Battery & Fuel Cell Technology


Knowledge is power, literally


Battery certification is complicated by a raft of slightly varying rules applied in different parts of the world. Summer Lim looks at how to take the pain, cost and time out of the battery certification process


I


n many types of application, end product, function and component, the electronics industry has streamlined and accelerated the end product development process by creating universal and global standards. Global standards can be found in technologies ranging from the computers used in telecoms equipment to the safety requirements for semiconductors used in vehicles. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for custom battery packs. Custom rechargeable battery packs in electronic devices, most of which today use either a nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) or lithium chemistry, must be tested and certified before they can be marketed in many countries or regions. And different countries and regions apply different test criteria and have different labelling requirements. As a result, the process of gaining the appropriate certificates for an embedded battery can be complex, expensive and time consuming. Why is the process still so complicated and how can the latest approaches relieve electronics OEMs of some of the cost, and much of the pain?


Regulatory burden


Rechargeable battery packs containing one or more NiMH or lithium cells are highly concentrated sources of electrical energy, and therefore responsible cell manufacturers and battery pack assemblers take very great care to ensure that they are completely safe in ordinary use.


Manufacturers are also bound to


ensure that batteries do not present a hazard when subject to the misuse that takes place when products go to market and start to be used by real people, not just by product development engineers. The duty on manufacturers using batteries to provide for safe use is codified in standards and regulations: the International Electrotechnical Commission is the international standard-setting body for technology devices including batteries, and its IEC62133 standard governs the safety requirements for sealed secondary


30 April 2013


(rechargeable) cells, and batteries made from them. This standard defines a set of tests that battery packs must pass. The tests cover both ordinary operation (the ‘intended use’ of the device), and ‘reasonably foreseeable misuse’. This means, for instance, that rechargeable battery packs must be able to undergo charging or


single safety-certification framework within which any manufacturer anywhere in the world could comply, to support marketing of compliant products anywhere in the world. If only it were so simple. In fact,


governments of sovereign nations or – in the case of Europe – regions each choose to implement their own regulations


Ministerial Ordinance for Determining Technical Standards for Electrical Appliances (Lithium-Ion Secondary Batteries) Table 9 sets specific conditions and criteria governing the testing of battery packs.


This means that additional testing is


required for PSE certification, on top of an IEC62133 certification.


discharging operations at extreme high or low temperatures, beyond their rated values, without endangering the user. They must also be able to safely handle overcharging, mechanical shock, an excessively high charging rate, and various other misuse conditions. The existence of this IEC62133


international standard ought to provide a Components in Electronics


governing the safety requirements and marking of embedded rechargeable batteries. While most are based on the provisions of IEC62133, each is subtly different. Japan’s PSE certificate, for instance, lays down requirements for safety in intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuse, just as in IEC62133. But the Japanese Revision of the


Korea’s KC certificate again requires the battery pack to comply with similar intended use and foreseeable misuse provisions. But the test criteria for the KC certificate in Korea are based on Annex 5 of Korea’s Self-Regulatory Safety Confirmation (Part 2).


This small but significant diversity of testing arrangements, safety criteria or


www.cieonline.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44