4.4 Article

Assessment of Broadband Shielding Effectiveness of Composite Panels for Protective Enclosures

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TEMC.2022.3199904

关键词

Steel; Numerical models; Magnetic shielding; Magnetic noise; Graphene; Three-dimensional displays; Permeability; Composite; enclosure; far-field; near-field; shiel-ding effectiveness

资金

  1. LabEx LaSIPS [ANR-10-LABX-0032-LaSIPS]
  2. French National Research Agency [ANR-11-IDEX-0003]
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-11-IDEX-0003] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article investigates the shielding effectiveness of a metallic enclosure with a multilayer composite cover over a wide frequency range. The use of the composite cover provides similar shielding effectiveness in the far-field and higher specific shielding effectiveness in the near-field.
The article investigates the shielding effectiveness (SE) of a metallic enclosure with a multilayer composite cover over a wide frequency range, from near-field magnetic shielding (1 Hz-1 MHz) to far-field electromagnetic shielding (4-14 GHz). Two enclosures are considered: a conductive enclosure made of aluminum and a magnetic enclosure made of steel. The multilayer composite is a trilayer combining a thin conductive layer of graphene and a thin magnetic layer of a Fe-Ni alloy on either side of a fiberglass plate. To determine the SE of these enclosures in both low-frequency and high-frequency approaches, two experimental setups and two numerical models are developed. The use of the composite cover, instead of the metallic one, gives a similar level of SE in the far-field and a higher specific SE (i.e., SE divided by the material density) in the near-field from 1 Hz to 2 kHz. Such quantitative analysis is the first step to designing practical enclosures entirely covered with composite panels to face electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) constraints in embedded systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据