A Nondestructive Method for Measurements of Complex Permittivity of Microwave Dielectric Substrate Materials

Zhao, Fei; Xu, Pei; Sha, Changtao; Wang, Wenfeng; Kan, Jinsong

doi:10.2991/ic3me-15.2015.187

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The calibrated value for the sample K20 is 19.61 and the corresponding uncertainty is 0.15, that is, the relative uncertainty is 0.77% (k = 2). The uncertainty is also smaller than that of the GUM method obtained in our previous study [7]. These results may indicate that it was slightly conservative to assume the sensitivity coefficient of each intermediate variable is completely uncorrelated in both previous GUM method [3,7].…”

Section: Uncertainty Of Relative Dielectric Constantmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…The uncertainty is also smaller than that of the GUM method obtained in our previous study [7]. These results may indicate that it was slightly conservative to assume the sensitivity coefficient of each intermediate variable is completely uncorrelated in both previous GUM method [3,7]. The calibrated value for the sample K77 is 77.02 and the corresponding uncertainty is 0.57, that is, the relative uncertainty is 0.74% (k = 2).…”

Section: Uncertainty Of Relative Dielectric Constantmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…The calibrated relative dielectric constant for the sample Silica is 3.835 and the corresponding uncertainty is 0.024, that is, the relative uncertainty is 0.63% (k = 2). The uncertainty is much smaller than that of the GUM method [3,7]. The calibrated value for the sample K20 is 19.61 and the corresponding uncertainty is 0.15, that is, the relative uncertainty is 0.77% (k = 2).…”

Section: Uncertainty Of Relative Dielectric Constantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), the uncertainty of measurements was evaluated by Janezic [3], and similar uncertainty results were also obtained on the basis of our own split-cylinder resonator [7]. However, there are obvious deficiencies in the mathematical model of measurement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Monte Carlo Method to Uncertainty Evaluation of The Relative Dielectric Constant and Loss Tangent Measured by Split-Cavity Resonator Technique

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the mathematical model of the split-cylinder resonator method, it is impossible to establish a simple equation between the intermediate variables and the relative dielectric constant or the loss tangent. Instead, the measured relative dielectric constant and the loss tangent must be calculated numerically by iterative programming. When evaluating uncertainty according to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), it is impossible to obtain the sensitivity coefficient of each intermediate. Therefore, the reliability of uncertainty evaluation is greatly reduced. ISO/TS15530 states that the most effective method for estimating uncertainty is computer simulation, and more specifically, a Monte Carlo simulation. In this study, Three typical samples with different relative dielectric constant and loss tangent were measured, respectively. The probability density function of each intermediate variable was given, according to which the Monte Carlo simulations were performed by MATLAB programming. Moreover, some of the simulation results are compared with those of the previous literature, and the results show that the measurement uncertainty evaluated by the GUM method was slightly larger, indicating that it was a little bit conservative to assume that each intermediate variable is completely uncorrelated in the GUM method.

show abstract

Section: Uncertainty Of Relative Dielectric Constantmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Uncertainty Of Relative Dielectric Constantmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Uncertainty Of Relative Dielectric Constantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations