安规网

标题: V-O与VTM-0讨论 [打印本页]
作者: gadmei    时间: 2012-10-29 15:40
标题: V-O与VTM-0讨论
Dear All：
) O! i0 [& h7 g; U8 G5 E9 qV-0和VTM-0材料除了厚度不同外，有什么区别，能否相互代替？
% {7 |( s" F) ~7 h0 P
作者: 清水白菜    时间: 2012-10-29 16:03
本帖最后由 清水白菜 于 2012-10-29 16:08 编辑
& H* O* l/ J8 y
, ~" j6 d! b+ T% E; }2 e0 h
Test Name
Test Method
UnitsTested (mm)Value
Flammability
ISO 9773, IEC 60695-11-10
Class (color)0.08VTM-2 (NC)
0.13VTM-0 (NC, BK)
0.25VTM-0 (NC, BK)
0.51VTM-0 (NC, BK)
0.63V-0 (ALL)
3.0V-0 (ALL)
Glow-Wire Flammability (GWFI)
IEC 60695-2-12
C--
Glow-Wire Ignition (GWIT)
IEC 60695-2-13
C--
IEC Comparative Tracking Index
IEC 60112
Volts (Max)--
IEC Ball Pressure
IEC 60695-10-2
C--
ISO Heat Deflection (1.80 MPa)
ISO 75-2
C--
ISO Tensile Strength
ISO 527-2
MPa--
ISO Flexural Strength
ISO 178
MPa--
ISO Tensile Impact
ISO 8256
kJ/m2--
ISO Izod Impact
ISO 180
kJ/m2--
ISO Charpy Impact
ISO 179-2
kJ/m2--
; `) [& b4 @  k6 @+ u3 G1 r
/ x' L( g  N. t6 I) ~- v; I0 ]
Test Name
Test Method
UnitsTested (mm)Value
Flammability
IEC 60695-11-10, IEC 60695-11-20
Class (color)0.75V-1 (BK)
1.5V-0 (BK)
2.5V-0, 5VA (BK)
3.0V-0, 5VA (BK
Glow-Wire Flammability (GWFI)
IEC 60695-2-12
C--
Glow-Wire Ignition (GWIT)
IEC 60695-2-13
C--
IEC Comparative Tracking Index
IEC 60112
Volts (Max)--
IEC Ball Pressure
IEC 60695-10-2
C--
ISO Heat Deflection (1.80 MPa)
ISO 75-2
C--
ISO Tensile Strength
ISO 527-2
MPa--
ISO Flexural Strength
ISO 178
MPa--
ISO Tensile Impact
ISO 8256
kJ/m2--
ISO Izod Impact
ISO 180
kJ/m2--
ISO Charpy Impact
ISO 179-2
kJ/m2--

1 F: E4 w( ?9 K4 U( a% Y
# q, N4 R# }7 W+ R" f以上可见Flammability这一项测试标准不一样，相关标准要求的厚度不一样；4 t6 M7 V" N8 o  h# y$ X2 T0 o
60950-1里有说到Flammability可以等效互换（见加粗部分）, 电气和机械强度方面要具体考虑。* Z0 B6 l2 M: U1 Q* r8 F
NOTE 1 When applying the requirements in this standard, HF-1 CLASS FOAMED MATERIAL is regarded as better than7 Y2 ~" X; N$ C- W( _' Z* P
HF-2 CLASS, and HF-2 CLASS better than HBF CLASS.
5 y' L3 C3 W; V- `* ANOTE 2 Similarly, material of 5VA CLASS is regarded as better than 5VB CLASS, 5VB CLASS better than V-0 CLASS,
/ w) ?% @" Y! X. S3 IV-0 CLASS better than V-1 CLASS, V-1 CLASS better than V-2 CLASS, V-2 CLASS better than HB40 CLASS and
& X  k; v) @* ?6 P& cHB40 CLASS better than HB75 CLASS.2 v, G7 `, t" |4 n
NOTE 3 Similarly, MATERIAL of VTM-0 CLASS is regarded as better than VTM-1 CLASS and VTM-1 CLASS better than
2 N9 _& g$ `  S4 tVTM-2 CLASS.% S  {/ a- Z- _% U( z0 |
NOTE 4 VTM-0 CLASS, VTM-1 CLASS and VTM-2 CLASS MATERIALS are considered to be equivalent to V-0 CLASS,
0 `* j+ t5 o% S% r' V- }& [V-1 CLASS and V-2 CLASS MATERIALS, respectively, but only for their flammability properties. Their electrical and
7 [0 s7 o9 E* B. T( p7 Ymechanical properties are not necessarily equivalent.
$ q5 m% U/ Q' T: b" HNOTE 5 Certain flammability classes have replaced the classes used in earlier editions of this standard. The( X6 w8 c' `% W: K2 o/ ]
equivalence of the old and the new classes is shown in Table 1B.+ C. ?0 r7 S9 Q) [# s8 @
作者: gadmei    时间: 2012-11-1 15:08
清水白菜 发表于 2012-10-29 16:03 ; b' d% u( \3 d* y/ o( {5 a
以上可见Flammability这一项测试标准不一样，相关标准要求的厚度不一样；
6 U6 j. U% P! b7 U. y& I60950-1里有说到Flammab ...
2 u% W5 G9 c# T, S
谢谢LZ，很详细



欢迎光临 安规网 (http://bbs1.angui.org/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2