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 32 subscribers
  • Views 20478 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question 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?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Sparkingchip:

    So can they leak more than 6 mA D.C. ?




    As far as I remember the limit is 6 mA for IC-CPDs, but this is only a remedy if the RCD upstream is connected to this outlet only. Any other load could contribute DC-fault currents as well.

  • 0
    Hence the preference for a dedicated EV charging circuit, even if it is only a 13-amp socket?


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0

    Hence the preference for a dedicated EV charging circuit, even if it is only a 13-amp socket?





    But BS 7671's idea of a circuit considers only overcurrent protective devices, not RCDs - so you could have a separate circuit for the EV point but still have the upstream RCD shared with other circuits (e.g. as in split load CUs).

       - Andy.
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    Hence the preference for a dedicated EV charging circuit, even if it is only a 13-amp socket?





    But BS 7671's idea of a circuit considers only overcurrent protective devices, not RCDs - so you could have a separate circuit for the EV point but still have the upstream RCD shared with other circuits (e.g. as in split load CUs).


    Yes but ...

    722.531.2.101 "... each charging point shall be protected by its own RCD ..."


    If the circuit is in say a garage, it might be clipped direct, in trunking, or in conduit, so no need for the RCD to be in the CU. If the EVCP is on the side of a house and the cable is buried in plaster, it will need an upstream RCD. If that is not an RCBO, there will have to be another one locally.

  • 0
    LOL.

    These tick a lot of boxes!

     
    Operating Voltage

    230V AC 50Hz

    Max Current

    13A

    Rated Trip Current

    30mA

    Trip Speed

    Less than 40ms at 150mA residual current

    RCD Type

    Double pole – Passive (Latching)

    Breaking Capacity

    250A (Earth leakage)

    Continues to protect with

    Lost neutral/pulsating DC earth fault

    Operating Temperature Range

    -5°C to 40°C

  • 0

    Chris Pearson:




    AJJewsbury:




    Hence the preference for a dedicated EV charging circuit, even if it is only a 13-amp socket?





    But BS 7671's idea of a circuit considers only overcurrent protective devices, not RCDs - so you could have a separate circuit for the EV point but still have the upstream RCD shared with other circuits (e.g. as in split load CUs).


    Yes but ...

    722.531.2.101 "... each charging point shall be protected by its own RCD ..."


    If the circuit is in say a garage, it might be clipped direct, in trunking, or in conduit, so no need for the RCD to be in the CU. If the EVCP is on the side of a house and the cable is buried in plaster, it will need an upstream RCD. If that is not an RCBO, there will have to be another one locally.


     




    Yes but Andy does have a point ... in A1:2020 to BS 7671:2018,, this Regulation has been revised, now numbered 722.531.3.101 and the point need not have its own RCD.  And in the same amendment, the charging point must have its own overcurrent protective device (722.533.101).

  • 0
    I note that Andy suggests that a DC fault is introduced to trip the RCD if the CPC to the vehicle is not operational. This is contrary to BS7671 and therefore immediately non compliant, and in my view a code 1 on inspection. I made my comment on control signals as they should be designed to provide negligible current in case of a fault, but it is suggested this is not the case. Again the whole system appears to be a terrible piece of engineering which should not be accepted. I also stated that the battery must be completely isolated from the mains. Again it is suggested above that certain (Renault) cars may use shared electronics in the drive and charging circuits. If they do not provide full isolation the car body will be live during charging, so clearly is very dangerous. Such isolation needs to be to class 2 standards as Earthing faults are relatively likely in the grand scheme of things with plugs and sockets, and are the whole reason for these RCDs in the first place! It appears that adding a few pounds to the cost of a car has been transferred to the charging point at considerably more cost.


    Wireless charging is pretty much 'pie in the sky' at the power levels needed, it may be possible-ish for a mobile, but the coupling coils need to be virtually touching which would be difficult for a car. The reason is getting an effective magnetic circuit needs no air gaps and even tiny ones have big effects on the coupling. At the high end of say 50kW one would have a very large and effective induction heater of anything lossy over a significant distance, let alone the car body (unless plastic).


    The car industry is famous for designing poorly engineered products, although they do seem to have improved considerably over my lifetime. This entirely new product seems to have set them back years, and I really do not see why they should not have to change, perhaps with a little assistance from statute. We bow to IEC regulation all the time, perhaps a little fight back would be a good idea?
  • 0

    Sparkingchip:

    LOL.

    These tick a lot of boxes!

     



    Operating Voltage

    230V AC 50Hz

    Max Current

    13A

    Rated Trip Current

    30mA

    Trip Speed

    Less than 40ms at 150mA residual current

    RCD Type

    Double pole – Passive (Latching)

    Breaking Capacity

    250A (Earth leakage)

    Continues to protect with

    Lost neutral/pulsating DC earth fault

    Operating Temperature Range

    -5°C to 40°C



    A word of advice to anyone picking up on this discussion, despite their apparently desirable attributes these RCD sockets are currently being shunned.


    Andy Betteridge 

  • 0
    Such is life (as the French say)


    Anyway I`m a 7288er and not afraid to admit it
  • 0

    If you consider that we have plug-in petrol hybrids, which also have to meet the standard, then, just like with aircraft (even though aviation kerosene is normally only explosive in vapour form) avoidance of static is seen as important, through earthing the fixed electrical ground power, and also providing static discharge for a tending bowser. Earthing is even required for the topologies of Mode 4 rapid chargers that include electrical separation (see Annex K of the 4th Ed of the IET CoP for EV Charging Equipment Installation).


    In addition, there is a requirement to install EV charging in the curtilage of petrol filling stations. Avoidance of static is important there too.



    So not connecting the charge point's c.p.c. to true Earth might not be a good idea?


    Then connecting it to a separated live conductor, floating from Earth - as per Fig A722 in AMD1:2020 - might not be exactly reassuring,


       - Andy.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines