81/221/CC

COMPILATION OF COMMENTS ON COMMITTEE DRAFT

Project number: Reference number of the CD

IEC 62305-4, Ed.1 81/212/CD
IEC/TC or SC Date of circulation
TC 81 2003-07-25
Title of the TC or SC:
Lightning protection

Title of the committee draft :

IEC 62305-4, Ed.1: Protection against lightning - Part 4: Electrical and electronic systems within
structures

The above-mentioned document was distributed to National Committees with a request that comments be submitted

Comments received – see annex 1)

DECISION OF THE CHAIRMAN (in cooperation with the secretariat)

a A revised committee draft will be distributed as a committee draft for vote (CDV) by (date) ..........

b A revised committee draft will be distributed for comment by (date) ..........

c The committee draft and comments will be discussed at the next meeting (date) 2003-09-29
NOTE In the case of a proposal a or b made by the chairman, P-members objecting to such a proposal shall inform the
Central Office with copy to the secretary in writing within 2 months of the circulation of this compilation (see ISO/IEC
Directives, Part 1, 2.5.3).

Name or signature of the Secretary Name or signature of the Chairman

G.B. Lo Piparo C. Bouquegneau

1)
to be collated on Form Comments and annexed.

FORM CC (IEC)
2002-08-09
 –2– 81/221/CC

Annex
Date Document
2003-07-25 81/212/CD

National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE

Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DE 1 General T Because IEC 62305-4 is not a stand This philosophy has to be described Agreed. IEC 62305-1 follows yet this
alone standard (as IEC 61312 series), it clearly in 62305-1 and shall be philosophy.
is necessary to consider IEC 62305-4 followed consequently in the other
together with the other parts of IEC parts.
62305.
Therefore the DE comments refer also
to these other parts if necessary.
Fundamentally it has to be stated, that
there are two different complete
protection systems for structures:
a) 62305-3 describes a system called “LPS”
to protect against PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO
STRUCTURES AND LIFE HAZARD offering
a bundle of defined protection measures
b) 62305-4 describes a system called
“LPM system” to protect Electrical and
electronic systems within structures.
Offering several protection measures
shall be combined to a complete tailored
LPM system.
DE 2 General T Introduce LPM system in IEC 62305-1: Change IEC 62305-1 clause 7.3 Agreed. Clause 7.3 of IEC 62305-1
e.g. give clear guidance in clause 7.3: accordingly should be updated as follows:
Possible protection measures are: “a) for structures
a) for structures − LEMP protection system
LPM system (Figure 3): (LPM)
- earthing measures
- bonding measures (including SPDs) LEMP protection measures system
- spatial shielding (LPM system) will be changed
- line routing and shielding through all IEC 62305 as” LEMP
protection system (LPM)”

DE 3 All parts of T Annex B form IEC 62305-3 “Lightning Transfer this Annex to IEC 62305-1. Annex B relates only to direct
IEC 62305 current flowing through external lightning flashes to the structure.
conductive parts and lines entering the Transfer this Annex to IEC 62305-
structure” is very important for IEC 1and modify it taking into account
62305-4, but useful as well for IEC Annex K of IEC 81/1917NP.
62305-5 and –3. Therefore it shall be
transferred to IEC 62305-1.
 –3– 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DE 4 Entire T As decided earlier by WG3, an Add the former Annex « Factors See DE 3.
paper informative Annex with examples for the influencing the sharing of the
influencing factors on the sharing of the lightning current «
lightning current is very important.
GB 1 General This document does reflect universal According to TC 81 decision IEC
best practice and is not yet ready for 62305-4 will be a standard; efforts
development as a formal standard. The should be made to improve
UK NC considers that its future 81/212/CD.
development should be as a TR.

PL 1 General The document is well prepared - only Agreed.

some small changes are needed.
DK1 Contents 7.2.3 E Oszillations oscillations Agreed.
Introduct It will be changed in “ Conventional
CN 1 Par8 te due to equivalent resistance due to equivalent impedance
ion earth impedance”
Introduct
CN 2 Par8 te due to cable shield resistance due to cable shield impedance Resistance is more conservative.
ion
DK2 Introducti Line 3 E “...of milli-joules in sensitive electronic “....which might affect sensitive Agreed.
on equipment, which might affect electronic equipment in electrical...”
electrical...”
DK3 Introducti Line 18 E “.. can be caused due to the lightning...” “.. can be caused by lightning...” Agreed.
on
DK4 Introducti Line 24 E “... and electronic systems via lines “... and electronic systems via the Agreed.
on itself. lines.”
Modify the text as follows: Agreed.
“The need….effects of lightning;
IT 1 Introduct. Editorial particularly for the systems used in
many branches….”
Such LPM (LEMP protection
CN 3 1. Scope Par1 ed Such LPM system Agreed. See DE 5.
measures) system
DK5 1 Scope Par 2 Line E “.. may arise in malfunctioning of “.. may cause malfunctioning of Agreed.
2 electronic system.” electronic systems.”
FR0 1 Technical This is not in accordance with 60364-4- Replace “protection” by “mitigation” 60364-4-44
44
GB 2 1 Para 4 Technical Spacecraft should be excluded from the Add ‘spacecraft’ to the list ofLast sentence of Clause 1 will be
scope. exclusions from the scope deleted. The list of exclusion in
clause 1 of IEC 62305-1 will be
updated.
GB 3 1 Technical For consistency with 81/216/CDV, Add 'railway systems' to the list of Last sentence of Clause 1 will be
railways systems should be omitted from exclusions from the scope deleted. The list of exclusion in
the scope of the standard clause 1 of IEC 62305-1 will be
updated.
 –4– 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
FR1 2 Editorial 61643-22 is not published yet Delete this reference or add “draft” Agreed.
3
CN 4 Definitio te 3.5 Surges 3.5 Lightning surge See DE 6.
ns
DE 5 3.4 Definition T Lightning electromagnetic impulse Lightning electromagnetic impulse Agreed as follows:
(LEMP) (LEMP) “Lightning electromagnetic
Electromagnetic effects of lightning All electromagnetic effects of lightning impulse (LEMP)
current. including conducted surges as well as Electromagnetic effects of lightning
NOTE – It includes conducted surges to radiated impulse electromagnetic fields. current.
equipment of internal system as well as NOTE – It includes conducted surges
radiated impulse electromagnetic field as well as radiated impulse
effects on equipment itself. electromagnetic field effects .”
IEC 62305-4 belongs with protection
LEMP is a general term and should not of internal systems; therefore first
be narrowed to effects on internal paragraph of clause 1 will be
systems only. The proposed change was changed as follows:
yet agreed in WG3. “This part of IEC 62305 provides
information for the design,
installation, inspection, maintenance
and testing of a LEMP protection
system (LPM) for electrical and
electronic systems within a structure,
able to reduce the risk of permanent
failures due to lightning
electromagnetic impulse (LEMP),”

DE 6 3.5 Definition T Surges Surge Agreed as follows:

Overvoltages and/or overcurrents Conducted transient wave appearing as 3.5 Surges
caused by LEMP in internal systems. overvoltage and/or overcurrent. Transient wave appearing as
NOTE - Surges caused by LEMP can overvoltages and /or overcurrents
arise from (partial) lightning currents, caused by LEMP in internal systems.
Surge is a general term and should not NOTE – Surges can arise from (partial)
from induction effects into installation
be narrowed to effects of LEMP on lightning currents, from induction effects into
loops and as remaining threat
internal systems only. installation loops and as remaining threat
downstream of SPD.
downstream of SPD.
 –5– 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
PL 2 3.7 Lines 2-5 Technical The definition should be corrected and LPL is a number representing a set Definition of LPL will be changed as
the NOTE deleted. of values of lightning parameters, follows:
which allow to define lightning as a “number related to a set of values of
source of damage and to apply lightning parameters, which allow to
protection measures enabling define lightning as a source of
reduction of the risk of damage to damage and to apply protection
tolerable level measures enabling reduction of the
risk of damage to tolerable level”

DK6 3.10 Line1 E “..built by crossed rods of natural ...” “... built by interconnected natural Agreed
metal components...”
FR2 3.15 Technical “Class x tested SPD” is confusing. If not Call it “SPDS tested according to Not agreed. Editorial
3.16 it will be called “class X SPD”after some class X of test”
3.17 time.

United 3.18, Editorial Change references IEC 61643-12 to IEC Change IEC 61643-12 to IEC 61643- Agreed
States 1 3.19, 61643-1 as this is the primary document 1 in each location.
3.20 of SC37A.

Note: Both IEC61643-12 and IEC61643-

1 documents use the same definitions,
so this should not present a problem.
PL 3 3.21 Line 2 Technical Correct the definition as follows: set of SPDs properly selected, Agreed
coordinated and …
DK7 4 Par 2 Line E “...the volume where are internal “... the volume containing systems in Agreed
1-2 systems to be protected...” need of protection...”
nd
United 4 Second Editorial Revise the 2 paragraph of this section Protection against LEMP is based on Agreed
States 2 paragraph as proposed. the lightning protection zones (LPZ)
concept. These zones are
theoretically assigned volumes of
space where the LEMP severity is
compatible with the immunity level of
the internal systems enclosed (see
Figure 1). Successive zones are
characterized by significant changes
in the LEMP severity.
 –6– 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DE 7 4.1 T NOTE 1 - Electromagnetic fields directly Delete Note. This note was approved by TC 81 at
radiated into apparatus are not able to Beijng meeting.
cause failures of internal systems Theoretical calculations do not
provided that apparatus comply with comply with field experience. Till
relevant EMC immunity product now, for equipment complying with
standard. EMC immunity standards, no
permanent damage due to
This is not true: Electromagnetic fields electromagnetic fields directly
directly radiated into apparatus can radiated into apparatus have been
cause failures, if withstand level is reported by ITC, TLC and Radio-TV
below the possible threat: Withstand experts. If this will not be longer the
levels are 1000-300-100 A/m at 8/20µs case in the future, the note could be
(IEC 61000-4-9) and 100-30-10 A/m at modified during the maintenance
1MHz (IEC 61000-4-10). Please cycle.
compare sensitive apparatus (EMC However the note will be changed as
immunity complying with 100 A/m at follows:
8/20µs or 10 A/m at 1MHz) and the ” NOTE 1 – For risk management failure
magnetic field due to a 100kA lightning: of apparatus due to electromagnetic
up to 236A/m for nearby strike and no fields directly radiated into its is
spatial shielding, up to 447A/m for direct negligible provided that apparatus
strike even inside a spatial shield with comply with relevant EMC immunity
w=2m (as shown in Annex A) ! product standard.”

Nevertheless the direct effect of

magnetic field on apparatus can be
considered as a low energy
phenomenon compared with effects of
the (partial) lightning current or of
surges induced in large loops. Therefore
it can be neglected in the risk analysis
IEC 62305-2 (as decided by TC81 in
Beijing), but shall be mentioned in IEC
62305-4 (for non mandatory protection
measures for sensitive apparatus).
DK8 4.1 Note 1 T EMC product standards states certain Delete the note See DE 7
immunity levels which may well be lower
than electromagnetic field levels
experienced during a lightning strike,
hence apparatus may comply with EMC
immunity product standards and still be
damaged by electromagnetic fields.
DK8 bis 4.1 Par 2 Line E “..sensitive against radiated...” “..sensitive to radiated..” Agreed.
1
 –7– 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 4 4.1 Para 2 Editorial For clarity reword the first sentence of ‘A minimum LPM system (Figure 2b) Agreed.
nd
the 2 para is suitable for apparatus which is
insensitive to radiated magnetic
fields.’

GB 5 4.1 Note 2 Editorial For clarity use ‘effective’ instead of ‘suitable’ Agreed.

DK9 4.2 Par 2 Line E “..lightning magnetic and electric field...” “.. lightning electromagnetic field...” Agreed.
1
DK10 4.2 LPZ 0 A E “..strikes, by surges up to full lightning “..strikes, by up to full lightning Agreed.
current and by full lightning field.” current surges and by full lightning
electromagnetic field.”
th
DK11 4.2 4 par. E Figure B.2 should be 2b Change Figure B.2. to Figure 2b Not agreed. Examples for different
from LPZs are in Annex B Figure B.2
bottom,
last line
DK12 4.2 LPZ 0 B E “..Endangered by by surges up to partial
“..Endangered by up to partial Agreed.
lightning current and by full lightning
lightning current surges and by full
field.” lightning electromagnetic field.”
DK13 4.2 Par 3 Line E “..and withstand of the equipment...”“..and withstand level of the Agreed.
1 equipment..”
CN 5 4.3 Line 3 ed Earthing measures conducts Earthing measures conduct Agreed.
DK14 4.3 Line 3 E “Earthing measures conducts...” “Earthing measures conduct...” Agreed.
DK15 4.3 Line 4 E “Bonding measures minimise potential “Bonding measures minimise Agreed.
differences.” potential differences and reduce
magnetic fields.”
DK16 4.3 Throughout E Replace the phrase “..due to lightning strikes...” Not agreed.
4.3
“..due to flashes ...”

with
DK17 4.3 Page 13 E “... incoming into the structure reduces “...incoming to the structure reduces Agreed.
lines 2 external surges transmitted..” external surges conducted..”
from the
bottom
DK18 4.3 Last line E It is not clear what is mint by Rewrite Sentence will be deleted.
“...facilitates LEMP protection
measures”.
GB 6 4.3 Line 3 Editorial Correct the text to read Earthing measures conduct and Agreed.
 –8– 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 7 4.3 Bullet 3, Editorial Reword the sentence for clarity ‘Earthing and bonding shall always Agreed.
para 3 be provided, in particular, bonding of
every conductive service, directly or
via an SPD, at the point of entry to
the structure.
The other LEMP protection measures
can be used alone or in combination’

GB 8 4.3 Bullet 3, Editorial This paragraph is duplicating information Delete the paragraph beginning ‘As Paragraph will be deleted.
para 4 given already in 4.3. shown in IEC 62305-2….’

GB 9 4.3 Bullet 3, Technical The sentence ‘LEMP protective Delete the sentence or amplify with . ‘…stress of temperature, humidity,
para 5 measures…’ is a statement of the specifics, e.g. ‘…stress of corrosive atmosphere, vibration,
obvious. temperature, humidity, corrosive voltage and current expected…’ Will
atmosphere, vibration, voltage and be added.
current expected…’

United 4.3 General Provide subparagraph numbering for the 4.3.1 Earthing and bonding Agreed.
States 3 3 subsections included in this section. 4.3.2 Magnetic shielding and line
This will enable users of the document routing
to provide citation to each individual 4.3.3 Surge protective device
measure as necessary. system
United 4.3 Editorial Replace “are” with “include” in the Basic protection measures against Agreed.
States 4 introductory clause. LEMP include:
United 4.3 Earthing Editorial Delete the “s” from “conducts” Earthing measures conduct and Comment is physically correct.
States 5 and and (editorial). It is also recommended disperse the lightning current into the
bonding Technical that WG3 consider revision of the earth. But here only the "task" of earthing is
text to make it more correct meant, to disperse the lightning
current (finally) into the earth.
technically. Extremely fast current
risetimes associated with lightning
current impulses tend to follow the
surface of the earth vice flow “into
the earth.” Earthing measures such
as radials, etc. conduct the lightning
current away from the protected
area.
 –9– 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
United 4.3 General / There is inconsistency between this RC failures of electrical or No inconsistency. In 81/213/CD R C is
States 6 Technical document and 81/213/CD in the electronic systems due to flashes to related to failures of internal systems
description of Rc. RC is defined here as the structure; caused by LEMP due to lightning
“failures due to flashes to the structure” flashes to the structure.
versus “failure of internal systems
caused by LEMP” in 81/213/CD. The
two should be the same. Change both
to the proposed wording provided.
DK19 5.1 Page 14 E “..shows Figure 6.” “..is shown in Figure 6.” Agreed.
last line
FR3 5.1 Technical Why Type B is required. This is not in Remove the sentences giving the Type B earthing arrangement
line with practice as well as 62305-3 feeling that type B is better than facilitate implementation of bonding
A. network of clause5.2
JP 1 5.1　 Par. 4 　 Editorial 　…　can lower such … 　…　can be lower such　　　　 Modified as “can reduce..”
line 2

United 5.2 First Editorial / Revise text to identify thespecific A low impedance bonding network is The matter is related to protection of
States 7 paragraph Technical dangerous potentials. needed to avoid dangerous step and internal systems not to avoid injuries
touch potentials between all of living beings.
equipment inside the inner LPZ.
nd
United 5.2 2 Technical / Replace “will” with “can” and correct the This can be realized by a meshed Agreed
States 8 paragraph Editorial spelling of “realized.” The mesh method bonding network …
is only one possible method that may be
employed.
GB 10 5.2 Para 5 Editorial PE is described as ‘Protective earth’ in Paragraph 5 of 5.2 should be Agreed.
and and paragraph 5 of 5.2 and as ‘protective simplified to read:
5.3 Second earth conductor’ in the second bullet of ‘Conductive parts (cabinets, housing,
bullet 5.3. rack) and the protective conductor
PE of the electrical and electronic
Both terms are non-standard and should system shall be earthed by being
be replaced by ‘Protective conductor’ bonded…..’

Reword bullet 2 of 5.3 to read:

• The protective conductor PE

GB 11 5.3 Para 2, Editorial Earthing conductor should be changed Reword bullet 2: Agreed.
bullet 2 to bonding conductor bonding bars should be connected to
the earthing system by shortest
possible way (by bonding conductor
not longer than 1 m)
 – 10 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 12 5.3 Last bullet Editorial Add the word ‘by’ between ‘either’ Agreed.
and ‘minimising’

GB 13 5.2 Para 5 Editorial PE is described as ‘Protective earth’ in

Paragraph 5 of 5.2 should be "shall be bonded" ,
and and paragraph 5 of 5.2 and as ‘protective simplified to read: because equipotentialisation should
5.3 Second earth conductor’ in the second bullet of
‘Conductive parts (cabinets, housing, be emphasized despite of the
bullet 5.3. rack) and the protective conductor absolute potential (which can be
PE of the electrical and electronic much higher then "zero" in case of
Both terms are non-standard and should system shall be earthed by being lightning strike).
be replaced by ‘Protective conductor’ bonded…..’

Reword bullet 2 of 5.3 to read:

• The protective conductor PE

GB 14 5.3 Para 2, Editorial Earthing conductor should be changed Reword bullet 2: Agreed.
bullet 2 to bonding conductor bonding bars should be connected to
the earthing system by shortest
possible way (by bonding conductor
not longer than 1 m)

GB 15 5.3 Last bullet Editorial Add the word ‘by’ between ‘either’ Agreed.
and ‘minimising’
rd
United 5.4 3 Technical The United States does not support the If services enter the LPZ at different Agreed.
States 9 paragraph requirement for a ring bonding bar but locations, a ring bonding system is
nd
2 we can support the recommendation that recommended.
sentence such be provided. Modify sentence as
shown.
DK20 6 Note E Delete the note. It states the obvious. Delete. Agreed.
st
GB 16 6.1 Para 2, 1 Editorial Reword for clarity ‘….. to protect a defined zone of the Agreed.
sentence structure instead of several
apparatuses individually.’….

DK21 6.2 Line 2 E “... , metallic closed cable ducts...” “..., closed metallic cable ducts...” Agreed.
DK22 6.3 T Routing of cables close to earthed metal Include: “Routing of cables close to Redundancy. This meaning is yet
components (e.g. structural building earthed metal components (e.g. included in the existing sentences.
components) is the most effective structural building components) is the Sentence will be modified as follows:
means of minimising inductive loops. most effective means of minimising “The loop area can be minimised by
inductive loops.” routing of cables close to earthed
natural components of the structure
As the second sentence.
and by adjacent routing … ”
 – 11 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DK23 6.4 Line 1 E “..incoming into the structure includes: “..incoming to the structure includes: Agreed.
shield of cables, metallic closed cable cable shields, closed metallic cable
ducts...” ducts...”
st
GB 17 6.4 1 Editorial Change ‘incoming’ to ‘entering’ Agreed.
sentence
CN 5 6.5 Line 8 ed Table 3 and Table 6 is not Table 3 and Table 6 are not Not agreed.
AT 1 7 G The Austrian NC would like to point out Bring in line where necessary and Clause 7 claims for a fully
that the content of this chapter is in avoid overlap. compliance with IEC 60364-5-53 and
many details not in line with the IEC 61643-12.
recently issued IEC 60364-5-53 A1 and Some matters relevant to selection
other TC64 documents as well as IEC and installation of SPD (e.g. voltage
61643-12. drop on connecting conductors,
protective distances due to
oscillations or to induction
phenomena, etc.) are shown in IEC
61643-12 only theoretically (see
clauses 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and Annex K of
IEC 61643-12).
Therefore additional information are
given in this clause 7 to cover with
quantitative requirements those
matter dealed only in a qualitative
way in IEC 61643-12. In such a way,
following the same concepts of IEC
61643-12, practical guidance is given
to users. Further overlapping will be
checked.
Values of I IMP , I n and U OC will be
checked.
Values of coefficients k and h
relevant to protective distance will be
checked.
 – 12 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DE 8 7 T This clause shall be fundamentally Revise clause 7 accordingly and For special cases of apparatus
revised: delete clauses 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. sensitive to directely radiated
1. Selection and positioning of SPDs magnetic field, full LPM system
shall follow the LPZ concept (see figure apply. In this case rules for selection
2a). and positioning fully follows LPZ
2. For the special case of minimum LPM concept (see 5.4) and rules of clause
system (see figure 2b) selection and 7.
positioning of SPDs shall follow IEC For the general case of apparatus
61643-12 and 60364-5-53 for power not sensitive to directely radiated
systems and IEC 61643-22 for magnetic field, minimum LPM apply
information systems. and rules of clause 7 only can be
3. The definition of an SPD-“system” is followed.
misleading and confusing and shall be Values of Clause 7.1.2 are in line
deleted. with the preferred series of values
4. Moreover, fixed values given in given in IEC 61643-12.
clause 7.1.2 like “10kA” are in conflict Some values of IEC 60364-5-53 are
with values given in IEC 60364-5-53. not in line with IEC 61643-12 (e.g.
The required values shall and can be value of I IMP =12,5 kA in IEC 60364-
derived in any case depending from LPL 5-53 is not included in preferred
and current sharing from IEC 62305-3 series values of IEC 61643-12).
Annex B. However values of currents will be
checked.
Change “SPD system” whit “SPD set”
FR4 7 Technical This Clause is not in line with other Refer to IEC existing standards. Uprot or ∆U is not a new concept
existing standards. It introduces some If new concepts need to be introduce (see IEC 61643-12, clause613 and
concepts (for example), which are not they should be debated between Annex K).
existing in SPD standards or electrical TC 81, SC37A and TC64 There are no new concept in IEC
installation rules standards. This is We suggest to create an ad-hoc WG 62305-4, clause 7.
confusing for the user which will come to between SC37A and TC81 at a Furthermore the matter that a
various choices for SPDs depending on first stage. concept do not exist in othe standard
the documents he is reading. We can is not a valid reason for not
also wonder why, if such concepts are introducing it in this standard!
important, they are not included in other An ad-hoc WG could manage (once
standard. In addition values proposed set up) this matter during the
for parameters such as I imp for example maintenance cycles of the relevant
are not in line with published standards. publication involved. It is suggested
Better coordination between Committees to adop the same consultation
is needed. method used by TC 64 and SC 37A
in front of TC 81 when publications of
SC 37A and TC 64 were prepared.
 – 13 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 18 7 General In general, the detailed content of this A general review of this clause is See AT1 comment
clause is not in line with the recently required to bring it in line with all
issued IEC 60364-5-53 A1 and other relevant documents and in particular
TC64 documents as well as IEC 61643- with IEC 61643-12 which specifically
12. defines the Selection and Application
of SPDs in LV systems.

Some changes have been proposed

within these comments where
possible. However in many cases, a
complete revision of the sub clause
is required to bring it in-line
accordingly. Such revisions have not
been suggested here due to the level
of detail required.
nd rd
GB 19 7 2 and 3 Editorial Change ‘erection’ to ‘installation’ Agreed.
sentences
GB 20 7 and 8 Editorial Both clauses need editing to include Noted.
more definite and indefinite articles to
improve their readability

AT 2 7.1 T There is a statement missing to address Cross reference is made to IEC

ringing and the influence of the distance 61643-12 which deals with this
between SPD and equipment. problem.
Detailed information is given in
clauses 7.2 and7.3.
AT 3 7.1.1 T What you call U I is called U W in 61643- Avoid different Agreed
12 designations/subscripts for the same
subject throughout IEC documents
 – 14 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
AT 4 7.1.1 T The impulse withstand voltage of Ether avoid this direct comparison or Theoretically right. Protective level
equipment is not directly comparable to give guidance how to overcome the should be compared with the
a protective level, due to different differences. resistibility of equipment tested under
targets and measurement setups. the same conditions as SPD
(overvoltages and ovrcurrent
waveform and energy, energisation
of equipments, etc).
Unfortunately no standards exist
which address in this field (it should
be very useful to start with a
standardization work on this matter
!).
For the time being standards dealing
with insulation co-ordination or with
protection against overvoltages,
including IEC 61643-12 and IEC
60364-5-53, directely compare
protection level of SPD and impulse
withstand level of equipments.
A note will be added:
“NOTE - Protective level should be
compared with the resistibility of
equipment tested under the same
conditions as SPD (overvoltages and
overcurrent waveform and energy,
energized equipments, etc). This
matter is under consideration.”

AT 5 7.1.1 Second dot T The formula: Additional information in clause 7 are

Uprot = max (Up , .U) for SPD switching relevant to low voltage power
type. systems only; in this case the
Is wrong, because it disregards the residual voltage of the switching type
residual voltage of the switching type SPD is of minor importance.
SPD , which may be several 100 V.
AT 6 7.1.1 Last para T The statement: Theoretically right, but amplitude and
∆U = 1 kV per m length waveform of current discharged by
Must be linked with a current amplitude, SPD is unknown. Value of 1 kV/m
which is missing. seems a realistic one.
GB 21 7.1 Selection Technical/ The influence of the oscillation Technical details of this should be Adress is given in 7.2.3 and in 7.2.4
of SPD General phenomena caused by the installation added - refer to IEC 61643-12 Clause
distance in location between SPDs and 6.1.2 for guidance.
equipment is not addressed at all.
 – 15 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 22 7.1.1 First Technical/ Rated impulse withstand voltage is given Different symbols for the same See AT 3 comment
Paragraph General the symbol U I – This has the symbol U W parameter throughout IEC documents
in IEC 61643-12 should be avoided. Replace U I with
UW
GB 23 7.1.1 Technical The impulse withstand voltage of This direct comparison should be See AT 4 comment
equipment (as defined in IEC 60664-1) removed and relevant guidance
is not directly comparable to an should be given show how to
equipment protective level or impulse overcome these differences.
immunity level as defined in IEC 61000-
4-5. The tests used to establish both of Reference to IEC 61643-12 should
these values are not identical. again be made for general guidance
in changing this.
The impulse withstand is to test for
insulation breakdown and the equipment
in this test is unenergized.

The impulse immunity test is used to

evaluate the equipments operational
immunity capabilities and therefore the
equipment has to be energized during
these tests.

As equipment is operational and

energized in use, it should therefore
remain operational in the event of LEMP
activity. Therefore protection levels of
SPDs should take account of these
immunity levels, which in general are
considerably lower than the impulse
withstand values.

GB 24 7.1.1 Second Technical The formula “Uprot = max (Up , ∆U) for The use of IEC 61643-12 should See AT 6 comment
bullet SPD switching type” is incorrect. It does again be made for general guidance
not account for the residual voltage of in changing this.
the switching type SPD, which may be
several hundreds of volts.

GB 25 7.1.1 Last Technical The statement “∆U = 1 kV per m length” The use of IEC 61643-12 should See AT 6 comment
paragraph cannot be made without defining an again be made for guidance on this
applied current characteristic. subject and changing this.

DK24 7.1.2 Line 2 E “...an SPD system are:” “..an SPD system are (Figure 2b):” Agreed.
 – 16 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 26 7.1.2.1 Technical The required values for I imp are not in Revise the I imp value to be in line with See AT 1 comment.
line with the recently issued IEC 60364- these other IEC documents as A note will be added:
5-53 A1 and IEC 61643-12 documents. mentioned. ”Values of current are for selection of
SPD. Information on suitable fuses to
Furthermore, to suggest currents should be adopted are treated in IEC 61643-
be greater than or equal to a value is 12 and in IEC 60364-5-53 A1 and are
misleading and could easily give the also supplied by manufacturers for
impression that the bigger this value is, each selected SPD.”
the better. Values of I IMP will be changed from
10 kA to 12,5 kA.
This is not the case as inline fusing to
SPDs would also have to accommodate
such current values accordingly which
may then lead to general discrimination
issues on the electrical installation.

If discrimination is compromised, then

there are safety concerns but if
discrimination is met, the fuses would
derate the large current handling SPDs
in any case.

GB 27 7.1.2.1 Technical The calculations suggested here for I' imp These calculations should be In IEC 62305-3 share of lightning
are not in line with the draft Annex B in changed to be in line with this draft current among services is given. I' imp
IEC 62305-3 Annex. deals with share of current in a
service among conductors of such
service.
See also De 3.
GB 28 7.1.2.1 Technical The calculations in this section do not The complete section needs to be re- I' imp deals with share of current in a
regard the cross-sectional areas of the addressed. service among conductors of such
types of cables for the incoming service. In a service, inner
services. These cannot be disregarded – conductors are assumed to have the
for example what if the service is a same cross section.
power line with 4 cables, each 150 mm² See also DE 3.
or a telephone line with 4 cables, each
0.5 mm²?

GB 29 7.1.2.1 Last two Technical/ I imp is a device parameter used Different symbols for the same Editorial
bulleted General specifically for SPDs and therefore parameter throughout IEC documents
paragraphs should not be used for other purposes. should be avoided.
 – 17 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 30 7.1.2.2 Technical The required values for I n are not in line Revise the I n values to be in line with See AT 1 comment
with the recently issued IEC 60364-5-53 these other IEC documents as
A1 and IEC 61643-12 mentioned.

GB 31 7.1.2.2 Last two Technical/ I n is a device parameter used Different symbols for the same See GB 29 comment
bulleted General specifically for SPDs and should not be parameter throughout IEC documents
paragraphs used for other purposes. should be avoided.

GB 32 7.1.2.3 Bullet Technical The requirement for Uoc ≥ 10 kV is not The use of IEC 61643-12 and IEC Suggested values of I N and of U OC
in line with the recently issued 60364-5-53 A1 should again be made are on safety side. They can be
IEC 60364-5-53 A1 and IEC 61643-12. for guidance on this subject to lowered if agreed. See AT 1.
change this section accordingly.
Interestingly, 7.1.2 of this document it
clearly states: The values for Class III tests are Uoc
= 6kV corresponding to a current of
“Class III tested SPD is to be chosen less than or equal to 3kA.
for fine protection of apparatus”

GB 33 7.2.2 Bullets/Tab Technical The calculation of the cross-section S The complete calculations need to be Compliance with formulas and with
le 1 for class I tested SPDs is incorrect. re-addressed accordingly. Table 1 is required!
This calculation would lead to a
conductor cross section of only 1.5 mm²
for 10 kA (for conductors in PVC
insulation). This is clearly unacceptable
as such a conductor size would blow
open circuit under such peak currents.

Furthermore, Table 1 in the same

document suggests a minimum
conductor size of 6 mm² for a class I
SPD.

GB 34 7.2.3 Protective Technical These requirements are not in line with The use of the relevant TC64 See AT 1 comment.
distance installation rules from TC64 and IEC documents and IEC 61643-12 should Units measures (V/m) will be added
61643-12 again be made for guidance on this for coefficients k and h.
subject to change this section
accordingly and bring it in line.

DK32 7.2.4 Formula E Units are missing in formula Show units in formula See GB 34.
DK33 7.2.4 Formula E What is ‘b’ in formula? Explain what ‘b’ in formula is Coefficient b will be deleted.
 – 18 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
United 7.1.1 Technical The Uprot of an SPD varies with surge Delete this complete section and See AT 4 comment.
States 10 current (i.e. an SPD may have a Uprot of reference IEC 61643-12 SPD Protective distances in clauses 7.2.3
1.2kV at 5kA 8/20 and 1.5kV at 10kA selection guidelines. and 7.2.4 adress for both switching
8/20). It is totally incorrect to try to use and limiting type SPD.
this approach to coordinate the voltage
withstand of the equipment Ui to Uprot.
The true surge voltage withstand level
Ui of equipment is hardly ever (almost
never) known and IEC 61000-4-5 is at
best only tested to 2 kA 8/20 (4 kV with
a 2 ohm impedance combination wave
generator).

This whole section is nicely theoretical

and academic, but seriously lacks
practical implementation. Uprot (but
rather the measured limiting voltage) of
an SPD is only there to be used to assist
in coordinating multiple SPDs in a
distribution network, not for the purpose
it is being used for in this document.

The expression Uprot = max (Up, U) has

no logic. Why is the distance between
SPD and equipment not addressed for
switching type SPDs and only addressed
for limiting type SPDs? It needs to be
Uprot = Up + ∆U for both switching and
limiting type SPDs
when full or part of lightning current it
CN 6 7.1.2 Line 11 ed Deleting “it” Agreed.
is
United 7.1.2 Technical The US has always maintained that Revise the Class II tested SPD to It is yet (see clause 7.3, point 1)
States 11 Class II devices can be used at the MB allow its use at the MB in selected
and not only at the SB. The US cannot applications.
support the proposed text.
AT 7 7.1.2.1 T The required values for I imp are not in See AT 1 comment
line with the recently issued IEC 60364-
5-53 A1 and IEC 61643-12
AT 8 7.1.2.1 T The calculation for I' imp not in line with See GB 27 comment
the draft Annex B of part 3 of 62305
 – 19 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
AT 9 7.1.2.1 T Cross sections of incoming services are See GB 28 comment
totally disregarded in the calculation of
this section.
It cannot be disregarded if one service is
e.g. a power line with 4 times 150 mm²
and another one is a telephone line with
3 times 0,5 mm²
United 7.1.2.1 Technical There is no substantiation provided to Revise to specify an Iimp of > 5 kA or See GB 32 comment.
States 12 support the value of Iimp  10 kA for an Imax > 100 kA 8/20. Not agreed.See IEC 61643-12.
lightning flashes direct to incoming lines.
These values are not consistent with
61643-12, nor Annex B IEC 61024-part
3. The US regards this value as
excessive and unsubstantiated by
experience. The US supports IEC
60099-1 which designates a maximum
discharge of outdoor distribution
arrestors up to 10kA 4/10. Reality
checks seem to support such values.

United 7.1.2.2 Technical These values are not consistent with Coordinate values used in this See AT 1 comment.
States 13 TC64 section with TC64.
United 7.1.2.3 Technical “Uoc <10 kV corresponding to a short See GB 32 comment.
States 14 circuit current of 5 kA” is not in line with
the requirements of a test class III SPD
as defined in 7.1.2. Lower levels can be
used for the protection of sensitive
electronics.
AT 10 7.1.2.1 Doted T I imp is a device parameter for SPDs and Avoid identical Editorial.
paras should not be used for other purposes designations/subscripts for different
subjects throughout IEC documents
AT 11 7.1.2.2 T The required values for I n are not in line See AT 1 comment
with the recently issued IEC 60364-5-53
A1 and IEC 61643-12
AT 12 7.1.2.2 Doted T I n is a device parameter for SPDs and Avoid identical Editorial
paras should not be used for other purposes designations/subscripts for different
subjects throughout IEC documents
AT 13 7.1.2.3 T The requirement for Uoc ≥ 10 kA is not See GB 32 comment
in line with 7.1.2, where it is stated that:
Class III tested SPD is to be chosen for
fine protection of apparatus.
And not in line with the recently issued
IEC 60364-5-53 A1 and IEC 61643-12
 – 20 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DK28 7.2. Line 11-21 E Replace the phrase “..due to lightning strikes...” See DK 16.

“..due to flashes ...”

with
the better is protection the better is the protection
CN 7 7.2.1 Par3 ed Agreed.
DK25 7.2.1 Line 3 E “...effective whichever will be the type of “...effective whatever the type of Agreed.
lightning flash..” lightning strike..”
DK26 7.2.1 Line 7 E “..The closer is an SPD to the...” “..The closer the SPD is located to Agreed.
the...”
DK27 7.2.1 Line 9-10 E “..The closer is an SPD to the apparatus “..The closer the SPD is located to Agreed.
to be protected, the better is the apparatus to be protected, the
protection..” better the protection..”
AT 14 7.2.2 T The additional requirement for the See GB 28 comment.
choosing of cross-section S for class I
tested SPDs is not appropriate, because
this calculation would lead to a cross
section of 1,5 mm² for 10 kA which
seems unacceptable from mechanical
and protection level point of view.
AT 15 7.2.3 T These requirements are not in line with See AT 1 comment.
installation rules from TC64 and IEC
61643-12
The protective distance is not only
related to the cable, but also related
to the property of protected load,
including resistive, capacitive and Values of k evaluated for the worst
CN 8 7.2.3 te The selection of k
reactive loads. For different loads, case of open circuit . See GB 34.
the protective distance is very
different, so we think the value of k
should be modified.
DK29 7.2.3 Par 2 Line T “...occurs even if U prot ≤ U i was chosen.” “...may occur even if U prot < U i .” Agreed
3
DK30 7.2.3 E State what should be the units for U i and See DK 32.
U prot to give I po in metres
st
GB 35 7.2.3 1 Editorial ‘Ground’ is a US term. Replace ‘to ground’ by ‘to earth’ Editorial.
sentence
 – 21 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
rd
United 7.2.3 3 Technical What is the source of this formula and Delete and reference IEC61643-12 Technical publications on travelling
States 15 paragraph the values cited? installation directives. waves phenomenon and on
protection against overvoltages (e.g.
P. Hasse: Protection against
overvoltages, 1987)
AT 16 7.2.4 T What is “b” in the formula: See DK 33.
lpi = (b Ui - Uprot)/h
DE 9 7.2.4 T Formula: Delete factor b, it is never used: See DK 33.
l pi = (bU i - U prot )/h l pi = (U i - U prot )/h
DK31 7.2.4 Par 1 E “...lightning flashes direct to structure or “...lightning strikes direct to the Agreed.
to ground nearby the structure, in the structure or to ground nearby the
loop made of circuit between SPD and structure induce an overvoltage in
apparatus an overvoltage is induced the circuit loop between SPD and
which sums up to U prot and reduces apparatus which adds to U prot and
efficiency of SPD.” thereby reduces the efficiency of
SPD.”
GB 36 7.2.4 Para 2 Editorial ‘Overvoltage’ should be plural. Agreed.

GB 37 7.2.4 Technical The formula “lpi = (b Ui - Uprot)/h” has Define what b is, or delete it. See DK 33.
an undefined parameter – b. What is b?

United 7.2.4 Technical What is “b” in the formula: lpi = (b Ui - Define “b” See DK 33.
States 16 Uprot)/h
AT 17 7.2.5 First para E Correct the reference from IEC 61643-4 Agreed.
to IEC 61643-12
DE 10 7.2.5 T The following sentences are technically Delete them. Sentence will be changed as follows:.
wrong: Change” Identical SPD are effectively
SPD in parallel with the same coordinated”
characteristics are effectively co- Delete “ to achive coordination….
ordinated. To achieve co-ordination, it is
not necessary that SPDs are of same
Class.
GB 37 bis 7.2.5 Editorial The reference IEC 61643-4 is incorrect – Change this reference accordingly. Agreed.
it should be IEC 61643-12

United 7.2.5 Technical IEC 61643-4 does not exist. Replace IEC 61643-4 with IEC Editorial.
States 17 61643-12
AT 18 7.3 1) T Delete the statement at the end: See United States 11 comment.
or other Class if suitable. Possible cases:
Because there is no other class which a) a lot of Class II tested SPD in
may be suitable. parallel
b) no direct flashes(LPZ 0 B )
 – 22 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 38 7.3 Procedure Technical This complete section again needs to be The use of IEC 61643-12 should See United States 11 comment.
for erection reviewed in line with IEC 61643-12. As again be made for general guidance See AT 4 comment.
of an SPD there are issues with Ui and direct in changing this.
system comparisons of equipment protection
and Figure levels to impulse withstand voltages with
12 no mention of equipment immunity.
(Refer to comments made against 7.1.1)
The use of class I SPDs is only really
required when a building has a LPS
system installed – a Class II arrestor
can be installed at the Main Board
where no LPS exists.

GB 39 7.3 Title and Editorial ‘Erection’ should be replaced by Agreed.

st
1 ‘installation’
sentence
United 7.3 1) Technical The US strongly recommends that SPDs See GB 32 comment
States 18 tested to test Class I Iimp >5 kA and test
Class II Imax = 50 kA be allowed for
installation point MB.
United 7.3 8) Technical The US strongly recommends that SPDs See GB 32 comment
States 19 tested to test Class I Iimp >2 kA and test
Class II Imax = 20 kA be allowed for
installation point SB.
DK34 8 Par 2 Line E “However it is possible to optimise the “However it is possible to minimise Agreed.
2 investment cost...” the investment cost...”

Most people want to spend as little as

possible...
GB 8.2 Para 1, Editorial Correct spelling ‘Correctly’ Agreed.
bullet 3
GB 40 8.2 Para 2, Editorial The frequency of periodical inspection Add a cross reference after Agreed.
bullet 3 should be related to IEC 62305-3, periodically
Annex F, 7

JP 8.2 Line 5 Editorial …　corretly　… …　correctly　… Agreed.

DE 11 Table 1 T Last line of table 1: Last line of table 1: It complies with IEC 62305-3
2
Cross sections in contradiction to For Class I replace 6 by 16 mm
60364-5-53
 – 23 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DK35 Table 1 T Stainless steel is widely used in LPS Include values for Stainless steel It could be considered as Steel
and therefore values for stainless steel
should be included in table 1.
JP 2 Table 1 Technical Japan National Committee wants to Table will be modified to include
change the minimum cross-section of AWG gauge.
copper- and aluminum-wire.
Reason:
1) In Japan, we have been using these Material　　　 Cross-section
2
copper-wire sizes for long time mm
without any problem.
2) These copper- and aluminum-wire Cu, Fe 50
sizes are defined according to the
Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS), 　　　　　　　Cu　　　　　　　　
and are equivalent to American Wire 14
Gauge (AWG). Al 22
3) The values of wire-gauge in JIS are 　　　　　　　Fe　　　　　　　　　
as follows: 50
2
Cross-sections (mm ) AWG gaugeNo. 　　　　　　　Cu　　　　　　　　
5,5
1,25 16 Al 8
2,0 14 　　　　　　　Fe　　　　　　　　　
3,5 12 16
5,5 10
8 8 5,5
14 6 Cu 3,5
22 4 1,25

DK36 Table 2 Row 2 E “Checking the need of LEMP... “Checking the need for LEMP... Agreed.
column 2
...using again the risk .....” ...using the risk .....”
GB 41 Table 2 Editorial Under under ‘Aim’ Table 2 will be revised.
First box ‘… measures, using the risk…’
Second box. What does ‘As result are
defined’ mean?
Fourth box. One word, ‘timetables’.
DK37 Figure 2 Text below E What is mint by (suitable) ? Delete “(suitable)” See GB 42
Figure 2c
 – 24 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 42 Fig 2c Title Technical In the Title. What does ‘suitable’ mean? Reword title as: ‘Apparatus has no Agreed.
effective protection either against
conducted surges or against radiated
magnetic fields’

DK38 Figure 3 Text below E “a), b) – Interconnecting two..” “Figure 3a, 3b – Interconnecting Agreed.
Figures two..”
for consistency with figure 2
DK39 Figure 3 Text below E “...lightning current can along the.....” “...lightning current can flow along Agreed.
Figures the.....”
DK40 Figure 3 Text below E “c), d) – Interconnecting two..” “Figure 3c, 3d – Interconnecting Agreed.
Figures two..”
for consistency with figure 2
DK41 Figure 3 3c and 3d E The LPZ 2 to the right should be within Redraw Agreed.
the frame.
GB 43 Fig 3a Line 3 Editorial Add missing word ‘……current can flow along….’ Agreed.

DK42 Figure 5 Text below E “... may serve also to....” “... may also serve to...” Agreed.
figure
DK43 Figure 11 Symbols E U L and U SPD should be ∆U and U p in Use ∆U and U p Agreed.
order to be consistent with 7.1.
And define U p as:
Furthermore U p should be defined as “U p Protection level of SPD”
“U p Protection level of SPD”
DK44 Figure 11 Text below E U L and U SPD should be ∆U and U p Use ∆U and U p Agreed.
figure
DK45 Figure 11 Text below E “...higher then the limiting voltage of the “...higher than the protection level of Agreed.
figure SPD.” the SPD.”

GB 44 Fig 11 Symbol H Editorial Add missing word ‘…and its time derivative’. Agreed.

DK46 Figure 12 In flow E U prot 1 Should be U p1 Use U p1 , U p2 and U p3 Not agreed. Total U prot (including ∆U)
chart U prot 2 Should be U p2 not only U p is concerned (see 7.1).
U prot 3 Should be U p3

For consistency with 7.1

GB 45 Fig 12 Title Editorial ‘Erection’ should be replaced by Agreed.
‘installation’
st
GB 46 Annex A 1 Editorial Change ‘supply’ to ‘supplies’ Agreed.
sentence
 – 25 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
GB 47 Annex A Editorial The terms ‘Victim’ and ‘harm’ should not Noted.
be used for inanimate objects.

DK47 Annex Par 2 Line E “... , by direct lightning flashes.” “... , by direct lightning strikes.” See DK 16.
A.1.2 2
DK48 Annex Par 1 Line E “...field arising from direct or nearby “...field caused inside LPZs by direct Agreed.
A.2.1 1-2 lightning strikes inside LPZs can be or nearby lightning strikes can be
reduced only by spacial shielding of the reduced only by spacial shielding of
LPZs. Otherwise, voltages and...” the LPZs. Voltages and...”
DK49 Annex Formula E The square root should be inside the Correct Agreed.
A.3.1.1 last bracket
DK51 Annex Examples E “...gridline...” “... grid like....” Agreed.
A.3.1.1 Line 1
DK42 Figure Text for the E “Foundation earth electrode” “Foundation earthing electrode” Agreed.
A.6 Foundation
earthing
electrode
DK53 Figure Row 1 E The square root is on top of the d w Correct Agreed.
A.7 Column 2
DK54 Figure Text for the E “Earth electrode....” “Earthing electrode...” Agreed.
A.13a earthing
electrode
DK55 Figure Symbols in E The symbols inside the loop and inside Correct Agreed.
A.14 figure the apparatus are missing
JP Annex Editorial Title number “A.1.1” in p.47 is to be p.47: Agreed.
A.4.1 changed to “A.4.1”. Change “A.1.1” in p.47 to “A.4.1”.
PL 4 A.4.3 Fig. A.1 Technical Current amplitudes for impulses Agreed.
Item 1. 10/350 µs and 0,25/100 µs should be
different.
PL 5 A.4.3 Fig. A.1 Technical It seems that for power installations the Figure should show only, how to
Item 2. withstand voltages should be make "threat" compatible with
determined, not the immunity levels. "immunity".
PL 6 A.4.3 Fig. A.1 Technical IEC 61000-4-10 is addressed to Not agreed. Figure A.2b shows
Item 3. switching overvoltages and selection of correlation with lightning current
immunity is here not correlated with parameters.
lightning current parameters.
JP 3 Fig. A.14 Editorial Add the words in fig.A.14 See the attached figure (Figure Agreed.
（see Fig.24 in 81/191/NP） A.14).

DK56 B.1 Note E It should be more clear what further Rewrite Note will be deleted.
information can be found in 60364-4-444
 – 26 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
DK57 B.2.1 Par 5 T See DK21 Agreed.
th
DK58 B.2a 5 bullet E “Isolation interfaces could...” “Isolation interfaces such as optical Agreed.
point couplers and isolation transformers
could...”
DK59 B.5 Note T It is not obvious why metal cabinets may Please clarify Note will be deleted.
not be grounded. Furthermore it is not
clear why the note apparently is only
concerned with domestic rooms and
offices.
nd
DK60 B.6 2 bullet T See DK22 Agreed.
point
GB 48 Annex C Symbols General/ Specific reference is made to a class I Different symbols for the same Not agreed.
C.1 definitions: Technical test for an SPD being of the waveshape parameter throughout IEC documents Annex C is only an informative Annex
I10/350 10/350. should be avoided. explaining the principles used to
coordinate SPDs. The examples use
This is incorrect as the actual test Use the definition of a Class I test typical surges (defined locally only
standard for SPDs IEC 61643-1 (and its with the test impulse current Iimp as for this Annex) related to real
subsequent amendments) implicates defined in the actual test standard for lightning threat (not the test currents
that a class I test is defined by the SPDs IEC 61643-1-A2 in place of the for SPD defined in 61643).
parameters peak value Ipeak, charge Q, incorrect term I10/350
and specific energy (section 7.1.1). The However the misleading term
test impulse current is defined by the "impulse test current" is replaced by
test impulse current Iimp. the general term "surge".

It also clearly defines that a possible

waveshape, which meets these
parameters, is the 10/350. It is not the
only waveshape.

I10/350 does not exist within IEC 61643-

1 testing standards.

JP 4 Fig. C.8b Technical The curve of Energy(MOV) is not right. See the attached figure (Figure Figure to be amended.
The part of the curve must be a dotted C.8b).
line.
　
 – 27 – 81/221/CC
National Clause/ Paragraph Type of COMMENTS Proposed change OBSERVATIONS OF THE
Committee Subclause Figure/ comment SECRETARIAT
Table (General/ on each comment submitted
Technical/
Editorial)
JP 5 Fig. C.8c Technical 1. The curve of Energy(MOV) is not See the attached figure (Figure Figure to be amended.
right. The C.8c).
part of the curve must be a dotted line.
2. The curve of U 1 (SG) is not right.
After the SG is ignited, U 1 (SG) is very
low
voltage.

PL 7 C.2.2 Fig. C.3a, Technical The case of lightning currents flowing Noted.
C.2.3 C.5a, C.7 from the grounding system to the circuits
(circuit), together with the problem of decupling
C.8a elements should be here considered and
adequate notes should be formulated.
PL 8 C.2.3 Fig. C.7 Editorial The figure of circuit should be numbered Agreed.
as C.7a.
PL 9 C.3.2 Fig. C.11 Technical The variant II is not clear enough. A Noted.
note on the solution of decupling
problem should be formulated. The note
on the residual voltages should be
completed by the requirements on the
difference between the voltage values of
successive steps.