Re: [PSES] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Peter Tarver]

Fine and valuable responses. Thank you.

Can anyone respond to my question?


> Has anyone else encountered this sort of requirement? The CBTL 
either
> could not or would not provide a written requirement, so this 
smells off.


Peter Tarver


Date sent:  Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:59:02 -0800
From:   Peter Tarver 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 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: 
> 

-

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] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Richard Nute]

> FWIW, have recorded >4kV transients at a North Carolina
> site twice during previous 14 months.

Unfortunately, we don't know whether the cause was by operation of equipment, 
operation of a transient suppression device, or atmospheric discharge.  Since 
the occurrence rate is so low, and the location (NC), I would guess nearby 
atmospheric discharge.


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] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Brian O'Connell]

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>

Re: [PSES] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Richard Nute]

Hi Peter:


Don't use the VDR or any transient suppression.  Take it out.

Your insulation is good enough and is not likely to be damaged by a transient 
over-voltage.  

VDRs and most other transient suppression schemes may protect the immediate 
equipment, but generate transients for other equipment because they 
short-circuit the power line; the energy in the inductance and capacitance of 
the power line must be dissipated somewhere.  See papers by Francois Marztloff. 
 And my paper, "HBSE and Insulation Coordination," at the Chicago PSES 
Symposium, May, 2015.  

Instead, rely on the transient suppression that is provided by the utility.  

If you must suppress transient over-voltages, do it in the secondary circuits 
where the energy is much lower, and the effects of the suppression do not 
propagate in the power line.


Best regards,
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: 

[PSES] IEC 61010-1 and VDRs in OVC III environments

[Peter Tarver]

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 


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: