Is any part of earthed (grounded) enclosure required to meet, say, 25A/0.1ohm?

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#1
Hello again,

The standard requires any part that is PROTECTIVELY EARTHED shall meet the low impedance and high current-carrying capability (e.g. 25A/ 0.1ohm). Does this mean that any part of the earthed enclosure shall fulfill such requirement?

I would think the impedance test does not apply to the part without mains voltage around, even that part is earthed.

Any comments is appreciated.

Roland
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Yes, you are correct. Only parts that can become live if BASIC insulation fails (1 MOP) require the 0.1ohm test. This can be derived from the definition of protectively earthed (2.6.7 in 2nd ed, 3.96 in the 3rd). In general, it is important to distinguish between parts which are "protectively earthed" and just "earthed".

But there is a problem.

Biomedical technicians in hospitals are often required to perform safety tests on a periodic basis, which usually include the 0.1ohm/25A test.

The technician cannot know which parts are just earthed and which parts are protectively earthed.

Therefore, it is advisable to keep "solid" external metal parts <0.1ohm even if not actually required in IEC 60601-1.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#3
Well, but if the part is accessible and not protectively earthed, remember that you still need 2 MOPs.


The technician cannot know which parts are just earthed and which parts are protectively earthed.
Unless you instruct them, which might be a good thing.
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#4
Peter, you are so experienced.

We are suffering from the situation you mentioned. The hospital technician told us that the product failed to meet the 25 A/0.1 ohm test. But the metal part being measured is far away the MAINS. Although all accessible metal parts are earthed, it is not necessary to have them protectively earthed.

The technician also argued that the internal conductors may break free at their joint and are therefore capable of touching any parts. I think the fixing of wiring has been considered in clause 8.10.

Any further comments?
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#5
Well, but if the part is accessible and not protectively earthed, remember that you still need 2 MOPs.
I think it is not true. The barrier between pri and sec is double insulation already. There is no hazardous voltage around such earthed accessible part (SELV only), why 2 MOP is needed?
 

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#6
It would not be the first time for this problem to happen (it also happens in test labs to, lab technicians burning out the 0V line of 24AWG signal circuit in parts of the equipment that don't need protective earthing).

In this case there is no easy solution. Although IEC 60601-1 is clear on this point, the biomed may be working to internal procedures that simply say to test any external metal part.

As Marcelo pointed out, if earthed parts should not be tested, it really should be in the instruction (service) manual. Formalizing this in the manual will help to take responsibility away from the biomed.

I think the comment about 2 MOP is correct. Parts which are only 1 MOP from mains parts should be earthed with 0.1ohm. Parts which are 2 MOP (or more) don't need to be earthed.

The confusing point may be that some parts are so well removed from mains that we don't think in terms of MOP anymore. But the 2 MOP are there, just back in the power supply.
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#7
I think the comment about 2 MOP is correct. Parts which are only 1 MOP from mains parts should be earthed with 0.1ohm. Parts which are 2 MOP (or more) don't need to be earthed.
The part that just earthed is connected to the part that protectively earthed. If we declare the earthed part is 2 MOP, I am sure the technician will conduct the Hi-Pot test with the value for 2 MOP. The test will definitely fail. And the technician will say the Hi-Pot test failed, not the impedance test this time.
 

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
Under 2nd ed this is covered by situation 17 g 3).

But a biomed should not be trying to re-test 601 in the hospital.

Any the 4kV test for 2 MOP should NEVER EVER EVER (EVER) (EVER) be done on a fully assembled Class I device. Even in a type test laboratory (yet everyone still does ... ).
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#9
From my side, I totally understand.

But the logic sounds strange. If you require parts which are 1 MOP from mains parts should be earthed with 0.1ohm, why do you not allow to conduct the 2 MOP Hi-Pot test for parts can not meet the 0.1ohm. The impedance test is a failure, but the Hi-Pot test is also a failure.

I mean just let's try to analyze if there is a real electric shock risk.
 

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#10
Dielectric strength is required only for solid insulation, not for the "equipment". The test must done carefully to ensure that actual safety insulation (planned point of insulation) is stressed, while at the same time other parts are not stressed.

For double/reinforced this generally requires dis-assembly of the equipment to access the actual point of insulation. For example, directly testing the transformer, or removing the power supply PCB from the frame so that only pri-sec are stressed, and not pri-earth. Any attempt to test an assembled device, especially Class I equipment, usually results in the voltage stressing the wrong areas, and can also result in the real insulation not being tested.

This requirement is specified in the standard (both editions). The 3rd edition makes it even clearer under 8.8.3 c).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Does every metallic part have to be protectively earthed (class I ME)? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
A MDR ANNEX XI part A or Part B EU Medical Device Regulations 0
J Part submission warrant for Level 1 PPAP APQP and PPAP 1
K How to handle GTINs for different configurations of one device with one part number? Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
A 60601-1 : Integrated Dry ECG Electrodes = 2 Patient connections inside 1 applied part? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
E Zero part to part variation - Gage R&R project Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 15
0 To which part of 13485 does this refer? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D Separation of F-type applied part and remaining parts IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
V Part selection for R&R studies Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
S ISO 9001:2015 vs 21 CFR Part 211 matrix Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 0
D CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 120—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 3
D Is PMCF really a continuous activity per Annex XIV,Part B? EU Medical Device Regulations 5
M 21 CFR 820 vs 21CFR820 vs 21 CFR Part 820 Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
N BF-type applied part MOPP vs secondary IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
D Relabelling a component that will be sold as a spare part - Do I become legal manufacturer? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
T Single Fault Condition IEC 60601 Clause 8.7.1 shorting Cr/Cl in Patient Applied Part IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
D Partial FAI - AS9102 - One single drawing has 10 part numbers AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
Anonymous16-2 21 CFR Part 11 - Steps to take if we want to validate an electronic system Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 2
T ISO 13485 8.3 - Non-Conforming Materials - on-line rework or part of process? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
DuncanGibbons Should the requirements FAA/EASA Part 21 be addressed within the QMS and AS9100D quality manual? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
K IEC 62304 compliance - Code reviews as part of verification strategy IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
G Gage R&R - Where am I going wrong? Part of a FAIR submission (Aerospace) Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
A 21 CFR part 11 - section 11.100 - Electronic Signature Certification Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
M AS9102B Detail Part/Assembly FAI Form 1 box 13; AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
M 2xMOPP insulation for Applied Part B. IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
A ISO 41001:2018 - Clause No.8 Operations Part Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 2
NDesouza Getting Rid of Part Marking Errors Benchmarking 40
L Wearables 21 CFR Part 11 compliance Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
DuncanGibbons How are part cut out specimens made and tested? Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
S Internal calibrations - Part of an ISO 17025 accredited testing laboratory (Automotive) ISO 17025 related Discussions 16
Ed Panek 21 CFR Part 820 - FDA Label Requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
S CQI-23 - Molding System Assessment - Control of part weight IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
DuncanGibbons Looking for example aerospace part CAD files to be used for a case study Career and Occupation Discussions 2
T Overvoltages consideration in Applied Part for RMS Calculation. IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
M Informational How to perform a clinical evaluation of medical devices – Part 2 – Level of clinical evidence and what sufficient clinical evidence means Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 9
E Part 11 Compliance, Excel living documents (i.e. document master list, equipment list, approved supplier list) Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 3
S FAIR - If we have not produced a part in over 2 years, but nothing has changed AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
P Scope of application for IEC 60601-1-11 Medical electrical equipment — Part 1-11 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
M Informational Creating a post market surveillance (PMS) system for medical devices – Part 1 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 7
Ed Panek Part 11 Self Certify Memo - What else should it cover? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 5
M Informational How to perform a clinical evaluation of medical devices – Part 1 – Overview and sample of activities Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
rezayatmand IEC 60601-2-18 Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-18: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of endoscopic equipmen IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
R Question on determining defective units - I am not recording fixture to part rejected Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
C Serialised Defective Part Replacement EU Medical Device Regulations 4
B F-type applied part - Separation from ALL(?) other parts IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 8
N Use part of high risk device for establishing low risk device EU Medical Device Regulations 0
N Can we take a part from 510k cleared medical device and use it in class I device? Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
F 21 CFR Part 11 - Implicit requirements - Validation plan for a Software as a Service Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
M Informational Some things the EU MDR 2017/745 does not tell you, but you may need to know to comply with it effectively – Part 1 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G PolyWorks Alignment Issue - How to align the part General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1

Similar threads

Top Bottom