Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 185 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 32918 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

John Peckham
I am hearing from my network of contractors, that have actually read the new 722, that they have been asking charging equipment manufactures for documentary proof to comply with Note 5 of 722.411.4.


They are getting knocked back for asking or in one case a Declaration that says the particular device complies with BS 7671. I think that is wrong to declare that as BS 7671 is an installation safety standard and not a product standard. I believe that as a minimum the equipment must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and be CE marked. I also believe that manufacturers have to issue a Declaration of Conformity. 


BS 7671 722 has numerous references to the various standards required such as BS EN 61851 that the equipment must comply with. I am thinking it may be illegal to offer the sale of equipment that does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and is not CE marked?


I am hoping the countries top man of equipment safety standards, Paul Skyrme , sees this post and will come on and give us his expert view?


Has any forum member asked for a Declaration of Conformity from EV charging equipment manufacturers and received one?
  • 0
    Thanks, if I saw a declaration of conformity for an electric vehicle chargerI would not know what it is supposed to say on it!


    I would just be looking for the key features.


    Andy Betteridge 


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    The valid parts of the 61851 series that you will find currently listed on the BSI website are 5 parts.
    Part 1 is the general requirements which all devices must comply with, unless those general requirements are overruled by a specific requirement in another part which applies to their design of charger.
    The other parts are -21-1, -22, 23 & -24.
    -22 & -23 are mutually exclusive, one is for a charge point that delivers AC, the other DC respectively.
    -24 deals with the charger to vehicle comms.
    -21-1 deals with conducted EMC.
    Thus taking a charger which supplies AC to the car, and has charger to car comms, I would expect to see parts 1, 21-1, 22, & 24 listed on the DoC.

  • 0
    Which was JP’s original issue, obtaining a declaration from the manufacturer for the complete assembly, not a folder full for the individual components.


    How many parts are there to the complete BS EN? I found eighteen search results on the BSI website, but not all are current and the numbering goes up to at least twenty four, so presumably the manufacturer are supposed to declare they have mixed and matched in an appropriate manner.


    Andy Betteridge
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Sparkingchip:

    I will jump to the next question, as the British and Harmonized Standard consists of many parts does saying it’s compliant with part one mean it fully complies with the whole standard?


    It seems that many chargers are assembled with components that individually comply with separate BS and EN Standards, but when assembled as a complete unit don’t comply with a standard covering the actual intended use of the complete assembly.


    Andy Betteridge 


     






    CE + CE ≠ CE

    That is the CE mark on individual parts when assembled into the whole does not result in the whole being automatically CE marked.

    Think about it in the same way as an installation under BS 7671.

    All of the individual parts may well be compliant with their relevant standards, but, once installed, the combination certainly does not meet BS 7671 in some circumstances.

  • 0
    The standard for EVSE is BS EN 61851-series.


    That doesn't include for protective equipment as described in 711.411.4.1 (iii), (iv) or (v) at present.
  • 0
    I know it’s sort of dragging the granny lead and 13-amp thing on a bit, but if people are intending to try and keep a car charged from the PV panels on their roof, say retired people who are not doing a daily commute to work and may not be worried if their car takes an extended period to charge after a day out, they will not want to charge their car above the output rate of the PV array. So a granny lead is all they only ever really need, bearing in mind that if push comes to shove they can do a really fast charge in a car park or somewhere else away from home.


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    I will jump to the next question, as the British and Harmonized Standard consists of many parts does saying it’s compliant with part one mean it fully complies with the whole standard?


    It seems that many chargers are assembled with components that individually comply with separate BS and EN Standards, but when assembled as a complete unit don’t comply with a standard covering the actual intended use of the complete assembly.


    Andy Betteridge 


  • 0

    Here online.John Peckham:

    I am hearing from my network of contractors, that have actually read the new 722, that they have been asking charging equipment manufactures for documentary proof to comply with Note 5 of 722.411.4.


    They are getting knocked back for asking or in one case a Declaration that says the particular device complies with BS 7671. I think that is wrong to declare that as BS 7671 is an installation safety standard and not a product standard. I believe that as a minimum the equipment must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and be CE marked. I also believe that manufacturers have to issue a Declaration of Conformity. 


    BS 7671 722 has numerous references to the various standards required such as BS EN 61851 that the equipment must comply with. I am thinking it may be illegal to offer the sale of equipment that does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and is not CE marked?


    I am hoping the countries top man of equipment safety standards, Paul Skyrme , sees this post and will come on and give us his expert view?


    Has any forum member asked for a Declaration of Conformity from EV charging equipment manufacturers and received one?




    Lets go back to the original post, then check what note five says Here online.


    What is the British or Harmonized Standard for EV chargers?


    Andy Betteridge.




     

  • 0

    davezawadi:

    You have hit the nail on the head there Graham. In fact there is no completely safe way to charge class 1 electric vehicles when the supply system is TNC-S. The whole system is "unsafe" in all usage once we start on the "what if" scenarios. For every other use we deem the TNC-S system "safe enough" for normal consumers, and the number of accidents is tiny, and usually stems from stupidity of some kind (taking the heater or radio in the bath for example). The current obsession with RCD protection and AFDDs is another part of this attempt to stop any conceivable risk at any cost, something which is  obviously an impossible goal. At the moment there are not many Ecars, so the way to make charging safe is simply to set the goal as making all new ones class 2. They can make RH drive cars, so why not class 2 ones (although this is probably not needed in Japan with 100V nominal mains often less than 90V). Now is the time for leadership, there will be no sales for months so now is the time made available to tweek a bit of electronics in a fairly simple way. In fact for a sensible fee I will do the work for them! Then PROBLEM GONE forever! All over the world, now that really is an improvement in a time of crisis. The remaining older class 1 cars will not present much risk, and nothing needs to be done to existing charging points, it is just that new ones will be simpler and safer in use. We can make virus tests, drugs, ventilators etc very quickly once there is a good reason to do so, there seems to me to be a very good reason to fix EVs. We can also throw 722 away to the annals of history to everyone's great delight.




    That would be great, but that's the product standard for the vehicle, which is outside the remit of this Forum (and indeed BS 7671).


    However, as I said in another post over the weekend, events are already overtaking this, in the form of standards for WPT for EVs, and R&D into alternatives to batteries.


    I do agree that, if at all possible, an alternative to a Class I vehicle would be preferable, but there may be a good reason why the standards specify earthing of the vehicle - finding out the reasons why the EV standards are the way they are is probably a good start ...

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    To what extent is class 1 vehicles + TNC-S a UK specific problem? So far as I know much of France and Italy are almost entirely TT, the Americans do all kinds of weird things but a lot of their domestic supplies are quasi-PNB, bits of eastern Europe seem to be TNC or TT if earthed at all. MPJ will be able to tell us what the Germans do. I know Australia uses a TNC-S variant but with many more earth rods because they require them at the customer intake. Much of Europe also have lower-current 3-phase supplies and consequently modest neutral currents and easy detection of lost neutral. The most common car charger in the UK is 7 kW, 32 A single phase, the equivalent in most of Europe is 11 kW, 16 A 3-phase.


    Is the problem mostly just that we as a country have odd earthing (and large single phase supplies) and the car manufacturers have no motivation to worry about it for a small market?

Community Rules & Guidelines