Item Subject: Energy Hazard (was: How long for continuous?)
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Re: Energy Hazard (was: How long for continuous?)
Author:  FRANK DOMINGUEZ at HP-Greeley,om2
List-Post: [email protected]
Date:    11/18/96 8:07 AM


     
Rich,
In your first approach you mention that 
"The requirement is found in Sub-clause 2.1.5:  
     
In an OPERATOR ACCESS AREA, "it shall not be possible to bridge...  two bare 
parts...  between which a HAZARDOUS ENERGY LEVEL exists" with the test finger.
     
So, since the requirement is for an operator-access area, we know that the 
HAZARDOUS ENERGY LEVEL must also be SELV."

     
Can you modify your approach to also consider that the bare part can be a 
LIMITED CURRENT CIRCUIT, see clause 2.1.1
     
Best regards,
     
Frank Dominguez
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Energy Hazard (was: How long for continuous?)
Author:  Non-HP-owner-emc-pstc ([email protected]) at 
HP-Boise,mimegw3
List-Post: [email protected]
Date:    11/15/96 5:44 PM
     
     
     
     
     
Hello from San Diego:
     
     
IEC 950 contains the following definition:
     
...........................................................
     
1.2.8.7   HAZARDOUS ENERGY LEVEL:  A stored energy level of 
20 J or more, or an available continuous power level of 240 
VA or more, at a potential of 2 V or more. 
...........................................................
     
If you recall, I asked the question:  At what point in time 
after start of the measurement is the available VA 
considered "continuous"?  
     
I've received a number of answers, ranging from 0 to 1 minute. 
     
         0 seconds:       Manning Rose
                          (based on the requirement being 
                          a continuum)
     
        83 milliseconds:  Egon Varju
                          (based on 20J/240VA)
     
       100 milliseconds:  Egon Varju
                          (based on Table 9, Note 2)
                          Manning Rose
                          (based on GFCI operating time)
     
       200 milliseconds:  Chris Dupres
                          (based on cardiac fibrillation)
     
   100-500 milliseconds:  Egon Varju
                          (based on human reaction time)
     
         1 second:        Name withheld -- private correspondence
                          (based on company interpretation)
     
         1 minute:        Gabriel Roy, 
                          Kendall Wilcox
                          Richard Schumacher
                          UL's Application Guideline
                          (all of the above based on 
                          NEC Class 2 limits)
     
The application contemplates using a fuse to limit the VA.  
     
Fuse operating time is proportional to the current through the fuse. 
Here are the UL 198G and CSA 59 current-time operating points at room 
temperature:
     
    Percent of current rating     Operating time 
    -------------------------     --------------
     
             110                      4 hours minimum 
             135                      1 hour maximum 
             200                      2 minutes maximum
     
So, if we were to rely on a fuse, and since, as Egon points out, 
operating times less than 2 minutes are not calibrated, then to use a 
fuse requires "continuous" to be more than 2 minutes.
     
I'd like to suggest two approaches to this question.
     
1.  The first approach is to check the application of the HAZARDOUS
    ENEGRY LEVEL requirements in IEC 950.
     
    The requirement is found in Sub-clause 2.1.5:  
     
        In an OPERATOR ACCESS AREA, "it shall not be possible to 
        bridge...  two bare parts...  between which a HAZARDOUS ENERGY 
        LEVEL exists" with the test finger.
     
    So, since the requirement is for an operator-access area, we know 
    that the HAZARDOUS ENERGY LEVEL must also be SELV.
     
    Since we are dealing with SELV, we are not concerning ourselves with 
    electric shock, since, by definition, SELV provides protection 
    against electric shock.
     
    If we look at some common SELV voltages, we have:
     
        2.0 volts at 120.0 amps is 240 VA.  (minimum voltage requirement) 
        3.3 volts at  72.7 amps is 240 VA.
        5.0 volts at  48.0 amps is 240 VA.
       10.0 volts at  24.0 amps is 240 VA.
       12.0 volts at  20.0 amps is 240 VA.
       15.0 volts at  16.0 amps is 240 VA.
       20.0 volts at  12.0 amps is 240 VA.
       25.0 volts at   9.6 amps is 240 VA.
       30.0 volts at   8.0 amps is 240 VA.  (maximum ac rms SELV) 
       60.0 volts at   4.0 amps is 240 VA.  (maximum dc SELV)
     
    The requirement is, if 240 VA is exceeded, then the conductors 
    cannot be accessible if the test finger can bridge the conductors.
     
    If the test finger cannot bridge the conductors (if they are too far 
    apart), then it is okay for the conductors to be accessible.
     
    This means that 240 VA CAN be accessible, for example, hand-to-hand! 
    Or finger-to-finger!  Continuously!
     
    The requirement implies that the two conductors across which is 240 
    VA cannot be accessible to ONE FINGER!
     
    If so, then what is the meaning of my question as to the DURATION of 
    the 240 VA?  We need to consider some more facts.
     
2.  The second approach is to understand what injury is prevented by
    limiting the energy between two bridgable conductors to no more than 
    240 VA.
     
    Turn to the "Principles of Safety" at the beginning of the standard 
    and read the part about "energy hazard."  It says that "short- 
    circuiting between adjacent poles of high current supplies... may 
    cause arcing or ejection of molten metal resulting in burns."
     
    So, the injury intended to be prevented by the 240 VA requirement 
    is a burn.
     
    Clearly, a finger does not short-circuit two SELV conductors.  How 
    does a burn occur from a finger bridging two conductors?  It occurs 
    when a ring worn on a finger bridges the two conductors!
     
Now, my question is:  Can a fuse be used to prevent a ring (or the 
conductors which it touches) from arcing or ejecting molten metal?
     
Arcing and molten metal ejection both require time to heat the metal.
     
Is 2 minutes too long at 30 volts and 8 amps?  
     
Is 2 minutes too long at 5 volts and 48 amps?
     
We don't know.  Electrical heating in this case is a function of the 
cross-sectional areas of the two conductors and the ring, and a 
function of the contact resistance of the two ring contacts.
     
Is arcing and molten metal ejection a function of volt-amperes? 
That is, is volt-amperes the proper parameter which governs whether 
arcing and ejection of molten metal will occur when a ring bridges 
the two conductors?
     
     
Best regards,
Rich
     
     
     
-------------------------------------------------------------
 Richard Nute                             Quality Department 
 Hewlett-Packard Company           Product Regulations Group 
 San Diego Division (SDD)          Tel   :      619 655 3329 
 16399 West Bernardo Drive         FAX   :      619 655 4979 
 San Diego, California 92127       e-mail:  [email protected] 
-------------------------------------------------------------

.......................................................................

TO: [email protected]

Reply via email to