Using old Volvo Engine loom 14 pairs for 230V possible

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by Statistical

Each protected by a seperate fuse. Not your plan of tying the wires together to make one larger wire. There is no distinction between ABYC and ISO here. Each requires that each conductor be seperately fused.




That is not correct. By ABYC standards each current carrying conductor must be protected by its own fuse. Using a single fuse for a pair of conductors is prohibited. If you are using 2x70mm and 200A is allowed per conductor (by distance & voltage drop requirements) it requires two 200A fuses not one 400A fuse. A single 400A fuse would be dangerous. If one wire is broken or accidentally disconnected the circuit will still function however if you draw >200A but less than 400A the inverter will continue to work there will be no indication of a danger but the wiring wiring safe limit is exceeded and could melt or catch fire.

(The example above is simplified to use the values provides in reality if using multiple conductors in a single conduit/bundle they need to be derated).

Well i asked if i can use that loom after a frustraed day trying to pull that 3x6mm2 through.
Gordon and brought up the right point that isolation is not up to spec and the inner cable gets hoter then outer. Thats norm and that makes also sense. So its off the table.

Regarding ISo ans ABYC norm regarding low volatge cables paralleling:
I have an official Victron installation diagram for the small BMS (which is close to Electrodacus BMS switching load/charge with remote) provided by Victron where the Multi is connected with one 400A fuse and then 2x70sqmm2. Its saved on my ipad pro which died yesterday :-(
That brought up the question and the official answer was thats ABYC norm as multi needs to be fused with 400A. In my case i should use per cable a 200A fuse, so 2x200A fuse as Germany is ISO.
Well as long as i don't see another proof dor ABYC i believe Victron. I don't know ABYC that well as its not really my concern being ISO. It just remember significant differences if i come across them like the splitting current on wires


There is a big difference between ISo and ABYC, ISO you can split current on wires and go with 2 smaller instead one bigger. AbYC forbids splitting current and only allows paralleling for the sake to reduce voltage drop. Well if running 350A over a 50mm cable with >2V voltage drop is considered by ABYC as reducing voltage drop is outside of my knowledge but well if thats the case then the ABYC is not worth the paper its on.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

Well i asked if i can use that loom after a frustraed day trying to pull that 3x6mm2 through.
Gordon and brought up the right point that isolation is not up to spec and the inner cable gets hoter then outer. Thats norm and that makes also sense. So its off the table.

Even if the insulation was good quality and rated for the voltage required your idea of tying multiple wires together to create a single wire with a single fuse would be dangerous.

Regarding ISo ans ABYC norm regarding low volatge cables paralleling:
I have an official Victron installation diagram for the small BMS (which is close to Electrodacus BMS switching load/charge with remote) provided by Victron where the Multi is connected with one 400A fuse and then 2x70sqmm2. Its saved on my ipad pro which died yesterday :-(
That brought up the question and the official answer was thats ABYC norm as multi needs to be fused with 400A. In my case i should use per cable a 200A fuse, so 2x200A fuse as Germany is ISO.
Well as long as i don't see another proof dor ABYC i believe Victron. I don't know ABYC that well as its not really my concern being ISO. It just remember significant differences if i come across them like the splitting current on wires

False. Victron doesn't make ABYC vs ISO install diagrams. Their 230 V 50 Hz manual indicates a single 400A fuse as well but that would only apply with one conductor while it mentions using dual conductors for longer runs it doesn't clarify that the 400A fuse should be split to be a pair of 200A fuses one per wire. It is a bit vague and Victron should clean that up but it has nothing to do with ABYC vs ISO. Victron isn't the arbiter of ABYC requirements. An incorrect install diagram is just that.

As usually you are routinely a horrible source of misinformation on all thing electrical.

There is a big difference between ISo and ABYC, ISO you can split current on wires and go with 2 smaller instead one bigger. AbYC forbids splitting current and only allows paralleling for the sake to reduce voltage drop. Well if running 350A over a 50mm cable with >2V voltage drop is considered by ABYC as reducing voltage drop is outside of my knowledge but well if thats the case then the ABYC is not worth the paper its on.

Again false there is no such restriction or allowance. Every conductor must have its own OCP and the OCP device must be sized to the conductor. Multiple conductors in parallel doesn't change that requirement. The reason for multiple conductors doesn't change the requirements for providing OCP for the conductors.

The only exceptions to the OCP rule (allowed by both ABYC & ISO) is for starter circuit although even there nothing prohibits it being fused as well. Likewise self regulating alternators don't need OCP protection if the ampacity of the circuit exceeds the alternator limit.

Saying you don't know or care what ABYC and then making bad claims about required procedures is pretty dumb. If you don't know or care what ABYC requires you could just say "ISO requires X not sure about ABYC you should verify that yourself". The bad thing with you making false statements is someone might actually believe you know what you are talking about and then burn down their boat because it turns out you didn't know what ABYC requires and by your own statements you admit you don't care to learn. So if you don't know why tell people what is or isn't required?

[Statistical]

For anyone else interested in not burning their boat down.

11.10.1.4 NONMOTOR LOADS

11.10.1.4.1 The current rating of the overcurrent protection device shall not exceed the maximum current carrying capacity of the conductor being protected (see TABLES 4A-B).

EXCEPTION: If there is not a standard current rating of the overcurrent protection device equal to 100% of the allowable current for the conductor in TABLES 4A-B, the next larger standard current rating may be used, provided it does not exceed 150% of the current allowed by TABLES 4A-B.

and

11.10.1.5 Branch Circuits
11.10.1.5.1 Each ungrounded conductor of a branch circuit shall be provided with overcurrent protection at the point of connection to the main switchboard unless the main circuit breaker or fuse provides such protection.

11.10.1.5.2 Each fuse or trip-free circuit breaker shall be rated in accordance with E-11.10.1.3 and E-11.10.1.4 and shall not exceed 150% of the conductor ampacity in TABLES 4A-B

No one fuse for 2+ conductors in paralllel exception exists.

11.15.1.2.9 Paralleling of Conductors

11.15.1.2.9.1 Overcurrent protection of paralleled conductors shall be sized to protect a single conductor.

A 400A fuse for a pair of conductors each capable of no more than 200A is prohibited by ABYC the same as ISO. The fact that victron included it in a wiring diagram does not mean it is endoresed by ABYC or is safe at all.

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by Statistical

Even if the insulation was good quality and rated for the voltage required your idea of tying multiple wires together to create a single wire with a single fuse would be dangerous.



False. Victron doesn't make ABYC vs ISO install diagrams. Their 230 V 50 Hz manual indicates a single 400A fuse as well but that would only apply with one conductor while it mentions using dual conductors for longer runs it doesn't clarify that the 400A fuse should be split to be a pair of 200A fuses one per wire. It is a bit vague and Victron should clean that up but it has nothing to do with ABYC vs ISO. Victron isn't the arbiter of ABYC requirements. An incorrect install diagram is just that.

As usually you are routinely a horrible source of misinformation on all thing electrical.



Again false there is no such restriction or allowance. Every conductor must have its own OCP and the OCP device must be sized to the conductor. Multiple conductors in parallel doesn't change that requirement. The reason for multiple conductors doesn't change the requirements for providing OCP for the conductors.

The only exceptions to the OCP rule (allowed by both ABYC & ISO) is for starter circuit although even there nothing prohibits it being fused as well. Likewise self regulating alternators don't need OCP protection if the ampacity of the circuit exceeds the alternator limit.

Saying you don't know or care what ABYC and then making bad claims about required procedures is pretty dumb. If you don't know or care what ABYC requires you could just say "ISO requires X not sure about ABYC you should verify that yourself". The bad thing with you making false statements is someone might actually believe you know what you are talking about and then burn down their boat because it turns out you didn't know what ABYC requires and by your own statements you admit you don't care to learn. So if you don't know why tell people what is or isn't required?

Well you are telling me Victron doesn't provide such a diagram but i 100% have the one diagram with smallBMS and Multi received directly from Victron says everything. Thats the diagram i used as base for my system design, so i look 100times at it in minimum.
I would upload to proof that but its on my ipad locally that died yesterday, i check if i find it somewhere else.

Well and i asked Victron about that because i was curious why one 400A fuse for 2 cables in the diagram and just posted the official answer and explanation from Victron telling me thats not a mistake in the diagram but the difference between ABYC and ISO installation.
So you claim Victron is wrong without proof and accusing me of telling misinformation.

I did exacty what you told me, i am not doing. i was not sure and asked the proffesionals. I simply repeated their answer which stuck to my brain because ABYC simply doesn't make sense. Well and you tell me thats wrong...

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

Well you are telling me Victron doesn't provide such a diagram but i 100% have one received directly from Victron says everything.
I would upload to proof that but its on my ipad locally that died yesterday, i check if i find it somewhere else.

I never said Victron didn't make a diagram with mistakes. They certainly do. Here is one with 230V 50 HZ inverter showing the same mistake. They also don't clarify the length limitation between batteries and fuses either and a number of other minor mistakes too.

https://www.victronenergy.com/upload...or-&-WS500.pdf

Are you going to claim the above diagram is proof that ISO allows multiple conductors protected with a single fuse? Of course not. That wouldn't make any sense as Victron doesn't dictate ISO requirements anymore than they do ABYC.

I simply said Victron doesn't make ABYC vs ISO specific wiring diagrams. The diagram is wrong. It is wrong for ABYC standards. It is wrong for ISO standard. It make no statements saying this is ABYC way and a seperate ISO diagram. It is simply all together wrong.

Well and i asked about that because i was curious why one 400A fuse for 2 cables and just posted the official answer and explanation from Victron.
So you claim Victron is wrong without proof and accusing me of telling misinformation.

I accuse you of telling misinformation because you are telling misinformation. ABYC requires the OPCD be sized to the conductor. The victron/your example of using a 400A fuse to protect a pair of wires which each can not support more than 200A is prohibited. The fact that Victron showed that incorrect on a wiring diagram doesn't mean it is endorsed by ABYC. You may not have known better but you have now been correct multiple times and continue to spread misinformation. Misinformation that is inherently dangerous.

If you don't know ABYC requirements simply say I don't know or care what ABYC requirements are.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

W
I have an official Victron installation diagram for the small BMS (which is close to Electrodacus BMS switching load/charge with remote) provided by Victron where the Multi is connected with one 400A fuse and then 2x70sqmm2.

The wiring of a large inverter is a very different matter than what you are considering.


The Victron Multiplus 12/3000 has a maximum continuous draw of around 260 amps with possible excursions to higher draws for short periods of time. The ampacity, per ABYC rules, of modern, 105 degree, 70mm2 wire, not in conduit or a sheath or bundle, is 341 amps outside the engine room (http://assets.bluesea.com/files/reso...ence/21731.pdf). The correct overcurrent protection would be a 350 amp fuse, for a single 70mm2 wire.


Derated for being in a cable or bundle, the same wire would have an ampacity of 238 amps.


Large inverters on 12v systems with these sorts of extremely high, continuous draws pose installation problems that lack good solutions. For a single, non-paralleled conductor to be used, with unfavorable assumptions (90 C wire, engine room, in a conduit), 250 mcm (=250mm2) wire would be required. Wire this large poses safety problems on a small boat due to minimum bend radius, the weight of the wire, and the force it exerts on the terminals of connected equipment.


In the NEC (the code for USA structural wiring--houses, commercial/industrial, etc) parallel conductors are allowed for wire sizes 1/0 and higher, subject to certain common-sense restrictions (same size wire, same length, same terminations, etc.). This accommodation is present because of the difficulty of working with larger wire sizes, even in the less difficult environment ashore.


I am not an ABYC ruleslawyer and cannot speak to whether this is allowed by the ABYC rules themselves or by real-world enforcement of them, but I think that running two large conductors in parallel in these circumstances makes engineering sense.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by Jammer

In the NEC (the code for USA structural wiring--houses, commercial/industrial, etc) parallel conductors are allowed for wire sizes 1/0 and higher, subject to certain common-sense restrictions (same size wire, same length, same terminations, etc.). This accommodation is present because of the difficulty of working with larger wire sizes, even in the less difficult environment ashore.

This is a bit of a blind spot in the ABYC regs. Electric propulsion creates high amperage challenges as well. It would be nice if ABYC adopted the same NEC requirements for high amperage circuits.

While using a pair of 2/0 cables each fused seperately might not be ideal by pretending this situation away it likely will lead to people doing the even worse scenario of still using a pair of 2/0 cables and then a single fuse at the total ampacity which is significantly increased danger.

Power demands on boats continues to rise and they are rising faster than battery bank voltages. It would be nice if ABYC in future revisions recommended against parallel connections unless there is no suitable alternative but then outlined rules similar to NEC.

Right now without access to wiring higher than 4/0 (and kmil wiring for boats is essentially non-existent outside of commercial projects) and following ABYC rules no circuit can ever be more than 445A (378A in engine room). Worse it doesn't come out and say that it just leaves it undefined so it is a defacto but not explicit limit and no guidance on what to do if you need more.

So if someone was installing an electric propulsion system with 500A current requirement what should they do? ABYC just pretends that will never happen which is less than ideal. Inevitably it will happen. When there is a void of information people tend to not do the best/safest unofficial thing they tend to be all of the map in terms of safety (i.e. use a 500A fuse and connect two 250A rated conductors to it). IMHO (for the nothing that is worth) it would be better for ABYC to strongly recommend against multiple conductors except as a last option and then require they be sized to meet total ampacity with each wire fused to their allowed ampacity (i.e. two 250A conductors each with a 250A fuse).

[team karst]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

If you go from 2,5mm2 to 6mm2 thats exactly what is done, you just add more strands to enlarge the diameter to carry more current.
I do the same just have them running in parallel in seperate wires. Thats what you do if you eg cannot root a 120mm cable you take 2x70sqmm2 ones.
Thats my thinking behind why i could use it.

I know its not standard but is there anything that would forbid to use it that way?

Basically, you cant guarantee that the current splits 50/50. A so/so crimp , a bit of corrosion on the lug, even just an out of place stainless washer makes sub-milli-Ohm critical connections problematic.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by team karst

Basically, you cant guarantee that the current splits 50/50. A so/so crimp , a bit of corrosion on the lug, even just an out of place stainless washer makes sub-milli-Ohm critical connections problematic.

Correct. Worse if something snapped one of the conductors or someone mistakenly left one unconnected after some maintenance or one conductor ended with significantly higher resistance (not tightened down to spec) the remaining conductor could end up drawing vastly more than the allowed amperage due to the single fuse not limiting the conductors on a per conductor basis. It is all around an unsafe scenario.

Note: ABYC doesn't cover the scenario of using two or more conductors to increase amperage. They just assume that will never be needed so nothing would be ABYC compliant other than a single conductor. That being said if one were to use two conductors they should be separately fused. So two 200A conductors each with 200A fuse for 400A circuit. To be clear this "wrong" per ABYC and I am not saying otherwise but it is far less wrong/dangerous than two 200A rated conductors joined to a single 400A fuse.

[smac999]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

Well tried to pull the 3x6mm cable through with one old Volvo loom...doesn't work as new and old block each other

attach string to old loom. pull old loom pulling in string behind. then pull new cables with string.

[cjheath]

Originally Posted by jamhass

One additional issue is the insulation. The Volvo loom is designed for 12v and may not be suitable for 220v.

That's exactly what i was going to say. Way too dangerous if the cable insulation is not rated for mains voltages.

[CharlieJ]

@Statistical #24
You commented:

Note: ABYC doesn't cover the scenario of using two or more conductors to increase amperage. They just assume that will never be needed so nothing would be ABYC compliant other than a single conductor. That being said if one were to use two conductors they should be separately fused. So two 200A conductors each with 200A fuse for 400A circuit. To be clear this "wrong" per ABYC and I am not saying otherwise but it is far less wrong/dangerous than two 200A rated conductors joined to a single 400A fuse.

I do not agree with the bolded part of your statement. This practice is correct as ABYC (and ISO) clearly require OCPD to match the ampacity (with some leeway) of the B+ conductor that the OCPD is protecting. With two OCPD protected parallel B+ conductors and companion like sized B- conductors, the installation is compliant.

The analogy is the main B+ bus. The battery B+ whips (I protect these with MRBFs at each battery B+) are landed on the B+ bus as is the solar output, the alternator output, the inverter/charger B+, etc.; all protected by properly sized OCPD.

Note that there is a gotcha: ABYC requires an inverter/charger case ground back to the B- bus equal to the ampacity of the B+ conductor feeding the I/C. This conductor can be one size smaller than the B+. ISO 13290-2020 is not as lenient and requires the case ground to have the same ampacity as the B+ supply. These requirements will have to be considered if running multiple B+ conductors to a load requiring a case ground.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

@Statistical #24
You commented:


I do not agree with the bolded part of your statement. This practice is correct as ABYC (and ISO) clearly require OCPD to match the ampacity (with some leeway) of the B+ conductor that the OCPD is protecting. With two OCPD protected parallel B+ conductors and companion like sized B- conductors, the installation is compliant.

The analogy is the main B+ bus. The battery B+ whips (I protect these with MRBFs at each battery B+) are landed on the B+ bus as is the solar output, the alternator output, the inverter/charger B+, etc.; all protected by properly sized OCPD.

Well that would be great news. Maybe it is just worded weird and the language should be cleaned up but this seems to indicate parallel conductors to increase ampacity are prohibited but that could be my bad reading of poorly worded section.

11.15.1.2.9 Paralleling of Conductors - Conductors of #10 AWG and larger shall be permitted to be connected in parallel where the ampacity of each individual conductor is sufficient to carry the entire load current shared by the parallel conductors.

NOTE: Paralleled conductors may be used to achieve the appropriate voltage drop or wire bend radius with smaller individual cables.

11.15.1.2.9.1 Overcurrent protection of paralleled conductors shall be sized to protect a single conductor.

11.15.1.2.9.2 Paralleled conductors shall be of the same length and gauge.

11.15.1.2.9.3 Paralleled conductors shall be run together in the same cable, bundle, or raceway

Now maybe 11.15.1.2.9 is only considering parallel conductors sharing a single fuse for non-ampacity purposes but it makes no other mention of parallel conductors. It would be ideal if the situation you mentioned above was explicitly indicated as approved with guidance on fusing and other requirements.

[CharlieJ]

@Statistical #28:
In my opinion, the example I gave in #27 gives us the leeway we need and is in keeping with the underlying requirement that every B+ (with the exception of the starting circuit) must be protected by an OCPD. Two B+ conductors supplying the same load with appropriate OCPD meet this requirement. Of course, we still have to deal with the B- returns and that pesky case ground.

Wordsmithing the Standards is an art form. In this case the confusion may come from two interpretations from our individual POV of "parallel conductors".

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

@Statistical #28:
In my opinion, the example I gave in #27 gives us the leeway we need and is in keeping with the underlying requirement that every B+ (with the exception of the starting circuit) must be protected by an OCPD. Two B+ conductors supplying the same load with appropriate OCPD meet this requirement. Of course, we still have to deal with the B- returns and that pesky case ground.

Wordsmithing the Standards is an art form. In this case the confusion may come from two interpretations from our individual POV of "parallel conductors".

Fair point. I am not saying I am wrong very likely I am wrong. Just it might be clearer if they added a line of clarification to this section.

I will however refrain from saying ABYC "prohibits" this and say ABYC is a "little vague" on this if it comes up in the future.

Personally like you I don't see anything wrong with using say two 200A conductors each fused to 200A separately to power a 400A load.

Clarification on how to handle the case ground connector under ISO would be good as well. Since it is unfused using two cables tied to ground point would seem to be sufficient but I don't know much about ISO.