Rick & Anthony,
I have attempted this myself. I always felt that one could ask
questions regarding the product design and expected/foreseeable use.
Then come up with a most appropriate standard to use and even better
which clauses are or are not applicable. My purpose was to quickly do
accurate estimations, quotes and eliminate those sections of a test
report which are N/A.
I started with a bottom up approach beginning with IEC 61010-1. I used
questions like does it use batteries, is the enclosure metallic or
polymer, is it have detachable power cord, is it portable, fixed,
outdoor, indoor, limited energy, high voltage, does it have moving
parts, pressurized fluids, acoustic noise, ultraviolet emissions, and so
on. The question I had was, "Is it possible to ask a minimum set of
questions and come up with a reasonable estimate of work and schedule
without a lot of risk?" This method sort of works with most EMC testing
but realize the list of potential tests for emissions and immunity are
more or less the same each time and it is the limits that may change.
Once my questionnaire was developed to a usable level, the next step
would be to correlate this list of questions to other standards like IEC
60950-1, IEC 60335-1 or even IEC 60601-1. I had a few major problems...
1) It didn't take long to realize that because of the complexity of
various product designs the list of questions is actually encapsulated
within the IEC Test Report Form itself, all 100+ pages of it.
2) Applicable Part 2 particular standards need to be factored in. In my
test case of IEC 61010-1, I started getting it things like does the
measuring instrument have attached test probes or detachable (IEC
61010-2-31, 61010-2-32) or does it have a heating plate (IEC
61010-2-010). And the complexities kept coming.
3) Standards written by different Technical Committees will have
different approaches to similar concerns. For example IEC 61010-1
simply talks about the concerns of a fixed or detachable cords whereas
IEC 60335-1 has cord Types X, Y and Z. This is similar to other
standards but also different in some ways that make this questionnaire
difficult to manage.
4) As I was developing a framework of questions, wouldn't you know? A
series of Edition 2 and 3 revisions came out and some were fairly
significant differences.
In the end it maintaining such a tool would become a full time job and
any efficiency gains in project management would be lost. I determined
that I would have to make a best guess based on my experience and
hopefully a PDR (preliminary design review). This is after all, one of
the things a compliance professional does best.
Regards, Doug
On 10/15/2014 3:35 AM, Anthony Thomson wrote:
Hello Rick,
I've often thought the same, I've even considered doing it myself.
My thoughts are, that for each harmonised standard requested, I would
produce a questionnaire or flow chart that would be applied to the
equipment under test in order to identify the relevant test clauses
and conditions from the standard for that equipment. Complimented by a
clause-by-clause check/tick list summary for that standard allowing
you to tick/flag the relevant and applicable clauses/parameters/limits
etc., those Not Applicable to that equipment along with columns to
mark your progress; 'to do', pass, fail, references to results, test
reports, comments, etc. All wrapped-up with a neat front sheet with
the usual ducumentation control, title, document nos., dates, issue,
version, signatures etc.
Also, given that such a check-list would require careful review and
maintenance when new versions of a particular standard are released, a
complimentary service sharing the results of that standard's review,
identifying the differences between subsequent versions of standards
could be provided. It amuses me how many times new versions of
standards must be scrutinised and reviewed separately by organisations
using those standards, when in theory it could just be done once
independently for numerous organisations.
Are such services available, otherwise would there be interest in
providing such services? Feel free to contact me off-line if you prefer.
T
*Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 at 7:06 PM
*From:* "Rick Busche" <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [PSES] Checklist for standards
As I pour through the various standards applicable to my product and
build the TCF leading to CE Marking, it seems to me that somewhere
there should be a checklist of the respective standards to simplify
this effort. I have heard that the IEEE may even have a paid service.
The idea of typing my way through the applicable elements for the
standards is arduously slow. Any suggestions appreciated.
Rick
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
David Heald <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Thank you, ~Doug
--
Douglas E Powell
[email protected]
Skype: doug.powell52
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
