EV Charging - Suitable in-charger live conductor isolation during PEN fault

722.411.4.1 (iii) requires a device to provide isolation of all live conductors. An external device should be selected from Table 537.4, which includes contactors if the contactor is marked with the isolation symbol   (I have been unable to find a contactor with this marking, so far).

An equivalent means of functionallity can be included within the charging equipment. This is usually a contactor. Does this contactor need to compy with Table 537.4, or is it sufficient to select a contactor that: meets the overvoltage category; has at least 3mm of contact separation and has been tested to BS EN 60947-4-1?

Parents
  • I am looking at existing installations and most manufacturers have opted for a contactor in the EV charger to provide isolation for all live conductors and the PE. Only matt:E have gone though the process with IMO to get their contactor certified (but it is not for general sale).

    In which case I'd suggest asking the manufacturer (I think they should maintain a suitable file of data in order to claim a CE/UKCA/UKNI mark) - and given the recent sales ban on some EVSE products from a Scandinavian manufacturer on a very similar consideration, I'd reckon that wouldn't be an unreasonable request at all.

       - Andy.

Reply
  • I am looking at existing installations and most manufacturers have opted for a contactor in the EV charger to provide isolation for all live conductors and the PE. Only matt:E have gone though the process with IMO to get their contactor certified (but it is not for general sale).

    In which case I'd suggest asking the manufacturer (I think they should maintain a suitable file of data in order to claim a CE/UKCA/UKNI mark) - and given the recent sales ban on some EVSE products from a Scandinavian manufacturer on a very similar consideration, I'd reckon that wouldn't be an unreasonable request at all.

       - Andy.

Children
  • data in order to claim a CE/UKCA/UKNI mark) - and given the recent sales ban on some EVSE products from a Scandinavian manufacturer on a very similar consideration, I'd reckon that wouldn't be an unreasonable request at all.

    Can you elaborate on that ban AJ?

  • probably the same as we discussed here

    engx.theiet.org/.../charging-box-sales-ban-in-sweden-for-non-compliance-to-eu-standards

    As far as I know it is only a problem in Sweden at the moment, but it raises an interesting point -

    Usually an appliance test is a test of  functional performance, not prescriptive imagine 'shall disconnect itself and fail to safe' rather than 'shall have a fuse' - you may have  a fuse or reach the same end but design it to blow up  under fault conditions, but contain all the bits - so long as it is still safe, that's OK - and indeed a lot of small cheaper electronic bits seem to work on that exact principle....

    Things like circuit breaker standards are  very prescriptive ' shall have a contact gap not less than...' The two worlds seem to have collided.

    Mike