Making a cheap BMS ABYC compliant

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Why do you leave out the first part… which you reference to with “that being said…”. I bet you do because this was about you not abiding to ABYC and in that context, the “that being said I’ll do so and so” means that it is to stay closer to ABYC recommendations and this is further emphasized in your post 197.

Now you say it’s just what you want, period. Fine, go get it

I have been trying to find an audible high voltage alarm to no avail hence I asked the group .

SO I AM SPECIFICLY ASKING DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND AN ADD ON ADJUSTABLE VOLTAGE HIGH VOLTAGE AUDIBLE ALARM THAT CAN BE SET TO ALARM AT 14.6VDC ON RISE? THAT DOESNT COST A BOAT BUCK?

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I have no benefit in buying these recommendations (they are not code and while they call them standards, this is only within the limited scope of ABYC) because all I use them for is help people on this forum for free. I don’t mind spending a little of my time for this, but spending money is a step too far.

So what use do you have for them?

My use is not unlike yours. I use them as a source (but not the only one) of best practices. I built a boat that was required to meet ABYC, so I use them to verify that. I am involved in a number of boat electrical projects, including LFP systems, and use them as best practices for those projects. I am also part of the group that is responsible for the electrical standards in ABYC, so to the extent you and others detest ABYC standards, I guess you can send some of that blame my way, though I have only been involved for a couple of years. I'll also note that my access to the standards is through my ABYC membership, not because I am on one of the committees. And I don't represent any company or industry or insurance company or surveyors or any of the other alleged conspirators the some people think are behind ABYC. My contributions are based on what I think it best for cruisers, is electrically sound, and is realistic and practical. I don't always get my way, but neither does anyone else. And I don't get paid for any of it, in fact is only costs be money. But as you know, it's nice to help where you can.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

My use is not unlike yours. I use them as a source (but not the only one) of best practices. I built a boat that was required to meet ABYC, so I use them to verify that. I am involved in a number of boat electrical projects, including LFP systems, and use them as best practices for those projects. I am also part of the group that is responsible for the electrical standards in ABYC, so to the extent you and others detest ABYC standards, I guess you can send some of that blame my way, though I have only been involved for a couple of years. I'll also note that my access to the standards is through my ABYC membership, not because I am on one of the committees. And I don't represent any company or industry or insurance company or surveyors or any of the other alleged conspirators the some people think are behind ABYC. My contributions are based on what I think it best for cruisers, is electrically sound, and is realistic and practical. I don't always get my way, but neither does anyone else. And I don't get paid for any of it, in fact is only costs be money. But as you know, it's nice to help where you can.

Thank you for your participation.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Why do you leave out the first part… which you reference to with “that being said…”. I bet you do because this was about you not abiding to ABYC and in that context, the “that being said I’ll do so and so” means that it is to stay closer to ABYC recommendations and this is further emphasized in your post 197.

Now you say it’s just what you want, period. Fine, go get it

You do recall I am a shipwright cor e ectopic and have customers that may eventually want to do full lifepo4 so I want to have several options for them if they want to be compliant with ABYC recommendations..

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You do recall I am a shipwright cor e ectopic and have customers that may eventually want to do full lifepo4 so I want to have several options for them if they want to be compliant with ABYC recommendations..

I realize you are not addressing me, and I'm not directing this at you, but this is a good opportunity to clarify what ABYC is and isn't. They are Standards. Made no mistake about. They are no different than ISO, IEC, NEC, IETF, NFP, CE, CSA, UL, etc. A system or whatever is either compliant with the standard, or it isn't.


That's independent of whether, where, or when compliance is required by law, and that's true of many, many standards. There is no requirement that I comply with ISO, or CE, or UL for that matter, just to use them as examples. But not having any legal requirement to comply doesn't make them "recommendation", or change "shalls to shoulds", or in any way dilute the standard. Everything in the standard stands, and you either meet the standard or you don't.


Like many standards, it's the market that demands compliance. Whether it's a boat buyer who wants some assurance that a new build has been carried out to some acceptable level, or an insurance underwriter who wants some baseline of build quality in a boat as a condition of insurance, to a standard of implementation and workmanship for repairs and refits.


There also is no grandfathering. Again, a boat or system is either compliant or not. What IS a variable is what edition of the standard it might comply with. A boat may be compliant with a 2005 version, but not with the 2022 version. And just because it complied with the 2005 version doesn't make it automatically compliant with the 2022 version. Again, this is no different from many other standards, nearly all of which evolve over time.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

.


There also is no grandfathering. Again, a boat or system is either compliant or not. What IS a variable is what edition of the standard it might comply with. A boat may be compliant with a 2005 version, but not with the 2022 version. And just because it complied with the 2005 version doesn't make it automatically compliant with the 2022 version. Again, this is no different from many other standards, nearly all of which evolve over time.

Perhaps my wording is not correct to people's interpretation however it seems fitting and correct wrt

E13 Which states
E-13’s recommendations take effect for systems manufactured or installed after July 31, 2023

So what ever you wish to call it . the systems were installed before the new rules take effect. .re therefore not required to be updated to that new standard.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

My use is not unlike yours. I use them as a source (but not the only one) of best practices. I built a boat that was required to meet ABYC, so I use them to verify that. I am involved in a number of boat electrical projects, including LFP systems, and use them as best practices for those projects. I am also part of the group that is responsible for the electrical standards in ABYC, so to the extent you and others detest ABYC standards, I guess you can send some of that blame my way, though I have only been involved for a couple of years. I'll also note that my access to the standards is through my ABYC membership, not because I am on one of the committees. And I don't represent any company or industry or insurance company or surveyors or any of the other alleged conspirators the some people think are behind ABYC. My contributions are based on what I think it best for cruisers, is electrically sound, and is realistic and practical. I don't always get my way, but neither does anyone else. And I don't get paid for any of it, in fact is only costs be money. But as you know, it's nice to help where you can.

Cool, I have spent too much time in similar committees and just can’t stand the politics anymore.

I don’t actually hate ABYC, I have no reason to; I just think they are too slow, especially on electrical systems and clearly showing US corporate interests where I would expect something else. Exactly what I don’t like. Examples: 10 or 20 year delay with RCD and then coming up with ridiculously priced US product ELCI which isn’t needed. But at least RCD is recognized as well. Another example is the use of toroidal transformers in isolation transformers, again with US manufacturers producing the recognized products. Now we have E-13 where all Lithium Ion is thrown together which almost everyone agrees is not correct for a marine oriented audience which uses LiFePO4 almost exclusively… something I think should be made mandatory.

Anyway, I seems I am receiving the E-13 document shortly so I’ll start reading.

It does worry me that it has apparently been watered down on the warning signals. But understandable with that many US manufacturers not compliant with that…

[goboatingnow]

Ive read E-13, I don’t see where the advance warning indication of a shutdown has been changed it remains a requirement

[RaymondR]

"- you must have fuses
- you must have a main battery switch
- you must have a BMS
- you must have multiple batteries
- your BMS must be able to do HVC, LVC as well as temperature related cutoff.
- your BMS must have prior warning to cutoff events
- your BMS must turn off the alternator prior to cutoff events
- you can not run power solenoids because they can cause LVC so you must have MOSFET or latching solenoid options."

From a design viewpoint this is a pretty sensible requirements listing even if you don't want to be ABYC compliant.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Perhaps my wording is not correct to people's interpretation however it seems fitting and correct wrt

E13 Which states
E-13’s recommendations take effect for systems manufactured or installed after July 31, 2023

So what ever you wish to call it . the systems were installed before the new rules take effect. .re therefore not required to be updated to that new standard.

It doesn't mean that stuff built before July 31, 2023 is automatically compliant with the standard. Their construction simply predates the standard. They can still be determined to comply or non comply.


I think where this does come into play is with boat builders who advertise ABYC compliant builds. They won't be able to claim that after the effective date unless they do indeed comply. Today they can claim ABYC compliance for their build.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

It doesn't mean that stuff built before July 31, 2023 is automatically compliant with the standard. Their construction simply predates the standard. They can still be determined to comply or non comply.


I think where this does come into play is with boat builders who advertise ABYC compliant builds. They won't be able to claim that after the effective date unless they do indeed comply. Today they can claim ABYC compliance for their build.

Agreed its just like the label in a car . Complies with all standards that were in effect at time of manufacture.
My 1951 truck doesn't require seat belts to be legal . Doesn't mean they weren't a great addition to it when I restored it.

[tanglewood]

First, this is all my opinion and personal view. I am not speaking for or on behalf of ABYC in any way....

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Cool, I have spent too much time in similar committees and just can’t stand the politics anymore.

I don’t actually hate ABYC, I have no reason to; I just think they are too slow, especially on electrical systems and clearly showing US corporate interests where I would expect something else. Exactly what I don’t like. Examples: 10 or 20 year delay with RCD and then coming up with ridiculously priced US product ELCI which isn’t needed. But at least RCD is recognized as well.

This one is before my time, so I can't comment on the timing. What I can say is that there is a lot of focus on harmonizing the ABYC electrical standards with other standards, and you see more and more recognition and acceptance of things that comply with other standards, not just US standards.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Another example is the use of toroidal transformers in isolation transformers, again with US manufacturers producing the recognized products.

This was recently addressed and new language created to cover toroidal transformers. I don't know what the time table is for formal inclusion in the standard. And I saw no pressure at all from entrenched non-toroidal transformer manufacturers trying to "protect" their market. The motivation I saw was a recognition that toroidal transformers exist and people use/want to use the, and they were not addressed in the standard.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Now we have E-13 where all Lithium Ion is thrown together which almost everyone agrees is not correct for a marine oriented audience which uses LiFePO4 almost exclusively… something I think should be made mandatory.

I personally agree and want to see this changed in the next revision. Simply separating out LFP is one approach, but not a very generic and lasting one for a standard. A preferred approach would be to segregate based on cell characteristics to allow for evolving cell chemistries. Suggestions on how to do that? I think it comes down to the volatility of the cells, but what exact parameters, and what dividing lines? It's not so easy. And I don't think you prohibit other chemistries, but rather set higher standards. There are existing standards for big-ass battery power systems like grid power shaving systems, larger motive power (trains, ferries, etc) that have lots of protections and stuff everything into a bomb shelter and lock the door from the outside. Should those kinds of requirements be placed on the power system if it's a large NMC propulsion power bank?

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Anyway, I seems I am receiving the E-13 document shortly so I’ll start reading.

Glad you are getting a copy. I think it's far from perfect, but it was more important to get something out and revise later rather than keep refining.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

It does worry me that it has apparently been watered down on the warning signals. But understandable with that many US manufacturers not compliant with that…

I'll confess that I was/am a proponent of some of what you probably consider "watering down". The pre-cutout warning is an example. Again, my personal opinion on this, not an ABYC representation... I think such a warning is absolutely required in a good power system, and it needs to such that it can trigger human alerts (the visible or audible alarm suggestion that's in E-13), and is also suitable for controlling external equipment to turn off alternators so they are not subject to a harsh disconnect, turn off charger, turn off loads, etc. A single signal or relay closure is really all that's needed, and it's really not hard to do.


The balance, and I personally pushed pretty hard on this, is that it's not fair to boat owners to issue a first standard that renders 80% of the LFP installations (drop-in batteries) non-compliant. Like it or not, that's what people are mostly buying, they were bought in good faith, they cut this particular corner and it makes it a lot harder to address system issues, but are they unsafe? I don't think so. I don't think it would be right to come along and punish all those early adopters.


What I'm very comfortable with is rendering all the total hack systems as non-compliant. These would be systems that actually are dangerous, like systems without a BMS, or without a disconnect. I know a few people who are basically human BMSes, manually monitoring cells, doing balancing, and standing by ready to pull the plug if things go south. That sort of thing will be clearly non compliant, and when their insurance company starts asking if they have lithium batteries, and whether the system is ABYC compliant, they will have an issue.


It's also important to understand that we are in a pretty unique situation where 1) this is the first standard for a new technology, with no previous standard, 2) Insurance companies and others looking for a benchmark for judging a systems safety and risk (e.g. insurability), 3) a rapidly growing installed base.


We have seen insurance companies getting nervous with a few declining coverage on boats with Li , and others restricting what they will cover. E-13 provides an important benchmark for them, for builder, and for people doing retrofits.


I think we will soon find all insurers asking if you have L-ion on your boat, and asking if it's ABYC compliant. People who have reasonable systems installed prior to E-13 should be able to just say Yes. They can't be forced to do a dance saying they pre-dated E-13, so did whatever. There still needs to be a benchmark for them, and because this first edition of E-13 is the only benchmark, it will be THE benchmark in this situation.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Ive read E-13, I don’t see where the advance warning indication of a shutdown has been changed it remains a requirement

Is the requirement in 13.5.6? If so, you are reading TE-13, not E-13. There is no section 13.5.6 in E-13.

[s/v Jedi]

Wow. It’s even worse than I suspected. Attached the part about the BMS from the secret documents.

How one can spin this as “it would be unfair to boat owners with drop in batteries” is exactly what is wrong with the ABYC. There is hardly any representation from boat owners without a stick in the fire, if at all. The reason they have thrown this overboard is because they, the marine industry, would not be compliant and that this pressure from the market can change so called “standards” is mind blowing and reduces the standards to a political mess like everything else.

The whole document is a new low and one that certainly can’t be erased by that letter about how good the LFP batteries behave during testing.

[s/v Jedi]

I will add to my post above, further proof that this watering down of standards is for manufacturers and not boat owners, from E-13:

First attachment making clear this is advisory only and for boat owners it is completely voluntary.

Second attachment makes clear that this standard is NOT applicable for installations prior to August 1, 2023.

This means that the standard hits installations done from August 1 onwards, i.e. manufacturers need to sell their batteries that would not be compliant before watering down the standard.

This actually hurts boat owners and I can even see class action for damaged alternators or damage resulting from loss of power after the lithium revolution really takes off. I don’t think the disclaimer in the first attachment will provide enough legal protection for such a case.

And then what happens? Pointing at some footnotes? This is wrong and ABYC better fix this with amendments before it gets out of hand.