The approach that CSA takes is sensible in that it includes both the long duration overload and high-current short circuit capabilities of the source. Depending on your situation you can end up needing to do one or both of the following:
1. Bond Impedance - run a current equal to 200% of the branch circuit breaker rating through the bonding path for 2 minutes (derived from the I vs. t curves allowed by CSA breaker standards). 2. Bond Limited short-circuit withstand - done at up to 5000A depending on the supply circuit the product will be connected to; this test is performed only when the capacity of the bonding path is in doubt (e.g. pcb traces). Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Regulatory Compliance Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: [email protected] web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. No really. Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 9:23 AM To: John Woodgate; [email protected] Subject: RE: Circuit Breaker Tripping Dring Fault Tests John - This proposal is based on a North American D1 Deviation to IEC60950, Subclause 2.6.3.3, and is derived from CSA 22.2 No 0.4. I have a product in my lab that this applies to and two more products coming in to which it will also apply. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA [email protected] > From: John Woodgate > > There is a proposed amendment to IEC/EN 60950-1 > requiring a test of the > protective conductor network at *prospective > short-circuit current* for > the time it takes for the mains circuit > protective device to operate. > The details are controversial at present, because > the test currents > appear not to have taken into account the > differences between > prospective short-circuit currents in different > wiring systems and > supply voltages. Given that reservation, the > lowest test current is 200 > A. > > The amendment is aimed at protective conductors > which are surface or > internal traces of multi-layer printed boards. It > is said that such > traces have failed in the field under > high-current fault conditions. This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
