Making a cheap BMS ABYC compliant

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Nick you and I and others agree E13 is an abomination the whole “ fiasco “ over the ABYC letter about LFp safety has shown ABYC is a joke. A sad outdated joke.

At this stage ABYC should fold its tent and move away. It’s a slow outdated biased organisation That fewer and fewer people are listening too.

We have the ridiculousness of a person here arguing over advance warning. Which irresoective of the English is a damm find idea fundamentally.

Well, I don’t want to go that far because ISO isn’t much better.

I think I also like tanglewood, I just wasn’t impressed with his response. I posted solid arguments like that installations prior to August 1, 2023 are not to be covered by E-13 meaning the watering down isn’t for existing owners because they are exempt. This leaves the big industry selling LFP drop in batteries that are now non compliant except they dropped requirements instead. I expect a response to those arguments instead of getting ridiculed for not being present etc. Those kind of replies have no merit and are poison for a healthy discussion.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

No, you don’t understand it at all. There is no relay, there is a high frequency inverter that makes AC from DC input and that is connected to an AC battery charger. All that is inside a Smart Orion. It’s Victron.

So it converts dc to ac and back to dc ? Sounds like it's full of losses
But hey if that's it and it works then I just need to figure how much I can continuously get out of a 75 amp chevy large frame alternator without frying it .

50 or 60 amps? Via a dc dc
Or just keep the 1,000 watt harbor freight generator on the boat ?

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I posted solid arguments like that installations prior to August 1, 2023 are not to be covered by E-13 meaning the watering down isn’t for existing owners because they are exempt.

I thought I explained, but will try again. In practice, insurance companies are starting to require that lithium ion battery installations meet some standard. Some have said no altogether to lithium, and others have created their own acceptance criteria. One, for example, requires a US designed and built system, installed by a professional. Surveyors also have no baseline against which they can judge an installation.



E-13 now creates a standard by which existing, pre Aug 1, 2023 installations can be judged in a more objective way to assess risk. I believe we will soon see insurance companies asking/requiring that lithium ion installations, regardless of installation date, comply with E-13. And I think you will see surveyors assessing whether installations meet E-13. So in practice, I think E-13 will reach back, not just forward, because there is nothing else back there.


This creates a unique situation where this initial release of E-13 is not just about what's compliant for builds as of Aug 1, 2023, but also the only thing against which existing installations can be judged. And BTW, I personally would consider the equivalent ISO standard as a suitable substitute for judging existing system, if that's what an insurance company or surveyor wants to do. But in North America, people look to ABYC.



So the issue is not only what you want people to build moving forward, but also what existing installations do you want to invalidate with the initial release of E-13. I see this as a multi step process, where step one you render the most abhorrent system as non-compliant. At the same time, you signal where people are going to have to step up their designs via the mighty "should". Then in a subsequent revision those "shoulds" start to turn into "shalls". Even though the allowed systems may not be the best, or what you or I might have chosen, it's not right to just pull the rug out from under them. Although you may think it's about protecting vendors, it's not. It's about protecting boat owners who have invested in well-made and safe power systems.


Now it's a fair argument that much of this is a consequence of E-13 being so late and a lot of non-communicating drop in batteries being installed in the mean time. There is not doubt in my mind that it is a contributing factor. But that's come and gone and we have to deal with the current situation.

[tanglewood]

There seems to be a lot of sentiment that the ISO standard is more demanding than the ABYC standard. I just read through ISO-T2-23625:2021, and think it is less prescriptive, and less demanding in almost every way.


- I see only four things in ISO that are mandatory. 1) Adhering to the Safe Operating Limits. 2) BMS prevention of overcharging with means unspecified. 3) operating the batteries within allowed temp ranges at all time. 4) following the manufacturer's installation instructions. That's it.


- I heard complaints that E-13 doesn't distinguish LFP from other chemistries. Neither does ISO.


- There were lots of complaints that a pre-disconnect warning is not required in ABYC, but it's not require in ISO either.



- ISO suggests, but does not require that cells meetIEC 62619 and IEC 62620 or some similar standard. ABYC requires that the cells meet at least one such standard.


- Other things required in ABYC, but optional in ISO are shock and vib protection, protection from water exposure, ignition protection, battery tie-down requirements, prohibition of connections that bypass the BMS, over current protection, manual battery disconnect in addition to any BMS contactors, control of charging sources within manufacturer specs, etc. The list goes on.


By all appearances ISO did exactly what ABYC has done, only with much more leniency. The 2021 revision hints to what future requirements might be, but they are all currently "shoulds", not "shalls". That means they are recommended, but not required. I expect/hope that in a future revision ISO will also start converting shoulds to shalls and at least catch up with E-13. Right now, you will find much more required in ABYC than in ISO.


So I really fail to see what the fuss is about. Nearly anything installed prior to ISO could be deemed compliant. And all these assertions that ABYC is catering to industry by not requiring notification of a pending shutdown, and implication that ISO is pure of heart just doesn't bear out in the actual content of the standards.


I sure hope going forward we can talk about the standards based on what they actually say rather just characterizing them as abominations, or political, or 10-20 years late, or an org that should pack it's bags and leave, or whatever else has been tossed about.


I think most people here agree that a pre-disconnect warning from the BMS should be mandatory. Is anyone here taking that to ISO to get it included? Also, what about separating out requirements for LFP vs other chemistries? I know there are a number of people here taking these questions up with ABYC. Any of you taking it to ISO?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Gentlemen, gentlemen, lose the non civil personal claptrap, it gets us nowhere.

A big part of these types of threads is that often we'll have to wade through post after post of "got you" nonsense then someone will throw in a very salient point and we'll all get to be further educated.

On ABYF V ISO.

Having observed a number of organization who implemented ISO "process" standards to replace more pragmatic "performance" standards, and then realized that the effort was not worth the expense I'm not a big fan of them.

Don’t mix up iso9000 with iso. 9000left huge amounts to individual companies and some did a very poor job. We did iso 9000 in 2000 and found it a very useful internal process.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

There seems to be a lot of sentiment that the ISO standard is more demanding than the ABYC standard. I just read through ISO-T2-23625:2021, and think it is less prescriptive, and less demanding in almost every way.


- I see only four things in ISO that are mandatory. 1) Adhering to the Safe Operating Limits. 2) BMS prevention of overcharging with means unspecified. 3) operating the batteries within allowed temp ranges at all time. 4) following the manufacturer's installation instructions. That's it.


- I heard complaints that E-13 doesn't distinguish LFP from other chemistries. Neither does ISO.


- There were lots of complaints that a pre-disconnect warning is not required in ABYC, but it's not require in ISO either.



- ISO suggests, but does not require that cells meetIEC 62619 and IEC 62620 or some similar standard. ABYC requires that the cells meet at least one such standard.


- Other things required in ABYC, but optional in ISO are shock and vib protection, protection from water exposure, ignition protection, battery tie-down requirements, prohibition of connections that bypass the BMS, over current protection, manual battery disconnect in addition to any BMS contactors, control of charging sources within manufacturer specs, etc. The list goes on.


By all appearances ISO did exactly what ABYC has done, only with much more leniency. The 2021 revision hints to what future requirements might be, but they are all currently "shoulds", not "shalls". That means they are recommended, but not required. I expect/hope that in a future revision ISO will also start converting shoulds to shalls and at least catch up with E-13. Right now, you will find much more required in ABYC than in ISO.


So I really fail to see what the fuss is about. Nearly anything installed prior to ISO could be deemed compliant. And all these assertions that ABYC is catering to industry by not requiring notification of a pending shutdown, and implication that ISO is pure of heart just doesn't bear out in the actual content of the standards.


I sure hope going forward we can talk about the standards based on what they actually say rather just characterizing them as abominations, or political, or 10-20 years late, or an org that should pack it's bags and leave, or whatever else has been tossed about.


I think most people here agree that a pre-disconnect warning from the BMS should be mandatory. Is anyone here taking that to ISO to get it included? Also, what about separating out requirements for LFP vs other chemistries? I know there are a number of people here taking these questions up with ABYC. Any of you taking it to ISO?

Yes I have fed comments to the technical groups 88 which is behind the iso standard their correspondence suggests there are aware of the LFP safety issues

Current iso standards used the word “ should “ in association with bms advance warning. Should is taken as “required l and was also equally seen by all the LfP bms vendors I talked to at METS.

Note that the Iso standard mentions the advance disconnect warning in TWO places in the document

“ it should provide an audible and/or visual alarm to the operator, clearly perceptible from the main helm position, that indicates that the SOC of the lithium-ion battery bank is approaching the low SOC threshold specified by the manufacturer

Again “ should “ in iso means “ will “

I think further debate suggesting such advance warning isn’t required is bunkum and disingenuous and close to trolling.

With the proposed 2023 upgrade to the rcd iso will have legal requirements in all new builds in Europe or on any boat built to compliance

Please stop this nonsense debate every single bms conpaby i talked at METS was fully aware of the advance warning requirements , this included Victron master volt, Sterling power


No one agree with you “ tanglewood” so please just desist with your nonsense thanks. YOu are debating “ should and shall “ I agree that “ shall is the more correct iso term , but iso “ should “ means a recommendation.

[s/v Jedi]

Thank you tanglewood for your explanation. I can see your standpoint but I don’t share it and think ABYC should not be concerned with anything that insurance companies want or do. They should put boat owners first, even above the marine industry because that industry serves the boat owners, who fund them.

On ISO: I think they simply copied TE-13.

GBN: on terminology, tanglewood cited ISO for the definition of the terms. Citations win, especially when the true meaning of these terms is in line with what the citations show.

It seems you hate everything the US does for electrics but you forget that all the early innovation came from the US and much is based on good logic. They do seem a bit stuck in the past since the 80’s or so, but that doesn’t mean it’s all bad. A 120V 5mA GFCI outlet is much safer than a 230V outlet behind a 30mA RCD.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Thank you tanglewood for your explanation. I can see your standpoint but I don’t share it and think ABYC should not be concerned with anything that insurance companies want or do. They should put boat owners first, even above the marine industry because that industry serves the boat owners, who fund them.



On ISO: I think they simply copied TE-13.



GBN: on terminology, tanglewood cited ISO for the definition of the terms. Citations win, especially when the true meaning of these terms is in line with what the citations show.



It seems you hate everything the US does for electrics but you forget that all the early innovation came from the US and much is based on good logic. They do seem a bit stuck in the past since the 80’s or so, but that doesn’t mean it’s all bad. A 120V 5mA GFCI outlet is much safer than a 230V outlet behind a 30mA RCD.

5mA rcd is nonsense as it can’t be used as a whole house ( or whole boat ) as it too sensitive

The advantages come from whole boat or whole house protection not individual sockets.

As I says this debate the trip current is long over

My work in the US let me with an abiding memory of poor mains practice.

Early mains innovation didn’t come from the US. only Americans think this it’s a Us disease to think this way about most things and it blind sights them. Most mains technology is of European origin as Edison was dogmatic and delayed much early innovation

Equally a debate about “ shall “ or “ should” is nonsense. Should is a “ recommendation “ on iso speak

Since the whole lithium spec from ABYC and iso has no legal standing is all “ recommendations “ there is nothing in either spec at this stage that’s “ required”

Hence what we are debating is “ good practices “ both ABYC and iso are attempting to define good practice

It does not serve the debate about lithium to debate shoujd” or “ shall” quite frankly

It’s tiresome , ancillary and misleading.

Good practice is just that.

Tne ABYC approx to lithium has been nothing short of awful especially around LFP.

In time some of these specs will have legal standing and no doubt the language will have to be tightened up.

But right now debating angels on a pin head is nonsense. Let’s accept the basic recommendations for “ good practice “ including mains safety also. It behoves us also to cover differing world wide standards and opinions to form a cogent view.

[RaymondR]

"I think most people here agree that a pre-disconnect warning from the BMS should be mandatory. Is anyone here taking that to ISO to get it included? Also, what about separating out requirements for LFP vs other chemistries? I know there are a number of people here taking these questions up with ABYC. Any of you taking it to ISO?"

For my part I'd prefer to see an un-designated, accessible connection from the BMS from which one could power either an audible alert or power a relay to remove power from the alternator regulator. Something with a little more capacity than just enough to run a sonalert.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

"I think most people here agree that a pre-disconnect warning from the BMS should be mandatory. Is anyone here taking that to ISO to get it included? Also, what about separating out requirements for LFP vs other chemistries? I know there are a number of people here taking these questions up with ABYC. Any of you taking it to ISO?"



For my part I'd prefer to see an un-designated, accessible connection from the BMS from which one could power either an audible alert or power a relay to remove power from the alternator regulator. Something with a little more capacity than just enough to run a sonalert.

I have written to the secretary of the relevant technical group associated with the lithium spec primary to address the issue of conflating all lithium technology safety together

To me this is the most serious grievance.

Whether iso should use the term “ shall or “ should “ is rather irelevant given the whole spec has no legal standing and even if introduced will only apply from new builds forward from. the RCD introduction. It’s unclear exactly when there RCD will adopt thd iso. Equally the technical group have said a reworking or other iso electrical specs is underway and the RCD may delay and adopt all of them together.

It’s unlikely either spec will address alternator control in any meaningful way as it’s not complex and very application specific.

It was notable at METS that big players like Victron. Did not want to go near the alternator issue. They merely pointed to the wakespeed 500 unit on their stand as a solution they dud say ( as did balmar , that they hope to work closely together in the future )

Given the complete lack of oversight anyway it’s likely to have little effect anyway .

[s/v Jedi]

To make clear what ABYC terms of “shall” and “should” mean:

I quoted before the part that says that conformity with ABYC is entirely voluntary, so ABYC states that before even listing requirements.

Next they use these terms. This means that:

- in order to comply with E-13 -

one shall have a BMS that shall do HVC but only should do pre-warning.

So if your BMS does not have a ore-warning, it is still compliant with E-13.

I side with tanglewood on this, not seeing how one can see this differently.

On safety: no, GBN, a 230V outlet behind a 30mA RCD is MUCH unsafer than a 120V 5mA GFCI outlet.

You can’t say that 5mA doesn’t work for whole house because it doesn’t say that. Just using 120V instead of 230V makes it safer and a 5mA trip value makes survival almost a certainty. Again, not all is bad.

Early innovation? Edison and Tesla were the innovators and they were Americans.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

To make clear what ABYC terms of “shall” and “should” mean:



I quoted before the part that says that conformity with ABYC is entirely voluntary, so ABYC states that before even listing requirements.



Next they use these terms. This means that:



- in order to comply with E-13 -



one shall have a BMS that shall do HVC but only should do pre-warning.



So if your BMS does not have a ore-warning, it is still compliant with E-13.



I side with tanglewood on this, not seeing how one can see this differently.



On safety: no, GBN, a 230V outlet behind a 30mA RCD is MUCH unsafer than a 120V 5mA GFCI outlet.



You can’t say that 5mA doesn’t work for whole house because it doesn’t say that. Just using 120V instead of 230V makes it safer and a 5mA trip value makes survival almost a certainty. Again, not all is bad.



Early innovation? Edison and Tesla were the innovators and they were Americans.

Tesla was a Serb

5mA can’t be used for whole house

30 mA can and you get far more benefits as whole house or whole boat

I’m not reopening this nonsense it’s been settled in Europe for decades

Arguing over “ shall or “ should “ given the whole standard has not standing is just nonsense

US boat mains practices due to lack of whole boat rcd and pillar based rcd has exposed safety risks that simply don’t exist in Europe. Tbd US has a long way to travel in this regard

[newhaul]

Would it be possible to stop hosing down the deck plstes and get back to how we can make a cheap BMS ABYC Compliant?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Would it be possible to stop hosing down the deck plstes and get back to how we can make a cheap BMS ABYC Compliant?

It’s not difficult it needs advance warning of disconnect. Nick has already covered some delay circuits you can add to create a advance warning signal if you feel the need.

None is looking over your shoulder

At a base level a bms that does HVC lvc overtemp and overcurrent disconnect is all you need.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No one agree with you “ tanglewood” so please just desist with your nonsense thanks.

Well, the subject of the post is making a BMS ABYC compliant. Let's not change the subject to RCBs, or BMS best practices, what vendors at METS are doing, or complaints about US mains power.


Compliance requires understanding how to read a standard and how to discern what's required vs what's suggested - something that clearly was not well understood. It's not a surprise since although an experienced engineer should know this, there is no reason that a typical boater would. We now all understand that and I don't know who disagrees with me on it.


Making a BMS compliant with ABYC also requires having the actual spec, and nobody seemed to have it. Now everyone knows the difference between the actual spec and an earlier technical report. I don't think anyone disagrees with me on that.


There are a number of features that I think we all agree are a good idea, and a good practice to include in a BMS. But previous beliefs that some of them were required by ABYC has been corrected. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.


There was also a belief that some features that are optional in ABYC are required by ISO. That misunderstanding has been correct, and I don't think anyone disagrees on that.


So I'm not sure what "nonsense" you want me to desist with. I think we are poised to have a much more informed discussion on the topic, thanks to my "nonsense".