Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Richard Nute]

 

Most safety standards require both insulation and wire to be fastened to be 
acceptable

 

Back in the old days of tube TVs, the power switch was commonly on the back of 
the volume control.  The switch terminals had holes through which the mains 
wire was threaded and then soldered.

 

With energized aging, the switch terminals would heat and the solder would 
flow, and the wire would become “unsoldered.”  If the wire was not wrapped 
around the terminal, it was free to touch other conductive parts of the TV, the 
closest of which were the audio circuits of the volume control.  (Also, the TV 
would not always turn on.)

 

Hence, wrapping of the wire around the terminal provided a second fixing (in 
addition to the solder) of the wire to its terminal.

 

This morphed into two fixings for wires (all wires, not just mains).  So, for 
crimp terminals, crimp the wire, then crimp the insulation and, voila, two 
fixings. 

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

You can put 20 people in a car, but you won’t make it for far.

There are chairs for 4 (in most cars), so charge them with four people. Logic 
isn’t it ?

If a ring terminal would be made for 2 or more wires, they would allow for

two separate cable entries (and require a suitable crimping tool).

Most safety standards require both insulation and wire to be fastened to be 
acceptable

anyway, and I see no way how slippery plastic insulations van be crimped 
together.

(try crimping two wires without stripping the copper, so the crimp is only 
insulation)

Every crimp terminal seems to scream “one wire only” to you and so do the

safety standards and terminal manufacturers illustrations and specifications.

 

If one needs really more than 3-4 ring terminals on a bolt, use more bolts. 

Or use quadruple male  6.3 mm flat-stack connectors and stack them

with sufficient spacing.

https://img.conrad.de/medias/global/ce/3000_3999/3900/3930/3934/393416_BB_00_FB.EPS.jpg

 

 

Gert gremmen

 

Van: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 21 februari 2017 16:45
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

 

I've had experience with this in a few types of products, using both with 
IEC-based standards and old school UL standards.  When dealing with various 
electric codes such as NFPA 70, there are needs that must be met and the design 
of a product must be compatible. 

 

As you have stated, there is very little mentioned in product safety standards. 
 Sometime you will see a "pull out test" or some such thing and clearance and 
creepage requirements still apply. But we seldom find requirements or guidance 
to the level of detail you are asking about.  This tends to foster some rather 
bad habits by design engineers.  For example, I had to put the kibosh on a 
"star ground" where the engineer had placed a metallic standoff in a circuit 
board and proceeded to screw down at least eight ring lugs all fanned out 
around the circle, making a perfect star burst of wires.  The whole assembly 
was unwieldy and very slippery under the fastener.  It simply would not hold to 
a simple finger torque out test.  So then the engineer attempted to put all 
eight wires in a single oversized ring lug.  Doing a wire pull out test 
resulted in one or two of the wires immediately pulling free and subsequently 
all fell out.  While it was possible to get specific crimps to pass these 
simple tests, it was not manufacturable in an ongoing basis.  

 

Our solution was to leverage IPC-WHMA-A-620A Requirements and Acceptance for 
Cable and Wire Harness Assemblies.  This is not specifically mentioned in many 
safety standards and therefore does not have a lot of force behind it, but it 
is very familiar to wire and cable houses who are in the business of making 
cable harnesses.  Also, most company reliability engineers will agree with this 
document. It has very specific inspection criteria based on the "acceptance 
class" you need.  I find Acceptance Class 2 is sufficient for most products and 
also very cost effective.  

 

For the situation you brought up, I have always required no more than one or 
two conductors in a single crimp terminal of any kind and no more than two ring 
lugs per fastener.  IPC 620 has requirements that require inspection of the 
wire strands on the far side of the wire crimp portion and for the wire 
insulation under the insulation crimp portion.  For example, IPC 620 makes 
statements like this, "When attaching multiple wires to a single terminal, each 
wire shall meet the same acceptability criteria as a single wire termination. 
When attaching single or multiple wires to a terminal the combined circular mil 
area of the wires shall comply with the circular mil area range for the 
terminal" and "If multiple wires are used insulation from all wires extend past 
the insulation crimp ...". In one place, "Two wires into a single contact ..." 
is listed as a defect, "unless the contact or connector specifications indicate 
that this is acceptable." 

 

​Hope this helps,  Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com  

http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:12 AM, John Woodgate  wrote:

It only helps to show that this is a 'grey area', suggesting that for a quiet 
life, do not use more than one wire. 

 

In practice, two solid wires are very troublesome, but two stranded wires are 
nowhere near as difficult. The more strands the better, within the capacity of 
the crimp.

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only

www.jmwa.demon.co.uk   J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

 

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

 

From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:48 PM
To: John Woodgate 
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] crimp hardware f

Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

[John Woodgate]

We are all at the mercy of Herr Klippboard (it usually is a Herr, but maybe a 
Monsieur), unless we are a big enough company to fight.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 6:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

Mr. Woodgate is offering a rational interpretation in the face of an 
inconsistent and confused bureaucracy. The problem is that the import 
authorities may or may not agree for all cases of related equipment. Depending 
on the particular state’s import authorities and the particular equipment being 
imported, they have previously disallowed the RoHS ‘exemption’ for inverters 
and/or combiner boxes; and one such rejected assembly had a combiner box that 
was attached to a PV Panel. 

Confused in an anomalous wet desert,
Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

I agree with your interpretation. I don't think it means that only an inverter 
specified by type number by the manufacturer of the PV module is exempt. What 
would be the point of such a restriction (not that EU regulations necessarily 
have a point!)?

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 9:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

Thanks Brian.
 
I cannot find an 'example of' or a 'definition' as to what constitutes 
'specifically designed' within the directive.
 
If I read the exemption clause below, it can be interpreted that 'equipment 
specifically designed' (i.e. micro inverter)..as 'part of another type of 
equipment' (i.e. PV module).
 
Note that a micro inverter (for all intents and purposes) can only be used with 
a PV module and cannot be used with any other device (i.e. computer 
peripheral), thus it could (or at least should) be classified as 'equipment 
specifically designed'. 
 
(c) equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part 
of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope 
of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that 
equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed 
equipment;
 
Any further help from you directly or from the EMC-PSTC team on obtaining a 
formal clarification is greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Regan
 
-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy
 
No. Only for panel materials used in the PV film, and is not a system-level 
exemption. By definition, substances and materials specified in the RoHS and 
REACH directives are considered harmful, so no exclusion for materials in other 
stuff.
 
Can you offer an 'acceptable' rationale in your D of C for the import 
authorities?
 
Brian
 
 
From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy
 
Greetings everyone, 
 
Regarding the RoHS recast directive; DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011, on the restriction of the use of 
certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast) – 
see attached.
 
Article 2 states:
Scope
 
4. This Directive does not apply to:
 
(i)   photovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that 
is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a 
defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, 
industrial and residential applications;
 
1.   Does anyone know if this includes micro-inverters?  I 
would assume so as the PV module then becomes an ‘AC PV module’ but maybe not 
….. as there are more RoHS concerning components in a micro-inverter than in a 
DC PV module. 
 
2.   Does this exemption include combiner boxes? Does the 
exemption include String inverters? Rest of the BOS? I would assume so as it 
also states:
 
(c) equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part 
of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope 
of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that 
equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed 
equipment;
 
Most installations do not have such specific restrictions on the usage of which 
inverters are to be 

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Schmidt, Mark]

Hi Adam,

For quick connects, whatever you do, make sure it conforms to UL310 if your 
product is attempting to meet the requirements of UL60950.

Regards,
Mark

From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp 
hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.

I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed a 
quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors provided 
that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The other said that 
they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations occurred after sorting 
through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides, looking at qualification data, 
etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal and I am open to suggestions.
I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply 
off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.
I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been 
discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per crimp" 
commentary.

2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections"
2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
2000 "Double Retention"
1999 "Ground lugs"

Thanks!
-Adam
-


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 
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

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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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 


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 D

Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

[Brian O'Connell]

Mr. Woodgate is offering a rational interpretation in the face of an 
inconsistent and confused bureaucracy. The problem is that the import 
authorities may or may not agree for all cases of related equipment. Depending 
on the particular state’s import authorities and the particular equipment being 
imported, they have previously disallowed the RoHS ‘exemption’ for inverters 
and/or combiner boxes; and one such rejected assembly had a combiner box that 
was attached to a PV Panel. 

Confused in an anomalous wet desert,
Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

I agree with your interpretation. I don't think it means that only an inverter 
specified by type number by the manufacturer of the PV module is exempt. What 
would be the point of such a restriction (not that EU regulations necessarily 
have a point!)?

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 9:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy

Thanks Brian.
 
I cannot find an 'example of' or a 'definition' as to what constitutes 
'specifically designed' within the directive.
 
If I read the exemption clause below, it can be interpreted that 'equipment 
specifically designed' (i.e. micro inverter)..as 'part of another type of 
equipment' (i.e. PV module).
 
Note that a micro inverter (for all intents and purposes) can only be used with 
a PV module and cannot be used with any other device (i.e. computer 
peripheral), thus it could (or at least should) be classified as 'equipment 
specifically designed'. 
 
(c) equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part 
of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope 
of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that 
equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed 
equipment;
 
Any further help from you directly or from the EMC-PSTC team on obtaining a 
formal clarification is greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Regan
 
-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy
 
No. Only for panel materials used in the PV film, and is not a system-level 
exemption. By definition, substances and materials specified in the RoHS and 
REACH directives are considered harmful, so no exclusion for materials in other 
stuff.
 
Can you offer an 'acceptable' rationale in your D of C for the import 
authorities?
 
Brian
 
 
From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RoHS and renewable energy
 
Greetings everyone, 
 
Regarding the RoHS recast directive; DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011, on the restriction of the use of 
certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast) – 
see attached.
 
Article 2 states:
Scope
 
4. This Directive does not apply to:
 
(i)   photovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that 
is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a 
defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, 
industrial and residential applications;
 
1.   Does anyone know if this includes micro-inverters?  I 
would assume so as the PV module then becomes an ‘AC PV module’ but maybe not 
….. as there are more RoHS concerning components in a micro-inverter than in a 
DC PV module. 
 
2.   Does this exemption include combiner boxes? Does the 
exemption include String inverters? Rest of the BOS? I would assume so as it 
also states:
 
(c) equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part 
of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope 
of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that 
equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed 
equipment;
 
Most installations do not have such specific restrictions on the usage of which 
inverters are to be used for DC panels, etc.
 
The directive does mention the following:
(17) The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key 
objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to 
environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the 
use of energy from renewable sources ( 4 ) recalls that there should be 
coherence between those objectives and ot

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Doug Powell]

I've had experience with this in a few types of products, using both with
IEC-based standards and old school UL standards.  When dealing with various
electric codes such as NFPA 70, there are needs that must be met and the
design of a product must be compatible.

As you have stated, there is very little mentioned in product safety
standards.  Sometime you will see a "pull out test" or some such thing and
clearance and creepage requirements still apply. But we seldom find
requirements or guidance to the level of detail you are asking about.  This
tends to foster some rather bad habits by design engineers.  For example, I
had to put the kibosh on a "star ground" where the engineer had placed a
metallic standoff in a circuit board and proceeded to screw down at least
eight ring lugs all fanned out around the circle, making a perfect star
burst of wires.  The whole assembly was unwieldy and very slippery under
the fastener.  It simply would not hold to a simple finger torque out
test.  So then the engineer attempted to put all eight wires in a single
oversized ring lug.  Doing a wire pull out test resulted in one or two of
the wires immediately pulling free and subsequently all fell out.  While it
was possible to get specific crimps to pass these simple tests, it was not
manufacturable in an ongoing basis.

Our solution was to leverage IPC-WHMA-A-620A Requirements and Acceptance
for Cable and Wire Harness Assemblies.  This is not specifically mentioned
in many safety standards and therefore does not have a lot of force behind
it, but it is very familiar to wire and cable houses who are in the
business of making cable harnesses.  Also, most company reliability
engineers will agree with this document. It has very specific inspection
criteria based on the "acceptance class" you need.  I find Acceptance Class
2 is sufficient for most products and also very cost effective.

For the situation you brought up, I have always required no more than one
or two conductors in a single crimp terminal of any kind and no more than
two ring lugs per fastener.  IPC 620 has requirements that require
inspection of the wire strands on the far side of the wire crimp portion
and for the wire insulation under the insulation crimp portion.  For
example, IPC 620 makes statements like this, "*When attaching multiple
wires to a single terminal, each wire shall meet the same acceptability
criteria as a single wire termination. When attaching single or multiple
wires to a terminal the combined circular mil area of the wires shall
comply with the circular mil area range for the terminal*" and "*If
multiple wires are used insulation from all wires extend past the
insulation crimp ...*". In one place, "*Two wires into a single contact
..." *is listed as a defect, "*unless the contact or connector
specifications indicate that this is acceptable.*"

​Hope this helps,  Doug


Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01




On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:12 AM, John Woodgate 
wrote:

> It only helps to show that this is a 'grey area', suggesting that for a
> quiet life, do not use more than one wire.
>
>
>
> In practice, two solid wires are very troublesome, but two stranded wires
> are nowhere near as difficult. The more strands the better, within the
> capacity of the crimp.
>
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
>
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:48 PM
> *To:* John Woodgate 
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
>
>
>
> Thanks, John.
>
> IEC 60352-2 Section 10.2 "Crimped connections made with more than one wire
> in a crimp barrel" briefly addresses general considerations and closes with
> the requirement for full testing to Section 5.3.3.  There is an additional
> comment "in some industries, the use of more than one wire is deprecated."
> which doesn't help.  All of the illustrations in the standard are single
> wire, too.  ;-)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:02 AM, John Woodgate 
> wrote:
>
> IEC 60352-2 may help. Or not.
>
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
>
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:45 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
>
>
>
> I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp
> hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.
>
> I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed
> a quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors
> provided that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  Th

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[John Woodgate]

It only helps to show that this is a 'grey area', suggesting that for a quiet 
life, do not use more than one wire. 
 
In practice, two solid wires are very troublesome, but two stranded wires are 
nowhere near as difficult. The more strands the better, within the capacity of 
the crimp.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:48 PM
To: John Woodgate 
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
 
Thanks, John.
IEC 60352-2 Section 10.2 "Crimped connections made with more than one wire in a 
crimp barrel" briefly addresses general considerations and closes with the 
requirement for full testing to Section 5.3.3.  There is an additional comment 
"in some industries, the use of more than one wire is deprecated." which 
doesn't help.  All of the illustrations in the standard are single wire, too.  
;-)



Cheers,
Adam
  
 
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:02 AM, John Woodgate mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com> > wrote:
IEC 60352-2 may help. Or not.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com 
 ] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
 
I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp 
hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.  

I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed a 
quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors provided 
that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The other said that 
they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations occurred after sorting 
through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides, looking at qualification data, 
etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal and I am open to suggestions.
I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply 
off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.
I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been 
discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per crimp" 
commentary.

2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections" 
2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
2000 "Double Retention"
1999 "Ground lugs"
Thanks!
-Adam
-

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 
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
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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Adam Dixon]

Thanks, John.

IEC 60352-2 Section 10.2 "Crimped connections made with more than one wire
in a crimp barrel" briefly addresses general considerations and closes with
the requirement for full testing to Section 5.3.3.  There is an additional
comment "in some industries, the use of more than one wire is deprecated."
which doesn't help.  All of the illustrations in the standard are single
wire, too.  ;-)



Cheers,
Adam


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:02 AM, John Woodgate 
wrote:

> IEC 60352-2 may help. Or not.
>
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
>
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:45 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
>
>
>
> I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp
> hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.
>
> I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed
> a quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors
> provided that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The
> other said that they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations
> occurred after sorting through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides,
> looking at qualification data, etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal
> and I am open to suggestions.
>
> I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply
> off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.
>
> I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been
> discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per
> crimp" commentary.
>
> 2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections"
> 2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
> 2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
> 2000 "Double Retention"
> 1999 "Ground lugs"
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Adam
>
> -
> 
>
> 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
>
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[John Woodgate]

IEC 60352-2 may help. Or not.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?
 
I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp 
hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.  

I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed a 
quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors provided 
that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The other said that 
they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations occurred after sorting 
through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides, looking at qualification data, 
etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal and I am open to suggestions.
I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply 
off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.
I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been 
discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per crimp" 
commentary.

2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections" 
2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
2000 "Double Retention"
1999 "Ground lugs"


Thanks!
-Adam
-

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 
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
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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Adam Dixon]

I would appreciate pointers for locating ring and quick disconnect crimp
hardware which are approved for multiple conductor use.

I've had conversations with two major manufacturers so far.  One confirmed
a quick disconnect terminal family that supports multiple conductors
provided that the summed cross sectional area (CMA) is within spec.  The
other said that they don't have any such hardware.  The conversations
occurred after sorting through datasheets, tracking down crimp guides,
looking at qualification data, etc.  My search method may be sub-optimal
and I am open to suggestions.

I am more interested in ring terminals at this point.  Feel free to reply
off-line if there are an issues with mentioning supplier names.

I also read these archive threads where it appears that crimping has been
discussed to some extent, but I didn't catch any "multiple conductor per
crimp" commentary.

2015 "Shrink-wrap on soldered connections"
2004 "EN 60950 earth terminal requirements"
2001 "Double Crimp - History Request"
2000 "Double Retention"
1999 "Ground lugs"


Thanks!

-Adam

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: