Thanks for the input folks. The original questions were specifically regarding the construction of the guards to meet the MD requirements, robust construction, securely held in place, not give rise to any additional hazard. The assumption was the need for any applicable guards was determined by risk assessment (and common sense). I should also have included my interest wasn't specifically to "guards" but also cosmetic covers. My interpretation of " not give rise to any additional hazard " is that it also includes hazard from fire which then includes flammability of said guards, protective devices, and covers. And the failure of cosmetic covers that don't provide a guard function could result in a new hazard. For example someone leans their hand on a cosmetic cover, shatters it, and then gets cut up from the shards. Therefore one should make sure the guards and covers meet minimum strength and flammability requirements to prevent those issues.
Since EN 60950-1 (as an example) includes very specific, objective, and measurable requirements for mechanical strength and flammability I was questioning whether similar detailed requirements existed for MD harmonized standards. Apparently the answer is no. I've received some feedback regarding EN 953 and although I haven't purchased it yet I agree is sounds like common sense and also no more specific then what's in the MD itself. So if we use the requirements in EN 60950-1 for strength and flammability in addition to the basic MD requirements and said common sense I'm thinking we should have no issue substantiating compliance to the MD guard requirements. I didn't intend to imply EN 60950-1 was a starting point in general for meeting the MD requirements or for that matter EN 60204-1 by itself. There is a lot of overlap between the two but guard construction requirements isn't one of the overlaps. Our products are light machinery, some barely meeting the requirement of machinery for the MD so applying EN 60950-1 to the products (in addition to all the others applicable) is a reasonable fit but wasn't really the point of the questions. The US NRTLs use UL 60950-1 as the primary standard when certifying our products for their listing marks. So anyway this is the first I've heard of EN 60950-1 being superseded by IEC/EN 62368-1 and I'm not familiar with EN 62368-1 at all. When is that expected to happen? Will that apply to the harmonized standards for the LVD? Is there a plan for a UL 62368-1 like there UL 60950-1 or maybe UL will succumb and just use the IEC/EN 62368-1 as is? Thanks -Dave -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 5:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] GUARDS AND PROTECTIVE DEVICES In message <[email protected]>, dated Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Nick Williams <[email protected]> writes: >EN 953 is a CEN standard, EN 60950 is an IEC/CENELEC standard and I >doubt the people who wrote the two standards speak to each other much, >if at all. Very likely. >EN 60950 is really not a good starting place for compliance with the >Machinery Directive (even the electrical safety aspects) Since it's a standard for IT equipment that mostly has no moving parts or low-energy mechanical stuff, it's not surprising that it doesn't fit machines very well. > - if EN 60204-1 won’t tell you what you need to know then for machine >designers the second port of call should be EN 60335-1 (which, unlike >EN 60950, is listed in the OJ under the Machinery Directive). Because household and commercial appliances very often DO contain significant 'machinery', not all of it low-energy (e.g. loaded washing machine drum at 1200 RPM). > >IEC 60950 is probably the most globalised of all the safety standards >and so it has to be acceptable to many territories outside of Europe >where there is no local equivalent of the Machinery Directive. I don’t >think you can expect to see it listed in the OJ under the Machinery >Directive any time soon. For the above reasons; anyway it's being superseded by IEC/EN 62368-1. > >One key message that people who come from an electrical apparatus >background need to understand when they start dealing with the >Machinery Directive is that (with the possible exception of EN ISO >12100, which contains general guidance only) there is no one standard >they can use as the basis of compliance with all EHSRs. Being a >machinery designer means having familiarity with a range of typically >20 or more standards and applying only the bits which are relevant to >your particular application. What jolly fun! -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]> 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]>
