Informational How to consider the Working Voltage for splitting 2MOPP

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#31
I had exactly the same situation with 275Vrms / 750Vp in power supply, with F-type applied part. The mains parts could not meet 2 MOPP so the construction was split for 1 MOPP in the power supply and 1 MOPP in the patient isolation.

Fortunately, the patient isolation could meet this. Also noting that since interpolation is allowed, the increase in creepage/clearance is only small for the additional voltage from 250V to 275Vrms (4.0 to 4.4mm).

However, it is possible that the equipment with F-type insulation is designed exactly for 250V (1.5kVrms, 4.0mm). In this case it may not pass this approach.

The next approach could be to treat the complete insulation path (pri-sec + F-type insulation) as a single item of reinforced insulation. IN that case, the creepage is sure to be OK, but for dielectric strength and insulation thickness it can get messy depending on the construction.

Another approach could be to recognize that if pri-sec fail, the working voltage would fall to mains voltage, so the additional MOPP can meet 4.0mm only. But again a test lab might not accept this.

Finally, general RM/equivalence could be used. The combination of 2 MOOP + 1 MOPP is clearly equivalent to 2 MOPP.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#32
Fortunately, the patient isolation could meet this. Also noting that since interpolation is allowed, the increase in creepage/clearance is only small for the additional voltage from 250V to 275Vrms (4.0 to 4.4mm).
The creepage can be interpolated, but the clearance is not allowed unless the PEAK WORKING VOLTAGES exceed 2 800 V peak or d.c.

But it is also fine as long as the working voltage < 400 Vrms. Since the clearance 3.5 mm is still less than the creepage, says 4.4 mm.

The next approach could be to treat the complete insulation path (pri-sec + F-type insulation) as a single item of reinforced insulation. IN that case, the creepage is sure to be OK, but for dielectric strength and insulation thickness it can get messy depending on the construction.
I also think this approach could be messy and easily make mistake.

Another approach could be to recognize that if pri-sec fail, the working voltage would fall to mains voltage, so the additional MOPP can meet 4.0mm only. But again a test lab might not accept this.
As we discussed before, we need to do a lot of fault tests to verify that only the mains voltage would appear on the secondary circuit when the pri-sec fail.

Finally, general RM/equivalence could be used. The combination of 2 MOOP + 1 MOPP is clearly equivalent to 2 MOPP.
If we use RM, we need to provide objective evidence (data, verification record, etc) to support this equivalent approach.

Peter, have you proven that the 275 Vrms would die when pri-sec short?
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#33
Lets assume in normal condition CO2 laser supply has 10,000V. Insulation between the circuit and the operator is designed for 10,000Vdc.

In SFC (voltage feedback trouble) supply raises to 13,000V.

Case 1: insulation to operator breaks down
Case 2: insulation to operator does not break down

In case 1, it's a clear failure.

In case 2, what is the result?

I think Case 2 needs to re-inspect dielectric strength, creepage and clearance for the new voltage (13,000V).

Why? Because in this case we cannot rely on a single test to be representative of production and the real world. There are too many variables. Maybe one day it passes, next day it fails because the humidity is a little higher, or the test sample is slightly different.

Limits in standards have those variables built in so we can use just a single test and still be confident.
Let's assume that reinforced insulation is required in normal condition (reference voltage is 10,000V).

In case 2, what insulation level should be considered for new voltage (13,000V)? Basic insulation or reinforced insulation? Because the 13,000V is generated under single fault condition, in theory basic insulation for reinspection is enough. If so, the reinspection is meaningless since the reinforced insulation @10,000V (NC) is more severe than basic insulation @13,000V (SFC).
 

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#34
Sounds like a reasonable rationale, as long as the fault condition is considered rare (i.e. reasonable quality component and reliable design used in the voltage control circuit).

Note that in some cases for very high voltages, the assumption that [email protected] > 1 [email protected] might not be correct, need to check the values.
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#35
Could I use the concept "undetected fault is considered normal" in the 60601-1:2005?

That means if the fault in voltage control circuit is undetected (equipment works normally, no alarms, no blank display, etc), 13kV is regarded as normal voltage. Reinforced insulation @13kV is required accordingly.
 

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#36
Yes, correct according to the standard, but the "undetected fault" theory has serious flaws, and cannot be applied universally. It's already unclearly written in the 3rd edition and will undoubted be revoked in future versions of the standard.

Instead, it should be replaced with basic risk management decisions, using the overall probability of the full sequence of events leading to harm. In some cases this will show that undetected faults are critical (such as an undetected fault in a protection system of an infant incubator) whereas other undetected faults are not as critical, such as the case here. But that is a bigger subject ...
 
J

Joho Zollo

#37
I had exactly the same situation with 275Vrms / 750Vp in power supply, with F-type applied part. The mains parts could not meet 2 MOPP so the construction was split for 1 MOPP in the power supply and 1 MOPP in the patient isolation.
Do you mean if the power supply can meet 2 MOPP, then the 1 MOPP for F-type AP is not needed?

Our product consists of a laptop PC and a BF type AP. The connection between the laptop and the AP is through USB cable. We can replace the original IEC 60950 power supply with an IEC 60601 medical grade one providing 2 MOPP. In this case do we still need the isolation on the USB for 1 MOPP? There will be total 3 MOPP from mains to AP if the answer is yes.
 
J

Joho Zollo

#39
Thanks, Peter. Just want to make sure I understand correctly - even the mains part can provide 2 MOPP already, the additional 1 MOPP for F-type AP is still required, right?
 

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#40
Yes, F-Type is between applied part and accessible parts, it is not related to mains from inside the device. The theory is we assume that the patient is somehow raised to mains voltage from an external source, hence we need a one MOPP to prevent dangerous currents flowing into the device to earth, which may be by via accessible parts.

It's hypothetical situation that was first raised in the 1970s when the original ECGs used to firmly ground/earth the patient via electrodes, raising concerns if say the patient say reached over to their radio and got an electric shock from the frame. Normally, most people would survive such as shock as they are usually mildly insulated from earth, which limits the currents. But if the ECG electrode is providing a solid path to earth, the probability of fibrillation increases to near certain levels. Hence, it is better to have the ECG on an isolated circuit. This has evolved over time to the 1 MOPP requirement between earth and accessible parts we have today. Although there is no evidence the hypothetical situation has ever happened, it, has become firmly established in medical standards. As a nice side effect, it has helped noise immunity, ESU immunity, and cross effects if the patient has multiple sensors, so the isolation still has a lot of value.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Mislabeling - Consider this an FDA notified recall? CFR 806.10 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
R When does the FDA consider a component a medical device? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 17
S How to consider the relevant standards during development of ISO13482:2016 for IVD manufacturing Blood grouping Other Medical Device Related Standards 6
qualprod Criteria for print shop - How do you consider the cycle time in a print shop? Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 21
M Medical Device News FDA News - 14-09-18 - Benefit-Risk Factors to Consider for Substantial Equivalence Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
T Question: Do we consider 60601-1-2 (4th ed) EMC testing a mode for a diagnostic port? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
Q What to consider in 6.4 work environment? ISO 9001:2008 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
A Implantable Medical Device Consignment Stock - What to consider? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
Ajit Basrur FDA issues Guidance Document - Benefits-Risks Factors to consider for 510(K) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
K Can we consider Operating System as OTS (Off The Shelf) Software? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
K Can I consider My medical Application as MDDS ? Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
P Is it necessary to consider ISO 22002-1 for the implementation of ISO 22000 Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 3
G Points to consider while defining the Quality Policy AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
D What Factors to consider to determine the Number of Auditors Internal Auditing 3
M Machine Feature: Is it possible to consider it Error Proofing? FMEA and Control Plans 6
T Pilot's Checklist for Six Sigma - Steps to Consider when Initiating Projects Six Sigma 3
T Does FDA consider Flow Charts sufficient instruction for SOPs? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
K If auditor fails to consider something which is material to the outcome of the audit? Internal Auditing 19
N Note interpretation - Ensure that the preservation of the product has been consider ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
A How to write Quality Manual? Point to consider Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 2
S Do you consider 'unintended' process output(s) while mapping a process? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
Sidney Vianna Tough talk on Detroit Three doesn't consider suppliers World News 0
E Do you consider this a Top Management Nonconformity? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 19
S Should we consider Precision of Machine Reading when setting Inspection Specs? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
T Can I consider Reliability Test Plan part of the DVP&R, or the other way round Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 3
D Should low volume supplier PPM comparisons consider level of opportunity for error? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 2
S Painting on Floor of Machine Shop - What Aspects/Impacts and Hazards to consider? Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 10
S CSQE : Do they consider the sw development ?Decision making? experience? Professional Certifications and Degrees 1
P What factors should I consider so as to check how "lean" a company is? Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 12
Marc Things to consider in a Beer FMEA - Beer Troubleshooting FMEA and Control Plans 7
Marc Where would you retire? Would you consider becoming an 'Expat'? Immigration and Expatriate Topics 29
Casana How to select a consultant? What criteria to consider and look for when looking Consultants and Consulting 5
Govind Metrology Laboratory 'Classes' - Atmospheric, Ergonomic and Other Factors to consider General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 6
A Gage R&R analysis - Do I have to consider the sample specifications? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
RoxaneB Several Key Indicators a Company Should Consider Using Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 40
T Do You Consider Your Quality Policy Valuable to your Organization? (Poll) Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 44
I FMEA Issue - Consider all inspections that we have like a processes? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
M How can we encourage our supplier base to consider ISO14001 Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 2
B 3-phase supply, overvoltage catogory, line-to-neutral and working voltage (IEC 61010-1) IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
John Broomfield Guidance on Safe Working During Covid-19 Pandemic Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
S Experience working with TUV SUD or Rheinland, and/or BSI Registrars and Notified Bodies 5
G Working on a Root Cause Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 11
M Informational TGA-led IMDRF Personalised Medical Devices working group meets in Canberra Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational EU – Minutes of the 24 July 2019 SCHEER Working Group on safety of breast implants in relation to anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) meeting Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
Watchcat MDD, MDR/IVDR, Working Groups, Expert Panels, MEDDEVs and Other EU Guidances EU Medical Device Regulations 32
T Is anyone working with N299.1 (Supply/service to nuclear power plants)? Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 0
M Informational EU – 12th Meeting of the Working Group on Guidelines on benefit – risk assessment of Phthalates in Medical Devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G Anyone working with or planning to do business in the CBD (cannabidiol) industry? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
M Applicability of Means of Protection, working voltage in an Automated External Defibrillator IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
Sidney Vianna ISO 9001 News Tirelessly Improving the Brand Integrity of ISO 9001 - Working Group under ISO TC 176 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 42

Similar threads

Top Bottom