安规网

标题: V-O与VTM-0讨论 [打印本页]
作者: gadmei    时间: 2012-10-29 15:40
标题: V-O与VTM-0讨论
Dear All：" p. C3 ^; i8 l- s$ X7 T
V-0和VTM-0材料除了厚度不同外，有什么区别，能否相互代替？6 B1 l0 U1 `( T
作者: 清水白菜    时间: 2012-10-29 16:03
本帖最后由 清水白菜 于 2012-10-29 16:08 编辑
$ W' m( f9 m- v6 q. D& L# {$ y% U2 m! q& O
Test Name
Test Method
UnitsTested (mm)Value
Flammability
ISO 9773, IEC 60695-11-10
Class (color)0.08VTM-2 (NC)
0.13VTM-0 (NC, BK)
0.25VTM-0 (NC, BK)
0.51VTM-0 (NC, BK)
0.63V-0 (ALL)
3.0V-0 (ALL)
Glow-Wire Flammability (GWFI)
IEC 60695-2-12
C--
Glow-Wire Ignition (GWIT)
IEC 60695-2-13
C--
IEC Comparative Tracking Index
IEC 60112
Volts (Max)--
IEC Ball Pressure
IEC 60695-10-2
C--
ISO Heat Deflection (1.80 MPa)
ISO 75-2
C--
ISO Tensile Strength
ISO 527-2
MPa--
ISO Flexural Strength
ISO 178
MPa--
ISO Tensile Impact
ISO 8256
kJ/m2--
ISO Izod Impact
ISO 180
kJ/m2--
ISO Charpy Impact
ISO 179-2
kJ/m2--
" ~7 r5 F1 i" p4 ^2 p4 s
) z, c7 I6 {0 g5 f" w# l( x
Test Name
Test Method
UnitsTested (mm)Value
Flammability
IEC 60695-11-10, IEC 60695-11-20
Class (color)0.75V-1 (BK)
1.5V-0 (BK)
2.5V-0, 5VA (BK)
3.0V-0, 5VA (BK
Glow-Wire Flammability (GWFI)
IEC 60695-2-12
C--
Glow-Wire Ignition (GWIT)
IEC 60695-2-13
C--
IEC Comparative Tracking Index
IEC 60112
Volts (Max)--
IEC Ball Pressure
IEC 60695-10-2
C--
ISO Heat Deflection (1.80 MPa)
ISO 75-2
C--
ISO Tensile Strength
ISO 527-2
MPa--
ISO Flexural Strength
ISO 178
MPa--
ISO Tensile Impact
ISO 8256
kJ/m2--
ISO Izod Impact
ISO 180
kJ/m2--
ISO Charpy Impact
ISO 179-2
kJ/m2--

# q3 {9 Z& y( P+ Z6 `' k; H! p
2 X7 s; e/ }- o. l  T4 V; o以上可见Flammability这一项测试标准不一样，相关标准要求的厚度不一样；
2 |) A  @# F6 M. a* i60950-1里有说到Flammability可以等效互换（见加粗部分）, 电气和机械强度方面要具体考虑。
: h, V* m; x. Y+ kNOTE 1 When applying the requirements in this standard, HF-1 CLASS FOAMED MATERIAL is regarded as better than
' y- g* L( f0 Z# F2 b, THF-2 CLASS, and HF-2 CLASS better than HBF CLASS.+ S- c$ b9 E' t! _2 N" e# v
NOTE 2 Similarly, material of 5VA CLASS is regarded as better than 5VB CLASS, 5VB CLASS better than V-0 CLASS,7 b: a. n! M0 p4 F
V-0 CLASS better than V-1 CLASS, V-1 CLASS better than V-2 CLASS, V-2 CLASS better than HB40 CLASS and
: F, R% i" W" }/ |HB40 CLASS better than HB75 CLASS.8 _6 X! k5 U1 W6 i8 O; s" \6 l3 ~
NOTE 3 Similarly, MATERIAL of VTM-0 CLASS is regarded as better than VTM-1 CLASS and VTM-1 CLASS better than
7 a3 p# J8 w7 U- C+ Q$ z0 MVTM-2 CLASS.$ B8 b) J' m. F4 W" G" [1 t, i
NOTE 4 VTM-0 CLASS, VTM-1 CLASS and VTM-2 CLASS MATERIALS are considered to be equivalent to V-0 CLASS,+ z5 m% Z0 r! G
V-1 CLASS and V-2 CLASS MATERIALS, respectively, but only for their flammability properties. Their electrical and3 P0 e# F/ l" r; _" g8 M! T1 U( ]
mechanical properties are not necessarily equivalent.- H. I+ X" x1 m3 s) X
NOTE 5 Certain flammability classes have replaced the classes used in earlier editions of this standard. The, Y$ F' m  J: P2 _1 T
equivalence of the old and the new classes is shown in Table 1B.
7 [6 ~! s" r( E; P3 u
作者: gadmei    时间: 2012-11-1 15:08
清水白菜 发表于 2012-10-29 16:03
" a; c# D3 p7 _. j2 @以上可见Flammability这一项测试标准不一样，相关标准要求的厚度不一样；
# \% K# W' o. L! |% M6 j- z! D6 E( K60950-1里有说到Flammab ...

0 e  M+ X0 m# G' I7 t谢谢LZ，很详细



欢迎光临 安规网 (http://bbs2.angui.org/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2