Standards and Compliance

An Open Letter to the NAS team working on the project:  Electronic Vehicle Controls and Unintended Acceleration (TRB-SASP-10-03)

The professional opinions of Dr. Antony Anderson BSc(Hons), PhD, CEng, FIEE/IET MIEEE, Dr. Brian Kirk BSc(Hons), PhD, CEng, MBCS, MACM, and EurIng Keith Armstrong BSc(Hons), CEng, FIET, SMIEEE, ACGI

The electronics industry is terribly confused by the term Class 0. Particularly when it comes to electrostatic discharge (ESD) device sensitivity and how the term applies to factory controls designed to mitigate ESD. The confusion manifests itself through the many companies and engineers seeking direction on how to “become qualified to handle Class 0 devices.” They are seeking this information because their equally confused customers have imposed requirements on them to meet this mythical level of performance. Not only is Class 0 as a factory level of performance a contrived ideal, it is not a realistic or useful goal. Our purpose here is to explain reality and what is necessary for understanding device ESD sensitivity and establishing control.

CISPR 11 is the International Standard for electromagnetic emissions (disturbances) from Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) Equipment. The official title of the standard is “Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment – Radio-Frequency Disturbance Characteristics – Limits and Methods of Measurement.” The premiere edition of the standard was released in 1975 and the latest edition (Edition 5.0) was released in 2009. The standard includes both limits and methods of measurement for conducted phenomena and radiated phenomena. This article traces the history and development of the content of the standard over the last 35 years.

Aerospace equipment and systems are required to meet electromagnetic compatibility requirements to ensure proper operation and minimize risk to space programs. A standard has been established for electromagnetic compatibility for space related equipment and systems, SMC Standard SMC-S-008. The purpose of the standard is to minimize the risk to space programs with respect to electromagnetic phenomena and compatibility. A series of specific tests have been identified to confirm compliance.

The history of the International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR) is one that extends over 75 years. There have been papers written over the years on its history. The one that is used as the basis for this article was presented at the 2005 Zurich EMC Symposium. The title was “A History of the Evolution of EMC Regulatory Bodies and Standards”, written by the authors of this article [1]. Manfred provided the majority of the research on CISPR up to the time of the Zurich symposium and Don continued the history up to the present time. This article will then present a brief history of CISPR from its inception to the present time.

The Automotive EMC Laboratory Recognition Program (AEMCLRP) was established in 1998 by the three major automobile manufacturers in the United States, Chrysler LLC (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford) and General Motors (GM). These companies formed a committee responsible for the definition, documentation and maintenance of a set of EMC tests that an accredited and recognized test laboratory may perform in order to determine the EMC characteristics of automotive components that are integrated in vehicles by the three manufacturers. Since 1998, the AEMCLRP requirements document has been reviewed several times, and revision 4 (with an addendum issued in May 2007), the most current revision, has been used for the past four years. Future revisions are to be expected, due to improvements identified during the assessment process, feedback of laboratories or changes in underlying EMC specifications.

The photovoltaic (PV) industry has experienced incredibly fast transformation after year 2000 as a result of extraordinary technology breakthroughs, from the material level up to large-scale module manufacturing.

With the PV industry expected to grow consistently in the coming years, two main questions are capturing the attention among market operators:

1. What constitutes a “good quality” module?
2. How “reliable” will it be in the field?