@alalwani It appears to me that the document posted describes a protection circuit module designed to provide management functions for 4 series cells. Based on what you’ve mentioned, I understand this to be a module that you plan to use to assemble of each of your 8 batteries from a number of smaller cells, such as the common 18650-type. Is this understanding correct?
If so, I would suggest that this module may not suitable for the sort of application that you describe, and may represent an unacceptable level of risk if used in such an application.
There are several reasons for this, the first being that the under-voltage protection level is given as 2.0v. A 2.5 to 3.0v figure is more commonly suggested for most lithium cells, with a 2.0v cut-off offering a significant risk of cell damage as a result of over-discharge. When used for long-duration discharge applications as in an RV, the chances of over-discharge are greater than when used in an automotive starting application, where a brief discharge cycle is typically followed immediately by recharging.
Another reason is the relatively high discharge rates permitted by the module; 150A continuous, 500A peak, 600A fast-protection limit. 8 such arrays in parallel would produce a maximum 1200A continuous discharge rate. Availability of high currents at relatively low voltages increases the risk of arc faults, a condition in which an electric arc occurs (due to wiring defects or some other cause) and is maintained while conductors melt, set things on fire, etc. because the current flow is too low to cause over-current protection circuitry to activate. As I understand it, the system proposed would be able to deliver approximately 14kW on a continuous basis, or 48kW for several seconds given the current protection limits indicated. This seems rather excessive for an RV application. A good design would be to set suitable per-battery electronic current limits in the PCMs based on the maximum application requirements and number of parallel batteries to be used, and incorporate single-acting fuses with limits above the electronic limit in order to provide protection in the event of PCM failure. With the electronic limits in the PCM set as high as they are, this does not seem practical given the cost of suitable fuses.
The temperature protection limits also seem rather high; two sets of such limits with an upper tolerance of 90°C are described, though the information provided does not clearly indicate the conditions under which these limits apply.
Finally, there is an apparent typographical error in the specification table; a plus/minus 25V tolerance on a value of 3.6 as indicated would not be acceptable from an engineering standpoint… Some may choose to assume this is an error, but as written it -is- the specification for the device, and would allow the supplier to deliver product that provides no meaningful cell balancing whatsoever while remaining within published specifications.
Overall, I could see the PCM mentioned as possibly being suitable for assembling batteries for automotive starting-type applications, but I would not recommend its use for an RV storage application as mentioned.