Would think that the normative reference would be IEC61051-2 for IEC/EN61010-1 report and requirements. UL1449 only referenced in UL61010-1. Cannot remember specifics, but SPD classifications not exactly same. SPD type can be determined by national differences, where used in equipment panels, and type of current interrupt device, and lunar phase.
And heed Mr.Nute's warnings. While some of my employer's industrial stuff uses VDRs (MOV), have forced designers to use particular placements and mechanical isolation to create a 'fire box'. But not certain if any particular utility's OV suppression can be relied on for industrial installations. FWIW, have recorded >4kV transients at a North Carolina site twice during previous 14 months. And they scoffed when my data logger design was set up for 6kV full scale. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:59 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments Howdy, howdy, howdy. Product incorporates Type 5 component VDRs and is installed in an OVC III environment via field wiring connections. Evaluation for a CB Scheme Certificate and Test Report. In recent dealings with a CBTL, I was told that the VDRs in a product needed to be Type 2. In referencing UL 1449 (for convenience), a Type 2 VDR has the assumption of fixed wiring for the VDR itself and mounting by solder onto a board is not a consideration (except that a Type 2 VDR may include a system of Type 4 and/or Type 5 VDRs and other components) . Per the CBTL, the Type 5 VDR certifications used may or may not be suitable for the application, depending on the level of testing performed on the VDR during its component evaluation, primarily associated with the combination wave open-circuit voltage amplitude related to the OVC. I checked the CTL Decisions and OSM Decisions for 61010-1 for both the third edition and fourth edition and found zero related decisions. The CBTL was unmoved by my efforts, claiming this matter has been a long term discussion in TC66 and imposed their will irrespective of a defined requirement in the IEC. Likewise, the CBTL was unmoved by the testing performed by another division of the mothership that applied 6 kVpk surge testing to the complete product as a part of another evaluation to type. This may be because the staff and intent of the testing was not under the accreditation of the CBTL/NCB, but I'm not certain. In checking publicly available databases for components, the kind of information needed to preselect an appropriate Type 5 VDR is not possible. This ultimately boils down to evaluation of each Type 5 VDR by the CBTL for each and every prospective alternate or substitute VDR. Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL either could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this smells off. Regards, Peter L. Tarver - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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>
