AJJewsbury:
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-parts (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.
AJJewsbury:
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-parts (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.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site