[PSES] Ground Bond Tests

[Steve Brody]

So here is my question, or actually two of them:

First, one of my clients has been told by their 3rd party NRTL that a ground 
bond test is required as part of factory/production routine tests, even though 
it is not required by 61010-1.  I have never run into this requirement in my 
work history and I would be interested in hearing if any of you have.

Second, just to be sure my interpretation is correct, 61010-1, section 6.5.2.4, 
Impedance of protective bonding of plug-connected equipment, in the fist 
sentence, it has a limit of 100 mOhms impedance and my read is that this is for 
equipment with a power cord that has a plug on one end and a receptacle on the 
other.

Then, in the same section, still under the title of plug-connected equipment, 
it says for equipment that has a non-detachable power cord  the limit is 200 
mOhms.  My interpretation is that plug-connected equipment with a 
non-detachable power cord is when the power cord is hard wired to the unit 
under test, but still has a plug for mains connection.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance and you can reply here or privately to 
stev...@productehsconsulting.com


Steve Brody
sgbr...@comcast.net mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net
C - 603 617 9116

-

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] Australia: IEC 62368-1 or IEC 61010-1 for controller with radio

[Pete Perkins]

Daniel,  The world gets more complicated by the day.  This is both the
exciting technologically challenging part of this work as well as the
difficult, slogging regulatory stuff, too.  

 

   Historically, 40 years ago,  61010 & 60950 (now 62368) were
designed by folks working in overlapping businesses who understood that
these two standards were aimed at providing safe electronic equipment
(contrasted to electrical equipment).  61010 for commercial and industrial
electronic equipment and 60950/62368 for consumer & commercial electronic
equipment.  The products used the same components and techniques in the
design for products so the requirements needed to be the same.  At the time
there was consideration of making this one standard for all this equipment
but this was a bridge too far.  

 

   Today, electronics have been incorporated in many products,
the term IoT (Internet of Things) describes this phenomenon well.  

 

   Now this leaves us with a couple of choices; everything
electronic goes into one or two standards or electronic devices are accepted
in all product standards.  For the latter there has to be consideration as
to the additional issues arising from the electronic portions, including the
radio.  

 

   I believe that the there needs to be the latitude to include
complex digital electronic systems in any product.  in addition to the usual
electronic controls and displays used, electronic motor controllers (VSDs)
are becoming more popular in consumer equipment.  If the product standards
are too slow to incorporate the needed safeguards for these electronic
systems then it is not unreasonable to apply other requirements for them
(think 61010 or 62368) but this should be the exception. I would believe.
This is a messy solution tho.  

 

I have worked on a ‘smart Relocatable Power Tap’, an IoT combination which
was to be certified to North American and European CB safety standards
(specific outlet sockets for each market).  There was considerable
negotiation with the safety test lab to get them to cooperate between their
internal groups on the evaluation and ensure that any needed test was only
run once.  The project covered the power delivery requirements as well as
the electronic systems (including the radio) and, altho complex, went pretty
well after that.  

The EMC evaluation was straightforward, the RED evaluation was comprehensive
covering all the needed requirements.  

 

It would seem to me that you have properly evaluated your device and the
radio requirements should not bring about a separate evaluation.  Are you
prepared to defend your position in that regard?  

 

   In your Australian case, this can only be clarified by the AU
authorities who need to explain what they mean by the requirement.  

 

   Perhaps, when this is resolved, you can provide all of us
with an update as to how it is resolved.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 1067

Albany, ORe  97321-0413

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer

  www.researchgate.net search
my name

  p.perk...@ieee.org

 

 

Entropy ain’t what it used to be

 

From: Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP)
<123de38bd494-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 12:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Australia: IEC 62368-1 or IEC 61010-1 for controller with
radio

 

Good day to all!!

 

We have a industrial controller with radio capabilities (4G, Wi-Fi) that is
tested for IEC 61010-1:2010. 

 

1.Related to safety do we need to test for IEC 62368-1? According to the
below ACMA Telecommunication Labelling Notice is required

 

2.If we have the radio modules approved for that standard, can we use that
for compliance evidence?

 

It is confusing for me that we test the equipment for two different safety
standards (IEC 61010-1 and IEC 62368-1). Normally we are using IEC 61010-1
for a controller and now Australia requires also IEC 62368-1

 

Thank you for your answer if you are able to support!!

 

 

IEC 62368-1 will only become mandatory in Australia when called up under the
ACMA’s Telecommunications Labelling Notice. It will eventually address
requirements for acoustic safety which are currently under development
within the IEC. Until such time the applicable Australian acoustic safety
requirements will remain in AS/ACIF S004 and AS/CA S042.1

Communications Alliance - 3.13 Health and safety (commsalliance.com.au)
 

 

Kind Regards / Saludos cordiales / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

 

Daniel Rodríguez

Sr. Equipment Compliance Specialist EMEA

T +34 673556249 

E  

[PSES] Australia: IEC 62368-1 or IEC 61010-1 for controller with radio

[Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP)]

Good day to all!!

We have a industrial controller with radio capabilities (4G, Wi-Fi) that is 
tested for IEC 61010-1:2010.

1.Related to safety do we need to test for IEC 62368-1? According to the below 
ACMA Telecommunication Labelling Notice is required

2.If we have the radio modules approved for that standard, can we use that for 
compliance evidence?

It is confusing for me that we test the equipment for two different safety 
standards (IEC 61010-1 and IEC 62368-1). Normally we are using IEC 61010-1 for 
a controller and now Australia requires also IEC 62368-1

Thank you for your answer if you are able to support!!


IEC 62368-1 will only become mandatory in Australia when called up under the 
ACMA's Telecommunications Labelling Notice. It will eventually address 
requirements for acoustic safety which are currently under development within 
the IEC. Until such time the applicable Australian acoustic safety requirements 
will remain in AS/ACIF S004 and AS/CA S042.1
Communications Alliance - 3.13 Health and safety 
(commsalliance.com.au)

Kind Regards / Saludos cordiales / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Daniel Rodríguez
Sr. Equipment Compliance Specialist EMEA
T +34 673556249
E drodrig...@ecolab.com
ecolab.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may 
contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the designated 
recipients named above. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

-

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: