Hi Terry:
You ask a bunch of questions about material use and flammability ratings for such materials. Some of the questions ask about applications of the standards. Some of the questions ask whether the requirements truly reduce the possibility or consequences of fire. 1. Does small size exempt it from a burn rating? Yes. Sub-clause 4.4.3.1, second paragraph, implies that "small parts" may not need to be rated for flammability. Sub-clause 4.4.3.3, 5th dashed paragraph, 1st dot paragraph exempts "...other small parts which would contribute negligible fuel to a fire." I have found that most certifiers will exempt "small parts" where "small" is defined as not exceeding 13 mm maximum dimension. 2. mounted in a metal panel Such mounting provides a good heat-sink for the material. If the material wall is relatively thin, this means the metal must approach material ignition temperature before the material will burn. Usually, this means much more thermal energy is required to ignite the material than if it was tested by itself (as is done in the traditional material ignition tests.) However, such performance is not considered by the standard. 3. Is there some consideration to abrasion? No, not explicitly. But, see Sub-clauses 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. 4. "Where it is not practical to protect components against overheating under fault conditions, the components shall be mounted on materials of FLAMMABILITY CLASS V-1 or better, and shall be separated from less fire-resistant material by at least 13 mm of air." This statement is taken as applying to electrical components (e.g., resistors, semiconductors, coils) which themselves generate heat and will overheat under fault conditions. It is not taken as applying to a grommet through which wires pass. 4. Also what about gasket material inches away from source of energy? As a general rule, materials more than 13 mm (0.5 inch) from an electrical part need only be rated HB. See Sub-clause 4.4.3.3, 5th dashed paragraph. While this sub-clause applies to specific parts, most certifiers will apply it to other materials under the first dot paragraph, "other small parts." 5. What is the `letter' and `spirit' of the standard on this? I've already given the 'letter' of the standard. Further explanation of the 'letter' is given in Sub-clause 4.4.1. The 'spirit' of the standard is given in the Introduction, Principles of Safety, Fire. As in electric shock requirements, fire requirements include a principal safeguard (prevention of overheating) and one or more mitigating safeguard alternatives (e.g., prevention of spread of fire by limiting fuel to the extent practical, or containing a fire by means of a 'fire enclosure'). 6. It seems to me if the part can't contribute to the start or spread of fire the flame rating is just another form of over bureaucrating things (if that's a word). Specifically (and if I understand your descriptions correctly), the grommet and gasket you mentioned are indeed insignificant and don't contribute to the start or spread of fire. Hence, no requirements if you apply the "small part" and other criteria. However, all plastic materials -- except insignificant plastic parts as agreed upon between you and your certifier -- must be rated HB minimum, and up to V-1 depending on application. If you've ever sat in on a standards committee meeting, you will understand the several forces operating on the standard: * manufacturers, who, protecting their turf, want the least impact on product design and cost; * certifiers, who want to maximize their revenues through material, component, and product "safety" certifications; * flame-retardant additive manufacturers, who want all plastics to be flame-retardant; * occasionally, government regulators who have a very specific agenda to change or add a requirement. So, there are "bureaucrating things" in our safety standards. Occasionally, such "bureaucrating things" are just that, and contribute nothing to the safety of the product. Safety standards are never tested to determine if the requirements do what the committee members intend for them to do. Safety standards are developed through the "BOGSAT" process. BOGSAT = Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around Talking. There is little or no engineering that goes into safety standards. As one wag said, "Safety standards are the collective inverse of bad experiences." Of course, we have no engineering discipline called product safety engineering to support any requirement in the standard. So, whoever has the loudest voice, or the most experience, or the most authoritative position, or who represents the most powerful certification house usually gets what he wants in the safety standard. Best regards, Rich --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).