Rich
The obvious question I would have is... why couldn't you test at a higher
current for longer time meeting both requirements? For example 30A for two
minutes. I know the document indicates a maximum current, but does this make
sense?

OK I guess I know understand what you mean by Technical Requirement vs.
Technical Committee.

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Rich Nute [mailto:[email protected]]
                Sent:   Wednesday, August 25, 1999 2:37 PM
                To:     [email protected]
                Cc:     [email protected]; [email protected]
                Subject:        Re: Grounding Bond Test




                Hi Carmen:


                You ask how to resolve the difference between two, 
                different production-line (routine) test standards.

                If your product is certified by CSA, then you test
                to the 30-ampere value.

                If your product is certified by a CB Certificate 
                and Test Report, and the issuing body invokes 
                EN 50116, then you test to the 25-ampere value.

                If your product is certified by UL, then you test
                to any current of your choosing. 

                So, the answer to your question is:

                   Whatever your certification house says.

                In essence, the requirement is proprietary to the
                certification house.  The certification house can
                invoke any production-line test it feels is
                necessary.  CSA uses 30 amps, 2 minutes.  A 
                certification house that invokes EN 50116 uses
                25 amps, 1 minute as a maximum test.  UL does not
                require a high-current test.

                The CSA 30-amp requirement derives from the fact
                that a CSA circuit-breaker rated 15 amperes (the 
                most common 120-volt circuit in Canada) is not
                required to trip before 2 minutes at a current of
                twice rating, 30 amperes.  So, the equipment
                grounding circuit must withstand 30-amperes for
                2 minutes.

                The CENELEC 25-ampere requirement history is not
                at all clear.  It has been in both European standards
                and UL standards as a type test for many, many years.
                It only appeared as a routine test when EN 50115 was
                published a few years ago.

                By the way, neither high-current test (as a 
                production-line test) will identify continuity 
                problems any better than a low-current test.

                The presumption is that the high-current test will 
                identify a manufacturing defect in the grounding 
                circuit, while a low-current test will not.  

                In actuality, the grounding circuit, in order to pass
                the type test, had to be properly designed to handle
                the high current, no matter whether 25 amps or 30 
                amps.  So, for the production-line, we need to be
                assured, by test, that the high-current circuit has
                been assembled correctly and with no defects.

                The high-current test WILL NOT identify loose screws
                if the conductors are making contact!  The high-
                current test WILL NOT identify cut strands of wire
                if there are 3 or more strands in the circuit!  
                (Feel free to duplicate these tests or any other
                grounding circuit defects you can imagine; the 
                circuit will pass the high-current test!)

                The high-current test does not identify continuity
                problems any better than a low-current test.

                I did point this out to the EN 50116 committee when
                they asked for comments before it was published.
                Interesting that the committee ignored the data and
                required the test anyway!  I guess the lesson is:
                don't confuse a technical committee with technical
                facts.


                Rich


        
-------------------------------------------------------------
                 Richard Nute                      Product Safety Engineer
                 Hewlett-Packard Company           Product Regulations Group

                 AiO Division                      Tel   :   +1 858 655 3329

                 16399 West Bernardo Drive         FAX   :   +1 858 655 4979

                 San Diego, California 92127       e-mail:  [email protected]

        
-------------------------------------------------------------



                ps:  In high-volume production, both the 1-minute
                     and the 2-minute tests are unacceptable to the
                     manufacturer.  It seems that most certification
                     houses will waive the long-term test in these
                     cases!  This seems to admit that the high-current
                     test is not particularly valuable.




                ---------
                This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
                To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
                with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
                quotes).  For help, send mail to [email protected],
                [email protected], [email protected], or
                [email protected] (the list administrators).
                

---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], or
[email protected] (the list administrators).

Reply via email to