Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

600V vs 1000V rated panels, UL1703 vs IEC 61215

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 600V vs 1000V rated panels, UL1703 vs IEC 61215

    So, we got a great deal on a punch of new Hanwha panels. The nameplate rating is 600V. We were hoping to use them on a commercial system with a 1000V inverter. At first, it was obvious, this wouldn't work. You can't exceed the panels maximum system ratings, but as we dug deeper, I have started to question this and was curious on opinions.

    We asked Hanwha what physical differences were between the newer model panel given 1000V rating when 1000v ratings started to become commonplace. They mentioned they switched backsheet materials for further dielectric improvments after getting their new UL1703 rating for 1000V, but otherwise, nothing changed. All other hardware is completely identical.

    After looking through the UL1703 and IEC 61215 tests for dielectric insulation, we found some puzzling things.

    The UL tests require the insulation be tested at twice the system voltage + 1000V and no more than 50 microamps current flow. The IEC 61215 tests require 4 times the system voltage + 2000V with no more than 50 microamps current flow. These ratings are supposed to be baseline for safety. Why exactly is the IEC rating requiring more than double the hipot withstand voltage from UL? Is there even any science behind this? How can one panel be safe being tested at 2200V UL and then 4800V for IEC. Are these tests just arbitary? All other conditions are the virtually identical (damp heat, immersion test, test time, number of tests, etc).

    Basically, this means a 600V rated panel tested under IEC standards would pass UL standards at well over 1000V. Conversely, a panel could fail in IEC standards, but be considered safe in UL standards. Everything I read on dielectric testing for panels is basically just guessing based on transient voltages from AC systems and then they revise these tests on what they actually see in the field. Why should these tests even be given any validation if the testing parameters are so drastically different?

    Lastly, NIST ended up doing tests on breakdown voltages for dielectric backsheets. A TPT backsheet 0.29mm thick is consistently capable of withstanding well over 50 kV before breaking down.

    https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/f...Ake-Sultan.pdf

    My inspector said he is cool with us using the 600v panels at 1000V given this information. What do you guys think. Are these voltage ratings just political in nature?






  • #2
    just beware of rough handling, flopping MC connectors nicking the backsheet. If the inspector is happy, be glad
    Powerfab top of pole PV mount (2) | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
    || Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
    || VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A

    solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
    gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by jrhelicopters View Post
      The UL tests require the insulation be tested at twice the system voltage + 1000V and no more than 50 microamps current flow. The IEC 61215 tests require 4 times the system voltage + 2000V with no more than 50 microamps current flow. These ratings are supposed to be baseline for safety. Why exactly is the IEC rating requiring more than double the hipot withstand voltage from UL? Is there even any science behind this?
      Perhaps the NEC assumes that 1000V panels will be used with bipolar systems, and IEC does not make that assumption? Only thing I can think of.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for your input. I am flummoxed as well. As Mike said, I guess just go with it and be thankful the inspector is reasonable.

        Comment

        Working...
        X