008] PIERB 8 [2008] PIERB 7 [2008] PIERB 6 [2008] PIERB 5 [2008] PIERB 4 [2008] PIERB 3 [2008] PIERB 2 [2008] PIERB 1 [2008]
2019-02-22
Estimating the Probability Density Function of the Electromagnetic Susceptibility from a Small Sample of Equipment
By
Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 83, 93-109, 2019
Abstract
The failure risk of electronic equipment submitted to an electromagnetic aggression may be seen as the conditional probability that the susceptibility level of equipment is reached, knowing that a given constraint is applied. This paper focuses on the estimation of the probability density function of the susceptibility level of equipment. Indeed, the production variability of electric/electronic equipment under analysis implies that its susceptibility level may be considered as a random variable. Estimation of its distribution through susceptibility measurements of a limited set of available equipment is required. Either a Bayesian Inference (BI) or a Maximum Likelihood Inference (MLI) may be used for assessing the most probable density function. Above all, we highlight that they have to be used to delimit a set of probable distribution functions rather than the most probable one. It then provides realistic bounds of the failure probability at a given test level. First both types of inference are carried out on theoretical distributions. Then we compare the two methods on a virtual piece of equipment whose distribution is not known a priori but can be estimated a posteriori. Finally, we apply these inferences on a set of actual susceptibility measurements performed on several copies of equipment. We check that for extremely small sample size (a dozen) the Bayesian approach performs slightly better. However, above around 40, the two methods perform similarly. In all cases, the likelihood estimations provide a clear statement of the probabilistic estimation of the statistics of susceptibility level given a limited sample of pieces of equipment.
Citation
Thomas Houret, Philippe Besnier, Stephane Vauchamp, and Philippe Pouliguen, "Estimating the Probability Density Function of the Electromagnetic Susceptibility from a Small Sample of Equipment," Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 83, 93-109, 2019.
doi:10.2528/PIERB18110703
References

1. Nitsch, D., C. Camp, and F. Sabath, "Susceptibility of some electronic equipment to HPEM threat," IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., Vol. 46, No. 3, 2014.

2. Spadacini, G. and S. A. Pignari, "Numerical assessment of radiated susceptibility," IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., Vol. 55, No. 5, 956-964, 2014.
doi:10.1109/TEMC.2012.2235446

3. Mehri, M., N. Masoumi, and J. Rashed-Mohassel, "Trace orientation function for statistical prediction of PCB radiated susceptibility and emission," IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., Vol. 57, No. 5, 1168-1178, 2015.
doi:10.1109/TEMC.2015.2414353

4. Mehri, M., N. Masoumi, and J. Rashed-Mohassel, "Statistical prediction and quantification of radiated susceptibility for electronic systems PCB in electromagnetic polluted environments," IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., Vol. 59, No. 2, 498-508, 2017.
doi:10.1109/TEMC.2016.2610463

5. Genender, E., H. Garbe, and F. Sabath, "Probabilistic risk analysis technique of intentional electromagnetic interference at system level," IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., Vol. 56, No. 1, 200-207, 2014.
doi:10.1109/TEMC.2013.2272944

6. Yuhao, C., L. Kejie, and X. Yanzhao, "Bayesian assessment method of device-level electromagnetic pulse effect based on Markov Chain Monte Carlo," APEMC, 659-661, Shenzen, China, 2016.

7. Jaynes, E. T., "Prior probabilities," IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., Vol. 4, No. 3, 227-241, 1968.

8. Syversveen, A. R., "Non informative Bayesian Priors interpretation and problems with construction and applications," Preprint Statistics, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1-11, 1998.

9. Zellner, A., "Maximal data information prior distributions," New Developments in the Applications of Bayesian Methods, 211-232, 1977.

10. Jeffrey, H., "An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems," The Royal Society, 1947.

11. Berger, J. and J. Bernardo, "On the development of the reference prior method," Bayesian Statistics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 35-60, 1992.

12. Yang, R. and J. O. Berger, A catalog of noninformative Priors, Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences, Duke University, 1996.

13. Casella, G. and R. L. Berger, Point Estimation, 2nd Ed., Pacific Grove, Duxbury, CA, 2002.

14. Ruch, J. J., Statistique: Estimation. Preparation lAgregation Bordeaux, 11, 2013.

15. Perreault, L. and B. Bobee, Loi Weibull a deux parametres proprietes mathematiques et statistiques estimation des parametres et des quantiles Xt de periode de retour T, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, 2002.

16. Hirose, H., "Bias correction for the maximum likelihood estimates in the two-parameter weibull distribution," IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 6, No. 1, 66-68, 1999.
doi:10.1109/94.752011

17. Houret, T., P. Besnier, S. Vauchamp, and P. Pouliguen, "Inferring the probability distribution of the electromagnetic susceptibility of equipment from a limited set of data," EMC Europe, Amsterdam, 2018.

18. Pouant, C., Caracterisation de la susceptibilite electromagnetique des etages d’entree de composants electroniques, Vol. 103, 163-168, Ph.D. dissertation, Montpellier, France, 2015.