The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Components in parallel to creepage\clearance
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Components in parallel to creepage\clearance


Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Some Related Topic Tags
creepage distance, iec 60601 - medical electrical equipment, medical device electronics and electrical equipment, mop (means of protection)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 10th January 2018, 05:00 PM
rothlis

 
 
Total Posts: 29
Please Help! Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

The fifth paragraph of IEC 60601-1/A1:2012 clause 8.5.1.3 specifies the requirements for each means of protection (MOP). The third bullet point says "components that are connected in parallel with an insulation, with an AIR CLEARANCE or with a CREEPAGE DISTANCE comply with 4.8 and 8.10.1".

Compliance with clause 4.8 means that it is used within its rated levels and, if there are relevant standards for the component, then the component should show compliance, or if there are specific clauses in the standard for that component (e.g., transformers per 15.5.3) then those clauses need to be met. In all other cases the standard says that "any other applicable source (e.g. standards for other types of devices, national standards) could be used to demonstrate compliance with the RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS".

For this latter case, I am interpreting the standard to allow components to participate in the MOP so long as they are acting as a MOP within their rated levels and are securely fixed.

For example, a transistor on a PCB can be part of the MOP for a 5V, 1A path if:
  • The pads and pins for the relevant nodes are spaced to meet the clearance requirement (e.g., 0.8mm, using air clearance per clause 8.9.1.3).
  • The transistor is rated to at least 5V and 1A.
  • The transistor is adequately fixed (e.g., soldered to PCB).
  • The resulting leakage current falls below the limits.

Is this a correct interpretation? If not, what is the proper response to the conjunction of the third bullet in 8.5.1.3 and clause 4.8 when there aren't any specific standards or clauses addressing a type of component?

Last edited by rothlis; 11th January 2018 at 02:11 PM. Reason: Clarify the scope in relation to clause 4.8

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 9th February 2018, 05:40 AM
MedMartin

 
 
Total Posts: 25
Re: Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

Hello,

I think your interpretation is correct.

But the example is maybe not the best for several reasons:
- I would normally not consider a low voltage transistor as a MOP. This depends of course on the application, it may be critical in an ECG front end. But you start with citing clause 8.5.1.3 which is for MOOP (operator protection) thus the transistor is not for patient protection. Requirements for MOOP start from 42,4 V peak AC or 60 V DC.
- Furthermore the creepage and clearance distances are really for safety critical pathways, galvanic isolation distances, fuses and similar paths.
Todays components on the board like transistors, processors, resistors, ... are so small that they often do not comply to the creepage / clearance requirements of the 60601-1. Therefore for isolation distances on secondary side circuits one could use 60664-1 with much smaller distances.
- A part rated for 5V can in my opinion not be used to isolate a voltage of 5V. Just look at table 6 with test voltages. For MOOP the test voltage is 1 kV for a working voltage of 60 V DC. That's 60601

This is just my opinion. Does this help?

Best regards,
Martin
Thanks to MedMartin for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #3  
Old 9th February 2018, 11:49 AM
Pads38

 
 
Total Posts: 741
Re: Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

I would not consider a transistor as being suitable for connection across a MOP.

Remember that failure of any one component is considered to be a 'Single Fault Condition'. For a transistor that failure mode could be short circuit or open circuit.

Your device has to remain safe in SFC and the values for leakage currents must remain below the limits of tables 3 and 4 with the transistor short circuited.
  Post Number #4  
Old 10th February 2018, 03:30 AM
rothlis

 
 
Total Posts: 29
Re: Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

Thanks MedMartin. I would like to test the notion that the example may not apply. In particular, note that:
  1. Clause 8.5.1.2 (MOPP) refers to the tests of 8.5.1.3 (MOOP) for compliance. It seems pretty clear to me that the requirements under consideration are applicable to MOPP.
  2. This case is most likely only being relied upon as a MOPP for the patient auxiliary current limit. Note that the creepage / clearance Table 12 for MOPP starts with an entry for "up to 17Vdc". The distance there is readily met by even relatively compact FETs if the source and drain are on opposite sides of the chip. It seems perfectly applicable.
  3. Table 6 is clearly intended for solid insulation and is identified separately from components as a possible form of protection. If the dielectric test is meant to apply to the component itself, what is the purpose of that separate 3rd bullet point for components?

What do you think?
  Post Number #5  
Old 10th February 2018, 03:35 AM
rothlis

 
 
Total Posts: 29
Re: Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Pads38 View Post

I would not consider a transistor as being suitable for connection across a MOP.

Remember that failure of any one component is considered to be a 'Single Fault Condition'. For a transistor that failure mode could be short circuit or open circuit.

Your device has to remain safe in SFC and the values for leakage currents must remain below the limits of tables 3 and 4 with the transistor short circuited.
This is not intended to void the 2 MOP requirement. We can consider the case where the example is expanded to have two independently controlled FETs in series.
  Post Number #6  
Old 12th February 2018, 11:43 PM
Peter Selvey

 
 
Total Posts: 887
Re: Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

The problem here is that 5V is not really that dangerous for a number of reasons. Even the distance of 0.8mm (using 8.9.1.3) is overkill - these numbers have been derived based on an assumption of 330V transients that could exist between a secondary circuit and earth ... and even that could only occur under very special conditions.

Also, while the potential of harm from 5V exists, both the probability and severity is far lower than for mains voltages. There are a number events (probability factors) in the way. For example, you need to bypass skin impedance and also you need a fairly large surface area to get any significant current. There's no practical risk of fibrillation.

It is important to consider patient auxiliary currents where electrodes are used (ECG, simulators, some probes). There have been burns reported in the past from 5V rails being shorted to the patient with an ECG. But transients don't exist so the whole dielectric strength, spacings (creepage and clearance) makes little sense. I don't apply these limits and it would be impossible to do (every ECG on the planet would fail if followed). I do however perform a fault analysis and follow the 2 MOP principle. In this case, I consider any component being used within specification as 1 MOP (resistors, diodes, op-amps). Then I inspect the circuit (and test) to make sure the current stays below limits in fault condition (only one component fault at a time).

So in that context treating a transistor as 1 MOP is OK. But, as long as it is recognised as a workaround for low voltages, and not extended to the serious stuff such as mains or higher voltage situations.
Thanks to Peter Selvey for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #7  
Old 13th February 2018, 01:54 PM
rothlis

 
 
Total Posts: 29
Re: Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

Thanks Peter. I find everything you say here to be reasonable and in line with the interpretation I offered, though it seems you would even go a step further than I proposed. When you say "I don't apply these limits" (speaking of dielectric and spacing), are you saying that you consider that using a component within its rated values is sufficient on its own, so long as the current limits are still met during SFC? Given that the standard requires that each means of protection be either insulation, spacing or PE (whether components are in parallel or not), would you then document this as an alternate means of compliance under clause 4.5, citing the risk analysis associated those components?

By the way, this question was inspired by the experience during review of a stimulator that uses electrodes, so you're spot on regarding the applicable cases.
  Post Number #8  
Old 13th February 2018, 08:20 PM
Peter Selvey

 
 
Total Posts: 887
Re: Components in parallel to creepage\clearance

For me, I would consider this a case of "blatantly obvious" mistake in the standard, just overrule and move on.

I used to think these cases needed to be written up and justified e.g under 4.5, but these days I use common sense and move on. Again, this is reserved for "blatantly obvious" cases, not nuanced or special cases. The older ECG standards, for example, contained so many outright mistakes that it just a bit overwhelming and the people upstream (reviewers, auditors, accreditation) don't always have the expertise to understand why it was "blatantly" obvious, so the less said the better.

And theoretically, you can't use 4.5 because it uses the requirement in the standard as a point of reference (the alternate solution has to be "comparable"), so if the requirement is illogical, you are back to square one.

In this particular case, it's clear that the principle of 8.1 a) 3rd and 4th dashes cannot be applied for auxiliary currents. You might have 15 components between a +12V volt rail and the patient, but none of them could withstand a 500Vdc test, so they all need to be shorted. Do that, and auxiliary current limits will definitely be exceeded. So it falls into the category of "blatantly obvious". I never had trouble to apply this interpretation and have used it many times.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > > >

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
IEC 60601 Creepage and Clearance Requirements on PCB AndrewJ IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5 19th January 2017 06:06 PM
MOP (Means Of Protection) - Creepage and Clearance questions fonk140 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 19 25th May 2015 02:56 AM
Secondary Circuits, Voltage Test and Clearance/Creepage antonoia IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2 29th October 2014 12:09 PM
Creepage and air clearance under vacuum conditions Roland chung IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2 9th May 2013 11:12 AM
PCB Creepage and Air Clearance on 8 Layer Boards Nissim Shaked IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3 12th February 2013 07:49 AM



The time now is 03:08 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"
The Elsmar Cove web site and all content is owned by Rabbithash Corp. as of 1 MAY 2018.
Unlike Facebook and other properties such as Linkedin, We don't buy, sell, or "share" visitor information. Never have, Never will...
GDPR Compliant since 1996, keeping Marc's vision alive!