LFP UL Battery Certifications

[SteveK]

I thought I was begining to understand ABYC.

 

[twistedtree]

Post #5 has 7 standards of E13 draft of which Victron lists 5 certifications that I found.
My Renogy LFP has 2 of the 7 certifications but has 9 certifications in total.

Victron is the most popular, now the Epoch leading the pack.
I do not have a problem with ABYC modeling E13 after the most popular brand.

ETA: This is my opinion

E-13 is definitely not modeled after any particular brand, and there is also a lot of effort to not unduly or inadvertently render something non-compliant. Victron has not been an active participant. In fact, I can't recall them ever participating at all.

 

[twistedtree]

No worries frosty. The E13 was written around Victron, only 2 of the list TT posted was not found attached to Victron (yet). UL 1642 may apply to all LFP sold in the US, but the rest of the list may not be most. When you thought Victron battery was not included, that got me going.
Now I have to wonder why the US ABYC cares what standards other countries have. Some are considered higher standards, so they meet UL 1642, why not make them pass the test, never mind whatthey rate in their own locale. Would it be too simple to say all you need is UL 1642 to be endorsed by ABYC. Maybe insurers would like that simpler descriptor.

As I said in another post, E-13 is definitely not written around Victron.

The reason other standards are included is because European manufacturers build to European standards, not UL. And the converse is true for US manufacturers. So where the UL and ISO/IEC standards are more or less equivalent, both are accepted.

 

[SteveK]

TT, I get what you are saying. I used popular Victron as they have 5of7 of the standards you listed. I am sure Victron went ahead and got those others not to quailfy further in the US, but to qualify in other areas.
Maybe I missed that ABYC wants to be a world authority.
But I also wonder why those other manufactorers are not simply made to quailify to the local continent standards when imported so apples can be compared to apples. As you said it is not easy to find the certification, it should be.

What is the certification for lithium batteries?
UL 1642 specifies the requirements for the safety of lithium ion cells, while UL 2054 covers the safety of lithium ion battery packs. CE Marking - This certification indicates compliance with EU safety, health, and environmental protection standards.

Google has no problem in saying it in simple language

 

[twistedtree]

In the US there are a lot fewer standards required by law. In fact, FCC is the only one that comes to mind as directly required. Even UL is only indirectly require in jurisdictions that require NEC, which in turn requires UL. Otherwise I'm not aware of anyplace where UL is required by law. Maybe others do? There probably are other examples, but it's predominantly market-driven.

In Europe it's different and many ISO/IEC standards are required by law to sell in the EU.

 

[SteveK]

TT, do your best to make insurers understand LFP is not a higher risk of a claim.

 

[Frosty]

Maybe I missed that ABYC wants to be a world authority.

I actually went and looked up their mission statement last night.

Source of Technical Information​

Mission: The role of the American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) is to be the essential source of technical information for the international marine industry. We will develop product safety standards, credentialing, education, training, and other tools to equip our members to be successful. Everything we do will support our members to achieve the goal of making boating safer.

This is me again now. I don't think they are wanting world domination or anything sinister, but their mission statement does say "international marine industry." I believe they are based in the US though.

Seems like -- as Twisted Tree said, if I read him correctly -- that it would be in their customers' (meaning their members) best interest to try to establish when, say, an EU standard was equivalent or could be used. I mean UL is great, but from what I have read it's a tedious process to get UL listed and can take a looong time (correct me if I'm wrong). If there is an obviously major standard from another continent (for an equipment mfgr that is based there) that is equivalent, accepting it seems useful for their customers (us) in that it gives us more options, not fewer.

I know that if there are 12 battery brands that I can choose from, and they are all up to snuff (via UL or other appropriate/equivalent rating), I would rather have 12 choices when I go to buy something. That's speaking as a consumer.

******

Side note: (SteveK) Has ABYC caused a problem for you in the past? You almost seem to be trying to point out how they are out to "get" everyone or do something nefarious, but without any clear detail. If those details exist, then please let the specifics fly.

 

[twistedtree]

TT, do your best to make insurers understand LFP is not a higher risk of a claim.

If I ever have the opportunity to talk to one, I will. But except for Markle in the US, and Pantaneous outside the US, the all seem to already agree with you.

 

[Frosty]

In the US there are a lot fewer standards required by law. ...

In Europe it's different and many ISO/IEC standards are required by law to sell in the EU.

This is what had me "going" yesterday, when I thought perhaps my (Victron) batteries would somehow not qualify (and worse, those of a friend I just helped). When I was first choosing them, ABYC was not as far into LFP, so I wasn't going by that. I chose them based mostly on my own research, but also figured that if they can be sold in the EU, they are probably subject to rules and laws there --- and the EU seems pretty consumer-protection oriented. Perhaps more than the USA sometimes.

 

[twistedtree]

I actually went and looked up their mission statement last night.

Source of Technical Information​

Mission: The role of the American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) is to be the essential source of technical information for the international marine industry. We will develop product safety standards, credentialing, education, training, and other tools to equip our members to be successful. Everything we do will support our members to achieve the goal of making boating safer.

This is me again now. I don't think they are wanting world domination or anything sinister, but their mission statement does say "international marine industry." I believe they are based in the US though.

Correct, based in Annapolis, MD.

Seems like -- as Twisted Tree said, if I read him correctly -- that it would be in their customers' (meaning their members) best interest to try to establish when, say, an EU standard was equivalent or could be used. I mean UL is great, but from what I have read it's a tedious process to get UL listed and can take a looong time (correct me if I'm wrong). If there is an obviously major standard from another continent that is equivalent, accepting it seems useful for their customers (us) in that it gives us more options, not fewer.

Exactly. More manufacturers and more products is better for boaters, so if an ISO standard is equivalent to a UL standard, why not accept both? ABYC also works hand in hand with ISO, Transport Canada, and the USCG, and all attempt to harmonize standards where practical.

I know that if there are 12 battery brands that I can choose from, and they are all up to snuff (via UL or other appropriate/equivalent rating), I would rather have 12 choices when I go to buy something. That's speaking as a consumer.

Exactly.

******

Side note: Has ABYC caused a problem for you in the past? You almost seem to be trying to point out how they are out to "get" everyone or do something nefarious, but without any clear detail. If those details exist, then please let the specifics fly.

I presume this is addressed to SteveK, so I'll leave it alone.

 

[SteveK]

ABYC has not caused me any problems. Surveyors using ABYC have misinterpreted the meaning and intent and caused me aggravation.

@Frosty you now know your batteries are OK under ABYC. But was ABYC causing you grief or was it the interpretation of the standards not available freely to the public. If it was not for TT & Charlie (and others) we would be totally blind to the wording that matters.

 

[Frosty]

ABYC has not caused me any problems. Surveyors using ABYC have misinterpreted the meaning and intent and caused me aggravation.

Ah. Yes, surveying is a whole 'nother ball of wax and I can understand your frustration. But of course that's not ABYC's fault.

@Frosty you now know your batteries are OK under ABYC. But was ABYC causing you grief or was it the interpretation of the standards not available freely to the public.

I like ABYC! I'm very glad they exist, because their standards give me a "cookbook" to use when doing a project. I have used the standards for that purpose on so many projects. Of course one can also choose to do better, but the standards are there for a baseline. IOW, they don't outline the "ultimate" installation, but rather the minimum standard that they believe you should strive for.

(Okay yesterday I was dismayed to think that a new standard would exclude my batteries. But that's because I was pretty sure they were very good and it would have been a weird technicality. Moreso because I just helped someone else install a set -- I would have felt bad about that. But if the batteries I chose were actually bad, then I would have wanted to know for sure.)

ABYC standards are 100% available to anyone (i.e. The Public). Anyone can join and get access to the standards (and more). (See below for link.) So no need to fly blind.

For someone who wants the info for free:
I would say LFP batteries is a bit of an exception, but otherwise what I have found is that (as simply a boat owner) it's possible to get pretty good information from older copies of the standards if you don't want to join. What I mean by that is that, say, standards for how to design a propane system aren't likely to be evolving very quickly so a slightly older copy may work (sort of like having older charts of an area that is mostly rock and not changing much).

LFP being new and different, of course the standards are evolving more quickly so that would be like using an "older chart" from an area that shoals and changes constantly - maybe not so great.

If it was not for TT & Charlie (and others) we would be totally blind to the wording that matters.

Here is a link to where anyone can join at the "consumer" level (cheaper) and have full access to the standards and other benefits. No need to fly blind! Also of course no need to join sign up year after year probably for most boat owners. One year might do.

Become a Member of ABYC - The American Boat & Yacht Council

Join ABYC as a Recreational Boater ABYC offers a recreational boater level membership for $200/yr. This level was created for an individual who may be restoring or repairing their own boat, someone who needs access to standards information when traveling [...]

abycinc.org

I couldn't immediately find where you could buy just one or two standards (vs. a full membership) but it may be there. I'm on my old computer and it doesn't always play well with modern websites...

For those who don't want to join, then helpful folk like Charlie and TT here -- in addition to some of the older standards being available free online -- is advantageous.

 

[SteveK]

Yes I am aware of the $200 annual fee to read what may or may not affect me. The internet provides for free, not just from this forum.

 

[twistedtree]

ABYC standards are 100% available to anyone (i.e. The Public). Anyone can join and get access to the standards (and more). (See below for link.) So no need to fly blind.

And the cost is just a bit more than one hour of hired labor. That seems like a bargain for an otherwise DIY person who wants to do things correctly.

 

[tiltrider1]

My only issue with ABYC is that it is designed to protect the lowest denominator. Some times I think we should allow Darwinism to remove the lowest denominator from the gene pool.

 

[tpbrady]

For those who are interested, here is my informal list of LFP batteries that appear to meet the ABYC certification requirements as proclaimed on their website somewhere. The only exception was Vatrer which in response to an email, said they would provide a copy of the UL and ISO certifications when I placed an order.

Watt Cycle
Lithionics
Battleborn
LiTime
Epoch
Vatrer
ExpertPower

Redodo

Renogy

SOK 300 self heating 300/2/box. Victron

 

[mvweebles]

What are the practical benefits of UL listing? Will Prowse frequently mentions it, but insinuates that it's most useful for Code Compliance for grid-tie applications. For example, in his recent review of SOK Marine Battery, he noted a fire suppression module which he felt was a bit dubious given the unlikelihood of fire with LFP.

A slightly more cynical question: how is UL listing acquired (guessing the OEM pays a hefty fee to an independent facility)? Specifically is it possible many batteries just have not been tested? Market lifecycle on LFP is pretty short which might make UL certification impractical. Thoughts?

Peter

 

[SteveK]

My only issue with ABYC is that it is designed to protect the lowest denominator. Some times I think we should allow Darwinism to remove the lowest denominator from the gene pool.

On re read it occurred to me you are speaking mostly of those that are not members of this or similar forums. Then there are many that lack computer skills to find answers, seen here with same questions being asked.

I cannot agree as the lowest common denominator does not have access to ABYC or know it even exists.

 

[SteveK]

A slightly more cynical question: how is UL listing acquired (guessing the OEM pays a hefty fee to an independent facility)?

Good question so I asked google.

The UL certification process typically costs between $5,000 and $50,000,

I wonder if Will Prowse quaifies as a tester?

 

[Marco Flamingo]

My Eco-Worthy 280Ah batteries are IEC/EN 62133-2:2017 certified. When searching for IEC/EN 62133-2:2017, I was directed to UL 62133-2017 on the Underwriter's Laboratory website at the top of my Google search list. That's strange, as it is not cited on that page. IEC/EN 62133-2:2017 and UL 62133-2017 appear to be essentially the same standard as shown on this website.

So why would a Google search for IEC/EN 62133-2:2017 (a standard of the International Electrotechnical Commission) bring up a UL webpage as the #1 site? I may know this one. Years ago, I represented a naval architect. He came to me with a weird problem. When he searched for his designs or webpage, the search engine (Yahoo!) brought up 8 or 10 hits for one of his competitor's webpages before showing his webpage and designs. He wasn't even on the first page of hits. It turned out that his competitor had written my client's name and designs in invisible text all over his website. My IT guy explained that we couldn't see it, but Yahoo! could.

Not sure if that's sort of what's going on here, but that was my first thought. I'm now used to ̷w̷a̷s̷t̷i̷n̷g̷ spending a lot of time researching LFP installations. Turns out that might be the easy part. What's concerning is that what a manufacturer and Underwriter's Laboratory see as equivalents doesn't mean that the ABYC, surveyors, or an insurance company will agree.

 

[SteveK]

Did you see this another way to write ICE/EN 62133:2-2017? with UL

• UL 62133:2017 Ed.2 certified

 

[twistedtree]

What are the practical benefits of UL listing? Will Prowse frequently mentions it, but insinuates that it's most useful for Code Compliance for grid-tie applications. For example, in his recent review of SOK Marine Battery, he noted a fire suppression module which he felt was a bit dubious given the unlikelihood of fire with LFP.

A slightly more cynical question: how is UL listing acquired (guessing the OEM pays a hefty fee to an independent facility)? Specifically is it possible many batteries just have not been tested? Market lifecycle on LFP is pretty short which might make UL certification impractical. Thoughts?

Peter

Lots of good questions.

To me the cell tests for the basis for a safe system. They include gross over charging, baking, short circuiting, crushing, puncturing, etc. The battery can’t explode, catch fire, or exhibit other anti-social behavior. If you can abuse a cell like that and not have a problem, then a battery also has an inherent level of safety. The “battery” level test look at the whole package of cells, battery modules, BMS, etc. They provide an incremental level of coverage, but it’s not clear just how much. They are also impractical to do for any sort of component system. For example, if you built an arguably high quality system using Victron Batteries, and Victron BMS, and a Blue Sea contactor, it’s you the installer who would need to test and certify it since you are the person who selected the parts and put it together. Some of the tests are potentially damaging, and some a definitely distraction. So you would have to trash the system to test it, then rebuild it. It will never happen. So the effect of mandating any sort of system level test would essentially turn the whole market over to drop ins and single vendor component system certified by the vendor. I have been vehemently opposed to making such test mandatory because it would exclude a lot of vendors and a lot of architectures with no safety reason to do so. But if a vendor has such a certification, it is completely acceptable.

As for actually testing and certifying stuff, there are different levels, and a lot of potential weasel wording from vendors. So you need to read closely and carefully. Listed or Certified products have been tested in some approved manner with recorded results. Sometimes there are specially authorized labs, and other times vendors are allowed to self certify. You will also find statements like “designed to UL xyz” which really doesn’t mean much if anything. I have also seen companies say they are UL certified approved, but don’t tell you what standard. I came across one where there UL certification was for their identification of the product - saying it was a transformer when it was actually a transformer. Another one I see along relates to UL1973 which is a pretty complete system level standard originally targeted towards electric light rail products, and stationary power plants. Heavy duty stuff. But i have seen that claim “UL1973 cell”, which I take to mean they meet the cell testing in UL1973, but who really knows what that means. And as I recall, the cell testing in 1973 just references the UL1462? Tests. So the marketing departments are hard at work….

 

[tpbrady]

After some quick research IEC62133-2 is equivalent to UL62133-2 with IEC62133 being an international equivalent. 62133-2 is a more stringent test than UL1642 at the cell level. One source said that UL62133-2 may replace UL1642 in the future. So the draft language that TT posted about meeting IEC62133 would mean the Ecoworthy batteries will meet ABYC standards.

 

[tiltrider1]

On re read it occurred to me you are speaking mostly of those that are not members of this or similar forums. Then there are many that lack computer skills to find answers, seen here with same questions being asked.

I cannot agree as the lowest common denominator does not have access to ABYC or know it even exists.

I was referring to the fact that a system could be perfectly safe but it won’t meet ABYC standards because it’s not idiot proof. Sadly, ABYC is aware that there are large number of idiots and because of that we have to force all of us to build to their potential stupidity level.

It’s kind of like when trailerable sailboat manufacturers were forced to put warning labels on masts that said “driving around power lines with the mast up could result in death from electrical shock”. If ABYC were involved that warning label would be replaced with a very expensive insulator instead of a warning label.

This is not an anti ABYC post, this is an anti idiot post.

 

[twistedtree]

I was referring to the fact that a system could be perfectly safe but it won’t meet ABYC standards because it’s not idiot proof.

Not idiot proof in what way?

Sadly, ABYC is aware that there are large number of idiots and because of that we have to force all of us to build to their potential stupidity level.

I'm trying to understand what part of the standard is seen as idiot proofing vs just good practice for a safe boat.

It’s kind of like when trailerable sailboat manufacturers were forced to put warning labels on masts that said “driving around power lines with the mast up could result in death from electrical shock”. If ABYC were involved that warning label would be replaced with a very expensive insulator instead of a warning label.

This is not an anti ABYC post, this is an anti idiot post.

 

[SteveK]

Not idiot proof in what way?

I'm trying to understand what part of the standard is seen as idiot proofing vs just good practice for a safe boat.

First thought. A house bank will work without a class T fuse. But add one to protect the idiots.

 

[tiltrider1]

Not idiot proof in what way?

I'm trying to understand what part of the standard is seen as idiot proofing vs just good practice for a safe boat.

We are getting off track. I made a general statement of my love hate relationship with ship with ABYC standards in general. I was not specifically commenting on this standard.

 

[drewread]

Good question so I asked google.

I wonder if Will Prowse quaifies as a tester?

UL approves products to meet a technical standard. UL is a testing body, they have their own staff that tests products to meet a technical standard. They do not always create the technical standard that products must meet. There are many other bodies that do the technical standard creation.

There are other approval bodies that also approve products to the same technical standards. QPS, Intertek, TUV, and so on. These are specifically approved bodies, this type of testing is all they do.

It costs a manufacturer a significant amount of money ($5,000-100,000) to have a product approved as meeting a technical standard. This depends on the type of product and how many technical standards it has to meet.

Once it is approved there are yearly fees paid to UL that include factory compliance testing, inspections, and the like. Again, tens of thousands a year in costs to maintain the product approvals.

If the standard changes the products must be tested to meet the new standard, again at potentially significant cost.

Resellers can buy white labelled "multiple listings" that allow them to use their own UL number based on a main UL number's product approvals. I. E. Battery company A gets their product approved and allows company B to rebrand their batteries and get their own UL number. Multiple listing services are $3000-$10000 per listing per jurisdiction.

That's right - a UL approved battery in the US also needs to be UL approved for use in Canada, and so on.

 

[Frosty]

First thought. A house bank will work without a class T fuse. But add one to protect the idiots.

The thing is, fuses are there to protect the downstream wire. The smartest person in the world still should have wires protected by OCP (e.g. fuse, breaker). Electricity doesn't know how smart or idiotic an owner may be.

IOW, fuses are not added to protect "the idiots" because geniuses should have the same ones in their systems.

Will a house bank function without fuses? Sure. Just not safely (irrespective of the IQ of the owner).

 

[luna]

First thought. A house bank will work without a class T fuse. But add one to protect the idiots.

A lot of systems will work without safety measures in place. Until they don't.
My understanding is these safety measures protect everyone, regardless how profound your intellectual disability may be.