Comparison of Battery Charging Algorithms for
Stand Alone Photovoltaic Systems
S. Armstrong*, M.E. Glavin*, W.G. Hurley*
* Power and Energy Research Center, National University of Ireland, Galway
Abstract— The battery is the most common method of
energy storage in stand alone solar systems; the most
popular being the valve regulated lead acid battery
(VRLA) due to its low cost and ease of availability.
Photovoltaics are not an ideal source for charging
batteries as their output is heavily dependent on weather
conditions. Therefore, when batteries are used in
photovoltaic systems, the performance characteristics
differ significantly from batteries used in more
traditional applications and the battery life is usually
shortened. In conditions of varying solar radiation and
load profile the battery may experience a low State of
Charge (SOC). A low SOC for extended periods of time
will cause increased sulphation, which severely reduces
the life of the battery. Typically, steps are carried out to
protect the battery and to charge the battery more
effectively. Such methods include Intermittent Charging
(IC), Three Stage Charging (TSC) and Interrupted
Charge Control (ICC), among others.
This paper quantifies the effectiveness of these three
battery charging algorithms and evaluates their ability to
maintain the battery at a high state of charge. The
measurement setup is comprised of a solar simulator,
which replicates the output of a large 50W photovoltaic
panel using a low power cell. Repeatable load and solar
radiation profiles and temperature control are
implemented using LabView so that identical operating
conditions can be set up to compare the three battery
charging systems.
I. INTRODUCTION
A typical photovoltaic system consists of a solar panel,
regulator, battery and load [1-3]. Of all these
components, it had been shown that the battery may
account for up to 40% of the overall system cost over
its lifetime [4]. Batteries in photovoltaic systems are
subject to performance losses that are caused by
limited availability of time and energy to recharge the
battery and inadequate battery maintenance. In most
applications, batteries are undercharged [5-8].
Extended periods of undercharging leads to sulphation
and stratification, which reduces the effectiveness of
the battery and shortens its lifetime. Overcharging the
battery causes gassing and grid corrosion, which also
shorten the battery life. Three battery charging
algorithms are investigated to determine their
effectiveness at maintaining the battery at a high state
of charge and increasing the life cycle of the battery.
978-1-4244-1668-4/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
Their performance is monitored using a solar simulator
management system with programmable solar
radiation, temperature and load profile.
The paper is divided into the following sections; first,
the solar simulator management system is introduced.
The battery charging algorithms used for comparison
are then discussed and experimental results for the
battery charging profiles, temperature and state of
charge are presented.
II. SOLAR SIMULATOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Photovoltaic applications are subjected to randomly
fluctuating atmospheric conditions, making the testing
of a battery management system in real weather
situations both costly and time consuming. The use of
a solar simulator system provides a low cost solution,
generating reliable results, which can replicate actual
weather conditions. These reproducible conditions
enable different battery charging algorithms to be
tested under the same operating conditions. The main
parameters in a photovoltaic system are solar radiation,
temperature and load conditions. A solar simulator
management system has been developed to simulate
these variables.
Several solar simulators have been previously
described. In [9] predetermined solar parameters are
loaded into a lookup table using EPROM and a
regulator produces the required output voltage. The
solar cell’s characteristic equations may be
implemented by a microcontroller under varying
operating conditions [10-12]. Solar simulators have
also been based on the equivalent model using a
current source in parallel with a diode [13].
The proposed solar simulator is more accurate for
temperature and solar radiation control in a fully
automated system controlled by LabView. The block
diagram of the solar simulator management system is
shown in Fig. 1. The main components are the solar
simulator and dc-dc converter. These are described in
more detail in the following section.
1469

Fig. 1: Diagram of proposed solar simulator
A. Solar Simulator
The purpose of the solar simulator is to amplify the
output of a low power cell (17mW) to reproduce the
voltage and current characteristics of a typical 50W
solar panel. The operation is based on a power
amplifier with output current feedback. A stationary
DC halogen lamp, whose brightness is adjustable and
programmed through LabView, is used to illuminate
the solar cell. Sensors measure the cell temperature and
solar radiation. Temperature control of the cell is
carried out to produce repeatable testing. The current-
voltage (I-V) and power-voltage (P-V) characteristics
are shown in Fig. 2. A standard Buck dc-dc converter
is incorporated into the solar simulator to implement
maximum power point tracking (MPPT) using the
Incremental Conductance method. A buck converter is
used in these experiments instead of the more
commonly used boost converter in photovoltaic
systems because the voltage output of the 50W solar
simulator exceeds the voltage requirements of the 12V
battery used for testing. The output of the dc-dc
converter is connected to an electronic load and a 12V
16Ah lead acid battery.
I-V
P-V
Fig. 2: Solar simulator output
I-V axis: y-axis 1 A/div, x-axis 2.5V/div
P-V axis: y-axis 20W/div, x-axis 2.5V/div
1470
III. BATTERY CHARGING ALGORITHMS
The three battery charging techniques used for
comparison are Intermittent Charging (IC) [15], Three
Stage Charging (TSC) [16] and Interrupted Charge
Control (ICC) [17] as illustrated in Fig. 3 (a)-(c).
A. Intermittent Charging
Intermittent charging, (IC), as shown in Fig. 3(a), is the
most commonly used method in commercial chargers.
The battery is charged with maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) between two predefined voltage
thresholds. When the battery reaches the upper voltage
threshold, VUT, the charging is stopped and the battery is
kept in open circuit. The battery voltage is monitored
until it drops to the lower voltage threshold, VLT, when
the charging begins again.
B. Three Stage Charging
Three Stage Charging (TSC) delivers power to the
battery in three steps as shown in Fig 3(b). The first step
is bulk charging. The battery is charged at maximum
current using maximum power point tracking until the
battery reaches its final charging voltage, known as the
absorption voltage. This step replaces 70-80 % of the
battery's capacity at the fastest possible rate. The battery
is kept in this mode until the charge voltage reaches the
upper voltage threshold, typically 14.2V. The second step
is absorption charging. The charging current is steadily
decreased while the battery voltage is maintained at the
absorption voltage. This step replenishes the remaining
20-30% of capacity. The final stage is float charging. A
small current is supplied to the battery to maintain the
battery voltage. The overcharging current induces water
loss at the negative electrode of the battery and grid
corrosion at the positive electrode, which have a
detrimental effect on the service life of the battery.
C. Interrupted Charge Contol
The third battery charging algorithm used for comparison
is the Interrupted Charge Control (ICC), as shown in Fig.
3(c), which is a variation of the Intermittent Charging
described in III (A). ICC avoids the potential
undercharging problem faced by the IC method. This
approach charges the battery in four modes. In Mode I,
the battery is charged with constant current with a charge
rate of 0.1C to an upper threshold and then left in open
circuit until the lower threshold limit is reached (Mode
II). The battery is then pulse charged with a charge rate
of 0.05C until the upper voltage limit is reached again
(Mode III). These are the charge rates chosen for
optimum operation. The battery is then left in open
circuit and is at full capacity (Mode IV). A full charge
return is ensured. Modes I - III are repeated when the
battery voltage falls to 97% state of charge. The ICC
regime has been shown to be particularly suitable for
standby applications [17].
 Fig. 3(a): Intermittent Charging

Fig. 3(b): Three Stage Charging

Fig 5: Example of the two pulse test for state of

charge detection

B. State of Charge Two Pulse Test

Fig. 3(c): Interrupted Charge Control In order to properly compare the battery charging
algorithms, identical starting conditions need to be
established. The state of charge (SOC) of the batteries
IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP are determined by a two pulse method described in
A. Battery Managment System [18]. The SOC of a battery is defined as the ratio of the
dischargeable Ampere-hour to the current Ampere-
hour capacity of the battery. The starting SOC of each
The experimental setup for the solar simulator
battery was set as 65%. A screenshot of the two pulse
management system is shown in Fig. 4. The user may
technique is shown in Fig. 5. The battery is first left in
control the choice of battery charging algorithm, solar
open circuit for a minute so that it may recover from
radiation and load control for every hour of a particular
any recent load activity. Two current pulses of 12.5A
day. Accurate and automated control of the radiation,
are supplied to the battery with a duty cycle of 33%.
temperature levels and load profile allows testing over a
The first pulse is responsible for stabilising the battery
wide range of operating conditions and permits
relative to its previous history or activity. The second
repeatable patterns of temperature and radiation to
pulse establishes the parameters necessary to determine
provide a platform to compare the various charging
the state of charge. The voltage of the battery at the
algorithms. The solar simulator outputs and the
beginning and end of the second pulse, Vmax and Vmin
battery’s voltage, current, temperature and state of
respectively are used to determine the state of charge
charge are recorded by LabView to ascertain the ability
of the battery.
of the charging algorithms to maintain the battery at a
higher state of charge.

Fig. 4: Experimental Setup

1471
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

A. Charging Profiles

The charging profiles of the Intermittent Charging,

Three Stage Charging method and Interrupted Charge
Control method are shown in Fig. 6, 7 and Fig. 8
respectively. These are the resultant charging profiles
from the solar radiation pattern shown in Fig. 9. The
operating parameters for each charging algorithm are
shown in Table 1.

TABLE I.

Fig. 6: Intermittent Charging profiles

Charging Algorithm Important Parameters

Intermittent Charging Upper Voltage Threshold: 14.2V

Lower Voltage Threshold: 12.84V

Three Stage Charging Upper Voltage Threshold: 14.2V

Lower Voltage Threshold: 13.2V

Interrupted Charge Control Upper Voltage Threshold: 14.7V

Lower Voltage Threshold: 13.0V

In Intermittent Charging (IC) in Fig. 6, the lower and

upper voltage thresholds are recommended by [19]. At
this threshold, the battery is charged to 95% state of
charge. The choice of the upper and lower threshold
limits need to be chosen carefully because if the
parameters are too close together then the charging will
begin too early and it will operate close to float
charging. If the parameters are chosen too far apart
then the battery will discharge to an unacceptable low
state of charge. Under a simulated solar day, the lower
voltage threshold is not reached as the VRLA battery
takes longer than twenty hours to drop to this
threshold. The rate of the voltage drop depends on the
age of the battery; an older battery with a lower state of
health will have a higher rate of self-discharge.
Fig. 7: Three stage charging profiles
Fig. 8 shows the charging profile of the ICC method.
The battery charging current is maintained at 0.1C
(1.6A for a 16Ah battery) until the upper voltage
threshold is met (Mode I). At this stage, the battery is
left in open circuit and the battery is at 98% SOC
(Mode II). Under the simulated solar day, the battery
voltage does not fall to 13.0V; therefore the battery
remains in Mode II.

Fig. 7 shows the charging profiles of the Three Stage

charging method. This charging method brought the
battery to 100% state of charge at the end of the day.

Fig. 8: ICC charging profile

1472

Fig. 9: Solar simulator measurements over the course of a
simulated day
B. Variable Load Profiles
The performance of the battery under a varying load
profile was also investigated. The load profile is shown
in Fig. 10, featuring high load demand in the morning
and afternoon. The effect of the varying load profile on
the battery’s SOC will be demonstrated in Section V.
Fig. 10: Variable load profile
V. COMPARISON OF THE BATTERY CHARGING REGIMES
In this section, the three battery charging algorithms
are compared under different criteria; the ability to
maintain the battery at a high state of charge, charging
efficiency and effect of charging algorithm on the
battery’s temperature.
A. State of Charge
The performance of the three battery charging
algorithms was first investigated under no load
conditions. Figure 11 shows the state of charge of the
battery under each battery charging algorithm.
1473
Evidently, the Three Stage Charging algorithm restores
the battery to 100% SOC in the quickest time, although
some overcharge is apparent. Intermittent Charging
restores the battery to 95% SOC but the battery
remains in this state as the battery will take over
twenty four hours to drop to the lower voltage
threshold under no load conditions. The ICC charges
the battery to 98%. Similarly, the battery remains at
this point as the battery is also left in open circuit. This
charging algorithm takes longer to reach the same level
of SOC because the battery charging current is limited
to 1.6A (0.1C) whereas the other two algorithms use
the maximum solar panel current available by
incorporating maximum power point tracking.
Fig. 11: SOC of the charging algorithms over the day
(under no load conditions)
Fig. 12 shows the state of charge of the battery under
the varying load profile shown in Fig. 10. Once more,
the Three Stage Charging method returns the battery to
full state of charge in the quickest time possible. The
Intermittent Charging algorithm also fully recharges
the battery, although some overcharging occurs. This is
because the choice of the voltage threshold does not
correspond to the 100% state of charge condition. The
voltage at which overcharging begins is dependent on
the charge rate which varies due to atmospheric
conditions [19]. When the battery voltage drops below
the lower voltage threshold, maximum power point
tracking is implemented. This delivers all the available
current to the battery that is not required by the load,
causing overcharging. The jagged edge in the
Intermittent Charging SOC curve is caused by the
frequent transition between Mode 2 and Mode 3,
where the battery is constantly connected and
disconnected. The overcharging caused by the Three
Stage Charging method is less significant because the
charging current has been decreased in Mode 2 and 3.
The SOC is lowest for the Interrupted Charge Control
method. Mode 1 limits the battery charging current to
1.6A therefore the charging algorithms is unable to
restore the charge to the battery that has been drawn by
the load and always remains in Mode I.

Fig. 12: SOC under varying load profile
B. Charging Efficiencies
Fig. 13 shows the charging efficiencies of the three
different charging algorithms under no load. The
charging efficiency is determined by the fraction of solar
energy available that is supplied to the battery. Energy is
supplied to the battery at a rate which is determined by
the battery’s state of charge. The starting state of charge
of the battery is identical for each charging algorithm and
each one is subjected to the same operating conditions so
that charging efficiencies can be compared. The
experimental results show that the Three Stage Charging
method has the highest efficiency over the course of the
day. The Intermittent Charging method shows high
efficiency as it recharges the battery to 95% SOC but
once this condition has been reached, the battery is
disconnected and the solar energy available is not fully
utilized. Similarly, the efficiency of the Interrupted
Charge Control Method is decreased when 98% SOC has
been reached. The overall efficiency of this algorithm is
the lowest as the full solar panel current is not utilized.
Fig. 13: Comparison of the charging efficiencies
(under no load conditions)
1474
C. Temperature effects
The battery temperature was also monitored to
investigate the effect of the different charging algorithms.
The operating temperature has a profound effect on the
battery. It affects the chemical reactions of the battery
which in turn determines the amount of useable charge
available. For every 10 degree rise in temperature, the
chemical reaction rates double, leading to possible
thermal runaway and more rapid self discharge [17].
Temperature compensation may be implemented to
correct the voltage thresholds and charge rates of the
charging regimes in order to avoid overcharging or
undercharging the battery [20].
The charge rate of the battery charging algorithms
determines the temperature response of the battery. The
temperature response of the battery under the three
different charging algorithms is shown in Fig. 14.
Evidently, the Three Stage Charging method results in
the highest temperature rise. The float voltage is present
across the battery terminals even after it is fully charged.
A high percentage of the float current goes into
overcharge which can cause grid corrosion and potential
gassing. The Intermittent Charging algorithm shows a
rise in battery temperature until the upper voltage
threshold is met. At this point the battery charger is
disconnected; therefore the temperature begins to drop.
The ICC charging algorithm results in the lowest average
battery temperature due to the fact that the majority of
the charge is returned to the battery at a charge rate of
0.1C in Mode 1, whereas the other two algorithms use
maximum power point tracking. The peak temperature
occurs when the SOC is equal to 98% and subsequently
begins to drop. This lower operating temperature is
beneficial in prolonging the lifespan of the battery.
Fig. 14: Battery temperature during the different
charging algorithms
The experimental data shown has demonstrated that
the Three Stage Charging method is the most suitable
battery charging algorithm for a photovoltaic system.
This method returns the most charge to the battery in
the quickest time without causing a significant rise in
the battery temperature. The peak temperature of the
Three Stage Charging method is only one degree
higher than the Intermittent Charging peak
temperature. The Interrupted Charge Control method is
less effective at returning the battery to a full state of
charge than the other two algorithms. However, the
operating temperature of the battery is lower which
aids in prolonging the life of the battery. Under
regularly cycled conditions, ICC method does not
reach Mode III, therefore the full benefits of this
regime are not exploited. Mode III reduces the degree
of overcharging experienced by the other charging
regimes and provides equalization of the cell voltages
in a string of batteries. The results suggest that this
charge regime would be better utilised in a standby
application.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The Three Stage Charging method has been
established at the most suitable battery charging
algorithm for a regularly cycled battery in a
photovoltaic system. A fully automated solar simulator
management system was used to accurately compare
the performance of battery charging algorithms during
varying atmospheric and load conditions.
REFERENCES
[1] “IEEE recommended practice for testing the performance of
stand-alone photovoltaic systems.” IEEE Standard 1526, 2003,
pp.11-18, 2004.
[2] “IEEE guide for selection, charging, test, and evaluation of lead
acid batteries used in stand-alone photovoltaic (pv) systems” IEEE
Standard 1361, 2003.
[3] “Stand alone photovoltaic system design principles.” ER120,
Renewable Energy, February 21, 2002.
[4] S. Duryea, S. Islam, W. Lawrance, “A battery management
system for stand-alone photovoltaic energy systems”, IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine, Vol. 7, Issue: 3, pp. 67-72, 1999.
[5] E. Lorenzo, L. Narvarte , K. Preiser, R. Zilles, “A field
experience with automotive batteries in shs’s.”, Proceeding of the
1475
2nd World Conference and Exhibition on Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conversion, Vienna, pp. 3266-3268, 1998.
[6] P. Diaz, M.A. Egido, “Experimental analysis of battery charge
regulation in photovoltaic systems.” Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 481-493, November
2003.
[7] H. Yang, H. Wang, G. Chen, G. Wu, “Influence of the charge
regulator strategy on state of charge and lifetime of VRLA battery in
household photovoltaic systems”, Solar Energy, Vol. 80, pp. 281-
287, March 2006.
[8] J. Garche, A. Jossen, H. Doring, “The influence of different
operating conditions, especially over-discharge, on the lifetime and
performance of lead acid batteries for photovoltaic systems.” Journal
of Power Sources, Vol. 67, pp. 201-212, August 1997.
[9] S.H. Lloyd, D.G. Infield, "Design and construction of a modular
electronic photovoltaic simulator", Power Electronics and Variable
Speed Drives Conference Proceedings, No. 475, pp: 120-123, 2000.
[10] K. Kachtsevanos, G. Vachtsevanos, "A hybrid photovoltaic
simulator for utility interactive studies", IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion Vol. 2, pp: 227-231, 1987.
[11] J. Yoo. J. Gho, G. Choe, “Analysis and control of pwm
converter with v-i output characteristics of solar cell”, IEEE
International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE)
Proceedings, Vol. 2, pp: 1049-1054, 2001.
[12] K. Khouzam, K. Hoffman, “Real-time simulation of
photovoltaic modules”, Solar Energy, Vol. 56, No. 6, p. 521-526,
1996.
[13] Appelbaum, J. “Starting and steady-state characteristics of DC
motors powered by solar cell generators”. IEEE Transactions
on Energy Conversion, EC-1, pp: 17-23, 1986.
[14] F. Huang, D. Tien, J. Or, “A microcontroller based automatic
sun tracker combined with a new solar energy conversion unit”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Power Electronics
Drives and Energy Systems for Industrial Growth, Vol. 1, pp: 488 –
492, 1998.
[15] P. Waltari, T. PSuntio, A. Tenno, R. Tenno, “The effects of
intermittent charging on VRLA battery life expectancy in telecom
applications”, 24th Annual International Telecommunications
Energy Conference, pp: 121-127, 2002.
[16] www.xantrex.com
[17] M. Bhatt, W.G. Hurley, W.H. Wolfe, “A new approach to
intermittent charging of valve regulated lead acid batteries in standby
applications”, IEEE Trans. on Indust. Electronics, Vol. 52, 5, 2005.
[18] M. Coleman, C.K. Lee, W.G. Hurley, “State of health
determination: two pulse load test for a VRLA battery”, 37th IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2006, pp: 1 – 6.
[19] E. Koutroulis, K. Kalaitzakis, “Novel battery charging
regulation system for photovoltaic applications”, IEEE Proc. Power
Appl, Vol . 151, No. 2, pp: 191-197, 2004.
[20] Y.S. Wong, W.G. Hurley, W.H. Wölfle, “Temperature
compensation algorithm for interrupted charge control regime
for a VRLA battery in standby applications”, 23rd IEEE Applied
Power Electronic Conference, 2008.