CE Mark Surge Testing: Protecting Wireless Products

  • Thread starter Thread starter dwsexton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Testing
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of obtaining CE Mark certification for a battery-powered wireless product housed in a plastic IP68 enclosure. Participants explore the requirements for surge testing, particularly in the context of outdoor use, and the implications of having no exposed metal or conductive paths to earth ground.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their product's configuration and expresses concerns about surge testing, noting the absence of surge protection on signals, inputs, or outputs.
  • Another participant suggests consulting the lab regarding the applicability of surge tests, mentioning the "IO Line Coupler" test for devices with exposed metal.
  • It is noted that if there is no exposed metal, there may be no effective way to conduct the surge test, likening it to testing a plastic walkie-talkie.
  • One participant mentions the necessity of the EN 61000-4-4 EFT/Burst test and the EN 61000-4-3 RF Immunity test, which do not require exposed metal.
  • A participant shares their plan to add ESD diodes and ferrites to the I/O lines and to connect the cable shield at both ends for testing, despite uncertainties about the lab's requirements.
  • Another participant questions the lab's request for access to the shield and suggests seeking a second opinion, arguing that CE Mark testing should reflect normal usage conditions.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of a floating shield and the need for protection against ESD hits through potential creepage paths in the product.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and appropriateness of the lab's testing requirements, with some advocating for additional protective measures while others challenge the lab's approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best course of action for ensuring compliance with CE Mark requirements.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the absence of conductive paths and the implications for surge testing. There are also unresolved questions about the adequacy of existing protective measures and the interpretation of CE Mark testing protocols.

dwsexton
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
How to pass CE with no ground?
I have a battery powered wireless product in a plastic IP68 enclosure with no exposed metal that attaches to a sensor through a cable that is about 6 feet long that again is completely encapsulated with no exposed metal. I want to get a CE Mark certification and since this for outdoor use my understanding is that the surge test must be applied to each wire in the cable, or the shield of the cable if there is one. Currently there is no specific surge protection on the signals, inputs or outputs. Since there is no conductive path to earth ground I suspect I will only see magnetic coupling. My question is, what is commonly done if anything is done at all to protect inputs and outputs so that no damage is done to the device during the test. The circuits are 3.3V level logic signals. Note, I have currently not run any tests yet but am trying to anticipate issues before I pay for lab time to start testing.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF. :smile:

You should ask the lab about this -- there may not be an applicable Surge test for such a device. If there were exposed metal, especially on the cable, you would use the "IO Line Coupler" test of EN 61000-4-5 (Surge), and not the "Powerline Coupler" test. The hits would be in common-mode with respect to Earth ground, and the only return path through your device would be capacitive coupling to the ground plane on the table under your device (with a 10cm non-conductive spacer, IIRC).

If that could disrupt your circuit, you would want to add a metal ground plate under your PCB inside your enclosure, and add appropriate clamping for the IO lines to that plate. That will provide a path for the parasitic Surge transients to return to the test table ground plane without going through your circuitry.

If you have no exposed metal, there is nothing to conduct the transients to from the Surge tester. Kind of like trying to Surge test a plastic walkie-talkie... :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G
BTW, you likely will need to do the EN 61000-4-4 EFT/Burst test, since it injects noise into your cable using a 1 meter clamp. Are you familiar with that test?

And the EN 61000-4-3 RF Immunity test, since that does not rely on any exposed metal. You just get blasted with RF noise in an RF anechoic chamber, and need to keep operating at whatever intensity level you are trying to qualify for.

EDIT: change -6 to -3 for the Radiated RF Immunity test. See my later post for more details.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G
Thanks for your replies, I have been in close contact with the Lab on this. Currently I have a shield on my cable but it is not connected at either end. What the lab has asked for is that they have access to the shield at both ends to do the test. My product is effectively like a plastic walkie talkie as you jokingly mentioned and that's what makes this rather confusing.

I have a product from another vendor with a similar configuration and they have CE mark. Yesterday I got their test report and discovered they only tested for indoor applications so the surge test did not apply (even though their product is really an outdoor product). They have the CE stamp and I guess it's up to the customer to dig deeper.

So my plan now is to add ESD diodes to all the I/O lines and maybe add some small ferrites just in case, bring out the shield at both ends of the cable and see if it passes the surge test and just eat the lab fee for a precertification test. I don't anticipate an RF immunity problem and because there is nothing conductive to zap with an ESD gun I am not too worried about that either. We already did the emmissions testing when we tested for part 15. If we don't pass the surge test or can't easily get there then I will just certify for indoor as others have done.

Any thoughts?
 
dwsexton said:
What the lab has asked for is that they have access to the shield at both ends to do the test. My product is effectively like a plastic walkie talkie as you jokingly mentioned and that's what makes this rather confusing.
IMO, that makes no sense. You should not have to open up your product and make extra connections for any CE Mark testing. CE Mark Testing is meant to test the product as it is normally used in applications. I'd suggest you get a 2nd opinion from another lab before letting this lab do that test.

And having a floating shield doesn't really help anything. Is there a reason you're using shielded cable without connecting the shield anywhere?
 
dwsexton said:
TL;DR Summary: How to pass CE with no ground?

I have a battery powered wireless product in a plastic IP68 enclosure with no exposed metal that attaches to a sensor through a cable that is about 6 feet long
Are there any seams in the product or cable connectors or at the sensor that can provide a creepage path for 15kV ESD hits? If so, then you will want to protect those areas, or do something to lengthen the creepage path so that 15kV arcs will not make it inside. Other than the -4 Burst test on your cable (with the 1m IO cable clamp) and the -3 Radiated RF susceptibility test, I don't see many other CE Mark tests that apply.

EDIT: Both the -3 and -6 RF Immunity tests may apply, since you have the IO cable to your sensor. The -3 test is the one done in the RF anechoic chamber with RF energy beamed at your product from an antenna. The -6 test uses a current transformer toroid to inject RF energy into your IO line to your sensor.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
54K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K