What are the differences between Anechoic, Semi-Anechoic Chambers and Open Area Test Site (OATS)?
Analysing the Suitability of FAC, SAC and OATS for EMC Compliance.
Ensuring electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) is crucial for the reliable operation of electronic devices. This article delves into the essential testing environments used to achieve this, Anechoic Chambers (both Fully and Semi-Anechoic) and Open Area Test Sites (OATS). We'll explore the unique characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of each, providing a clear understanding of when and why each test site is preferred.
Content overview
- What is the difference between a Fully Anechoic Chamber (FAC) and a Semi-Anechoic Chamber (SAC)?
- Fully Anechoic Chamber (FAC)
- Advantages
- Disadvantages
- Semi Anechoic Chamber (SAC)
- Advantages
- Disadvantages
- What is an Open Area Test Site (OATS)?
- Advantages
- Disadvantages
Full Anechoic Chamber (FAC) vs. Semi Anechoic Chamber (SAC)
A semi-anechoic chamber (SAC) and a fully anechoic chamber (FAC) are both specialised facilities used for testing the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and radio frequency (RF) performance of devices. Both types of chambers are designed to eliminate or reduce reflections of electromagnetic waves, which allows for more accurate and reliable testing results.
However, there are some key differences between the two types of chambers:
- Level of isolation
A FAC is designed to completely eliminate all external interference and reflections of electromagnetic waves, while a SAC is designed to reduce but not completely eliminate these factors. This means that a FAC provides a higher level of control over the testing environment compared to a SAC. - Frequency range
A FAC is typically able to accommodate a wider frequency range compared to a SAC, which makes it suitable for testing devices that operate at extremely high or low frequencies. - Testing scenarios
A FAC is suitable for testing devices that will be used in controlled environments or that require a high level of accuracy, while a SAC is more suitable for testing devices that will be used in outdoor or semi-outdoor environments. - Cost and space requirements
FACs are typically more expensive to build and operate compared to SACs, and they require a larger amount of space.
Overall, a FAC is a specialised facility that provides a high level of control over the testing environment and is suitable for testing devices that require a completely controlled environment or that operate at extremely high or low frequencies. A SAC is a more cost-effective option that is suitable for testing devices that will be used in outdoor or semi-outdoor environments.
Fully Anechoic Chamber (FAC)
A Fully Anechoic Chamber is the ultimate testing ground for engineers and scientists looking for precise Radio Frequency (RF) and Electromagnetic interference (EMI) measurements. These specialised enclosures contrast two elements designed to minimise RF noise from the external environment and minimise reflections from within the chamber. To learn more about Anechoic Chambers, APC has an article highlighting Anechoic Chamber materials, usage and requirements. Read the full guide here.
Advantages
- Complete isolation from external interference
FACs are designed to completely eliminate all external interference and reflections of electromagnetic waves, which allows for more accurate and reliable testing results. This is particularly important for testing devices that will be used in controlled environments or that require a high level of accuracy. - Wide frequency range
FACs are typically able to accommodate a wide frequency range, which makes them suitable for testing devices that operate at extremely high or low frequencies. - Greater control over the testing environment
FACs provide a higher level of control over the testing environment compared to SACs, which may not completely eliminate all external interference and reflections of electromagnetic waves. - Ability to test devices at higher power levels
FACs can accommodate testing of devices at higher power levels compared to SACs, which may be limited in the amount of power they can handle.
Disadvantages
- Cost
FACs are typically more expensive to build and operate compared to semi-anechoic chambers (SACs) or open area test sites (OATS). - Size and space requirements
FACs require a large amount of space and are typically quite large, which may not be practical or feasible for some testing facilities. - Limited testing scenarios
FACs are designed to eliminate all external interference and reflections of electromagnetic waves, which means they are not suitable for testing devices that will be used in outdoor or semi-outdoor environments. - Limited access
FACs are typically located within a shielded room or building, which can make access to the chamber difficult and require special precautions.
Semi Anechoic Chamber (SAC)
A semi-anechoic chamber (SAC) is a shielded room with walls and a ceiling covered with radiation-absorbent material (RAM) or RF absorbers; however, the ground plane is left as a flat reflective surface with NO absorber materials.
Advantages
- Realistic testing conditions
SACs provide a more realistic testing environment compared to fully anechoic chambers (FACs), which are artificially designed to completely eliminate reflections of electromagnetic waves. This can lead to more accurate and reliable testing results, particularly for devices that will be used in outdoor or semi-outdoor environments. - Cost-effectiveness
SACs are typically less expensive to build and operate compared to FACs, which require specialised construction and materials. - Flexibility in testing scenarios
SACs can accommodate a variety of testing scenarios and can be used to test devices in both controlled and outdoor environments. - Ability to test multiple devices simultaneously
SACs allow for testing multiple devices simultaneously, which can be useful for evaluating the interference or compatibility between different devices. - Ability to test devices at higher power levels
SACs can accommodate testing of devices at higher power levels compared to FACs, which are typically limited in the amount of power they can handle.
Disadvantages
- Limited control over the testing environment
SACs do not provide the same level of control over the testing environment as fully anechoic chambers (FACs), which are designed to eliminate all external interference and reflections of electromagnetic waves. - Limited frequency range
SACs are typically limited in the frequency range that they can accommodate, which may not be suitable for testing devices that operate at extremely high or low frequencies. - Interference from external sources
SACs are vulnerable to interference from external sources such as other RF devices or nearby buildings, which can affect the accuracy of the testing results. - Environmental factors
SACs are subject to environmental factors such as weather, temperature, humidity, and atmospheric conditions, which can affect the accuracy of the testing results.
What is an Open Area Test Site (OATS)?
Open Area Test Sites (OATS) are essential for reliable EMC and emissions testing of large equipment. These sites feature a flat, open area with a conductive ground plane, designed to be free from external signal interference and reflective objects. This controlled environment minimizes signal distortions, which are common in enclosed spaces, leading to consistent measurements.
Advantages
- Realistic testing conditions
OATS provide a more realistic testing environment compared to anechoic chambers, which are artificially designed to completely eliminate reflections of electromagnetic waves. This can lead to more accurate and reliable testing results, particularly for devices that will be used in outdoor or semi-outdoor environments. - Larger testing area
OATS typically have a larger testing area than anechoic chambers, which allows for more flexibility in testing larger devices or devices that require a larger distance between the transmitter and receiver. - Ability to test multiple devices simultaneously
OATS allow for testing multiple devices simultaneously, which can be useful for evaluating the interference or compatibility between different devices. - Ability to test devices at higher power levels
OATS can accommodate testing of devices at higher power levels compared to anechoic chambers, which are typically limited in the amount of power they can handle. - Cost-effectiveness
OATS are typically less expensive to build and operate compared to anechoic chambers, which require specialised construction and materials.
Disadvantages
- Environmental factors
OATS are subject to environmental factors such as weather, temperature, humidity, and atmospheric conditions, which can affect the accuracy of the testing results. - Interference from external sources
OATS are also vulnerable to interference from external sources such as other RF devices or nearby buildings, which can affect the accuracy of the testing results. - Limited control over the testing environment
OATS do not provide the same level of control over the testing environment as anechoic chambers, which are designed to eliminate all external interference and reflections of electromagnetic waves. - Limited frequency range
OATS are typically limited in the frequency range that they can accommodate, which may not be suitable for testing devices that operate at extremely high or low frequencies.
Anechoic Chambers, SCIFs and Shielded Enclosures by APC
APC also provide bespoke deployable SCIFs and RF Shielded Containers to meet the demanding requirements imposed on critical systems and infrastructure.
Start a technical conversation with our team to discuss your EMC projects
APC Technology Group prioritises understanding and exceeding our customers' specific EMC testing requirements. We achieve this through a collaborative approach, tailoring solutions to meet each client's unique specifications, ensuring timely delivery and adhering to established budgets.
Request a callback from a member of our team to get dedicated one-to-one consultancy with your latest projects and applications.