|
| DSH 588
" y( n! a9 i5 [4 m2 }4 ~; e+ n B! T1 L
| Verification of main contact position, position of the handle; u1 p/ w$ ^4 l& M+ m
| 8.2.5.3.2 of IEC60947-1 and 8.3.3.9 of IEC60947-2: N8 N1 n" S" U3 y4 y7 r+ e
| 60947-1(ed.1);am1 & 60947-1(ed.2) & 60947-1(ed.2);am1;am2 & 60947-1(ed.3) & 60947-1(ed.3);am1;am2 & 60947-1(ed.3);am2 & 60947-1(ed.4) & 60947-1(ed.5) & 60947-1(ed.5);am1 & 60947-2(ed.1);am1 & 60947-2(ed.2) & 60947-2(ed.2);am1;am2 & 60947-2(ed.3), r# S: o8 M" Z$ _
|
& [6 y/ f) L, Q H0 j5 [Standard(s): IEC60947-1, IEC60947-
* p0 M# p# r) r, y2, IEC60947-3
) ?% s0 t$ y/ o$ |+ {7 z" fSub clause(s):
4 k. J9 u1 R# n' C8.2.5.3.2 of IEC60947-1 and
8 _4 E9 [2 |# ^8 B9 ^. c5 B, H8.3.3.9 of IEC60947-2
+ {" | K2 g, wSheet No.. F( A, g+ M$ @8 h8 y" l! Z0 i+ F
DSH 588
4 j& H$ N8 Z' RSubject:
0 Z; J) L7 j- _/ _ QVerification of main contact
1 I9 D- X% K/ }4 Y+ p' X2 s1 Uposition, position of the handle
5 v: {9 m @# s- W8 n: R \" ?4 X$ \Key words:
5 \8 T0 `+ \" g9 P$ L1 M: b9 v& F- suitable for isolation
) z) e" W& e4 a- indication of contact
3 Y; j: u' P& @3 I5 ^3 kposition4 ]+ o1 u7 g7 W4 B/ }: x
Decision approved
2 l- w) {4 v, m$ B2 J4 V8 J- ?during the CTL Plenary% a4 ?2 w% {4 L- M2 L+ K! K
Meeting 2006* c6 {4 E! [" c* u0 k$ I
Question:
8 X; L, R0 D; U4 g9 wVerification of the main contact position is conducted only on products suitable for isolation. This is an! @: ?/ ?+ |; K+ a# M9 l& A9 m0 S
additional requirement to be verified. With respect to this test, the following two questions gave rise to+ z- Z' _- I( n& p% Y
discussions6 e$ _0 L/ _" r; c! B
Q1: When after the 3F test, the indicator comes to rest in a position between the trip and open position (which
% g' q0 d* B7 Y9 q+ b, f1 _is not the tripped or open position as indicated on the product), is this a pass when tested according 8.2.5.3 of1 |1 R6 Y$ n6 i# k4 J" A. e
IEC60947-1? U' A+ }) V0 q5 Q6 S1 I: |
Q2: If the answer of Q1 is yes, is this in conflict with the general constructional requirements of 7.1.5 or how
' J, _$ u- d+ r5 S6 v$ b# ~" n: O- dshould section 7.1.6.1 (additional constructional requirements) be interpreted?) P2 _0 d7 F, r( ]
Decision:: A# W6 D+ @* c0 H9 @" s u
There are two possibilities, depending on the features of the MCCB:) \/ |" }0 ^& c; ~8 T
1) The indicator is the actuator, and it is the only position indicator, or
7 Y, w! y! o2 }7 K$ B2) There is an actuator that may show the operating position, but in addition there is a
a. k7 g- j/ B3 c0 Hseparate position indicator.
0 a( v% t: \6 V; I3 fFor construction per item 1, this result is not acceptable
( m0 }% q# M1 {: }& o4 x8 d: Q9 ~For construction per item 2, the result described is acceptable if the separate position( P& r* T3 m$ P- H) W1 M8 Z! u
indicator unambiguously shows the closed position, irrespective of the position of the
5 {$ {, ]! Y, K( ~/ M7 sactuator.
: l$ q# v, r9 q3 H0 O& C# q8 b* A9 ORefer to IEC 60947-1, Clause 7.1.6.1; z' V8 D+ D5 Q* a0 o9 T7 |
- L6 G' W9 i; `7 r
9 j- L( y F% i3 t$ A |
本帖子中包含更多资源
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?注册安规
x
|