PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND RELIABILITY OF
VRLA BATTERIES— PART II: THE SECOND GENERATION
Mr. William P. Cantor, Test Products, Inc., Shrewsbury, PA, USA
Mr. Eddie L. Davis, Edan Engineering Corp., Vancouver, WA, USA
Dr. David O. Feder, Electrochemical Energy Storage Systems, Inc., Madison, NJ, USA
Mr. Mark J. Hlavac, AMERITECH, Advanced Data Services, Chicago, IL, USA
Abstract— This paper presents the results of capacity
discharge tests on approximately 15,000 VRLA cells, of
primarily AGM design, representing five different US
manufacturers’ “20 YEAR DESIGN LIFE” products.
Some data are also presented on gel design cells. Just as
was found in the earlier paper, presented at the 1995
INTELEC meeting, the cells showed significant premature
capacity loss beyond 2 years’ service in benign,
temperature controlled environments. The cells tested
generally represented designs that were too new to have
been included in the earlier study. While it had been
hoped that these newer design cells would have been
modified to correct the early failures shown in those tested
in 1995, this was apparently not to be. In accord with that
study, as well as an extensive Swedish study of 35,000
VRLA batteries, presented at the 1995 INTELEC, the most
significant conclusion from all these studies is that current
VRLA cells, regardless of manufacturer or design,
demonstrate acceptable reliability for only 2 years.
I. BACKGROUND
At the 1995 INTELEC, one of the authors presented
detailed information regarding the field performance of
approximately 24,000 VRLA cells, as measured by actual
discharge capacity testing. The cells in that study ranged
from one to nine years in age and represented the products
of nine different battery manufacturers, from the USA, UK
and the Pacific Rim countries[1].
In that study, >15,000 cells failed to meet their 80%
capacity requirement, out of a total test population of
>23,000, for a 68% overall failure percentage. Failure
rates among the nine manufacturers, ranged from 27% to
86% for cells 3–7 years in age.
Of greatest concern was the startling increase in failure
rates with age, at only 25–50% of the cells’ nominal design
life. Cells 1–2 years old had low failure rates, but by the
third year the failure rate had increased to 35% and then
grew rapidly to 79% at 6 years. Of equal concern, these
results represented performance, under the most benign,
temperature controlled environmental conditions, and thus
presented an overly optimistic view of the performance of
the entire VRLA population. The large proportion of the
VRLA population, used in outdoor, extreme environments
was not represented in these failure rate data. In those
environments, lifetimes are significantly shorter, with
failures often of a more dramatic nature, such as thermal
runaway or actual explosion.
At the time of the 1995 study, several new VRLA products
had just been introduced, either from manufacturers whose
products had not been in the original test population, or as
a result of new designs from existing manufacturers.
While those products were too “young” at that time to
expect to show capacity problems, the hope and
expectation was that the manufacturers had long since been
aware of the aging effects shown by the earlier designs and
had taken the necessary remedial steps to insure that the
newly introduced designs would, in fact, show significant
improvement.
In this paper, the authors examine capacity test results
from approximately 15,000 VRLA cells which were not
included in the earlier study. This study includes a
significant percentage of cells whose designs were too new
to be included in the earlier tests. In addition, cells of
some of the earlier designs, with either design or
manufacturing improvements are included in the test
results.
At the time of the 1995 presentation, it was stated that the
most useful outcome of that presentation would be to
stimulate fundamental rethinking of the processes, design
concepts, manufacturing techniques and behavior in actual
usage of the VRLA technology. At that meeting, both in
some of the technical presentations and also in the Battery
Workshop, these concepts began to emerge. In papers
presented subsequent to the 1995 meeting, these concepts
have matured, gained wider acceptance and will likely be
presented in even greater detail and clarity at this 1998
INTELEC Conference[2][3][4][5][6].
It is hoped that the test data presented in this paper will
assist in highlighting the urgency of the problems,
stimulate discussions and, in concert with the radically
new concepts which describe the oxygen recombination
processes, ultimately lead to an improved life expectancy.
In the earlier paper, one of the authors noted that in a prior
publication [7] he had pointed out that the very attributes
which led to the claimed advantages of the VRLA design,
i.e. reduced maintenance due to elimination of: water
addition; measurement of specific gravity; measurement of
individual cell voltages; etc.; actually resulted in a
designed-in Penalty Of Ignorance, that is, the inability to
determine the condition of the battery on float and
knowledge of its ability to provide the reserve needed, if
called upon to perform.
User recognition of this problem led initially to the need to
find an alternate technique, other than direct measurement
of string and cell capacity, generally recognized as
technically challenging, often requiring specialized
equipment and presenting an economic penalty that might
easily offset the overall perceived advantages of the VRLA
technology. Ohmic measurement techniques, initially
conductance or impedance measurement of individual
cells, were proposed as a possible solution. In order to
determine the relationship between these techniques and
the actual capacity or capacity degradation of VRLA cells,
it was obviously necessary to perform a significant number
of ohmic measurements in conjunction with actual
discharge capacity tests on a statistically valid sample of
VRLA cells, at various stages of their life[8][9][10][11].
In the 1995 study, ohmic measurement techniques
(conductance or impedance) correctly identified the 15,000
failed cells, with an accuracy of 98%.
The results, as described in the 1995 paper, confirmed the
validity of the ohmic techniques and their ability to detect
cells with low capacity. However, perhaps, far more
importantly, it exposed a major problem cutting across the
entire VRLA spectrum. The actual capacity data
demonstrated a shocking, totally unexpected, cell capacity
premature failure rate at only a small fraction of the
expected design lives of the cells in question. Whether
designed for 10 or 20 years, none of the cells tested
appeared to be capable of reliable capacity lifetimes even at
5 years. Further, since these data represented tests on
approximately 25,000 cells, the products of 9 different
manufacturers and spanning two orders of magnitude in
capacity, it clearly indicated a major problem cutting
across the entire technology in use at that time.
II. CAPACITY TESTING PROGRAMS
In this study, discharge capacity tests were performed,
primarily at the 2–5 hour rate to 1.75 vpc end of discharge
voltage on a wide variety of cell types, representing the
products of five major US manufacturers, all representing
designs claimed to have a 20 year design life. The
majority of the cells tested were in utility or
telecommunications stationary reserve, central office,
transmission and cellular applications. Some were in UPS
applications in which the discharge rates were generally
higher, i.e., 15 minute or one hour rates, to either 1.75 or
1.67 end of discharge voltages. In all cases, these tests
represented cells being operated in benign temperature
environments, subjected to minimal discharge frequency.
The majority of the cells ranged in age from a few months
to 5–6 years service, with some tested after 8–9 years
service. The actual discharge tests were performed by
three different testing organizations. Their actual test
procedures are described below.
Discharge testing procedures in this study were performed
by highly qualified personnel employed by reputable
testing organizations utilizing state of the art test
equipment. All test equipment and data acquisition
equipment was calibrated in accordance with NIST
standards. The load test equipment was configured for
constant current discharge with strict control and
regulation of the discharge rate.
Prior to discharge, the following parameters were
measured on each cell: float voltage, internal ohmic values,
intercell connection resistance, and temperature. Ambient
temperature, plant load current, cell model, and
manufactured dates were also recorded.
In preparation for discharge, each battery string was
removed from service and connected to the load bank. For
the majority of the testing, each cell was connected to a
monitor to record individual cell voltages during the test.
Overall voltage, individual cell voltages, and current were
recorded during the test to characterize the coup-de-fouet
and to determine each individual cell’s capacity.
After the discharge was completed, the battery was
returned to service. Techniques were developed to match
the voltage between the battery and the system to allow a
safe reconnection. For the majority of systems, minimal
temperature corrections were required because the sites
were environmentally controlled. Calculations of
discharge capacity were made in accordance with IEEE
Standard 1188[12] and utilization of the manufacturer’s
published data.
The battery data submitted by Test Products, Inc. was
obtained through dc system evaluations of
telecommunication, utility, and UPS systems.
Edan Engineering acquired its cell failure data as part of a
test program to compare cell capacity to internal ohmic
measurements. The results of this test program were
presented at BATTCON98[13]. The batteries included in
this test program were used in substation, generating
station, and communications centers in the electric power
industry.
III. TEST RESULTS
Overall, capacity tests were performed on more than
14,000 cells, of the AGM design representing products of
five manufacturers and cell sizes from 50 AH to 4,800 AH
(a small sample of some 660 cells of the gel design were
also tested and will be discussed later). The combined
overall results are shown in Table 1 and depicted
graphically in Figure 1. Failure to provide 80% of rated
capacity, the industry norm, are shown, as well as failure to
provide either 60% or 50% of rated capacity. Table 1 and
Figure 1 show essentially zero failures for the first two
years, then rapidly increase to 50% in the 4th year. There
is a drop in the 5th and 6th years, but the failure rates are
still significant and unacceptably large. After year 6, the
failure rates increase drastically, ranging from 88% to
100% by the 9th year. As shown by the test results, these
cells cannot be considered suitable 20 year designs.
These results are similar to the overall data shown in Table
3 and Figure 6 of the 1995 paper (shown here as Table 2
and Figure 2), and compared directly in Table 3 and Figure
3. In each case, the failure rates show acceptably low
values in the first 2 years, but then increase rapidly to
totally unacceptable values in subsequent years. Whether
the failure rates are 27% in the 3rd year, as in this study, or
35% as in the 3rd year of the 1995 study, these are clearly
unacceptable failure rates, and both studies are based on
significant 3rd year sample sizes (approximately 2,000 cells
in this study and 675 cells in the 1995 paper). In the 3–7
year population, Table 3 shows 61% failures in an overall
population of 8,017 cells for the 1995 data. For this paper,
Tables 1 and 3 show 40% failures for the 3–7 year
population of 5,027 cells, with 19% failures at 60%
capacity and 15% failures at 50% capacity.

<80% Capacity <60% Capacity <50% Capacity

Age Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(years) of Cells Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
0–1.9 5,990 47 0.1% 2 0.03% 0 0%
2–2.9 3,347 254 8% 67 2% 18 0.5%
3–3.9 1,919 517 27% 101 5% 79 4%
4–4.9 1,234 605 49% 222 18% 149 12%
5–5.9 912 262 29% 112 12% 71 8%
6–6.9 331 65 20% 32 10% 15 5%
7–7.9 368 323 88% 258 70% 233 63%
8–8.9 167 166 99% 129 77% 105 63%
9–9.9 96 96 100% 96 100% 96 100%
Total 14,364 2,335 16% 1,019 7% 766 5%

Table 1: Cell Failures by Age— All Manufacturers

100%

80%
Failure Rate

60%

40%

20%

0%
0–1.9 2–2.9 3–3.9 4–4.9 5–5.9 6–6.9 7–7.9 8–8.9 9–9.9
Age (years)

80% Failures 60% Failures 50% Failures

Figure 1: Cell Failures by Age— All Manufacturers

 Age Number <80% <70% <60% <50%
(years) of Cells Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
1–2 851 7% 5% 3% 2%
3 675 35% 25% 17% 11%
4 600 42% 17% 11% 6%
5 5,400 55% 38% 24% 22%
6 1,164 79% 67% 56% 41%
7 120 39% 36% 33% 30%
9 60 55% 15% 10% 0%
Total 8,870

Table 2: Table 3 From 1995 INTELEC Paper[1]

80%

70%

60%
Failure Rate

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1-2 3 4 5 6 7 9
Age (years)

<80% <70% <60% <50%

Figure 2: From Table3/Figure2 of 1995 INTELEC Paper[1]

 1995 Data 1998 Data
Number Percent Number Percent
Age (years) Number <80% <80% Number <80% <80%
of Cells Capacity Capacity of Cells Capacity Capacity
0–2 851 60 7% 9,337 301 3%
3 675 236 35% 1,919 517 27%
4 600 252 42% 1,234 605 49%
5 5,400 2,970 55% 912 262 29%
6 1,164 920 79% 331 65 20%
7 120 468 39% 368 323 88%
8 0 0 0% 167 166 99%
9 60 33 55% 96 96 100%
Total 8,870 4,939 56% 14,364 2,335 16%

Table 3: Cell Failure Data— 1995 Versus 1998 Results

100%

80%
Failure Rate

60%

40%

20%

0%
0-2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Age (years)

1995 1998

Figure 3: Cell Failure Data— 1995 Versus 1998 Results

Tables 4–8 show the detailed failure rates, for products by
each of the manufacturers. The same data are shown
graphically in Figures 4–7. Of the five manufacturers
shown, only two had test data included in the 1995 paper.
In that paper, manufacturer A had 15,627 cells within the
3–7 year age band, with an overall failure rate of 69%. In
this year’s paper, the same manufacturer’s data are shown
in Table 4 and Figure 4. This shows an overall failure rate
of only 23%, but the 5,500 cell population is heavily
weighted by minimal failures in the 2,892 cell 1st and 2nd
year populations. Removing those years, and comparing
on the same 3–7 year basis as in the earlier paper, results
in 987 failures in a 2,358 cell population, for a failure rate,
from 3–7 years of 41%. Adding in the 8th and 9th year data
results in an overall population of 2,621 cells, with 1,249
failures, for an overall 3–9 year failure rate of 48%. While
this may seem to be a slight improvement, we might
speculate that the older population may have been
“ethnically cleansed” of many of the failed cells. In
addition, field repair attempts by water addition have likely
contributed to this improvement as well[14]. In any case,
the failure rates are clearly unacceptable by year 3.
Table 5 and Figure 5 show the new data for manufacturer
D. In the 1995 paper, the 3–7 year data for manufacturer
D showed a failure rate of 75% out of an overall population
of 288 cells. Table 5 shows an overall failure rate of only
6% in a 2,640 cell population. Again removing the 2,052
1st to 3rd year cells, results in a population of 588 cells from
3–6 years old, with 129 failed cells, for a failure rate of
22%. Although this failure rate is significantly lower than
in the previous study, it is still unacceptably high for a
product claimed to have a 20 year design life.
 <80% Capacity <60% Capacity <50% Capacity
Age Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(years) of Cells Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
0–1.9 2,264 40 2% 2 0.1% 0 0%
2–2.9 228 3 1% 0 0% 0 0%
3–3.9 840 323 38% 14 2% 1 0.1%
4–4.9 588 151 26% 14 2% 4 1%
5–5.9 324 129 40% 44 14% 15 5%
6–6.9 238 61 26% 32 13% 15 6%
7–7.9 368 323 88% 258 70% 233 63%
8–8.9 167 166 99% 129 77% 105 63%
9–9.9 96 96 100% 96 100% 96 100%
Total 5,513 1,292 23% 589 11% 469 9%

Table 4: Manufacturer A Failure Rates

100%

80%
Failure Rate

60%

40%

20%

0%
0–1.9 2–2.9 3–3.9 4–4.9 5–5.9 6–6.9 7–7.9 8–8.9 9–9.9
Age (years)
80% Failures 60% Failures 50% Failures

Figure 4: Manufacturer A Failure Rates

 <80% Capacity <60% Capacity <50% Capacity
Age Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(years) of Cells Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
0–1.9 1,992 7 0.4% 0 0% 0 0%
2–2.9 60 18 30% 12 20% 12 20%
3–3.9 24 13 54% 8 33% 6 25%
4–4.9 24 18 75% 15 63% 13 54%
5–5.9 540 98 18% 42 8% 35 6%
Total 2,640 154 6% 77 3% 66 3%

Table 5: Manufacturer D Failure Rates

80%

60%
Failure Rate

40%

20%

0%
0–1.9 2–2.9 3–3.9 4–4.9 5–5.9
Age (years)

80% Failures 60% Failures 50% Failures

Figure 5: Manufacturer D Failure Rates

Table 6 and Figure 6 show results for one of the
manufacturers (here named manufacturer “K”) whose
product was too new to be included in the earlier paper and
which had presumably included material and design
corrections to the problems shown by the earlier designs.
Here, in a population of almost 2,700 cells, the overall
failure rate was 27%, more or less in qualitative agreement
with both the overall group and manufacturer A’s product.
However, closer examination on a yearly basis indicates a
far more serious problem. While year 1 is trouble free, in
the 2nd year failures reach 10%, then rapidly climb to
54%, 72% and then 73% in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th year. The
sudden drop to zero in year 6 is likely a statistical anomaly,
considering the small sample size.
Table 7 shows another product too new to be included in
the earlier paper, and here named “L”. In the 477 cell
population, no cell is older than 2 years, so that the zero
failures seem reasonable. For these, we can only say
“WAIT ‘TIL NEXT YEAR”!
Table 8 and Figure 7 show data from another manufacturer
(M) who has been in manufacture for some time, but for
whom no discharge test data were available for the earlier
paper. While the overall population of some 3,000 cells
seems significant, 2,996 or 98% are in UPS service and
2,276 are less than 3 years old. Only 48 cells are 4 years
or older. Of these, 7 tested as failures to the 80% criterion,
for a 15% failure rate, but the population size is not
statistically significant.
 <80% Capacity <60% Capacity <50% Capacity
Age Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(years) of Cells Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
0–1.9 810 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2–2.9 830 86 10% 35 4% 5 0.6%
3–3.9 335 181 54% 79 24% 72 21%
4–4.9 598 433 72% 192 32% 131 22%
5–5.9 48 35 73% 26 54% 21 44%
6–6.9 69 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 2,690 735 27% 332 12% 229 9%

Table 6: Manufacturer K Failure Rates

80%

60%
Failure Rate

40%

20%

0%
0–1.9 2–2.9 3–3.9 4–4.9 5–5.9 6–6.9
Age (years)

80% Failures 60% Failures 50% Failures

Figure 6: Manufacturer K Failure Rates

<80% Capacity <60% Capacity <50% Capacity

Age Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(years) of Cells Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
0–1.9 408 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2–2.9 69 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 477 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Table 7: Manufacturer L Failure Rates

 <80% Capacity <60% Capacity <50% Capacity
Age Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(years) of Cells Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
0–1.9 116 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2–2.9 2,160 147 7% 20 1% 1 0.05%
3–3.9 720 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
4–4.9 24 3 13% 1 4% 1 4%
5–5.9 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
6–6.9 24 4 17% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 3,044 206 6% 21 2% 2 0.1%

Table 8: Manufacturer M Failure Rates

20%

16%
Failure Rate

12%

8%

4%

0%
0–1.9 2–2.9 3–3.9 4–4.9 5–5.9 6–6.9
Age (years)

80% Failures 60% Failures 50% Failures

Figure 7: Manufacturer M Failure Rates

While all of the above data refer to AGM type VRLA cells,
a limited amount of data has been collected on gel type
VRLA designs. The data, shown in Table 9 and Figure 8,
represent the products of three US manufacturers and
include several different sizes of each. As a result, no
attempt was made to segregate the data by manufacturer or
size, since the individual populations would have been too
small to have any statistical significance. However, the
failure rates are similar to those found in an earlier
publication by two of the authors[10], in which 2-year old
gel cells were found to have failed in 11 of 38 6-volt
monoblocs, for a 29% failure rate.
 <80% Capacity <60% Capacity <50% Capacity
Age Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
(years) of Cells Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
0–1.9 16 0 0 0 0% 0 0%
2–2.9 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0%
3–3.9 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0%
4–4.9 96 4 4% 0 0% 0 0%
5–5.9 212 25 12% 8 4% 0 0%
6–6.9 72 24 33% 24 33% 2 3%
7–7.9 120 24 20% 24 20% 24 20%
8–8.9 24 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
9–9.9 48 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
10–10.9 72 24 33% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 660 101 15% 56 8% 26 4%

Table 9: Gel Cell Failure Rates

40%
Failure Rate

30%

20%

10%

0%
0–3.9

4–4.9

5–5.9

6–6.9

7–7.9

8–8.9

9–9.9

10–10.9
Age (years)

80% Failures 60% Failures 50% Failures

Figure 8: Gel Cell Failure Rates

While there can be some questions raised as to the
statistical significance of some of the aging failures, for
some individual manufacturers, and especially for the gel
technology, there can be no doubt as to the overall
message. Despite all claims to the contrary, there is no
evidence, either from the 1995 paper or from these data,
that any of these designs will achieve their 20 year design
life, even in benign temperature environments. The data
strongly indicate that the AGM VRLA 20 year design
life product can only be considered as a reliable 2 year
design. Since significant failures begin to occur in the
third year, any claim to reliability beyond the two year age
has to be contrasted against our long-term experience with
flooded cell reliability. That reliability has resulted from
our understanding of its failures modes and their
dependence upon the interrelationships among the
metallurgical, electrochemical, and mechanical
interactions that govern flooded cell float behavior and life,
coupled with the development of the necessary
manufacturing processes and controls to ensure that
reliability.
Unfortunately, the above statements represent the “GOOD
NEWS”. The “BAD NEWS” is that the largest use of
VRLA products is in outdoor, uncontrolled temperature
cabinets. Here we have no quantitative test data, primarily
since the user has come to expect such a short life in these
outdoor environments, that he generally replaces the
batteries automatically after no more than 2–3 years.
Under these circumstances, the user cannot justify the
economics of performing capacity discharge tests. In
addition, in many cases he cannot justify either the use of
ohmic techniques to detect failures, nor in many cases can
he justify the cost of monitors with remote access,
especially since in their attempts to lower the cost of the
field monitors, some manufacturers have produced
products of questionable accuracy in their ability to detect
significant cell failure for these outdoor installations.

An obvious question which arises, is whether these results
are a peculiarly US-only phenomenon such that VRLA
cells made elsewhere are all performing in accordance with
their expected design lives. As noted earlier, the data
presented in the 1995 paper included cells made and used
in the UK, Europe and in the Pacific Rim countries. Those
data showed the same characteristics as the US cells in the
1995 study, as well as those in this study. Further, in a
paper also presented at the 1995 INTELEC, Selanger and
his co-authors report on a study of the capacity/age/failure
rates of some 35,000 VRLA cells, in Telecom, Utility and
Defense usage[15]. In overall summary, they reported that
failure rates for gel cells are approximately 5% and for
AGM approximately 20% for batteries between the ages of
Defect
Fraction
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3
Figure 9: Battery Defect Fraction (Figure 1 of 1995 INTELEC Paper[15])
IV. CONCLUSIONS
1. Capacity test data on some 15,000 AGM “20 year
Design Life” cells indicate significant and
unacceptable failure rates beyond the second year of
life, under benign environmental conditions.
2. These results are in general accord with those reported
previously for a 25,000 cell population.
3. These results are also in close agreement with a
significant Swedish study of some 35,000 VRLA cells
reported at the 1995 INTELEC.
0 and 5 years. Figure 9 shows their results, taken from
Figure 1 of their paper. While the results show some
differences, depending on the overall voltage of the battery
plants involved, their results are certainly in close
agreement with the overall results of both our 1995 study
and this study. Further, the authors note that because of
the frequency of failures, two makes of AGM designs were
withdrawn from the Swedish market. While this has not
yet been publicly stated in the US, there are statements
which have been made as to the intentions of some
telecoms to ban all further purchases of VRLA products,
for outdoor applications. For controlled environment use,
flooded cells of proven reliability are considered a more
desirable option and are increasingly being considered and
selected, where space and use conditions permit.
24 V
48 V
110 V
4 5 6
Age (years)
4. While no quantitative data are available, it is
acknowledged that in the major Telecom outdoor
cabinet usage, exposed to high temperature
environments, VRLA cells are routinely “junked” after
no more than 2–3 years, without further testing, which
has generally been considered uneconomic by the
users.
5. At this time, it seems appropriate to classify the
VRLA products as demonstrating acceptable
reliability for only 2 years. Beyond 2 years, cell
failure rates quickly reach unacceptable levels.
6. It is hoped that more recent understanding of the
behavior and failure modes of VRLA batteries on float,
which will be presented at this conference, will result
in improvements in life and reliability of the
technology.
 REFERENCES
[1] D. O. Feder, Proceedings of INTELEC 1995, pp. 22–
28.

[2] W. E. M. Jones and D. O. Feder, Proceedings of

INTELEC 1995, pp. 154–160.

[3] D. O. Feder and W. E. M. Jones, Proceedings of

INTELEC 1996, pp. 184–192.

[4] W. E. M. Jones and D. O. Feder, Proceedings of

INTELEC 1996, pp. 358–366.

[5] W. E. M. Jones and D. O. Feder, Proceedings of

TELESCON 1997, pp. 295–302.

[6] D. Berndt and W. E. M. Jones, Proceedings ERA

Conference 1998, P–3.1.

[7] H. A. Kiehne and D. O. Feder, Proceedings of

INTELEC 1987, pp. 27–34.

[8] D. O. Feder, T. G. Croda, K. S. Champlin, M. J.

Hlavac, Proceedings of INTELEC 1992, pp. 218–233.

[9] M. J. Hlavac, W. Koster, D. O. Feder, Proceedings of

LABAT 1993, pp. 88–92.

[10] M. J. Hlavac, D. O. Feder, T. G. Croda, K. S.

Champlin, Proceedings of INTELEC 1993, Volume
II, pp. 375–383.

[11] M. J. Hlavac and D. O. Feder, Proceedings of

INTELEC 1994, pp. 282–291.

[12] IEEE 1188-1996, IEEE Recommended Practice for

Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of Valve-
Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) Batteries for Stationary
Applications.

[13] E. Davis, D. Funk, and W. Johnson, Proceedings of

BATTCON98, pp. 2-1–2-9.

[14] B. A. Cole, M. A. Kepros, R. J. Schmitt, Proceedings

of INTELEC 1997, pp. 221–229.

[15] P. A. Selanger, K. Lundqvist, K. Oberger, L. Humla,

Proceedings of INTELEC 1995, pp. 143–147.