Brian 

 

Can’t respond w.r.t. you para 1 question, but w.r.t. para 2:

-       IEC/EN 60799:1998  “Electrical accessories — Cord sets and
interconnection cord sets” (1998 edition is still valid AFAIK) is a good
guide to cordset ratings, and Table 1 allows ratings under 1 sq mm
(generally 0.75 sq mm) for cordsets rated up to 10A provided the length does
not exceed 2m, and 1 sq mm for cordsets rated at 16A (but 1.5 sq mm for
cordsets longer than 2m).

(must admit that I thought for a long time that 16A-rated cordsets needed to
be 1.5 sq mm regardless of length, but “found out” in a rather embarrassing
way that they do not!)

 

Regards

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: 06 May 2015 17:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Wire Questions

 

Didn’t I hear there was some kind of agreement where UL/CSA approved power
cordage was allowed to be used in Europe as long as the conductor size met
requirements?  If so, what is the official document which describes this
agreement?  

 

Doesn’t Europe have a minimum conductor size for detachable power cords of
1mm²?  I believe the IEC 60320 allows conductor size of 0.75mm² if the
overall cord length is less than 2 meter (or at least is was years ago).   

 

18AWG conductors on UL/CSA power cords for North America does not meet the
1mm² requirement so that is why we try to use 16AWG or 14AWG cord sets even
if they cannot be used outside of North America. 

 

In the real world, it is common for the plug to be cut off the power cord
and replaced with something local. In those cases, we want to be sure the
cordage is large enough to meet any local electrical codes. 

 

The Other Brian

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 2:09 PM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Wire Questions

 

Brian

 

Grounding Conductor size

 

An interesting question with respect to internal grounding conductors, and
one which made me refer to a very old copy of CSA Technical Note TN-017
“Bonding and Grounding of Electrical Equipment (Protective Grounding)”,
dated January 13, 1993, which I have – don’t know if there is a newer
version, but I suspect there is (if so, does anyone have a copy of this or
of whatever has replaced it?) so the following comments may well be
out-of-date!

 

TN-017 refers to CSA C22.0.4, which I don’t think I have, as the basic
requirements for grounding of equipment, so obviously not sure what that
currently states.

 

However: 

 

Page 2 of TN-017, under “Grounded (Class I) Equipment” states that 

“IEC standards require the ground path impedance to be less than or equal to
0.1 ohm. Although it is a satisfactory criteria for evaluating a path to
ground where overcurrent protection is rated or set at 15A and 20A, this
approach fails to provide proper protection when overcurrent devices are
rated or set at 30A or higher”

 

Page 6, Under “National Electric Code (NEC)” states:

“Article 250 of NEC defines grounding and bonding requirements for
installations of electrical equipment in the United States. Articles250-60,
250-95 and 250-155 also define min size of ground conductor required. Also
see Articles 250-42, 250-45, 250-59, 250-113 and 250-114.

 

NEC requires the following in particular.

 

(a)   Ground conductor must not be smaller than specified in Table 250-95
with the exceptions that the ground conductor:

i.              Must not be smaller than 18A AWG copper and not smaller than
circuit conductors.

ii.             Need not be larger than the AC circuit conductors.

 

This means that the min cord size permitted is No 18 AWG, and min size of
ground conductor shall be No 18 AWG.

 

(b)   Ground conductor may be without insulation but if insulation is
provided, it shall be coloured green or green with one or more yellow
stripes.

(c)    All non-current carrying metal parts of fixed, portable and mobile
equipment shall be grounded. Grounding conductors not part of cable assembly
must not be smaller that No 6 AWG.”

 

NB: w.r.t. (c) above, there are exceptions elsewhere for double-insulated
(etc.) equipment!

 

Can’t find any definitive statement in TN-017 as to the required internal
grounding conductor sizes, but, from the above, it seems to me that the
issue you mention relates to a combination of the following:

-       The IEC continuity test at 25A is only adequate at supply currents
which would be protected by a 15A/20A external breaker, which is probably
why 61010-1 states different – see below;

-       the potential AWG size of the external supply cord – and that the
grounding conductor needs to be > the size of the current-carrying
conductors; 

-       the current rating of the protection in the installation – and if
the latter is >15A/20A, then the internal conductor would have to be larger
than 18AWG.

 

Since you were using a 16AWG power cord in some cases, then that would mean
the internal conductors would need to be >16AWG, but if you were sometimes
using 14AWG cords – which you comment implies - then you would need 14AWG
internal grounding conductors. 

 

OTOH, some more modern standards like 61010-1 Ed 3 state:

 

6.5.2.4         Impedance of PROTECTIVE BONDING of plug-connected equipment

 

…..Conformity  is  checked  by  applying  a  test  current  for  1  min  and
then  calculating  impedance. The test current is the greater of

 

a)  25 A a.c. r.m.s.at RATED  MAINS  frequency or d.c.,

b)  a current equal to twice the RATED  current of the equipment.

 

If the equipment contains overcurrent protection devices for all poles of
the MAINS  supply, and

if   the   wiring   on   the   supply   side   of   the   overcurrent
protection   devices   cannot   become

connected  to  ACCESSIBLE  conductive  parts  in  the  case  of  a  single
fault,  the  test  current  need

not be more than twice the RATED  current of the internal overcurrent
protection devices…

 

So, if you had had suitable internal all-pole protection in the equipment,
then something smaller than 14AWG might be acceptable to such standards.

 

OTOH, anybody, please feel free to correct or update any of my comments
above as you are probably in a much better position in the US/Canada to know
the reality of the current (sic!) situation!

 

Power Cord Sets

 

As for European use of US cordsets, very few suppliers can supply actual
cords with both US/CSA and third-party EU certifications due to the
differences in the relevant UL/CSA and the IEC/EN standards  – I think I
only ever found one that had a limited range available (and, even then, it
might only have been for extension cord sets or “Jumper Cord Sets” – not
main supply cords), but cannot now be sure which one that was. 

 

However, unless the equipment was being submitted to a European test house
for certification (or to some other company to incorporate in their own
equipment), then it’s probably doubtful if the use of US/CSA-certified mains
supply cords would be picked up by most of the end-user community. As long
as the plug was the correct one, and the conductor insulation colours were
also correct if an unterminated power cord was supplied, for those countries
then most of those people would probably not look much further! Not to say
that this is “right”/ “legal”, but taking a “pragmatic” view of the actual
situation in most countries. J

 

Therefore, in the circumstances, it may well be better (as you appear to do)
to leave the supply of appropriate power cords to the European installers!

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: 05 May 2015 16:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Wire Questions

 

Rick,

 

Are you talking strictly about power cordage or internal hookup wire? 

 

We had a CSA inspector reject one of our products because the internal PE
Conductor (hookup wire) was a smaller gauge (18awg) than what was on the
power cord (16awg). He said in Canada, the PE Conductor inside our product
had to be the same gauge or larger than the PE conductor in the power cord
regardless of the protection device or the current rating of the wire. In
our case, we were using a 16 awg detachable power cord with an IEC 60320
connector. Inside our instrument, from the IEC connector to our chassis
ground we used an 18 awg green/yellow hookup wire which can handle way more
fault current than the 16 awg power cord. So as a general rule, we always
use 14 awg hookup wire on IEC connectors just to be on the safe size; As
such power cords can come in 18, 16, and 14 awg sizes.

 

Our power cords for North America always have UL and CSA, but no CE or
“harmonized” (at least it is not required to have this). When products are
shipped to Europe I understood that UL/CSA cordage was acceptable (you still
have to change the plug) as long as the conductor size met the requirements.
That is why we don’t use 18 awg power cords anymore.  I really don’t know
the details because this is handled by our installers during the customer
installation.

 

Hope this was helpful.

The Other Brian

 

From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Wire Questions

 

We manufacture a product that is intended for both the US and Canadian
markets in addition to the European community. Our wiring is currently
UL/CSA and “harmonized”.  Looking at the various wire vendors there are
UL/CSA & CE certifications and certifications  that are UL/CSA, CE and
Harmonized. Is it acceptable to have  wiring with just UL/CSA and CE? 

 

Also, I remember years ago a document or standard that stated that a
grounding wire could be smaller than the load wires. The argument was that
it doesn’t have to support the load but just fault  the input current.  Does
this sound familiar to anyone?

 

Thanks

 

Rick

 

 

-
----------------------------------------------------------------

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 

  _____  


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 


-
----------------------------------------------------------------

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 

  _____  


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 


-
----------------------------------------------------------------

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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 


-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to