You are right, it would be a monumental task to put together a listing
of each and every component item in a typical system and then look up
the flame ratings on each (if you could find them). To date this has
not been my understanding of what is required. You must have entries
for at least 95% of the polymeric load of the system which document how
they are acceptable as components under GR-63 4.2.3. The remainder of
the system fuel load should be described qualitatively.
So we build a flame database where the line items are the bare boards
and then the component assemblies. So instead of tens of thousands of
table entries, we have tens. But our database still covers at least 95%
of the polymeric load of the system and documents that they comply with
the component requirements of Gr-63.
You can prove component acceptability one of three ways:
1. By flame rating/ O2 index rating.
or
2. By individual needle flame on each component (x3 samples)
or
3. By needle flame testing on the component mounted on an assembly in-situ.
There are various application times and performance standards for each
of these methods in Gr-63.
The most efficient way to cover a system is to perform needle flame
testing on subassemblies. It takes about 2 days of needle flame testing
to get the testing done on a typical board system set as you need to
direct the needle flame at many/multiple components on each assembly in
order to qualify them.
If a more detailed component listing was ever required, it could be
constructed by expanding the subassemblies entries in the database by
entering their BOMs. For each of the components so entered the comment
statement would be "acceptable proved by subassembly needle flame
testing per Section 5.2.4".
[email protected] wrote:
Hi Jon,
Can you give me a little detail regarding the database you put together? It
seems to me to be a huge task. You have to list all of the plastic
components in the system and either give the CTI or the weight of t he
plastic material for each part.
Am I missing something? If not, what is your charge to create the database?
Thanks,
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Curtis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fire Resistance Database Analysis
Hi Dave,
I asked Verizon at the Las Vegas conference if they wanted a report from
an independent source to support GR-78 compliance and they indicated at
that time that they did not feel that was necessary.
At Curtis-Straus, we routinely put together an assembly level flame
database for every complete GR-63 report we produce. The Verizon
checklist says that you need to provide it if they ask for it.
Dave Wilson wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at the Verizon NEBS requirements, which along with GR-63 and
GR-1089 call out the design guidelines in GR-78. Does GR-78 compliance have
to be assessed independently for Verizon compliance, or is manufacturer's
declaration on the NEBS checklist sufficient (section 2.8.1 would suggest
otherwise, but design guidelines are not as readily measurable as say,
environmental or EMC criteria)?
Also, has anyone out there put together a fire resistance database in
accordance with GR-63 4.3.2.1 before? Was it necessary for Verizon
compliance? Or is shelf/frame-level flame testing and needle-flame
component
testing sufficient, provided the split-frame infra-red video requirements
for Verizon are met?
Thanks in advance,
Dave Wilson
Manager, Quality & Compliance
Alidian Networks, Inc.
--
Jon D. Curtis, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL TCB
One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC,
Product Safety, and Telecom Testing.
527 Great Road
Littleton, MA 01460 USA
Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828
email: [email protected]
WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM
