How do we test it from the hardware standpoint?
Voltage spikes? Electromagnetic interference?hw proofing?
-
AndreyB
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14352
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
- Location: Jersey City
- Github Username: rusefillc
- Slack: Andrey B
hw proofing?
So we have this... device we have here.
How do we test it from the hardware standpoint? Voltage spikes? Electromagnetic interference?
How do we test it from the hardware standpoint?
Voltage spikes? Electromagnetic interference?Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions
Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
Re: hw proofing?
Underwriters Laboratories... for a fee.
Re: hw proofing?
This can be a huge item, or a much smaller item. It could have a wide variety of options and could have huge scope creep and could be a very daunting task.
I suggest we consider three different categories of this kind of testing.
1. Some kind of abusing test fixture to test the extremes, like load dumping voltage spikes on the 12V, or accidental shorts to GND on input or output pins, as well as things like reverse polarity. Such tests could be done to validate the design is a solid design. Lets call this ATFixture as a reference point.
2. Prevention of regulatory issues, like FCC, UL or CE requirements.
3. Some kind of simulated normal use test fixture that validates the design. It would vary the RPM, and validate the outputs are valid with a set of inputs. AKA it would look for bugs like that cranking issue. Lets call this NUFixture as a reference point.
Hmmm, should there be a 4. for thermal cycling and validation?
About ATFixure, I would suggest we make a PCB that can either charge up a cap or inductor with some energy and dump it on the wire of our choice. It should dump energy to simulate the voltage spikes detailed in ISO 7637-2 or MAXIM's http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/4240. It would also be handy if this could simulate the low voltage, but that's a bit harder to do. So perhaps low voltage simulation could be done as a round 2 effort. This PCB should also have a pile of relays that can relay short to GND and relay short to +12V.
About regulatory, we should first design to a variety of common standards. In the US we have very few that are actual law, and when we do have applicable law, they are typically very similar to CE regulations. In the USA it's largely post violation when issues arise. AKA there is property damage or human damage and then a court case reference a variety of safety standards. Which means there is an endless supply of potentially applicable standards. So best to not have a problem, then you don't have to worry about the court case referencing some random standard. In the EIA/EU, they are nice in that they tell you this is the law, but it will cost you $ to know the law. However you at least have a clear starting point, which you can work from.
Because CE is far more commonly talked about and the standards are fare more publicly available, I would suggest we follow these EMI and EMC standards.
Radiated and conducted emissions CISPR 11 & CISR22 & CISPR 16-2-3
ESD EN61000-4-2
EM radiated field EN61000-4-3
Magnetic Field EN61000-4-11
Conducted RF EN61000-4-6
Conducted Susceptibility IEC 62132-4
A down side of CE is that they list off the violations, and it's up to your design to comply. They don't provide design guides like UL does. For example, CE specifies a wire has to maintain insulation and not catch fire, while UL / NFPA 70 table 310.16 specifies a wire as to 12AWG MTW wire used on certain conditions is acceptable. Because of this I suggest we use certain UL specs as a minimum guide. Including AWG wire sizing, and PCB max temperatures. AKA UL limits to 105C while many MFG's will allow 150C PCB temperatures, and creepage.
I suggest we follow these standards mostly because they are what I'm familiar with, and have designed into the Frank series of boards. If we were to go for 3rd party testing to validate these comply, we would be well positioned to succeed. or we would have minimal changes to succeed. Any how that's enough regulatory blah blah blah.
About NUFixture, I suggest we create what I once called the play recorder. It was a device that would allow you to play a log file captured from a real engine. Once you have an engine that you consider to be a good reference, this device would allow you to generate analog signals and digital signals to simulate that log file. You could also change the log file to create abnormal conditions that you might want to test against. It would need several op-amp outputs, and several digital outputs.
Any how, that's the basics of what I see as important in terms of hardware validations and rugged-izing.
I suggest we consider three different categories of this kind of testing.
1. Some kind of abusing test fixture to test the extremes, like load dumping voltage spikes on the 12V, or accidental shorts to GND on input or output pins, as well as things like reverse polarity. Such tests could be done to validate the design is a solid design. Lets call this ATFixture as a reference point.
2. Prevention of regulatory issues, like FCC, UL or CE requirements.
3. Some kind of simulated normal use test fixture that validates the design. It would vary the RPM, and validate the outputs are valid with a set of inputs. AKA it would look for bugs like that cranking issue. Lets call this NUFixture as a reference point.
Hmmm, should there be a 4. for thermal cycling and validation?
About ATFixure, I would suggest we make a PCB that can either charge up a cap or inductor with some energy and dump it on the wire of our choice. It should dump energy to simulate the voltage spikes detailed in ISO 7637-2 or MAXIM's http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/4240. It would also be handy if this could simulate the low voltage, but that's a bit harder to do. So perhaps low voltage simulation could be done as a round 2 effort. This PCB should also have a pile of relays that can relay short to GND and relay short to +12V.
About regulatory, we should first design to a variety of common standards. In the US we have very few that are actual law, and when we do have applicable law, they are typically very similar to CE regulations. In the USA it's largely post violation when issues arise. AKA there is property damage or human damage and then a court case reference a variety of safety standards. Which means there is an endless supply of potentially applicable standards. So best to not have a problem, then you don't have to worry about the court case referencing some random standard. In the EIA/EU, they are nice in that they tell you this is the law, but it will cost you $ to know the law. However you at least have a clear starting point, which you can work from.
Because CE is far more commonly talked about and the standards are fare more publicly available, I would suggest we follow these EMI and EMC standards.
Radiated and conducted emissions CISPR 11 & CISR22 & CISPR 16-2-3
ESD EN61000-4-2
EM radiated field EN61000-4-3
Magnetic Field EN61000-4-11
Conducted RF EN61000-4-6
Conducted Susceptibility IEC 62132-4
A down side of CE is that they list off the violations, and it's up to your design to comply. They don't provide design guides like UL does. For example, CE specifies a wire has to maintain insulation and not catch fire, while UL / NFPA 70 table 310.16 specifies a wire as to 12AWG MTW wire used on certain conditions is acceptable. Because of this I suggest we use certain UL specs as a minimum guide. Including AWG wire sizing, and PCB max temperatures. AKA UL limits to 105C while many MFG's will allow 150C PCB temperatures, and creepage.
I suggest we follow these standards mostly because they are what I'm familiar with, and have designed into the Frank series of boards. If we were to go for 3rd party testing to validate these comply, we would be well positioned to succeed. or we would have minimal changes to succeed. Any how that's enough regulatory blah blah blah.
About NUFixture, I suggest we create what I once called the play recorder. It was a device that would allow you to play a log file captured from a real engine. Once you have an engine that you consider to be a good reference, this device would allow you to generate analog signals and digital signals to simulate that log file. You could also change the log file to create abnormal conditions that you might want to test against. It would need several op-amp outputs, and several digital outputs.
Any how, that's the basics of what I see as important in terms of hardware validations and rugged-izing.
Welcome to the friendlier side of internet crazy