Have you verified that the motor data is accurately configured in setup parameter 99? Are you utilizing the standard profile for optimal performance? I often adjust the switching frequency between 4 kHz and 8 kHz to eliminate the motor's "whine." If you need assistance, ABB Low Voltage Drives offers technical support. You can reach them at 800-435-7365 for expert help.
NetNathan commented: "I often adjust the switching frequency from 4 kHz to 8 kHz to eliminate the motor's whining noise. By doing this, the continuous RMS current (I2N) will be reduced to 90% of the rated continuous RMS current at 4 kHz."
User dmargineau commented: "This adjustment would reduce the I2N (Continuous RMS Current) to 90% of the rated 4 kHz I2N (Continuous RMS Current). For my setups, I utilize a 15HP ACS355 drive to operate a 10HP motor, and I configure it to 'current limit' mode. This ensures that the motor operates with a predetermined maximum current, which I have set to 2003."
NetNathan shared his experience: In my setups, I utilize a 15HP ACS355 variable frequency drive (VFD) to operate a 10HP motor. I have configured it to run in "current limit" mode, which ensures that the motor operates within a predetermined maximum current. Specifically, I have adjusted parameter 2003 to match the motor's maximum current rating. This setup seems accurate, as my usual practice is to select a VFD with a rating approximately 33% higher than the power of the connected motor(s).
I haven't encountered an Overcurrent trip without a motor connected. I currently have one on the bench for Modbus testing, and I can attempt troubleshooting tomorrow. Could you please clarify your supply system? Are there any unusual aspects, such as odd earthing configurations? As others have suggested, have you ensured that all Startup Data has been accurately entered? I've noticed some strange behaviors when this step is overlooked. According to the manual, are you utilizing the STO terminals? A quick toggle there could potentially trigger an Overcurrent. This may sound like a basic inquiry, but is the indication you’re seeing an Alarm or a Fault?
User dmargineau commented: "That seems accurate; I typically opt for a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) rating that is 33% greater than the connected motors. Recently, I upgraded from the ACS355 model to the ACS380, and I'm really impressed with its Bluetooth functionality. We also utilize larger ABB drives, specifically the ACS580 and ACS880, which cater to power requirements up to 200HP. The motors we use are custom-built with a service factor of 1.25, so I've learned to choose the next size up in drives or go for 'Heavy Duty' options instead of 'Standard Duty'."
We have a winner! Originally posted by Bryan G: According to the manual, if you're utilizing the Safe Torque Off (STO) terminals, a quick toggle can trigger an overcurrent issue. After reviewing the manual, I used a voltmeter to check the lines but didn't observe any fluctuations. It seems I misunderstood what "fast" actually meant. I have connected my drive's STO lines directly to two output terminals on an Allen-Bradley 440C-CR30 programmable safety relay. These outputs are specifically engineered for pulse testing to ensure they are not inadvertently jumpered. The pulse duration is set to 50 microseconds, which requires the off pulse time to be sufficient for the drive to register a loss of STO. When I jumpered the drive's STO lines, the problem was resolved. I always believed that modern safety devices were designed to function properly in a pulse test environment. Clearly, I need to exercise more caution in the future.
– Keith
Kamenges shared, "We have a winner! I recall reviewing the manual and using a voltmeter to check the lines, but I didn't notice any irregularities. I now realize that I underestimated what 'fast' truly means. I have connected the drive's Safe Torque Off (STO) lines directly to outputs from an Allen-Bradley 440C-CR30 programmable safety relay. These outputs are specifically designed for pulse testing to ensure there are no jumpers present. The pulse duration is set to 50 microseconds, and the off pulse duration must be sufficient for the drive to detect a loss of STO signal.
After jumpering the drive's STO lines, the issue was resolved. I had always assumed that modern safety devices were designed to function effectively in a pulse test scenario, but it seems I need to exercise more caution moving forward."
Keith continued, "This was a significant discovery and relatively quick to resolve. Make sure to inform your supervisor that you deserve a bonus and consider sharing it with BryanG."
Kamenges expressed, "I always assumed that the safety devices currently available in the market were specifically designed to function effectively in a pulse test environment. It seems I need to exercise more caution moving forward."
Keith, I'd like to clarify that the 440C-CR30 Safety Outputs are pre-configured for 'Pulse Test' mode. However, it's important to note that any Safety Torque Off (STO) Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) can malfunction if there is even a brief continuity disruption (as short as 50 microseconds). To address this, you may want to adjust the Pulse Test (PT) configuration to a standard non-pulsed setting for safety outputs. Keep in mind that the Output Signal Switching Device (OSSD) type may not meet STO standards.
For further details, you can refer to Page 32 of the following document: [Rockwell Automation Literature](http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/um/440c-um001_-en-p.pdf).
Regrettably, I've occupied a larger portion of this relay than I initially anticipated. The only terminals that can be configured without a potential transformer (PT) are the multi-purpose I/O points. Specifically, terminals 18-21 are required to be connected to a PT. Currently, I have no alternative options for relocating the wires. This will need to be addressed in the future, but it's not a priority for today. Thank you!
I intend no offense, but there has been quite a bit of misinformation shared regarding the ABB ACS355 drive. Having worked extensively with hundreds of these units ranging from fractional horsepower to 20 hp, I can confidently say they are exceptionally reliable and consistent. There is no need to derate or intentionally oversized these drives; I have successfully operated them beyond their specified limits. While I haven't personally experienced issues with the STO (Safe Torque Off) inputs in response to fast intermittent signals, it's important to note that most drives, including these, are not typically engineered for such conditions. I recommend following the guidance provided by Okie in post #5, with the only modification being to jumper the STO terminals initially.
I hope to contribute to this discussion a bit since the original poster has already resolved their issue. I am working with the ABB ACS150 drive (3 kW), and there's one aspect that concerns me: the small fan activates as soon as mains voltage is applied to the input side. I've thoroughly reviewed all the parameters in the manual, hoping to find an option to control the fan's operation during idle periods—ideally, so it operates only when the temperature exceeds a predefined limit—but I haven't had any success.
It seems that adjusting such parameters may not be feasible on smaller, simpler drives like this one. In my past experience with ABB's ACS880 models, there were numerous settings available, including adaptive programming and fan control options. One thought I had was to reroute the fan's power supply through an external relay, which would be triggered by the drive's output relay (specifically, parameter 1401 - 7 = STARTED). However, considering that ABB designed the system this way, perhaps it’s best to leave it as it is.
**Title: Understanding STO Input Behavior with Fast Intermittent Signals**
**Posted by DickDV:**
I have encountered an interesting situation regarding the behavior of Safety Torque Off (STO) inputs when dealing with rapid intermittent signals—a scenario I haven’t experienced before, and it seems that devices from other manufacturers may not be designed for such conditions either.
However, this is a misconception. Although I've not tested every single drive available, the specific drive I've been using is the only one that has presented this particular issue. Interestingly, I have four ACS880 drives within the same enclosure, all linked to the same safety relay that receives identical pulsed outputs, and they function without any problems. This is likely because these drives appropriately disregard short-duration test pulses commonly encountered when interfacing with solid-state safety outputs.
To address the initial issue, I implemented a monitored safety relay between the existing safety relay and the drive. This intermediary device, which also features solid-state inputs, effectively ignores test pulses, thereby resolving the concern.
Upon reviewing the manual, I identified two factors that led me to speculate that pulse testing might pose a problem. First, none of the wiring diagrams depict a direct connection of the drive to Output Signal Switching Device (OSSD) outputs. Second, while the response specification for the STO inputs is cited as 10 microseconds, the minimum response time is indicated as 2 milliseconds. Having encountered this challenge, I now recognize the importance of this distinction. Additionally, it didn't help matters that another drive from the same manufacturer processed inputs in a different manner.
Given the growing prevalence of OSSD outputs and their connections in today’s safety landscape, I believe that if a device cannot accommodate OSSD test pulses, the user manual should clearly state this in a prominent manner.
— Keith
User DickDV expressed, "I hope no one takes offense, but there has been quite a bit of misinformation shared regarding the ABB ACS355." Although I appreciate your thoughts, Dick, I have extensive experience with ABB variable frequency drives (VFDs). The older ACS600 models were exceptional, and I still prefer the newer ACS800-880 series for applications that demand precise torque control.
There are numerous legitimate reasons for upsizing or derating a VFD installation, and manufacturers empower users to make these adjustments when necessary. Personally, I have never required a higher-rated ACS600, 800, or 880 VFD than the horsepower of the motors I work with; they consistently deliver as promised and prove to be reliable, durable options.
However, I have encountered challenges with the ACS355 series, which is not surprising given the differences in price between these two VFD families. The ACS355 models are remarkably affordable for a reason. In cases where I cannot select an alternative, I always opt to upsize the ACS355 when working with multiple motors. While some may debate this approach, it's essential to achieve the desired operational performance while minimizing cost overruns.
It's worth noting that the ACS800-880 series does not feature user-configurable 'carrier' frequency amplitude settings, unlike the ACS355. This distinction raises the question: why would ABB design two similar lines of VFDs differently? In my opinion, the ACS355 may require these adjustments to meet the advertised performance criteria, while the ACS800-880 does not. As my grandfather used to say, "You get what you pay for!"
Kamenges remarked that the varying performance of different drives from the same manufacturer contributed to the issue at hand. In today's safety landscape, OSSD (Output Signal Switch Device) outputs and connections have gained significant traction. In my opinion, if a device is unable to receive OSSD test pulses, the user manual should clearly highlight this limitation in large, bold letters.
Keith, your insights are incredibly valuable; it's unfortunate that you've had to encounter these challenges, but the community truly appreciates your willingness to share this knowledge. Personally, I've not faced such difficulties with safety interlocks or Safe Torque Off (STO) implementations, as I typically rely on Safety Relay Contacts (OWs) instead of OSSDs, unless a SIL4 (Safety Integrity Level 4) certification is necessary.
It's worth noting that a 'jumpered' variable frequency drive (VFD) STO terminal linked to a 'Safety OW' will prevent a Safety Reset after a 'trip', which is adequate for SIL3 applications. However, for SIL4 systems, it is essential to have Performance Testing (PT) for all safety outputs, which means you cannot utilize STO ACS355s.
Additionally, I'm curious if you took advantage of both plug-in sockets for the 440C-CR30. They provide the 2080-OW4I option, which is not PT-compliant.
Originally shared by dmargineau: Just a quick question – did you utilize both plug-in sockets on the 440C-CR30? They also provide the 2080-OW4I, which aren't PTed. Click to expand... I haven't used the 440C-CR30 extensively, so I never considered the option for expansion I/O. Right now, I'm only leveraging the on-board I/O. The 2080-OW4I would definitely address my concerns. I appreciate the information! Keith
To dmargineau,
1. In applications involving multiple motors, it is essential to oversize any brand or model of Variable Frequency Drive (VFD). This necessity arises not from inadequate output current specifications, but rather because the low starting impedance presented by running multiple motors in parallel can cause even a properly rated drive to trip when attempting to start under conditions resembling a short circuit.
2. Oversizing VFDs is also crucial when the application requires the ability to drive a single motor into short-term overload conditions. A typical NEMA Design B motor can be pushed to its maximum overload torque at approximately 240% of Full Load Amperage (FLA), necessitating a VFD that can handle such high short-term current. This commonly means selecting a drive that is two frame sizes larger, which should not be interpreted as irresponsible engineering from the manufacturer.
3. It is unreasonable to compare an ACS355 to an ACS600, ACS800, or ACS880, as they belong to fundamentally different categories of drives, especially given the impact of Direct Torque Control (DTC) technology on performance.
4. Regarding the design of safety circuits and the utilization of Safe Torque Off (STO) inputs, I appreciate the valuable insights you all bring to the table, as they reflect best practices in the field.
5. Ultimately, I hope this discussion has provided valuable assistance to someone. That would certainly bring me satisfaction.
By optimizing these points with relevant keywords, we can enhance visibility for those searching for information on VFD specifications, overload capacity, drive comparisons, and safety circuit design practices.
One thought that crossed my mind was to wire the fan supply voltage through an external relay, which is controlled by the output relay of the drive (refer to parameter 1401 - 7 = STARTED). However, considering that ABB has designed it this way, it might be wiser to maintain the original setup. As part of my Modbus testing, I have been monitoring the temperature from the ACS355 drive. Interestingly, the temperature recorded at Parameter 0110 (Drive Temperature) continues to rise, even when the drive is not operational. While I haven't conducted a thorough analysis of the maximum temperature values, it's worth noting that the fan activates if the drive overheats. Therefore, it may be best to keep the system as it is configured.
It seems that the original text you provided is incomplete. Please provide more context or the full text you would like me to rephrase, and I will be happy to assist you in improving its quality and SEO-friendliness!
To enhance the text's quality, uniqueness, and SEO optimization, please provide the specific content you'd like to be rephrased, as "When" alone does not provide enough context.
Sure! Here's a rephrased version of your text that enhances quality, uniqueness, and SEO-friendliness:
"Alright, but how can this solution assist me in addressing my overcurrent issue? – Keith"
Have you resolved the overcurrent issue discussed in post #13?
Absolutely! I implemented an additional safety module that remains unaffected by the duration of the pulse test. I believed I shared this information previously, but it appears I did not. I think I communicated this detail in an email to a local representative from ABB. Best, Keith.