Compliance engineering

EMC Pre-Compliance and Design Review

Kyros Engineering reviews hardware for EMC risk before it reaches the test house — layout, grounding and partitioning, supply filtering, cable and connector strategy, and the firmware behaviour that immunity testing will expose. A failed EMC campaign usually costs a respin and a schedule slip; the review is the cheap version of that information.

Scope this with us
What we work inIEC 60601-1-2FCC Part 15CE markingRadiated and conducted emissionsESD and transient immunityGround plane and return path analysisFilter design and placementCable and shield strategyFirmware recovery behaviour

EMC failures are rarely surprising in hindsight. Ground plane partitioning, return path discontinuities, filtering placed where it was convenient rather than where it was needed, and cables that became antennas — the list is short and it repeats.

The problem is that you learn it at the test house, after the board is built, when every fix is a respin.

What the review looks at

We read the design the way the chamber will.

  • Ground plane strategy, partitioning, and return paths across every layer transition
  • Supply filtering and decoupling placed against actual current loops rather than by convention
  • Clock and switching-node treatment, including edge rates that are faster than the design needs
  • Cable, connector and shield termination strategy — usually where emissions actually escape
  • Enclosure and aperture considerations where the mechanical design is already fixed
  • Firmware behaviour under immunity testing, which is what turns an ESD event into a lockup

Immunity is a firmware problem too

Teams prepare for emissions and get caught by immunity. An ESD strike or a conducted transient does not have to damage anything to fail you — it only has to make the device misbehave and not recover. Watchdog strategy, communication error recovery and safe-state behaviour are all part of the EMC design, and all of them are firmware.

When to run the review

Earlier is dramatically cheaper, and the useful checkpoints are specific.

  • At schematic freeze — filtering, part choice and interface strategy are still free to change
  • Before layout is released — the highest-value moment, when ground and routing are still open
  • Before the first chamber visit — to triage what is likely to fail and prepare fixes in advance
  • After a failed campaign — to root-cause rather than iterate blindly through another booking

You probably want this if…

You have a chamber booking and no strong prediction of the result
You failed a campaign and the report did not tell you the mechanism
The design passed until an enclosure or cable changed
ESD testing causes lockups rather than damage
You are designing to IEC 60601-1-2 for the first time

Frequently asked

Can you predict whether we will pass?

Not with certainty — nobody honest can, because the chamber is the measurement. What a review does is identify the mechanisms most likely to fail you and let you fix the cheap ones before you are paying for chamber time to discover them.

Do you run the actual testing?

We do not operate an accredited chamber. We prepare the design for it, attend and support the campaign where that helps, and root-cause failures afterwards. Where you need a test house we can point you at ones we have worked with.

Is this useful if our layout is already released?

Yes, though the options narrow. Pre-chamber triage still has real value: knowing what is likely to fail lets you arrive with candidate fixes and often turns two bookings into one.

Chamber booked and unsure what happens?

A review before you go is a fraction of the cost of finding out the expensive way.