top - download
⟦222ac9436⟧ Wang Wps File
Length: 22377 (0x5769)
Types: Wang Wps File
Notes: CPS/ECP/003 EMI RACKS
Names: »0303A «
Derivation
└─⟦89b9efcb1⟧ Bits:30006072 8" Wang WCS floppy, CR 0029A
└─ ⟦this⟧ »0303A «
WangText
…0d……00……00……00……00…&…0a……00……86…1 …02… …02… …02…
CPS/ECP/003
GJ/801114 #
EMI RACKS
…02……02…CAMPS
T̲A̲B̲L̲E̲ ̲O̲F̲ ̲C̲O̲N̲T̲E̲N̲T̲S̲
1 INTRODUCTION .................................
3
2 PRICE QUOTATION ..............................
3 to 4
2.1 SHIELDING EFFECTIVENESS TEST AT CR'S
FACILITY .................................
3
2.2 SHIELDING EFFECTIVENESS TEST AT SHIELDED
TEST STAND AT CR'S FACILITY ..............
4
2.3 AMSG 720 TEST ............................
4
2.4 OPTION FOR CR SUPPLY OF POWER FILTERS ....
4
3 SCHEDULE IMPACT ..............................
5
4 BIDDING PROVISIONS ...........................
5 to 6
4.1 VALIDITY .................................
5
4.2 DELIVERY .................................
5
4.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ......................
6
4.4 TYPE OF PROPOSAL .........................
6
4.5 PAYMENT PLAN .............................
6
5 ENGINEERING CHANGE DESCRIPTION ...............
5 to 14
5.1 TEMPEST PERFORMANCE IMPACTS ..............
7
5.2 EMI RACK DESIGN ..........................
8
5.2.1 Physical Features ....................
8
5.2.2 Door Gasket Design ...................
9
5.2.3 Latch and Hinge Mechanism ............
9
5.2.4 Ventilation .......................... 10
5.2.5 Filters .............................. 10
5.2.5.1 AC Power Filters ................. 10
5.2.5.2 Signal Line Filters .............. 11
5.2.6 Intermediate Distribution Frame (IDF) 11
5.2.7 Ducting, Wiring, and Other Civil
Works ................................ 12
5.2.8 Line Drivers ......................... 12
5.3 TESTING .................................. 13
5.3.1 Approach A ........................... 13
5.3.2 Approach B ........................... 14
5.3.3 Approach C ........................... 14
1̲ ̲ ̲I̲N̲T̲R̲O̲D̲U̲C̲T̲I̲O̲N̲
As requested by SHAPE Christian Rovsing A/S hereby
submit a Firm Fixed Proposal for CAMPS EMI Racks.
The proposed solution utilitizes freestanding EMI computer
racks to be installed within the CAMPS room of the
16 CAMPS sites. The proposal replaces the system defined
in the CAMPS Contract CE-80-9009-INF paragraphs 22.1.1
and 22.1.2 which calls for commercial computer racks
placed inside a special screened cage.
2̲ ̲ ̲P̲R̲I̲C̲E̲ ̲Q̲U̲O̲T̲A̲T̲I̲O̲N̲
This proposal consists of 3 differenct solutions around
the EMI test strategy. Therefore, 3 different price
quotations are submitted labelled A, B, and C respectively.
The technical description in paragraph 5 points out
the differences.
2.1 S̲H̲I̲E̲L̲D̲I̲N̲G̲ ̲E̲F̲F̲E̲C̲T̲I̲V̲E̲N̲E̲S̲S̲ ̲T̲E̲S̲T̲ ̲A̲T̲ ̲C̲R̲'̲s̲ ̲F̲A̲C̲I̲L̲I̲T̲Y̲
Overall Costs:
Design and Qualification Dkr. 1,548,000
Update of Plans D̲k̲r̲.̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲4̲1̲,̲2̲0̲6̲
Total Overall Cost Dkr. 1.589,206
S̲i̲t̲e̲ ̲r̲e̲l̲a̲t̲e̲d̲ ̲C̲o̲s̲t̲s̲
Tempest Racks (96 at Dkr. 72,057) Dkr. 6,018,201
Pack and Shipping Dkr. 287,620
Installation D̲k̲r̲.̲ ̲ ̲ ̲2̲0̲6̲,̲0̲3̲0̲
Total Site Related Costs Dkr. 6.511,851
G̲r̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲T̲o̲t̲a̲l̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲D̲k̲r̲.̲ ̲8̲,̲1̲0̲1̲,̲0̲5̲7̲
Less Funding under
C̲o̲n̲t̲r̲a̲c̲t̲ ̲f̲o̲r̲ ̲S̲h̲i̲e̲l̲d̲e̲d̲ ̲E̲n̲c̲l̲o̲s̲u̲r̲e̲s̲:̲
16 Enclosures (installed) Dkr. 6,277,597
102 Standard Racks D̲k̲r̲.̲ ̲ ̲ ̲7̲0̲0̲,̲8̲4̲6̲
Total Funding under Contract Dkr. 6,978,443
N̲e̲t̲-̲C̲o̲s̲t̲ ̲I̲m̲p̲a̲c̲t̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲ ̲D̲k̲r̲.̲ ̲1̲,̲1̲2̲2̲,̲6̲1̲4̲
2.2 S̲H̲I̲E̲L̲D̲I̲N̲G̲ ̲E̲F̲F̲E̲C̲T̲I̲V̲E̲N̲E̲S̲S̲ ̲T̲E̲S̲T̲ ̲A̲T̲ ̲S̲H̲I̲E̲L̲D̲E̲D̲ ̲T̲E̲S̲T̲ ̲S̲T̲A̲N̲D̲
̲A̲T̲ ̲C̲R̲'̲S̲ ̲F̲A̲C̲I̲L̲I̲T̲Y̲
If this test strategy is chosen the total design and
qualification costs will increase by Dkr. 470,820.
The total net-cost of this proposal is thus D̲k̲r̲.̲1̲,̲5̲9̲3̲,̲4̲3̲4̲.
2.3 A̲M̲S̲G̲ ̲7̲2̲0̲ ̲T̲E̲S̲T̲
If this strategy is chosen the total design and qualification
costs will increase by Dkr. 1,562,100.
The total net-cost of this proposal is thus
D̲k̲r̲.̲ ̲2̲.̲6̲8̲4̲,̲7̲1̲4̲.
2.4 O̲P̲T̲I̲O̲N̲ ̲F̲O̲R̲ ̲C̲R̲ ̲S̲U̲P̲P̲L̲Y̲ ̲O̲F̲ ̲P̲O̲W̲E̲R̲ ̲F̲I̲L̲T̲E̲R̲S̲
The cost of this option is D̲k̲r̲.̲ ̲1̲0̲9̲,̲5̲0̲0̲.
3̲ ̲ ̲S̲C̲H̲E̲D̲U̲L̲E̲ ̲I̲M̲P̲A̲C̲T̲
The schedule impact on the program has a different
magnitude dependent on the chosen laboratory test.
If method A or B is selected the schedule impact is
as follows:
SHAPE must approve the proposal prior to 20th November
1980 so the order with the rack vendor can be placed
in January 1981. If this occurs, CR sees no other schedule
impact.
If method C is selected the schedule impact is major:
SHAPE must approve the proposal prior to 20th November
1980 as for method A or B.
Due to the 4 months' test to be performed in the laboratory
which can be scheduled for August - December 1981 the
delivery of the CAMPS sites will be delayed 3 months.
Furthermore, the factory acceptance test of site 2-6
will be delayed 3 - 6 months.
4̲ ̲ ̲B̲I̲D̲D̲I̲N̲G̲ ̲P̲R̲O̲V̲I̲S̲I̲O̲N̲S̲
4.1 V̲A̲L̲I̲D̲I̲T̲Y̲
This proposal is open for acceptance until November
20, 1980.
4.2 D̲E̲L̲I̲V̲E̲R̲Y̲
Refer to paragraph 3 Schedule Impact.
4.3 A̲C̲C̲E̲P̲T̲A̲N̲C̲E̲ ̲C̲R̲I̲T̲E̲R̲I̲A̲
Prices are quoted under the assumption that the factory
acceptance tests of the CAMPS Systems will be conducted
as currently scheduled, i.e. factory acceptance tests
will not include test of compliance with the TEMPEST
requirement.
4.4 T̲Y̲P̲E̲ ̲O̲F̲ ̲P̲R̲O̲P̲O̲S̲A̲L̲
Prices given are firm fixed prices.
4.5 P̲A̲Y̲M̲E̲N̲T̲ ̲P̲L̲A̲N̲
At acceptance of proposal: 30%
At acceptance of test results: 70% of over-all
costs
At factory acceptance of TEMPEST
Racks 60% of recurrent
cost
At PSA 10% of recurrent
cost
5̲ ̲ ̲E̲N̲G̲I̲N̲E̲E̲R̲I̲N̲G̲ ̲C̲H̲A̲N̲G̲E̲ ̲D̲E̲S̲C̲R̲I̲P̲T̲I̲O̲N̲
This technical proposal presents the approach and philosophy
related to TEMPEST compliant performance of the CAMPS
system when integrated into EMI equipment racks. This
is an alternative to CHRISTIAN ROVSING's original approach
of integrating the CAMPS system into an EMI shielded
cage.
Treated first is the potential impact in overall TEMPEST
performance and related optimal characteristics. Design
details are discussed next, then alternative TEMPEST
testing philosophies are discussed.
5.1 T̲E̲M̲P̲E̲S̲T̲ ̲P̲E̲R̲F̲O̲R̲M̲A̲N̲C̲E̲ ̲I̲M̲P̲A̲C̲T̲S̲
It should be recognized from the start that the shielded
cage approach is inherently more conservative from
a TEMPEST technical point of view than other approaches.
Briefly this is because the shielding materials used
in shielded cages (especially of the type that CR proposed
to use for the CAMPS installations) are inherently
more effective than the lighter materials used in other
shielding approaches. Just as important is the fact
that the shielding material of the shielded cage is
located physically further from signal radiators. Thus
the benefit of free space wave attenuation and more
predictable wave impedance is realized. Another factor
is the comparetively greater number of gasketed seams
which occur in alternative approaches to the shielded
cage.
The integration into EMI racks which is hereby proposed
is presented as a fully compliant TEMPEST solution
in spite of the technical risks however. It is still
proposed to meet the technical requirement of AMSG
720 using the installation techniques of AMSG 719B.
It should be recognized that the increased technical
risk of incurring added engineering and production
costs is reflected in the cost of the EMI rack approach.
The siting and operating benefits of the EMI rack approach
will be immediately apparent to CAMPS users. There
may be operational TEMPEST benefits realized which
may not be as apparent. For instance, during normal
operation the doors of the EMI racks are more likely
to remain closed than would the door of the shielded
cage. Also, the integrated IDF, to be described later,
will prevent inadvertant mis-connection of user ports
to a greater degree than would a separate IDF.
In order to achieve compliant TEMPEST performance,
special attention will be paid to the design of the
EMI racks, the filtering of signal and power lines,
and the material and care used in installation. The
salient design feature of the suppression system will
be discussed next.
5.2 E̲M̲I̲ ̲R̲A̲C̲K̲ ̲D̲E̲S̲I̲G̲N̲
During the past decade, EMI racks have been used in
the US and in the NATO communications security establishment
with variable success. The successful usages prove
the feasibility of the EMI rack approach to CAMPS.
The failures, however, indicate that changes are needed
to improve the shielding effectiveness of EMI racks
as a practical matter. CR has asked Atlantic Research
Corporation of Alexandria Virginia, U.S.A. in there
capacity as TEMPEST consultants to evaluate and recommend
important EMI rack design features which maximize the
degree of technical success of the EMI rack approach.
The design features contemplated are grouped as follows.
5.2.1 P̲h̲y̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲F̲e̲a̲t̲u̲r̲e̲s̲
The EMI racks are constructed of heavy guage steel,
having all non-opening seams welded. Each rack will
have a full size door in the front and rear. In response
to a question concerning the desirability of full size
rear doors, CR has concluded that they are in fact
most desirable compared to half-size doors. Four of
the six CAMPS racks will require full size doors for
rear maintenance of the adaptor crates and the IDF.
All racks will benefit from the increased accessability
of a full size door, and the standardization afforded
by
having all racks identical result in lowest cost. The
racks will be of slightly greater size than the equivalent
non-EMI racks and will be significantly heavier. The
racks will be shipped individually and assembled into
equipment bays on-site. Cable entrance for power and
signals will be either through the top or bottom of
each bay.
Each door will be operated with two recessed handles.
Since the doors must be deeper than usual for reasons
of ventilation, opening of the door will require that
it must be pulled forward first, then pivoted. The
doors will contain EMI gaskets and will be removable
for ease of major service operations. The EMI racks
will contain the usual accessories for mounting of
equipment and for handling during installation.
Finish and trim will be appropriate to government applications.
Only a small percentage of cost is allocated to aesthetic
items.
5.2.2 D̲o̲o̲r̲ ̲G̲a̲s̲k̲e̲t̲ ̲D̲e̲s̲i̲g̲n̲
One of the weakest design features of current EMI racks
is the inability of the door gasket and latch scheme
to remain effective with typical manufacturing and
adjustment tolerances. The effects of misalignment
and misadjustment during shipping and usage are also
significant.
It is proposed that the door design use a gasket and
latch which has a drawn-down dimension of almost double
that usually employed. In addition, gaskets which
are more resilient than usual will be used to avoid
compression-set problems and to aid in ease of latching.
The steel cabinet will be finished with a non corroding
surface compatible with the gasket material.
5.2.3 L̲a̲t̲c̲h̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲H̲i̲n̲g̲e̲ ̲M̲e̲c̲h̲a̲n̲i̲s̲m̲
Previous EMI cabinets have sometimes been difficult
to latch and usually have had non removable doors.
Because of the large draw-down gasket dimension, and
in order to reduce the cabinet width dimension as much
as possible, a floating or sliding hinge mechanism
will be used. The hinge will be constructed to allow
easy removal of the doors for installation or service.
With this hinge approach, the hinge no longer plays
a role in gasket compression. Therefore, two latch
mechanisms will be employed on each door. One to draw
the right side down and the other to draw the left
side down. The latch will be recessed to prevent injury
and snagging of clothing, and will be designed for
ease of operation.
5.2.4 V̲e̲n̲t̲i̲l̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲
Previous EMI racks have for the most part incorporated
honeycomb type EMI filters for air interchange through
an EMI shield. It is desired to eliminate them, not
only from a cost viewpoint, but also from a shielding
viewpoint. In the past, they have been plagued with
quality problems.
It is proposed to use perforated metal to allow ventilation
and EMI shielding. If system tests prove that shielding
effectiveness in the high UHF band is insufficient,
then honeycomb air filters will be added to the perforated
metal.
5.2.5 F̲i̲l̲t̲e̲r̲s̲
Two kinds of electronic signal filters are required
as part of the EMI rack approach. Filters on the AC
power lines entering the racks may or may not be required
depending on interpretation of the contract documents.
AC powerline filters are, however priced as an option.
Filters are also required as part of the integral
IDF. These filters, in conjunction with line driver
waveshaping are required to meet AMSG requirements.
5.2.5.1 A̲C̲ ̲P̲o̲w̲e̲r̲ ̲F̲i̲l̲t̲e̲r̲s̲
It is recognized that the host nation will provide
filtered power to the CAMPS equipment. The intent
is to remove any potential threat on the power lines
outside the CAMPS area. Thus it is proposed that the
power lines of the CAMPS mainframe not be TEMPEST tested
directly. The problems of insuring that the AC power
lines between the main frame and the host power filter
do not radiate, will be solved either with civil work
requirements or with the AC power filters proposed
as an option. These filters will be high performance
filters and be mounted directly to either the top or
bottom of each equipment bay. The power conduit will
penetrate the filters wiring well, directly where the
wires will be connected to the filter. Care will be
taken to allow for reasonable location tolerances of
the power entry conduit, and at the same time providing
a low impedance connection of the filter case to the
EMI racks.
5.2.5.2 S̲i̲g̲n̲a̲l̲ ̲L̲i̲n̲e̲ ̲F̲i̲l̲t̲e̲r̲s̲
Filtered connectors will be installed by CR in the
IDF as described later to meet AMSG requirements.
The philosophy used to be, to use as small a filter
as is required to prevent contaminating the chassis
with signal currents. Extra precautions will be taken
to ensure that the signal filters are properly grounded
to the EMI rack.
5.2.6 I̲n̲t̲e̲r̲m̲e̲d̲i̲a̲t̲e̲ ̲D̲i̲s̲t̲r̲i̲b̲u̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲F̲r̲a̲m̲e̲ ̲(̲I̲D̲F̲)̲
The IDF will now be enclosed within one of the mainframe
EMI racks. It will provide the boundary separating
CR's area of responsibility from SHAPE's area of responsibility.
It provides a convenient and properly controlled access
to all input and output signal connections to the CAMPS
mainframe.
It consists of a separately shielded box within an
EMI rack into which pass conduit or ducts from the
civil works. The conduits or ducts are sealed to the
EMI rack as they pass through the rack wall into the
IDF. The IDF is mounted at a convenient height within
the EMI rack with access towards the rear. Upon removal
of the IDF cover, several banks of 25 pin D-Subminiature
style connectors are accessable for user connection.
The banks of connectors are arranged to provide signal
isolation between types of CAMPS circuits (e.g. TARE/SCARS/CCIS/etc.)
It is fully the intent of the filter, line driver,
and IDF design to provide a system which when connected
per AMSG 719B will meet TEMPEST requirements. It should
be pointed out however, that no provision is made for
ill-advisably committing signal ground to chassis at
any peripherals, nor is there provision for system
integrity with non-TEMPEST peripherals (like the Optical
Character Reader). Such provision could be made at
extra cost.
5.2.7 D̲u̲c̲t̲i̲n̲g̲,̲ ̲W̲i̲r̲i̲n̲g̲,̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲o̲t̲h̲e̲r̲ ̲c̲i̲v̲i̲l̲ ̲W̲o̲r̲k̲s̲
The change from the CAMPS shielded cage design to EMI
rack design will result in some change to the civil
works package. Since certain parts of the civil works
will affect the acceptability of the rack's TEMPEST
performance, CR will specify in detail material and
installation particulars. Examples of such changes
are the addition of extra power conduits and facility
filters for power into the mainframe, and an extra
conduit between bays.
5.2.8 L̲i̲n̲e̲ ̲D̲r̲i̲v̲e̲r̲s̲
Selection of suitable signal line drivers and receivers
is critical to the functional performance of any computer
or communications system. CR and ARC feel there may
be a conflict between SHAPE's need for high reliability
data transmission over long trunk lines and ACE COMSEC's
guideline of 1 milliamp peak current on the signal
lines. It is not implied that the 1 milliamp guideline
is ill advised, for there are some instances where
this can offset the weakness of poor
signal line shielding practices. It is proposed that
CR will provide line drivers with 6-0-6 volt signal
levels and adjustable waveshape control. For long
runs with the superior cable shielding techniques which
CR will employ the user may take advantage of greater
than 1 milliamp drive current to increase the cable
distance possible with acceptable error rates. If
there is a downline weakness in the cable shielding,
then the waveshaping may be increased to reduce peak
drive current.
It is proposed that if the line driver circuits selected
are capable of more than 1 milliamp drive current then
CR, with ARC's consultancy will supply a detailed technical
rational for their usage along with test data as appropriate.
If SHAPE rules that they are unacceptable, they will
then have to accept the limitation on line length and
error rate imposed by current limited line drivers.
5.3 T̲E̲S̲T̲I̲N̲G̲
It has been agreed that the shielded cage solution
effectively dealt with the testing and certification
requirements of the contract. That is, the cage and
mainframe essentially comprised a system which would
need no laboratory testing. Only peripherals would
be laboratory tested and certified.
The definition of computer components enclosed within
an EMI rack as either a system or as a component becomes
less clear. It can be defined as a system as in the
cage approach, then there is no difference in the TEMPEST
test philosophy compared to the racks. If, on the other
hand, the mainframe is defined as a component, then
laboratory test would be required per AMSG, 720. The
impact to program costs can be substantial, therefore
three approaches to testing are defined, with separate
costing as appropriate.
5.3.1 A̲p̲p̲r̲o̲a̲c̲h̲ ̲A̲
In the event that the mainframe within EMI racks are
defined as a system, then CR will provide to ACE COMSEC
tangeable evidence that the racks will be highly effective.
CR will provide detailed design and manufacturing specification
indicating the use of effective practices. CR will
provide laboratory data in the shielding effectiveness
of the racks, and CR will provide a Quality Plan which
will assure that all racks manufactured will be reasonably
close in performance to the first sample tested.
There is some concern that the factory site selected
for TEMPEST testing by ACE COMSEC will, because of
high ambient noise conditions, result in inconclusive
test data. ACE COMSEC will measure the ambient noise
of the selected factory site and determine its suitability
for TEMPEST tests in a timely manner. If it cannot
be made suitable through simple expedients, then testing
approach B or C will be used, at extra cost.
If the site is found acceptable, ACE COMSEC will perform
factory TEMPEST tests within the framework of the acceptance
test specification prepared by CR. The test specification
will define installation, method of exercising, exact
configuration, and logistics for the factory tests.
If the results of tests are at first found unacceptable,
ACE COMSEC will (to provide a degree of impartiality)
request a second opinion from a NATO COMSEC Organization.
If the results remain unacceptable, then CR will be
required to take corrective design and/or hardware
implementation action.
Once the results become acceptable ACE COMSEC will
approve the system for use. No formal certificates
needed over and above the certificate for the peripherals.
5.3.2 A̲p̲p̲r̲o̲a̲c̲h̲ ̲B̲
In the event that the environmental ambient is unacceptable
in approach A as defined by ACE COMSEC, CR will be
obliged to install the equipment in a test site which
is suitable, with 50 km from the factory, or take action
to reduce the ambient levels of the factory site. Such
action would involve either applying
screening material to the factory site, or installing
a free-standing shielded room in which to conduct tests.
5.3.3 A̲p̲p̲r̲o̲a̲c̲h̲ ̲C̲
In the event that certification based on laboratory
test is required for a combination of reasons such
as the way in which the equipment is defined, control
of ambient signals, or the thoroughness of testing
and documentation required, the laboratory tests will
be performed.
An experienced testing laboratory such as ARC will
prepare a formal test plan for approval along with
facility certification data. The scope of this effort
is approximately 16 manweeks of a senior TEMPEST engineer.
CR will then install and maintain the equipment in
the laboratories during the duration of tests. Significant
cost is involved in this.
The testing laboratory will perform laboratory test
per AMSG 720 and prepare a report with the results
given in detail. The scope of effort for this work
is approximately 400 man hours of a TEMPEST technician
and 400 man hours of a TEMPEST engineer.
All documents would be forwarded to DANISH COMSEC for
approval, or if they are unwilling, to ACE COMSEC directly.
DANISH COMSEC will certify the equipment as compliant
based on the results. This and the data items forwarded
to ACE COMSEC will satisfy the contract requirements
for certification.
ACE COMSEC, and or DANISH COMSEC may witness tests
contingent on the exchange of security credentials.
ACE COMSEC may perform their own tests if they desire.
It is proposed that this laboratory testing will replace
the factory TEMPEST testing of the contract.
