T
treez
Guest
Hi
Please could anyone elaborate on the meanings of various things in this (attached) document on Earthing & EMI Filters?..
The document is called “Safety concerns for practical EMI line filters”…
Some of the statements of this doc appear to be begging for clarification…As follows below....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** *
Pg 2 top
Pg 2
Pg 2
Pg2
Pg 3
The following concerns the use of balanced (symmetrical) filters in offline SMPS EMI filters…
Another point is that a balanced filter potentially needs more inductors (one in line and one in neutral), and so is inconvenient and more costly.
Pg 4
Pg 4
…The following thread confirms that Mn-Zn ferrite is essentially not conductive…
Pg5
Are we saying that if a big mains transient happens in an offline SMPS, then a non X2 rated capacitor is going to be protected from it just because its fitted downstream of the bridge rectifier?...
Also, are the safety agencies going to conscientiously take the schematic and bill of materials and check that all DM mode capacitors upstream of the bridge rectifier are X2 rated?
The use of non X2 rated capacitors upstream of the bridge was previously considered here…
Pg 6
Pg7
…surely this is wide of the mark?.....surely it doesn’t matter whether or not the building is actually connected to "planet" earth ground…but surely an earth connection is useful (even if it doesn’t ultimately connect to “planet earth”) because it can be used to trip an RCD and save someone’s life?
Pg 9
Pg 10
Please could anyone elaborate on the meanings of various things in this (attached) document on Earthing & EMI Filters?..
The document is called “Safety concerns for practical EMI line filters”…
Code:
https://www.edn.com/Pdf/ViewPdf?contentItemId=4169156
Some of the statements of this doc appear to be begging for clarification…As follows below....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** *
Pg 2 top
…can this be right?, I have seen many plastic enclosed offline flybacks which pass radiated regulations.Without a metal enclosure, whether Earthed or not, there is little chance that an
off-line switching power supply can ever comply with the radiated emission limits.
Pg 2
So an unearthed metal enclosure around a power supply can “charge up to some unpredictable/indeterminate voltage”…..The thing is, in many parts of the world, the earth connection to the households etc does not exist, due to the terrain…this is prevalent in many parts of Switzerland, and even in a third of USA homes…..so for them, metal cased SMPS’s are going to be highly dangerous?But the metal enclosure (of a power supply) is naturally eyed as an excellent fortuitous heatsink by engineers. So power semiconductors are often going to be mounted on it (with insulation). However by doing this, we also create leakage paths (resistive/capacitive) from the internal subsystems/circuitry to the metal chassis. Though these leakage currents are small enough not to constitute a safety hazard, they can present a major EMI problem. If these tiny leakage currents are not 'drained out', the enclosure will charge up to some unpredictable/indeterminate voltage……..So we need to connect the enclosure to Earth
Pg 2
…Surely this is not correct?, offline SMPS’s which have no earth connection, usually always have a common mode choke at their input. This is because "planet" earth is all around everything, and noise inside the SMPS will couple to it, even through the air.Generally, if the equipment is designed not to have any Earth connection (i.e. a two wire AC cord), there will usually be no metal enclosure present either. Keeping the issue of radiation limits aside for now, the good news here is that no significant common mode (CM) noise can be created, simply because CM noise needs an Earth connection by its very definition. Therefore a CM filter is superfluous and can be omitted.
Pg2
Surely if the chassis is solidly connected to earth ground, then its impossible to get an electric shock by touching it?, no matter how much Y capacitance connects to it? Surely the reason to restrict Y capacitor size is so that the current from the Y capacitor doesn’t trip the RCD’s .?One of the simplest ways of suppressing any noise is to provide decoupling between the nodes involved. For CM noise this means connecting high frequency ceramic capacitors between the L and E wires and also between the N and E wires, possibly at several points along the filter. But each of these CM line filter capacitors also unintentionally pass some of the AC line current into the chassis (besides the CM noise). To reduce the chances of a fatal electrical shock, safety laws restrict the total amount of current that can be injected into the Earth/enclosure. This in turn means that we have to limit the total CM filter capacitance.
Pg 3
The following concerns the use of balanced (symmetrical) filters in offline SMPS EMI filters…
Now I agree with this, but debate whether the problem of CM noise getting converted to DM noise is really a problem?, because one simply needs to filter it out with a DM filter.In general we try to maintain balanced impedances because any imbalance basically causes some of the CM noise to get converted to DM noise. When this happens the resulting EMI spectrum may be rather confusing to analyze and fix,
Another point is that a balanced filter potentially needs more inductors (one in line and one in neutral), and so is inconvenient and more costly.
Pg 4
I would have thought as long as the CM choke was wound with wire coated in acceptable level of insulation, then the torroid would not have to have an “approved coating”? Also, how would an approvals agency test whether a torroid coated in an “approved coating” had been used?......there is no safety test involving connection of any voltage higher than mains peak to the live and neutral connections…and torroids wound with ordinary enamelled copper wire would pass this….even with non coated torroids.As per safety standards, we cannot for example, just wind the two windings of an off-line CM choke carelessly overlapping on each other. We need to maintain a certain specified separation. Nor can we just use any bare toroid to wind them on. We need an approved coating, or a suitable designed bobbin.
Pg 4
Suirely this is not right?, its very difficult to get any kind of resistance reading by probing ferrite surface, even with Mn-Zn ferrite.A bare ferrite can be a very good electrical conductor, especially if it is the more commonly used manganese-zinc ferrite, as opposed to nickel-zinc formulations. This can be confirmed by simply pressing the tips of an ohmmeter at two points on the surface of a typical ferrite core lying around in the lab.
…The following thread confirms that Mn-Zn ferrite is essentially not conductive…
Code:
https://www.edaboard.com/showthread.php?383678-Common-mode-noise-reduction-by-connecting-ferrite-SMPS-core-to-ground
Pg5
I agree that this is how the standards appear to tell it…..but why should an interposing bridge rectifier give creedance to the use of non X2 rated capacitors?Line to Line capacitors are called 'X-capacitors'. X-caps when used before the input bridge (in offline applications) must be safety approved, but after the bridge it's basically a 'don't care' situation.
Are we saying that if a big mains transient happens in an offline SMPS, then a non X2 rated capacitor is going to be protected from it just because its fitted downstream of the bridge rectifier?...
Also, are the safety agencies going to conscientiously take the schematic and bill of materials and check that all DM mode capacitors upstream of the bridge rectifier are X2 rated?
The use of non X2 rated capacitors upstream of the bridge was previously considered here…
Code:
https://www.edaboard.com/showthread.php?367959-Not-using-X2-rated-capacitors-in-AC-filter-for-offlien-SMPS
Pg 6
…Have to agree with this one, but it fails to state the real problem concerning cumulative damage to metal-film X2 capacitors due to repeated exposure to high inrush currents….and that is that the X2 capacitor can become highly conductive, and heat up and eventually explode in service…I don’t know why the article failed to mention this?We should be conscious however that large input (X2 rated) capacitances can cause undesirably high inrush surge currents at power-up. This may also cause eventual failure of the X-cap, especially if it is the very first component after the AC input inlet. Film caps may self-heal from such an event each time, but after every event, the capacitance gets degraded just a little. Finally, after many such events, there is a cumulative effect, and we would be left with a capacitor that is barely one. Therefore, despite EMI concerns, we should rather place X-caps after any input surge protection element (e.g. NTC thermistor or wirewound resistor), and perhaps even after a front-end choke.
Pg7
“The Earthing if present, is just for helping out with EMI”……Safety regulations for Nordic regions (and Switzerland) may require each Y-cap shown in Figure 1 to be actually two Y2 capacitors in series (or a single Y1 capacitor). Historically, this has been necessitated by the fact that Earthing is poor in those geographical regions. In fact, it used to be pointed out that even the central meeting room of the Norwegian safety agency NEMKO (literally Norwegian Electric Material Control) did not have any Earth point in the wall outlets. Therefore, practically speaking, a lack of Earth is not considered a fault condition in many parts of the world, but is just a normal condition (this actually also includes about 1/3rd of homes in the US!). Therefore, very often, whether the equipment is supposed to be Earthed or not, it is expected to have reinforced insulation anyway. The Earthing if present, is just for helping out with EMI.
…surely this is wide of the mark?.....surely it doesn’t matter whether or not the building is actually connected to "planet" earth ground…but surely an earth connection is useful (even if it doesn’t ultimately connect to “planet earth”) because it can be used to trip an RCD and save someone’s life?
Pg 9
….this suggests that its always adviseable to add some small value inductors (using nickel-zinc or powdered iron core) to the line and neutral inputs of offline SMPS…to handle the 10-30MHz noise….because they will give a joint CM and DM filtration…….and this is prefereable to using a small CM choke…because a small CM choke won’t offer enough filtration to the high frequency DM components which always accompany high frequency CM components. Would you agree?Engineers are often mystified to find that making the DM choke out of (low permeability) powdered iron or lossy ferrite helps too, when all else has failed, despite all the talk about DM noise being essentially a low-frequency emission. The reason seems to be as follows. The CM noise in a power supply is actually a nonsymmetric mode at its point of creation, though ultimately, by cross coupling it does tend to spread into both the lines equally. We can show that nonsymmetric noise can be considered to consist of part CM and part DM components. Therefore in practice, we do get a fair amount of high frequency DM noise too from nonsymmetric CM noise. That is where high bandwidth/low permeability/lossy materials help in DM noise suppression.
Pg 10
..Surely this is not always the case?…many offline SMPS’s do not have an earth connection, and still get round it by using common mode chokes.CM noise suppression is usually said to require a very 'good' connection to Earth.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator: