What is IP Rating? When buying a particular device, especially cellular phones or electrical sockets, you might have come across the terms waterproof or dust resistant. How do you become sure if your device is capable of that protection or not? An IP rating is a technical term that describes the level of these capabilities for a device/equipment.
Ingress Protection Rating is a code defined by IEC 60529 (International Electrotechnical Commission) and EN 60529 (European Standard) define the protection ratings of any device. Seen explicitly in electrical enclosures and mechanical casings, it defines the resistance capability against dust, water and sometimes accidental contacts. Let us make it more transparent with an example:
First Digit: Symbolizes the Solid particle protection, meaning the level of protection that the device provides against solid foreign objects (X or 0-6) (mandatory).
Similarly,
Second Digit: Symbolizes the level of Liquid ingress protection, meaning the level of protection that the device provides against water. (X or 0-8 or 6k/9K) (mandatory).
(All tests with the letter "K" are defined by ISO 20653 (replacing DIN 40050-9) and are not found in IEC 60529, except for IPx9, which is the same as the IP69K water test.)
Also, for Additional and Supplementary Letter (Other Letters)
(Data sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code)
So, for any device marked IP65, its rating symbolizes: -
IP -stands for International protection
6- Dust-tight. No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact (dust-tight). A vacuum must be applied. Test duration of up to 8 hours based on airflow.
5- Protection against water jets. Water projected by a nozzle (6.3 mm (0.25 in)) against enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects. Test duration: 1 minute per square meter for at least 3 minutes. Water volume: 12.5 litres per minute Pressure: 30 kPa (4.4 psi) at a distance of 3 meters (9.8 ft).
As defined by IP standards.
For more information regarding the ratings of our products, please Click here
Comments