Don -

I have not heard of such a standard.  Somewhat obvious, but general product
safety requirements state that the inrush current must be limited such that
overcurrent protection devices (either supplemental or branch circuit) are
not opened in the course of normal operation of the product.  This would be
the upper limit for inrush, and depends upon the characteristics of the
particular protector.  Normally this is an end-product requirement, as
compliance is affected by all passives and the particular supplemental
protection (if any) in front of the supply in the final product.  Unusually
large decoupling capacitors (bulk) can sometimes require special circuits to
limit the size of the inrush current.

I am a bit unsure about the limits you mention below, specifically for t>500
ms, as normal operation of all products falls within this range and can well
exceed this limit (infinite time implies steady state)!  I hope this helps.

Regards,

Mark Gill, P.E.
EMC/Safety/NEBS Design
Nortel Networks - RTP, NC, USA


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:03 AM
> To:   [email protected]
> Subject:      Looking for Inrush Current Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for a standard or standards (IEC, EN or similar) which
> contain
> inrush current requirements for power supplies.
> The standard might require the inrush to be: <20A for 50 us<t<1.5ms, <10A
> for
> 1.5ms<t<500ms, 0.6A for t>500ms.
> 
> Do any good standards exist on inrush current?
> 
> Thanks,
> Don MacArthur
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>      [email protected]
> with the single line:
>      unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>      Jim Bacher:              [email protected]
>      Michael Garretson:        [email protected]
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>      Richard Nute:           [email protected]
> 
> 

Reply via email to