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

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#11
Yes, the standard is quite clear on this point.

The case is that one part of the upper cover failed the impedance test. But the MAINS PARTS locate inside the lower cover. Since the cover is integrative, could you tell me how to conduct the Hi-Pot test for the upper cover to avoid the high voltage to stress the protectively earthed parts (i.e. lower cover)?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Peter Selvey

Staff member
Super Moderator
#12
There should be no need to do a hi-pot test on the cover, just because it failed the 0.1 ohm test.

Did you check 17 g 3) of the 2nd edition? I think this applies to your case:

Mains -> Basic insulation -> PE part (0.1 ohm) -> E part (>0.1 ohm)

For the last part we don't care, because PE part is in between.
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#13
I absolutely agree with you. The Hi-Pot test is not necessary at all and such parts also need not to be subject to 25A test based on the engineering judgement.

17 g)3) is a good statement but has been deleted in the 3rd ED.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#14
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?
The problem is really not the hazard voltage at normal condition, but in SFC. The construction of the protection of electrical shock is clear - you need 2 MOP, one for protection under normal condition, and another, for protection at SFC (this is not really explained in 60601, you need to read for example IEC 61140). One way is Basic + protective earthing, if not that you need another way to have to MOP. But your are correct, IF there´s double insulation between primary and secondary (and not only the transformer, of all parts) this means that you will have double from the parts you mentioned.

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.
Not really on the first case. Parts with only one MOP can have another MOP (supplementary) forming parts of a double, or being protected by an earthed internal screening. However, the need for two MOP is still there.

I think the main problem is the construction of the insulation system, as created BY THE MANUFACTURER. In Brazil we have a real problem in which manufacturers do not provide insulation diagrams, so it´s really difficult to perform the correct tests without testing wrong insulation (or not testing earthed parts, in this case)


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

One way is to point out IEC 62353 as the way to perform post-market safety testing.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#15
why do you not allow to conduct the 2 MOP Hi-Pot test for parts can not meet the 0.1ohm
Parts which do not pass the 0.1ohm are not protectively earthed and cannot be counted as 1 MOP. You have to provide another way to have 2 MOPs for them, that´s what I commented earlier.

17 g)3) is a good statement but has been deleted in the 3rd ED.
Not, is was not deleted, only moved to the explanatory annex, so there would be no restriction on the ways 2 MOPs could be created (in the second edition you could only use the 5 ways). See the rationale for 8.5.1.
 

Roland chung

Trusted Information Resource
#16
Not, is was not deleted, only moved to the explanatory annex, so there would be no restriction on the ways 2 MOPs could be created (in the second edition you could only use the 5 ways). See the rationale for 8.5.1.
I am sure that 17 g)3) has been deleted in 3rd ED. Please refer to IEC/ TR 62348 and also subclause 8.5.1 in annex A.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#17
I am sure that 17 g)3) has been deleted in 3rd ED. Please refer to IEC/ TR 62348 and also subclause 8.5.1 in annex A.
Not deleted, but now there's a comment there's no recognition anymore to using the third option (3) of the second edition due to problems.

As I said before, see the rationale the rationale for 8.5.1.
 
A

Agust Sigurdsson

#18
This has turned out as a very informative thread for me regarding an issue of the PE-connections of a device which we want to power from a ready made in-line power supply which is itself PE-connected but has no provision for us to connect our device to the PE conductor.
If someone of the experienced persons who have been contributing to this thread would please take a look and comment on my thread I would be very pleased.
Unfortunately I am not allowed (yet) to post a link to my thread, but it has a reference number ...t=59815. Hope that will not be censored too :)

Thanks.

Agust
 
A

Agust Sigurdsson

#19
This has turned out as a very informative thread for me regarding an issue of the PE-connections of a device which we want to power from a ready made in-line power supply which is itself PE-connected but has no provision for us to connect our device to the PE conductor.
If someone of the experienced persons who have been contributing to this thread would please take a look and comment on my thread I would be very pleased.
Unfortunately I am not allowed (yet) to post a link to my thread, but it has a reference number ...t=59815. Hope that will not be censored too :)

Thanks.

Agust

... Sorry if I am generating too much noise, but probably I ****ed up the reference to the thread. It can for sure be found if searching for "Medical Device Protective Earth (PE) issues"

Agust
 
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