PROGRESS IN PHOTOVOLTAICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377 (DOI: 10.1002/pip.387)

Applications Solar Home System Battery and

Charge Regulator Testing
Pablo DõÂaz* and Eduardo Lorenzo
Instituto de EnergõÂa Solar±ETSI TelecomunicacioÂn, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Laboratory testing procedures for solar home system batteries and charge regulators
are proposed, as a follow up to the Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home
Systems, presented in 1998. Procedures, de®nition and selection of instrumentation
have paid particular attention to simplicity, in order to facilitate their application not
only in sophisticated laboratories of industrialised countries, but also in local envir-
onments and laboratories of developing countries. On the other hand, test results
from a measurement programme performed on 8 different batteries and 20 different
charge regulators are presented and discussed. Finally, a review for up-dating the
technical standard is presented, based on ®eld and laboratory experience. Copyright
# 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION

S
olar home systems (SHSs) are widely accepted as a mature and practical product for home electri®cation
of the hundreds of millions of families living in the poorest villages of the so-called developing world
(roughly two billion people1), having in common little or no prospect of gaining access to a conventional
source of electricity supply within their lifetimes. In fact, world market global indicators2,3 lead to the estimate
that about 1
3 million home systems for lighting, radio and television are currently in operation, totalling
40 MWp, and large rural electri®cation programmes comprising some thousands of SHSs are increasingly
becoming a signi®cant part of the current market (the Spanish cooperation agencies alone are currently involved
in large-scale SHS programmes in ten countries throughout the world). Thus, SHSs currently represent the most
widespread PV application, and things are likely to be the same in the years to come. However, these encoura-
ging ®gures do not show that PV rural electri®cation also involves dif®culties. Disturbing data related to tech-
nical problems are appearing in the literature3±6, and the need for quality assurance is certainly widely
recognized. This has motivated several international actions towards the promotion of standardization and cer-
ti®cation practices, along the same lines as those that already exist for PV modules. Initiatives have been taken
by different agencies: rural electri®cation promoters (national governments, World Bank) and international cer-
ti®cation bodies (IEC, PV-GAP). An extended review of this activity has been performed by the GTZ.7
It should be admitted that, despite signi®cant efforts, the establishment of internationally recognized SHS
certi®cation practices is facing considerable dif®culties (not surprisingly, as the decentralized character of SHSs
makes the local factors extremely relevant) so that, at least in the short term, immediate projects attempting to
implement a quality assurance procedure should be essentially self-reliant. Assistance in that direction was the
main purpose of the Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home Systems.8 This proposed standard resulted
from work funded by the European Commission under its Thermie B contract, and it is intended to provide a
quality reference for procurement speci®cations issued by national governments, donors and investors, and also

* Correspondence to: P. DõÂaz, Instituto de EnergõÂa Solar±ETSI TelecommunicacioÂn, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
y
E-mail: [email protected]
Contract/grant sponsor: EC±DG XII; contract/grant number: JOR-3-CT98-0275
Published online 24 July 2001 Received 15 February 2001
Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 25 April 2001
364 P. DIÂAZ AND E. LORENZO

to be useful as a design guideline for SHS manufacturers and installers. Its elaboration paid special attention to
knowledge gained from ®eld experience, and to the inclusion of features allowing it to be adapted to the parti-
cular condition of each country. For that reason, it was based on a world-wide review of previously existing
technical standards, moreover, a draft version circulated among a number of international experts whose com-
ments were largely taken into account. A parallel enquiry was carried out to identify the concerns of key persons
involved in PV rural electri®cation programmes. The need for ¯exibility was the most outstanding demand. In
order to meet this demand, the requirements presented in the standard were classi®ed into three categories: com-
pulsory, recommended and suggested. The standard has been published in scienti®c media9,10 and has also been
widely distributed by means of two printed editions in English (1998 and 1999) as well as Spanish and French
editions (both in 1999).11 The reactions received at the Instituto de EnergõÂa Solar, the coordinator of the activ-
ities contributing to the standard's development, encourage con®dence in the level interest within the general
PV community. As an example of this interest, we are currently in contact with six large programmes which are
looking into the use of this standard in their own quality assurance procedures.
The de®nition of laboratory testing procedures and the testing of prototypes or samples to analyse their adher-
ence to a selected technical standard, are the next logical steps of any systematic quality assurance procedure.
An ongoing Joule project12 includes, among other objectives, follow-up of the `Universal Technical Standard
for Solar Home Systems' by these two activities. It should be made clear that the approach does not involve the
accreditation of the possible testing laboratories by international certi®cation bodies (ISO 25) as an essential
prerequisite. Instead, it is based on the idea that SHS technical quality control is more a matter of will that of
technical dif®culty. Rather simple local testing (in regular laboratories of utilities, universities, etc.) can be a
very effective technical quality assurance tool, if clearly set out in the contractual agreements between vendors
and customers, in order to avoid controversy in the event of equipment rejection or price reduction claims.
Therefore, the slogan `as simple and as clear as possible' has been paramount for the de®nition of testing pro-
cedures, and also for selection of the necessary instrumentation. Other authors have also insisted on the impor-
tance of the local applicability of quality control procedures: In the words of Preiser:13
these test procedures must be developed under consideration that they have to be applied not only in indus-
trialised countries but also in laboratories in developing countries. The organisations for example which
carry out electri®cation programmes must be capable to test and certify all components that are intended
to be used
Obviously, a focus on simplicity, in order to facilitate local application of quality assurance procedures, can
not be without its drawbacks. In particular, accuracy can sometimes be reduced (e.g., when using secondary
instead of primary calibration references) and some aspects may be neglected (e.g., when time-consuming
aging procedures are omitted). However, our experiences in ®eld studies6 lead us to believe that most of the
relevant technical quality SHS issues are essentially related to the proper understanding of the local reality,
while highly accurate measurements are more a matter of research. Although this fact is true for all PV com-
ponents of SHSs, it is particularly obvious for battery operation and charge regulation.
This paper begins by presenting the testing procedures for SHS batteries and charge regulators, elaborated at
the Instituto de EnergõÂa Solar within the framework of the Joule project. It goes on to present the test results
corresponding to a representative collection of 8 different batteries and 20 charge regulators, acquired in the
current rural PV market. Finally, this experience is discussed and some recommendations for the up-date of the
standard are made. All testing procedures and reporting formats have been systematically documented in detail,
not only for the obvious rationalisation of our internal work but also for ease of use in contractual agreements
between vendors and customers. Extensive presentation of the associated documents has been avoided here, but
all of them are freely available at the Instituto de Energia Solar.14

2. BATTERIES IN SOLAR HOME SYSTEMS

Batteries have been identi®ed as the most costly component during the SHS lifetime. They account for about 13%
of the investment cost,15 but this increases to 30% or more when battery replacement over 20 years is considered.16

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
SHS BATTERY AND CHARGE REGULATOR TESTING 365

Commonly, lead±acid batteries are used. Locally produced automotive batteries (SLI), classical or modi®ed for PV
applications17 (so-called solar batteries) are often applied. Battery lifetime depends strongly on battery type,
correct sizing of the SHS, local climate, and proper operational management, i.e., charge regulation algorithms
and maintenance procedures. In ®eld evaluations, operational lifetimes of 1±9 yr have been reported.18±21 To iden-
tify general patterns from ®eld experience is a dif®cult task, not only because of the variability of the above-men-
tioned conditions, but also because of the variability of SHS user behaviour. Experimental energy consumption
studies22±25 have shown that the idea of a unique standard value, as is required for sizing purposes, may be
inappropriate to real behaviour at the individual level, so that very different operational conditions can exist in
apparently similar circumstances. Moreover, SHS users normally extend the operational lifetime far longer than
the common engineering practice of considering a battery to be dead when its actual capacity falls to 80% of the
initial value.19 Such variability of operation conditions surely represents a huge barrier for possible SHS experi-
mental studies, and it can help to explain the actual lack of notice in the literature of empirical relations between
operation conditions and battery lifetime. Unfortunately, dead batteries are normally simply discarded without
further investigation, so that not much is known about the relevance of different aging mechanisms in the ®eld.
Not surprisingly, although the theoretical basis of battery operation in general photovoltaic applications is
well described in the literature,26±28 a large number of inconsistencies are observed when comparing different
recommendations for their practical use.29±31 For example, the maximum depth of discharge is limited to
50%,32 to 60%,33 or to 75%,34 depending on which speci®cation is considered.
Several PV-related laboratories have adopted standard procedures for capacity and lifetime determination.35±39
Capacity tests are rather straightforward, provided care is taken to ensure an initial full charge. The main uncer-
tainty derives from the dependence of capacity on battery temperature and on the length of the discharge time.
Baths at ®xed temperature are sometimes employed, but this is not strictly necessary with SHSs because the
characteristic discharge regimes are low enough to permit battery temperature to coincide with ambient tempera-
ture, variations of which are easily recorded and taken into account, by simply considering a typical value of

C/
T ' 0
5%/ C. Similarly, simple empirical formulas allow for capacity corrections to discharge rate. For
example, the capacities corresponding to a 20-h discharge rate, C20, and to a x-h discharge rate, Cx, are related by:40
Cx 1
34
ˆ  0
9 1 ‡ 0
005
T† 1†
C20
1 ‡ 0
34 II20x

On the other hand, cycle-life is still an open question. In principle, laboratory procedures should simulate real aging
mechanisms in an accelerated manner. Cycles at high states of charge are employed to investigate battery behaviour
corresponding to periods of good weather, where the effects of corrosion and water loss predominate, while cycles
at low states of charge, involving sulphation processes, are best suited to long spells of poor weather. Moreover, it is
not cycle-life, but resistance to internal corrosion that limits the ultimate lifetime of the batteries if energy con-
sumption is relatively low and ambient temperatures are relatively high, as is probably the case in many SHSs.
Finally, accidental situations, such as prolonged operation at low states of charge or at overcharge, are often
encountered in PV installations, due to possible failures in other components, and they require speci®c procedures
for their investigation. The previously mentioned lack of experimental feedback from the ®eld, hinders identi®ca-
tion of the relevance of each possible aging mechanism, and has led to large disparities between different recom-
mendations. To enlarge on this is beyond the scope of this paper; we refer the interested reader to other
sources.27,35,41±43 We simply note that, together with the long time required to perform aging tests (more than a
year in some of the proposed standards), such disparities make it dif®cult to incorporate battery lifetime testing in
current quality assurance procedures. As a matter of fact, they are normally avoided in current testing protocols
associated to SHS programmes,44 even though some cycle-life requirements have usually been included in the cor-
responding previous technical speci®cations.

2.1. Testing procedures for the proposed standard

Coming back to the Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home Systems, its battery section deals with tubular
and automotive batteries, referred to as SLI. The latter are classi®ed in three different categories: classical,

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
366 P. DIÂAZ AND E. LORENZO

modi®ed and low-maintenance. The standard includes ten different requirements related to batteries. Four of
them are devoted to ®xing certain conditions that must be met for a battery to be categorised as `modi®ed SLI'.
Three give the rules that should be followed for battery sizing. One imposes a lower limit for the capacity of
batteries on delivery (initial capacity), and the last refers to the cycle-life. Furthermore, it should be mentioned
that the standard approach to specifying charge regulation is based mainly on matching charge regulator set-
tings to battery characteristics, instead of the current practice of simply relying on ®xed threshold voltages.

Discharge capacity test

Following this standard, we have de®ned procedures to test both the initial capacity, measured when the battery
is received at the laboratory, and the stabilized capacity, measured after several cycles of discharge and full
charge. Full charge is achieved, ®rst by a constant-current charge until the battery voltage reaches 2
4 V/cell,
and then by maintaining this voltage for 24 h. For simplicity, discharge tests are performed at room temperature,
with a standard car lamp as load, in series with a calibrated shunt resistor for current measurement (Figure 1).
(I,V) pairs of values are recorded at intervals of t seconds by means of a standard automatic data acquisition
system (DAS), and capacity values are calculated as:
Cx A h† ˆ tIi A†=3600 8 Vi 51
8 V=cell 2†
and then corrected to a 20-h discharge rate by means of Equation (1). The power of the lamp is selected to have a
discharge current close to the SHS daily load consumption, in A h divided by 5, because the voltage set points
speci®ed in the standard for protection against excessive discharge correspond to this current value. We usually
use a 50 W lamp ('3
2 A at 12 V).
Note that this procedure, based on a ®xed load, implies that battery output current varies during the discharge
process, because battery voltage varies from about 2
1 to 1
8 V/cell. However, this current variation is low
enough to assure that it in¯uences only the process time duration, but not the ®nal capacity value for the total
time period. It is interesting to note, as shown in Table I , that accuracy > 99% is obtained with recording per-
iods of 20 min, and even > 96% with recording periods as long as 2 h, easily accomplished just by manual
recording of readings from a standard multimeter (with no DAS). This paves the way for capacity testing at
remote locations, because a car lamp, a shunt resistor and a multimeter are extremely portable. If provisions
are made to ensure full battery charge, the total capacity can easily be obtained; if not, the residual capacity can
be measured at any time by this simple method. Residual capacity is, by itself, a useful parameter for installers
and monitoring programmes. In fact, we use a DAS and a recording period of 60 s in our laboratory, but in the
®eld we resort to manual recording, still with good results.19

Table I. Capacity values for different data recording periods and error referred to 1-min interval
P
Cˆ Ii t

Recording period t(min) 1 20 30 60 120

C(A h) 109
0 109
4 110
5 110
8 113
1

C (%) ± 0
4 1
4 1
7 3
8

Figure 1. Simple instrumentation for discharge capacity test

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
SHS BATTERY AND CHARGE REGULATOR TESTING 367

Table II. Maximum depth of discharge according to battery type8

Maximum depth of dischargex

Battery type Compulsory Recommended

Tubular SLI 80 70
Classical 50 30
Modi®ed 60 40
Low-maintenance 30 20

Once the stabilized capacity is calculated, the conversion of (I,V) records in terms of (state of charge, V)
values is straightforward, and allows analysis of the voltage settings for protection against deep discharging,
in accordance with the corresponding standard requirement, labelled CB4. The maximum depth of discharge,
DODMAX, (referred to the 20-h nominal battery capacity) should not exceed the values in Table II.

Recharge test
The battery, as discharged in the previous capacity test, is charged at a constant current, equal to the Isc of the PV
generator, until a 1
2 recharge factor is achieved (A h ¯ow into the battery 120% of the A h drain from the
battery during the previous discharge test). Voltage values are periodically recorded (t ˆ 60 s) and plotted
against the corresponding recharge factor. That allows analysis of the suitable voltage settings for protection
against overcharging, in accordance with the following requirement, labelled RR5 in the standard.
RR5: End-of-charge voltage should correspond to a recharge factor between 0
95 and 1, at a constant cur-
rent equal to the short-circuit current of the PV generator at the STC.
If no recharge test is available, the standard includes an alternative requirement, labelled CR4:
CR4: End-of-charge voltage should lie in the range from 2
3 to 2
4 V/cell (at 25 C).

Gassing current test

Although it is not considered in the standard, we have added a gassing current test, as a means to investigate
water losses. Once full charge of the battery is achieved, this test is performed by recording the input current and
ambient temperature values corresponding to several ¯oating voltages, ranging from 2
2 to 2
6 V/cell, and
adjusting them to the Tafel expression:45
 
100 A h
Igas ˆ Igo exp‰CU Vcell Vref ‡ CT T Tref †Š
C20 A h†
where Igas is the gassing current, Igo, CU and CT are the equation parameters, Vcell is the cell voltage, Vref is the
reference cell voltage (2
23 V), T is the temperature in  C and Tref is the reference temperature (20 C).
Summarizing, the complete battery testing sequence and its duration is as follows:
* Reception and visual inspection: 1 day
* Capacity:
Initial: 2 days
Stabilized: 2 weeks
* Recharge: 2 days
* Gassing: 3 days
The total duration of the battery testing and reporting is estimated as 3 weeks.

2.2 Results and discussion

In order to get a rough idea of the current state of the art, we have tested a collection of eight different
batteries, acquired in the PV market, from eight suppliers from six countries. Batteries numbered 1, 3 and 8

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
368 P. DIÂAZ AND E. LORENZO

Figure 2. Initial (black) and stabilized (white) capacities of batteries tested; dashed line represents the 95%Cnom value
speci®ed in the norm

are of tubular type, 6 and 7 classical SLI, and 2, 4 and 5 modi®ed SLI. Figure 2 shows the initial capacity,
measured on receipt of the battery at the laboratory, and the stabilized capacity, measured after the battery
receives a standardized full charge, i.e., 24 h at 2
4 V/cell, in comparison with the nominal value claimed by
the manufacturers.
Although their stabilized capacity is acceptable (>89% in all cases), this is not the case for initial capacity,
and this represents a serious risk of rapid degradation in SHSs applications. Low initial capacities may have
different causes. For example, plates of new batteries may be incompletely formed, that is, they may have
not only lead oxide as the positive electrodes and sponge lead as the negative electrodes, but also large residues
of other materials (PbSO4, PbO) from the manufacturing process. This poor formation can normally be com-
pensated by appropriate strong initial charges, as is the case when they are used in cars, but in stand-alone PV
systems in particular it can not be assumed that this will happen, because of the intrinsically limited availability
of charging current. Another cause of low capacity comes from batteries with initially well-formed plates, but
which have been stored for long periods before installation, leading to high self-discharge. As a result, in both
cases, good battery technology can be wasted if ®eld installation does not follow the initial charging and storage
instructions, as is sometimes the case.These faults do not arise from the battery technology itself, but rather
from the peculiar character of SHSs. This problem can be effectively solved if provisions are made to ensure
the appropriate formation of the plates during manufacture or installation, and also to guarantee correct battery
storage. However, this approach is normally unsuitable for SHSs, because of their remote operation and general
project conditions. Unfortunately, such precautions are rarely considered in current market practice. Accord-
ingly, we advise solar promoters to pay particular attention to this aspect when using locally manufactured bat-
teries: this seems a more logical alternative than resorting to highly standardized imported batteries, as is often
done.46 We also mention here that the distributed version of the Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home
Systems contains a mistake in the corresponding speci®cation, labelled CB5. It reads: `Provision must be made
to ensure that the capacity of the delivered batteries is not below the 5% of the nominal value'Ðit shall be
amended to `....below 95% of the nominal value'.
Figure 3 shows the lower and upper values of the voltage set points corresponding, respectively, to the com-
pulsory and recommended maximum depth of discharge speci®ed in the Universal Technical Standard for Solar
Home Systems, for protection against deep discharge. The dashed horizontal box de®nes the LVD range of 20
different charge controllers which we have also tested at the Instituto de EnergõÂa Solar (see Section 3). It should
be stressed that, in all the cases, such values are signi®cantly higher than 1
87 V/cell, which is the highest value
of the low-voltage-disconnection (LVD) facility of all the 20 units tested. Similar results have been reported by
other authors in different circumstances.47 In practical terms, this simply means that actual SHS charge regu-
lators do not effectively protect batteries against excessive discharge. It is beyond the scope of this paper to
discuss whether this protection should be implemented as an automatic feature of charge regulators or as a
warning to the user. We simply place on record that LVD facilities implemented in many actual charge regu-
lators seem more an illusory commercial advertisement than an effective battery protection tool.

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
SHS BATTERY AND CHARGE REGULATOR TESTING 369

Figure 3. Charge regulation voltage set points for protection against deep discharge, of the tested batteries; recommended
(black) and compulsory (white) values

Figure 4. Voltage values corresponding to 95% (black) and 100% (white) charging, of batteries tested

Concerning battery recharge, Figure 4 shows the measured voltages corresponding to recharge factors of 0
95
and 1. The dashed horizontal box de®nes the 2
3±2
4 V/cell range, given by the CR4 standard speci®cation,
within which most charge regulators have been found to operate, as (see Figure 6 in Section 3
2). It can be
observed that the value of 2
4 V/cell always ensures that the recharge factor is above 0
95 for all the new bat-
teries tested; the recharge factor value would be lower for aged batteries at the same voltage. However, it is
dif®cult to derive more precise practical recommendations for the voltage set points corresponding to protection
against overcharge, because their relation with battery lifetime is uncertain.
Finally, signi®cant differences have been found for the gassing current of different batteries, as shown in
Table III.
The gassing test provides valuable information for re®ning battery regulation thresholds for protection
against excessive overcharge, because the gassing current increases signi®cantly with voltage and with tem-
perature. Gassing current is related to battery water loss: 1A h gassing current implies 0
336 ml water loss.

Table III. Gassing current Igas normalized to 100A h capacity, at 2
23 and 2
4V/cell and 20 C, for the 8 batteries tested
Battery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Igas (mA)

2
23V/cell 5 25 10 5 70 65 45 30
2
4V/cell 150 280 150 100 340 280 230 145

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
370 P. DIÂAZ AND E. LORENZO

Consequently, it is convenient to recommend an upper limit to the gassing current, in order to keep water losses
at reasonable levels. We suggest the following:
* The gassing current, normalized to a battery capacity of 100 Ah, should be lower than 50 mA, at 2
23 V/cell
and 20 C.

3. CHARGE REGULATORS IN SOLAR HOME SYSTEMS

The charge regulator serves primarily to protect the battery against both deep discharging and overcharging. It is
also used to protect the load under extreme operating conditions, and to provide operational information to the
users. Typically, charge regulators account for only about 5% of the initial investment cost of a SHS. However,
their impact on the total long-term cost is much larger than this, because batteries can easily become the largest
component of the life-cycle cost of the system, and the battery lifetime is directly linked to the quality of the
charge regulator. Normally, SHS charge regulators are based on voltage control, although some models include
internal algorithms to calculate a state of charge (SOC) value.
In order to protect the battery against excessive discharge, the loads have to be disconnected when the battery
voltage falls below a certain threshold, the load-disconnect voltage (LVD), and they must not be reconnected
until the battery voltage has risen above a higher threshold, the load-reconnect voltage. To protect the battery
from becoming overcharged, the charging current must be limited when the battery voltage rises above a certain
threshold, the end-of-charge voltage, and must not be restored until the battery voltage falls below another
threshold, the reposition voltage. According to the position of the switching device, there are two kinds of
charge regulators, series and shunt. In addition, there are two main types of control strategy. In a two-step con-
trol arrangement, the charging current is fully interrupted when the end-of-charge voltage is reached. In pulse-
width-modulation control, the charging current is gradually reduced at the end-of-charge voltage level, thus
keeping the voltage constant. Moreover, some charge regulators resort to temporary controlled overcharges,
as a mean of avoiding the detrimental phenomenon of electrolyte strati®cation.
As mentioned in Section 2, there is a signi®cant lack of information from the ®eld concerning the relevance of
battery aging mechanisms in SHS operation. This lack of feedback does not allow clear-cut decisions on which
type of charge regulator and control strategy should be preferred. Despite hyperenthusiastic statements by some
charge regulator manufactures, independent laboratory evaluations have never been conclusive on this
issue.38,48 Instead, rather simple mistakes in charge regulator design, leading to excessive voltage drops or lack
of protection in common accident situations, have often been reported.3,18,28 As already mentioned for batteries,
the uncertainty associated with such a lack of empirical evidence has led to widespread inconsistencies between
different existing technical standards.
Charge regulator testing is, in principle, a straightforward task when only electrical operational principles
(e.g., voltage set points, voltage losses, parasitic electrical consumption) and protection (reversed polarity,
non-battery condition, short-circuit, etc.) are considered. However, this is not the case of radio-frequency inter-
ference or induced overvoltages are involved. Standardized procedures, such as those de®ned in IEC 1000-4 or
similar, are a matter for rather sophisticated laboratories, far from the current SHS scenarios. Radio-frequency
interference has sometimes been observed with PWM control strategies. The good news is that it is easy to
correct.49 Regarding overvoltages, the possibilities of coupling are not very great because SHSs are small in
their spatial extent.50 The risk of damage through overvoltage is normally dealt with by simply inserting var-
istors between both poles at the generator and load inputs of the charge regulator. Testing protocols associated
with SHS programmes tend to be restricted to checking the existence of such devices.

3.1. Testing procedures for the proposed standard

The Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home Systems devotes 37 different technical requirements to the
charge regulator. As mentioned before, the speci®cations of voltage settings for charge regulation are based
on matching the battery type. Besides, upper limits are given for internal voltage drops and parasitic electrical

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
SHS BATTERY AND CHARGE REGULATOR TESTING 371

Figure 5. Simple instrumentation for testing charge regulators; RG, RB and RC represent the generator, battery and load
terminals of the charge regulator, respectively

consumption. Accidental events considered for protection are `non-battery' condition, reversed polarity, reverse
current leakage, over currents and short-circuit currents. Finally, such other items as the information displayed
to the users, box protection and terminal sections are also addressed.
Following this standard, we have de®ned procedures to test all voltage settings for both charge regulation and
warnings at different temperatures, to measure voltage drops and self-consumption and to check all prescribed
protection functions. For simplicity, the required instrumentation has been limited to a current source placed at
the generator input, a battery, some standard lamps as loads and a variable resistor inserted between the charge
regulator and the battery, to simulate battery voltage variations, as described in Figure 5. Note that by increasing
the resistance value of that resistor, overcharging situations are reproduced when the current source is activated,
while deep discharge occurs when the load is activated. A standard domestic refrigerator and an oven are used to
produce low (down to 10 C) and high (up to 50 C) temperatures for testing temperature correction of voltage
settings and general operation.
Summarizing, the complete charge regulator testing sequence and its duration is as follows:
* Reception and visual inspection: 1 h
* Self-consumption: 2 h
* Internal voltage drops: 1 day

* Voltage regulation thresholds: 1 day

* Protection: 1 day

* Maximum current resistance: 1 day

Given that some of the tests related to the veri®cation of the protection functions can be destructive, it is advi-
sable to have two units of the same model.
The total duration of the charge regulator testing and reporting is estimated as less than 1 week; however,
more than one device can be tested at the same time by combining the tests in order, always performing the non-
destructive tests before the destructive ones.

3.2. Results and discussion

A collection of 20 different small charge controllers from 11 different suppliers from 7 countries have been
tested. All are voltage-based controllers (not SOC algorithm control), commonly used in SHS, low-power appli-
cations. Figure 6 shows the measured voltage regulation set points for battery protection against overcharge and
deep discharge, together with the recommended ranges.
It should be stressed that, while overcharge protection is generally well adjusted at an ambient temperature of
20 C (only 2 charge regulators out of 17 (12%), were badly adjusted, together with the 3 units with complete

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
372 P. DIÂAZ AND E. LORENZO

Figure 6. Charge controller operating range (dark sections of vertical bars) and recommended battery values (dashed box
regions) at 20 C

failure, numbered 6, 11 and 13), this is not the case for protection against deep discharge. All the charge con-
trollers tested would permit excessive discharge of all the batteries tested. This could have a dramatic effect on
battery lifetime, although, in reality the introduction of very strict LVD set points automatically leads to a high
number of bypassed charge regulators.21,28
Furthermore, regarding temperature correction of the regulation set points, measurements show great dispar-
ity, due to the lack of application of technical speci®cations. It has to be noted that the regulation voltages
against deep discharge, both load disconnection and reconnection, should remain constant with temperature,
but this does not always apply. On the contrary, the regulation thresholds for protection against overcharge
should be corrected by a facts of 4 to 5m V/ C per cell.
Table IV summarizes the ®ndings for temperature correction of the voltage set points. Close to 30% of the
tested regulators are simply wrong, both in their correction of the set points corresponding to protection against
overcharging, and in those corresponding to protection against deep discharge.
Figure 7 shows the measured values of the parasitic electrical consumption, together with the upper limits,
compulsory and recommended, required by the standard. It can be observed that half of the tested charge reg-
ulators do not comply with the standard. However, the extremely high consumption levels of charge regulators
2, 6, 8 10 and 13 are due to inef®cient or oversized LCD or LED signals, and this would be easy to resolve
without changing their basic design.
It is worth to mention that the standard speci®cally covered charge controllers for small SHSs, while many
models are designed to cover other applications, requiring higher currents and more sophisticated information
and/or communication features. In order to extend the standard to such applications, it seems logical to relate
the allowed parasitic electrical losses to the energy capacity of the PV system. Then, the corresponding standard
speci®cations, which prescribe ®xed limits, should be modi®ed as follows:
CR19: The parasitic daily energy consumption of the charge regulator in normal operation (i.e., PV genera-
tor and load lines `on' and push-button (if any) not pressed) must not exceed 3% of the designed daily
energy consumption.
RR11: The parasitic daily energy consumption of the charge regulator in normal operation (i.e., PV genera-
tor and load lines `on' and push-button (if any) not pressed) must not exceed 1% of the designed daily
energy consumption.
Internal voltage losses in the generator and load lines of the charge controllers have also been measured.
Apart from energy loss, voltage drops in the charge controller have to be maintained at low levels because
of their in¯uence on the generator working point and on the input voltage of the loads, which need a minimum
value to operate correctly. A limit of 4% of nominal voltage (480 mV for 12 V systems) is established in the
standard for both lines. With some exceptions, low voltage loss is the characteristic of the measured units, as
re¯ected in Figure 8. Low-quality, high-resistance transistors and diodes are the main causes of unacceptable
values.

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
SHS BATTERY AND CHARGE REGULATOR TESTING 373

Table IV. Temperature correction for overcharge and deep discharge set-points of the
tested charge regulators.
Temperature correction (mV/ C per cell)

Overcharge Deep discharge

Recommended 4 to 5* 0

Regulator
1 2 0
2 4 4
3 1 0
4 1 0
5 ± 0
6 3 0
7 3 0
8 4 4
9 1 0
10 0 0
11 ± ±
12 0 ±
13 0 0
14 4 4
15 4 0
16 1 0
17 4 4
18 4 4
19 4 0
20 1 1

*Not needed if ambient temperatures are expected to vary less than  10 C during the year

Figure 7. Parasitic self-consumption of charge controllers with generator and loads disconnected; dashed lines represent the
compulsory and recommended limits

Table V summarizes the results concerning protection against fault conditions. It is clear that a signi®cant
number of regulators now in use are not well protected themselves against damage, and obviously they can not
adequately protect the other PV system components. Furthermore, the high proportion of failures at high-cur-
rent (Irated) and high-temperature conditions is noteworthy. These failures are caused mainly by poor heat dis-
sipation and consequent transistor breakdown.
The standard requirements for overcurrent protection refer to the values of current provided by the PV gen-
erator and required by the load, disregarding the rated current values of the charge regulator. However, we have

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
374 P. DIÂAZ AND E. LORENZO

Figure 8. Internal charge controller voltage losses in the generator (white) and load (black)

Table V. Protection function summary of charge regulators; number of charge controllers

that include/do not include each protection function
Number of charge regulators

Protection against Yes No

`Non-battery' 19 1
Reverse polarity in generator line 14 6
Reverse polarity in battery line 16 4
Over-current:
Generator 13 7
Load 12 8
Short-circuit:
Generator 14 6
Load 13 7
Induced voltage in generation line 17 3
Induced voltage in load line 16 4
Reverse current leakage to generator 17 3
Enclosure protection degree (IP) 9 11
Irated at high temperature (45 C) 12 8

also tested manufacturers' claims for the latter by passing such rated current through the charge regulator for 60
min at 45 C. Close to half of the tested units failed the test, which is symptomatic of the present low standar-
dization level of charge regulator technology, and reinforces the need for quality assurance procedures.
Other corrections and new proposals for the standard up-date are the following. In pulse-width-modulated
(PWM) charge controllers, the constant end-of-charge regulation voltage should be lower than the values
required for on/off control, in order to reduce water losses and corrosion. Measured gassing current values at
2
4 V/cell have been found to be 50±60% higher than those measured at 2
35 V/cell for all the batteries tested.
Moreover, the corrosion rate increases signi®cantly at high voltages. Consequently, the standard should be
rewritten:
* In the case of PWM charge regulators, the end-of-charge voltage should lie in the range 2
3±2
35 V/cell (at
25 C)
Norm RR3 concerning the load-disconnect warning should be reviewed, because the 30-min interval that
appears in the standard corresponds, approximately, to only 10±20 mV, well below the accuracy required for
the regulation values. It is to be rewritten as follows:
* ``Warning'' voltage should be 0
2V (per 12 V) higher than the load-disconnect voltage

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
SHS BATTERY AND CHARGE REGULATOR TESTING 375

4. CONCLUSIONS
In attempting to promote systematic technical quality assurance in the framework of SHS programmes, this
paper has presented particular procedures to test the adherence of SHS batteries and charge regulators to the
technical requirements of the Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home Systems. In order to facilitate their
implementation in local laboratories, the de®nition of the testing procedures and the selection of the instrumen-
tation required have followed the principle `as simple and as clear as possible'.
Furthermore, in order to validate such procedures and to gain experience on the present state of the technol-
ogy, a measurement programme involving 8 different batteries and 20 different charge regulators has been car-
ried out, and a signi®cant number of failures have been found.
The most important observed failures are:
* Low initial battery capacity, as a result of incompletely formed plates or long storage times. This represents a
serious risk of degradation if speci®c storage and initial charging instructions are not followed, which is often
the case in PV programmes.
* Poor adaptability between batteries and charge regulator protective algorithms. In particular, LVD values
tend to be too low, so that batteries are unprotected against deep discharge.
* Poorly protected charge regulators, so that they are not reliable.
In the light of these ®ndings, the content of the technical standard has been reviewed, and some modi®cations
have been proposed.

Acknowledgements
This work has been possible thanks to the funding of Joule Programme EC-DG XII within the project Certi®ca-
tion and Standardisation Issues for a Sustainable PV Market (JOR-3-CT98-0275). The authors would like to
acknowledge the contribution of the FrauÈnhofer Institute for Solar Energy. Finally, we would like to thank an
anonymous reviewer for the interesting ideas suggested.

REFERENCES
1. World Bank. Rural energy and development: improving energy supplies for two billion people. Development in Practice
Series. World Bank: Washington DC. 1996.
2. Maycock P. Economic PV±a shift in thinking. Renewable Energy World 1999; 2: 72±76.
3. Nieuwenhout FDJ, van Dijk A, van Dijk VAP, Hirsch D, Lasschuit PE, van Roekel G, Arriaza H, Hankins M, Sharma
BD, Wade H. Monitoring and evaluation of solar home systems: experiences with applications of solar PV for
households in developing countries. ECN-C-00-089. September 2000.
4. Fitriana I, Kantosa E, Sudrajat A, Kuhmann J, Preiser K, Schweizer-Ries P. On the way from Sukatani to the 50 MW
programmeÐa socio technical analysis of solar home systems in Indonesia. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference
on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, 1998; 2875±2878.
5. Muller-Klinghammer W, Evangelista CL. Rural photovoltaic electri®cation: an established reality in the PhilippinesÐ
experience and conclusions. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion,
Vienna, 1998; 2921±2923.
6. Lorenzo E, In the ®eldÐrealities of some PV rural electri®cation projects. Renewable Energy World, 2000; 3: 38±51.
7. GTZ. Quality Standards for Solar Home Systems and Rural Health Power Supply. Division 44, GTZ, 2000.
8. Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home Systems. Thermie B SUP 995-96, EC-DGXVII, 1998.
9. Egido MA, Lorenzo E, Narvarte L. Universal Technical Standard for Solar Home Systems. Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications 1998; 6: 315±324.
10. Lorenzo E, Egido MA, Narvarte L. Towards a technical speci®cation for slar home systems globally accepted.
Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, 1998; 3242±3245.
11. www.ies-def.upm.es, January 2001.

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
376 P. DIÂAZ AND E. LORENZO

12. Certi®cation and standardisation issues for a sustainable PV market in developing countries. JOR-3-CT98-0275, Joule
Programme, EC-DGXII, 1998.
13. Preiser K. Quality issues for solar home systems. Photovoltaic rural electri®cation and the electric power utility.
Proceedings of the IERE Workshop, Cocoyoc, Mexico, 1995.
14. www.ies-def.upm.es
15. Lorenzo E. Photovoltaic rural electri®cation. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 1997; 5: 3±27.
16. Asia Alternative Energy Unit (ASTAE). Best practices for rural household electri®cation±lessons learned from
experiences in selected countries. World Bank Technical Paper 324. World Bank: Washington DC, 1996.
17. Preiser K, Sauer DU, JimeÂnez VH, Salazar O, DoÈring H, KoÈstner D. Local production of components for PV systems.
The case of the Bolivian battery TOYO Solar. Proceedings of the 14th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference,
Barcelona, 1997.
18. Huacuz J, Flores R, Agredano J, Munguia G. Field performance of lead-acid batteries in photovoltaic rural electri®cation
kits. Sol±Energy, 1995; 55(4): 287±300.
19. Lorenzo E, Narvarte L, Preiser K, Zilles R. A ®eld experience with automotive batteries in SHSs. Proceedings of the 2nd
World Conference and Exhibition on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, 1998; 3266±3268.
20. Foley G. Photovoltaic applications in rural areas of the developing world. World Bank Technical Paper 304. World Bank;
Washington DC, 1995.
21. Reinders AHME, Pramusito, Sudradjat A, van Dijk VAP, Mulyadi R, Turkenburg WC. Sukatani revisited: on the
performance of nine-year-old solar home systems and street lighting systems in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 1999; 3: 1±47.
22. Morante F, Zilles R. Demanda energeÂtica de pequenÄos sistemas fotovoltaicos en el litoral sur del estado de Sao Paulo,
Brasil. EnergõÂa y Desarrollo Cochabamba, 1999.
23. SapiaõÂn R, Schmidt R, Fuentes E, Torres A, Flores C. Experiences in the dissemination of photovoltaic electri®cation in
rural areas of the high plateau of northern Chile. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference and Exhibition on
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, 1998; 3030±3032.
24. Van der Plas RJ, Hankins M. Solar electricity in africa: a reality. Energy Policy 1998; 26(4): 295±305.
25. Biermann E, Corvinus F, Herberg TC, Hoȯing H. Basic Electri®cation for Rural Households, GTZ's Experience with the
Dissemination of Small-Scale Photovoltaic Systems GTZ: Eschborn, 1992.
26. Degner T, Gabler H, StoÈcklein A. A model for the ageing of lead-acid batteries in PV-systems. Proceedings of the 12th
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Amsterdam, 1994.
27. Spiers DJ, Rasinkoski AA. Predicting the service lifetime of lead/acid batteries in potovoltaic systems. J Power Sources
1995; 53: 245±253.
28. Bopp G, Gabler H, Preiser K, Sauer DU, Schmidt H. Energy storage in photovoltaic stand-alone energy supply systems.
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 1998; 6: 271±291.
29. Especi®cacioÂn TeÂcnica para Sistemas Fotovoltaicos de IluminacioÂn DomeÂstica. Instituto de Investigaciones EleÂctricas
(IIE); Mexico, 1992.
30. Draft Components and Installation Standards. Energy Alternatives: Kenya, 1997.
31. GEF/World Bank-Assisted China Renewable Energy Development Project. 1999.
32. Model of Technical Speci®cation for Solar Home Lighting Systems. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
(IREDA): India, 1997.
33. Standard Technical Speci®cation for the Supply of PV Systems Equipment for Solar Homes. ESKOM Non-Grid
Electri®cation: South Africa, 1997.
34. Speci®cations for Solar Home Systems. World Bank/Asia Alternative Energy Unit (ASTAE) /BPP Teknologi: Indonesia,
1996.
35. Cowan WD. A performance test and prediction method for stand-alone PV/battery systemsÐlooking for quality
assurance. Proceedings of the 12th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Amsterdam, 1994; 403±407.
36. Hund T. Battery testing for PV Applications. Photovoltaic System Application Department, Sandia National Labora-
tories, 1997.
37. Mattera F, Malbranche Ph, Desmettre D, Martin J-L. New methods to characterise PV batteries. Proceedings of the 2nd
World Conference and Exhibition on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, 1998; 1936±1940.
38. Woodworth J, Thomas M, Stevens J, Harrington S, Dunlop J, Remu Swamy, Demetrius L. Evaluation of batteries and
charge controllers in small stand-alone PV systems. Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference,
Hawaii, 1994.
39. EstaÂndares de Calidad para los Solar Home Systems en SudaÂfrica. CIEMAT/EDRC, 1997.

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377
SHS BATTERY AND CHARGE REGULATOR TESTING 377

40. Copetti JB, Lorenzo E, Chenlo F. A general battery model for PV system simulation. Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications 1993; 1: 283±292.
41. Lambert F, Malbranche Ph, Desmettre D, Martin J-L. The most appropriate speci®cations and test procedures for PV
batteries. Proceedings of the 14th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, 1997; 2254±2257.
42. Desmettre D, Martin J-L, Malbranche Ph. Comparison of the IEC and NFC cycling procedures for the quali®cation of
PV batteries. Proceedings of the 14th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, 1997; 2258±2261.
43. Hund T. Test Results from PV Battery Cycle-Life Test Procedure. Photovoltaic System Application Department, Sandia
National Laboratories, 1999.
44. Servant JM, Aguillon JC, Hammami N, Njeimi M. Test procedure for solar home systems. Proceedings of the 14th
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, 1997; 2571±2574.
45. Linden D, Handbook of Batteries. McGraw-Hill: 1995.
46. GEF/United Nations Development Program. Photovoltaics for Household and Community Use. Zimbabwe, 1997.
47. Preiser K, Kuhmann J, Biermann E, Herberg T. Quality of charge controllers in solar home systems: results of a detailed
test. Proceedings of the ISES Conference, Harare, 1995.
48. Illiceto A, Previ A, Guastella S, Pappalardo A. Performance of different types of battery charge regulators in stand-alone
PV systems. Proceedings of the 10th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Lisbon, 1991; .
49. Schattner S, Bopp G, Hofmayer U. The electromagnetic compatibility (ECM) of solar home systems. Proceedings of the
16th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Glasgow, 2000; .
50. Lighting and overvoltage protection in photovoltaic and solar thermal systems. Final Document of the Thermie-B action
SME-1662-98-DE, 2000.

Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2001; 9:363±377