Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[IBM Ken]

Hi Kurt!
My apologies; I imagined your situation as being a 19" rack with various
units (1U servers, network switches, etc) plugging to one or more PDUs.

There are some mechanical tricks you can do to mitigate the long-screw
problem, but it sounds like your product is already well past the design
phase.  Is there an Agency requesting that you (re)do hipot testing at the
system level, or are you just thinking about if it is required from a
safety (and liability) standpoint?

-Ken A

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Kurt Beneder  wrote:

> Dear Ken
>
> its a 19 inch rack mountable product with a backplane and several
> submodule plug-in pcb's.
> It has a metall case for mounting it into a 19 inch rack.
> From the protection class point of view its a class I (protection earth)
> product.
> Good point regarding assembly failures and wiring failures. We will
> performing an analysis and document it.
>
> My argument for not doing an isolation test on the assembled system is
> that it will test only solid insulation which is allready tested at subunit
> level.
> Maybe screws which are fallen in can be detected with that test.
>
> I want to render the argument pointless which states that one can detect a
> clearance distance violation due e.g. too long screws with such test.
> Verification of clearances uses much higher test voltages which depends on
> the height above sea level.
> The hipot test is also done with voltage levels which tests the solid
> insulation and not the clearances.
>
> Best regards
> Kurt Beneder
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 6:10 PM, IBM Ken  wrote:
>
>> Hi Kurt!
>> At the system (end product level);
>>
>> -Do you add a PDU and plug on the manufacturing line and plug all the
>> modules into it?
>> -Do you have small screws, wires, etc which are used to assemble the end
>> product which might fall into the product?
>> -Do you have any opportunity for miswiring/misplugging?
>>
>> In most cases, it's a good idea to hipot the assembly as a complete
>> product at the end of the manufacturing line.  It is not usually required
>> to re-do each module hipot test separately, but rather just once at the
>> Mains input (but I don't know the construction of your product).
>>
>> Regarding your comment about height above sea level;  the hipot test is
>> based on the working voltage and the maximum operating altitude as designed
>> (it is not dependent on the actual altitude of the factory).
>>
>> -Ken A
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kurt Beneder 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to
>>> IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1.
>>> We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during
>>> production.
>>> The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the
>>> system or not, depending on the configuration from the customer.
>>>
>>> The question for me is wether a routine test of the solid insulation of
>>> the final product is still necessary.
>>> Especially if one has many circuits with hazardous voltages (relais
>>> contacts, power supply, other hazardous voltage outputs) which increases
>>> the test effort.
>>>
>>> As far as i know the test voltages applied according the standards are
>>> for verification of solid insulation only.
>>> This is done in our case at the subassembly level: every circuit against
>>> every other circuit of the submodule
>>> So the argument sometimes that we have to retest the whole device for
>>> verification of the clearances,
>>> which could be compromised during assembly of the final product, is not
>>> valid for me
>>> as this would require much different and higher voltage levels dependent
>>> on the height above sea level of the test site.
>>>
>>> What is your opinion?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Kurt Beneder
>>> -
>>> 
>>>
>>> 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 sdoug...@ieee.org
>>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>>
>>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>>> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
> -
> 
>
> This message is 

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[John Woodgate]

Ah, I thought you were asking about a rack of different products, not a single 
rack-mountable product with plug-ins. It's very unusual, I think, to 
routine-test subunits. But you could do that, and also test the unpopulated 
enclosure. The usual way of eliminating the 'long screw' issue is to ensure 
that even the longest screw the standard considers cannot cause a violation.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: Kurt Beneder [mailto:kurt.bene...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 9:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1
 
Dear Ken
its a 19 inch rack mountable product with a backplane and several submodule 
plug-in pcb's.
It has a metall case for mounting it into a 19 inch rack.
>From the protection class point of view its a class I (protection earth) 
>product.
Good point regarding assembly failures and wiring failures. We will performing 
an analysis and document it.
 
My argument for not doing an isolation test on the assembled system is that it 
will test only solid insulation which is allready tested at subunit level.
Maybe screws which are fallen in can be detected with that test.
 
I want to render the argument pointless which states that one can detect a 
clearance distance violation due e.g. too long screws with such test.
Verification of clearances uses much higher test voltages which depends on the 
height above sea level.
The hipot test is also done with voltage levels which tests the solid 
insulation and not the clearances.
 
Best regards 
Kurt Beneder
 
 
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 6:10 PM, IBM Ken <ibm...@gmail.com 
<mailto:ibm...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Kurt!
At the system (end product level);
 
-Do you add a PDU and plug on the manufacturing line and plug all the modules 
into it?
-Do you have small screws, wires, etc which are used to assemble the end 
product which might fall into the product?
-Do you have any opportunity for miswiring/misplugging?
 
In most cases, it's a good idea to hipot the assembly as a complete product at 
the end of the manufacturing line.  It is not usually required to re-do each 
module hipot test separately, but rather just once at the Mains input (but I 
don't know the construction of your product). 
 
Regarding your comment about height above sea level;  the hipot test is based 
on the working voltage and the maximum operating altitude as designed (it is 
not dependent on the actual altitude of the factory).
 
-Ken A
 
 
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kurt Beneder <kurt.bene...@ieee.org 
<mailto:kurt.bene...@ieee.org> > wrote:
Hi all,
i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to IEC 
60950-1 and IEC 62368-1.
We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during production.
The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system or 
not, depending on the configuration from the customer.
The question for me is wether a routine test of the solid insulation of the 
final product is still necessary.
Especially if one has many circuits with hazardous voltages (relais contacts, 
power supply, other hazardous voltage outputs) which increases the test effort.
As far as i know the test voltages applied according the standards are for 
verification of solid insulation only.
This is done in our case at the subassembly level: every circuit against every 
other circuit of the submodule
So the argument sometimes that we have to retest the whole device for 
verification of the clearances, 
which could be compromised during assembly of the final product, is not valid 
for me 
as this would require much different and higher voltage levels dependent on the 
height above sea level of the test site.
What is your opinion?
Best regards
Kurt Beneder
-

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
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 sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> 
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@i

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[Kurt Beneder]

Dear Ken

its a 19 inch rack mountable product with a backplane and several submodule
plug-in pcb's.
It has a metall case for mounting it into a 19 inch rack.
>From the protection class point of view its a class I (protection earth)
product.
Good point regarding assembly failures and wiring failures. We will
performing an analysis and document it.

My argument for not doing an isolation test on the assembled system is that
it will test only solid insulation which is allready tested at subunit
level.
Maybe screws which are fallen in can be detected with that test.

I want to render the argument pointless which states that one can detect a
clearance distance violation due e.g. too long screws with such test.
Verification of clearances uses much higher test voltages which depends on
the height above sea level.
The hipot test is also done with voltage levels which tests the solid
insulation and not the clearances.

Best regards
Kurt Beneder


On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 6:10 PM, IBM Ken  wrote:

> Hi Kurt!
> At the system (end product level);
>
> -Do you add a PDU and plug on the manufacturing line and plug all the
> modules into it?
> -Do you have small screws, wires, etc which are used to assemble the end
> product which might fall into the product?
> -Do you have any opportunity for miswiring/misplugging?
>
> In most cases, it's a good idea to hipot the assembly as a complete
> product at the end of the manufacturing line.  It is not usually required
> to re-do each module hipot test separately, but rather just once at the
> Mains input (but I don't know the construction of your product).
>
> Regarding your comment about height above sea level;  the hipot test is
> based on the working voltage and the maximum operating altitude as designed
> (it is not dependent on the actual altitude of the factory).
>
> -Ken A
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kurt Beneder 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to
>> IEC 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1.
>> We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during
>> production.
>> The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system
>> or not, depending on the configuration from the customer.
>>
>> The question for me is wether a routine test of the solid insulation of
>> the final product is still necessary.
>> Especially if one has many circuits with hazardous voltages (relais
>> contacts, power supply, other hazardous voltage outputs) which increases
>> the test effort.
>>
>> As far as i know the test voltages applied according the standards are
>> for verification of solid insulation only.
>> This is done in our case at the subassembly level: every circuit against
>> every other circuit of the submodule
>> So the argument sometimes that we have to retest the whole device for
>> verification of the clearances,
>> which could be compromised during assembly of the final product, is not
>> valid for me
>> as this would require much different and higher voltage levels dependent
>> on the height above sea level of the test site.
>>
>> What is your opinion?
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Kurt Beneder
>> -
>> 
>>
>> 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 sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald 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 

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[John Allen]

Whilst generally not a mandated production test, a set of touch and ground 
conductor leakage currents might be a good idea when you have quite a few 
modules with different PSUs in the same rack/assembly, since you may well then 
exceed the maximum allowed for a unit with a single power cord with a 
non-locking power cord if that is what is used to connect to an adjacent supply 
outlet  – probably most relevant in the “fully loaded” configuration. You then 
require further precautions (locking plugs, labelling or even a permanent 
connection to the supply).

 

John E Allen 

W. London, UK

 

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 03 September 2017 17:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

 

Hi Kurt!

At the system (end product level);

 

-Do you add a PDU and plug on the manufacturing line and plug all the modules 
into it?

-Do you have small screws, wires, etc which are used to assemble the end 
product which might fall into the product?

-Do you have any opportunity for miswiring/misplugging?

 

In most cases, it's a good idea to hipot the assembly as a complete product at 
the end of the manufacturing line.  It is not usually required to re-do each 
module hipot test separately, but rather just once at the Mains input (but I 
don't know the construction of your product). 

 

Regarding your comment about height above sea level;  the hipot test is based 
on the working voltage and the maximum operating altitude as designed (it is 
not dependent on the actual altitude of the factory).

 

-Ken A

 

 

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kurt Beneder <kurt.bene...@ieee.org> wrote:

Hi all,

i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to IEC 
60950-1 and IEC 62368-1.
We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during production.
The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system or 
not, depending on the configuration from the customer.

The question for me is wether a routine test of the solid insulation of the 
final product is still necessary.
Especially if one has many circuits with hazardous voltages (relais contacts, 
power supply, other hazardous voltage outputs) which increases the test effort.

As far as i know the test voltages applied according the standards are for 
verification of solid insulation only.
This is done in our case at the subassembly level: every circuit against every 
other circuit of the submodule

So the argument sometimes that we have to retest the whole device for 
verification of the clearances, 

which could be compromised during assembly of the final product, is not valid 
for me 

as this would require much different and higher voltage levels dependent on the 
height above sea level of the test site.

What is your opinion?

Best regards

Kurt Beneder

-


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) 
<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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <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 y

Re: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[IBM Ken]

Hi Kurt!
At the system (end product level);

-Do you add a PDU and plug on the manufacturing line and plug all the
modules into it?
-Do you have small screws, wires, etc which are used to assemble the end
product which might fall into the product?
-Do you have any opportunity for miswiring/misplugging?

In most cases, it's a good idea to hipot the assembly as a complete product
at the end of the manufacturing line.  It is not usually required to re-do
each module hipot test separately, but rather just once at the Mains input
(but I don't know the construction of your product).

Regarding your comment about height above sea level;  the hipot test is
based on the working voltage and the maximum operating altitude as designed
(it is not dependent on the actual altitude of the factory).

-Ken A


On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Kurt Beneder  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to IEC
> 60950-1 and IEC 62368-1.
> We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during production.
> The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system
> or not, depending on the configuration from the customer.
>
> The question for me is wether a routine test of the solid insulation of
> the final product is still necessary.
> Especially if one has many circuits with hazardous voltages (relais
> contacts, power supply, other hazardous voltage outputs) which increases
> the test effort.
>
> As far as i know the test voltages applied according the standards are for
> verification of solid insulation only.
> This is done in our case at the subassembly level: every circuit against
> every other circuit of the submodule
> So the argument sometimes that we have to retest the whole device for
> verification of the clearances,
> which could be compromised during assembly of the final product, is not
> valid for me
> as this would require much different and higher voltage levels dependent
> on the height above sea level of the test site.
>
> What is your opinion?
>
> Best regards
>
> Kurt Beneder
> -
> 
>
> 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 sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald 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] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[John Woodgate]

If each rack-mounted product, and any power-distribution fitted in the rack 
itself, is routine-tested, I see no reason to test the rack as a whole, even 
for Europe. But you must document your decision and give reasons.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: Kurt Beneder [mailto:kurt.bene...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 4:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1
 
Hi all,
i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to IEC 
60950-1 and IEC 62368-1.
We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during production.
The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system or 
not, depending on the configuration from the customer.
The question for me is wether a routine test of the solid insulation of the 
final product is still necessary.
Especially if one has many circuits with hazardous voltages (relais contacts, 
power supply, other hazardous voltage outputs) which increases the test effort.
As far as i know the test voltages applied according the standards are for 
verification of solid insulation only.
This is done in our case at the subassembly level: every circuit against every 
other circuit of the submodule
So the argument sometimes that we have to retest the whole device for 
verification of the clearances, 
which could be compromised during assembly of the final product, is not valid 
for me 
as this would require much different and higher voltage levels dependent on the 
height above sea level of the test site.
What is your opinion?
Best regards
Kurt Beneder
-

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
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 <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
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> > 

-

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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

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

[PSES] Routine Test 60950-1, 62368-1

[Kurt Beneder]

Hi all,

i am defining the routine tests for a 19 inch Rack System according to IEC
60950-1 and IEC 62368-1.
We test routinely the solid insulation of each submodule during production.
The final system is variable, so some modules are sometimes in the system
or not, depending on the configuration from the customer.

The question for me is wether a routine test of the solid insulation of the
final product is still necessary.
Especially if one has many circuits with hazardous voltages (relais
contacts, power supply, other hazardous voltage outputs) which increases
the test effort.

As far as i know the test voltages applied according the standards are for
verification of solid insulation only.
This is done in our case at the subassembly level: every circuit against
every other circuit of the submodule
So the argument sometimes that we have to retest the whole device for
verification of the clearances,
which could be compromised during assembly of the final product, is not
valid for me
as this would require much different and higher voltage levels dependent on
the height above sea level of the test site.

What is your opinion?

Best regards

Kurt Beneder

-

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: