RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Jim, That summary was very informative. I would be interested in the feedback generated from Richard Kluges proposal to suppliers and service providers as mentioned in your attached letter. This will be an interesting topic at the NEBS 2000 Conference in Baltimore next week. Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 3:54 PM To: emc-pstc; Collins, Jeffrey Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Hello Jeffrey, Basically, to demonstrate compliance with GR-63-CORE, no altitude testing is required assuming you have passed the standard temperature and humidity profile. The rationale is that, at that altitude, heating the facility will be the primary concern, not cooling it. According to the national weather service, the expected ambient high temperature at that altitude is less than 20C. If a facility at that altitude lost HVAC, it probably would start cooling off rather than heating up. Thus the reason there is no test method. It was simply intended as a design criteria that should be considered. However you can demonstrate compliance above and beyond the current GR-63-CORE for altitude by raising the temperature limits during the operational temperature and humidity testing by 1 degree C per 1000 foot of altitude that you want to simulate. This assumes you do not have components that may be altitude sensitive. It also assumes worst case conditions for the amount of heat that your product may be generating. However, some ILEC's may want to see an actual altitude test depending upon the equipment type and application. In this case Richard Kluge at Telcordia has developed a proposed altitude exposure test and he has a paper that was written in December of 1999 covering the rationale etc. Telcordia now has an altitude chamber and is conducting a study to determine if altitude is a potential concern based on the design of modern telecommunications equipment for the next revision of GR-63-CORE. Attached is the Telcordia document from Richard Kluge, note that the temperatures recommended for testing at altitude are much lower than 50C, and thus are looking more at determining component altitude sensitivity rather than reduced air density and temperature. Adobe Portable Document These are solely my opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com -- From: Collins, Jeffrey[SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com] Reply To: Collins, Jeffrey Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 8:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude * Temperature at max Altitude * Relative Humidity * Length of time at Max Altitude Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
David, This particular test profile is one which I have recently tried to shed some light on as well. I am curious where you come to the conclusion that the application of the criteria for altitude references Table 4.5. The requirement (R4-8 anyway) states, All equipment shall be functional within the limits specified in Table 4-4 when installed at elevations between 60 m (197 ft) below sea level and 1800 m (5905 ft) above sea level. I would think this would be overkill as you seem to imply that this would encompass another 8-day test profile. Referencing Table 4.5 would also imply that the temperature limit at 4000M would be 55 degC where the limits of Table 4.4 clearly state a temperature limit of 50 degC. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone else could share their experiences on this requirement. What do the RBOC's expect to see for test results? I figured I'd post this on the NEBS Forum as well to reach a wider audience. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:42 PM To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher
NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude * Temperature at max Altitude * Relative Humidity * Length of time at Max Altitude Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Hi, At the last two NEBS conferences Mike Bentley of USWest stated that all he was concerned about was the EUT performance at high temperature. What changes at altitude is the heat capacity of air. Thus it becomes more difficult to cool equipment because the air is thin. USWest is the RBOC which is most concerned with this test as they are the only one to my knowledge with COs above 12,000 feet. We run the altitude test at 50C for frames and 55C for shelves. We allow the EUT to stabilize within the chamber and we also determine the temperature at which equipment starts to fail in the event that the EUT has a problem at the extreme temperature. ATT NEDS does have a non-operational test at 40,000 feet which we run at ambient temperature and humidity as an unpressurized airplane bay is unlikely to be very hot.. BTW, the next NEBS conference is in Baltimore next week. See www.800teachme.com for details. -Jon Curtis David Spencer wrote: Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Hello Jeffrey, Basically, to demonstrate compliance with GR-63-CORE, no altitude testing is required assuming you have passed the standard temperature and humidity profile. The rationale is that, at that altitude, heating the facility will be the primary concern, not cooling it. According to the national weather service, the expected ambient high temperature at that altitude is less than 20C. If a facility at that altitude lost HVAC, it probably would start cooling off rather than heating up. Thus the reason there is no test method. It was simply intended as a design criteria that should be considered. However you can demonstrate compliance above and beyond the current GR-63-CORE for altitude by raising the temperature limits during the operational temperature and humidity testing by 1 degree C per 1000 foot of altitude that you want to simulate. This assumes you do not have components that may be altitude sensitive. It also assumes worst case conditions for the amount of heat that your product may be generating. However, some ILEC's may want to see an actual altitude test depending upon the equipment type and application. In this case Richard Kluge at Telcordia has developed a proposed altitude exposure test and he has a paper that was written in December of 1999 covering the rationale etc. Telcordia now has an altitude chamber and is conducting a study to determine if altitude is a potential concern based on the design of modern telecommunications equipment for the next revision of GR-63-CORE. Attached is the Telcordia document from Richard Kluge, note that the temperatures recommended for testing at altitude are much lower than 50C, and thus are looking more at determining component altitude sensitivity rather than reduced air density and temperature. Adobe Portable Document These are solely my opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com -- From: Collins, Jeffrey[SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com] Reply To: Collins, Jeffrey Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 8:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude * Temperature at max Altitude * Relative Humidity * Length of time at Max Altitude Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org alt-12-31-99.pdf Description: Adobe Portable Document
RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile
Jeffrey, I agree with David's view. The Altitude and Temp/Humidity requirements should be AND-ed requirements not OR-ed to reflect realistic deployment scenarios. In reality, thermal analysis experts tell me that altitude does not really affect the thermal performance significantly so you should be able to pass at sea level or at 4000m equally easily (or not so easily!). The loss of heat carrying capability due to the decreased air density is off-set, at least somewhat, by the loss of pressure needed to move the air (recall the fan speed curve). Marko Radojicic email: ma...@caspiannetworks.com phone: 408/382-5206 fax: 408/382-5593 -Original Message- From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:42 AM To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: RE: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Hi Jeffrey, Our friends at Telcordia do seem to enjoy listing requirements where we would least expect them. GR63 is no exception. For altitude, the limits called out in R4-8 [74] and O4-10[76] for Table 4-4 are the general temperature/humidity limits for long and short term exposure. The application of those criteria can be found in Table 4.5 in the 182 hour profile. It is my belief that you test to at 4000m using the profile from table 4.5, unless you wanted to make a profile of your own that covered the same ground over a longer period of time, using Table 4-4 for the limits, rates of change, and duration. If the EUT cannot tolerate the resulting temperature rise from the 4000m altitude, it will be necessary to retest at 1800 to meet R4-8. The failure is documented in the NEBS data submitted to the carrier who decides if it is something he wants you to do something about before he purchases you equipment. I do not think it is necessary to test 1800m if you have passed the table 4-5 profile at 4000m. Don't forget: Objective requirements are not elective. The tests must be performed and the results documented. It is by this means that decisions are made about making the objective a mandatory requirement down the road. Good Luck! Dave Spencer Compliance Engineer Oresis Communications, Inc. 14670 NW Greenbrier Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006 * dspen...@oresis.com * http://www.oresis.com * (503) 466-6289 * (503) 533-8233 -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 6:36 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org ' Subject: NEBS: GR-63 Altitude Test Profile Group, GR-63 sections 4.1.35.1 do not give a definitive testing profile for Altitude testing. If you have completed this test what profile did you use? Is there a customer specification from an RBOC or CLEC that you found to be definitive. It appears that by only addressing these sections you could have to retest down the road for a customer located in a high altitude environment. Which Telco has the most stringent internal specifications for this test? Points to be considered are: * Max Altitude 4000m * Temperature at max Altitude Profile in Table 4-5 * Relative Humidity Profile in Table 4-5 * Length of time at Max Altitude 182 hrs Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
