Photovoltaic

Module
Grounding:
Addendum Report
on corrosion
testing

Prepared by
Greg Ball
DNV Kema

Timothy Zgonena
Christopher Flueckiger
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

May 2013

Solar America Board for Codes and Standards

www.solarabcs.org
 DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor
any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information,
apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process,
or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency
thereof.

Download a copy of the report:

www.solarabcs.org/grounding

2 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an addendum to a two-part study addressing the electrical grounding
of photovoltaic (PV) modules. The Solar America Board for Codes and Standards
(Solar ABCs), with support from the U.S. Department of Energy, commissioned the
study to provide the PV industry with practical guidelines for module grounding
and recommendations for improving product standards that certify modules and
related grounding components. Solar ABCs published an interim “Lay of the Land”
report on the topic in the spring of 2011, which described the many issues
facing industry stakeholders. A final report documenting guidelines, safety
considerations, and recommended changes to existing codes and standards, was
published in April 2012. This addendum provides updated information and
recommendations related to corrosion testing of module grounding components
and connections.

The 2012 report addresses issues related to corrosion testing of PV module ground
connections, but noted the need for subsequent updates given the level of
activity occurring at the time of publication. That report presented details of a
2011 Underwriters Laboratories (UL) paper (Wang, Yen, Wang, Ji, & Zgonena, 2011)
summarizing exploratory testing of different types of PV module grounding
(bonding) devices in environmental chambers using both continuous damp heat
and salt mist environmental exposure. The effects of current cycling, assembly
force, and antioxidation coating application on grounding reliability were evaluated
in conjunction with aging tests.

The study was noteworthy for the dramatic failure of components occurring during
salt-mist exposure tests. Although it provided a great deal of valuable information,
the study also raised questions about the appropriateness of the extreme
conditions defined by the existing corrosion test standards in determining the
performance of components in actual PV array field conditions.

In this addendum, we recommend adoption of newly published salt-mist test

procedures in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 61701
(IEC, 2011): “Salt mist corrosion testing of photovoltaic (PV) modules.” This
standard specifically addresses testing issues particular to PV module frames and
adopts cycling methods that better approximate the conditions experienced by
PV components in a marine environment. We also recommend the adoption of
procedures published in IEC 62716 (IEC, 2012), “Ammonia corrosion testing of
photovoltaic (PV) modules.” These tests are intended to address modules operating
in highly corrosive wet atmospheres near agricultural or other industrial facilities.

Finally, we identify information and lessons learned from ongoing UL 2703 (UL,
2011) certification testing of module grounding components. This provides insight
into the materials that are proving effective in corrosion testing as well as those
that are not. This information has helped to identify less ambiguous criteria for
determining the compatibility of various dissimilar metals.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 3

 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Greg Ball
DNV KEMA

Greg Ball is a Principal Engineer at DNV KEMA Renewables (formerly BEW

Engineering) and has more than 20 years of experience in renewable energy
technologies and their integration with the utility grid. Prior to joining BEW in
2009, he worked for nine years as manager and senior electrical engineer at
PowerLight (later SunPower) Corporation, and was responsible for the electrical
design of more than 100 MW of large-scale photovoltaic (PV) system installations in
the United States and abroad. He serves as co-convenor on an International
Electrotechnical Commission PV system working group, is a member of two
Standards Technical Panels, and is a contributor to the National Electrical Code PV
code-making panel.

Timothy Zgonena
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Timothy Zgonena has worked for Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) for 21 years
and presently serves as a Principal Engineer for Distributed Energy Resources
Equipment and Systems. His responsibilities include the development,
maintenance, and application of UL’s certification requirements and delivery of UL
conformity assessment services in the following categories: photovoltaic balance of
system equipment, utility interactive and stand-alone inverters, utility
interconnection systems equipment, wind turbines, and wind turbine system
components. He serves on several distributed generation Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, International Electrotechnical Commission, and American
Wind Energy Association working groups and is a member of National Fire
Protection Association 70, National Electrical Code Code-Making Panel 4.

Christopher Flueckiger
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Christopher Flueckiger has worked for Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) for 11
years, and presently serves as a Principal Engineer for Renewable Energy. His
responsibilities include the development, maintenance, and application of UL’s
certification requirements and delivery of UL conformity assessment services in
photovoltaic (PV) modules and components, concentrated PV, solar thermal
systems, solar tracker, and mounting and grounding systems. He serves on
multiple international International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC System of
Conformity Assessment Schemes for Electrotechnical Equipment and Components,
and U.S. UL/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) PV and solar thermal
working groups and Standards Technical Panels.

4 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards
The Solar America Board for Codes and Standards (Solar ABCs) provides an
effective venue for all solar stakeholders. A collaboration of experts formally
gathers and prioritizes input from groups such as policy makers, manufacturers,
installers, and large- and small-scale consumers to make balanced recommendations
to codes and standards organizations for existing and new solar technologies. The
U.S. Department of Energy funds Solar ABCs as part of its commitment to
facilitate widespread adoption of safe, reliable, and cost-effective solar
technologies.

For more information, visit the Solar ABCs website:

www.solarabcs.org

Acknowledgment
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
under Award Number DE-FC36-07GO17034.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 5

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................. 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 3

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES.............................................................................................. 4

SOLAR ABCS................................................................................................................. 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 7

MODULE GROUNDING AND CORROSION................................................................. 9

CORROSION DEFINED................................................................................................11

CORROSION AND CURRENT STANDARDS.............................................................. 12

RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE

AND CERTIFICATION.................................................................................................. 15

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS............................................................................ 18

ACRONYMS................................................................................................................ 19

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 20

RESOURCES............................................................................................................... 20

6 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

 Introduction
This report is an addendum to a two-part study of photovoltaic (PV) module
grounding issues. Solar ABCs published interim and final reports from the study
in 2011 and 2012, which discussed a wide range of module grounding issues;
provided guidelines for designers, installers, and inspectors; and made
recommendations for the evolving standards. This addendum focuses on corrosion
issues and test recommendations based on developments that were ongoing at the
time the previous reports were written. The subject is by no means closed and the
industry has work to do to resolve issues of component reliability and
certification. However, newly published International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) standards provide a good model for improving certification
tests, and generalized findings from recent Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
certification tests offer valuable direction and guidelines for product manufacturers
and designers.

PV modules are typically installed on aluminum or galvanized, painted, or stainless

steel frame structures. These structures and any other electrically conductive
components that could become energized by the PV array (or other electricity
sources) and that could be accessible during routine servicing must be grounded to
ensure safe touch voltages. The study addressed problems the industry faced with
respect to limited grounding methods and equipment certification paths for
components, and sought to address the issues with the following steps:

1. Publication of an interim Lay of the Land report, a survey of the existing

situation in which stakeholders (system designers, module and component
manufacturers, Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories [NRTLs], and
researchers) shared their experiences and recommendations to address the
issues listed above. This interim report was published in the spring of 2011.
2. Evaluation of existing and new test procedures. This was primarily a UL-led
effort to investigate expanded or enhanced current and accelerated aging test
methods that can provide greater confidence in the long-term reliability of
grounding methods.
3. Development of a final report making final recommendations for new or
expanded tests to incorporate into standards, and documenting guidelines and
procedures for public use. This report was published in April 2012.

Throughout this study’s documents, the terms “ground,” “grounding,” and

“grounded” are used to describe the connections to module frames that are the
primary focus of the study. Note that there is a distinction between “grounded”
and “bonded.” Article 100 of the 2011 National Electrical Code (NFPA, 2011) defines
these terms as follows:

• Grounded: Connected to ground or to a conducting body that extends the

ground connection.
• Bonded: Connected to establish electrical continuity and conductivity.

The scope of the study focuses on the bonding of frames to other parts or
conductors that are then grounded. This report uses the more general “grounding”
term to describe both bonding and grounding unless bonding is specifically
called out.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 7

 The applicable standards for evaluation and certification of module frame
grounding are:

UL 1703: Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Modules and Panels

UL 1703 (UL, 2008) is the “primary” standard affecting module grounding and
devices. Methods certified to UL 1703 and documented in module manufacturers’
installation instructions are almost universally accepted by inspectors and
authorities having jurisdiction. UL 1703 covers a range of safety and construction
related requirements for modules, with a few sections dedicated to frame
bonding, grounding, and continuity. It also establishes requirements for the means
of grounding as well as continuity requirements subject to applied current and
environmental (accelerated life) testing.

UL 2703: Rack Mounting Systems and Clamping Devices for Flat-Plate Photovoltaic
Modules and Panels
UL 2703 (UL, 2011) is a new draft standard, meaning it is not yet an American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard. It was created to address PV module
mounting systems. It covers mechanical and other general issues for mounting
systems, including grounding. The grounding section incorporates much of the
same language used in UL 1703, applied broadly to the mounting system compo-
nents. UL 2703 enables manufacturers to list individual grounding components
independent of the racking certification. There is also a mechanism for establishing
subsystem level testing of bonding—tests using multiple modules and components
connected together, rather than single connections, for example—and impedance
requirements for metal apparatus containing multiple strings of modules. The
development of UL 2703 is a significant benefit to the PV industry as it provides a
direct means for evaluating the use of structural hardware for grounding purposes.

8 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

 MODULE GROUNDING AND CORROSION
One of the common failure modes of module grounding identified in the Lay of the
Land report is corrosion of the bonds and connections. Failures from corrosion can
have many causes. Galvanic corrosion resulting from the joining of dissimilar
metals is probably the most common general cause. However, corrosion can also
occur as a result of long-term exposure of components to cycling leakage current,
which produces an electrolysis process. Failures due to corrosion can be attributed
to the following general causes:

• Improper selection of materials for the bonded connection. Copper and

aluminum bonds are the most common and have dramatic results, but other
less obvious combinations may break down over time.
• Dissimilar metals in close proximity, which—depending on the electrolyte
involved—causes corrosion when exposed to water, soil, or other conductive
debris elements.
• Insufficient barriers between dissimilar metals, such as undersized or
improperly installed stainless steel washers separating copper and aluminum.
• Good but inadequately protected connections after long-term exposure to
leakage current, water, salt-humidity, and/or other corrosive agents. An
example is a tin-coated assembly joining a copper wire and aluminum frame
where the coating is inadequate to serve as a sacrificial barrier over the
long term.

The following photos illustrate the destructive nature of the corrosive degradation
in module grounding connections. The final photograph shows a newly installed
bonding connection that appears fine at the outset but is destined to degrade due
to the direct joining of copper and aluminum.

Figure 1: Corrosion between copper ground braid, stainless steel screw, and aluminum frame.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 9

 Figure 2: Corrosive degradation in a harsh environment.

Figure 3: Lost connection from corrosive bond.

Figure 4: Connection of dissimilar (incompatible) materials, before corrosion begins.

Photo credit (Figures 1-4): John Wiles, Southwest Technology Development Institute,
New Mexico State University

10 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

 CORROSION DEFINED
Corrosion is the chemical reaction process that takes place in metals (or other
materials), usually as a result of electrochemical oxidation, resulting in the gradual
destruction of the metals. Galvanic corrosion, the type of corrosion that occurs
in electrical connections, is a specific electrochemical process that occurs when
two metals of different electrochemical potentials are in contact in some form of
electrolyte. This combination allows current to flow from one metal (the anode),
to the other (the cathode), potentially causing a destructive degradation of the
anode material. The electrolyte for electrical connections of this type may be a
liquid solution as in the case of batteries, but in the context of PV modules it is
the environment of the installation, such as damp, humid air, possibly with salt
content (such as near an ocean), dirt, or rain containing acids and alkalis.

The rate and aggressiveness of corrosion depends on many factors, but the
primary issues are the electrical conductivity of the electrolyte, the difference of
electrode potential between the metals, and the characteristics of the connection,
such as the ratio between the cathode area and anode area. Corrosion is also
more severe with direct currents than with alternating currents. Corrosion of the
anode can actually reduce or prevent the corrosion process of the cathode. This
is the basis for the use of sacrificial anode layers, which are material coatings or
layers that allow a small area of metal to intentionally corrode and effectively halt
additional corrosion of the more important materials while still maintaining the
conductive function of the connection.

In electrical bonding connections such as module bonding or grounding, the

primary cause of corrosion is the connection of dissimilar metals with
incompatible electrochemical potential, and/or the aggressiveness of the
environmental electrolyte, as discussed in the previous section.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 11

 CORROSION AND CURRENT STANDARDS
Both of the previous reports in this study discussed the numerous paths that have
led to unnecessarily corroded grounding bonds. At a high level, the three
contributing factors have been:

1. installation errors, which encompass incorrect use or installation of parts,

improperly written instructions from manufacturers, or carelessness;
2. parts and components that have not been adequately tested to demonstrate
resistance to corrosion; and
3. lack of adequate or appropriate test requirements in the module or
component certification standards.

The rest of this report focuses on the 2nd and 3rd points as well as recommenda-
tions to improve the test requirements. UL 1703 (UL, 2008) (and by extension UL
2703 [UL, 2011]) currently addresses corrosion testing by giving guidance on the
type of materials that can be bonded together, and by specifying tests on ground
connection samples, after which the continuity tests must be repeated.

The matrix of acceptable and unacceptable metal combinations that can be used
in the grounding means is shown in the figure below (published in UL’s 2007
certification requirements decision for UL 1703 [UL, 2008] and included in UL
2703 [UL, 2011]). Acceptable combinations result in combined electrochemical
potentials of less than 0.6V, and are shown below the stepped cutoff line in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Electrochemical matrix of common metal combinations.

12 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

The environmental or accelerated aging tests defined in UL 1703 (UL, 2008)
include:

• Section 35—Temperature Cycling Test, 200 cycles of various temperature

changes from as low as minus 40 to plus 90 Celsius;
• Section 36—Humidity Test, 10 cycles of humidity-freezing; and
• Section 37—Corrosive Atmosphere testing, including salt spray test and moist
carbon dioxide/sulfur dioxide test.

Some particularly poor bi-metallic connections may demonstrate problems after

undergoing the humidity tests of Section 36, but most do not. The tests in Section
37 are those that are likely to lead to significant degradation of the connection, but
those tests historically are only required for modules with steel frames. Because
most module frames are made of aluminum, the tests are effectively optional for
the broad manufacturing base.

During the past decade, a wide range of module ground connection components
and methods were developed and implemented, showing mixed results in the field.
To get a sense of the corrosion susceptibility of these various methods, UL performed
exploratory tests during the course of the Solar ABCs study and published a paper
on those findings entitled “Accelerated Aging Tests on PV Ground Connections,”
(Wang et al., 2011). This paper was discussed at length and included in its entirety
as an appendix to the final report published in 2012.

That discussion won’t be repeated in full here, but some of the major points from
the study and the subsequent industry feedback include:

• The study objective was to investigate the long-term effectiveness of different

PV grounding devices by measuring the contact resistance at the junction
between the bonding devices and aluminum frames before and after exposure
to simulated harsh environmental conditions.
• The bonding types included the three most common approaches (and listed
methods) used today—copper wire connections via screw/washer/nut
assemblies, lay-in lug assemblies, and grounding clips.
• Identical sample sets were installed and aged separately using:
o Damp heat aging according to IEC 61215 (IEC, 2005), “Crystalline silicon
terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) modules—Design qualification and type
approval.” This consisted of 85°C ambient temperature and 85% relative
humidity for 1,000 hours.
o Salt-mist aging according to IEC 60068-2-11 (IEC, 1981), “Basic
Environmental Testing Procedures, Part 2: Tests-Test Ka: Salt Mist.” This
standard compares resistance to deterioration from salt mist between
materials of similar construction, and is used to evaluate the quality and
the uniformity of protective coatings. The environment consists of
continuous fine mist of aerated 3% NaCl solution buffered to a pH of 5.5.
• In the damp-heat condition, the resistances for all bonding devices remained
low (<0.05 ohm) and had almost no change over 20 weeks.
• In the salt mist condition, however, most samples showed visible signs of
severe corrosion and failed the ground continuity test in weeks, where
resistance failure was set at >10 ohms.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 13

 • Initial feedback included recommendations that there be additional review of
the attachment methods by manufacturers of the grounding clips and lay-in
lugs—small but meaningful differences in the use of washers, for example. One
lay-in lug manufacturer’s instructions recommend using a flat washer between
any lock or star washer and the lug surface. This is presumably to prevent
excessive penetration of the tin plating on the lug and exposure of the
underlying copper to galvanic corrosion.
• Most stakeholders (manufacturers and other NRTLs) suggested that the tests
were a welcome start, but also highly recommend additional tests with greater
participation by industry to define the scope.

Although it is widely acknowledged that tests need to be more rigorous to help

reduce corrosion issues, many in the industry have expressed concern about using a
testing approach employing continuous exposure to salt mist. IEC 60068-2-11 (IEC,
1981) and ASTM International (ASTM) B117 (ASTM, 2011) have both been cited and
used in component tests, and both prescribe continuous salt mist exposure. The
general concern is that the corrosion mechanisms induced by the IEC or B117 tests
are known to often differ from those found in the field, and therefore care must
be taken to select the appropriate test methods. The ASTM standard itself cautions
against the use of the method to predict corrosion performance in the field,
particularly in sections 3.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2:

3. Significance and Use

3.1 This practice provides a controlled corrosive environment, which produces

relative corrosion resistance information for specimens of metals and coated metals
exposed in a given test chamber.

3.2 Prediction of performance in natural environments has seldom been correlated

with salt spray results when used as standalone data.

3.2.1 Correlation and extrapolation of corrosion performance based on exposure to

the test environment provided by this practice are not always predictable.

3.2.2 Correlation and extrapolation should be considered only in cases where

appropriate corroborating long-term atmospheric exposures have been conducted.

Section 3.1 is notable as well, however, for indicating that relative corrosion
resistance information can be obtained from the test of specimens. Even if the
UL exploratory testing raised more questions than it answered with respect to the
components themselves, it did provide some useful (if not complex) information on
relative improvements in performance. For example, samples using the antioxidant
coating lasted longer than uncoated samples before failing, and connections that
were significantly under-torqued failed much more quickly than those that used a
torque wrench to achieve the manufacturer specifications. This result highlights the
need to investigate more specific torque variability—to determine the failure rate
difference if the connection is under-torqued a small but measurable amount, for
example. Further study should also examine the impact on corrosion rate of
connections that have come loose but have been re-torqued. It is important to note
that over-torqueing a connection can also lead to premature failure.

14 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR IMPROVING
PERFORMANCE AND CERTIFICATION
Based on the discussions so far, the recommendations from this study are:

1. Tests should be modified to better reflect the actual environmental processes

seen by PV modules in the field. This is not to imply the tests can replicate
the field corrosion process, because accelerated testing can never be an
accurate substitute for the long-term degradation mechanisms.
2. Test results should be used to identify relative performance superiority or
inferiority in the use of methods and materials, and not necessarily be
considered a predictor of failure time or failure mode.
3. Manufacturers should stay informed about the bonding material pairings that
are or are not demonstrating success in UL 1703 (UL, 2008) and 2703
(UL, 2011) certification tests. Although the electrochemical potential table
in Figure 5 shows a very wide range of possible component combinations,
it is lacking in some areas and not highly specific in others, and actual test
results with alloy variations are equally informative.

Improved Test Procedures

A key recommendation is to propose UL 1703 Standards Technical Panel adoption

of procedures from new IEC standards that specify salt fog and ammonia tests for
PV modules.

The second edition of IEC 61701: “Salt mist corrosion testing of photovoltaic (PV)
modules” was published in 2011 (IEC, 2011). The revision has significant differences
from the first edition and is a substantive departure from the approach used in
ASTM B117 (ASTM, 2011) and IEC 60068-2-11 (IEC, 1981). For one, its test basis is
derived more from IEC 60068-2-52 (IEC, 1996), which is widely used in the
electronic component field and thought to be better suited to PV module
assemblies. The tests also better reflect field conditions. Most significantly, the
modules are exposed to cycles of alternating salt fog followed by humidity
storage under controlled temperature and relative humidity conditions. This
sequence better reflects the module’s corrosion processes in punishing marine
environments than that of a continuous salt-fog test.

The standard also draws on IEC 60068-2-52 (IEC, 1996) by offering different levels
of test severity, which are representative of different installation environments:

• One severity level is applicable to systems installed in a marine environment,

with routine exposure to a wet atmosphere with dissolved salt.
• Four other severity levels are defined based on alternating exposure to
salt- based and dry or humid atmospheres. One example is representative of
normally dry environments where the use of salt is occasionally used to
melt ice.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 15

 IEC 61701 (IEC, 2011) requires a series of performance related tests following the
salt-fog exposure, among them a ground-continuity test according to IEC 61730-2
(IEC, 2004) (for crystalline silicon and thin film modules), and IEC 62108 (IEC,
2007) (for concentrating PV modules). For the purposes of the UL 1703 (UL, 2008)
(and UL 2703 [UL, 2011]) standard revisions, we recommend no change to the
continuity tests as currently written, only to the salt-fog test procedures in Section
36. Another recommendation is to have the test be applicable to all metal-framed
modules (because current language only applies to steel frames, which—as
mentioned earlier—are rarely used). Grounding hardware or assemblies can be
tested and certified for a specific environment based on the severity level choice.

The IEC is also publishing IEC 62716, “Ammonia corrosion testing of photovoltaic (PV)
modules,” which follows closely the principles and approach taken in IEC 61701
(IEC, 2011). In IEC 62716, the tests are intended to address modules operating
in highly corrosive wet atmospheres near agricultural or other industrial facilities
involving concentrations of dissolved ammonia. Samples are subjected to cycles
of exposure—eight hours of ammonia exposure in higher temperatures followed
by 16 hours with no ammonia and lower temperatures. IEC 62716 is in final draft
review by the technical committee. and will likely be published in 2013. It is
recommended that this test or a similar one also be considered as an addition to
the existing tests in UL 1703 (UL, 2008) and UL 2703 (UL, 2011). At this time there
is no recommendation to change or remove the existing moist carbon dioxide/
sulfur dioxide corrosive atmosphere test UL 1703 (Section 37.2). As in the case of
the salt-fog tests, it is recommended that manufacturers have the option of
choosing tests and severity levels, but in any case the listing should clearly
document which environments the components have been certified to operate in.

Lessons From Field and Recent Testing Experience

Grounding devices and mounting means that have historically performed well in
the field include combinations of:

• copper or a copper alloy containing not less than 80% copper, which may be
coated or plated to avoid galvanic corrosion;
• stainless steel containing a minimum of 16% chromium (Cr) or 5000 or 6000
series aluminum alloys; or
• carbon steel, which may be coated or plated to avoid corrosion.

Connections that have to date shown galvanic compatibility in almost all service
environments contain any combination of the following (with caveats related to
sufficient thickness of platings or coatings):

• 5xxx or 6xxx series aluminum alloys and commercially pure aluminum,

• stainless steel containing a minimum of 16% Cr,
• nickel,
• tin,
• zinc, and
• zinc-aluminum alloys.

16 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

In 2012, UL experienced a surge of activity for UL 2703 (UL, 2011) grounding and
bonding component certifications, and the findings with respect to different types
of steel supplement the material recommendations above. Although there are
occasional exceptions, the following generalizations can be made with respect to
the success of bonding resistance and short-circuit tests performed after
environmental conditioning:

• Components with 300 Series stainless steel have been passing well
(incorporating minimum 16% Cr—austenitic chromium-nickel alloys).
• Components with 200 Series stainless steel have had mixed results (austenitic
chromium-nickel-manganese alloys).
• Components with 400 Series stainless steel generally are not passing (ferritic
and martensitic chromium alloys).
• Components with ASTM A690 or better galvanized steel have been successful
(Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance for Use in Marine Environments).
• Components with A660 galvanized steel (and classes below) are not faring
as well.
• Zinc thickness has been demonstrated to be more relevant in test results than
the galvanization method (electroplating or hot-dipped). Having said that,
hot-dipped galvanized steel generally fares better.

In the previous Solar ABCs reports from this study, we made the general
recommendation to simplify the list of materials used for grounding devices and
mounting means, based on field and industry experience. This was considered
a practical alternative to defining acceptable combinations using the table in
Figure 5, which by itself lacks specificity with certain alloys and does not provide
sufficient guidance for the determination of electrochemical potentials.. However,
it is not our intent to impose restrictions on the use of alternate materials in the
standards. The standards should identify functional requirements but not limit
creativity or innovation with respect to materials and combinations. In order to
realize this, however, new requirements and tests need to be developed and
proposed to revise the standard. UL is currently in the process of creating a new
expanded table and procedure for determining acceptable metal combinations.
This will incorporate information gained from the ongoing UL 2703 component
testing described earlier, but will also document a more detailed process for
measuring the electrochemical potential so that a consistent approach can be used
to test metals not included in the table. The important outcome is the long-term
performance and integrity of the electrical connections once subjected to the
accelerated aging and corrosion tests, and their subsequent performance in
the field.

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 17

 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
This report provides a brief update on findings related to module and ground
component corrosion, and presents recommendations to adopt revised
accelerated aging test procedures recently published by the IEC. UL 2703 (UL,
2011) certification testing at UL and other NRTLs is providing valuable
information on the performance of various steels and alloys under accelerated
aging conditions. We expect that there will also be plenty of new valuable
information from manufacturers and test labs during the next few years that will
help set the direction for improved component designs and testing. With this in
mind, important next steps for the industry include:

• The Standard Technical Panels for UL 1703 (UL, 2008) and UL 2703 (UL, 2011)
should review the IEC standard procedures outlined in this report. Possible
outcomes are formal adoption of the IEC standards as U.S. ANSI standards
or adoption of similar test procedures in the next revision of UL 1703 and
UL 2703.
• Expanded exploratory testing building on the tests performed by UL in Taiwan
is encouraged to address recommendations and feedback coming from the
industry.
• A forum similar to Solar ABCs should continue to help consolidate and
circulate information from the field and from various stakeholders working on
corrosion analysis and mitigation.

18 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

 ACRONYMS

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASTM
Formerly American Society for Testing and Materials, now ASTM
International
Cr chromium
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IECEE IEC System of Conformity Assessment Schemes for Electrotechnical
Equipment and Components
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
NEC National Electrical Code
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NRTL Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
PV photovoltaic
UL Underwriters Laboratories

Photovoltaic Module Grounding — Corrosion Testing Addendum 19

 REFERENCES
ASTM International (ASTM). (2011). Standard practice for operating salt spray (fog)
apparatus. ASTM B117-11.

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). (1981). Basic environmental

testing procedures, Part 2: Tests. Test Ka: Salt mist. 60068-2-11 (Ed. 3).

IEC. (1996). Environmental testing—Part 2: Tests—Test Kb: Salt mist, cyclic (sodium,
chloride solution). 60068-2-52 (Ed. 2).

IEC. (2004). Photovoltaic (PV) module safety qualification—Part 2: Requirements for

testing. IEC 61730-2 (Ed. 1).

IEC. (2005). Crystalline silicon terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) modules—Design

qualification and type approval. 61215 (Ed. 2).

IEC. (2007). Concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) modules and assemblies—Design

qualification and type approval. 62108 (Ed. 1).

IEC. (2011). Salt mist corrosion testing of photovoltaic (PV) modules. 61701 (Ed. 2).

IEC. (2013, pending publication). Ammonia corrosion testing of photovoltaic (PV)

modules. 62716 (Ed. 1).

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2011). National Electrical Code. NFPA 70.

UL. (March 15, 2002, including revisions through April 2008). UL standard for
flat-plate photovoltaic modules and panels. UL 1703. Third Edition.

UL. (2011). UL standard for rack mounting systems and clamping devices for flat-plate
photovoltaic modules and panels. UL 2703. First Edition.

Wang, E. (Ethan), Yen, K. (Kai-Hsiang), Wang, C. (Carl), Ji, L. (Liang), and Zgonena,
T. (Timothy ). (June 2011). “Accelerated aging tests on PV grounding connections.”
Underwriters Laboratories. Presented at the IEEE 37th Photovoltaic Specialist
Conference.

RESOURCES
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). (July 13, 2005). Effects of current
on human beings and livestock. Part 1: General aspects, Edition 4.0. IEC/TS 60479-1.

National Physical Laboratory. (2000). “Bimetallic corrosion: Guides to good practice

in corrosion control.” United Kingdom (UK). Publication of the UK Department of
Trade and Industry.

20 Solar America Board for Codes and Standards Report

Solar America Board for Codes and Standards
www.solarabcs.org