Hello James, Thank you for providing this additional information and the sketch. My conclusion that the handles are a class II construction was based on your statement in your original post that the handles are not "reliably earthed". As I understand now from your additional information they are not earthed by a dedicated wiring to the protective earthing conductor, but incidentally the measured resistance complies with the requirements of IEC 60335-1, clause 27.5. Please remember that the protective earthing connection shall be reliable over the whole lifetime of the appliance. Apart from wear and grease build up that you already mentioned you should check whether the parts providing the connection comply with clauses 27.4 (corrosion) and 28 (screws and connections).
With respect to the question whether the requirements of clauses 22.35 and 22.36 also apply to handles of a class I appliance that are reliably earthed (and therefore are not a class II construction), I recommend to check the decisions of TC 61 that are published at IEC - TC 61 Dashboard > Documents: Working Documents, Other Documents, Supporting Documents<https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:227:100193794009456::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1236,25>: I have found decisions on the interpretation of clause 22.35 in the archives "TC 61 Inquiries 2011 and previous" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2011%20and%20previous%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235) and "TC 61 Inquiries 2015" (https://assets.iec.ch/public/tc61/2015%20Inquiries.zip?2023041235). It seems that the committee's view is that these clauses are applicable to class I constructions. However, as defined in the second paragraph of clause 22.35, stationary appliances are exempt if their handles are reliably earthed. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) <ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2023 12:22 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Betreff: Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Thank you to everyone who has replied to this query so far, your thoughts were very helpful in refining my thinking. To give some further context (some of which I should have provided earlier) 1. The appliance is stationary and of class I construction 2. The handles are held continuously in normal operation 3. For a basic overview of construction please see the attached sketch (or this link<https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/iec-60335-clause-22.35-and-22.36-context.png> if the email reflector eats the attachment) 4. Whilst the grips are foam, it is light/porous in nature (not good enough for Supplementary insulation) and it would be very easy for the user to hold the metal instead 5. We made some earth bonding resistance measurements on the equipment. The handles are not explicitly earthed (via a Protective Bonding Conductor) but the contact to the metal frame through the bearings and shafts (not shown on sketch) gives a resistance of approx. 40mR @ 25A even under motion of all joints. We have not accounted for any wear, grease build up, etc) My views: 1. I agree with the below discussions - it feels like the standard could benefit from a wording change for clause 22.35 and 22.36 with each clause starting "For class II constructions, [...]" 2. The construction of the appliance, and lengths of wiring involved, means that if the Basic insulation fails (see 60335-1 Class I definition below) then there is a very low likelihood of the handles becoming live. The wires will only contact the earthed frame instead. At the moment, I don't agree that the handles would form a class II construction as protection is still provided by Basic + Earthing (but I'm willing to be persuaded by a convincing argument) 3.3.9 class I appliance (basic plus earthing) in such a way that conductive accessible parts cannot become live in the event of a failure of the basic insulation 1. The low resistance of the incidental bearing connection is further mitigation against having to explicitly earth the handles 2. If live wiring or basic insulated wiring is routed anywhere near the handles on different versions of the appliance then they will need an explicit earth connection 3. I'm sure the standards committee had a specific case in mind when they wrote these clauses, I just wish there was an explainer document like EN 62368-2! Again, with thanks. All the best James James Pawson Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver Office hours: My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting activities for our customers' projects. I am otherwise contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday. For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks. Unit 3 Compliance Ltd EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy www.unit3compliance.co.uk<http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> +44(0)1274 911747 | +44(0)7811 139957 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL Registered in England and Wales # 10574298 From: Dürrer Bernd <bernd.duer...@wilo.com<mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com>> Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 12:19 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] WG: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles Hi James, Please find below some additional thoughts on the subject that have accidentally been discussed off-list. Kind regards, Bernd Von: Dürrer Bernd Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 11:36 An: John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk<mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> Betreff: AW: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles Agreed. The standard would be clearer if clauses 22.35 and 22.36 would start with "For class II constructions, [...]". However, I am neither a member of the national nor international committee for IEC 60335-1. Kind regards, Bernd Von: John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk<mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 11:14 An: Dürrer Bernd <bernd.duer...@wilo.com<mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com>> Betreff: Re: AW: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Noted, but the standard doesn't explicitly address that situation, which is surely very rare, and I understand that the handles could be reliably earthed. I still recommend the simple solution of covering them with reinforced insulation, but the standard needs to be clarified. ====================================================================================== Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk/> Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC) On 2023-04-06 10:00, Dürrer Bernd wrote: As I understand from James' explanations, the metal handles of the appliance in question are not reliably earthed. As such, these parts of the appliance do not comply with the requirements for a class I appliance (IEC 60335-1, 3.3.9) that all conductive accessible parts shall be connected to the protective earthing conductor in the fixed wiring of the installation. Therefore, these handles shall be assessed as class II construction (IEC 60335-1, 3.3.11 and 5.14) for which the requirements of clauses 22.35 and 22.36 are applicable. Kind regards, Bernd Von: John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk><mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. April 2023 10:46 An: Dürrer Bernd <bernd.duer...@wilo.com><mailto:bernd.duer...@wilo.com> Betreff: Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. It still doesn't make sense to require double or reinforced insulation for a Class I product. Doing so, causes the safety of Class 1 construction to be questioned. ====================================================================================== Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk<http://www.woodjohn.uk/> Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC) On 2023-04-06 09:40, Dürrer Bernd wrote: Hi James, actually, these two clauses address two different, but related risks: Clause 22.35 addresses the risk that the handle itself may become live. In any case, a conductive surface (like the handle) has to be separated from live parts by basic insulation. Due to the higher risk that handles are actually touched in the event of failure of basic insulation, the standard requires additional precautions. Either the handles itself shall be covered by insulating material (i.e. supplementary insulation) or they shall be separated by supplementary insulation from their fixing. In both cases, the handle will be protected by double insulation from live parts. Clause 22.36 addresses the risk that other parts than the handle in the vicinity of the handle may become live. Again, there is a higher risk for the user in the event of failure of basic insulation that these surfaces may be actually touched, so also for these neighbouring conductive surfaces either double or reinforced insulation is required. Kind regards, Bernd Von: James Pawson (U3C) <ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk><mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. April 2023 12:23 An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Betreff: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles [EXTERNAL E-MAIL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Hello experts, In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this. Context 1. Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments) 2. Context is an exercise machine (the appliance) 3. Supply is AC mains Class I 4. Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These are connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not "reliably earthed" (no explicit wired connection) Earthing of metal parts is acceptable 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation. For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal. 1. Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this requirement is applicable 2. Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to make an explicit bond to PE 3. With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards between live and user = reduced risk of shock 4. No complaints with this clause Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable Then the next clause seems to contradict this: 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or reinforced insulation 1. This clause appears to not allow for earthing of the metal handles 2. Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable 3. Thoughts / speculation: * Would this clause make more sense if it read "For appliances other than those of class I..."? i.e. unearthed * Talks about "appliances" (whole product) rather than "constructions" (parts of appliance) Conclusion I'm happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal handles will reduce the electric shock risk in the context of the equipment, this approach being consistent with other safety standards I know like 62368-1 and 61010-1. I just can't rationalise this with clause 22.36. As I say, I'm sure I've misread or misunderstood something so any help would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, if anyone has a link to an explanatory document or contact for someone who could help at standards or committee level again that would help. All the best James James Pawson Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver Office hours: My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting activities for our customers' projects. I am otherwise contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday. For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks. Unit 3 Compliance Ltd EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy www.unit3compliance.co.uk<http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> +44(0)1274 911747 | +44(0)7811 139957 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL Registered in England and Wales # 10574298 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 ________________________________ WILO SE Wilopark 1, 44263 Dortmund Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 21356 www.wilo.com Vorstand/Executive Board: Oliver Hermes (President & CEO), Dr. Patrick Niehr, Georg Weber, Mathias Weyers Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Lars Roßner Dieses Dokument ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Die Weitergabe sowie Vervielfaeltigung, Verwertung und Mitteilung seines Inhalts ist nur mit unserer ausdruecklichen Genehmigung gestattet. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, insbesondere fuer den Fall der Schutzrechtsanmeldung. This document has to be treated confidentially. Its contents are not to be passed on, duplicated, exploited or disclosed without our expressed permission. All rights reserved, especially the right to apply for protective rights. Datenschutz ist uns wichtig! Daher gehen wir sorgsam mit Ihren Daten um. Näheres finden Sie in unseren Datenschutzhinweisen<https://wilo.com/de/de/Wilo-Deutschland/Datenschutzhinweise.html>. Sollten Sie keinen Kontakt mehr mit uns wünschen, wenden Sie sich bitte an datensch...@wilo.com<mailto:datensch...@wilo.com>. Data Protection is important to us! Therefore we handle your data carefully. Please find the details in our Note on Data Protection<https://wilo.com/de/de/Note-on-data-protection.html>. If you do not wish to stay in touch with us anymore, please write to data-priv...@wilo.com<mailto:data-priv...@wilo.com>. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 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: Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com> _________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
