volume | PIER Journals

2019-02-22

Estimating the Probability Density Function of the Electromagnetic Susceptibility from a Small Sample of Equipment

Thomas Houret,

Dr. Thomas Houret

INSA Rennes, CNRS

France

Homepage

Philippe Besnier,

Dr. Philippe Besnier

Univ Rennes, INSA Rennes, CNRS

France

Homepage

Stephane Vauchamp,

Dr. Stephane Vauchamp

CEA DAM

France

Homepage

Philippe Pouliguen

Dr. Philippe Pouliguen

Defense Innovation Agency, French Ministry of Armed Forces

France

Homepage

Progress In Electromagnetics Research B, Vol. 83, 93-109, 2019

doi:10.2528/PIERB18110703 | Google Scholar

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.

Download Full Article (663) View Full Article volume

Citation

Copy Export

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. Google Scholar

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 Google Scholar

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 Google Scholar

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 Google Scholar

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 Google Scholar

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. Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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, 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 Google Scholar

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. Google Scholar

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.