Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Richard Nute]

 

Pete Perkins said:

 

"Historically, the HV impulse tests applied are safety tests."

 

Safety-wise, HV tests of safeguard insulations are to determine that the
safeguard insulations will withstand the normally-occurring transient
voltages that occur on the mains circuits.  I wouldn't call the HV tests as
"safety tests."  Rather, they determine the adequacy of the safeguard
insulations.

 

Impulse tests are relatively new, and require sophisticated test generators.
The actual voltage that is applied to the insulations is a function of the
source impedance and the load impedance.  So, when an impulse test is
applied in response to a safety requirement, we don't know if the
insulations will withstand a mains transient voltage.  

 

IEC 60664-series allows use of impulse test or steady-state test as equal
alternatives.  

 

Rich

 

 

 

 


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Peter Tarver]

Further to Scott’s post, the required illumination is at 20V/m at the EUT, 
rather than the more commonly used 10 V/m (I don’t know the 60335-1 
requirement). As Scott mentions, the intent in this case is to make certain the 
inverter remains functional, less so that it remain in a safe condition during 
the test (really meaning that the test objective doesn’t call for the 
observation, but if an unsafe condition occurs that is readily apparent, the 
inverter would likely not be functional). Surge testing on the grid connected 
port is also required for the same purposes, generally to 6 kVpk (combo and 
ring).


Peter Tarver

From: Scott Aldous
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 08:33

Hi James,

The UL safety standard for PV inverters, UL 1741, makes normative reference to 
IEEE 1547 and IEEE 1547.1 in Section 46. IEEE 1547.1, in clause 5.5 on 
interconnection integrity, makes normative reference to IEEE C37.90.2, which 
has test requirements for withstand capability to radiated electromagnetic 
interference. Utility protection trip parameters must be monitored during test 
to ensure they continue to function correctly.  So it's a bit of a roundabout 
way to get there, and one could argue that this is more a utility interactive 
requirement than a safety requirement per se, but this is another example of an 
EMC test requirement in a safety standard.


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Douglas Smith]

One common cause of nuisance tripping is EMI line filters whose input 
capacitance to ground biases GFCIs near the tripping point. I would never power 
up a computer on a GFCI circuit, asking for trouble. No high voltage pulses 
needed.

Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 Office: 702-570-6108 Email: 
d...@dsmith.org Website: http://dsmith.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:09, Pete Perkins 
<0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:
James,



The interoperability of equipment continues to get more complicated as 
switching technology spreads more ubiquitously. It is well known that 
electronic protection devices (including RCDs & GFCIs) are suffering ‘nuisance’ 
tripping which seems to be inadequately characterized incoming signals. 
Additional EMC type tests will have to be added to harden the units against 
these signals, while ensuring that that the unit properly operates when it 
should. Expect more such testing. You can search for the recent paper I did 
with students where we were able to ‘trick’ the GFCI into tripping when it 
shouldn’t; ‘nuisance’ tripping in action.



Historically, the HV impulse tests applied are safety tests. These tests were 
given to the EMC lab engineers as the safety engineers, in those days, didn’t 
provide much lab availability or experience – they mostly peeked and poked at 
components in the assembly assessing spacings and similar. Oh, how much this 
has changed today.



:>) br, Pete



Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe 97281-3427



503/452-1201



IEEE Life Fellow

p.perk...@ieee.org [p.perk...@ieee.org]



From: James Pawson (U3C) 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards



Hello all,



Thanks for all the interesting replies, much appreciated.



All the best

James



From: Gert Gremmen; ce-test < g.grem...@cetest.nl [g.grem...@cetest.nl] >
Sent: 21 March 2018 11:07
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards



The EMC tests as called out in 60335 are safety tests, contrary to those called 
out under the EMCD that are functional tests only. For Europe , one can discuss 
about the necessity of those tests, as the EMCD requires testing in all 
operating modes including OFF or standby and as long as one can prove that an 
apparatus remains functional, it also could be considered safe. I have not seen 
many examples of a compliant functional apparatus that has become unsafe during 
an immunity test, but cannot exclude that this may happen either. Hence this 
test in 60335, that might also come into view during the required risk analysis 
as called out in the new LVD. For Europe only, of course.

The difference between functional and safety related EMC is an evolving 
discussion, lately triggered by accidents with hybrid and autonomous driving 
cars.

Gert Gremmen

On 20-3-2018 10:27, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hello experts,



I note that EN 60335-1 (household and similar appliances) specifically calls up 
EMC immunity tests in clause 19.11.4 where the controls for the EUT are set in 
the “off position” and a set of immunity tests are applied. For something that 
controls a heating element, I can see why this would be a concern.



A couple of questions / thoughts:



 * It sounds like this at least doubles the amount of immunity testing required 
– one with the EUT “on” and one with it “off”. Would that be how you read this?
 * Are there any other safety standards that explicitly call up EMC tests 
within them like this one does? This is the first one I’ve come across where 
this is the case but I’m not very familiar with safety standards in general.



Thanks and all the best,

James

-


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 [emc-p...@ieee.org] >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html [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/ [http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/] 
can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ [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 
[http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html]

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org [j.bac...@ieee.o

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Scott Aldous]

Hi James,

The UL safety standard for PV inverters, UL 1741, makes normative reference
to IEEE 1547 and IEEE 1547.1 in Section 46. IEEE 1547.1, in clause 5.5 on
interconnection integrity, makes normative reference to IEEE C37.90.2,
which has test requirements for withstand capability to radiated
electromagnetic interference. Utility protection trip parameters must be
monitored during test to ensure they continue to function correctly.  So
it's a bit of a roundabout way to get there, and one could argue that this
is more a utility interactive requirement than a safety requirement *per se*,
but this is another example of an EMC test requirement in a safety
standard.

Let me throw one more thing out there...

Whether or not the applicable safety standard requires this type of
testing, the risk assessment required by the Low Voltage Directive should
consider whether electromagnetic interference could give rise to a
hazardous condition. Depending on the outcome of the risk assessment,
additional testing may be required (or additional criteria added to EMC
Directive testing).

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Pete Perkins <
0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> James,
>
>
>
>The interoperability of equipment continues to get more
> complicated as switching technology spreads more ubiquitously.   It is well
> known that electronic protection devices (including  RCDs & GFCIs) are
> suffering ‘nuisance’ tripping which seems to be inadequately characterized
> incoming signals.  Additional EMC type tests will have to be added to
> harden the units against these signals, while ensuring that that the unit
> properly operates when it should.  Expect more such testing.  You can
> search for the recent paper I did with students where we were able to
> ‘trick’ the GFCI into tripping when it shouldn’t; ‘nuisance’ tripping in
> action.
>
>
>
>Historically, the HV impulse tests applied are safety
> tests.  These tests were given to the EMC lab engineers as the safety
> engineers, in those days, didn’t provide much lab availability or
> experience – they mostly peeked and poked at components in the assembly
> assessing spacings and similar.  Oh, how much this has changed today.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201 <(503)%20452-1201>
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* James Pawson (U3C) 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:41 AM
>
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for all the interesting replies, much appreciated.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> James
>
>
>
> *From:* Gert Gremmen; ce-test 
> *Sent:* 21 March 2018 11:07
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards
>
>
>
> The EMC tests as called out in 60335  are safety tests, contrary to those
> called out under the EMCD that are functional tests only. For Europe , one
> can discuss about the necessity of those tests, as the EMCD  requires
> testing in all operating modes including OFF or standby and  as long as one
> can prove that  an apparatus remains functional, it also could be
> considered safe. I have not seen many examples of a compliant functional
> apparatus that has become unsafe during an immunity test, but cannot
> exclude that this may happen either. Hence this test in 60335, that might
> also come into view during the required risk analysis as called out in the
> new LVD. For Europe only, of course.
>
> The difference between functional and safety related EMC is an evolving
> discussion, lately triggered by accidents with hybrid and autonomous
> driving cars.
>
> Gert Gremmen
>
> On 20-3-2018 10:27, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:
>
> Hello experts,
>
>
>
> I note that EN 60335-1 (household and similar appliances) specifically
> calls up EMC immunity tests in clause 19.11.4 where the controls for the
> EUT are set in the “off position” and a set of immunity tests are applied.
> For something that controls a heating element, I can see why this would be
> a concern.
>
>
>
> A couple of questions / thoughts:
>
>
>
>- It sounds like this at least doubles the amount of immunity testing
>required – one with the EUT “on” and one with it “off”. Would that be how
>you read this?
>- Are there any other safety standards that explicitly call up EMC
>tests within them like this one does? This is the first one I’ve come
>across where this is the case but I’m not very familiar with safety
>standards in general.
>
>
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> James
>
> -
> 
>
> 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>

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Pete Perkins]

James,

 

   The interoperability of equipment continues to get more
complicated as switching technology spreads more ubiquitously.   It is well
known that electronic protection devices (including  RCDs & GFCIs) are
suffering 'nuisance' tripping which seems to be inadequately characterized
incoming signals.  Additional EMC type tests will have to be added to harden
the units against these signals, while ensuring that that the unit properly
operates when it should.  Expect more such testing.  You can search for the
recent paper I did with students where we were able to 'trick' the GFCI into
tripping when it shouldn't; 'nuisance' tripping in action.  

 

   Historically, the HV impulse tests applied are safety tests.
These tests were given to the EMC lab engineers as the safety engineers, in
those days, didn't provide much lab availability or experience - they mostly
peeked and poked at components in the assembly assessing spacings and
similar.  Oh, how much this has changed today. 

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

  p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: James Pawson (U3C)  
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

 

Hello all,

 

Thanks for all the interesting replies, much appreciated.

 

All the best

James

 

From: Gert Gremmen; ce-test mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> > 
Sent: 21 March 2018 11:07
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

 

The EMC tests as called out in 60335  are safety tests, contrary to those
called out under the EMCD that are functional tests only. For Europe , one
can discuss about the necessity of those tests, as the EMCD  requires
testing in all operating modes including OFF or standby and  as long as one
can prove that  an apparatus remains functional, it also could be considered
safe. I have not seen many examples of a compliant functional apparatus that
has become unsafe during an immunity test, but cannot exclude that this may
happen either. Hence this test in 60335, that might also come into view
during the required risk analysis as called out in the new LVD. For Europe
only, of course.

The difference between functional and safety related EMC is an evolving
discussion, lately triggered by accidents with hybrid and autonomous driving
cars.

Gert Gremmen

On 20-3-2018 10:27, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hello experts,

 

I note that EN 60335-1 (household and similar appliances) specifically calls
up EMC immunity tests in clause 19.11.4 where the controls for the EUT are
set in the "off position" and a set of immunity tests are applied. For
something that controls a heating element, I can see why this would be a
concern.

 

A couple of questions / thoughts:

 

*   It sounds like this at least doubles the amount of immunity testing
required - one with the EUT "on" and one with it "off". Would that be how
you read this?
*   Are there any other safety standards that explicitly call up EMC
tests within them like this one does? This is the first one I've come across
where this is the case but I'm not very familiar with safety standards in
general.

 

Thanks and all the best,

James

-


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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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
mailto: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/
Ins

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello all,

 

Thanks for all the interesting replies, much appreciated.

 

All the best

James

 

From: Gert Gremmen; ce-test  
Sent: 21 March 2018 11:07
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

 

The EMC tests as called out in 60335  are safety tests, contrary to those
called out under the EMCD that are functional tests only. For Europe , one
can discuss about the necessity of those tests, as the EMCD  requires
testing in all operating modes including OFF or standby and  as long as one
can prove that  an apparatus remains functional, it also could be considered
safe. I have not seen many examples of a compliant functional apparatus that
has become unsafe during an immunity test, but cannot exclude that this may
happen either. Hence this test in 60335, that might also come into view
during the required risk analysis as called out in the new LVD. For Europe
only, of course.

The difference between functional and safety related EMC is an evolving
discussion, lately triggered by accidents with hybrid and autonomous driving
cars.

Gert Gremmen



On 20-3-2018 10:27, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hello experts,

 

I note that EN 60335-1 (household and similar appliances) specifically calls
up EMC immunity tests in clause 19.11.4 where the controls for the EUT are
set in the "off position" and a set of immunity tests are applied. For
something that controls a heating element, I can see why this would be a
concern.

 

A couple of questions / thoughts:

 

*   It sounds like this at least doubles the amount of immunity testing
required - one with the EUT "on" and one with it "off". Would that be how
you read this?
*   Are there any other safety standards that explicitly call up EMC
tests within them like this one does? This is the first one I've come across
where this is the case but I'm not very familiar with safety standards in
general.

 

Thanks and all the best,

James

-


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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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
mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[John Woodgate]

If I remember correctly, the text in 60335 was prompted by an incident 
in Denmark where a toaster incorrectly switched on due to EMI. Since the 
work was done under pressure, it might not have been done in the most 
appropriate way, but the end-result is as intended.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-03-21 11:07, Gert Gremmen; ce-test wrote:


The EMC tests as called out in 60335  are safety tests, contrary to 
those called out under the EMCD that are functional tests only. For 
Europe , one can discuss about the necessity of those tests, as the 
EMCD  requires testing in all operating modes including OFF or standby 
and  as long as one can prove that  an apparatus remains functional, 
it also could be considered safe. I have not seen many examples of a 
compliant functional apparatus that has become unsafe during an 
immunity test, but cannot exclude that this may happen either. Hence 
this test in 60335, that might also come into view during the required 
risk analysis as called out in the new LVD. For Europe only, of course.


The difference between functional and safety related EMC is an 
evolving discussion, lately triggered by accidents with hybrid and 
autonomous driving cars.


Gert Gremmen


On 20-3-2018 10:27, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello experts,

I note that EN 60335-1 (household and similar appliances) 
specifically calls up EMC immunity tests in clause 19.11.4 where the 
controls for the EUT are set in the “off position” and a set of 
immunity tests are applied. For something that controls a heating 
element, I can see why this would be a concern.


A couple of questions / thoughts:

  * It sounds like this at least doubles the amount of immunity
testing required – one with the EUT “on” and one with it “off”.
Would that be how you read this?
  * Are there any other safety standards that explicitly call up EMC
tests within them like this one does? This is the first one I’ve
come across where this is the case but I’m not very familiar with
safety standards in general.

Thanks and all the best,

James

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

The EMC tests as called out in 60335  are safety tests, contrary to 
those called out under the EMCD that are functional tests only. For 
Europe , one can discuss about the necessity of those tests, as the 
EMCD  requires testing in all operating modes including OFF or standby 
and  as long as one can prove that  an apparatus remains functional, it 
also could be considered safe. I have not seen many examples of a 
compliant functional apparatus that has become unsafe during an immunity 
test, but cannot exclude that this may happen either. Hence this test in 
60335, that might also come into view during the required risk analysis 
as called out in the new LVD. For Europe only, of course.


The difference between functional and safety related EMC is an evolving 
discussion, lately triggered by accidents with hybrid and autonomous 
driving cars.


Gert Gremmen


On 20-3-2018 10:27, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello experts,

I note that EN 60335-1 (household and similar appliances) specifically 
calls up EMC immunity tests in clause 19.11.4 where the controls for 
the EUT are set in the “off position” and a set of immunity tests are 
applied. For something that controls a heating element, I can see why 
this would be a concern.


A couple of questions / thoughts:

  * It sounds like this at least doubles the amount of immunity
testing required – one with the EUT “on” and one with it “off”.
Would that be how you read this?
  * Are there any other safety standards that explicitly call up EMC
tests within them like this one does? This is the first one I’ve
come across where this is the case but I’m not very familiar with
safety standards in general.

Thanks and all the best,

James

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: