Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158766
Maryam Mahmoodi, J. Bender
Navigating a Product Safety Standard- A Primer for Success.
引导产品安全标准-成功的入门。
{"title":"Navigating a Product Safety Standard- A Primer for Success","authors":"Maryam Mahmoodi, J. Bender","doi":"10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158766","url":null,"abstract":"Navigating a Product Safety Standard- A Primer for Success.","PeriodicalId":126926,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133206279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1109/ISPCE57441.2023.10158751
John Werner
Often-misunderstood tests during product safety compliance testing are prospective touch voltage, touch current, and protective conductor current. This paper details the nuances of these tests and the implementation of a custom test fixture designed for high power applications on enterprise servers and mainframes.
{"title":"Practical Implementation of a Touch Current and Prospective Touch Voltage Custom Test Fixture on Enterprise Servers and Mainframes","authors":"John Werner","doi":"10.1109/ISPCE57441.2023.10158751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISPCE57441.2023.10158751","url":null,"abstract":"Often-misunderstood tests during product safety compliance testing are prospective touch voltage, touch current, and protective conductor current. This paper details the nuances of these tests and the implementation of a custom test fixture designed for high power applications on enterprise servers and mainframes.","PeriodicalId":126926,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE)","volume":"360 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132138445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1109/ISPCE57441.2023.10158762
Hai Jiang, P. Brazis
Leakage or touch current tests for electrical shock protection is mandated by safety standards in the process of issuing a safety certification for various electrical products. UL 101, the UL Standard for Safety for Leakage Current for Utilization Equipment, specifies leakage current limits and testing requirements and procedures used in UL end-product standards. IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current, is a similar standard used by IEC and IEC-based UL end product safety standards as a reference for touch current testing. Currently, UL 101 uses Root-Mean-Square (RMS) values for the leakage current limits, but IEC 60990 uses the peak value. The ratio between peak and RMS limits is based on pure sinusoidal waveforms, and the peak value is always 1.414 times that of the RMS value. For non-sinusoidal waveforms with higher crest factors, the ratio of RMS and peak limits are no longer related by this constant factor. In some circumstances, a product can meet the RMS limit but fail according to the peak limit when the crest factor for the leakage current waveform is significantly over 1.414. Little research has been done to study which parameter is the better one in terms of defining the electrical shock sensation for non-sinusoidal waveforms. In this paper, electrical shock sensation experiments were conducted for a complex waveform composed of a combination of 60 Hz and a higher frequency sinusoidal signal. The measured RMS and peak current are compared to the 60 Hz only equivalent signal with the same sensation. The deviation percentage is calculated and compared for RMS and peak. The results from an initial and limited experimental investigation showed that peak measurements aligned with perceived sensation more closely than RMS measurements.
{"title":"Electrical Shock Stimulation for Complex Leakage Current Waveforms","authors":"Hai Jiang, P. Brazis","doi":"10.1109/ISPCE57441.2023.10158762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISPCE57441.2023.10158762","url":null,"abstract":"Leakage or touch current tests for electrical shock protection is mandated by safety standards in the process of issuing a safety certification for various electrical products. UL 101, the UL Standard for Safety for Leakage Current for Utilization Equipment, specifies leakage current limits and testing requirements and procedures used in UL end-product standards. IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current, is a similar standard used by IEC and IEC-based UL end product safety standards as a reference for touch current testing. Currently, UL 101 uses Root-Mean-Square (RMS) values for the leakage current limits, but IEC 60990 uses the peak value. The ratio between peak and RMS limits is based on pure sinusoidal waveforms, and the peak value is always 1.414 times that of the RMS value. For non-sinusoidal waveforms with higher crest factors, the ratio of RMS and peak limits are no longer related by this constant factor. In some circumstances, a product can meet the RMS limit but fail according to the peak limit when the crest factor for the leakage current waveform is significantly over 1.414. Little research has been done to study which parameter is the better one in terms of defining the electrical shock sensation for non-sinusoidal waveforms. In this paper, electrical shock sensation experiments were conducted for a complex waveform composed of a combination of 60 Hz and a higher frequency sinusoidal signal. The measured RMS and peak current are compared to the 60 Hz only equivalent signal with the same sensation. The deviation percentage is calculated and compared for RMS and peak. The results from an initial and limited experimental investigation showed that peak measurements aligned with perceived sensation more closely than RMS measurements.","PeriodicalId":126926,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE)","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115671271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158760
L. F. Bilancia
Electrical Fire Patterns in Vegetation(not just for art projects).
植被中的电火模式(不只是用于艺术项目)。
{"title":"Electrical Fire Patterns in Vegetation(not just for art projects)","authors":"L. F. Bilancia","doi":"10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158760","url":null,"abstract":"Electrical Fire Patterns in Vegetation(not just for art projects).","PeriodicalId":126926,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE)","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129384711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158755
N. Martínez
Key Leakage Current Differences between Medical Devices and Household Products.
医疗设备和家用产品的关键泄漏电流差异。
{"title":"Key Leakage Current Differences between Medical Devices and Household Products","authors":"N. Martínez","doi":"10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ispce57441.2023.10158755","url":null,"abstract":"Key Leakage Current Differences between Medical Devices and Household Products.","PeriodicalId":126926,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133840130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：