Hi Chris,
As usual, Rich is correct that removing more then one ground connection
would be an improper single fault test.
However, Rich's comment...
>A single-fault test is with one ground open (a meaningless
>test when there is a second ground in place)...
Is not quite accurate, the test is only meaningless if you have already
verified that both grounds are fully contiguous throughout the equipment.
I have once or twice ran across multiple ground connections in larger IT
equipment where one of the grounds did not have continuity throughout the
equipment. In that case, removing the good ground does expose you to a
higher leakage current, as the second ground is poorly constructed and not
functioning. For that reason, it is crucial that your verify ground
performance for each ground, throughout the equipment, prior to single
fault testing.
Best Regards,
Frank W.
---[From the computer of...]-----------------------------------------
Mr. Frank West
Sr. Engineer
TUV Rheinland
7853 SW Cirrus Dr.
Beaverton, OR. 97008
T 503-469-8880 Ext 205
F 503-469-8881
fw...@us.tuv.com
Rich Nute
<ri...@sdd.hp.com> To:
chris.maxw...@nettest.com
Sent by: cc:
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
owner-emc-pstc@majordom Subject: Re: Secondary
Grounding
o.ieee.org
06/01/2001 01:55 PM
Please respond to Rich
Nute
Hi Chris:
Consider a product with two, independent protective
grounding/earthing connections. This may be by
means of two power cords (as is done for uptime
reliablity by employing parallel power supplies) or
by means of one power cord and a separate ground
connection (as, for example, by mounting in a
grounded rack).
> Safety standards call for single fault testing. For Class I equipment,
one
> of the single fault test conditions is removal of the ground
connection.
Agreed. The disconnection of one ground is a single-
fault condition.
> I'm curious how most test labs would reconcile the two statements
above. My
> guess is that they would interpret removal of ground to mean removal of
all
> ground connections. So putting on an extra ground wire wouldn't help.
It
> would just make the safety engineer disconnect another wire to perform
the
> test.
I don't agree. The requirement is that of a single-
fault condition. If normal operation employs
redundant grounding, then a single-fault condition
is that of failure of one ground connection.
> "What if the product is used in a building or environment with an
unreliable
> ground?" or "How can you garantee that the product's ground potential
will
> always be equal to the potential of the floor where the user is
standing"
If the ground within the building installation is
subject to failure, then the fault is that of the
building installation, not of the product. So, it
would be nonsense to require a product single-fault
"no-ground" test on that basis.
A faulty ground in the building installation allows
cumulation of leakage currents from all equipment to
be available on each and every grounded equipment,
a truly dangerous situation because the cumulative
leakage current could be in the hundreds of
milliamperes!
(Ironically, the equipment with a faulty ground would
be the only safe equipment in such a situation!)
I was recently invited to comment on the subject of
single-fault testing requirements for products with
multiple power cords. My argument was based on the
idea that any product with multiple power cords is
"professional" equipment where the advantage of such
equipment is only achieved by connecting to multiple
power sources. So, this is normal operation. A
single-fault test is with one ground open (a meaningless
test when there is a second ground in place). I
recommended a leakage current test with one power
cord connected which would simulate the situation
where the redundancy was not used, and there was a
fault in the grounding system.
Best regards,
Rich
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
