Do any of Bambu's printers have Safety certifications(TUV, U/L etc)

I looked at the back of my P1P and it just occurred to me, there is no sticker on the product that indicates any agency safety certifications. Can anyone with an A1, P1S, AMS or X1 double check and see if they have such a notation?

This is what it should look like. The ‘E’ number if the file number where one can lookup the file for that apparatus verifying the authenticity of it’s U/L or CUL certification.

In the wake of the A1 debacle, it has to come to some people’s mind, did they do any safety certifications for these products?

3 Likes

I believe the “CE” is the European safety certification.

1 Like

The presence of the logo CE (from French, “conformité européenne” meaning “European conformity”) on commercial products indicates that the manufacturer or importer affirms the goods’ conformity with European health, safety, and environmental protection standards. It is not a quality indicator or a certification mark. The CE marking is required for goods sold in the European Economic Area (EEA); goods sold elsewhere may also carry the mark. It is a criminal offence to affix a CЄ mark to a product that is not compliant or offer it for sale.
For example, most electrical products must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and the EMC Directive, among others; toys must comply with the Toy Safety Directive. (The Low Voltage Directive is about electrical safety; EMC or Electromagnetic Compatibility means the device will work as intended without interfering with, or being affected by, the use or function of any other device.) The CЄ mark indicates compliance with as many norms (directives and regulations) as apply at the time of the declaration of compliance. In the case of electrical products, several later norms such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) are relevant in addition to the Low Voltage Directive and EMC Directive. The exact significance of the CЄ mark therefore depends on when it was applied to a specific unit.

440px-Broadcom_WLL6230B-D99-4014

Example of the CЄ mark followed by the registration number of a notified body.

The CE mark must be always accompanied by the EU Certificate of Conformity, bearing the same identification numbers.

Thanks for sharing that data. It’s been over 15 years since I had a product put through compliance, and I used an outside agency, but it looks like nothing has materially changed in the last 20 years.

So, based on this information, Bambulab is not compliant and appears to be supplying — at least in my one example — a non-conforming device.

Can any of our EU or UK community members verify with their printers or AMS whether or not the example CE mark with certificate number appears on their product?

I checked a couple of my home office products, kitchen appliances, TVs, and various other devices that use wall power, and they all have the CE mark with a registration number and/or U/L file number, which is the equivalent compliance requirement for the US. Bambulab does not.

:disappointed:

1 Like


Apparently, all my AMS units are like this. I’ll have to do some digging work to check my X1C, but that will have to wait most likely until tomorrow, when my current printing project will be completed.

They’ve spent quite a bit on R&D but seeing their operations up to today plus the setback of the A1 I wouldn’t doubt they’ve completely overlooked this matter.

Since noticing BL on kickstarter, they’ve taken the ‘go with the flow’ mentality and kinda implement things as they see fit. If they were truly transparent, we would hear about the A1’s status on becoming available again and how sales are going. Doesn’t necessarily mean they must let us know, but it’s kinda like “if you have nothing to hide, why not?” Honestly that’s probably prusa’s best business feature. Being transparent.

The number after the CE marking only indicates which organization (third party) has performed the compliance testings. This is only required for certain products otherwise the manufacturer performs its own tests.

Olias, my P1S sticker is the same as your P1P’s except it has one more certification, the FCC japanese equivalent.

Apparently, there is nothing in the printer that requires an independant body to certify the CE marking. Even the voltage is considered low voltage by the EU (less than 1000VAC ot less than 1500VDC :flushed: :astonished:)

If you refer to UL/CUR, this is not a requirement by law. Manufacturers can opt to have their product certified by Underwiters Laboratories and affix the logo, it’s more peace of mind for the consumer knowing that an independant body has checked and certified against its own process (which is of higher standards that minimum required by international regulations) than anything else.

1 Like

" Manufacturers play a crucial role in ensuring that products placed on the extended single market of the European Economic Area (EEA) are safe.
They are responsible for checking that their products meet EU safety, health, and environmental protection requirements. It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to carry out the conformity assessment, set up the technical file, issue the EU declaration of conformity, and affix the CE marking to a product. Only then can this product be traded on the EEA market.

If you are a manufacturer, you have to follow these 6 steps to affix a CE marking to your product

  1. Identify the applicable directive(s) and harmonised standards
  2. Verify product specific requirements
  3. Identify whether an independent conformity assessment (by a notified body) is necessary
  4. Test the product and check its conformity
  5. Draw up and keep available the required technical documentation
  6. Affix the CE marking and draw up the EU Declaration of Conformity (27 KB)

These 6 steps may differ by product as the conformity assessment procedure varies. Manufacturers must not affix CE marking to products that don’t fall under the scope of one of the directives providing for its affixing.

For products that present higher safety risks such as gas boilers, safety cannot be checked by the manufacturer alone. In these cases, an independent organisation, specifically a notified body appointed by national authorities, has to perform the safety check. The manufacturer may affix the CE marking to the product only once this has been done."

(follow up from above)

document from the European Commission:


Is there any applicable EU legal framework in the case of 3D printing?

3D Printing, also known as Additive Manufacturing (AM), is a manufacturing process that uses 3D Printers as means of production. Evidently, the range of final products is immense and for different applications.

3D Printers fall under the definition of machinery and subsequently under the scope of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. Therefore, manufacturers must ensure 3D Printers compliance with the essential health and safety requirements of the Directive, compose a technical file and affix the CE-marking before placing them on the EU market.

However, the above does not discard the application of other EU pieces of legislation such as the EMC Directive 2014/30/EC, WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU, RoHS II Directive 2011/65/EU, REACH 1907/2006/EU and Directive (EU) 2017/2102.

3D printed products can become medical devices which would fall within the scope of the MDD 93/42/EEC. If this is the case, manufacturers must ensure that these products meet the requirements of the applicable legislation. Carrying out a conformity assessment procedure, composing a technical file, drafting the EU declaration of conformity and affixing the CE marking, before placing the products on the EU market, are essential here.


Are there any mandatory EU standards for 3D printers?

The a-priori performance of a risk assessment is essential to determine the applicable health and safety requirements to the 3D Printers, whose design and construction must consider the results of such a risk assessment.

The Machinery Directive provides manufacturers with the possibility of relying on harmonized specific technical solutions. When any of those solutions is chosen, the product concerned is presumed to be in conformity with the health, safety and performance requirements that the harmonized standards aim to cover. Conversely, if the manufacturer chooses to adopt a different technical solution, a detailed explanation on its compliance with the EU requirements is required in the technical file.

The following are the most relevant harmonized standards under the Machinery Directive for laser-based 3D Printers (metal):

  • EN ISO 12100
  • EN 60204-1
  • EN 13849-1
  • EN 13850
  • EN ISO 11553-1
  • EN ISO 19353

These can purchased from the website of ISO.

Kindly note that, for plastic printers, fire and explosion standards are applicable as well .

I don’t know if things have changed, but having a “UL” certification does not mean your product is necessarily safe, it just means your company forked over the thousands of dollars to have the laboratory test it.

About 15 years ago I worked as an engineer for a company that manufactured and designed professional grade industrial use portable “luminaries” (lights - in layperson’s terms).

I was tasked with navigating the some of the hurdles the various certification industries (UL, CSA, etc.) had to get their stamp of approval on our products.

At the time, the head engineer/CEO wanted to move away from UL and get everything switched over to CSA (Canadian Standards Association) certification, which was kind of ironic considering our largest customer was the US military.

The company paid tens of thousands of dollars for every product to get tested by UL and had to recertify each product periodically.

His biggest complaint about UL (other than being the most costly certification) was that some years before, a family lost their child in a fire caused by some faulty Christmas lights that were UL certified.
UL and the manufactures of the lights were sued by the family. UL’s defense was basically (I am paraphrasing here) “our certification does not legally imply any guarantee of safety” and UL won the lawsuit.
It really bothered my boss that we had to fork over so much money to legally put a logo on our products that held absolutely no value, other than the fact people (mistakenly) considered UL certified products safer.

UL is a huge for-profit company and have cornered a huge market just on their name alone. At one time they were not-for-profit, but they’ve gone cooperate and are only in the business to make money.

Here’s an article that gives a bit of background of UL after it was found it’s testing was often failing to make products “safe”:

2 Likes

Anything more recent? That article is nearly 25 years old.

I think devices such as a 3D printer could pose a problem for any certification entity. (There are many besides UL.) Open hot-bed slingers pose a chance of injury in their own right. How “safe” do they have to be? Who sets the standard? And since the material and objects produced can vary so widely, how would they be classified? Items could fall under food contact, animal contact, electrical, mechanical, toys or even clothing. No single certification can be made to fit.

I suppose we need a certification that we can plug it in and not burn down the house but even that is not enough for a business.

One would for sure not expect UL to be a better authority in its field than say the FAA in its own and yet we know how questionable a certifying authority can be…

Here is just another meaning of CE. https://www.kimuagroup.com/news/differences-between-ce-and-china-export-markings/.

Except that the China Export marking story is a hoax :smile: :smile: A good one though :wink:

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/suing-underwriters-laboratories-in-a-products-liability-case.html

“…and the irony of this defense by the guardians of public was that UL was saying that all of its procedures, guidelines, and inspections don’t really protect against anything.”

I laughed out loud when I read that. How sad. And how sad it is that we have little recourse when something does go wrong.

The US does have federal laws regarding consumer products though–Imported or not. The Consumer Product Safety Commision handles that.

“Federal law requires manufacturers and importers to test many consumer products for compliance with consumer product safety requirements. Based on passing test results, the manufacturer or importer must certify the consumer product as compliant with the applicable consumer product safety requirements in a written or electronic certificate. Certificates are required to accompany the applicable product or shipment of products covered by the certificate, and a copy must be provided to retailers, distributors and, upon request, to the government.”

I wonder where BL stands on this. But I know for sure, I’m not giving mine back. They’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands. :laughing:

Your experience aligns closely with mine. Our products were industrial systems designed for applications like power plant consoles and remote generators, adhering to UL 508 specifications for electrical panels, including dials, gauges, switches, and industrial computers.

Due to our size, we lacked the ability to self-certify and had to send our products to UL for first-article certification. Subsequently, quarterly factory inspections ensured consistent adherence to standards.

Our certification was essential due to UL’s establishment of a ecosystem of 508-certified panel builders, crucial for industries like pharmaceuticals and breweries. This certification acted much like Apple’s MFI(made for iPhone) cert in that you needed this “badge” if you wanted to play in that market. They even gave out plaques to hang in your lobby to show you were 508 certified and you were authorized to use it in your marketing material.

Our CEO harbored deep resentment toward UL, dubbing them the “Chicago Mafia” for their extortionary tactics, such as switching standards and imposing exorbitant certification costs. With a stroke of a pen, they nullified all of our certs when they switched to ISO and made us go through certification for everything. That was a $300K bill if we wanted to do this and we were only a $6million company. We were forced to obsolete nearly half our product portfolio.

I bring this up because there no doubt will be someone in this forum who will point out that Bambulab uses a Meanwell Power supply that has many agency certs. Not so fast. that is a “UL Recognized” [u[component[/u] and does not matter at all for a consumer product.

For UL at least, my compliance engineer told me that anything that uses wall current and marketed to a consumer, must have a UL cert. For medical devices, there was a different cert and that was for any product that came into direct contact with a patience. If memory serves, the threshold was 48V which incidentally is what the US telephone system operates off of.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is not exactly true. I had one customer—a UL 508 certified panel shop—that decided to use a cheap Chinese knockoff of my product. It was a panel computer and had a UL sticker. They paid dearly for that mistake.

My customer made multimillion-dollar power substations, and they had just shipped $12 million worth of product to Chicago O’Hare airport—Chicago being the hometown of UL. We’re talking 11 flatbed tractor trailer’s worth of bulky equipment. When it came time to sign off on the safety inspection, the inspector didn’t even bother to inspect the $12 million dollar system; he went straight to the Panel PC and said, ‘Pull the file on that…’ When they did, he pointed out that the product was UL certified for office equipment and not UL 508.

That story didn’t end well for that customer. Since their product was already in the field, it could no longer be self-certified under 508… oh no… they had to pay an extra $60K to get it field-certified. You see, that’s a different UL department. :roll_eyes:

The point being is that many large US cities like Chicago, NY, Boston, DC, Philly, and such have very strong industrial safety standards that one needs to comply with. It’s one of the many reasons we don’t see large factories like we saw in Detroit anymore, along with the cost of doing business in a big city. But it’s a lot easier to get a plant certified in Podunk, Mississippi, than in the Chicagoland area.

_________________________________________________________

Just as a side note for those folks who don’t know the history of UL: ‘Underwriters Laboratory’ was founded in 1894 as a direct result of too many electrical fires stemming from what was then a new technology: electricity. ‘Insurance underwriters’ quickly endorsed the not-for-profit entity to certify electrical products. UL was a customer of mine back in the day and I recall that they ran more like a public utility than a company. They told me that there was a brief period where an insurance company could deny a claim for a structure fire caused by a faulty device if it did not have a UL certification. Of course that’s no longer true but that can shift liability of a fire back to the manufacturer.

When municipalities and governments around the world, including in the US, started to accept other certifications such as Germany’s TUV, the competition caused UL to reorganize in 2012 as a for-profit entity. That was right around the time I was involved with 508 products and UL morphed into a money-grubbing parasitic monster.

2 Likes

I think if a product has a CE rating, it would most likely also pass a UL certification. I think that in most instances the EU standards for products are stricter than the US. They probably didn’t want to pay the extra money for UL certification and since it is not required, they didn’t.

I would agree and that would align with my own experience when safety compliance was required to submit a product bid. CE mark was almost universally accepted.

However, I believe the point was made in @drakko post above, that in the example label provided, Bambulab is not printing the file number on the label. It’s a surprise that someone within the EU hasn’t tapped them on the shoulder and said… “Ahem… do you have a moment…”. In view of what started this thought, you would have thought that with the A1 debacle, this would have come to a regulator’s attention.

As I commented above, the number following the CE logo is not the filing number but the approved company that would have certified the product if that product had required an independant body rather than the manufacturer itself to verify the product was in accordance with the CE standards. Looking at the directives, none of the printer specifications require to be independently certified so the logo stands by itself meaning its self-certified by bambu lab. Bambu Lab should of course keep records of their testings if required to be shared with EU regulatory bodies.