1 / 48

INCOLAB inter comparison Gaber Begeš Bled , 1 4 th of September 200 6

INCOLAB. INCOLAB inter comparison Gaber Begeš Bled , 1 4 th of September 200 6. Content. Field of work Short overview of the intercomparison Participants What to compare Difficulties Tasks of partner laboratories Results of the intercomparison Sample A Sample B Temperature artefact

nigel-west
Download Presentation

INCOLAB inter comparison Gaber Begeš Bled , 1 4 th of September 200 6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INCOLAB • INCOLAB intercomparison • Gaber Begeš • Bled, 14thof September 2006

  2. Content • Field of work • Short overview of the intercomparison • Participants • What to compare • Difficulties • Tasks of partner laboratories • Results of the intercomparison • Sample A • Sample B • Temperature artefact • Conclusion

  3. LVD Testing labs EN 60335-1 EN 60335-2-9 Clause 11 Field of work MIRS, SA, SIST, TIRS, MG, others Customer Money Product or service TRADE Conformity assessment Conformity assessment Supplier Manufacturers LVD related industry

  4. Field of work LVD Testing labs EN 60335-1 – Household and similar appliances – Safety – Part 1: General requirements EN 60335-2-9 – Particular requirements for grills, toasters and similar portable cooking appliances Clause 11- Heating: Appliances and their surroundings shall not attain excessive temperatures in normal use. • Table 3: • Wood, in general • Wooden supports, walls, ceiling and floor of the test corner and wooden cabinet: • stationary appliances liable to be operated continuously for long periods 60 K • other appliances65 K

  5. Field of work Sample A Sample B Temperature artefact

  6. The measurement instrument

  7. Requirements for the measurement instrument EN 60335-1 - Household and similar appliances – Safety – Part 1: General requirements Clause 11.2 Dull black-painted plywood approximately 20 mm thick is used for the test corner, the supports and for the installation of built-in appliances. Clause 11.3 Temperature rise, other than those of windings, are determined by means of fine-wire thermocouples positioned so that they have minimum effect on the temperature of the part under test. (Thermocouples having wires with diameter not exceeding 0,3 mm are considered to be fine-wire thermocouples.) Thermocouples used for determining the temperature rise of the surface of walls, ceiling and floor of the test corner are attached to the back of small blackened disks of copper or brass, 15 mm in diameter and 1 mm thick. The front of the disk is flush with the surface of the board.

  8. Main goals of the comparison • Is measurement instrument (black test corner) comparable? • Is test method / procedure comparable? • Is standard unambiguously understood? • Is measurement uncertainty evaluation comparable? OUTCOME: Much more information than expected!

  9. Differences from other intercomparisons • - Basic approach of thisintercomparison was different than for example in the CB scheme • -Introduction of the metrological approach into the testing field • Not only pass / fail result • Used temperature artefact • Starry and circular comparison principle in the same project • - We went beyond just qualitative evaluation Collected data gives each participant a lot of information for improvement of the Quality system, not only the test method itself.

  10. Participants of the intercomparison

  11. Documentation - Incolab Technical protocol 2004-05-05 • Identification number • Introduction to the project • Organization scheme • Participating laboratories • Provisional schedule • Intercomparison procedure • Enclosures • Protocol approval • Appliance recieved and Appliance shipped from

  12. Packages with samples before shipment

  13. Test samples A Temperature artefact Test samples B

  14. SE EE CZ DK SI NL BG Concept of the intercomparison Slovenian subloop SE EE Sample A - 6x TCL SIQ DK SI CZ LMK NL BG Sample B and Temperature artefact SE EE SI CZ DK NL BG

  15. Preventive actions -compact box with foam inside -fragile – label -warnings for shock sensors -locked box -this side up – label -shock sensors -at each shipment phone contact with DHL courier responsible person -check measurements

  16. Difficulties • Difficulties with the sample A in CZ and NL - the electronics of the comparison sample failed - the sample was changed with the reserve sample • Shipment difficulties  Prolongation of the intercomparison

  17. Difficulties

  18. One cycle tasks of the participants - receive the sample from the DHL - check, if the sample or package is damaged - in a case of any damage take a photo and make a claim to the DHL - test measurements on the sample according to the Technical protocol 2004-05-05 - comparison to previous measurements (UL/FE-LMK task) - preparing the outgoing and incoming AirwayBills - repackaging of the sample - contact with the DHL to pick up the sample and pay attention to the shipment

  19. Results of the intercomparison

  20. Sample A

  21. Sample A – Observation (1) - Input power setting due to voltage range (220 V – 240 V, 1200 W):

  22. Sample A – Observation (2) – Set power

  23. Sample A – Observation (3) Different declarations of the sample: Roaster Digital convection oven Digital convection roaster Locations in the test corner: Away from the walls, on the floor Back side to one wall, on the floor Into the corner, on the floor

  24. Sample A – Observation (4) Sensors for measurement the heating, according to the standard shall be fine wire thermocouples (max d = 0.3 mm): Used sensors were: J-type thermocouple (max. range -200 °C  1200 °C; 55 V/°C) K-type thermocouple (max. range -250 °C  1350 °C; 40 V/°C) T-type thermocouple (max. range -250 °C  400 °C; 45 V/°C) Pt-100 sensors (max. range-250 °C  850 °C; 0.4 /°C)

  25. Sample A – Observation (5) – Heating of the FLOOR of the black test corner

  26. Sample A – Conclusions (6) • Stability of the test samples is in order of ±2 °C. • Not following the standard requirements for positioning the sample in the test corner. • Set power could have larger influence, if a product is without a thermostat. • Five samples of the same model – very different results – unknown cause (non-consistent manufacturing process??). • Not following the standard procedure – temperature of the heating compartment not always registered and set to the right value.

  27. Sample B

  28. Sample B – Observation (1) - Input power setting due to voltage range (220 V – 230 V, 2000 W):

  29. Sample B – Observation (2) – Set power

  30. Sample B – Observation (3) Almost the same declarations of the sample: Cooker Oven + grill + hotplate Grill + oven Locations in the test corner: Back side to one wall, on the floor Into the corner, on the floor

  31. Sample B – Observation (4) Sensors for measurement the heating, according to the standard shall be fine wire thermocouples (max d = 0.3 mm): Used sensors were: J-type thermocouple (max. range -200 °C  1200 °C; 55 V/°C) K-type thermocouple (max. range -250 °C  1350 °C; 40 V/°C) T-type thermocouple (max. range -250 °C  400 °C; 45 V/°C) Pt-100 sensors (max. range-250 °C  850 °C; 0.4 /°C)

  32. Sample B – Observation (5) – Heating of the WALL of the black test corner

  33. Sample B – Observation (6) – Heating of the FLOOR of the black test corner

  34. Sample B – Conclusions (7) • Stability of the test samples is in order of ±2 °C. • Not following the standard requirements for positioning the sample in the test corner • Set power could have larger influence, if a product is without a thermostat • The same sample of the product –different results • Not following the standard procedure – temperature of the heating compartment not always registered and set to the right value.

  35. Temperature artefact

  36. Measurement with the temperature artefact Various dimensions of the black test corners in millimetres: 1800 x 1200 x 1760 10 x 10 raster of sensors 1200 x 1000 x 1500 160 x 160 raster of sensors 500 x 690 63 x 63 raster of sensors 1000 x 1000 x 1000 100 x 100 raster of sensors 800 x 800 x 1600 65 x 80 raster of sensors 1500 x 1000 x 1500 50 x 50 raster of sensors 600 x 600 x 600 30 x 30 raster of sensors raster of sensors

  37. Stability of the temperature artefact Temperature artefact e= 0.9 Radiation thermometer d = 0.5 m = const.

  38. Stability of the temperature artefact Measurement of temperature artefact at 85 °C, vertical position

  39. Stability in the central part of the temperature artefact 88,5 88 87,5 87 86,5 86 85,5 27.8.2004 10.9.2004 24.9.2004 8.10.2004 5.11.2004 22.10.2004 19.11.2004 Stability of the temperature artefact 3,3c 4,3c 5,3c 6,3c 7,3c 8,3c 3,4d 4,4d 5,4d 6,4d 7,4d 8,4d 3,5e 4,5e 5,5e Temperature / °C 6,5e 7,5e 8,5e 3,6f 4,6f 5,6f 6,6f 7,6f 8,6f 3,7g 4,7g 5,7g 6,7g 7,7g 8,7g 8.4.2005 6.5.2005 3.6.2005 1.7.2005 3.12.2004 14.1.2005 28.1.2005 11.2.2005 25.2.2005 11.3.2005 25.3.2005 22.4.2005 20.5.2005 17.6.2005 17.12.2004 31.12.2004 3,8h 4,8h 5,8h 6,8h 7,8h 8,8h Stability of the temperature artefact in the worst point of the central part is U95(T) = ±0,8 °C

  40. Temperature artefact – Observation (1) – Temperature of the WALL of the black test corner

  41. Temperature artefact – Observation (2) – Temperature of the FLOOR of the black test corner

  42. Temperature artefact – Observation (3) • Stability of the artefact is ±0.8 °C. • Raster of thermocouples in millimetres is very different • from 10 x 10 to 160 x 160 • Specially developed temperature artefact was very usefull for independent and objective evaluation of performance of the black test corner. • Even more diversity could be seen, if the temperature artefact would be in a specified distance from the test corner.

  43. MRA Performance • What do you see as the primary benefit of the MRA? • Reduced time to get products to market • Reduced costs to manufacturers - no need to do duplicate testing • Improved market access • Information more easily available • Elimination of multiple accreditations for CABs • etc. What still have to be improved?

  44. Testing and Metrology related trade barriers • Different standards referenced • Reliance on different test methods • Old definition of the measurement instrument and measurement method. (CEE – Specification for electric motor operated appliances, Publication 10, 1960) • There are different approaches to demonstratemeasurement capability • Lack of confidence in results • Impact: redundant tests and certification procedures; increased costs and time to market for manufacturers

  45. Manufacturer related trade barriers • Manufacturing diversity – different tested samples • What is cheaper? • - production of samples not up to the allowed limits • - risk, that some product which could be sampled are found noncompliant Market Inspection related trade barriers • Who shall perform measurements and testing for MI? • Accredited third party laboratory, • Notified Bodies, (cooperation in production phase – possible • conflict of interest) • etc.

  46. Conclusions (1) Safe product on the market! As less costs as possible! Mutually recognized and acceptable test results! LVD, the oldest directive, should be the most in command, but ...

  47. Conclusions (2) • INCOLAB intercomparison added values • No intention of saying who is “good” or “bad” guy • Showing that there are differences • Exposing what are the problems • Participants could detect and correct the imperfections and thus improve their quality system! • All conformity assessement institutions from the triangle involved shall contribute to the final benefit of the safe LVD market.

  48. Thank you for your attention! Great thanks to all INCOLAB partners!

More Related