Journal Pre-proof

Risk priority number for understanding the severity of photovoltaic failure modes and
their impacts on performance degradation

Pramod Rajput, Maria Malvoni, Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, O.S. Sastry, G.N. Tiwari

PII: S2214-157X(19)30408-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100563
Reference: CSITE 100563

To appear in: Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 10 October 2019

Revised Date: 29 October 2019
Accepted Date: 10 November 2019

Please cite this article as: P. Rajput, M. Malvoni, N.M. Kumar, O.S. Sastry, G.N. Tiwari, Risk
priority number for understanding the severity of photovoltaic failure modes and their impacts on
performance degradation, Case Studies in Thermal Engineering (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.csite.2019.100563.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 1 Risk priority number for understanding the severity of photovoltaic failure modes and
2 their impacts on performance degradation
3
4 Pramod Rajput 1, Maria Malvoni 2,*, Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar 3, O. S. Sastry 4, G. N. Tiwari 5
5
1
6 Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, NH-65 Nagaur Road, Karwar-
7 342037, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2
8 School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
3
9 School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
4
10 National Institute of Solar Energy, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, New Delhi, 110003,
11 India
5
12 Center for Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016,
13 India
14
*
15 Corresponding author’s: maria.malvoni@gmail.com (M Malvoni)
16
17 Abstract: The alleged reliability has led the longest warranty period for Photovoltaic (PV)

18 modules up to 20-25 years; it becomes possible after understanding the failure mode and

19 degradation analysis of PV module. Failure mode decreases the performance of the PV

20 module throughout the long-term outdoor exposure. The main objective of the present study

21 is to identify the failure mechanism and failure mode of solar PV modules and their impact

22 on degradation in operating conditions. Assessment of previous studies on rate indicates the

23 highest performance losses at initial stage of outdoor exposure and a degradation drop-off of

24 0.014% per year. In this context, risk priority number (RPN) analysis is carried out to identify

25 the severity of the failure mode, which affect the system performance for c-Si technologies.

26 However, hot spot and de-lamination are degradation modes related to safety issue with lower

27 value of RPN <50.

28 Keywords: Reliability; Degradation; PV failure mode; PV module defects; Risk priority

29 number; Crystalline silicon.

30 Highlights

31 • Failure mechanism and failure mode of solar PV modules in real outdoor conditions.
32 • Several studies focused on the mono-crystalline PV modules over a period of 25 years are
33 considered to identify defects and failure modes.
34 • Impact of PV module defects and failure modes on its degradation is presented.
35 • Risk priority number (RPN) analysis for identifying the severity of the PV failure mode.

36

Nomenclature
a-Si Amorphous silicon
c-Si Crystalline silicon
CIS Copper Indium Gallium Selenide
EVA Ethylene vinyl acetate
FF Fill factor (%)
FMEA Failure mode effect analysis
IEC International electro technical commission
mc-Si Multi crystalline silicon
mono-Si Mono crystalline silicon
Pmax Power at maximum reference point (Watt)
RPN Risk priority number
Rsh Shunt resistance (Ω)
TCO Transparent conductive oxide
UV Ultra-violate
Isc Short circuit current (A)
37

38 1 Introduction

39 In present scenario the main challenge faced by PV industry is to make PV generated energy

40 cost effective. So, it is important to identify the influences under which the cost of PV

41 generated energy can be reduced. Such influences would gradually reduce the energy

42 generation potential form the PV module and lead to the issue of reliability. Long term

43 reliability of PV modules is therefore essential to make PV technology as a commercially

44 successful source of energy 0. Reliability of PV modules can be assessed by failure mode and

45 degradation mechanism during the outdoor operation. The failure mode and effect analysis

46 (FMEA) is a systematic procedure to identify the possible failure modes, their cause and

47 effect on performance of different system components. Results of FMEA mechanism depend

48 on the consequences, occurrence, and detect ability, thus drawing attention to eventual

49 weaknesses in the system in such a way as to reduce failures with necessary modifications.

50 Similarly, Shrestha et al. 0 reveal that gridline interface and solder bond failure are dominant

51 defects in hot-dry desert climate. Which are mainly responsible for the power degradation

52 and safety issue. Several works applied the FMEA to investigate on the faults in solar PV

53 plants. Colli 0 has studied the failure mode and effect analysis of PV system installed at

54 Brookhaven National Laboratory by the Risk Priority Number (RPN) analysis that is one of

55 the inductive approaches to identify the severity of the failure mode. He reported that inverter

56 and ground system have a failure mode with the highest value of RPN. Kuitche et al. 0

57 studied the dominant failure mode on the basis of RPN analysis in the desert climatic

58 condition. They have found the dominant failure modes are solder bond fatigue and

59 encapsulant discoloration in c-Si PV module. Delgado-Sanchez et al. 0 reported that failure

60 mode and effective analysis of CIGS PV technology by outdoor monitoring and damp heat.

61 They have reported that the encapsulant discoloration is the main failure mode. Chaibi, Y. et

62 al. 0 reveal that the short and open circuit faults, partial shading and inverter failure are the

63 identical failure modes of the PV systems operating in the real operating condition which

64 degraded the performance of the system and causes for the system failure. Hacke et al. 0

65 assure that the elevated temperature, humidity ingress and voltage bias affect the performance

66 the PV system at the time of operation in outdoor condition. These failure modes are

67 responsible for degrade the system performance and failure cause. The failure modes of

68 components and subcomponents are the major causes of PV systems failure in the field

69 condition. Inverter block, leakage and earth fault are the major failure modes in respect of

70 overloads due to lack of insulation has the highest risk priority number 0. The arcing in the

71 components/subcomponents are the main issue arise in the PV systems due to loos

72 connection/over voltage and current flow, in this sequence ground fault also the main
73 problem due to the voltage difference. They decrease the systems performance and lifetime of

74 the PV modules over the period of the exposure 0. In the similar way Pillai and Rajasekar 0

75 have explained the ground fault, arcing and shadow are the sever defect found in the PV

76 system during the prolonged outdoor exposure in the field condition. Generally metallic part

77 of the PV module affects from the ground fault and arcing in PV system happens due to

78 discontinuity of current flow from corrosion of conductor, poor solder joint etc and shadow

79 increase the series resistance in PV module/solar cell.

80 The main objective of the present study is to overview defects occur in PV modules during

81 the outdoor operation and to quantify their impacts on the PV module performance. Past

82 studies concerning the c-Si module degradation after long term outdoor exposure are

83 collected and investigated in view of main failure modes. The latter, then, are prioritized in

84 accordance with severity and occurrence ranking by the RPN analysis to identify the defects

85 with more serious issues related to security.

86 The paper has been summarized in the following sections: In section 2, the various defects,

87 which influences the performance of PV module is summarized to understand the degradation

88 mechanism. In section 3, an overview of previous works on degradation rate of PV module is

89 presented. Information about risk priority analysis is provided in section 5. The conclusion of

90 the present study is given in section 6.

91 2 PV module failure modes

92 This section presents an overview on some cosmetic defects, such as encapsulate

93 discoloration, de-lamination and oxidation of front grid finger, anti-reflecting coating and

94 bubbles in back-sheet, occur in PV modules after long term outdoor exposure.

95 2.1 Effect of EVA discoloration

 96 When the PV module is exposed under Ultraviolet (UV) radiation with high temperature e.g.

97 85◦C to 90◦C and above than EVA based encapsulant discoloration can be expected as shown

98 in Fig. 1. (a) 00. Acetic acid and acetaldehyde are two species that catalyze the degradation of

99 EVA, also corrosion of the metal and bus lines in c-Si PV module. However, 1-10%/year

100 performance loss quantitative and qualitative has been reported due to EVA discoloration

101 linked with UV world-wide location and site dependence 0. EVA discoloration reduces the

102 transmissivity of solar radiation into solar cell 0. Furthermore, Pmax of a PV module may be

103 decrease due to drop in Isc caused by a decrease in transmittance 0. Browning of fully EVA

104 encapsulated flat plate PV modules is based on conjugated in the EVA polymer backbone.

105 EVA discoloration effect Isc rather than the other electrical parameters 0. Further, Kempe et

106 al. 0 reported that strong sensitivity of non–silicon based encapsulant to light below 350nm is

107 demonstrated. Sinha et al. 0 described the EVA discoloration in 20 years old c-Si PV module

108 by dark lock in thermography technique. The results described that the significant reduction

109 in the fill factor due non uniform discoloration and increase in series resistance of the cell

110 contacts.

111
112 Fig. 1. a). EVA based encapsulant discoloration in PV module; b). Corrosion in the PV cell
113 interconnection ribbon.
114

115 2.2 Effect of series and shunt resistance

116 The series and shunt resistance can determine with the help of open circuit voltage and short

117 circuit current at low illumination condition. But the series resistance strongly affects the

118 performance of the PV module in comparison to the shunt resistance [94]. Result, 1%

119 efficiency reduces due to influence of series and shunt resistance in a-Si thin film solar cell 0,

120 0, 0. Occurrence of the series and shunt resistance in metal part of the module dependent on

121 the conductivity of the metal. However, high quality of metal persists low resistance due to

122 low corrosion in metal and both resistance directly effect on fill factor 00,0. However, shunt

123 resistance depends on the solar irradiation, with the decrease of irradiation, shunt resistance

124 increases, so efficiency may be decreased 0. Yordanov et al., 0 describe the increase the

125 series resistance with the help of the ideality factor and open circuit voltage. With the

126 increase in the series resistance ideality factor increase by 5% with open circuit voltage. The

127 shunt resistance increases with decreasing the irradiation level. Ruschel et al. 0 reveal that the

128 shunt resistance with inverse slop of the different irradiation level.

129 2.3 Effect of corrosion

130 After long term outdoor exposure, the conductivity of EVA material decreases. Result,

131 probability of moisture ingress through EVA increase and its effect on the metal part of PV

132 module 0,0. In the presence of moisture with a higher ambient temperature, humidity and

133 presence of sunlight with high system voltage create corrosion effect as shown in Fig. 1. (b) 0.

134 Corrosion occurs due to moisture ingress and sodium accumulation near the interface in

135 humid climatic condition in PV modules 0. In addition, the diffusivity of water decrease due

136 to oxidative degradation of the polymer, it leads to more amount or moisture ingress through

137 EVA 00 0. Glass/encapsulant/aluminized-glass laminate construction found to be protective

138 structure that catalyzed moisture driven corrosion of Al 0. Wohlgemuth 0 reported in an

139 extensive survey of field return more than 90% of field failures were caused by corrosion and

140 interconnect breakage. Xiong et al., 0 explained that the main causes of corrosion in the c-Si
141 PV module is smooth oxide coating, looser structure and thinner Al-Si eutectic layer in the

142 APL of cell.

143 2.4 Effect of hot spot

144 Thermal imaging technique plays an important role in identifying the hot spot in specific

145 areas of the module. This technique is based on the joule heating effect due to poor contact

146 between the solar cells fixed in the module 0. This happens when any solar cell in the module

147 is damaged or either in shaded position 0. Occurrence of the hot spot in particular solar cell

148 depends on the wafer raw material and identify its reverse behavior; current limited and

149 voltage limited 0. However, high irradiation and temperature of PV module also causes hot

150 spot 0. In which, temperature of cell increase 10-20oC due to cracks in a similar solar cell and

151 area of hot solar cell is similar to area of shaded on it as shown in Fig. 2 0. Meyer and Dyk 0

152 found that after 130 sun hours the performance of the CIS module degraded more than 20%,

153 a-Si 60% and a-SiGe module degraded about13% due to the hot spot. Rajput et al. 0 conclude

154 that temperature of Glass/cell/polymer sheet PV module is 2-3oC higher than the

155 Glass/cell/glass PV module and temperature of the hot solar cell decrease with increase the

156 area of hot solar cells. Dimish et al., 0 reported that use of the MOSFET reduce the power

157 losses affected by hotspot PV module in real operating condition.

158
159 Fig. 2. Hot spot in mono-c-Si PV module.
160

161 2.5 Effect of de-lamination

162 De-lamination occurs between the two layers likely EVA and solar cell on the front surface

163 of PV module and second between EVA and back-sheet of PV module. De-lamination occurs

164 due to two major problems, the first one is that probability of light reflection will increase

165 and the second is moisture will be ingress through the front surface or either back surface as

166 shown in Fig. 3. (a) 0. In context, sodium ion develops between glass and TCO-glass

167 interface, its effect on the TCO and it leads to weak in less time. The result is that moisture

168 ingress through specific part and develops the de-lamination 0. De-lamination also depends

169 on the ambient temp and the material of the different additive layers such as EVA and back-

170 sheet 0.

171
172 Fig. 3. a). De-lamination in back-sheet of mono-c-Si PV module; b). Bubbles in back-sheet
173 of mono-c-Si PV module.
174 2.6 Effect of bubble

175 Bubble and de-lamination both depend on the detachment of the two layers, EVA-glass and

176 EVA-back-sheet. The difference between both is that affected area of the bubble is smaller

177 compared to the de-lamination. Bubble occurs due to overheating of solar cell and due to

178 chemical reaction takes place than some gases are released from the backside as shown in
179 Fig. 3. (b) 0. In context, CO2 (carbon dioxide), 2-ethyl hexanol and tert-butanol are involved

180 in the formation of bubble. These gases are released during the lamination process 0.

181 2.7 Effect of crack in solar cell

182 The thickness of the solar cell has reduced since earlier days. It reduces the quantity of

183 material used which reduced the cost of the PV module. But probability of the cell crack has

184 increased. Generally, the 6% of solar cells cracks during make a PV module. Crack in a solar

185 cell is a visual defect, but sometimes it does not detect from the bare eye.

186 Electroluminescence is the best technique to detect the cracks in solar cell less than 5µm. At

187 discoloration and pre-damage region near the bus-bar leads to defect like micro cracks 00.

188 Cracks depend on the crack orientation and most of the cases crack found parallel of bus-bar

189 0. In perspective, solar cell consistency and a possible carrier recombination path are losses

190 by cracks 0. Cracks occur in PV modules due to vibration, applied loads and thermal effects.

191 For the cyclic bending, crack can occurs where the busbars soldered onto silicon and

192 propagate due to fatigue 0.

193 2.8 Effect of the bypass diode

194 In past decade bypass diode had used between two solar cells to bypass the current in a PV

195 module. In earlier days, two bypass diodes are using between 36 solar cells in a PV module to

196 reduce the cost of PV module. It injections between two solar cells in the reverse bias

197 condition to prevent damage from localize heat of hot spot 0. Hot spot leads to shadow on the

198 solar cell and decrease the shunt resistance result decrease the short circuit current 0. In the

199 shaded position of the solar cell, short circuit current of the solar cell is less compared to the

200 string current, so the bypass diode bypass the current from one non hot spot solar cell to

201 another non hot spot solar cell through hot spot solar cell 0. Organic bypass diode can

202 reduced the loss up to 30% due to shading in organic PV module 0.

203 2.9 Effect of potential induced degradation (PID)

204 PID is one of the sever defect occurs in PV module due to voltage difference from one end to

205 another end 0. Degradation rate of 52.43, 61.27, 66.67 and 72.5% has been found at the

206 negative end of the c-Si PV module after 9 years outdoor exposure in Malaysia due to

207 combined effect of outdoor exposure and 300, 400 and 600 V respectively 0. Hylský et al. 0

208 reported that size of solar cell and distribution of electric field intensity and negative voltage

209 potential are not directly related to degradation of mono crystalline silicon PV module after 7

210 years operation in the field condition. PID is mainly occurs due to leakage current, Na+ ions

211 present in the soda lime front glass to the active layer of the solar and grounded module

212 frame. It happens in the early morning when front glass in covered with due which increase

213 the conductivity of path of the leakage current 0. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) back sheet

214 provide the PID due to partial discharge, which affect the lifetime of the PV module 0.

215 3 Degradation of c-Si module

216 The degradation mode directly affects the PV system performance during the field condition

217 0. The studies concerning degradation rate can help to understand the behavior of c-Si based

218 PV plant in outdoor exposure conditions 00. Failure mode generates from different causes

219 and become different effect on performance of PV module. Previous works on long term

220 degradation analysis are collected to identify the performance decrease rate through time.

221 Table 1 summaries the degradation studies of different defects investigated for c-Si PV

222 module.

223 Table 1 Degradation studies summary of c-Si technologies PV module in accordance with
224 different defects.
S. no.
Failure mode Comments References

1 A significant amount of leakage current may be

Partial shading [6]
dropped.
2 Inverter failure Power drop drastically. [7]
3 EVA discoloration During lab exposure the power output of an [17, 18]
 ensemble of browned modules has probably
degraded at an average rate of about 1%/year.
Significantly reduction in fill factor.
4 In lab exposure simulation shows that these
Series & shunt resistance mechanisms reduce the a-Si cell’s efficiency in [19]
around an absolute 1%.
5 Decrease in shunt resistance, resulting short circuit
current may be decreased.
Hot spot Short circuit current of 3 hot solar cells PV [30, 44]
modules is marginally higher than 7 hot solar cells
PV module.
6 The series resistance of solar cell/module increase,
Corrosion [32]
result performance decrease.
7 Temperature increase and layers of PV module
De-lamination [49]
will be destroyed.
8 It is assumed that bubble formation is one of the
causes of de-lamination which is known to be one
Bubble [51]
of the major problems linked to PV module
reliability.
9 Effect the 10% solar cell area, growth hot spot and
decrease the power.
Crack in solar cell [52,54,56]
Significantly decrease the power as well as the
lifetime of PV module.
10 A significant amount of leakage current may be
Effect of bypass diode [5]
dropped.
11 Negative side PV module degraded about 42% due
Potential Induced Degradation to 9 years outdoor exposure with negative voltage [61]
stress.
225

226 Berardone et al., 0 investigated the degradation rate of c-Si PV modules after 20 years

227 outdoor exposure in Italy. The degradation rate of c-Si PV modules found to be 0.24%/year.

228 Berman et al. 0 reported power output of brown modules has probably degraded at an average

229 rate of about 1%/year after five year outdoor exposure at Negev desert, Israel. A 10 kW PV

230 plant of c-Si PV modules was installed at Lugano, Switzerland, after 20 years outdoor

231 exposure the power decrease at the rate 0.53%/year 0. Han et al. 0 reveal that the c-Si PV

232 modules show 0.5%/year power degradation after 28 years of continuous outdoor exposure in

233 China. However, the degradation rate open-circuit voltage reported as 1.54%/year in same

234 field condition. Reis at el. 0 found that rate of power degradation of c-Si PV modules after 11

235 years continuous outdoor exposure was 0.4%/year of 9.2 kW PV system at the location in

236 Trinidad. Dunlop and Halton 0 reported 0.3%/year rate of power degradation after 22 years

237 prolong outdoor exposure of mc-Si modules. Sanchez-Friera 0 reported performance of c-Si
238 PV plant with capacity 2 kW, installed in Malaga, Spain. After 12 year’s outdoor exposure

239 the rate of power degradation found to be 0.7%/year. Quintana et al. 0 found the degradation

240 rate of individual c-Si module is 0.5%/year after 20 years of outdoor exposure, which is less

241 the system level 2.5%/year in Utah USA. Sakamoto and Oshiro 0 studied about 2000 (mono-

242 Si and mc-Si) PV modules, in which 150 modules have <0.5%/year power degradation rate

243 due to losses in the FF and Isc after 10 years exposure. Chandel et al. 0 reported 1.4%/year

244 average rate of power degradation for PV generator after 28 years outdoor exposure of sc-Si

245 PV modules for western Himalayan, India. Jordan and Kurtz 00 recently reviewed the

246 degradation rate of field tested module for the duration of the last 40 years and concluded that

247 the average rate of power degradation is found to be 0.8%/year. The degradation study of 22

248 mono-c-Si PV modules after 16 years outdoor exposure has been performed by Quansah and

249 Adaramola. The annual degradation rate of mono-c-Si PV modules has been reported as

250 1.54% year 0. Polverni et al. 0 reported the degradation rate of 70 mc-Si PV modules after 20

251 years of field exposure in Italy. The degradation rate of PV modules, as reported of

252 0.24%/year, is comparatively lowers than the reported value. A power degradation rate of

253 0.53%/year found to be in c-Si PV modules after 17 years of outdoor exposure Madrid, Spain

254 climatic condition 0. Virtuani et al., 0 reported the degradation rate of c-Si PV modules which

255 was installed at Italy during (1982, group A) and (1981, group B). The degradation rate of

256 power for group A modules is 0.2%/year and for group B it is 0.54%/year.
 2 90
1,8 [38] 80
1,6 [80]

Degradation rate (%/year)

70
[11]
1,4
60
[70]
1,2
[69] [16,21] 50
1
y = -0,014x + 1,058 40
0,8 [13]
[9] 30
0,6
[11] [18] [83] 20
0,4 [4]
[2]
0,2 [12] [19] 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Years
257
258 Fig. 4 Degradation rate (%/year) of c-Si module after years of outdoor exposure.
259

260 Fig. 4 shows the degradation rates in time. It shows the power degradation rate is higher at

261 initial stage of outdoor exposure with a decreasing of 0.014% per year. The reason is that in

262 the initial stage of the PV module generation and growth of defects is higher than the final

263 stage. However, some studies as 0, 0 reveals higher degradation rate in comparison to the

264 other studies.

265 4 Risk Priority Number analysis

266 FMEA determines the effect of each failure mode and its causes on the system, according to

267 the severity, occurrence and detect-ability. The IEC 60812 standard has assumed different

268 range of S, O and D for a system, which is helpful to identify the particular single failure

269 mode on the basis of RPN for the particular system and operating environment conditions. A

270 measurement of RPN is therefore

271 = ∗ ∗ (1)

272 Where “S” mean severity, which is a non-dimensional number. Severity identifies the single

273 failure mode, which strongly affects the system performance. “O” means an occurrence, it’s

274 depends on the probability of occurrence of defect in the system during the exposure time.
275 “D” means detection, which technology (instrument) has ability to identify the failure modes

276 in a system during its exposure time.

277 In the present study, the FMEA aims to detect causes and effects of the failure modes for PV

278 modules. RPN calculated on the basis of severity and occurrence rank only. Higher values of

279 RPN mean that particular defects mainly affect the system performance [99-101]. A severity

280 rank of failure mode depends on the degradation rate per year and safety issues. It is very

281 difficult to find out the severity rank of a particular failure mode, as the degradation of a

282 module is a cumulative sum of many factors 0, 0. The highest rank in the severity given

283 according to the safety issue likely insulation resistance failure, de-lamination and burn mark

284 occurs in the PV module, it is a threat/hazard to person or either property. The severity

285 number from 9-10 related to safety issues and highest degradation factor, whereas the

286 numbers from 8 to 1 depend on the performance degradation factor. In the present study the

287 severity rank perform according to 00. The rank of severity has been given in Table 2.

288 Table 2 Severity ranking of failure mode.

s. no Severity Rank
1 Degradation rate should be >1.0%/year with safety, hazardous probability in the range <90- 10
100>%
2 Degradation rate should be <0.9-1.0>%/year with safety, hazardous probability in the range 9
<80-90>%
3 Degradation rate should be in the range <0.8-0.9>%/year with safety, hazardous probability 8
in the range <70-80>%
4 Degradation rate should be in the range <0.7-0.8>%/year with safety, hazardous probability 7
in the range <60-70>%
5 Degradation rate should be in the range <0.6-0.7>%/year with safety, hazardous probability 6
in the range <50-60%> %
6 Degradation rate should be in the range <0.5-0.6>%/year with safety, hazardous probability 5
in the range <40-50> %
7 Degradation rate should be in the range <0.4-0.5>%/year with safety hazardous probability 4
in the range <30-40>%
8 Degradation rate should be in the range <0.3-0.4>%/year with safety hazardous probability 3
in the range <20-30>%
 9 Degradation rate should be in the range <0.2-0.3>%/year with safety hazardous probability 2
in the range <10-20>%/
10 Degradation rate should be <0.1-0.2>%/year with no safety hazard 1
289

290 The degradation per year (Rd) is computed using ∆Pmax as shown below:

∆
291 = ∗ 100 (2)
, ∗

292 Here ∆Pmax = Pmax, 0 (during installation) − Pmax, t (during measurement) and Y are the years

293 of operation. In additional, a rank of occurrence is performed according to field data of PV

294 module during the outdoor exposure. Occurrence depends on the probability of the failure

295 mode which occurs in the PV system during the time of field exposure. The failure modes

296 (defects) occur in PV modules in different position should be considered as one defect.

297 Table 3 Occurrence ranking of failure mode.

S. no. Occurrence (O) Rank
1 Frequency of occurring a defect in a module will be 0.18<fp≤0.20 10
2 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.16<fp≤0.18 9
3 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.14<fp≤0.16 8
4 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.12<fp≤0.14 7
5 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.10<fp≤0.12 6
6 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.08<fp≤0.10 5
7 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.06<fp≤0.08 4
8 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.04<fp≤0.06 3
9 Frequency of occurring a defect will be in the range 0.02<fp≤0.04 2
10 Frequency of occurring a defect will be minimum in the range fp≤ 0.02 1

298 Table 3 shows the rank of failure mode according to the frequency of defect occurrence.

299 Rank 10 indicates the higher frequency of defect occurrence in a PV system. While, rank 1 is

300 for low frequency. The occurrence frequency of each failure mode has been calculated by

301 plotting the pie-chart of number for a particular defect as shown in Fig. 5 00.
 Front gridline Encapsulant
oxidation de-lamination
Bubble in
9% 12%
bachsheet
Cell cracks
7%
7%

Corrosion in
thermal fatigue
11% Hot spot
7%
Bachsheet de- EVA
lamination discoloration
10% 20%

Junction box Glass

defects Frame defects soiling/backage
302 10% 1% 6%

303 Fig. 5. Occurrence frequency of different defects in PV module in %.

304 The RPN analysis, as summarized in Table 4, indicates the EVA discoloration and de-
305 lamination between EVA and solar cell represent the highest rank in the severity. Table 4
306 RPN analysis of failure modes related to the c-Si PV module degradation studies.
S. Degradation Severity Occurrence
Failure modes Comments RPN Reference
no. rate (%/year) ranking ranking
1 Corrosion in Corrosion in solder bonds 1.9 10 4 40 [34]
solder bonds. found to be almost in all PV
modules, but higher
degradation in power
attributes to cause of other
defects
2 EVA During the test’s mirrors 1.3 10 10 100 [69]
discoloration. were used for concentrated
the light
3 EVA Power variability has 0.53 5 10 50 [70]
discoloration, increased significantly
4 de-lamination Pmax increase significantly 0.4 4 10 40 [72]
between EVA over time
and solar cell,
hot spot.
5 EVA Silicon, EVA was used as 0.3 3 10 30 [73]
discoloration, an encapsulant.
surface soiling,
corrosion in
solder bond, de-
lamination,
junction box
degraded.
6 Glass The degradation rate is 0.7 7 3 21 [74]
weathering, de- evaluated by outdoor
lamination measured data.
between the
solar cell and
EVA, oxidation
of ant reflecting
 coating, cell
metallization and
hotspot.

7 De-lamination Indoor I-V measurement is 0.6-1.0 5 6 30 [76]

between EVA used for degradation
and solar cell. evaluation.
8 De-lamination of Power degradation in all PV 1.4 10 6 60 [77]
encapsulant, modules attributes to
oxidation of degradation in Isc and FF.
front grid metal
fingers.
9 EVA Losses dominated by Isc and 1.54 1 10 10 [80]
discoloration, FF.
degradation of
junction box
adhesive.
10 EVA EVA discoloration is 0.22 2 10 20 [85]
discoloration, responsible for the Isc
metallization of degradation.
the front side
grid.
11 EVA Decrease the shunt 0.17 1 10 10 [90]
discoloration. resistance.
307 5 Conclusions

308 In the present study, recent information about degradation and failure modes of PV modules

309 has been reviewed. The main conclusions are as follows:

310 • The power output of PV modules deployed under different climatic condition does not

311 remain same during lifetime exposure. The degradation in power output decreases fast in

312 the initial stage and after 10-15 years, it behaves like linearly with time during long term

313 outdoor exposure with a decreasing of 0.014%/year.

314 • Defects occur in different type of PV technologies under different climatic conditions do

315 not remain same. They affect the performance of different types of PV technologies in

316 dissimilar way.

317 • The RPN analysis is helpful to identify the single failure mode, which affect the system

318 performance more. Hot spot and encapsulant de-lamination, back sheet de-lamination,

319 corrosion in solder bond fatigue are major defects related to safety issue with lower RPN

320 number <50.

321 • EVA discoloration is common defects in all investigated studies which needs to further

322 work on these aspects to improve the quality of material.

323 Strategic direction and future trends should support outdoor degradation studies of PV

324 modules installed in the different geographical locations which will help to detect the

325 different failure modes and to identify the best performing PV technology for the climatic

326 condition. However, IEC standard is same for climatic conditions. Which should be modified

327 according to the climatic zones. The present study will help manufacturers and consumer to

328 improve the quality of material and maintenance the PV system to overcome failure mode.

329 Nevertheless, the present study is also helpful to improve PV qualification standards.

330 Acknowledgement

331 The research work of the National Technical University of Athens, Greece received funding

332 from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation Programme under the

333 Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 799835.

334 References
335 [1] Razykov TM, Ferekides CS, Morel D, Stefanakos E, Ullal HS, Upadhyaya HM, Solar

336 photovoltaic electricity: Current status and future prospects. Solar Energy, 2011;85:1580–1608.

337 [2] Shrestha SM, Mallineni JK, Yedidi KR, Knisely B, Tatapudi S, Kuitche J, TamizhMani G,

338 Determination of Dominant Failure Modes Using FMECA on the Field Deployed c-Si Modules

339 Under Hot-Dry Desert Climate. IEEE Journal of photovoltaic, 2014;1-9.

340 [3] Colli A, Failure mode and effect analysis for photovoltaic systems. Renewable and Sustainable

341 Energy Reviews. 2015;50:804–809.

342 [4] Joseph MK, Rong P, TamizhMani G, Investigation of Dominant Failure Mode(s) for Field-aged

343 Crystalline Silicon PV Modules under Desert Climatic Conditions. IEEE Journal of

344 photovoltaic, 2013;1-12.

345 [5] Delgado-Sanchez J, Sanchez-Cortezon E, Lopez-Lopez C, Aninat R, Alba MD, Failure mode

346 and effect analysis of a large scale thin-film CIGS photovoltaic module, Engineering Failure

347 Analysis 2017;76:55–60.

348 [6] Chaibi, Y., Malvoni, M., Chouder, A., Boussetta, M. and Salhi, M., 2019. Simple and efficient

349 approach to detect and diagnose electrical faults and partial shading in photovoltaic systems.

350 Energy Conversion and Management, 196, pp.330-343.

351 [7] Hacke P, Lokanath S, Williams P, Vasan A, sochor P, Tamizhamni G, Shinohara H, Kurtz S, A

352 status review of photovoltaic power conversion equipment reliability, safety, and quality

353 assurance protocols, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018;82:1097–1112.

354 [8] Villarini M, Cesarotti V, Alfonsi L, Introna V, Optimization of photovoltaic maintenance plan

355 by means of a FMEA approach based on real data, Energy Conversion and Management

356 2017;152:1–12.

357 [9] Mellit A, Tina GM, Kalogirou SA, Fault detection and diagnosis methods for photovoltaic

358 systems: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018;91:1–17.

359 [10] Pillai DS, Rajasekar N, A comprehensive review on protection challenges and fault diagnosis in

360 PV Systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018;91:18–40.

361 [11] Holley WH, Argo SC, Gallca JP, Thoma LA, Yorgensen RS, EzrinM, Klemchuk P, Lavigne G.

362 Investigation in to the causes of browning in EVA encapsulated flat plate PV modules. IEEE,

363 Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 1994;1129-1132.

364 [12] Rajput P, Tiwari GN, Sastry OS, Thermal modelling and experimental validation of hot spot in

365 crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules for real outdoor condition. Solar Energy 2016;139:

366 569–580.

367 [13] Weber U, Eiden R, Strubel C, Soegding T, Heiss M, Zachmann P, Nattermann K, Englemann

368 H, Dethlefsen A, Lenck N, Acetic acid production, migration and corrosion effect in ethylene –
369 vinylacetate EVA based PV modules. 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference

370 and Exhibition, 2012;2992-2995.

371 [14] Pern FJ, Czanderna AW, Charaterization of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) encapsulant: Effect of

372 thermal processing and weathering degradation on its discoloration. Solar Energy Material &

373 Solar Cells 1992;25:3-23.

374 [15] Park NC, Jeong JS, Kang BJ, Kim DH, The effect of encapsulant discoloration and de-

375 lamination on the electrical characteristics of photovoltaic module. Microelectronics Reliability

376 2013;53:1818-1822.

377 [16] Wohlgemuth JH, Kempe MD, Miller DC, Discoloration of PV encapsulants. IEEE, 2013;978-

378 1-4799-3299.

379 [17] Kempe MD, Moricone TJ, Kilkenny M, Zhang JZ, Accelerated stress testing of hydrocarbon –

380 based encapsulants for medium concentration CPV applications. 34th IEEE photovoltaic

381 specialists conference, Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC),2009;001826 - 001831.

382 [18] Sinha A, Sastry OS, Gupta R, Nondestructive characterization of encapsulant discoloration

383 effects in crystalline-silicon PV modules, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, Volume

384 2016;155:234-242.

385 [19] Fortes M, Comesana E, Rodriguez JA, Otero P, Garcia-Loureiro AJ, Impact of series and shunt

386 resistances in amorphous silicon thin film solar cells. Solar Energy 2044;100:114–123.

387 [20] Chand SH, Phang JC, A Method for the Direct Measurement of Solar Cell Shunt Resistance.

388 IEEE 1984;31:381-383.

389 [21] Kim YS, Kang S, Johnston B, Winston R, A novel method to extract the series resistances of

390 individual cells in a photovoltaic module. Solar Energy Material & Solar Cells. 2013;115:21-

391 28.

392 [22] Hsieh H, Lin F, Yu., Performance of low series-resistance interconnections on the

393 polycrystalline solar cells. Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 2011:95:39–44.
394 [23] Paraskeva V, Lazarou C, Hadjipanayi M, Norton M, Pravettoni M, Georghiou GE, Heilmann

395 M, Christiansen S, Photoluminescence analysis of coupling effects: The impact of shunt

396 resistance and temperature. Solar EnergyMaterials& Solar Cells 2014;130:170–181.

397 [24] McMahon TJ, Basso TS, Rummel SR, Cell shunt resistance and photovoltaic module

398 performance. IEEE, Photovoltaic Specialists Conference 1996;1291 - 1294.

399 [25] Bunea GE, Wilson KE, Meydbray Y, Campbell MP, De Ceuster DM, Low light performance of

400 mono-crystalline silicon solar cells. IEEE, Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, Conference Record

401 of the IEEE 4th World Conference 2006;1312-1314.

402 [26] Georgi Hristov Yordanov, Ole-Morten Midtgård, Tor Oskar Saetre, Series resistance

403 determination and further characterization of c-Si PV modules, Renewable Energy, Volume 46,

404 2012, Pages 72-80.

405 [27] Cristiano SaboiaRuschel, FabianoPerinGasparin, Eurides Ramos Costa, Arno Krenzinger,

406 Assessment of PV modules shunt resistance dependence on solar irradiance, Solar Energy,

407 Volume 133, 2016, Pages 35-43.

408 [28] Kempe MD, Modeling of rates of moisture ingress into photovoltaic modules. IEEE,

409 NREL/CP52037390, 2006.

410 [29] Osterwald CR, Anderberg A, Rummel S, Ottoson L, Degradation analysis of weathered

411 crystalline silicon PV module. Proceeding of the 29th PV specialist conference, New Orleans,

412 USA, 2002;1392-1395.

413 [30] Tamizhmani G, Kuitche J, Accelerated lifetime testing of photovoltaic modules.

414 www.solarabcs.org, 2014;1-105.

415 [31] Mon G, Wen L, Meyer J, Ross jr R. Nelson A, Electrochemical and galvanic corrosion effects

416 in thin-film Photovoltaic modules. IEEE, 1988;108-113.

417 [32] Carlson DE, Romero R, Willing F, Meakin D, Gonzalez L, Murphy R, Moutinho HR, Al-

418 Jassim M, Corrosion Effects in Thin-Film Photovoltaic Modules. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl.

419 2003;11:377–386.

420 [33] Rajput P, Tiwari GN, Sastry OS, Bora B, Sharma V, Degradation of mono-crystalline

421 photovoltaic modules after 22 years of outdoor exposure in the composite climate of India.

422 Solar Energy, 2016;135:786-795.

423 [34] Rajput P, Tiwari GN, Bora B, Sastry OS, Visual and electrical degradation of 22 years field age

424 monocrystalline silicon PV module in composite climate of India. IEEE, 42nd Photovoltaic

425 Specialists conference (PVSC), 2015;1-3.

426 [35] Jorgensen GJ, Terwilliger KM, DelCueto JA, Glick SH, Kempe MD, Pankow JW, Pern FJ,

427 McMahon TJ, Moisture transport, adhesion, and corrosion protection of PV module packaging

428 materials, Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 2006;90:2739–2775.

429 [36] Wohlgemuth JH, Cunningham DW, Nguyen AM, Miller J, Long term reliability of PV

430 modules. Proceedings of the 20th European PV Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, Spain,

431 2005;1942–1948.

432 [37] Huaping X, Chuanhai G, Xiaobing Y, Zhigang H, Haiyan N, Jianfeng L, Jianfang S, Pengfei X,

433 Xuetao L, Corrosion behavior of crystalline silicon solar cells, Microelectronics Reliability,

434 2017;70:49-58.

435 [38] Mathew JK, Kuitche J, TamizhMani G, Test-to-failure of PV modules: hotspot testing IEEE

436 2010;002839-002843.

437 [39] Köntges M, Kurtz S, Packard C, Jahn U, Berger K, Kato K, Friesen T, Liu H, Iseghem, M., et

438 al., Review of Failure of Photovoltaic Modules Report IEA-PVPS T13-01,2014;1-132.

439 [40] Wendlandt S, Drobisch A, Buseth T, Krauter S, Grunow P, Hot spot risk analysis on silicon cell

440 modules. 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, 2010;4002-

441 4006.
442 [41] Wendlandt S, Krause M, Berendes S, Hanusch M, Drobisch A, Berghold J, Schoppa M,

443 Krauter S, Grunow P, Comparision of hotspot investigation of photovoltaic module at

444 laboratory and field conditions. 29th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and

445 Exhibition, 10.4229/EUPVSEC20142014-5BV.4.42.

446 [42] García, M., Marroyo L, Lorenzo E, Marcos J, Pérez M, Observed degradation in photovoltaic

447 plants affected by hot-spots. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl., 2014;22:1292–1301.

448 [43] Meyer E, Dyk E, Assessing the Reliability and Degradation of Photovoltaic Module

449 Performance Parameters. IEEE transactions on reliability, 2004;53:83–92.

450 [44] Rajput P, Shyam, Tomar V, Tiwari GN, Sastry OS, Bhatti TS, A thermal model for N series

451 connected glass/cell/polymer sheet and glass/cell/glass crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules

452 with hot solar cells connected in series and its thermal losses in real outdoor condition,

453 Renewable Energy 2018;126:370-386.

454 [45] Dhimish M, Holmes V, Mehrdadi B, Dales M, Mather P, PV output power enhancement using

455 two mitigation techniques for hot spots and partially shaded solar cells, Electric Power Systems

456 Research 2018;158:15–25.

457 [46] Munoz MA, Alonso-Garcia MC, Vela N, Chenlo F, Early degradation of silicon PV modules

458 and guaranty conditions. Solar Energy, 2011;85:2264–2274.

459 [47] Jansen KW, Delahoy AE, A laboratory technique for the evaluation of electrochemical

460 transparent conductive oxide from glass substrates. Thin Solid Films; 2003;423:153–160.

461 [48] Oreski G, Pinter G, Comparative study of the temperature dependent de-lamination behavior of

462 foursolar cell encapsulants to glass and backsheet-laminate. 26th European Photovoltaic Solar

463 Energy Conference and Exhibition, 2011;3305-3309.

464 [49] Mau S, Krametz T, Jahna W, Fechner, H., Quality testing for PV-modules according to

465 standard and performance control for supporting manufacturing. 19th EUPVSEC, 7-11 June,

466 Pairs, France, NREL/CP-520-33531, 2004;1-3.

467 [50] Perret-Aebi LE, Li HY, Théron R, Luo Y, Turlings T, Lange RF, Ballif C, Insights on EVA

468 lamination process: where do the bubbles come from 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy

469 Conference and Exhibition, 2010;4036-4038.

470 [51] Köntges M, Kajari-Schröder S, Kunze I, Jahn U, Crack statistic of crystalline silicon

471 photovoltaic modules. 26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition,

472 2011;3290-3294.

473 [52] Wendet J, Träger M, Mette M, Pfennig A, Jäckel B, The link between mechanical stress

474 induced by soldering and micro damages in Silicon solar cells. 24th European Photovoltaic

475 Solar Energy Conference, 2009;3420-3423.

476 [53] Kajari-Schroder S, Kunze I, Eitner U, Kontges M, Spatial and orientational distribution of

477 cracks in crystalline photovoltaic modules generated by mechanical load tests. Solar Energy

478 Materials & Solar Cells; 2011;95;3054–3059.

479 [54] Reil F, Althus J, Vaaben W, Herrman W, Strohkendl K, The effect of transportation impacts

480 and dynamic load tests on the mechanical and electrical behaviour of crystalline PV modules.

481 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition /5th World Conference on

482 Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 6-10 September, Valencia, Spain,2010;3989-3992.

483 [55] Lui GY, Corkish R, Comparison of Different Bypass Diode Technologies. the 49th AuSES

484 Annual Conference, 2011;1-10.

485 [56] Claudia B, Mariacristina G, Marco P., Fatigue crack growth in Silicon solar cells and hysteretic

486 behaviour of busbars, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2018;181: 21-29.

487 [57] Pozza A, Sample T, Crystalline silicon PV module degradation after 20years of field exposure

488 studied by electrical tests, electroluminescence, and LBIC. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. DOI:

489 10.1002/pip.2717, 2015;368-378.

490 [58] Silvestre S, Boronat A, Chouder A, Study of bypass diodes configuration on PV modules.

491 Applied Energy, 2009;1632–1640.

492 [59] Roland S, Pavel S, Stelios AC, Christoph JB, Flexible polymer photovoltaic modules with

493 incorporated organic bypass diodes to address module shading effects, Solar Energy Materials

494 and Solar Cells, 2009;93:1963-1967.

495 [60] Pingel S, Frank O, Winkler M, Daryan S, Geipel T, Hoehne H, Berghold J, Potential Induced

496 Degradation of solar cells and panels, in: 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference

497 (PVSC), Honolulu, HI, USA, 2010, 002817-002822.

498 [61] Islam MA, Hasanuzzaman M, Abd RN, Investigation of the potential induced degradation of

499 on-site aged polycrystalline PV modules operating in Malaysia, Measurement 2018;119:283–

500 294.

501 [62] Hylský J, Strachala D, Vyroubal P, Čudek P, Vaněk J, Vanýsek P, Effect of negative potential

502 on the extent of PID degradation in photovoltaic power plant in a real operation mode,

503 Microelectronics Reliability 85 (2018) 12–18.

504 [63] Martínez-Moreno F, Figueiredo G, Lorenzo E, In-the-field PID related experiences, Solar

505 Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2018;174:485–493.

506 [64] Zhang J, Cao D, Cui Y, Wang F, Putson C, Song C, Influence of potential induced degradation

507 phenomena on electrical insulating backsheet in photovoltaic modules, Journal of Cleaner

508 Production 2019;208:333-339.

509 [65] Malvoni M, Leggieri A, Maggiotto G, Congedo PM, De Giorgi MG, Long term performance,

510 losses and efficiency analysis of a 960 kWP photovoltaic system in the Mediterranean climate",

511 Energy conversion and management, 2017;145:169-181.

512 [66] Malvoni M, De Giorgi MG, Congedo PM, Study of degradation of a grid connected

513 photovoltaic system, Energy Procedia, 2017;126:644-650.

514 [67] Kumar NM, Malvoni M, A preliminary study of the degradation of large-scale c-Si

515 photovoltaic system under four years of operation in semi-arid climates, Results in Physics,

516 2019.
517 [68] Berardone I, Lopez GJ, Paggi M, Analysis of electroluminescence and infrared thermal images

518 of monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic modules after 20 years of outdoor use in a solar vehicle,

519 Solar Energy, 2018;173:478-486.

520 [69] Berman D, Faiman D, EVA browning and the time- dependence of I-V curve parameters on PV

521 modules with and without mirrors-enhancement in a desert environment. Solar energy material

522 and solar cells 1997;45:401-412.

523 [70] Realini A, Burá E, Cereghetti N, Chianese D, Rezzonico S, Sample T, Ossenbrink H, Study of

524 a 20 year old PV plant (MTBF project).Proceedings of the 17th European Photovoltaic Solar

525 Energy Conference, Munich, Germany, 2001;447–450.

526 [71] Huili H, Xian D, Bingzhi L, Huan Y, Pierre J V, Jiangfeng L, Jiapei H, Zongcun L, Hui S,

527 Degradation analysis of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules exposed over 30 years in hot-

528 humid climate in China, Solar Energy, 2018;170:510-519.

529 [72] Reis AM, Coleman NT, Marshall MW, Lehman PA, Chamberlin CE, Comparison of PV

530 module performance before and after 11 -years of field exposure. IEEE 0-7803-7471-

531 1/02/$17.00 8, 2002;152-159.

532 [73] Dunlop ED, Halton D, The Performance of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Solar Modules

533 after 22 Years of Continuous Outdoor Exposure. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl.; 2006;14,53–64.

534 [74] Sanchez-Friera P Piliougine M, Pela´ez, J, Carretero J, Cardona M, Analysis of degradation

535 mechanisms of crystalline silicon PV modules after 12 years of operation in Southern Europe.

536 Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl.; 2011;19:658–666.

537 [75] Quintana MA, King DL, Hosking FM, Kratochvil JA, Johnson RW, Hansen BR, Dhere NG,

538 Pandit MB, Diagnostic analysis of silicon photovoltaic modules after 20-year field exposure.

539 Proceedings of the 28th PV Specialists Conference, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2000;1420–1423.
540 [76] Sakamoto S, Oshiro T, Field test results on the stability of crystalline silicon photovoltaic

541 modules manufactured in the 1990s. Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Photovoltaic

542 Energy Conversion, Osaka, Japan, 2003;1888–1891.

543 [77] Chandel SS, Naik MN, Sharma V, Chandel R, Degradation analysis of 28 year field exposed

544 mono-c-Si photovoltaic modules of a direct coupled solar water pumping system in western

545 Himalayan region of India. Renewable Energy 2015;78:193-202.

546 [78] Jordan DC, Kurtz SR, Photovoltaic Degradation Rates-an Analytical Review. Progress in

547 Photovoltaics: Research and Applications. 2011;24:978-989.

548 [79] Jordan DC, Kurtz SR, VanSant K, Newmiller J, Compendium of photovoltaic degradation rates

549 Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2016; 24:978–989.

550 [80] Quansah DA, Adaramola MS, Ageing and degradation in solar photovoltaic modules installed

551 in northern Ghana, Solar Energy 2018;173:834–847.

552 [81] Polverini D, Field M, Dunlop E, Zaaiman W, Polycrystalline silicon PV modules performance

553 and degradation over 20 years, Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2013; 21:1004–1015.

554 [82] Lorenzo E, Zilles R, Moretón R, Gómez T, Olcoz A M, Performance analysis of a 7-kW

555 crystalline silicon generator after 17 years of operation in Madrid, Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl.

556 2014; 22:1273–1279.

557 [83] Virtuani A, Caccivio M, Annigoni E, Friesen G, Chianese D, Ballif C, Sample T, 35 years of

558 photovoltaics: Analysis of the TISO‐10‐kW solar plant, lessons learnt in safety and

559 performance—Part 1, ProgPhotovolt Res Appl. 2019;1–12.

560 [84] Carr AJ, Pryor TL, A comparison of the performance of different PV module types in

561 temperate climates. Solar Energy 2004;76, 285-94.

562 [85] Chattopadhyay S, Dubey R, Kuthanazhi V, John JJ, Solanki CS, Kottantharayil A, Arora BM,

563 Narasimhan KL, Kuber V, Vasi J, Kumar A, Sastry OS, Visual Degradation in Field-Aged
564 Crystalline Silicon PV Modules in India and Correlation with Electrical Degradation. IEEE

565 JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS 2014;4:1470-1476.

566 [86] Kumar S, Roy S, Gupta R (2017) Comparison of Reliability Tests by Characterization of

567 Degradation in Photovoltaic Modules. MOJ Solar Photoen Sys 1(1): 00006. DOI:

568 10.15406/mojsp.2017.01.00006

569 [87] Jordan DC, Silverman TJ, Wohlgemuth JH, Kurtz SR, VanSant KT, Photovoltaic failure and

570 degradation modes Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2017; 25:318–326.

571 [88] Kuitche JM, Pan R, Tamizhmani G, Investigation of dominant failure modes for field aged

572 crystalline silicon PV modules under desert climatic conditions. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics;

573 2014;814-826.

574 [89] Hedström J, Palmblad L, Performance of old PV modules: measurement of 25 years old

575 crystalline silicon modules, Elforsk Rapport 2006;06:71:1-14.

576 [90] Jordan DC, Silverman TJ, Sekulic B, Kurtz SR, PV degradation curves: non-linearities and

577 failure modes, Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2017; 25:583–591.

578 [91] Kumar, M. and Kumar, A., Performance assessment and degradation analysis of solar

579 photovoltaic technologies: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; 2017;

580 78:554-587.

581 [92] Kumar, N.M. and Subathra, M.S.P., 2019. Three years ahead solar irradiance forecasting to

582 quantify degradation influenced energy potentials from thin film (a-Si) photovoltaic system.

583 Results in Physics, 12, pp.701-703.

584 [93] Kumar, M. and Kumar, A., Experimental validation of performance and degradation study of

585 canal-top photovoltaic system. Applied energy, 2019; 243:102-118.

586 [94] Kumar, M. and Kumar, A., An efficient parameters extraction technique of photovoltaic models

587 for performance assessment. Solar Energy, 2017; 158: 192-206.

588 [95] Kumar, N.M., Gupta, R.P., Mathew, M., Jayakumar, A. and Singh, N.K., Performance, energy

589 loss, and degradation prediction of roof-integrated crystalline solar PV system installed in

590 Northern India. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 2019; 13: 100409.

591 [96] Kumar, N. M., Prabaharan, N., Rini Ann Jerin, A., & Jayakumar, A. (2019). Impact of

592 Performance Degradation and Capital Subsidy on the Revenue of Rooftop PV System.

593 International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 2019; 9(1): 128-136.

594 [97] Kumar, M. and Kumar, A., Performance assessment of different photovoltaic technologies for

595 canal-top and reservoir applications in subtropical humid climate. IEEE Journal of

596 Photovoltaics, 2019; 9(3): 722-732.

597 [98] Rajput, P., Sastry, O.S. and Tiwari, G.N., 2017. Effect of irradiance, temperature exposure and an

598 Arrhenius approach to estimating weathering acceleration factor of Glass, EVA and Tedlar in a

599 composite climate of India. Solar Energy, 144, pp.267-277.

600 [99] Moorthy, M.K. and TamizhMani, G., 2016, June. Automation of risk priority number calculation

601 of photovoltaic modules. In 2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) (pp.

602 1730-1735). IEEE.

603 [100] Tatapudi, S., Sundarajan, P., Libby, C., Kuitche, J. and TamizhMani, G., 2018, September. Risk

604 priority number for PV module defects: Influence of climatic condition. In New Concepts in

605 Solar and Thermal Radiation Conversion and Reliability (Vol. 10759, p. 1075907).

606 International Society for Optics and Photonics.

607 [101] Tatapudi, S., Kuitche, J. and TamizhMani, G., 2018, September. A novel climate-specific field

608 accelerated testing of PV modules. In New Concepts in Solar and Thermal Radiation

609 Conversion and Reliability (Vol. 10759, p. 1075908). International Society for Optics and

610 Photonics.
To Date: 28/10/2019

Editor-in-Chief,
Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

Subject: For Conflict of Interest

Dear Sir,
I am submitting the manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal, entitled as “Risk priority

number for understanding the severity of photovoltaic failure modes and their impacts on

performance degradation”, authored by Pramod Rajput et al., under original research category for

publication. There is not any Conflict of Interest regarding the present revised manuscript.

Thanking You

With regards,
Maria Malvoni
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,

National Technical University of Athens, Greece