question

Radu - Eosif Mihăilescu avatar image
Radu - Eosif Mihăilescu asked

Connector compliance of EVCS

Hello,

I'm aware more stuff means higher price, but I was wondering if Victron would offer increased compliance for the EV connector as an option (maybe an add-on accessory?):

  • the lock is not present/installed, so the cable can be pulled out of the EVSE under load which presents a safety hazard. I see the connector has the mechanical mount for a lock and it could be commanded by the same circuit used for the contactor (since it's supposed to be engaged at all times the cable is live).
  • the PP pin is not used by the EVSE, so one could connect a cable rated for less than the current programmed into the device, posing a fire/safety hazard. Maybe there's a free ADC input that could be used to read that pin as well.

Could this be supported in a future firmware version if wired by the user? Maybe in a future version of the whole product? Maybe as a hardware upgrade kit (containing the lock and an extra wire for the PP terminal)?


Thanks,

Radu

ev charging stationevcssafety
3 comments
2 |3000
Toggle Comment visibility. Current Visibility: Viewable by all users

Up to 8 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 190.8 MiB each and 286.6 MiB total.

Lucian Popescu (Victron Energy Staff) avatar image Lucian Popescu (Victron Energy Staff) ♦♦ commented ·
There is no safety hazard, that's just your opinion. It is allowed to disconnect the charging cable under load. If you look at the pins inside the connector, the CP pin is shorter, so when unplugged, it will force to stop charging.
0 Likes 0 ·
Radu - Eosif Mihăilescu avatar image Radu - Eosif Mihăilescu Lucian Popescu (Victron Energy Staff) ♦♦ commented ·

Thank you for your answer!


I wouldn't use the term "allowed" in the context above, I'm pretty sure the electrical code of all EU states does not "allow" disconnecting any kind of connector carrying mains voltage under load (with the notable exception of very low power domestic appliance plugs). The Romanian and Irish ones do not.

It is true the CP pin is intentionally shorter so that it breaks first, but it is also true neither (a) the contactor used in the EVCS, (b) nor the CPU supervising the CP circuit are fail-safe parts.
If the contactor would've been a set of two (so that contact welding is guaranteed not to occur) or at least a single one with positively guided contacts and the CPU would've been an AEC-Q100 qualified ARM Cortex-R (or supervision of the CP circuit would've been delegated to a simpler but suitably certified secondary MCU), then I would've agreed that simply breaking the CP circuit makes the whole cable assembly safe much quicker than you could physically disconnect it completely.

Assuming we concede the issue of the unknown reaction time of the CP supervision, the PP issue remains. In the current configuration, there is nothing stopping a user from configuring the EVCS for 32A in the UI and then connecting a brand-name cable assembly which uses H07BZ5-F 3G1.5+0.5 cable and the correct 1.5Ω㏀ resistor in the connector -- with concerning results.

What is your take on that?

0 Likes 0 ·
Lucian Popescu (Victron Energy Staff) avatar image Lucian Popescu (Victron Energy Staff) ♦♦ Radu - Eosif Mihăilescu commented ·

The device was tested and certified for EC 61851-1:2017 EN 61851-1:2019
And during the certification, there were reaction time tests for CP shorted, CP disconnected, and those tests were passed

1724825886127.png1724825971663.png


1724826107225.png

0 Likes 0 ·
1724825886127.png (60.2 KiB)
1724825971663.png (73.3 KiB)
1724826107225.png (115.1 KiB)
0 Answers