ARTICLE IN PRESS

Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solmat

Electrical performance results from physical stress testing of commercial PV

modules to the IEC 61215 test sequence
A. Skoczek , T. Sample, E.D. Dunlop, H.A. Ossenbrink
European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Renewable Energies Unit, Ispra, TP450, via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper presents statistical analysis of the behaviour of the electrical performance of commercial
Received 23 March 2007 crystalline silicon photovoltaic (PV) modules tested in the Solar Test Installation of the European
Received in revised form Commission’s Joint Research Centre from 1990 up to 2006 to the IEC Standard 61215 and its direct
14 July 2008
predecessor CEC Specification 503. A strong correlation between different test results was not observed,
Accepted 15 July 2008
Available online 20 August 2008
indicating that the standard is a set of different, generally independent stress factors. The results
confirm the appropriateness of the testing scheme to reveal different module design problems related
Keywords: rather to the production quality control than material weakness in commercial PV modules.
PV modules qualification tests & 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PV modules reliability
PV modules stability

1. Introduction ultraviolet light exposure (UVE), 50 thermal cycles (TC50), 200

Development of the accelerated test protocols has been
ongoing since the Jet Propulsion Laboratory NASA (JPL-NASA)
and European Solar Test Installation of the European Commis-
sion’s Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) module reliability pro-
grammes starting in the 1970s [1]. Since 1990, all tests at ESTI
have been based on the IEC 61215 Standard [2,3] or its direct
predecessor, Specification 503 [4]. The IEC 61215 standard ‘‘lays
down IEC requirements for the design qualification and type
approval of terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) modules suitable for
long-term operation in general open-air climates,y’’. The stan-
dard contains test levels and a test sequence, and specifies its
purpose as ‘‘yto determine the electrical and thermal character-
istics of the module and to show, as far as is possible within
reasonable constraints of cost and time, that the module is
capable of withstanding prolonged exposure in climates described
in the scope. The actual lifetime expectancy of modules so
qualified will depend on their design, their environment and the
conditions under which they are operatedy’’.
During each performance measurement, the modules’ I–V
curve is obtained and the main electric parameters are deter-
mined: Voc, Isc, Pmax, FF, Imp and Vmp, enabling the change of a
given parameter to be calculated as a percentage following each
applied test. In the majority of cases two modules of a given
module type are subject to specific tests, shown in Fig. 1, such as
 Corresponding author.
E-mail address: artur.skoczek@jrc.it (A. Skoczek).
thermal cycles (TC200), humidity freeze (HUF) and damp heat
(DAH). This approach was adopted to minimise possible anom-
alous behaviour of a single module and to give increased
confidence in the results of the applied stress tests.
The UVE, TC50 and HUF followed by robustness of termina-
tions (ROB) and twist (TW) tests are often carried out in
sequence—SEQ1 (during a full IEC 61215 test) combining different
stress factors. The other tests like hot spot endurance (HSP),
outdoor exposure (OE), mechanical load (MEL), hail resistance
(HAR) and TW are carried out on one selected module. The
summary of test levels is presented in Table 1.
A failure is deemed to have occured if the loss in maximum
power following a test is greater than 5%+ the repeatability of the
power measurement of the control module. The repeatability value
is calculated for any given module type as twice the standard
deviation of maximum power for the series of measurements
performed during the course of the test sequence on the control
module. For the entire sequence of tests failure occurs when the loss
exceeds 8%+ repeatability. If a module fails an individual test or test
sequence then the test(s) may be repeated on a replacement pair of
modules. Other main reasons for the retest of a module series (or
test sequence) can be: major visual defect (such as cracked cells,
bubbles or delamination or loss of mechanical integrity), open-
circuit or ground faults detected during or after test execution and
finally electrical insulation failures. If two or more modules do not
meet the qualification criteria, the module type is deemed not to
have met the qualification criteria and is failed [2,3]. Many of the
stress test results obtained by the ESTI Laboratory have already been
published and presented [5–9].

0927-0248/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solmat.2008.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1594 A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604

Initial Visual Inspection (VI) / Performan ce Measurement (PS) / Insulation Test (IN)

VI / PS / IN Temperature Ultraviolet Exposure 200 Thermal Cycles 1000-Hour Damp Heat

Coeffs.

NOCT VI / PS / IN VI / PS / IN VI / PS / IN

Performance 50 Thermal Cycles Mechanical Hail

at NOCT Load Resistance

Performance VI / PS / IN VI / PS / IN
at Low Irrad.

Sequence 1 (SEQ1)
Outdoor
Humidity Freeze
Exposure

VI / PS / IN VI / PS / IN

Hot Spot Rob. Twist

Endurance Termination

VI / PS / IN VI / PS / IN

Fig. 1. The diagram of the IEC 61215 ed. 1 (1993) module qualification test sequence. Abbreviations: NOCT: performance at nominal operating cell temperature; VI: visual
inspection; PS: performance at standard test conditions; IN: insulation test.

Table 1
The summary of test levels included in the IEC 61215 edition 1 test sequence

Acronym used in the text Test title Test conditions

OE Outdoor exposure test Exposure to solar irradiation of total of 60 kWh m2

UVEa UV test Exposure to UV irradiation of total of 15 kWh m2. The UV wavelength range from 280 to 385 nm,
with 5 kWh m2 in the wavelength range from 280 to 320 nm

HSP Hot-spot test 5 h exposure to 1000 W m2 irradiance in the worst-case hot-spot conditions

TC50 and TC200 Thermal cycling test 50 and 200 thermal cycles from 40 to +85 1C

HUF Humidity freeze test 10 cycles from +85 1C, 85% RH to 40 1C

DAH Damp heat test 1000 h at +85 1C, 85% RH

ROB Robustness of termination test Determination of terminations’ capability to withstand appropriate mechanical stress

MEL Mechanical load test 2.4 kPa uniform load applied for 1 h to front and back surface in turn

HAR Hail test 25 mm diameter ice ball at 23 m s1, directed at 11 impact locations

TW Twist test Deformation angle 1.21 over the module diagonal

a
Under consideration in the IEC 61215 second edition.

2. Measurements repeatability and uncertainty
Repeated performance measurements made on the control
module selected from each series of module types is used to
determine the measurement repeatability of the laboratory for
that specific module type. A total of 813 control measurements
have been performed. The standard deviation for each module
type was calculated for Pmax, Isc and Voc. The dependence
of standard deviations on the test year, module Pmax, Isc and Voc
and the number of repeated measurements is presented in Fig. 2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604
Fig. 2. The dependence of standard deviations of modules’ Pmax, Isc and Voc on the test year and module size (Pmax).
It can be concluded that although the standard deviation of the
control module measurements varies from 0% to about 2.5% for
Pmax, 2.0% for Isc, and 1.5% for Voc, in the majority of cases the
values lie much below this level and are practically independent
of year.
A decrease in the standard deviation can be noticed from
2000 onwards especially for Voc values, which reflects the
implementation of an improved temperature control system
(Voc has a stronger temperature dependence than other para-
meters). The standard deviation seems to depend on module
Pmax (related to module area). Smaller values (below 0.5%) can
be observed for modules larger than 200Wp, but the reason could
be that 5 of the 7 large modules were measured over the last
3 years, during which time the general repeatability has been
improved.
The stability of the results confirms the high reproducibility of
the test methodology used at the ESTI Laboratory. The average
value of standard deviation (1s) of all performed measurements is
70.74% of the Pmax. Similar or even smaller standard deviations
were determined for other electric parameters, namely: Voc
70.31%, Isc 70.5% and FF 70.41%.
These values are in quite good agreement with the estimates
for the uncertainty components which have been made following
the ISO ‘‘Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement’’
1595
assuming that all components have negligible covariance. For PV
modules smaller than 2.20 m  1.80 m, the uncertainty with a
coverage factor of k ¼ 2 are for power (P) 71.5%, voltage (V)
70.3%, current (I) 71.3% and fill factor (FF) 70.72% .
3. Change in module performance following applied tests
A total of 1782 different tests have been executed on 199
different module types (174 commercial products, 25 different
project and experimental modules), 1181 individual modules, with
the individual tests numbers presented in Table 2.
One of the most important pass/fail criteria of each module,
following a stress test, is the loss in maximum power output. The
absolute numbers and percentage of modules with maximum
power loss 45% following applied stress tests, average power
losses and the associated standard deviations are presented in
Table 3. Since module qualification test failure occurs if maximum
power loss exceeds 5% plus repeatability for a given type of
module or due to the presence of a major physical defect or due to
a failure of modules insulation, the data collected in this table do
not correspond to the actual number of rejected module types; it
gives an indication on results spread and power loss levels caused
by individual tests.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1596 A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604

Table 2
Numbers of individual tests

Test Irradiation tests Environmental tests Mechanical tests

OE HSP UVE Subtotal TC50 HUF TC200 DAH Subtotal ROB TW MEL HAR Subtotal
irrad. environ. mech.
tests tests tests

Tests of commercial modules 114 128 203 445 178 156 282 216 832 72 73 103 91 339
Tests of project modules 1 2 30 33 28 28 28 29 113 5 5 5 5 20
Total 115 130 233 478 206 184 310 245 945 77 78 108 96 359

Table 3
Numbers and percentage of modules with maximum power loss 45%, mean power losses and standard deviations values after individual qualification tests

Test TC200 UVE DAH OE HUF TC50 HAR MEL HSP ROB TW

Commercial modules
Average Pmax loss (%) 3.9 2.0 0.7 2.3 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1
Standard deviation (%) 12.5 2.1 4.0 1.5 2.2 5.3 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.1 0.7
No. of Pmax losses 45% 29 19 11 4 3 3 1 1 0 0 0
Pmax losses 45% (%) 10.3 9.4 5.1 3.5 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Project modules
Average Pmax loss (%) 1.7 5.7 4.6 5.5 4.3 3.6 7.5 1.3 3.8 0.4 0.3
Standard deviation (%) 2.1 15.3 4.8 - 5.7 3.4 14.3 1.6 4.2 1.4 0.4
No. of Pmax losses 45% 2 3 10 1 6 7 1 0 1 0 0
Pmax losses 45% (%) 7.1 10.0 34.5 100.0 21.4 25.0 20.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0

Analysis of the percentage of modules exhibiting a power loss
greater than 5% revealed that the most severe tests are the TC200,
UVE and DAH followed by OE, HUF and TC50. One should note that
19 commercial modules (11 different module types) exhibiting
greater than 5% power loss following the UVE were mono-
crystalline silicon modules which had not undergone initial light
soaking prior to the UVE test (as is now foreseen in the revised IEC
61215 ed. 2 [3]). It must also be stressed that none of the
commercial modules following the UVE test suffered power loss
greater than 10%. None of the commercial modules suffered power
loss greater than 5% following the ROB, TW and HSP tests and only
one failed the MEL and HAR test. For project modules (among
which experimental prototypes can be found) also the TC50 and
HUF tests caused considerable degradation.
It can be observed that for commercial modules the TC200 test
exhibits the largest variation of module behaviour with standard
deviation values exceeding 12%. More coherent results are
obtained from the DAH and the TC50 tests with standard
deviation of about 4–5%. The HUF, UVE and OE tests seem to
produce much more coherent results with standard deviations of
2.2%, 2.1% and 1.5%, respectively. The statistics for the project
modules is slightly distorted but the main reason for that is the
very limited number of tested module types and the fact that only
4 out of all 25 project module types were experimental prototypes
utilizing novel materials (encapsulants, front/back substrate or
framing structure), which degraded considerably during qualifica-
tion tests.
More information concerning the spread of performance
losses, following the main environmental and irradiation tests,
can be graphically presented in the form of bin plots—histograms
of the results (Fig. 3). The bar height represents the percentages of
modules with a maximum power loss within the specified range.
It can be observed that the majority of tests reveal a Gaussian-like
distribution with mean values close to those previously presented
in Table 3, slightly shifted because of the presence of the peak at
the ‘‘black’’ bin, representing module power loss greater than 6%.
This peak is almost not present in the OE, HSP, MEL and the HAR
plots, which exhibit the smallest calculated value of standard
deviation among these tests. The greatest numbers of strongly
affected modules can be observed for the TC200, DAH, HUF and
the UVE tests, where more than 5% of modules exhibit more than
6% loss in Pmax.
4. Analysis of the results of the module pairs tests
As mentioned in the introduction, most tests are conducted on
the pairs of modules. Tests conducted on two modules of the same
type are expected to produce similar results (nearly identical
percentage loss in a given parameter), giving data points
distributed along the diagonal line on the scatter plot (Fig. 4).
The results of the pairs tests are presented in the form of scatter
plots of the percentage change of Pmax, vertical and horizontal
axes represent results obtained from each of the modules pairs.
For the sake of legibility, the most distinct results are outlined
with a contour. It can be observed from the scatter plots in the
figure given below that all tests produce slightly different scatter
type, although in all cases the majority of results are grouped
within a similar range.
In order to quantify different test results the average of
differences from the absolute value was calculated as follows:
1X
DTest ¼ jTest1  Test2 j (1)
n n
where Test1 and Test2 are the results for each module in the pair
following a specific test and n is the total number of pairs. This
parameter can be used as a measure of the scatter in the results
obtained. The total numbers of pairs tested, the average of
absolute differences and percentage of module pairs revealing
difference 45% are presented in Table 4 for each test and for the
main electrical parameters.
The parameters presented in Table 4 give a rough indication
how strongly data are scattered in relation to the ideal case;
values of DTest closer to zero represent more consistent behaviour
of module pairs following an applied test.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604 1597

Fig. 3. Histograms of qualification tests’ results (percentages of maximum power losses following the given tests).

The smallest values of both DTest and standard deviation of
almost all electric parameters can be observed for the UVE test,
followed by the sequence of (UVE, TC50, HUF), then HUF and DAH
tests. The UVE test yields the most uniform results of module
degradation (ultraviolet light affects the whole area of the
module, causing the degradation of silicon proprieties and/or
encapsulating browning), resulting in rather small, but uniform,
power losses. Only 2 pairs out of 114 differ more than 5% in
maximum power loss. One of these pairs was a prototype module
in which the UVE test caused severe delamination. (This module
type also failed in other tests.) The fact that the vast majority of
contemporary crystalline silicon modules did not exhibit sig-
nificant degradation from the UVE test has been reflected in the
second edition of the IEC 61215 standard [2] where the UVE has
been classified as preconditioning test. The UVE test results also
seem to dominate in the results of the sequence of UVE, TC50 and
HUF tests. Although the number of pairs, which were subjected to
the test sequence, is limited (44 pairs were UVE tested only), the
scatter type and values of calculated parameters are similar. The
other environmental tests, such as the DAH and HUF, exhibit a
similar behaviour to each other, causing 4 and 5 cases of a 45%
loss in maximum power, respectively. Results from the HUF test
are more consistent than DAH, revealing a slightly smaller value of
DTest and considerably smaller values of standard deviation.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1598 A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604

Fig. 4. Scatter plots of percentage change of Pmax of module pairs (modules in pairs are labelled as ‘‘_1’’ and ‘‘_2’’) following the UVE, HUF, DAH, TC50, TC200 tests and the
SEQ1 sequence.

It can be observed from Table 4 that for the TC50, DAH, HUF
and SEQ1 calculated values of DTest for different electrical
parameters have a similar order. The largest value of the DTest
occurs for the Pmax, followed by FF, Isc and Voc. A similar order can
be observed for the UVE test, but in this case the DTest value for FF
is slightly higher than for Pmax.
The results of the TC200 test exhibit a slightly distorted order.
Although the Pmax exhibits the largest value of DTest, it is followed
by Voc, Isc and FF. The results of this test are considerably more
scattered, with an increased number of cases, when only one of
the two tested modules suffered large power losses, while the
other in the pair still performed fairly well. As an example of such
behaviour, I–V curves of two modules are presented in Fig. 5. It
can be observed that one module suffered power loss of 38.8%
(TC200 caused loss of a substring) while the other displayed
almost no change.
The two thermal cycling tests, TC50 and TC200, differ only in
the number of cycles. The TC50, as can be expected, produces
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604 1599

more coherent results, with only 3 pairs differing by more than 5. Correlations between module test results
5%, while TC200 induces the greatest frequency of severe module
degradation—12 cases. Both tests seem to have greater impact on One of the aims of this analysis was the determination of any
point failures of cell strings or sub-strings within the module, relationship between different test results. Since the IEC 61215
rather than the whole area. Standard is designed as a set of different, generally separately
acting stress factors (although, for example, both the DAH and
Table 4 HUF combine the impact of high temperature and humidity), real-
Total numbers of pairs tested, the average of absolute differences and percentage life module operation is in the vast majority of cases a
of modules pairs revealing difference 45%
combination of a larger number of stress factors. In order to
Test UVE SEQ1 HUF DAH TC50 TC200 determine any possible cross-reference in test results, the
correlation (r) matrixes between losses in the main electric para-
No. of pairs 114 71 90 118 101 148 meters: Pmax, Isc, Voc and FF, individually for each test (Table 5),
Pmax and correlation matrixes between all tests for losses in the main
DTest 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 3.3 electric parameters were calculated (Table 6).
s 2.4 1.3 1.8 3.3 6.5 10.2 Correlation values larger than 0.7, indicating possible relation,
% 1.7 2.8 4.4 3.4 3.0 8.1
are marked in bold. Names of the columns and the rows ending
Isc with ‘‘_2’’ stand for the test of the second module in the pair of
DTest 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.9 modules.
s 0.8 0.6 1.1 2.7 1.5 9.9 Analysis of the results presented in Table 5 reveals that the
% 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.7 2.0 4.0
SEQ1 and the UVE test produce the most consistent results and
Voc correlation between the results of pairs of modules of the same
DTest 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 2.3 type can be observed for all electric parameters. For both SEQ1
s 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.3 4.6 9.9
and UVE tests, losses in Pmax are strongly correlated with losses in
% 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.7
Isc and Voc for each of the two modules. Results from the SEQ1
FF exhibit a higher degree of correlation in comparison to the UVE
DTest 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.8
test. However, this may only reflect the lower number of samples
s 3.9 0.7 2.0 1.4 4.7 8.0
% 2.6 0.0 4.4 3.4 4.0 6.0 tested through SEQ1 in comparison to the UVE and the fact that
the most distinct results were observed on a few modules that
DTest—average of absolute differences values (%); s—standard deviation of were UVE tested only. In the case of SEQ1 all losses are strongly
absolute differences (%); %—percentage of modules pairs revealing losses 45%. correlated with each other. For the other tests, correlation

Fig. 5. I–V curves of two modules of the same type before and following the TC200 test.

Table 5
Correlation matrixes of the main electric parameters for HUF, DAH, TC50, TC200, UVE tests and SEQ1 sequence

Pmax Pmax_2 Isc Isc_2 Voc Voc_2 FF FF_2 Pmax Pmax_2 Isc Isc_2 Voc Voc_2 FF FF 2 Pmax Pmax_2 Isc Isc_2 Voc Voc_2 FF FF_2

HUF TC50 SEQ1

Pmax 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0
Pmax 2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0
Isc 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0
Isc 2 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0
Voc 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.5 0 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9
Voc 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.5 0 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8
FF 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.0
FF 2 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7
DAH TC200 UVE
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1600 A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604

DAH_2
between losses in different electric parameters is not so

0.9
0.2
0.5

0.2
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1

0.1
straightforward.
Correlation values presented in Table 6 indicated rather weak

0.8
0.3
0.4

0.2
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1

0.1
DAH

relationships between different tests in terms of the main electric

parameters (except the pairs of the modules). For the sake of
legibility and space, only selected results exhibiting larger
TC200_2

0.2
correlations are presented in the form of scatter plots. Since even

0.5
0.0
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
the behaviour of two modules of the same type, following one test
such as the HUF, TC50, TC200 or DAH, does not often demonstrate
TC200

a very high correlation (revealing production/material quality

0.7
0.2
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1

differences in modules from the same type), even relatively small

values of correlation coefficient can be considered as possible
HUF_2

0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.1
cross-dependence of performance loss. The significant, but still
very low values of correlations can be noticed for the pairs of tests
(data presented in Table 6)
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.3
0.0

0.1

0.1
0.1
HUF

 OE and UVE for Isc (r ¼ 0.6 for both modules), Pmax (r ¼ 0.5
TC50_2

0.4

0.5
0.5

0.2
0.0

0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

and 0.4);
 TC50 and UVE for Isc (r ¼ 0.5 for both modules), Pmax
(r ¼ 0.5 and 0.4); and
TC50

0.3
0.3
0.3

0.4

0.4
0.4
0.1

0.1

0.1
0.1
0

 TC200 and DAH for Isc (r ¼ 0.5 and 0.4).

UVE_2

0.7

0.7
0.3

0.2

0.2
0.3
0.0

0.0
0.1

0.1

0.1

It should be noticed that the OE and UVE tests are conducted on

different modules selected from the tested module type. Scatter
0.7
0.2

0.4
0.5

0.2
0.0

0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
UVE

plots of power change following the OE and UVE tests, with

0

distinction between module types—polycrystalline and mono-

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2
0.0
0.0

crystalline, and the type of UV light source are given in Figs. 6

0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
HSP

and 7, respectively. It can be seen that the data points of different

module types (polycrystalline and monocrystalline) are rather
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.1

0.1
0.1

Voc
0
OE

FF

uniformly distributed, revealing no specific dependence (Fig. 6).

Both technologies, besides the different cell types, use essentially
DAH_2

similar materials. However, a different picture can be observed for

0.8
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1

the plot with the UV source distinction. The majority of UVE tests
were carried out using a chamber equipped with high-intensity
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.1

0.1
DAH

discharge (HID) mercury lamps. These data points are marked

with solid black squares. The data from a second chamber with
TC200_2

fluorescent UVA and UVB lamps are presented as open squares in

0.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4

0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1

Fig. 7. The reason for the dependence of performance loss with

lamp type, following the test, could be attributed to the spectral
composition of light from each of these lamps. Since the HID
TC200

0.2
0.3

0.3

0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1

0.1

mercury lamp gives a spectrum containing a significant output

0
Correlation matrixes between all tests for losses in the main electric parameters

4400 nm in the visible part of the spectrum, to achieve the

HUF_2

required 15 kWh of UV exposure also yields a visible exposure of

0.7
0.2

0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1

0.1

E230 kWh. Therefore, the results obtained are quite well

0

correlated with the OE test, which requires an OE to 60 kWh

0.8
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.1
HUF

and reflects initial photon degradation related to a physical

process in the solar cell itself [10].
The UVE and TC50 tests are carried out on the same pair of the
TC50_2

0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.1

modules in the sequence consisting of four tests. The UVE in most

cases leads to moderate power loss caused by photon degradation
related to a physical process in the solar cell itself, while TC50
TC50

0.2

0.5
0.4

0.6
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.0

0.0
0.0

carried out following the UVE can cause some recovery of module
performance (Fig. 8). This is why some negative correlation can be
UVE_2

0.9
0.6

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.2

observed between the UVE and the TC50. Similarly to the UVE–OE
0.1

0.1

0.1

comparison, results from monocrystalline and polycrystalline

overlap, revealing little, if any, dependence on the product
0.9
0.6

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.1

0.1
0.1
UVE

technology.
The weakest correlation among the previously mentioned
0.2

0.3
0.3

0.2

0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1

0.1
0.1

0.1
HSP

three pairs of tests could be observed between the two main

environmental tests: the TC200 and DAH, which generally cause
0.4
0.5

0.3
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.1

Pmax

the majority of failures (Fig. 9). Typical defects provoked in the

OE

Isc

case of DAH are general loss of power and visual defects

(delamination, damaged junction boxes), while the TC200
TC200_2
Table 6

TC50_2

DAH_2
HUF_2
UVE_2

TC200

provoked delamination and power loss (often attributed to the

TC50

DAH
HUF
UVE
HSP
OE

loss of a sub-string). Although correlation in Pmax is not observed,

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604
Fig. 6. Scatter plots of relative change of Pmax following the UVE and OE tests with
regard to module type (open circle—monocrystalline, filled circle—polycrystal-
line).
Fig. 7. Scatter plots of relative change of Pmax following the UVE versus the OE
tests with regard to light source (open square—fluorescent, filled square—HID
mercury).
it can be noticed that in many cases (more than 65% of modules)
power loss/gain occurs simultaneously following the TC200 and
DAH. At the same time, these two environmental tests cause the
greatest percentage of considerable losses in module electrical
performance and/or severe delamination problems.
Analysis of correlation matrixes between changes in the main
electric parameters for each individual test given in Table 5
reveals that the UVE test produces the most consistent results
(which is also clearly visible in Fig. 4). Loss in Pmax is strongly
correlated with change in Isc and Imp. Correlation between change
1601
Fig. 8. Scatter plots of relative change of Pmax following the UVE and TC50 tests
with regard to module type (open circle—monocrystalline, filled circle—polycrys-
talline).
Fig. 9. Scatter plots of relative change of Pmax following the TC200 and DAH tests.
in Pmax and change in Voc can also be observed. Only FF change
does not correspond to Pmax deviation. The FF losses are attributed
generally to series resistance increase, which is not the case of the
UVE test which affects the optical properties of the module
(change in optical transmittance of the glass and encapsulant) and
causes light-induced doped silicon degradation affecting the
modules Isc.
Corresponding scatter plots of electrical parameters change
following the UVE test are presented in Fig. 10.
In the case of the other tests, the correlation between changes
of different electrical parameters is considerably weaker, and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1602 A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604
Fig. 10. Scatter plots of relative change of Pmax and relative changes of Voc, Isc, Imp and FF following the UVE test.
results are much more scattered. One of the reasons is that
failures do not have such a uniform impact on the whole module
area, such as in the case of the UVE. There are cases of substring
failure (for multi-string constructions), single cell damage,
interconnection problems due to cell dislocation, etc., which can
be attributed generally to quality control problems during the
production process. The scatter plots of electrical parameters
change following the most severe test: the TC200, which thermo-
mechanically stresses cells’ interconnections, are presented in
Fig. 11. The degradation of interconnections resulting in FF loss in
the aftermath of series resistance increase can be observed as
correlation between relative FF and Pmax change.
6. Failure summary
As mentioned in the introduction, the classification of major
defects in tested PV modules is related to either visual, loss of
power or insulation failures can have a different nature. Table 7
summarises major defect types provoked during the years
1990–2006 per Module Qualification Test procedure of commer-
cial modules conducted for clients seeking IEC 61215 type
approval testing for their products. The total number of module
types tested was 174. Out of those 130 module types (74.7%)
passed certification procedure, 27 (15.5%) passed after successful
retest and 17 types (9.7%) were rejected.
From 1990 to 1995 tests were conducted according to the CEC
Specification 503 [3]; the tests conducted from 1995 onwards are
based on the first edition of the IEC 61215 [2]. Test results can be
considered as fully comparable since in both cases the test
sequences and test levels are identical, apart from the UVE test,
which was not included in the IEC standard. The ESTI laboratory,
however, performed the UVE test as a part of its type approval
testing procedure for each full test sequence. In 1998 the
complementary IEC 61345 [11] standard ‘‘UV test for PV modules’’
was published, detailing the UVE test. (The UVE test was
incorporated latter as a part of IEC 61215 ed. 2 [3].) Results
presented in Table 7 differ slightly from those previously
presented in Table 3 (because as stated in the introduction a
failure according to the IEC 61215 is deemed to have occurred
if the loss in maximum power following a single test is greater
than 5%+the repeatability of the power measurement of the
control module), but similar conclusions can be drawn. The great
majority of failures occur following the environmental tests. The
reasons of failure can be broadly shared between power loss and
major visual defect, insulation failure occurred only once. The
high failure rate following the TC200 indicates high fatigue, which
is not observed to the same extent in the case of the TC50.
The DAH test still provokes many failures, although encapsula-
tion system seems to be quite mature in contemporary modules.
The UVE test provoked much smaller number of failures than the
DAH test. Many module types suffered power loss following the
UVE test of just greater than 5%, which is classified as a
successful result when the repeatability of the control module is
added to the 5% power limit. The effect of initial photon
degradation should be eliminated in the IEC 61215 ed. 2, which
incorporates an initial modules preconditioning. (Before begin-
ning the testing, all modules, including control, shall be exposed
to sunlight, either real or simulated, to an irradiation level of
5–5.5 kWh/m2.)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604 1603

Fig. 11. Scatter plots of relative change of Pmax and relative changes of Voc, Isc and FF following the TC200 test.

Table 7
Distribution of major defects of commercial modules provoked per Qualification Tests performed between 1990 and 2006

Type of module failure Tests type

OE HSP UVE Total TC50 HUF TC200 DAH Total ROB MEL HAR TW Total
irrad. envir. mech.
tests tests tests

Modules which failed the IEC 61215

Visual defect 0 1 1 2 3 3 7 3 16 0 1 0 0 1
Power loss 1 0 3 4 2 2 7 3 14 0 0 0 0 0
Visual defect and power loss 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 1 8 0 0 0 0 0

Modules which passed the IEC 61215 after retest

Visual defect 0 0 0 0 3 2 10 8 23 0 0 0 0 0
Power loss 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 14 0 1 0 0 1
Visual defect and power loss 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

All failures
Visual defect 0 1 1 2 6 5 17 11 39 0 1 0 0 1
Power loss 1 0 3 4 3 3 18 4 28 0 1 0 0 1
Visual defect and power loss 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 1 10 0 0 0 0 0

Total failures per test 1 1 4 6 9 8 35 15 67 0 2 0 0 2

Mechanical tests provoked very few failures since the
mechanical features of the modules are generally well under-
stood; however, these tests can be fatal for non-standard modules
such as non-glass and pole mounted types.
7. Conclusions
The analysis of data from module tests based on the IEC 61215
Standard confirms the ability of the module testing scheme to
show design problems in commercial PV modules. Strong
correlation between different tests was not observed, validating
the concept that the IEC 61215 standard is designed as a set of
different, generally separately acting stress factors. The selection
of tests ensures that different failure mechanisms are provoked,
revealing different design/material weaknesses.
The approach of executing environmental tests on modules
pairs, used in the IEC 61215 standard, helps to indicate produc-
tion/quality control issues as well as overall design problems. The
results from pairs of modules tested can reveal significant
differences in behaviour of modules of the same type. The test
which produces the most scattered results is the TC200 test. For
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1604 A. Skoczek et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 92 (2008) 1593–1604
this test, the approach of measuring two different modules of a
given type increases significantly the failure detection rate. As
many as 8% of modules behaved differently (12 modules pairs out
of 149). Other tests produce considerably more consistent
behaviour. The TC200 is followed by the other environmental
tests: the HUF, which produces a difference of 4.4%, and the DAH,
3.4%. The other thermal cycling test, namely the TC50, differs from
the TC200 only by number of cycles. Reducing the number of
cycles also reduced the number of differently behaving module
pairs, falling from 8% for the TC200 to 3% for the TC50. The most
coherent results are produced by the test sequence 1 (SEQ1) and
UVE tests. Results of these tests are not only the most coherent in
terms of Pmax but strong correlation can also be found for all
combinations of main electric parameters.
The analysis of many years of test results indicates no
noticeable difference between modules incorporating polycrystal-
line or monocrystalline cells. The results confirm the appropriate-
ness of the testing scheme to reveal different module design
problems related rather to either production quality control or
material weakness in commercial PV modules. Results from
modules originating from different manufacturers but essentially
produced from the same commercially available cells, encapsu-
lant and backsheet can exhibit different behaviour. This fact
leads to the conclusion that quality control during of the
production process plays a crucial role in the behaviour of the
final product.
It can also be concluded that environmental tests like thermal
cycling (TC50 and TC200) cause thermo-mechanical fatigue to the
interconnections, contributing to series resistance increase and
hence decreasing FF, while irradiation tests like the UVE test affect
the optical properties of the module, resulting in the lower Isc.
While the first type of losses is rather connected to quality control
problems during the production process, the second type is
attributed to material weakness.
The publication of a revised standard in April 2005 has
included two new tests, the Wet Leakage Current Test and the
Bypass Diode Thermal Test, together with small modifications to
some of the existing tests (TC200, HSP, etc.). The impact of these
new tests shall be monitored to assess the failure rates and failure
mechanisms.
References
[1] J.H. Wohlgemuth, D.W. Cunningham, P. Monus, J. Miller, A. Nguyen, Long term
reliability of photovoltaic modules, Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE
Fourth World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, vol. 2, 7–12 May
2006, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 2050–2053.
[2] IEC Central Office, IEC 61215: Crystalline silicon terrestrial photovoltaic (PV)
modules—design qualification and type approval, 1993.
[3] IEC Central Office, IEC 61215 the second edition, Crystalline silicon terrestrial
photovoltaic modules—design qualification and type approval, 2005.
[4] European Commission, CEC-Specification No. 501, EUR Report 7545 EN, 1981.
[5] J. Bishop, H.A. Ossenbrink, Results of four years of module qualification
testing to CEC Specification 503, in: Proceedings of the 13th European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 23–27 October 1995, Nice, France,
1995, pp. 2104–2109.
[6] H. Ossenbrink, T. Sample, Results of 12 years of module qualification to the
IEC 61215 standard and CEC specification 503, in: Proceedings of the Third
World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, vol. 2, Osaka, Japan,
2003, pp. 1882–1887.
[7] E.D. Dunlop, D. Halton, The performance of crystalline silicon photovoltaic
solar modules after 22 years of continuous outdoor exposure, Prog. Photovolt.
14 (1) (2005) 53.
[8] E.D. Dunlop, Lifetime performance of crystalline silicon PV modules, in:
Proceedings of the Third Word Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conver-
sion, vol. 2, Osaka, Japan, 2003, pp. 2927–2930.
[9] T. Sample, A. Skoczek, E.D. Dunlop, H.A. Ossenbrink, Data analysis of electrical
performance measurements from 15 years of module qualification tests, in:
Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy
Conversion, vol. 2, 7–12 May 2006, Waikoloa, HI, USA, pp. 2042–2045.
[10] J. Knobloch, S.W. Glunz, V. Henniger, W. Warta, W. Wettling, Solar cells with
efficiencies above 21% processed from Czochralski grown silicon, in:
Conference Record of the 2006 25th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference,
13–17 May 1996, Washington, DC, USA, 1996, pp. 405–408.
[11] IEC Central Office, IEC 61345: UV test for photovoltaic (PV) modules, 1998.