Radiated Immunity Device Test Orientations - IEC 61000-4-3

rothlis

Involved In Discussions
#1
It appears to be standard practice to test four 90° "side" device orientations during radiated immunity (61000-4-3) and then also the "top" and "bottom" if the device can be used as such. This is reflected in several guidances I've encountered, and is presumably the inference behind clause 8.2 of 61000-4-3, where it says that "all sides shall be exposed ... In other cases, as determined for example by the type and size of EUT or the frequencies of test, more than four azimuths may need to be exposed".

From an electrical perspective, it would make sense to test orientations for all six sides of a cube to ensure all possibly orthogonal fields are covered by at least a 45° angle of incidence, on the assumption that any one wire or circuit in the device could be oriented in any direction and could be vulnerable to interference. So why isn't it standard practice to test all six orientations for every device? Is it because large devices aren't easily tested in the "top" and "bottom" orientations in a typical EMC lab setup?

As I see it, to exclude the "top" and "bottom" orientations is to presume that the real-world interference is never going to originate from a vector above or below the device and, unless I'm missing something, that doesn't seem like a justifiable assumption.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

phase90

Starting to get Involved
#2
What I understand is it relates to the feasibility of testing. If the DUT is a smaller hand-held type of device that can operate in any orientation, it can be tested on all six sides. If it is a unit that cannot be tipped onto its side and operate, then four sides is all you can do. I guess until someone configures a chamber to be 10 meters high and have the antenna above the DUT, that is the reality of what can be done.
 

rothlis

Involved In Discussions
#3
What I understand is it relates to the feasibility of testing. If the DUT is a smaller hand-held type of device that can operate in any orientation, it can be tested on all six sides. If it is a unit that cannot be tipped onto its side and operate, then four sides is all you can do. I guess until someone configures a chamber to be 10 meters high and have the antenna above the DUT, that is the reality of what can be done.
Thanks for the input. That's what I suspected, but I also perceive tradition has limited testing to four sides whenever top and bottom orientations aren't obviously possible during normal operation, regardless of whether testing is feasible with the device on its side. And it seems to me that 61000-4-3 contributes to this oversight by inferring that four sides is the expected set of orientations, when really that is only appropriate to a minority of devices.
 

phase90

Starting to get Involved
#4
I just pulled up edition 3.1 of 61000-4-3. In clause 8.2, it says the "test shall normally be performed with the generating antenna facing each side of the EUT. When the equipment can be used in different orientations (i.e. vertical or horizontal) all sides shall be exposed t the field during the test. When technically justified, some EUT's can be tested by exposing fewer faces to the generating antenna. In other cases, as determined for example by the type and size of EUT or the frequencies of test, more than four azimuths may need to be exposed."

So really, they are saying if it can operate in any orientation, it needs to be tested on all side, otherwise only the four sides as that is what is feasible.

Yes, technically, floor standing equipment may be exposed from above or below out in the field, but the typical exposure will come from a source horizontal to the equipment. A EMC test house engineer kind of told me years ago that was why they only test four sides. Nowadays, I guess one would have to look at it from a risk analysis perspective to determine if other faces are needed.
 

rothlis

Involved In Discussions
#5
I read that excerpt as follows:
The "four azimuths" in the last sentence are equivalent to "each side" in the first sentence, so that "normally be performed" = left, right, front, back. The second sentence is then saying that if the device can be used without the top and bottom facing the ceiling and floor then the top and bottom also need to be exposed, and the last sentence is essentially saying the same thing in more general terms that include other conditions. So exposure of the top and bottom is treated as the exception rather than the rule.

It may be true that the majority of interference sources would come from a horizontal plane, but there is no shortage of cases where devices which have a defined upright position during use (and thus not treated as operating horizontally) would easily be exposed from the top or bottom (e.g., any pole or wall mounted device could have sources mounted above or below it, and any cart or similar device could have sources sitting directly above it).

I'm inclined to think that there is a deficiency in the language of the standard that has led to an accepted practice which doesn't align with the intent of the test. But maybe I'm over-analyzing this.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S IEC 60601-1-2 Radiated Immunity Test - Diagnostic ECG device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
D Radiated Immunity Testing as per IEC 60601-1-2 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
S IEC 60601-1-2 Radiated E-Field Emission Testing - Diagnostic ECG device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
P AIM 7351731 RFID reader immunity Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
B Evaluation of Basic Safety during EMC Immunity or Climate Testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
S IEC 60601-1-2 immunity to proximity fields Test setup - Diagnostic ECG device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
S IEC 60601-1-2 - RF Conducted Immunity Test Setup - Diagnostic ECG device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
W IEC 60601-1-2 Susceptibility/Immunity for device intended to be used in patient body IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
D IEC 60601-2-44: 202.101 Immunity Testing of Essential Performance IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
E Particular standards, essential performance in EMC Immunity Test IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
Q Can a fail still be a pass? (Criteria Level B for 61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity) IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
R Electrosurgery Immunity Testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 8
N IEC 60601-1-2 ESD: Lower Compliance Level for ESD Immunity IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
J Impact using two different materials for product enclosure in radiation and immunity IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
Y Is it weird for my conducted immunity (4-6) test result? Need help. CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
Jerome MD Directive vs EMC Directive - Totally excluded (for both emissions and immunity)? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
J Is Device Tracking Card an actual requirement under FDA regulation? Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
N Drawing tolerance vs. Measurement device General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
S Iraq Medical Device registration Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
R Medical Device Software Certification IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
D Medical Device Accessories Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
C GUDID Device record history Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
K Doubt on insulation class of a device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
F Change to Formulation due to Reach (China Medical Device Regulations) China Medical Device Regulations 0
dgrainger Informational UK guidance on Device regulation from Jan 2021 published EU Medical Device Regulations 7
dgrainger Informational UK guidance on Device regulation from Jan 2021 published Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 3
R Accelerated Aging - Creating test samples - Implantable medical device Question Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
A First CE-mark class III implantable device under MDD EU Medical Device Regulations 8
M EU MDR - Labilities when a device is discontinued from the Market EU Medical Device Regulations 1
Sravan Manchikanti How to interpret '8.3 Control of nonconforming product' for SaMD device while implementing ISO 13485 & MDSAP ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
S Work performed in Canada on US patients using US device Canada Medical Device Regulations 1
T Clinical evaluation of a new medical device EU Medical Device Regulations 0
Beliz Biocompatibility Testing for Laser Epilation Device EU Medical Device Regulations 2
A Packaging device with accessories already on the market Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
7 Iraq Medical Device Chemical Regulations Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
J UCLA extension Medical Device Engineering Program Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
Q Storing and developing SAMD (Software as a Medical Device) in the Cloud IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 2
I ISO 2233:2000 Question - Medical Device Shipping/Transportation Validation Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
A How to make sure whether the predicated device is marked with EC certificate? EU Medical Device Regulations 8
R Identify Medical Device characterstics as Annex C of ISO 14971 Risk Management ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 5
shimonv FDA News FDA guidance on Multiple Function Device Products (8/2020) Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
O ANATEL certification of Medical Device Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
B MDR equvalent device - can you use a medicine as an equivalent 'device' EU Medical Device Regulations 8
Ajit Basrur FDA News Harmonizing and Modernizing Regulation of Medical Device Quality Systems (7-2020) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
K Is UDI (Unique Device Identifier) symbol mandatory under EU MDR? EU Medical Device Regulations 1
A Legal Manufacturer Medical device US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
D Device functionality over service life - Objective evidence required? Design and Development of Products and Processes 10
F How to register class I device to all European Competent Autorities(CA) when we are European manufacturer EU Medical Device Regulations 4
K Sterile barrier system symbols - Label redlines for a Class III device (Kit Box) EU Medical Device Regulations 0
D Class 3 Device - Change of supplier of material Canada Medical Device Regulations 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom