High Voltage Work Safety, ESA Requirements, ...

[sekl]

Hello Everyone,

I am involved in FSAE electric in the fifth season now, the first two being my active time working on electric powertrain development. Since I graduated, I work in automotive industry, still on electric powertrains. Short after I did graduate, I was trained according to BGI8686 (german standard) for work on HV components in automotive environment and just recently I had the respective training in the US (NFPA 70E).

In the past, my interpretation of rule "A5.3 Electric System Advisor – Electric Teams only" was, a training like those mentioned above (or equivalent) was the minimum requirement for any ESA. Actually, rule A5.3.5 mentions a similar training is also required for the students - I would suggest two levels, one for any ESO and one for the "general engineer", more on that later.

However, the rules leave room for interpretation on the topic.. After one year as scrutineer at two European events and some discussion with teams over the past years, I certainly assume the minimum requirement by event organizers is much lower, not to say - I suspect there is not actually any real requirements at some events.


**Being honest, it seems like there is not any in Motorsport on all levels, seeing F1 and Formula E drivers doing "the KERS Jump" and people working on electric cars with isolating gloves on at all times...

Examples given:
1) I just read in a popular magazine about "racecar engineering", that in case of an isolation fault the "KERS Jump" is important to keep the driver safe... Anyone got a hybrid or electric car? Would you buy one, if you were told you may please jump out of it if the car indicates an isolation fault? Let me guess - NO, THIS WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE! Indeed, a road car will not even shutdown in case of a single isolation fault, it will (just) indicate it to the driver, so the car get´s to maintenance!

2) A well established FSAE electric teams ESO told me during scrutineering - "I always wear isolation gloves to turn on HV" (switch the TSMS, a LV device!). The driver would not need protection as he/she is isolated from earth, while the ESO is at risk, standing next to the car...

Anyone who agrees with either of the examples above, please go back to start and get educated about why an electric car does have an isolation monitor, not a GFCI (Ground fault current interrupter) as everyone knows and relies on in electrical systems grounded through earth! Hint: Cars electrical systems (no matter what engine they got), are isolated from earth!


Don´t get me wrong, I´m all for safety! However, being "over cautious" because the hazards are not understood is not actually being cautious, it is just showing the world that you are one of the lucky guys not yet killed by the machine you use / build without understanding the hazards related to it. The picture I got in mind here is someone working on a lathe wearing gloves (likely not the best similarity, but I hope you get the point).


Now, to get to why I am writing all this:
- I am very interested in how the ESA requirement is handled by teams and competitions and would appreciate very much if people from different teams would make a short statement here.
- I am curious if there is anyone within the rules committee being properly trained as per industry standards in the respective country, for each event allowing electric vehicles. I would appreciate very much if someone official could give a statement here about this. Also, I am curious about the minimum requirements for an ESA per event.


Here´s how GFR handles it (see my signature)...

First electric car in 2011 was build with little knowledge on safety standards. There have been regulations in place and for assembly an outside engineer was hired, however, it was clear, there have been situations it was luck that nobody got hurt and after the 2011 season, the university and team started to set higher standards which caused following actions:

- The role of a "HV Advisor" was defined. This person is needed for any work on components at voltages above 60V (e.g. the open battery with maintenace plugs closed, 60V is from the BGI standard, in the US it would be 50V, however...). Also, this person was the only one allowed to turn HV off and declare the car safe afterwards. Mentioned "HV Advisor" can only be a professional (graduated) person, trained as mentioned above. Normally there are multiple to ensure availability.

- A HV Laboratory (separated workspace with only proper tools and measurement equipment) was set up. This was / is actually a very small room, however, it is better than nothing. Regulations were put in place as to how work with batteries and high voltages are allowed to be done.

- Due to complications with availability, mainly for test days, during 2014 season an agreement between GFR and the university was taken. Students that got trained by TÜV or Dekra (again, according to standars mentioned above) are now allowed to turn the car off and declare it electrically safe afterwards, so other team members with a basic training only are allowed to work on the car.

- The basic training is done by the university which hired a person responsible for electrical work safety for all projects (GFR is not the only project working with batteries and / or HV at the university). It is needed by anyone working on the car, unrelated of the area worked on --> Anyone ever working on a GFR electric car has to get this basic training.

- The ESA rules are considered satisfied by any of the "HV Advisor" taking the role, normally those who got the time to review designs most with the students will take the role though..


I hope this post opens some peoples eyes about what the most basic knowledge needed to work on / design and build and electric car is. I am not the most secure person when it comes to liability topics, but I assume in most places liability should be a good motivator for universities to put some effort in training students and making sure the work environment provided is appropriate.

If there is any questions, please feel free to post them here, in a separate thread, or send me a pm. I am happy to help, if help is wanted.

I do not want to offend anyone, please do not misinterpret any of my statements - from experience, this sometimes happens...

Any statement in this forum is my personal opinion which does not represent the position of GFR as a team.
Statements about how GFR handles HV work safety in cooperation with the university are not essentially complete and / or correct. (Change over time, written from my memory, simplified to some extend, ...)


Best Regards,
Sebastian

[Adam Farabaugh]

This is a great post!

My team (U of Penn) has trouble with our Mechanical Engineering department in regards to allowing us weld (we are not allowed), while being given absolutely free reign with all of our HV systems design/testing/assembly.
I have internalized that the HV work we do is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than GTAW welding, and deserves just as much (if not more) attention to safety training and practice, but none of the faculty who ultimately control what we are allowed to do as a university organization understand this. Frankly I'm afraid to show them posts like this or tell them just how dangerous it is for fear that we would be shut down due to their (again) lack of understanding. This is not to say that we are not safe around HV! We do conduct inter team training with senior members to explain things like the isolation the systems of the car provides and such.

As to how we conduct ESA protocol and safety during the year:
- We essentially treat the entire year like it's competition in regards to the ESO. Our safety officers are present for everything like powering on the car, opening boxes, etc. This seems similar to your HVA, just that ours are current team members (students).
- We don't have a separate HV room, but we do have movable partitions and we do separate HV assembly from the rest of the room. It's not ideal (would like to do more separation) especially because untrained and generally dumb random students can get swipe access to our room, but we have some unique problems with our administration etc. that means we have to live with this. I see this as similar to the charging tent rules at comp - we can work on the car with HV systems in place if all enclosures are in place, but to open enclosures we have to partition the space off and ESO has to oversee it.
- Our ESA has minimal involvement. We had a lot of trouble finding an ESA; our university has no power electronics specialists in the EE dept, etc. We were unsuccessful finding unaffiliated sponsors in corporations, and had to go through alumni to finally find someone qualified. If we were required to have qualified ESA around whenever we're working on the car, the club would disappear due to us not being able to work on anything. The only people I can see filling a role like that are currently on the team (and I'm sure they would be willing to fill that role as alumni in a few years, but again they likely won't be in this city to do so).