The impression I get from reading the ANSI press release is that the roadmap is intended to develop standards that would allow more consistent manufacturing processes. I'm not sure that equipment safety would be on the roadmap. I may be reading the press release incorrectly, but I think that ANSI wants to provide standards to ensure that different additive manufacturing processes that start with the same materials and the same input data produce the same parts.
I wouldn't expect ANSI to push for non-IEC standards that conflict with IEC standards partly because the U.S. national committees of the IEC are under ANSI<https://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/iec_programs/overview.aspx?menuid=3>. I won't say it can't happen, but it isn't what I would expect in this additive manufacturing issue. I'm not denying that standards proliferation can be an issue. Even within a standards body, you can have different technical committees writing standards for the same type of product. What is the proper IEC standards for the safety of a power supply? Depending on the end use, it could fall under a number of different standards from different committees. Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. The opinions also likely include factual errors. I'm depending on the keen eyes and keen minds of the list server readers to correct me where I am wrong. From: Pete Perkins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 5:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Additive Manufacturing standards Brian, et al, Altho I'm not familiar with the details of this consortium that is being developed, the safety requirements are already covered for any new equipment that would be developed to process the various materials, For the electrical safety requirements both TC66/IEC 61010 and TC108/IEC 62368 have an interest. Much of the technology used is scaled up from ink-jet printers of the like which have been certified to 60950 moving to 62368. TC 108 has been dealing with larger equipment and broader usage environments and the recent updates to the 62368 standard reflects that. TC66 has just authorized the issuance of 61010-2-120 which will evaluate the item to those EHSR's of the Machinery Directive which are not adequately covered in the 61010-1 standard. This full evaluation would then properly cover both electrical and mechanical safety requirements. Additionally, the work in harmonizing the European and US electrical requirements wherein NFPA 79 is harmonized with EN 60204 so that common machine wiring practices are acceptable in each market is a boon to much of this. Altho UL has traditionally been open to development of boutique safety standards to accommodate groups of manufacturers in the past the work of these two committees has continued to encompass more and more related products and has provided a good basis for product certification for use on a worldwide basis. I'm not sure who the reps are to the committee but, hopefully, there will be someone that who recognizes what has already been done from a safety point of view and get the committee to concentrate on the other issues that have been raised. :>) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 2:25 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [PSES] Additive Manufacturing standards My comments do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of my employer. The UL 'AM' guideline says this: "Generally, existing standards that cover similar types of equipment used in similar operating environments may be used for equipment associated with additive manufacturing. These standards are considered suitable since, although the application of the technology associated with additive manufacturing is relatively new, the basic hardware and technology used in the equipment are similar to other forms of hardware and technology covered by existing equipment standards." And yet we have this move by ANSI: https://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=042f7406-dacf-4830-be11-c00c35a53312&source=whatsnew081516 Does the IEEE PSES have an official policy on the introduction of new standards just for the heck of it? Should TC108 and other scoped TCs stomp on this before we have yet another half-baked 'specialty' safety standard? Other than for medical stuff, or industrial equipment that would fall under NFPA79, is there any reason that UL/CSA62368-1 + -xx could not be used to properly assess AM? If AM was used to make another Brian, would that be a redundant, recursive, or a circular reference? Brian - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 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]>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 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]>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
