I have not done systems that are as physically big or as yours, but this is how we have danced at the 'component vs systems' party. If you have data that indicates each combination of boxen has unique performance, then you must certify at system, so you ignore the following.
1. Provide, to marketing, a summary of regulatory requirements for system-level vs box-level. 2. Request sales dept to perform marketing study to determine if the end-user will bear the cost/effort of system-level certification. Emphasize the resultant box-level conditions of acceptability and user document requirements. And perhaps the sales dweebs may actually want to provide some boxen as individual products. 3. Present regulatory requirements + marketing study to engineering and sales managers. 4. Live with their decision. Finally, if this is for aviation, military, or police/fire - this approach is not good. The tests must be done at the system level or they have no meaning. FWIW, I sitting in front of a halt chamber REPEATING about 35 hours of tests because sales said "enough - we have tests and reports for all components" too soon... Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Knighten, Jim L Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:19 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: Rowson, Stuart Subject: certifying overall products vs. certifying individual constituant chassis I am wondering what the industry experience is regarding basing EMC or Safety product certification on individual chassis (or subsystems/components) that may comprise the product, vs. certification at the product level? In particular, I have some products that are 40U racks containing multiple chassis, each of which is compliant and has its own certification. Currently, product certification is done at the entire product level (i.e., rack) and there is a product regulatory label on the overall product. I know that some companies (names withheld) that appear to be certifying only at the chassis level, rather at the ensemble product level. For EMI, I know the physics teaches us that CE + CE does NOT equal CE (i.e. one compliant chassis combined with another compliant chassis does not assure a compliant combination of the two chassis). I have war stories to corroborate this. For Safety, there are some tests (heating test is an example) that can be are run at the product level. Country approval documentation requirements vary by country, but usually there is requirement for a DoC, CB report, etc. I get increasing pressure internally (economically driven) to declare product certification done if all the constituent chassis are compliant and certified. What is the experience you guys have? Thanks in advance, Jim __________________________ James L. Knighten, Ph.D. EMC Engineer Teradata Corporation 17095 Via Del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 858-485-2537 - phone 858-485-3788 - fax (unattended) - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@socal.rr.com> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
