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

  • State Helpful Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Replies 104 replies
  • Subscribers 49 subscribers
  • Views 5862 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Simultaenous Contact

Dom

Good afternoon all, 

I am seeking the collective views of the group regarding the issues we are currently encountering within the EV installation environment in relation to simultaneous contact.

In simple terms, we are seeing a significant number of installations where customers have lamp posts located within their driveways. In many of these cases, it is not possible to achieve the recommended 2.5‑metre separation distance.

My position is that, where physical separation cannot be achieved, the application of layered protection at the EV charge point and associated switchgear would leave the customer in no worse position than prior to the installation. It is accepted that the proposal only outlines protection on the vehicle, but there are no other solutions for industry, are we with the protection detailed taking enough measures to carry out an install and in affect leave the install without a subsantial increase in risk?

My proposed approach to managing simultaneous contact risk would follow a structured hierarchy as set out below:

  • Can the maximum separation distance be achieved?
  • Can barriers or enclosures be installed to prevent simultaneous contact?
  • If neither of the above options are achievable, can layered protection provide an acceptable level of risk mitigation?

With layered protection, the proposed measures would include:

  • Installation of a compliant open‑PEN (O‑PEN) protective device
  • Provision of a double‑pole 30 mA Type A RCBO
  • Use of a charge point - M3 21 mA protection

Based on the above, the assumption is that, if all protective measures are correctly installed and verified, the installation would incorporate:

  • Automatic disconnection within the required times
  • Residual current protection
  • Open‑PEN fault detection

This combination of protections would significantly reduce the likelihood of a fault condition persisting for any meaningful duration.

On this basis, the key question for consideration is:

Where physical separation and barriers are not achievable, would it be considered acceptable to proceed with installation relying on this layered protection approach?

Parents
  • 0

    How about uPVC gutter pipes like these 112mm Half Round Gutter 3m Black | Toolstation https://www.toolstation.com/112mm-half-round-gutter-3m/p81698?store=GJ&utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=googleshoppingfeed&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21016232523&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2_TQBhCnARIsAF3-XhxYX-1Xei6mTKP1NEiGorrpVvl1_2peeJEQoCMik2lrNtDv_XeO1C8aAqNMEALw_wcB

    Two of them could be clamped together with large jubilee clips to fit snugly around a 100mm lampost. And there is larger guttering available 150mm half round guttering | Search | Toolstation share.google/CwX7IKAwmBkA5LA2p for 150mm lamposts. 3 could be used in "trefoil" for odd sizes.

    Might have to have windows of perhaps plexiglass so that the lamp post id labels could be read. Or copy labels on the outside 

    Cheap and cheerful, and the DNOs might go for it, as all you need is a screwdriver to access for maintenance 

  • 0 in reply to OlympusMons

    Thanks for this Olympus, I am unsure how we would be able to continually monitor this, with the maintenance perspective? Would maybe need to be signed as per client.

  • 0 in reply to OlympusMons

    That’s actually a clever low-cost approach. Using standard uPVC half-round guttering as a protective shell around lamp columns has a lot going for it: it’s readily available, lightweight, weather-resistant, non-conductive, and familiar to maintenance teams.

    For 100 mm columns, two 112 mm half-round sections secured with stainless steel jubilee clips could form a reasonably snug enclosure. Larger columns could use 150 mm sections, while three sections arranged in a trefoil configuration could accommodate intermediate or non-standard diameters.

    A few refinements could make the concept more practical for DNOs and local authorities:

    • Incorporate clear polycarbonate inspection windows (more impact-resistant than acrylic/Perspex) to allow asset IDs, inspection labels, and condition markers to remain visible without removal.
    • Alternatively, duplicate asset labels on the outside of the enclosure using UV-stable printed markers or QR codes.
    • Use tamper-resistant worm-drive clips or simple lockable band clamps to discourage vandalism while still allowing rapid access for maintenance crews.
    • Add drainage slots and ventilation gaps at the bottom to prevent moisture accumulation and corrosion.
    • Consider UV-stabilised black uPVC to maximise service life and maintain a discreet appearance in street environments.

    The biggest advantage is that it avoids bespoke fabrication. Installation would require little more than off-the-shelf components and a screwdriver, making it quick to deploy and inexpensive to replace if damaged. For trial schemes or temporary mitigation of column corrosion and impact damage, it could be a surprisingly practical “cheap and cheerful” solution.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to OlympusMons

    That’s actually a clever low-cost approach. Using standard uPVC half-round guttering as a protective shell around lamp columns has a lot going for it: it’s readily available, lightweight, weather-resistant, non-conductive, and familiar to maintenance teams.

    For 100 mm columns, two 112 mm half-round sections secured with stainless steel jubilee clips could form a reasonably snug enclosure. Larger columns could use 150 mm sections, while three sections arranged in a trefoil configuration could accommodate intermediate or non-standard diameters.

    A few refinements could make the concept more practical for DNOs and local authorities:

    • Incorporate clear polycarbonate inspection windows (more impact-resistant than acrylic/Perspex) to allow asset IDs, inspection labels, and condition markers to remain visible without removal.
    • Alternatively, duplicate asset labels on the outside of the enclosure using UV-stable printed markers or QR codes.
    • Use tamper-resistant worm-drive clips or simple lockable band clamps to discourage vandalism while still allowing rapid access for maintenance crews.
    • Add drainage slots and ventilation gaps at the bottom to prevent moisture accumulation and corrosion.
    • Consider UV-stabilised black uPVC to maximise service life and maintain a discreet appearance in street environments.

    The biggest advantage is that it avoids bespoke fabrication. Installation would require little more than off-the-shelf components and a screwdriver, making it quick to deploy and inexpensive to replace if damaged. For trial schemes or temporary mitigation of column corrosion and impact damage, it could be a surprisingly practical “cheap and cheerful” solution.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines