This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

EVs, Street furniture, PME and TT configurations

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Good afternoon all,


I'm part of one of the teams installing the EV charging points around London and we keep running into the same situations and problems when going through the site selection process - proximity of other electrified street furniture to the units we are installing (as well as potentially plugged in cars which is measured to the edge of the parking bay.)

Regs say that any EV installation cannot be connected to a PME system and must be converted to a TT in case of a damaged/faulty PEN conductor. Naturally if you're converting something to a TT system and not using the DNO TN-C-S earthing arrangement, there must be a reasonable distance between the TT and any other TN-C or TN-C-S systems (2m or so is reasonable).

If there were other services in the vicinity but can be proven that these have also been converted to TT and are 100% confirmed to not be using the DNO earth, would it be reasonable to say that the requirement for the 2m distance can be reduced or ignored completely? Another thought I've had is to bond the cabinets together - being on the same type of system, it makes logical sense that this would in turn reduce the Ze and improve disconnection times, both units have their methods of ADS and incorporate an RCD/RCBO of a 61008 or 61009 standard respectively.


Any other thoughts or ideas would be much appreciated as I try and figure a workaround for this issue. I understand this could work for smaller cabinets and for individual supplies, and not necessarily for street lighting which might not be adequately equipped for being converted to TT (bit of a bigger job to start installing RCDs and then giving a minor works cert etc.).
Parents

  • 411.3.1.1 Protective earthing

    Exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to a protective conductor under the specific conditions for each type of system earthing as specified in Regulations 411.4 to 411.6.
    Simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to the same earthing system individually, in groups or collectively.



    Curiously, the same demand doesn't seem to be made of extraneous-conductive-parts (even though they are likely connected to the same MET as an exposed-conductive-part).


    Steel lighting columns, I would suggest, are generally extraneous-conductive-parts rather than exposed-conductive-parts (the innards generally being sheathed cables and enclosed terminals/devices). Even contact with the class I lighting head on the top and/or a deliberate bond to the lamppost's MET doesn't make it an exposed-conductive-part (even though it would obviously attain the same potential).


    So it might be that the only actual exposed-conductive-parts with reach are the charge point (if metallic) and the car itself (when present) - which would make satisfying 411.3.1.1 easy.


    What if we had a TT system for the EVSE and if we felt the need bonded the TT MET to any extraneous-conductive-parts in the vicinity (e.g. lighting columns). Very much like a TT'd house sharing a metallic water main with the PME'd house next door. Clearly nonsense from the point of view of avoiding nasty touch voltages under broken CNE conditions, but doesn't actually seem to be against either the general rules of BS 7671 or section 722 in particular (only the 'means of earthing' is prohibited from using PME - not parallel paths via extraneous-conductive-part).


        - Andy.
Reply

  • 411.3.1.1 Protective earthing

    Exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to a protective conductor under the specific conditions for each type of system earthing as specified in Regulations 411.4 to 411.6.
    Simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to the same earthing system individually, in groups or collectively.



    Curiously, the same demand doesn't seem to be made of extraneous-conductive-parts (even though they are likely connected to the same MET as an exposed-conductive-part).


    Steel lighting columns, I would suggest, are generally extraneous-conductive-parts rather than exposed-conductive-parts (the innards generally being sheathed cables and enclosed terminals/devices). Even contact with the class I lighting head on the top and/or a deliberate bond to the lamppost's MET doesn't make it an exposed-conductive-part (even though it would obviously attain the same potential).


    So it might be that the only actual exposed-conductive-parts with reach are the charge point (if metallic) and the car itself (when present) - which would make satisfying 411.3.1.1 easy.


    What if we had a TT system for the EVSE and if we felt the need bonded the TT MET to any extraneous-conductive-parts in the vicinity (e.g. lighting columns). Very much like a TT'd house sharing a metallic water main with the PME'd house next door. Clearly nonsense from the point of view of avoiding nasty touch voltages under broken CNE conditions, but doesn't actually seem to be against either the general rules of BS 7671 or section 722 in particular (only the 'means of earthing' is prohibited from using PME - not parallel paths via extraneous-conductive-part).


        - Andy.
Children
No Data