See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280739603

COMBINED STANDARD FOR PV MODULE DESIGN QUALIFICATION AND TYPE

APPROVAL: NEW IEC 61215 -SERIES

Conference Paper · September 2014

CITATIONS READS

5 7,354

7 authors, including:

Bengt Jaeckel Arnd Roth

Fraunhofer Center for Silicon Photovoltaics VDE Association for Electrical, Electronic & Information Technologies
84 PUBLICATIONS   599 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gerhard Kleiss Peter Seidel

Leibniz Universität Hannover First Solar GmbH
48 PUBLICATIONS   251 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Photovoltaic O&M and asset management View project

PV Standardization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bengt Jaeckel on 07 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMBINED STANDARD FOR PV MODULE DESIGN QUALIFICATION AND TYPE APPROVAL:
NEW IEC 61215 - SERIES

Bengt Jaeckel1, Arnd Roth2, Guido Volberg3a, Joerg Althaus3b, Gerhard Kleiss4, Peter Seidel5, and Markus Beck6
1
UL International GmbH, Admiral-Rosendahl-Strasse 9, 63263 Neu-Isenburg, Germany, bengt.jaeckel@gmail.com
2
VDE Prüf- und Zertifizierungsinstitut GmbH, Merianstraße 28, 63069 Offenbach, Germany, arnd.roth@vde.com
3a
TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Am Grauen Stein, 51105 Köln, Germany, volberg@de.tuv.com
3b
TÜV Rheinland Energie und Umwelt GmbH, Am Grauen Stein, 51105 Köln, Germany, Joerg.Althaus@de.tuv.com
4
SolarWorld AG, Martin-Luther-King-Straße 24, 53175 Bonn, Germany, Gerhard.Kleiss@solarworld.de
5
First Solar GmbH, Rheinstraße 4, 55116 Mainz, Germany, peter.seidel@firstsolar.com
6
Siva Power, 2387 Bering Drive, San Jose, CA 95131, United States, markus.beck@sivapower.com

ABSTRACT: The commercial success of photovoltaics (PV) is largely based on the long-term reliability of the PV
modules. Current PV modules tend to carry a performance warranty of 25 years. These modules are typically
qualified to IEC 61215 or IEC 61646 – design qualification and type approval for terrestrial crystalline Si (c-Si) or
thin-film (TF) technologies, respectively. These qualification tests have shown to adequately identify design,
material, and process flaws that could lead to premature field failures. Consequently, PV module customers have
come to appreciate the criticality of the tests set forth in IEC standards 61215 and 61646. The PV market has come to
trust these IEC standards, and as such they represent an essential component of the success of the rapid growth of the
PV market.
Since the last revisions of the standards the knowledge of PV failure modes increased dramatically. To retain market
trust in the IEC standards, maintenance of the pertinent standards needs to assure compliance with state-of-the-art
knowledge and best practices. To be prepared for the upcoming technology developments this new structure allows
fast changes to keep the standards up-to date.
Over the past two years Working Group 2 (WG2) of the technical committee for Solar Photovoltaic Energy Systems
(TC82) within the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) invested a considerable effort to update and
merge the terrestrial PV module design qualification and type approval standards into a single IEC 61215 series. Part
1 addresses the minimum requirements for testing with subparts 1-1 through 1-4 addressing PV technology specific
deviations – e.g. stabilization – while Part 2 deals with the required tests protocols and test sequences. In the current
committee draft of edition 3 the power output verification has been completely overhauled, new tests have been
added, and pass/fail criteria revised.
This paper explains the most crucial changes to edition 3 of IEC 61215 and provides the rationale for the applied
changes. There are multiple reasons for the changes, but one significant justification is that the new standard series
allows more flexibility and faster responses to changes in any given PV technology.

Keywords: IEC, IEC 61215, IEC 61646, design qualification, type approval, c-Si, Thin-film

1. HISTORIC BACKGROUND through Block V

Outdoor (OD) deployment predominantly in
IEC 61215 edition 1 was published in 1993 based on desert environments
prior investigations as to typical observed field failure Block VI fell victim to Regan administration
modes – most prominently the JPL Block Buys I-V budget cuts
(1975-1981). The main focus during this effort was on 1981-1991: ESTI – EU Specifications 501-503
crystalline PV modules with solar cells of typically Similar to JPL Block V plus UV and OD
500µm thickness. The standard was revised as edition 2 exposure tests; TC maximum reduced to +85°C
in 2005 to take new developments into account and better EU 503 draft for IEC 61215
serve the fast growing industry. 1990: SERI IQT modifications for TF (a-Si)
As thin-film modules exhibit different and/or additional Added wet insulation resistance test, bypass diode
failure modes a separate standard – IEC 61646 edition 1 test, cut susceptibility test and ground continuity
– was released in 1996 and updated in 2007 as edition 2. test (last two from UL 1703)
This work was primarily based on work done at SERI on 1993: IEC 61215 Ed. 1 (c-Si)
a-Si and the standard evolved out of SERI IQT, IEEE Incorporated best practices from around the world
1262 and IEC 61215. 1995-2000: IEEE 1262 – all PV technologies
Hybrid between IQT and IEC 61215
a. Timeline 1996: IEC 61646 Ed. 1 (TF – a-Si)
The following list summarized the most important steps Based on IEEE 1262 plus light soak and anneal
during the development of both standards [1][2]. 1975- cycles
1981: JPL ‘Block Buys’ I-V (c-Si) 2005: IEC 61215 Ed. 2 (c-Si)
Based on NASA tests for space arrays Added wet leakage test from IEC 61646
Thermal cycling extremes (-40 & +90°C) based on Added bypass diode test from IEEE 1262
assumed worst case for terrestrial deployment Added Imp during TC 200
Short exposure to humidity rooted in space array 2007: IEC 61646 Ed. 2 (TF – a-Si, CdTe, CIGS)
payload pre-launch time Attempt to adapt Ed. 1 to different types of TF
Mechanical load, hail and high pot testing added modules (CdTe, CIGS)
 Modified pass/fail criteria to rated module power
after HAST and post-stabilization
Modified hot spot test
Added bypass diode thermal test
2014: IEC 61215 Ed. 3 CDV
Both IEC standards employ very similar, well-defined
accelerated stress tests designed to reveal failure modes
mainly observed in the field on first generation PV
modules. In order to develop accelerated stress tests they
have to cause degradation to verify that they duplicate
failure modes observed under outdoor deployment
conditions. Those failure modes are under investigation
as a global effort and the review is outside the scope of
this paper.
It is, however, important to point out that PV module
technology changed significantly since the beginning of
the JPL-Block Buys. Thus, a comprehensive correlation
cannot always be established between past observed field
failures to newly observed failures in accelerated stress
tests. Future standards must exhibit the flexibility to
quickly act on technology advances to serve and support
the industry.
b. Historic failure rates of IEC PVmodule
standards
Failure rates during IEC testing are published in the
literature on a regularly basis [3][4][5]. Below is a brief
survey of the highest failure rates from [5] section 3,
figures 3.5 and 3.6:
1.~50% of test failures were climate tests
a. Thermal cycles stress solder connections, higher
failure rate for c-Si compared to thin-film
b. Damp heat test failures more often for thin-
film modules
2.~10% of faults occurred prior to load tests
3.~10% workmanship quality – initial measurements
that include visual inspection, insulation resistance
and performance
4.~10% hot-spot failures
5.~10% mechanical load issues
Generally speaking, most of today’s modules are being
constructed to fulfill the design qualification and type
approval standards IEC 61215 and IEC 61646.
2. MOTIVATION TO CHANGE
STANDARD STRUCTURE
The harmonization and, more precisely speaking, the
combination of 61215 and 61646 is motivated by the
following items:
- Eliminate the perception that TF technologies
are inferior to crystalline technologies.
- Establish identical requirements for all
technologies.
- Subject all technologies to the same tests.
- Simplification for customer: product research
and selection is based on one PV module
qualification standard.
Consequently the test protocols will be better aligned
between the different solar cell and module technologies
as well as have more synergies with IEC 61730. The
latter has always been a challenge in the past.
The new structure greatly enhances transparency
enabling customers and investors as well as other
stakeholders up and downstream the value chain to assess
the standards applied to certain components of the PV
system – in this case the PV module. Given the important
role IEC 61215 and IEC 61646 played in achieving broad
acceptance of PV modules and the resulting trust in these
standards from the customer base, educating the latter on
key changes is a critical mission of IEC WG2 and, in
particular, of this paper.
3. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
The new standard series required new definitions. In
addition to the ones below the Terms and Definitions of
upcoming IEC 61215 ed.3 and IEC 61730 ed.2 should be
considered for better understanding.
Module Quality Test (MQT): To better reference
certain tests that are defined in the IEC 61215 series each
test is assigned a designated MQT-number similar to
MST (Module Safety Test) from IEC 61730. E.g. MQT 2
is equivalent to 10.2 of IEC 61215 ed. 2 as well as MST
03 of IEC 61730 ed.2.
Tolerances on nameplate: “Uncertainty”, or better
tolerance statement related to values of electrical
parameters on the nameplate of the PV module as given
by the manufacturer. This will also be important for the
upcoming revision of EN 50380.
Uncertainty of Laboratory: Uncertainty of the
laboratory for a certain measurement, e.g. power
measurement. This value includes an assessment of all
inputs related to the measurement and their tractability as
required by ISO 17025.
Power Classes: Power – typically maximum power –
sorting criteria from the PV module manufacturer.
Classes are usually spread 2.5W (thin-film) or 5W (c-Si)
in width. A representative value of the class is printed on
the modules nameplate. E.g. a +5W/-0W sorting of 250W
(nameplate) modules leads to modules ranging from 250
to 254.9W in one power class.
4. MAJOR CHANGES
This chapter highlights the most important changes of the
new IEC 61215 series. The changes as well as the
rationale are presented to further motivate the transition
to the next level of PV module type approval.
a. New standard structure
Photovoltaic is a very fast evolving technology. New cell
and module concepts emerge frequently. Besides the first
(c-Si) and second (Thin-Film) generation of photovoltaic
technologies the next, third generation, is on the horizon.
Standards should not only address current products, but
should be able to be proactive as well as react in a quick
and flexible fashion to technology advances, like the
introduction of organic PV devices (OPV).
Figure 1 shows a comparison between the old structure
(left) and the new structure (right). In the past both
standards had general requirements and test protocols that
were very similar, but due to updates they were usually
not aligned (a prominent example are the different UV-
tests). The new structure will ensure that all PV modules
have to pass through the same battery of tests and their
severities.
Moreover, the old structure of the IEC module design and
type approval standards only differentiated between c-Si
and TF modules. No technology specific distinction was
made within the thin-film category – i.e. a-Si, CdTe,
CIGS were treated as identical. However, knowing that
each TF technology has its own and unique properties led
to unavoidable penalties.
To avoid unequal certification conditions the technology
relevant differences are addressed within the sub-
standards of Part 1 for all current state of the art
technologies. Finally, the new structure allows for easy
Figure 1: Old structure (left), new structure (right) for c-Si and thin-film PV modules, including options for new
technologies – e.g. OPV.
b. Unified Power Output Pass/Fail
Criteria
One major technical change is the pass/fail criterion for
PV module output power. In the past there was a relative
5% power loss by test and an 8% overall power loss
criterion for crystalline modules whereas thin-film
modules could exhibit a power loss of 10% with respect
to their nameplate rating. This obviously is not judging
PV modules by the same metric. Moreover, there had
been a long discussion within the community that the 8%
or 10% criteria might be too weak. While the project
team proposed an 8% power loss across the board, WG2
elected during its semi-annual meeting in the spring of
2013 to standardize to 5%.
Given that PV module prices are commonly based on the
power output (Wp) it is important that the nameplate
rating is correct. This concept already inherent in IEC
61646, but not in ed.2 of IEC 61215 was used to overhaul
the power pass/fail criteria for the new IEC 61215 series.
The new structure has two stages – so called Gates – for
power evaluation. The first gate (Gate #1) verifies the
nameplate or label of the module and ensures correct
sorting within the factory. Gate #2 determines
degradation during testing.
In the past, regardless of technology, the origin for the
lower measured power could be twofold: degradation or
incorrect nameplate rating. The origin of this ambiguity
was due to the absence of initial power determination for
TF modules to verify nameplate rating, while in the case
of c-Si modules only relative values were determined.
Differentiating the two mechanisms has been addressed
updates based on new data as well as the possibility to
swiftly add standards related to new technologies.
While Part 1 and its technology specific subparts
addresses the minimum requirements for testing
including relevant pass/fail criteria. Part 2 deals with the
required tests protocols and test sequences. This revised
structure greatly enhances transparency enabling
customers and investors as well as other stakeholders up
and downstream the value chain to assess the standards
applied to certain components of the PV system – in this
case the PV module.
via the introduction of the new Gate #1 criterion to verify
a correct initial rating of the PV module type. During
Gate #1 evaluation the manufacture tolerance (e.g. 3%,
light blue boxes around the binning classes in Figure 2) is
used as measurement uncertainty to define the pass/fail
criteria. Modules from different power classes must be
used for this investigation, subsequently determining the
power range of the manufacturer’s “IEC 61215 type
approval”. Figure 2 gives two possible examples of
laboratory measurement. As indicated in the figure only
the module type passes where all laboratory
measurements fall within the manufactures nameplate
rating including stated tolerances (indicated with the blue
boxes with “+” and “-”; those tolerances need not
necessarily be symmetric).
Gate #2 is comparable to the old scheme of IEC 61646
comparing nameplate rating and allowed maximum
power degradation; per WG2 decision equal to 5%.
The minimum allowed power output is determined by
first finding the minimum power allowed as per the
nameplate rating and manufacturers tolerance. This value
is set to 100%. Subsequent to all stress tests applied to
the modules, their related power output after final
stabilization is compared to the initial value. A maximum
power loss of 5% is permissible.
To better illustrate the method, the flowchart in Figure 3
includes two examples with different power output and
different manufacturer tolerances.
Figure 2: Gate #1: Output power verification with respect to nameplate rating. STC power output of PV modules is
determined (MQT 6.1) using the given stabilization procedure (MQT 19). Nameplate rating is then compared to laboratory
measurements (green and red arrows indicate measured Pmax).

Figure 3: Definition of Gate #2 and how to apply it. Right side gives two examples where the concept of manufacturer
tolerance and excepted power degradation during testing is demonstrated.

c. Uncertainty Discussion be reasonably set since a higher uncertainty means less

A further extremely important change in the new
standard relates to the application of measurement
uncertainties; in particular the measurement uncertainties
during power determination at the manufacturer (MQT 2)
and at the laboratory (MQT 2 and MQT 6.1)[6], [7],
[8],[9].
The tolerance or uncertainty within the manufacturing
line must be determined by the manufacturer and should
control and therefor a lower valued product. Typical
values for c-Si modules are in the range of ± 3-5% and
± 5-10% for TF modules. This tolerance is related to the
measurement uncertainty and is different from power
classes.
The measurement uncertainty of the certification
laboratory tends to be lower than the manufacturer’s
uncertainty due to much better controlled environments
and more sophisticated calibration chains required under
ISO 17025 accreditation. IEC Certification Bodies Test
Laboratories (CBTL) are accredited in accordance to ISO
17025 and as such need to know the uncertainty of their
measurements. To maintain their ISO 17025 accreditation
CBTLs participate in round robins. An example is
presented in Figure 4.
Maintaining a traceable calibration chain is critical, but it
is equally important to understand the impact of different
solar cell technologies on the outcome, in particular, the
effect of the spectrum of the solar simulator [10], [11],
[12], [13]. The latter can be compensated with a spectral
mismatch correction, but this requires knowledge of the
spectral response that is not always known [15], [16]. An
example of the effect of spectral mismatch is shown in
Figure 5.
Similar plots as in Figure 4 and Figure 5 can be created
for all measurement parameters and taking all effects of
the calibration chain into account laboratories state MQT
6.1 uncertainties in the range of ± 1.8 to 4%.
Figure 4: Boxplot of Isc values determined in the
different laboratories with respect to the average value
[17].
Figure 5: Overview of measurements of the same set of
modules on different solar sun simulators. Values are
normalized to the values of Simulator 1. Deviations of up
to 5% difference in Pmax measurement between
simulators of one test laboratory are visible clearly [17].
The previous details are essential to understand the
discussion within WG2 on how to handle laboratory
uncertainties. Per IEC Guide 115 – “Application of
uncertainty of measurement to conformity assessment
activities in the electro technical sector” – any laboratory
uncertainty can be in essence set equal to zero.
Following this guideline the Gate #1 & 2 values (see also
Figure 2 and Figure 3) are straight forward. However, as
a result of this arbitrary zeroing of CBTL uncertainty the
pass/fail criteria levied on the PV modules within the new
approach are significantly more severe than in the prior
editions of IEC 61215 and IEC 61646.
The following presents aspects of the ongoing discussion
within WG2 on the topic of uncertainties.
The inputs for both determined uncertainties
(manufacturer and laboratory) are mainly based on the
same physical properties and usually are traced back to
the same 1st order references.
Assuming the same measurement hardware in the factory
and the laboratory the same trend (lower or higher
measurement values) should occur. In this case the
approach from IEC guide 115 is reasonable as one cannot
take the same problem into account twice. For different
hardware at the two locations a detailed investigation is
necessary; unfortunately this is not a practical approach.
Another important concept to understand is in this
context relates to statistics. Most would agree that the use
of the ISO Guide 115 for a single module measurement is
questionable. But module manufacturing has long entered
the high volume stage – i.e. thousands of modules are
produced on one manufacturing line. From a statistical
viewpoint the mean of all power output measurements
should represent the promised value nameplate rating.
From this perspective of statistical sampling size it makes
sense to include only one uncertainty, either that of the
manufacturer or of the CBTL. As the manufacturer
uncertainties tend to be larger it would thus be practical
to use the respective value and follow IEC Guide 115.
The reverse would also be permissible, the key is to use
only one tolerance and not to sum up both as was the case
in prior editions of the type approval standards.
Transparency has to be given in the report as to which
uncertainty statement was used – the manufacturer’s or
that of the laboratory.
To consider the problems illustrated in Figure 4 and
Figure 5 the following is proposed to improve the IEC
61215 ed.3 draft as well as be aligned with the proposal
of EN 50380.
All modules are measured individually in their stabilized
state (MQT 19 + MQT 6.1) yielding their respective
PMeasurement values. For all modules under investigation the
arithmetic mean output power P is
determined. This value is subsequently compared to the
stated nameplate rating PMax taking into account the
manufacture’s tolerance m in %. The following applies:
%
∙ 1+ !≥
100 #
Each individual module must meet the following
criterion:
% %%
∙ 1+ !≥ # ∙ 1− !
100 100
where t in % is the laboratory’s stated uncertainty. Recall,
tolerance is not equal to uncertainty as per the definition.
 d. Test Sequence Modifications
Besides the standard structure modification presented at
the beginning of this section the following lists other
proposed changes for edition 3 of IEC 61215 and
required editorial modifications resulting from the new
structure.
Unique test identifiers MQTs
Unique sequence identifiers Sequences A, B…
New Test sequence A to prove Gate #1
compliance
NOCT replaced by NMOT (MQT 5) technical
change proposed for edition 3
Hotspot test (MQT 9) is technology dependent
each technology can display different sensitivity to
hot-spot heating; handled individually in Parts 1-x.
After MQT 9 no STC (MQT 6.1) pass/fail criterion
exists.
UV test (MQT 10) Modules now operate at Pmpp
conditions during test
New J-Box Tests Technical change proposed for
edition 3; MQT 14.1 and 14.2 were created
Stabilization (MQT 19): Preconditioning (c-Si) and
Lightsoaking (TF) redefined as Stabilization.
Modules are operated at Pmpp conditions to make it
consistent with MQT 10.
5. SUMMARY
On the one hand the new structure is very different from
that of editions 1 and 2. The implementation of sequence
and test identifiers (MQT) greatly simplifies to refer to
individual tests defined in IEC 61215 from other PV
module standards.
On the other hand, the technical changes implemented in
this revision are not dramatic, as summarized in the
section 4d, and are mainly based on new knowledge
gained since the last revision.
The major difference of edition 3 relates to the power
pass fail criteria. The proposal is based on both the c-Si
and thin-film standards and combines the best of both
concepts.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Ross, R. G., et al, “Engineering Sciences and
Reliability”, JPL - Flat-Plate Solar Array Project
(1986)
[2] Osterwald, C. R., et al, “History of Accelerated and
Qualification Testing of Terrestrial Photographic
Modules: A Literature Review”, Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 17 (2009),
11-33
[3] TamizhMani, G., et al, “Failure Analysis of Module
Design Qualification Testing – III: 1997-2005 vs.
2005-2007 vs. 2007-2009”, 35th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference – Hawaii (2010)
[4] TamizhMani, G., et al, “Regional Influence on
Module Design Quality: Qaulification Testing failure
Rate Results from Six Regional Labos of TüV
Rheinland around the world”, 40th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference – Denver (2014)
[5] Koentges, M., et al, „Review of Failures of
Photovoltaic Modules”, PVPS - Photovoltaic power
Systems Program, Report IEA-PVPS T13-01:2014
[6] Dubard, J. et al, “Photovoltaic Module Performance
Measurements Traceability: Uncertainties Survey”,
View publication stats
Measurement, 51 (2014), 451-456
[7] Dirnberger, D., et al, “Uncertainty in PV Module
Measurement - Part I: Calibration of Crystalline and
Thin Film Modules, 39th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference Tampa, Florida (2013)
[8] Dirnberger, D., et al, “Uncertainty in PV Module
Measurement - Part II: Verification of Rated Power
and Stability Problems”, 40th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference Denver, Colorado (2014)
[9] Mihaylov, B., et al., “Uncertainty Considerations of
Indoor PV Module calibration Based on Monte Carlo
Simulations”, 28th European Photovoltaic Solar
Energy Conference – Paris (2013)
[10] Bliss, M., et al, “Measurement of Flash Solar
Simulator Output Spectra over Bulb Lifetime and the
Effect on Spectral Missmatch”, 28th European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference – Paris (2013)
[11] Bogomolova, S.A., et al., “Evaluation of the
Uncertainty in Measuring IV Characteristics of The
Thin-Film PV modules”, 28th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference – Paris (2013)
[12] Chandel, R., et al, “Uncertainty Analysis of
Photovoltaic Power Measurements using Solar
Simulators”, Energy Technology, 1 (2013),763-769
[13] Herrmann, W., et al, “Uncertainty of Solar Simulator
Spectral Irradiance Data and Problems with Spectral
Match Classification”, 27th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference – Frankfurt (2012)
[14] Muellejans, H., et al, “Analysis and mitigation of
measurement uncertainties in the traceability chain
for the calibration of photovoltaic devices,
Measurement Science and Technology, 20, (2009),
075101
[15] Qiu, Y.N., et al., “Uncertainty in the Calibration of
Thin film based Silicon Multi-junction Devices using
single source Solar Simulators”, 23rd European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference (2008)
[16] Virtuani, A., et al., “Comparison of Indoor and
Outdoor Performance Measurements on Amorphous
Silicon and Micro-morph (a-Si/µc-Si) Large-area
Thin Film Solar Modules”, 24th European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference (2009)
[17] Lokanath, S., First Solar, private communication
2014