Joe,

I don't have much technical to add but was wondering why you are looking
into this standard. Have you customers that are asking for this requirement
to be met or is it simply a planning exercise? If it's customer-driven,
could you share what type of customer (ILEC, PTT, North America, European,
Asian, etc.)?

I haven't seen this standard being used at all but I'm presently focussed on
North America Service Provider requirements.

BTW I agree with the comments that GR-1089 compliant products have proven to
be extremely robust in the real-world. 

Cheers,
Marko


From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:54 PM
To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089


Hello All:

I have been studying the new 2000 edition of K.20, "Resistibility of 
Telecommunication Equipment Installed in a Telecommunication Centre to 
Overvoltages and Overcurrents."  There appears to be an important change
>from 
the previous edition that will have a big impact on line interface design.
I 
would like to get some feedback on whether I am understanding this properly.

The change that concerns me is that for test 2.1.2 (4000 volt surge on 
twisted pair phone lines), K.20 now requires that the primary protector 
*must* operate.  If there is any kind of secondary overvoltage protection 
internal to the equipment under test (EUT), requirement 2.1.2 pretty much 
forces the EUT to contain series resistors in front of the internal 
protection.  Otherwise, the internal protection will prevent the external 
primary protector from operating.

The requirement for the primary protector to operate can be waived if the 
protection internal to the EUT itself meets the requirements for a primary 
protector.  However, this includes passing the test of 2.1.5 with vaguely 
specified surges of 1000 amps per wire and (presumably) open circuit
voltages 
of 4000 volts.

I note that in Telcordia GR-1089, the requirement to coordinate with the 
primary protector can be waived if the EUT can survive a 10x1000 uS, 100 amp

surge (clause 4.6.7.1 of the 2002 edition).  This requirement is fairly easy

to meet without using series resistors.

I find it interesting that series resistors have never been required for 
compliance with GR-1089, which itself is a pretty rigorous standard, nor
were 
they required for previous editions of K.20.  Now, it appears that 
manufacturers must decide at the outset whether their GR-1089 compliant 
products might ever go into a market where K.20 compliance is required.  If 
so, the resistors have to go in the design.  

The series resistors needed to pass the new K.20 requirement are not
ordinary 
resistors.  Typically, they are large, wirewound, surge tolerant, flameproof

resistors with steady state ratings of several watts.  Two of these per port

on a high density, multiport board is a big hit on board area.  Furthermore,

the added resistance is very detrimental to some types of DSL transmission.

In other words, this change in K.20 looks like it will have a big impact on 
line interface design.  My questions are as follows:

1) Is my understanding of the new coordination requirement in K.20 correct?

2) Is there a simpler way to comply with the requirement other than using 
series resistors?

3) Has there been any industry feedback to the ITU complaining about the 
coordination requirement as presently written?

4) Is there evidence that the 10x1000 uS, 100 amp waiver in GR-1089 is 
inadequate, justifying the much more stringent waiver requirement in K.20?


Any and all comments on the above would be most welcome.  I'm just trying to

make sense out of the new requirements.


Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com


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:
     majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
     unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
     Ron Pickard:              emc-p...@hypercom.com
     Dave Heald:               davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
     Richard Nute:           ri...@ieee.org
     Jim Bacher:             j.bac...@ieee.org

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

Reply via email to