This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Double wound safety transformer for EV supply.

Hi everyone, I have only posted once before so thanks to anyone who replies!


I am following on from the earlier "70 volt PEN conductor not allowed to exceed post", and looking into supplying a client with an electric vehicle power supply from a three phase isolating transformer BS 7671 722.413 (1.2): " The circuit shall be supplied through a fixed isolating transformer.."


The general consensus seems to be that an external IP box with an RCD (Type B) and a tethered lead is the standard to follow, and this may be the only option with a 230 volt domestic supply, but why not use a 3 phase 400 volt step down or tapped, safety double wound isolation transformer in a standard 100 -200 ampere or above industrial units/sheds?

( Subject to load and diversity).


The answer often stated when I have asked sparks/engineers is that in-rush current are too high but a type D CB BS 60898 will 'let through' the in-rush ( the transformer manufacturer agrees), and will still give at 5 seconds- (final circuit exceeding 32 A) 0.44 ohm EL ( 10oC) , so is achievable in many situations local to Birmingham.


I was then going to run a fused cable out to an external isolated IP 65 box with a Type 2 socket to IP44 or above ( 722.55.101).


Isn't it better to engineer a solution to the upcoming electric charger deluge, rather than buying (insert well known manufacturer name here), and lots of single phase loads usually dumped onto L1?


I would be interested in any thoughts or problems you may consider....





Parents
  • Hi Andy,


    You are correct about the earthing as an exposed-conductive-part rather than using the pole as a TT electrode.



    Had a look at the cable and your link to the cable spec site.


    If the cable is a derivative of a SY cable the IET on-site guide specifically says that we couldn't use this type of cable: " every item of equipment must comply with a British or Harmonised Standard"   and " SY, YY and CY cables are not made to British or Harmonised standards."


    We had lots of emails from the NIC a few years back when a few contractors seemed tore using a black YY instead of SWA.


    Although I did notice that the cable was Nexus who do supply in the UK and it has an XPLE sheath so it would be worth checking.


    Regards


    Simon







Reply
  • Hi Andy,


    You are correct about the earthing as an exposed-conductive-part rather than using the pole as a TT electrode.



    Had a look at the cable and your link to the cable spec site.


    If the cable is a derivative of a SY cable the IET on-site guide specifically says that we couldn't use this type of cable: " every item of equipment must comply with a British or Harmonised Standard"   and " SY, YY and CY cables are not made to British or Harmonised standards."


    We had lots of emails from the NIC a few years back when a few contractors seemed tore using a black YY instead of SWA.


    Although I did notice that the cable was Nexus who do supply in the UK and it has an XPLE sheath so it would be worth checking.


    Regards


    Simon







Children
No Data