form-agenda€¦ · web view2020. 10. 11. · for 60335-2-14, it was confirmed the stability date...

® Registered trademark of the International Electrotechnical Commission

61(2020Web/Secretariat)11October 2020

INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSIONTECHNICAL COMMITTEE NO.61: SAFETY OF HOUSEHOLD AND SIMILAR ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES

Daily Report for TC 61 Web Meetings on 13 and 15 October 2020

Attendees of TC61 Meeting Web Meetings on 13 and 15 October 2020

--------------------

Fabio GARGANTINI ITALY (CHAIR)Dejun MA CHINA (VICE CHAIR)Randi MYERS UNITED STATES (SECRETARY)Grace ROH UNITED STATES (ASSISTANT SECRETARY)

NC/ organization

Last name First name Role1 October 13 October 15

AU Booth* GeoffreyHead of Delegation

XX

AU Murdoch Adam Delegate X X

BE Meier Matthias Delegate

1 For example: Chair, Secretary, Technical Officer, Head of delegation, Delegate, Guest, Observer

®

2 61(2020Web/Secretariat)11

NC/ organization

Last name First name Role October 13 October 15

BE Vankerkhove Philippe Delegate

CA Brière David Delegate X X

CA Martin* KenHead of Delegation

X X

CN Bi Chongqiang Delegate

CN Chen Dongpo Delegate

CN Chen Cankun Delegate X X

CN Chen Jian Delegate

CN Chen Huafang Delegate X

CN Ding Xiaobo Delegate

CN Feng Caiyun Delegate

CN Feng Longbiao Delegate X

CN Gai Qigao Delegate

CN Gao Jiajia Delegate X

CN Hao Dapeng Delegate

CN Huang Wenxiu Delegate X X

CN Jian Pengfei Delegate X


NC/ organization


CN Leng Xiaozhuang Delegate

CN Li Shanshan Delegate

CN Liu Jian Delegate

CN Liu Xu Delegate

CN Liu Zhenquan Delegate

CN Mao Lili Delegate

CN Miao Shuai Delegate X X

CN Sheng Ri Delegate X X

CN Shi Yanling Delegate X X

CN Sun Guozhen Delegate

CN Wan Xuelong Delegate X

CN Wang Kun Delegate

CN Wang Jing Delegate X X

CN Wang Binhou Delegate X

CN Wu* MengHead of Delegation

X X

CN Xiong Haoping Delegate X


NC/ organization


CN Xu Yi Delegate X

CN Xu Fang Delegate X X

CN Yang Ying Delegate

CN Yang Xingguo Delegate

CN Yang Bin Delegate

CN Yuan Wangtan Delegate X X

CN Zeng Jian Delegate

CN Zhang Ge Delegate X X

CN Zheng Wenwei Delegate

CN Zhou Yanwu Delegate X

DK Amundesen Helen Delegate

DK Bruus-Jensen Jørgen Delegate X X

DK Christensen Hans Schou Observer X X

DK Dalgas-Madsen Per Delegate X X

DK Krzywkowski Anders Delegate

DK Nielsen Henning Delegate X X

DK Tychsen* Jørn Head of X X


NC/ organization


Delegation

FI Mattinen* ReijoHead of Delegation

X

FI Söderblom Kurt Delegate X

FI Vesa Juha Delegate

FR Boileau* YohannHead of Delegation

XX

FR Bottollier Stéphane Delegate X X

FR Cheynel Vincent Delegate

FR Margas Jacques Delegate

FR Thierry Julien Delegate X X

DE Baur Ralf Delegate

DE Dreyer Markus Delegate X

DE Fischer Klaus Delegate

DE Freier Heinz H. Delegate

DE Kaim Leo Delegate

DE Landgräber Josef Delegate X


NC/ organization


DE Mayle* AndreasHead of Delegation

X X

DE Perroni Dario Delegate X X

DE Pohl Klaus-Dieter Delegate X X

DE Reiter Bruno Delegate X X

DE Seiffert Edmund Delegate

GH Dowuona Moses Delegate

GH Eklemet Ebenezer Afari Delegate

IR Sharifi Hamid Delegate X X

IE Betz Martin Delegate

IT Aloisi Alberto Delegate X

IT Cecchinato* GianlucaHead of Delegation

XX

IT Maman Marco Delegate X X

IT Marino Michele Delegate

IT Orlandi Maurizio Delegate X

IT Reina Luca Delegate X X


NC/ organization


IT Sinatra Fabio Delegate

IT Stella Salvo Delegate X X

IT Togni Silvia Delegate X X

IT Vit Stefano Delegate

JP Jema Delegate

JP Abe Shuji Delegate

JP Harashima Keisuke Delegate

JP Ikeno Tomoaki Delegate X X

JP Kodama Masachika Delegate X X

JP Maekawa Yasunori Delegate X X

JP Oura Koichi Delegate

JP Sasaki Akitsugu Delegate X X

JP Sato* MasahiroHead of Delegation

X X

JP Suzuki Yusuke Delegate

JP Tanabe Masatada Delegate X X

JP Ueda Kazuhiro Delegate X X


NC/ organization


JP Ujita Ryota Delegate X

KR Choi Hyunho Delegate

KR Hong Junil Delegate

KR Kim Jihan Delegate

KR Kim Sung Kwan Delegate

KR Lee Juchan Delegate

KR Lee Kun-Mo Delegate

KR Lee Siock Delegate

KR Nam* SihyunHead of Delegation

MY Chin Hui Chia Delegate X X

MY Lu Min Linda Wong Delegate

MY Soon Ann Ng Delegate X X

MX Aquino Díaz Daniel Delegate X

MX Fabián Vázquez Juan Israel Delegate X X

MX García Cortés Mariana Delegate X X

MX Rosales Salazar* Juan Manuel Head of X X


NC/ organization


Delegation

MX Sandoval Carreño Omar Alejandro Delegate X

MX Vega Alcántara Aliscair Delegate X X

NL Van Aalderen* DinandHead of Delegation

X X

NL Van Zanten Thijs Delegate X

NZ Johns* DerekHead of Delegation

X X

NO Oynes Tor Delegate X

NO Salater Trond Delegate X

NO Ulsrud* TerjeHead of Delegation

X X

PH Desamito Oliver Delegate

PH Jornales Daniel Collin Delegate

PL Wozny* KrzysztofHead of Delegation

X X

PTMaekawa

PauloDelegate X

X

SI Atelsek Marko Delegate X X


NC/ organization


SI Kraner* DaniloHead of Delegation

X X

SI Kuzner Janez Delegate

SI Zontar Matej Delegate

ZA Kabini Vusi Delegate X

ZA Kubeka Sekwanele Delegate

ZA Mabena* Thabo IsaacHead of Delegation

X X

ES Guirado Torres* RafaelHead of Delegation

X X

ES Ondiviela Serrano Esther Delegate X X

SE Kindblad* DanielHead of Delegation

XX

SE Mattsson Leif Delegate X

SE Salomonsson Johan Delegate

CH Dietschi* FabianHead of Delegation

X X

CH Gromov Alexey Delegate

CH Pastorelli Sarah Delegate


NC/ organization


CH Roos Marcel Delegate

CH Russeau Wanessa Delegate

CH Stolz Eduard Delegate

TR Güdücü Ceren Delegate

TR Gürpınar Cansu Delegate X

TR Doğan* NilayHead of Delegation

X X

TR Ilbay Fatma Delegate X

TR Kayikci Bora Delegate

TR Koyuncu Ünsal Delegate

TR Özkırım Hilmi Gürkan Delegate X

TR Sagir Zeynep Delegate

TR Yıldırım İbrahim Oğuz Delegate X

GB Greenman Colin Delegate X X

GB Harris Richard Delegate X X

GB Jones Nicholas Delegate X X

GB Larkin Matthew Delegate


NC/ organization


GB Rustemi Irma Delegate X

GB Sellers Alan Delegate

GB Skinner* ClemHead of Delegation

X X

US Albert Larry Delegate

US Andersen* MichelleHead of Delegation

X X

US Chiang Flore Delegate X

US Cooper Randall Delegate X X

US DeSilvia Tom Delegate X

US Hon Charlie Delegate X

US Hoyer David Delegate X

US Puckett Kenneth Delegate

US Williams Matthew Delegate X X

Consumers International

Evans Chris Liaison X X

TC 72 Schwendemann Eckhard Liaison

--------------------


27. IEC 60335-2-60: Particular requirements for whirlpool baths and whirlpool spas27a. 61/5991/DC – Compilation of Comments 61/6049/INF Netherlands, NumerousThe results of discussions will be recorded in 61/6049A/INF

MB/NC Line number(e.g. 17)

Clause/ Subclause(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/

(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment

Comments Proposed change Observations of the secretariat

1 FR01 ge FRNC supports the proposal with the following comments :

Noted

2 GB01 ge The British National Committee supports this document without comment.

Noted

3 CH01 ge The CH NC regrets to reject 61/5991/DC due to the following reason(s).

See 8

4 AU01 ge Australia has already made changes to this standard to cover the risk of electric shock as described in this DC however the scope was not expanded to include swimming pools. We understand the intent is to expand the scope of the standard to pools. Australia is also currently looking into this, but more work is required to ensure it is mature enough to share. We suggest waiting until the Australian proposal is submitted to discuss further.

See 8

5 CH02 Background

ge Requirement for installations can have some differences to the requirements for products. Within the product the rules of IEC 60335 apply, the installations rules shall be applied only until the socked-outlet. The safety of “transportable whirlpool spas” is guaranteed by the special requirements adapted to the product in question, which are described in IEC 60335-2-60. The installation standards cannot be compared with a

Delete the proposal See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


product standard. Only the standard of a product can take into account its specific details and safety issues.

6 DK01 ge The “background” provided for this proposal is not fully understood. In particular it is indicated that there has been “…failure of cl. II insulation where metal parts are not connected to earth…the water was in contact with mains voltage… allowed by the standard”.However, the fact that water had reached live parts due to a failure of “cl. II insulation” suggest that a single-layer the reinforced insulation has been used. Such construction is however prohibited by the second paragraph of cl. 22.33. Therefore, it would appear that the appliances in question are not compliant with the standard.If the “cl. II insulation” consist of separate basic- and supplementary insulation or of reinforced insulation of minimum 3 separate layers as required in cl. 22.33 then water entry to live parts resulting from a failure of the “cl II insulation” appear to be preventedSimilar requirements are also provided in cl. 22.106 of 60335-2-60.Additionally, the DK NC questions the relation to IEC 60364-7-702 in connection with whirlpool spa’s.IEC 60364-7-702 cover installation requirement for swimming pools and ponds. A swimming pool is defined as a “water basin designed for swimming, diving etc”A whirlpool spa is not designed for swimming or diving and would normally not be sufficiently large for this purpose.

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


Therefor the reference to IEC 60364-7-702 should not be made and instead IEC 60364-7-701 would be sufficient to cover requirements for both whirlpool baths and spa’s(following their definitions the difference between these appliances is mainly whether or not they are being drained after each use).

7 DK02 2 1 te Adding the word “spas” as proposed does not make sense. The third paragraph specify that the standard also cover appliances for circulating air or water in conventional baths. Per definition a “spa” already include provisions for circulating air or water.A “spa” is already included in the scope and should not be added in this paragraph

Delete line 2 of the proposal See 8

8 NZ01 2 1 te The term spa has no meaning with respect IEC 60364-7-702. We presume the intention is to expand the scope of the standard to cover swimming pools that are defined in IEC 60364-7-702 as “water basin designed for purposes such as swimming, diving, etc. and not for personal cleaning activity” whereas whirlpool spas are not designed swimming or diving activities.

More details of examples of what is intended if swimming pools are added to the scope.

Regarding the question of whether whirlpool spas are covered by 60364-7-701 or 60364-7-702, during the meeting it was discussed as to whether the best approach is for IEC TC 61 to request a formal clarification from IEC TC 64 on the subject at this time or instead to form a WG or ahG to discuss the overall matter, starting with the preparation of a question to IEC TC64 and then determining the proposals that will be needed for 60335-2-60. There was support for





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


setting up an ahG to work during the course of the 2020 web meeting series to prepare the questions that would be presented from IEC TC61 to IEC TC 64 and for an overall analysis of the proposals concerning 2-60 covered by the document under discussion (61/5991/DC ) and those being prepared by AU NC (see also comment AU01 #4), and then report its recommendations to the TC on 17 November. The request to IEC TC 64 will include that a formal decision of the TC, considering the opinion of NCs in the TC, is requested and that the decision shall be clarified in an amendment to the applicable standard (7-701 or 7-702) to eliminate the uncertainties on whether 60364-7-701 or 60364-7-702 shall be applied to whirlpool SPAs.Based on the answer to be received from IEC TC 64, TC 61 will determine whether to form a WG to review the scope of 2-60 and application of the standard for different appliances and develop modifications to be covered in a new DC for 60335-2-





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


60. This will include addressing the clarification from IEC TC 64, updates needed for the proposal from NL NC and the additional proposals being developed by AU NC. The Convenor of the ahG is Adam Murdoch (AUNC). The following experts volunteered to participate on the ahG: Thijs van Zanten (NLNC), Derek Johns (NZNC), Thabo Mabena (ZANC), Danilo Kraner (SINC).Other NCs may identify additional participants for the ahG by sending an email to the TC 61 Secretary ([email protected]) by 23 October. The report from the ahG will be due by the TC 61 web meeting scheduled for 17 November 2020.As a result of the above actions, it was agreed to postpone the Stability Date for 60335-2-60 to 2022.

9 FR02 3.5.1 Note 1 te Modification: Delete the word ‘Transportable’ in Note 1 to entry.The note avoids confusion between transportable and portable.

Keep note 1 to entry See 8

10 CH03 9-16 3.5.1 ed “Transportable whirlpool spas” are a defined kind of product. Do not make confusion with the definition: “portable

Don't change clause 3.5.1 See 8

mailto:[email protected]





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


appliance”. This note 1 just clarify the fact that “transportable whirlpool spas” are not “portable appliances“;for example because they are heavier than 18 kg. To delete the word “transportable” do not make sense.

11 US01 13, 14 te The Note in 3.5.1 for Portable Appliance should not be revised. The definition as currently published suffices.

The Note clarifies that a Transportable Whirlpool Spa is not considered Portable. Removing the word “transportable” may lead to confusion, if a transportable spa then is considered portable. Also, to avoid classifying a whirlpool spa as a portable appliance, the term Portable in Part 1 already applies and is sufficient

Last, the rationale indicates that “…when full with water is more than 18kg..”. There is no requirement in Part 1 or part 2 to measure the weight with or without water.

However, if the proposed change does not occur, then this carries thru to other parts of the submitters proposal as well, which may need to be reconsidered.

Delete this part of the proposal. See 8

12 CH04 17-22 5.101 te There is no reason to reduce the severity of the requirements only because the installations rules say that. This art of product need these severity of requirements.

Don't change clause 5.101 See 8

13 NL01 19 5.101 te As a consequence of the deletion of 5.101 some requirements for portable appliances in this standard and in part 1

The following additions are necessary:

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


are not applied anymore to transportable spas while some of these however are relevant for portable spas and required by the existing part 2-60.With regard to 7.15:The easy visibility of markings for portable appliances shall also apply to transportable whirlpool spas (as is the case in the existing part 2-60)13.2:Transportable whirlpool spas are plug connected appliances just like portable appliances. Therefore there is an increased risk that these appliances are not connected to an earthed socket outlet. As a result the leakage current limits for class I portable appliances should apply for class I transportable whirlpool spas (as is the case in the existing part 2-60)16.2:Transportable whirlpool spas are plug connected appliances just like portable appliances. Therefore there is an increased risk that these appliances are not connected to an earthed socket outlet. As a result the leakage current limits for class I portable appliances do apply fro class I transportable whirlpool spas (as is the case in the existing part 2-60)

22.104:These requirements are also applicable to transportable whirlpool spas (as is the case in the existing part 2-60). Transportable whirlpool spas may be moved from time to time and they do not

7.15 Modification:For portable appliances and transportable whirlpool spas, it shall be possible to remove or open this cover without the aid of a tool.

13.2 Modification:(9th paragraph - 4th dashed item).

- for portable class I appliances and class I transportable whirlpool spas 0,75 mA

16.2 Modification:(4th paragraph -3rd dashed item).

- for portable class I appliances and class I transportable whirlpool spas 0,75 mA

22.104 Modification:In the first paragraph add the words ‘and transportable whirlpool spas’ after the word appliances.

25.19 Modification:For type X attachment, glands shall not be used as cord anchorages in portableappliances and transportable whirlpool spas.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


have a fixed location, therefore there is an increased risk of putting the appliance on a non hardened surface (e.g. lawn) where small objects may penetrate the underside.25.19:These requirements are also applicable to transportable whirlpool spas (as is the case in the existing part 2-60).

14 NZ02 19 5.101 te We do not agree with the deletion of this subclause It is important for the correct application of Part 1 particularly for the leakage current limits in Clause 13.2, 16.2 and other clauses such as 25.9, 25.21 etc. Its deletion will lead to a reduction in the level of safety for transportable whirlpool spas.

Reject the proposal. See 8

15 US02 27, 29-30

6.1 te Class II should not be removed. The proposed Note 1 is an example of a class II appliance with class III construction.

Delete lines 27 and 29-30 See 8

16 FR03 Line 28 and line 36

6.1 1st & 2nd sentence

te It is proposed to refer to IEC 60364-7-702 which allows for Class III 12Vac or 30Vdc. So these voltage levels shall be allowed by 60335-2-60

To add in line 28: “with a voltage not exceeding 12 Vac or 30Vdc”To add in line 36: “with a voltage not exceeding 12 Vac or 30Vdc”

See 8

17 US03 28, 36 6.1 te 6.1 is about the classification. The voltage limitation should be included in Clause 22 instead. This should be covered in the 22.33 Addition, similar to the requirements in 22.26 of -2-8 or 22.36 of -2-52.

Delete lines 28 and 36 and update 22.33 if needed

Parts in contact with the water shall be class III construction having a working voltage not exceeding 12 V.

See 8

18 CH05 31-37 6.1 te By changing the second paragraph, all the requirements for “transportable whirlpool spas” are overturning and they do not make sense anymore. The safety of this kind of product is no longer

Don't change the second paragraph:”Transportable whirlpool spas having metal parts in contact with water shall be class I or class III.”

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


given.

19 DK03 42-43 6.2 te It does not make sense to require a certain IP rating for the tub itself of whirlpool bath’s and spa’s. IEC 60529 which defines the IP classes and associated requirements is a standard aimed at “enclosures” and degree of protection provided by enclosures. As the tub is fully open at the top it cannot be considered as an enclosure in this context. Rather it is a water basin.

As defined in 60529 the tub can be considered as an enclosure for the parts of the appliance located beneath the tub but it is obviously understood and follows from the requirements throughout the standard that the tub is sufficiently watertight to prevent water from penetrating into area containing live parts and that electrical part of the appliance that are located in the tub are equally water tight.In this context an IPX7/X8 requirements for the tub is meaningless and will also present considerable practical problems testing appropriately.

Delete the last sentence of the proposed text in both line 42 and 43 starting with “the tub/basin…”

See 8

20 DK04 42-43 6.2 te The proposed modification sets different requirements for whirlpool baths (IPX4) and whirlpool spa’s (IPX5). The argument is that whirlpool baths could be subject to cleaning with water jets.It is not understood why this should be the case. From a general perspective whirlpool-baths and -spa’s are used and cleaned in the same way and thus same requirements should apply.

Modify the proposed text to specify same requirements for IP classification of whirlpool baths and spa’sIf necessary, add additional requirements for appliances for use outdoors

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


There may be an underlying assumption that whirlpool spa’s are only used outdoors but that is not always the case. Whirlpool spa’s may also be located and used indoors.If this is the intent behind the differentiation, then a separate requirement, specific for appliances used outdoors should be made.

21 NO01 42 6.2 te We do not understand the background for the IPX7 and IPX8 immersion-tests. What is the purpose? How to perform these tests?In addition, as IPX8 is not described in part 1, clarification of test criteria should be given.

A description of these tests are necessary.

See 8

22 DK05 44-45 6.2 te The requirements for “other appliances” in this context may be misunderstood. For clarity and to prevent misunderstanding some rephrasing is proposed.The strikethrough is following DK02

Modify the text in line 44-45 so that it reads:“Submersible appliances for use with a conventional bath or spa shall be at least IPX8. Other appliances shall be at least IPX5”

See 8

23 NZ03 42-45 6.2 te We do not understand why the “tub/basin” has to be IPX7 or IPX8. It is just the part that contains the water, it is not immersed in the water.Also why should appliances used in a conventional bath be IPX8 – we are not aware of conventional baths with a depth of 1 m or more.See swimming pool examples in the Annex.

Reject the proposal relating to IPX8. See 8

24 NO02 46-47 6.2 ed To state “at least IPX0” (lowest classification) is not necessary.

Change the text to:“Parts of appliances intended for mounting within the dwelling but outside the zones 0, 1 and 2 as specified in IEC 60364-7-701 and

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


IEC 60364-7-702 shall be at least IPX0 do not need any IP-classification”.

25 NL02 51 7.12 te The requirement in 7.12 of existing part 2-60 that for portable appliances no part of the appliance is to be located above the bath during use, should also be applicable to whirlpool spas.

Add the following to the proposal:

7.12 Modification:In the second paragraph of the addition add the words ‘or spa’ after the word ‘bath’.

See 8

26 NL03 60 13.1 te Considering the severity of electric shock at appliances under part 2-60, protective impedance and radio interference filters (such as Y-capacitors) shall not be disconnected / removed for the tests of 13.2. The leakage current shall be limited to safe values no matter if the leakage current is due to protective impedances, filter capacitors or leakage through solid insulation. After all it is the total leakage current that, when passing through the human body, causes electric shock. Therefore the total leakage current shall be measured and be below the limits given in 13.2.


13.1 Modification:Protective impedance and radio interference filters are disconnected only before carrying out the tests of 13.3.

See 8

27 NL04 60 13.2 te Leakage current from surfaces / parts that are not accessible by the user (clause 8) but that are accessible by the water (in which the user is immersed) must also be measured. This is however lacking in the current part 2-60.


13.2 In part 1 delete the 3rd paragraph and replace the 2nd paragraph by the following:

The leakage current is measured between any pole of the supply and– accessible metal parts intended to be connected to protective earth, for class l appliances;– metal foil having an area not exceeding 20 cm x 10 cm which is in contact with accessible surfaces of insulating materials and metal parts

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


not intended to be connected to protective earth, for class II appliances, class ll constructions and class III appliances. The metal foil has the largest area possible on the surface under test without exceeding the dimensions specified. If its area is smaller than the surface under test, it is moved to test all parts of the surface. The heat dissipation of the appliance is not to be affected by the metal foil;– metal foil which is in contact with surfaces of insulating materials, and unearthed metal parts, that are in contact with the water of the bath or spa in normal use, for class II appliances, class ll constructions and class III appliances. The metal foil shall have such an area that it covers the whole surface of the part in contact with the water. The heat dissipation of the appliance is not to be affected by the metal foil.

28 NL05 60 16.1 te Considering the severity of electric shock at appliances under part 2-60, protective impedance shall not be disconnected / removed for the tests of 16.2. The leakage current shall be limited to safe values no matter if the leakage current is due to protective impedances, filter capacitors or leakage through solid insulation. After all it is the total leakage current that, when passing through the human body, causes electric shock. Therefore the total leakage current shall be measured and be below the limits given in 13.2.


16.1 Modification:Protective impedance is disconnected from live parts only before carrying out the tests of 16.3.

See 8

29 NL06 60 16.2 te Leakage current from surfaces / parts that are not accessible by the user (clause 8) but that are accessible by the


16.2 Modification:

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


water (in which the user is immersed) shall also be measured. This is however lacking in the current part 2-60.

Add the following as a third dashed item to the text of the first paragraph in part 1:– metal foil which is in contact with surfaces of insulating materials, and unearthed metal parts, that are in contact with the water of the bath or spa in normal use, for class II appliances, class ll constructions and class III appliances.

30 NL07 60 16.2 te Due to the low body impedance of a person immersed in water doubling of the limit values shall not be applied.


16.2 Modification:Delete the fourth paragraph in part 1.

See 8

31 CA01 64 22.33 - te The proposal suggests to delete the second paragraph of the original addition to 22.33. The CANC does not believe that is correct as these requirements are still valid and necessary to clarify what types of circuits are allowed in accessible controls.

Replace line 64 of the proposal with the following:“Delete the first paragraph and note of the addition”.

See 8

32 CH06 64 22.33 Te By deleting the second paragraph, the severity of the requirements will be reduced. There is a lack of arguments to justify this.

Don't change the second paragraph:” Parts such as switches and controls accessible to the user in the whirlpool bath or whirlpool spa shall only be supplied at safety extra-low voltage not exceeding 12 V.”

See 8

33 NL08 64 22.33 te An error has occurred in 22.33 to delete the entire addition. The NLNC had the intent to only delete the 1st paragraph including note 101.

Replace line 64 by the following:

Delete the 1st paragraph and note 101 of the addition.

See 8

34 NL09 63-64 22.33 te The existing requirement in the 2nd paragraph of the addition in part 2-60 should be extended for electric parts that are mounted in the walls of the tub /


22.33 Replace the second paragraph of the addition by the

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


basin of whirlpools baths or spas (such as lamps) since any energized part in the tub/basin (zone 0) shall be of class III construction with a voltage not exceeding 12 V.

following:

Parts mounted in the basin or in walls of the basin, such as lamps or luminaires, and parts accessible to the user in the whirlpool bath or whirlpool spa such as switches and controls, shall only be supplied at safety extra-low voltage not exceeding 12 V.

35 DK06 64 22.33 te The second paragraph of the addition specifying that“parts such as switches and controls accessible to the user…. shall only be supplied at SELV not exceeding 12V” is still relevant and should not be deleted

Modify the proposed text to read:“Delete the first paragraph of the addition including the note”

See 8

36 FR04 22.33 All clause te It is proposed to refer to IEC 60364-7-702 which allows a contact between a part supplied at SELV and the liquid.There is no need to delete clause 22.33 from risk perspective.

Keep clause 22.33 without modification

See 8

37 NZ04 64 22.33 te We do not agree with this deletion as it would for example prevent control switches being accessible to the user while they are using the appliances. It is not in conflict with 8.1.4

Reject the proposal See 8

38 US04 61-66 22.33 te Deleting the Addition to Clause 22.33 in IEC 60335-2-60 would have unintended consequences for the pool and spa industry. In addition to whirlpool baths and whirlpool spas, this standard has been used for related products that provide health and sanitization benefits such as electrolytic chlorine generation systems which use electrolysis to

Keep the “Addition” for Clause 22.33 as currently stated in IEC 60335-2-60

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


produce chlorine from the dissolved salt in the pool water and sanitization automation systems which rely on probes immersed in the pool or spa water to measure water chemistry and make appropriate adjustments to maintain water quality.

These technologies have been used successfully for 30+ years. In the absence of any other Part 2 standard, the “addition” in Clause 22.33 in 60335-2-60 has provided a -2 means for recognizing these technologies. The parts of the product that are in contact with water are low voltage as specified in Clause 22.33 of 60335-2-60. These products incorporate appropriate methods such as double insulation, safety isolation transformer, etc. for isolating the mains from the water contact points

If the existing “addition” were to be removed, it could potentially eliminate these important technologies that provide beneficial health and sanitization to millions of swimming pools and spas worldwide.

39 DK07 69 22.106 te The proposed addition will require that metal parts in contact with the water shall be both connected to earth AND also be separated from live parts by double/reinforced insulation (for heating elements consisting of at least three layers).This is a uniquely harsh requirement the need for which is questionable. The DK NC welcome an additional discussion of this point.

Discuss the need for this requirement further.

See 8





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


40 NZ05 71 22.106 ed The word “additionally” is redundant Reject the proposal See 8

41 US05 81-82 25.1 te The wording in parenthesis should be deleted as it should be covered as a construction requirement in 22.33

Delete “(voltage shall not exceed 12 V)”

See 8

DECISION: The proposal is pending the outcome of the ahG it was agreed to form during the meeting, the answer that will eventually be formally given by IEC TC 64, and the next steps that will be determined for the DC and other proposals that are agreed upon to include in preparing a new DC. See comment 8.

NCs may identify additional participants for the ahG in addition to those mentioned under row 8, by sending an email to the TC 61 Secretary ([email protected]) by 23 October.

--------------------

27b. 61/6073/DC – Compilation of Comments 61/6112INF Australia, Requirements to address hypothermiaThe results of discussions will be recorded in 61/6112A/INF




(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


1 CH01 ge The CH NC supports this proposal with the following comment(s).

Noted

2 GB01 ge The British National Committee supports this proposal without comment.

Noted

3 ZA01 We support the document without any comment

Noted

mailto:[email protected]





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


4 CH02 3 to 6 7.12 ed Improve formulation, follow rules dealing with drafting of IEC standards and correct typo.

Replace existing text with the following:For whirlpool spas, other than those comprising a temperature control limiting the average temperature of spa-pool water to a value not exceeding 40 °C, the instructions shall contain the substance of the following:In order to avoid the possibility of hyperthermia (heat stress) occurring it is recommended that the average temperature of spa-pool water should not exceed 40 °C.

Accepted with the following modification:

For whirlpool spas, other than those comprising a temperature control limiting the average temperature of spa-pool water to a value not exceeding 40 °C, the instructions shall contain the substance of the following:In order to avoid the possibility of hyperthermia (heat stress) occurring it is recommended that the average water temperature of spa-pool water should not exceed 40 °C.

5 DK01 3-6 7.12 te The text in parenthesis in line 5-6 does not belong to the text to be included in the instruction but rather it should be part of the requirement.

Move the text in parenthesis in line 5-6 to line 3 so that it becomes a part of the requirement so that the requirement reads:

"The instructions for whirlpool spas shall contain the substance of the following.

This does not apply if the temperature control at maximum setting limits the temperature to a value not exceeding 40°C"

See 4





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


6 JP01 3-6 7.12 te We do not support the proposal that specifies the same temperature 40°C even in various cases, for the following reasons.

- The best water temperature is different for each person, depending on his/her body temperature.

- Hyperthermia sensitivity is also related to additional factors such as how long to take a bath, ambient temperature (indoor or outdoor), exposure to direct sunlight or not, as well as water temperature.

Delete the proposal. Not accepted

7 US01 4-6 7.12 te The 40°C referred to does not indicate if this is average water temp, or inlet water temp, or water temp leaving the hot tub. Assuming it is the average water temp of 40C, we have proposed slight modification.

In order to avoid the possibility of hyperthermia (heat stress) occurring it is recommended that the average temperature of spa-pool water should not exceed 40°C. (not necessary if the temperature control at maximum setting limits the average water temperature to a value not exceeding 40°C).

See 4





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


8 US02 4-6 7.12 te 60335-2-60 does not currently have a test method to measure the avg water temperature. It only has requirement to measure max inlet of 50 C (or revised to 45C). So, suggest that new test method be added to support the instruction manual revision.

11.8.X For product with a control intended to limit the water temperature to an average of 40C or lower, the heating test shall also be carried out as follows:

a. with the control set at maximum

b.water temperature at inlet to spa shall be measured.

c. water temperature at suction/return points in spa shall be measured.

d. The avg temp of (b) and (c) shall be not great than 40C.

Accepted; refer to EG1

9 CA01 8 11.8 - te It is not clear why 45C was specifically chosen as a new limit. The rationale doesn’t provide an explanation of why this change is necessary within the context of hyperthermia.

Delete line 7 and 8 of the proposal. Accepted; see also 8

10 CH03 8 11.8 ed Correct typo. Replace “Addition” with “addition”. Refer to EG1

11 JP02 8 11.8 te We do not support the proposal that decrease the water temperature limit “at the inlet”, for the following reason.

The standard does not specifies a size of bath tub. If it is of larger size, the water temperature becomes totally too low in the bath tub.

Delete the proposal. Not accepted





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


12 US03 8 11.8 te The current requirement is adequate and is consistent with the US requirements. The temperature at the inlet will be hotter to maintain the average temperature within the tub.

Instead of reducing the inlet temperature, the addition of a limit on the temperature of the water at the suction openings is suggested.

Delete lines 7-8

And modify 11.8 as follows:

If the appliance incorporates a heating element, the water temperature at the inlet of the whirlpool bath or whirlpool spa shall not exceed 50 °C and the water temperature at the suction/return point shall not exceed 43 °C.

Accepted

13 NL01 9-16 19.2 NLNC sees no rationale for the change of 19.2. How is it related to addressing hyperthermia?

Delete proposal. Not accepted

14 CH04 10, 17 19.2 ed Correct typo. Insert a colon at the end of the sentence (two times).

Refer to EG1

15 NL02 17-20 19.3 NLNC sees no rationale for the change of 19.3.What is its relation to addressing hyperthermia?


16 NL03 22-25 24.101 NLNC sees no rationale for the change of 24.101.

What is its relation to addressing hyperthermia?


17 CH05 24 24.101 ed Follow formatting rules and use already known terms.

Format “Thermal cut-outs” and “self-resetting” in bold.

Replace “Type 1E” with “type 1.E”.

Refer to EG1

18 DK02 25 24.101 te The nomenclature "type 1E" for the type of action is not correct in accordance with IEC 60730-1.

Change the nomenclature Type 1E to

"type 1.E"

Accepted


DECISION: Proceed to CDV as new edition and to be aligned with 60335-1 ED6

--------------------

35. IEC 60335-2-5: Particular requirements for dishwashers35b. 61/5992/DC – Compilation of Comments 61/6021/INFWG40, HeatersAlso taking into consideration 61(2020Web/WG40)94, 61(2020Web/ITNC)97, 61(2020Web/WG40)100 The results of discussions will be recorded in 61/6021A/INF




(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


1 CH01 ge The CH NC supports this proposal with following comment(s).

Noted

2 CI/ANEC01

ge Consumers International supports document 61/5992/DC.

Noted

3 FR01 ge FR NC supports the proposal Noted

4 GB01 ge The British National Committee supports this document without comment.

Noted

5 DE01 1 - 17 2 and 22.X

te The DE-NC does not support the proposed text based on following reasons.

Delete the proposed text. Noted

6 NL01 ge The NLNC understands the intent of the proposal but believe it needs to be improved. See following comments.

Noted

7 DE02 1 - 4 2 te The reference to IEC 61008-1 isn’t necessary based on the argument given by DE 04

Delete the proposed text. See 18

8 CH02 Between 4 and 5

22 ed The headline of Clause 22 is missing. Insert “22 Construction” before line 5.

Accepted

9 CH03 5 22.X ed Define the new subclause as addition. Replace “22.X” with “22.109”. Accepted

10 CH04 5 to 17 22.109 ed Improve formulation and/or align text Replace the current text with the Accepted in principle.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


with IEC rules. following:A class I appliance that incorporates tubular sheathed heating elements whose sheaths are in direct contact with water shall either comply with 22.109.1 or 22.109.2.22.109.1 The appliance is tested under the conditions specified in Clause 11. The middle of the heating element is connected to its sheath. This test is repeated with the polarity of the supply to the appliance reversed.The test is not carried out on appliances intended to be permanently connected to fixed wiring and on appliances where an all-pole disconnection occurs during the test of 19.4.Appliances with a neutral are tested with the neutral connected to the sheath.NOTE Samples of tubular sheathed heating elements where the internal heating wire is connected to a tap at halfway of its length and where this tap is fed through an opening in the sheath can be necessary for this test.Compliance is checked by inspection and as specified in 19.13.22.109.2 A leakage current detection device shall measure the leakage current of all heating elements at least one time per wash cycle. The trip current rating of the leakage current detection device shall not exceed 100 mA and the

Refer to EG1 for finalization considering also 60335-1 ED6.

When discussing this matter the Convenor of WG40 presented the document 61(2020Web/WG40)100 that was also commented at the meeting together with the document 61(2020Web/ITNC)97.

The contents of both documents and relevant proposals will be considered by WG40 when preparing the second DC.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


response time shall not exceed 10 s.Compliance is checked by inspection and as specified in IEC 61008-1.

11 NL02 5-7 22.x ed Editorial improvements. Replace the text in line 5-7 by the following:22.X An appliance that incorporates a tubular sheathed heating element whose sheath is in direct contact with washing water shall either pass the requirements comply with the test in (a) or employ the device 6 and detection criteria in (b):

Accepted

12 DE03 8 - 12 22.X te Based on impossible practically issues to connect the middle of tubular sheathed heating elements to be operated with washing water the DE-NC don’t support this proposed test/text.

Delete the proposed text. Not accepted, see 13

13 DK01 9 22.X te The proposed approach of connecting the middle of the heating element to the sheath is physically not possible. There is no practical way to make this connection internally in the heating element.

The only solution seems to have a dedicated heating element with this connection applied internally delivered from the heating elements manufacturer. This does not appear to be a practical solution.Instead of this a solution may be to provide requirement for addition thermal protection appropriately sized and located so that it would respond to the increased power density.

Delete option a) of the proposal Not accepted, but WG40 will during preparation of the 2DC consider the introduction of specific guidance to be given in the test conditions on how to connect the middle of the heating element to the sheet and eventually to evaluate the possibility to propose verification by theory as an alternate solution.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


14 IT01 8-10 22.X ge The Italian NC does not support the proposal as the requirement of paragraph a) is not clear.

See 13

15 NL03 8-11 22.x te The NLNC does not understand how the test of 22.x is technically carried out. How is a connection being made between the middle of the heating element and the sheet. Open. . If not accepted consider NL03

Delete option a) in the proposal Not accepted; see 13

16 NL04 8-11 22.x ed The writing in this new clause is a bit confusing.Furthermore the text shall be italic as it concerns a test specification.

Replace by the following:

a) The heating element is evaluated by repeating the test of 19.5, but instead the middle of the element is connected to the sheath of the heating element.

This test is repeated with the polarity of the supply to the appliance reversed.

Accepted in principle; WG40 will finalize the text in the 2DC to be prepared.

17 NZ01 8 - 12 22.X (a) te It would be better to include this test in 19.5 as an addition so that the changes to 19.5 in Ed 6 of Part 1 are considered. Alternatively, rewrite the text so that reference to 19.5 is not needed.

Include the test as an addition to 19.5 or rewrite the text so that reference to 19.5 is not needed.

Accepted in principle; WG40 will finalize the text in the 2DC to be prepared.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


18 AU01 13-17 22.X (b) te Option A provides a far greater safety outcome.

We assume the device in option “B” would have to comply with Clause 19.11 as a safety-critical device including software assessment if relevant.

10 seconds is too long, where did this value come from?

Delete option B WG40 to consider the comments received when developing the 2DC. In particular this applies for the need for a clear approach to consider the device under the same testing conditions as a PEC and the overall comments relating to the improvement of the requirements for option B as traced in comments in rows from 19 to 24.

19 CA01 13-17 22.X - te The text is lacking the intended function of the leakage current device.

Specify a requirement for what the leakage current device is required to do (e.g. disconnect heating element) and for how long (e.g. permanently).

See 18

20 DE04 13 -17 22.X te Based on the feedback from ACOS given at the IEC/TC 61 meeting in Kista / June 2014 RCD’s cannot alone provide an “enhanced” protection

The relevant text should be updated covering the aspect of single fault conditions in the RCD. To be in line with the PEC requirements in the 60335 series.

See 18

21 DK02 13-15 22.X te The proposal does not specify which reactions that should occur in case of a detected high leakage current.Assumingly the intent is to disconnect the heating element or the entire dishwasher from the supply?

This comment is similar to DK-03 to document 61/5777/DC

Modify the requirement to include the associated reaction to the detected high leakage current.

See 18





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


22 NZ02 13-15 22.X (b) te We presume that the words “trip current rating” are intended to mean the “rated residual operating current” commonly indicated IΔn

We presume it is intended that IΔn shall not be greater than 100 mA and that the operating time at rated residual current shall not exceed 10 s

Replace the last sentence by:The rated residual operating current (IΔn) of the device shall not exceed 100 mA the operating time at rated residual current shall not exceed 10 s.

See 18

23 NL05 16-17 22.x te The test specification is not clear. Replace as follows:The residual current protection device shall comply with IEC 61008-1.The requirements are checked by inspection.

See 18WG40 to evaluate which specific parts of IEC 61008-1 shall be applied for this test.

24 NZ03 16-17 22.X (b) te We are not sure what is intended but we assume that a test is to be carried out by passing IΔn through the circuit to ensure the operating time does not exceed 10 s.If our assumption is correct, we don’t understand why reference needs to be made to IEC 61008-1.

Please provide details of the test to be carried out and explain the need to make reference to IEC 61008-1

See 18It is considered that per IEC 61008-1 the operating time is much less than 10 s, and this shall be reflected in the proposal.

25 US01 22.X te Has WG40 considered the update to 19.5 in the 6th Edition? The test of 19.5 is not conducted on appliances intended to be permanently connected to the fixed wiring, when all pole disconnection occurs in 19.4 or in appliances with polarized plugs intended for use in polarized systems. Will the test of 22.X be applicable for these appliances? In either case, this should be clarified.

Clarify whether the test of 22.X is applicable for appliances that are not required to be tested per 19.5.

Accepted; WG40 to clarify in the 2DC to be developed.

DECISION: WG 40 to prepare a 2DC considering the comments in the compilation and the contribution from ITNC in 61(2020Web/ITNC)97

--------------------


35c. 61/5994/DC – Compilation of Comments 61/6022/INF WG40, Soldered ConnectionsAlso taking into consideration 61(2020Web/WG40)95 The results of discussions will be recorded in 61/6022A/INF




(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


1 IT01 ge The Italian NC supports in principle the document, but the following comments are to be considered.

Noted

2 NL01 ge The NLNC is in favour of the proposal, however believe the text requires several improvements. See following comments

Noted

3 IEC TC 72-1

ge We do not agree with the proposal due to the following:The stress of a soldering point on a PCB due to not respecting the technical characteristic (gas transition) of the PCB material was evaluated by the WG 40 and presented in Bled as document “56 - Presentation-Soldered_Connections_ Proposal-IEC_TC61_WG40-Bled_7_June_2019 V2”. The TG is shown was one of the key parameter of the PCB material which shall not be exceeded.Unfortunately the DC does not offer the solution which is done in millions of successful designs which respect the TG

and use a margin of several x K.The limited proposed measures would lead to non-compliance due to the fact that “state of the art” solution with respecting TG is not part of the DC.We highly ask IEC TC 61 not to accept the DC to avoid major deviations in the design requirements of PCBs not only to

The DC should be amended by adding the following additional method:Add requirements and tests that leads to compliance if the PCB design is made complying with the selected TG of the PCB material so that the measured soldering point temperature (current is exceeded by one time e.g. 10 %) + x < TG.The margin X should be specified in the standard.

Noted. A TC 72 representative is invited to join WG 40 to better specify the requirements behind the comment.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


IEC TC 72 but to all other IEC TCs providing safety product standards.IEC TC 72 is offering to participate in the WG 40 and share our opinion and knowledge to reach a common set of enhanced requirements for the PCB design.

4 IEC TC 72-2

te Do not support the document as written due to the lack of technical information and adequate measures to prevent a hazard. Comments noted below:

1. In the rationale statement, it is said that temperature changes during operation may affect the integrity of soldered connections. This is true but the test in 22.X.3 does not simulate this cause. A test similar to H.17 of IEC 60730 may be considered with modification. The thermal cycling test not only tests the components but also the connections of these components on PWB especially the SMD types.

2. The primary ingredients to a fire are heat, fuel and combustible material. In this case, we have enough fuel; however, to sustain the flame, we need heat and combustible material. Heat is generated by the loose connection of the solder pad and combustible material is the PWB. The base material of PWBs is subjected to the Needle flame test of Clause 30.2.4 so there is no

Consider implementing:1. The thermal cycling test of

H.17 for electronic controls in appliances and implementing construction requirement as indicated in IEC TC 72-01 above ie, Temperature limits for PWB using the criteria of TG,.

2. Consider thermal shock as a possible alternate test.

The test method in 22.x.3 does not ensure continued compliance with the requirement and avoidance of the hazard since this fault condition is influenced by manufacturing and application defects. Implementation of a verification scheme to ensure continued compliance with the requirement should be considered if 22.x.3 is considered as a suitable measure of avoidance.

Noted. See also 3.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


reason why we should again subject the PWB to the test of 22.x.2

If implemented correctly following hazard-based principles (ie, determining the heat source due to a weak component), the component fault tests of 19.11.2 should adequately evaluate the robustness of solder joint connections and address this situation.

5 AU01 ge We can accept the proposal but note that it needs substantial editing to make it suitable for inclusion in the standard.

We see no need to include figures the text needs to be written clearly so as to exclude the need for the Figures

Refer the next draft to EG1 to prepare.

Accepted, considering that the document will be sent back to WG40 to prepare a 3DC.

6 CH01 ge Due to the following reason(s) the CH NC regrets to reject this proposal as it is written. After circulation of (a) revised proposal(s) the CH NC is willing to judge again and support it(them), as long as all relevant aspects are covered.

Delete proposal as written and circulate a(several) 3DC(s) considering all addressed aspects.

Not accepted.

7 CH02 te The observations of the Secretariat described in 61/5908A/INF and all relevant IEC rules (like formulation, formatting and numbering) have not been considered completely in this 2DC.

WG40 is invited to draft a 3DC. Noted. WG40 will prepare a 3DC including all accepted comments on the previous DC and applying the IEC style guide. EG1 will review the document when it reaches the CDV stage.

8 DE01 ge The DE-NC does not support the proposal in its present version. The text should be updated from WG 40 according the following comments.

Noted

9 DK01 ge The rationale indicates that root cause analysis has determined that

Please refer to green document 61(Bled/WG40)56 –





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


dishwashers in which a “hazardous event” had developed were compliant with IEC 60335-2-5. Is there any type of evidence available to support this claim?

Presentation – Soldered Connections Proposal presented at the Bled meeting in June 2019.

Also, see WG40 report 61(Wellington/WG40)51.

10 DK02 ge As a simplified approach instead of the proposed text the DK NC proposes to consider implementing a requirement for a minimum physical distance between relevant PCB’s and the thermal- and sound deadening materials.Alternatively we propose to delete the exemption of soldered connections as “connections” in cl. 30.2 of IEC 60335-1.In this way relevant soldered connection should be considered as “connections” in the context of cl. 30.2 and therefor the surrounding insulation materials shall comply with the glow wire tests and/or other applicable requirements through cl. 30.2 This should also ensure adequate prevention of ignition and fire spread.

Noted.

The failure from overheated solder connections can impact much more than sound insulation but also other material in the vicinity.

In Shanghai, it was clarified that clause 30.2 in Part 1 is not enough to prevent the fire spread in the case of overheated solder connections resulting in a propagating arc fault.

11 NZ01 ge We can accept the proposal but note that it needs substantial editing to make it suitable for inclusion in the standard.

We see no need to include figures the text needs to be written clearly so as to exclude the need for the Figures

Refer the next draft to EG1 to prepare.

See 7

12 SE01 20.x ed We support the document in principle, but clause 20.x and 22.x.1 are very difficult to read with many dotted paragraphs.

We propose to divide the text to sub-clauses or a), b), c)……

Accepted, see also 7

13 NL02 4 22.x ed For readability use the wording normally used for this situation:

Modify line 4 as follows: Accepted





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


“The requirements do not apply to……” The requirements do not apply to:

14 US01 4 22.X te Dishwashers are not considered attended appliances, so this criteria should be deleted.

– soldered connections in attended appliances

Noted. WG40 will review the requirement according to clause 30.2 of 60335-2-5 Edition 6.1 to state that the exemption is for appliances incorporating no programmer and no timer.

15 JP01 4-10 22.x te JPNC understands the purpose of the proposal but submits the following comments.

Solder does not deteriorate due to moisture, and we consider that the fire from appliances is more likely to be caused by tracking due to dust or moisture rather than solder cracks. Therefore, we still believe that there is no need to regulate soldered connections themselves.

However, if soldered connections themselves are regulated, additional constructions that protect solder from duct and moisture should be exempted.(These constructions are effective to prevent tracking as well as solder cracks.) For example- Solder connections in areas where

components and printed circuit boards are covered with silicon-coating, potting, or moulding

Add the following dashes after Line 10.- Soldered connections in areas

where components and printed circuit boards are covered with silicon- coating, potting, or moulding

Soldered connections in areas where Pollution degree 1 is applicable.

Not accepted. A heat induced arcing event due to poor soldering connections can happen also under potting, and the potting then can become additional combustion material.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


- Soldered connections in areas where Pollution degree 1 is applicable

16 GB01 5 22.x ge The British National Committee supports this document but notes that line 5 gives an exception for attended appliances:“soldered connections in attended appliances” This term is not well understood. Additionally, with the pressures of modern life, consumer dishwashers will generally be used unattended.

Delete this exception or significantly limit its application.

See 14

17 IT14 7-95 22.x.1 te It is not clear the rationale for more restrictive requirements for the opening in the bottom compared with what defined for the openings in the top or sides of the barrier.In case the requirement is not fulfilled consider the use of barrier and adopt the flame cylinder criteria as considered for the top and side openings.

Clarify the rationale. The rationale to be provided in the 3DC from WG40 will include that bottom openings must be considered to assure capturing any dripping material.

18 IT02 7-8 te The clarification of the meaning of the total circuit load is needed. Should it be considered each circuit that carry out the specific load or the total circuit of the PCB board have to be referred to 60W?

Clarify the meaning of the total circuit load.

Accepted. It will be clarified that each circuit can carry the specific load.

19 IT03 8 22.x ed There is no note 1 in the clause, so the text “(see NOTE 1)” should be removed.

Remove: (see NOTE 1) Accepted

20 NL03 8 22.x ed NOTE 1 has been deleted as agreed in 61/5908A/INF (NL05), however the reference to NOTE 1 has not been deleted.

Delete reference to NOTE 1. See 19

21 NL04 12 22.x ed Illustration are not normative parts of the standard. Move the illustration to the figures section of the standard. And use a note to refer to the figure

Modify line 12 as follows:

NOTE 101 The procedure for assessing connections and rules of exemptions is given in figure 103.

Accepted





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


22 DK03 13 22.x ed Figures should not be located as part of the requirement but instead be located at the end of the standard just before the annexes

Move the proposed figure (fig 14) to the end of the standard, before the annexes

See 21

23 IT04 14 22.x Figure 14 ed The box related to the soldered connections in low power circuits should mention the clause 19.11.1, which gives its definition.

Add: … in low power circuits according 19.11.1.

Accepted

24 NL05 18-25 22.x ed From the text it is not clear which requirements are mandatory.

Modify lines 18-25 as follows:

Compliance with this clause is checked by inspection and the test of:

- clause 22.x.1, 22.x.2 for measures to prevent hazardous events in case of serious damages to soldered connections on printed circuit boards by degradational overheating; or

clause 22.x.3 for a measure to protect soldered connections on printed circuit boards against degradational overheating

Accepted

25 DE02 26 - 96 22.x.1 te In general safety aspects shall be covered by relevant test conditions and not by a sealing-off where dangerous component is enclosed by a housing.

Delete clause 22.x.1 Not accepted. Containment through a defined enclosure is an acceptable strategy.

26 IT05 30 22.x.1 ed The word “is” is missing. Add “is” after “Compliance”:Compliance is checked by inspection.

Accepted

27 IT06 31 22.x.1 te The term “barrier” is used, but it is not clear its definition.As it may be extended to components or part of construction it should be defined

Clarify definition of the term “barrier”. See 28





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


(a connector inserted in a gap is a barrier?).

28 NL06 31 22.x ed NL07 in 61/5908A/INF was accepted however not applied in this proposal.Further the text in line 31 should not be bulleted or dashed.

Replace line 31 by the following:Openings (if any) in the part that encloses the soldered connection shall comply with the following:

Accepted

29 US02 31 22.X.1 te Explain the barrier that is mentioned in this clause. There is no mention of a barrier prior to this proposed requirement.

Non-metallic parts that are used as a barrier to fill filling an opening shall comprise material classified as V-1 according IEC 60695-11-10 provided that the test sample used for the classification was no thicker than the relevant part filling the opening OR the insertion of wiring that meets ISO 6722-1 clause 5.22 to close an opening.

Accepted with the following modification:

Non-metallic parts that are used to fill filling an opening shall comprise material classified as V-1 according IEC 60695-11-10 provided that the test sample used for the classification was no thicker than the relevant part filling the opening or the insertion of wiring that meets ISO 6722-1 clause 5.22 to close an opening. Wiring leaving the enclosure shall comply with clause 5.22 of ISO 6722-1.

30 DK04 31-95 22.x.1 te The DK NC agree with the proposed requirement in 22.x.1 (line 26-29)However, the additional specification for evaluation of any openings in the “flame barrier” is excessively overcomplicated beyond what seems reasonable (line 31-95)Additionally, both the phrasing of it and the editorial layout is very difficult to read and understand to the extent that it will prevent

Modify the text and requirement to be more simplified and more easily understood.

Accepted, see also 7. It was noted that openings need to be defined to assure containment.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


31 US03 32 22.x.1 te If the polymeric enclosure of the soldered connection is required to be 5VA, rationale is needed why the barrier to an opening can be rated V1.

Noted. V-1 is a typical connector material. The proposal text recognizes that openings in an enclosure are needed for wire access and a V-1 connector will not lead to flame propagation because it does not allow dripping plastic if the flame hits it. The enclosure is rated higher because it is providing protection during an arcing event. With reference to comments made by the IRNC during the meeting, consideration should be given for barriers made by meshes or metallic material, with reference to the size of the mesh and the thickness of the material, based on a proposal to be put forward by the IRNC.

32 IT07 34 22.x.1 ed The standard ISO 6722-1 shall be included in Clause 2 “Normative references”.

Add standard ISO 6722-1 in Clause 2.

Accepted

33 NL07 32-35 22.x te NL08 in 61/5908A/INF was accepted with modification however not correctly applied in this proposal.Further we believe this requirement is a first requirements part of a list (dashed items of requirements) and therefore the text should be dashed.

Replace by: Non-metallic parts filling an opening shall comprise material classified as V-1 according IEC 60695-11-10 provided that the test sample used for the classification was no thicker than the relevant part filling the opening. Wiring leaving the enclosure shall comply with clause 5.22 of ISO 6722.

See 29





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


34 NL08 36-37 22.x te The dimensions are still not clearly specified. E.g. does the 3 mm apply in any direction or only one direction? Further it is recognized that openings of 1 mm regardless of length (IEC 62368-1) are also considered openings that cannot cause fire spread. See also NL09 in 61/5908A/INF which in principle was accepted.

Replace by: o Top or side opening shall not

exceed 3 mm in any dimension or 1 mm regardless of length.

Accepted with the following wording:

Top or side openings shall not exceed 3 mm (remaining after the insertion) regardless of length.

35 IT08 36-49 22.x.1 ed Based on the content of the paragraph all the bullet points should be reviewed.Indentation level is non consistent with the content of the paragraphs.

o Modify “Openings on the top or sides having a gap of not more than 3 mm (remaining after 37 the insertion).” to “Openings on the top or sides(remaining after the insertion).”

See 34

36 US04 36 – 49 22.X.1 te These proposed requirements are unclear.

o For o penings on the top or sides of the enclosure having a gap of not more than 3 mm (remaining after the insertion).

The d istance between the openings shall be is 10 mm or greater.

o For openings with a gap larger than 3 mm or distances between the openings less than 10 mm, apply the 20 mm by 50 mm cylinder vertically at the opening on the barrier surface. (see Figure 15).

No material rated less than V1 according IEC 60695-11-10 should be in that flame cylinder or a barrier of metal, ceramic or plastic classified 5VA according

Accepted considering also 34.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


IEC 60695-11-20 is needed between the opening and the v1 material that is in the cylinder.

If wiring is present in the flame cylinder that is above an opening in the barrier and the orientation is more than 30 degrees from the horizontal then the wire must meet ISO 6722-1:2011 clause 5.22 using a Bunsen burner according IEC 60695-11-3).

37 NL09 38 22.x ed The distance is not clearly specified. E.g. does the 10 mm apply in any direction or only one direction?

Plus editorial improvement.

Replace by:The distance between any openings shall be at least 10 mm in any direction.

Accepted

38 NL10 39-41 22.x ed This text should not be provided with bullets or dashes as it is not part of the bullets / dashes above.

Remove bullet. Accepted, see also 7

39 NL11 39-49 22.x ed The used bullets are not appropriate.The use of the word ‘should’ provides uncertainty for determining compliance: it this requirement mandatory or not?And the text need editorial improvements.

Replace by:

For openings with a gap larger than 3 mm or distances between the openings less than 10 mm, the following applies:

- No non-metallic part comprising material classified as V1 or less according IEC 60695-11-10, shall be located in a cylinder of 20 mm by 50 mm placed above the opening, unless it is shielded by a barrier made of metal, ceramic or non-metallic material classified as 5VA according IEC

Accepted, see also 7





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


60695-11-20.Wiring having an orientation of more than 30 degrees from the horizontal and that is located in a cylinder of 20 mm by 50 mm placed above the opening shall comply with clause 5.22 of ISO 6722-1:2011 using a Bunsen burner according IEC 60695-11-3.

40 IT09 42 22.x.1 ed V1 has to be corrected in V-1 according to IEC 60695-11-10.

Correct “V1” with “V-1”. Accepted

41 CN01 42-45 22.X.1 8 te “Plastic” in the original text seems to narrow down the material selection. We propose to use “or other non-metallic materials” to be more accurate.

Original TextNo material rated less than V1 according IEC 60695-11-10 should be in that flame cylinder or a barrier of metal, ceramic or plastic classified 5VA according IEC 60695-11-20 is needed between the opening and the v1 material that is in the cylinder.Change to: No material rated less than V1 according IEC 60695-11-10 should be in that flame cylinder or a barrier of metal, ceramic or other non-metallic materials classified 5VA according IEC 60695-11-20 is needed between the opening and the v1 material that is in the cylinder.

Accepted

42 IT10 43 22.x.1 te The term “barrier” is used, but it is not clear its definition.As it may be extended to components or part of construction it should be defined (a connector inserted in a gap is a barrier?).

Clarify definition of the term “barrier”. Noted; it will be clarified by WG 40 in the 3DC.

43 IT11 42-45 22.x.1 ed The sentence is not correctly formulated, as at the beginning it is mentioned that the V-1 material can be

Correct the sentence. Accepted. The V-1 will be removed at the end of the sentence ……”placed





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


present in the flame cylinder, but at the end it is stated that a specific barrier has to be placed between the opening and the V-1 material.

between the opening and the V-1 material.”

44 DK05 54 22.x.1 ed Figures should not be located as part of the requirement but instead be located at the end of the standard just before the annexes

Move the proposed figure (figure 15) to the end of the standard, before the annexes

See 21

45 NL12 54-58 22.x.1 ed It is unclear what is figure 15 and what is figure 16?

Split the requirements from the figures by moving the figures to the figures section.

See 21

46 IT12 56-57 22.x.1 Figure 15 te It is not clear which is an equivalent test method of ISO 6722-1:2011. If exists a test method in household environment, it should be indicated in all the related parts of the document for this test.

Clarify equivalent test method of ISO 6722-1:2011.

Noted. The reference to “or equivalent” in Figure 15 will be removed in the 3DC.

47 IT13 60-77 22.x.1 ed The bullets should be aligned in order to identify the three type of openings : top, bottom and around the wires

Aligned the bullets. See 12

48 NL13 60-77 22.x.1 te This test is not adding value as the requirements are clear in the (modified, see NL06 to NL11) text of lines 31-49.

Delete lines 60-77. Not accepted. WG40 considers the text needed to describe the enclosure and permissible gaps to assure containment.

49 NL14 79-93 22.x.1 te/ed The text needs several improvements. Replace by:- Bottom openings shall not

exceed the following dimensions:

o Openings within the vertical projection area of the component (see Fig 16) shall be no larger than 1 mm width

Accepted





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


regardless of length or 3 mm in any direction. The distance between any openings shall be at least 10 mm in any direction

Openings outside the vertical projection area of the component shall be no larger than 3 mm width regardless of length or 6 mm in any direction. The distance between any openings shall be at least 10 mm in any direction

50 DE03 97 - 100

22.x.2 te Does such a design exist?If not, please delete

To be evaluated WG 40 is asked to verify the feasibility of the requirements and whether specific compliance criteria can be developed to ensure repeatability and reproducibility of the test. If not, the requirement should be removed. WG40 is invited to make it clear in the third DC that 22.x.1, 22.x.2 and 22.x.3 are proposed alternative solutions.

51 IT15 98-100 22.x.2 te We believe that it is better not to define the specific material (ceramic or glass) as a compliance criteria.The requirement shall refer to a standardized test method, which evaluates the robustness of the material against the criteria, which give the compliance of the material.

See 50

52 IT16 99 22x.2 ed The word “is” is missing. Add “is” after “Compliance”, so to read:

Accepted





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


‘Compliance is checked by inspection’.

53 DE04 102 -133

22.x.3 te The general aim of test specification shall be keeping a balance between the effort for testing the appliance and the achievement for ensuring a safe product.The proposed design requirement and relevant tests contain too much effort, which will not ensure a safe appliance during its live time.

Replace the proposed text or add in a new subclause the test conditions according clause 11 requesting a measuring at any relevant soldering point.To ensure a safe design the limits of each soldering point shall be the relevant Tg reduced by 15K.

Not accepted.

54 DE05 102 -133

22.x.3 te It’s missing that no test method is mentioned concerning the glass transition temperature Tg.

Add:Tg is defined in ISO 11357-2 with its DSC test method.

Remark: A relevant reference should be added in clause 3 of the IEC 60335-2-5.

Accepted, and also introduce reference to ISO 11357-2 in clause 2.

Remark – Not accepted; no definition is needed for Tg.

55 US05 103 – 124

22.X.3 N/A te This may be a very difficult test to conduct when you consider the following: The tester will need to measure the nominal current flowing through the connection and then isolate the connection in order to overload the soldering point. Difficulty will begin when multi-layer boards or SMD (surface mounted devices) that are in line with the circuit under test, are used in the appliance design.

Noted

56 IT17 112-113

22.x.3 te It is not clear whether the soldered connection is loaded suppling the load in the appliance to which it is linked, or if an external defined load has to be applied. In this last case, both a load system and a test method, which considers both passive and active loads, should be defined.

To be clarified. Accepted; to be clarified by WG40.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


57 US06 112 – 114

22.X.3 N/A te Clarifications are needed. The nominal test current should be specified.

After the relevant soldered connection has reached thermal equilibrium it is loaded with a nominal current of XX amps, and operated until steady conditions are established. The temperatures are measured according to the requirements of clause 11.

See 56

58 IT18 117-120

22.x.3 te It is not identified the method for the measurement of the temperature rise. It is dangerous to use thermocouple in contact with live parts.

Identify the method for the measurement of the temperature rise.

Noted. WG40 will consider possible options such as using a thermal camera or extra care when the thermocouples are applied. WG40 will also consider the use of a soldering iron to artificially raise the soldered connection temperature to show that the protective measure operates.

59 IT19 117-120

22.x.3 te There is no indication of the test method with which the glass transition temperature Tg of a material is defined.Tg is referred to the row material of the laminate or the processed PCB?

To be clarified. See 54

60 US07 117 – 120

22.X.3 N/A te The proposal should include information on where to find the glass transition temperature of the material(s) being tested.

Accepted; see also 54

61 US08 121 – 123

22.X.3 N/A te What if an electronic device does not open while the load is increasing? Should a maximum load be specified?

The load is increased so that the current through the soldered connection is raised by 10% and kept until steady conditions (e.g. when temperatures are stabilized) are reached. This sequence is repeated until any electronic circuit or protective device operates…

Accepted.





(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment


If an electronic device or protective device does not operate, then…

DECISION: WG 40 to prepare a 3DC considering the comments in the compilation

--------------------

66. Review of stability dates – [61(2020Web/Secretariat)06]61/6061/Q – Compilation of Comments 61/6092/RQThe stability dates in 61(2020Web/Secretariat)06 V1 were confirmed. However, concerning the alignment of the Part 2 standards with 60335-1 ED6 there are two options:

1) For those standards mentioned in 61/6092/RQ following the newly established stability date, the next stability date cycle to follow would be 2 years (rather than the usual 3 years).

2) Evaluate all Part 2 standards under TC 61 in terms of how to align with 60335-1 ED6 and modify stability dates accordingly.

The above will be discussed at the end of the meeting under Any other business when the overall situation concerning the alignment of Parts 2 to 60335-1 6th Edition will be clear resulting from the discussion at the web meetings and the stability dates will be confirmed accordingly (see also 70a).

In addition, during the 15 October 2020 web series meeting the following stability dates also noted in 61/6092/RQ were confirmed:

For 60335-2-14, it was confirmed the stability date is extended to 2023For 60335-2-16, 60335-2-65 and 60335-2-98, it was confirmed the stability dates are extended to 2022

--------------------

END OF DISCUSSION FOR 13 and 15 OCTOBER 2020

form-agenda€¦ · web view2020. 10. 11. · for 60335-2-14, it was confirmed the stability date...

Documents