ABB Terra DC Chargers Become First Multi-Standard Chargers To Received CHAdeMO 1.0 Certfication

APR 27 2014 BY MARK KANE 53

ABB Terra 53CJG

ABB Terra 53CJG

ABB announced that in March it successfully passed certification for multi-standard EV fast chargers Terra 23/53 including CHAdeMO 1.0 certification.  This marks the first charger to received CHAdeMO 1.0 certification outside of Japan and the first for a multi-standard charger.

The certification process was conducted in Spain by Applus IDIADA, which recently became an accredited unit for CHAdeMO certification.

CHAdeMO 1.0 has some additional features for enhancement of electrical safety and interoperability. In parallel, the ABB chargers additionally passed the individual vehicle verification testing with Japanese and European car manufacturers, including backward compatibility testing with CHAdeMO 0.9 vehicles.

“An extensive certification and verification process is a fundamental requirement for fast charging in general and public fast charging in particular. CHAdeMO 1.0 and CCS functionality require several stricter standards to be met, for example, with respect to charger isolation and power quality. In multi standard chargers such requirements are especially important and therefore ABB’s chargers are immediately designed according to the MOCCA (Multi Outlet Charger Configuration Agreement) specification, an new industry guideline under development which governs the seamless and safe integration of multiple standards for fast charging into one single fast charger. This will ensure safety, technical architecture, functionality and usability to work in harmony when combining multiple outlets into one fast charger.”

Wil van Gils (VP R&D of ABB EV Charging Infrastructure) commented:

“ABB has chosen to avoid rushing products to market and rather focus on pushing appropriate certification to ensure the necessary quality, reliability and safety for a professional EV charging network. We are very proud to be the first with Chademo1.0 certification outside Japan and to be the first to have passed all relevant compliance verifications with European and Japanese cars. Specifically on MOCCA he adds: ‘’We have given full support to Idiada to co-develop the MOCCA specification as we are convinced that this is a key element for a successful rollout of public fastcharging infrastructure.”

Now, with everything settled and done, one of the leading fast charger companies from Europe started manufacturing and shipping Terra 23/53 multi-outlet chargers. The first units were installed in the last week of March.

Categories: Charging

Tags:

Leave a Reply

53 Comments on "ABB Terra DC Chargers Become First Multi-Standard Chargers To Received CHAdeMO 1.0 Certfication"

newest oldest most voted

CCS is a total waste of resources. How many cars today can use that ?

The e-UP, i3 and e-Golf can. And more are to come…

CHAdeMO – 3700 worldwide, 600 in the USA, adding about 1 per day

http://www.chademo.com

up to 100kW eventually, currently limited to 62.5kW
EVs compatible with CHAdeMO include:

*Nissan LEAF – over 45,000 in the USA and over 100,000 worldwide
*Nissan e-NV200 (coming 2014)
*Citroen C-Zero – not sold in USA
*Mitsubishi i-MiEV – over 30,000 worldwide with its variants C-Zero & iON
*Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (coming 2015)
*Mitsubishi Fuso Canter truck
*Peugeot iON – not sold in USA
*Kia Soul EV (coming 2014)
*ZERO motorcycles
*Tesla except Roadster with adaptor

* Peugeot Partner
* Citroën Berlingo

And even the somewhat stalled, constantly-pessimistic counter of the CHAdeMO association increments by about 3 new stations every 2 days nowadays. http://insideevs.com/sweden-uk-driving-growth-chademo-chargers-europe-1117/

This is the only real volume car:
*Nissan LEAF – over 45,000 in the USA and over 100,000 worldwide

Why have they taken so long to release this? Glad it is coming:
*Nissan e-NV200 (coming 2014)

These 3 are all the same car and it flopped:
*Citroen C-Zero – not sold in USA
*Mitsubishi i-MiEV – over 30,000 worldwide with its variants C-Zero & iON
*Peugeot iON – not sold in USA

Who cares about fast-charging a 12KHW PHEV?
*Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (coming 2015)

I believe this is also a hybrid:
*Mitsubishi Fuso Canter truck

Compliance car from a company that is investing big in hydrogen fuel cell cars:
*Kia Soul EV (coming 2014)

Someone said they will make a CCS adapter too:
*Tesla except Roadster with adaptor

So, it is basically the Leaf (which is a big selling EV).

I am probably starting a fire with this following statement…

While I am a fan of Chademo (because I drive a Leaf SL with a Chademo port) – I still think CCS is a better solution for the future – unless everyone adopts Tesla’s connector which would be even better.

Stepping back from my point of driving one of the MANY Chademo enabled vehicles already on the road and looking at it from an outside perspective – CCS is better – one port for existing L1 and L2 charging – and just an additional extension for L3. Less space needed for the charge port, less redundant communications via completely independent ports.

Someone really needs to come up with a CCS to Chademo adapter and the reverse Chademo to CCS for existing chargers – then we can move forward with a single standard with CCS. Of course – better yet – everybody follow the market leader and adopt Tesla’s standard!

I agree that CCS would have been a great solution, but it came many years too late.
Yes, the combined inlet on the vehicle requires a somewhat smaller footprint than separate AC and DC… but then what?

(you mention ‘less redundant communications’, but CCS uses a completely different protocol than J1772, merely reusing some of the pins, so the vehicle electronics is in no way simpler. Actually, “recycling” pins adds other(s) single point(s) of failure).

I’d care a whole lot more about safety, charging speed, ease of use and future-proofing, than the look of the inlet(s). CCS offers zero advantage on the all those, arguably even drawbacks.
Worse, it completely unnecessarily creates a whole new set of interoperability issues, increases the costs of charging stations (which obviously can’t drop CHAdeMO), and so on.

By introducing so late an alternate standard which offers no actual benefit over the existing one, my guess is that its promoters only wanted to delay the infrastructure, and dampen EV sales.
Sadly, so far, they’ve been at least partially successful…

Just because an inferior design is out first, doesn’t mean we are stuck with it. It’s called “continuous improvement”.

Jack Rickard of EVTV, “I watched dozens of these scenarios play out as the Internet developed. You can vote yourself blind. You can decree standards till hell freezes over. As soon as someone comes out with a better one that sells, nobody can even remember the name of your standard. You play, or you lose market share.”

In other words, whether any one has marginal improvements over the other, what sells is what will win.

Is that why we are all still using floppy disks?

CCS would be akin to replacing at-the-time well-established square floppy disks with rectangular or triangular ones, while offering exactly the same throughput and capacity.

The new system needs to offer some advantage over the current, existing one, to have any chance of taking over. CCS does not.

Like floppies of any shape, CHAdeMO will eventually become obsolete, but it will be to be replaced with something dramatically faster/better, maybe even completely unanticipated today.
(Who in the 80~90s imagined we would have tiny multi-gigaoctet storage devices up to 1000x faster than floppies by now?.. and not bother with them much because if this Internet thingy anyway?)

“while offering exactly the same throughput and capacity.” I think the CCS offers enough of an advantage we should drop Chademo. This article sums it up pretty well. ——– http://www.plugincars.com/why-chademo-death-row-europe-128001.html What about CHAdeMO’s technology? Is it worth fighting for? The plug is poorly designed since it doesn’t allow slow charging. Cars use another plug for that. So the best thing about CHAdeMO is probably its proven safety record. This standard has several years of use behind it, and all the bugs were carefully ironed out before Japanese manufacturers started exporting it. The CHAdeMO plug is also unique in having a locking mechanism that prevents mishandling by drivers. On the negative side, the CHAdeMO is quite bulky, and not very practical to use with that latch. The new competing SAE CCS combo plug, or the Tesla connector, are both sleeker, lighter and faster to use. They also allow higher currents. CHAdeMO was originally designed for 100-kW service, but delivers 50-kW at stations. European CCS plug is designed to handle up to 170-kW, and delivers 50-kW today but should be quickly upgraded to 85 to 90-kW, while the Tesla plug puts out 120-kW. The backers of the CCS connector claim that it’s… Read more »

That article has already been thoroughly debunked in the comments which follow it.
But just to focus on the excerpt you chose:

“The plug is poorly designed since it doesn’t allow slow charging”
Neither do CCS Combo 1 and 2, which are DC only. Those plugs are purposely designed not to fit non-quick-chargeable vehicles.

“CHAdeMO is quite bulky”
CCS is actually quite a bit taller, making its overall surface larger than CHAdeMO. Go measure.

“[CCS] also allow higher currents”
Wrong. 200A max.

The rest of the article is just as misguided, ripe with unverified or downright erroneous assertions and speculation by the author…

The real advantage is has is the fact that the Big 3 USA automakers and all the German auto makers lined up behind it.

But as far as technical features, it really isn’t much better/different. It does combine with J1772 so you can have a smaller charger door. It is a bit less bulky & easy to use.

“I’d care a whole lot more about safety, charging speed, ease of use and future-proofing, than the look of the inlet(s).”
I’d argue there are advantages to at least a couple of these.
Charging speed: CHAdeMO currently only supports 125A. CCS supports 175A (see picture in this article).

Ease of use: people who have used both the connectors say CCS is far easier and more intuitive to use (similar to the standard J1772 or Type2 connectors) than the lever system of CHAdeMO, although the newer CHAdeMO connectors without the lever have improved on this.

Future proofing: it’s hard to say which one will be future proof in the US, but in Europe, the CCS standard is the minimum requirement (similar to micro-USB for phones). And given CCS was designed for backwards compatibility, there’s a very good chance the next version will also have backwards compatibility in mind.

And although CHAdeMO backers continually dismiss the advantage of a single port, it’s important for manufacturers who are doing single platform vehicles (VW e-Golf, VW e-Up) or those who are doing smaller PHEVs (i3 REx). Having a large flap (Leaf, Outlander PHEV) or dual flaps (iMIEV) just doesn’t work as well for those applications.

I drive a 2014 Leaf with CHAdeMO. The real problem is that CCS was too late. If only it had been introduced along with L2 J1772 (remember that what we now call CCS is actually part of the J1772 standard) it would have had a chance of becoming the defacto standard GM and Daimler et al. want it to be. Now CCS is playing catch-up, and probably always will be.

I absolutely agree that the best practical solution for the daily EV driver would be to bypass standards issues with an CCS/CHAdeMO adapter, (although it would probably be a device 18 inches long weighing 4-5 pounds). As it is, my big fear is that as more people buy Leafs and other CHAdeMO-cars, they’ll rebel. I can’t even imagine my 70-year-old Mom man-handling the CHAdeMO connector on the Nissan-built chargers, although that’s more an issue of cable size. The cable on those things is about 3 inches in diameter and stiff as heck.

There is no such CCS/Chademo adapter. And why bother making them, just make all the DC-fast chargers have both chargers on them.

…or, much simpler (and cheaper for everybody), have the cars just the same, already-established protocol.

VW and BMW will offer CHAdeMO versions of their respective EVs in Japan. They could just as easily sell them elsewhere if they actually wanted.

Yeah, I can’t believe they started putting USB 3.0 ports on computers in 2008. Nothing uses USB 3.0. Oh wait…

The E-Up, the i3, the Spark EV, the e-Golf.

We have a battle between an initial standard with a head-start and few cars out there (Chademo) and a standard that has been endorsed by all of the Big 3 USA automakers and all of the German automakers.

In that battle, I think the latter is the better choice. More backers is better than more currently installed. The current EV market is so close to zero that the current cars/chargers don’t matter much.

Except, only two have some credible EV strategy: BMW and VW.
(Daimler partnered with Tesla, which supports CHAdeMO; so far it doesn’t offer any quick-chargeable vehicle).

If more backers is better, regardless of whether they even produce PEVs or sell them outside some countries, then CHAdeMO clearly wins.

Just count for yourself: http://www.chademo.com/wp/members/

I think the number of automakers that make cars for the USA market matters a lot. And since SAE-CCS has all the USA and German car-makers signed up, that is pretty big. Chademo has all the Japanese car-maker and some Korean onese.

As far as actual cars go, ignoring the tiny volume or not-yet-here cars . . . I’d say Chademo has one car (the Leaf) and SAE-CCS has zero cars.

iMiEV is pretty much dead. i3 and eGolf are coming but not yet here. Spark EV is out there but is California & Oregon only. Ford Focus EV doesn’t do fast-charging nor does the 500e.

A surprise to me that according to the picture there is a reason Chademo gets fewer KWh than the CCS Combo.

CCS is an enforced standard as opposed to a confusing zoo of usurious manufacturers’ money locks.

The specs for the Terra 53 family of quick-chargers list 50 kW as the output power for both DC connectors.
http://www.abb.com/product/seitp332/5d5534b9d6428d64c1257b0f003a35b2.aspx

Not sure by what you mean with your 2nd paragraph. FYI, both CHAdeMO and CCS are IEC/ISO standards.

100 kW is max of Chademo, right? 50 kW is within that safety margin so I doubt anything over 75 kW could happen with this gen of it. Wondering if they could make a 200 kW max in future with backwards support so it does 50 for gen 1 cars and maybe 135 kW for gen 2?

The current CHAdeMO connectors being manufactured support up to 500V*125A = 62.5kW (as seen in the label on the article picture). CHAdeMO as a form-factor can support up to 100kW max (500V*200A).

Anything more will require a change to the connector format. They would need to add extra power pins or deeper ones in a way that the connector can still plug into the older cars and it’s going to be tough.

It’s far easier the other way around (a socket backwards compatible with a connector), such that a new car with a new socket can use both new and old stations. The “Combo” stations illustrate this (the new car sockets can support both the non-Combo and Combo connectors).

Summary of ABB Terra 53 CJG device above:

87.5kw = 500V*175A CCS combo
62.5kW = 500V*125A chademo

Tesla owners with both adapters will want/use the CCS combo if given a choice.

Scott, have we seen any of the 7 public CCS Combo1 in the world have this 175 amp capacity. The pictured plug is a Combo2.

Tony, do you believe the CCS Combo1 will not be: 87.5kw = 500V*175A?

Reality is a Tesla driver I would get both adapters. Charging stations are obviously not as ubiquitous as gas stations and won’t be for many years. I know I would need a chademo to go through TN!

The only one CCS (Combo 1) quick-charger I’ve ever seen was 50 kW.

The connector geometry specified by both standards support up to 200A.

As far as I know, Tesla never said anything about a CCS adapter.
So far the overwhelming majority of QCs are CHAdeMO only, and the few which support CCS do so in addition to CHAdeMO — so why would they bother anyway?

Tesla owners with both adapters will want/use the CCS combo[2] if given a choice because it will be faster. Summary of ABB Terra 53 CJG device above:
87.5kw = 500V*175A CCS combo[2]
62.5kW = 500V*125A chademo

First, there is no such thing as a Tesla CCS adapter.

Second, the ABB Terra 53 outputs max 50 kW DC, regardless of the protocol.
http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot344.nsf/veritydisplay/15271e5cb102f302c1257cb6004aa8d9/$file/4evc204303-lfen_terra53c-ct-cj-cjg.pdf

The charger may output only 50kW, but the 175A current carrying capacity of the Combo connector allows it to maintain max power even below 400V (which is very common for EVs today).

With the CHAdeMO connector if you drop below 400V you won’t get the full 50kW power (400V*125A = 50kW)

No, please read the specs. This quick-charger won’t output over 125A, regardless of the connector.

The picture above either doesn’t reflect the final, production hardware, or merely gives the rating of the connector.

Come to think of it, this misleading labeling might be deliberate: ABB would benefit from seeing CCS catch on, as so far it had a hard time competing with CHAdeMO QCs manufacturers. The Nissan/Sumitomo unit for example goes for roughly half the price of ABB’s own offering (the Terra 51) — and it looks much slicker.

Spec says: Maximum output current 125A for CCS, and 120A for chademo.

Is there a Tesla CCS adapter? I wouldn’t be surprised if they ultimately make one but I don’t think one exists today.

There is actually not a Tesla chademo adapter yet. Announced and supposed to be being tested. Certainly CCS Combo will come in time and most think the creation of it will be more straightforward.

1. The Tesla CHAdeMO adapter is months behind schedule, but it’s definitely coming.
http://electrek.co/2014/04/09/tesla-model-s-chademo-adapter-in-the-wild-charges-as-fast-as-a-supercharger/

2. What makes you think that a CCS adapter will ever exist, and would be easier to make?

Some people have started peeling apart the protocol Tesla uses, and at least the initial handshake is made with… CAN.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/19591-Supercharger-protocol-for-diy-CHAdeMO-adapter/page6

If it is verified that the Model S doesn’t use HomePlug PLC (required for CCS), the adapter would need to handle that part. While still likely doable, we’re looking at something far more complex than a pairs of connectors.

Tesla’s CTO was specifically asked about the Combo connector, and he said that Tesla was 100% compatible with it signal-wise (although not physically obviously):
http://articles.sae.org/11923/

The car might need an OTA to enable it, but I would be surprised if they didn’t support CCS onboard (given Tesla’s previous history with supporting SAE signaling) and would require it in the adapter.

If I’m reading that thread correctly, the person doesn’t have the 1500 ohm resistor value necessary yet to trigger SAE DC Combo charging mode yet, so at this point it’s unknown how the charging really works, although it seems the initial signaling is CAN.

I find it funny that Tesla ended up using CAN when they initially made a big deal about how it was unsafe for the security of the car (as an explanation why they didn’t use CHAdeMO).

Tesla’s CTO either mis-understood the question, or he purposely went around it.
He was not talking about CCS/Combo, but the base J1772. Yes, the Model S can use a regular L1/L2 EVSE with only a passive adapter. Big whoop.

Unless Tesla fitted just the right PLC in all its cars (many of them built before CCS was finalized), making the Model S directly CCS compatible would require hardware changes.

No idea what might have given you the impression that Tesla would be concerned about using CAN for communication. If you manage to find it again, please provide a quote or a link, I’d be curious.

CAN has been specifically designed for automotive use, and is actually mandatory for all cars sold in the US (OBD-II requirements) — Model S included.

The question was: “What about the communication protocol of the Combo Connector? It’s considered essential for V2G.” There’s absolutely no ambiguity at all in that question and I don’t see how he could have mistaken it to be about the non-Combo J1772 as it doesn’t reference J1772 at all. “We’re 100% compliant with all the J1772 communication levels, signaling, voltage, everything.” This statement would be false if Tesla didn’t support DC charging mode (which is also part of J1772). “The challenge we didn’t want was two plugs.” I’m pretty sure this part is referring to the Combo and non-Combo J1772. “Unless Tesla fitted just the right PLC in all its cars (many of them built before CCS was finalized), making the Model S directly CCS compatible would require hardware changes.” From the article I linked, Tesla sat in the board that developed CCS so they knew exactly what was required way before the standard was finalized. They did exactly the same thing for the Roadster in terms of supporting J1772-AC. “No idea what might have given you the impression that Tesla would be concerned about using CAN for communication.” That was the explanation by an Engineer back in 2012 about… Read more »
Well, it’s now established that the current Supercharger implementation is not at all like J1772. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/19591-Supercharger-protocol-for-diy-CHAdeMO-adapter/page5 In this light, excuse me if I don’t give much credence to all that speculation based on unofficial, hesitant and at times uninformed comment from 2 years ago. Let’s review this anyway, so it can be put to rest. From the video linked in another part of the thread you pointed to (thanks, btw), here’s what was said about J1772 DC (aka CCS now). Sorry, it was hard to understand everything. First it starts by stating that Tesla will “probably end up doing” Roadster compatibility. So much for that. Just before 2 minutes into it: “Unfortunately SAE is like, incredibly slow, incredibly slow, I was so frustr- I was like, very b? in the process of the DC ? standard at the beginning, and I quickly realized, they’re not going to be finished? by the time we have to make a decision, so we went on our own again.” At 3 minutes: “We think we’re going to be compatible with the electrical communication protocol, because I’ve seen enough now, I’ve been following that very closely and we, I think, I know where they’re going… Read more »
Yes, CHAdeMO is capable of 100kW, but is currently restricted to 62.5kW. CHAdeMO protocol is, and has always been the most widely deployed DC fast charging protocol in the world, but it is now officially recognised as an international DC charging standard by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a leading global organisation that publishes international standards for electric and electronic products and related technologies. Since 2009, following the commercialization of the new generation of EVs that were fast chargeable using the innovative CHAdeMO technology, CHAdeMO Association members have been taking an active role in the IEC technical committees 61851-23, -24, as well as 62196-3 in order to drive the consensus approach of international standardisation. After 4 years of expert meetings, in January 2014, the FDIS (final draft international standard) for 61851-23 and -24 were approved by the committees and were finally published on the IEC website. DC fast charging system standards IEC 61851-23 gives the requirements for “DC chargers” and provides the general requirements for the control communication between a DC fast charger and an EV. IEC 62851-24 defines digital communication between a DC fast charger and an EV. In all of the aforementioned technical committees, CHAdeMO is among the… Read more »

Kinda funny how the plugs are lined up in kW but reminds me of grades of gasoline. “Regular, Mid-grade, or Premium”.

Right! Which begs the questions:

– are the CHAdeMO and CSS plugs progressively more expensive to use;

– how will people react when they pull up with, say, their i3 and see a PiP charging at 2.7 kW using the L2 plug for two hours? 🙂

I don’t know how they are going to bill users. And with 3 cables, is it possible to charge more than 1 vehicle at a time? That could also make the billing more complicated, especially if the kW rate goes down.

I don’t know how they are going to bill users. And with 3 cables, is it possible to charge more than 1 vehicle at a time? That could also make the billing more complicated, especially if the kW flow goes down.

DBT (which bases their stations on Nissan’s charging module) in Europe has been making universal fast chargers that include CHAdeMO, CCS and Fast AC since Nov 2013 as far as I remember, so what’s the big news ABB? Confused 🙂

It received the CHAdeMO 1.0 certification, and received it in Europe to boot. That’s the news.

Being better and even being first does nor necessarily guarantee market success… Look at VHS versus Betamax…

The more important unanswered question is if/when these units are UL listed or equivalent, as that could start the calendar ticking (as soon as a second branded unit is also UL listed or equivalent) for NRG eVgo in California to install a CCS unit at new Freedom Station sites and retrofit their existing sites with a CCS unit (per the CPUC agreement).

Dont forget that nice 43kw AC Plug seen on this ABB charger. TYP2 with 43kw AC is the AC EU fast charging Standard besides CCS DC.

And it is the cheapest one, even individuals can own a 43kw AC Charging station@home.
But only for ZOE and later for Kangoo available.

Regards

Yeah, Europe seems to have a better system than the USA. You get the option of high-speed AC. And Europe’s CCS 1 seems better than the CCS 2 in the USA.