SAND2013-1394C
Photovoltaic Ground Fault Simulations Using SPICE
Jack Flicker and Jay Johnson
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185, USA
Abstract — In order to better understand the impact of
changing the fuse ratings on ground fault protection devices
(GFPDs) of photovoltaic (PV) arrays with regard to detection
window and nuisance tripping, a range of fault scenarios,
including array size, leakage current, fault position, and fault
impedance were analyzed using a simulated program with
integrated circuit emphasis (SPICE). The simulations show that,
by decreasing GFPD ratings, there is an improvement in the
number of faults that can be detected without increasing the
number of nuisance trips and, therefore, the GFPD ratings
mandated by UL1741 should be decreased in the future.
Index Terms — SPICE, ground fault, PV, GFPD, GFDI
I. INTRODUCTION
The mechanical, electrical, or chemical degradation of PV
systems can lead to a number of fault scenarios, including
series faults, ground faults, intra-string faults, and string-to-
string faults. The behavior of the array and the fault
current/voltage can vary widely dependent on the type,
location, and impedance of the fault path, making accurate
detection without false-positives (nuisance tripping)
challenging. In order to mitigate ground fault effects, a
GFPD—often called the Ground Fault Detector/Interrupter
(GFDI)—is used. These devices typically consist of a simple
10x38 mm “midget” style fuse.
While there are a number of PV configurations and
topologies in the United States, the most common is the
grounded, isolated system. Unfortunately this design is
known to have problems with undetectable ground faults in
some cases [1, 2] where the GFPD is not capable of de-
energizing the fault, resulting in multiple fires. Industry
leaders have suggested lowering the GFPD (i.e., fuse) ratings
would improve the chances of detecting high impedance, low
current ground faults. However, many system designers and
operators are hesitant due to the belief that this will increase
nuisance-tripping events. In this work we conduct SPICE
simulations in order to optimize the GFPD fuse rating (and
thus increasing the fault detection window) without
exacerbating nuisance tripping.
II. PV MODEL
PV modules are non-linear circuits. Their behavior is
difficult to describe analytically without transcendental
equations. However, the use of computer circuit simulations
can describe the behavior of a PV system for a wide variety of
fault conditions [3]. A common method of circuit simulation
is the use of the Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit
Emphasis (SPICE). SPICE, originally developed at the
University of California, Berkeley Electronics Research
Laboratory in 1973 [4], is a general-purpose, open source,
analog circuit simulator used to predict circuit behavior. In
this work, the program MacSPICE, a derivative of SPICE3f4,
is used to analyze the behavior of PV systems in various array
configurations and ground-fault conditions [5].
The SPICE model of the PV array (Figure 1) is
accomplished through the construction of a single module
using a one-diode model. This module consists of an ideal
current source at the module short-circuit current (Isc) in
parallel with a diode and shunt resistance (Rsh) and in series
with a series resistance (Rs). In order to increase the Voc of the
module above the voltage drop of a regular diode (~0.6 V), the
ideality constant of the diode is increased [6].
Figure 1: (left) One diode model for single PV module. (right) IV
curve of single PV module
For the purposes of this work, the one-diode model is
constructed to approximate a nearly perfect photovoltaic
module. The current source is set to supply 2.5 A at short
circuit, the diode has an ideality factor of N=80, the shunt
resistance is set 11020  and the series resistance is set to 10
m. This module gives an IV curve with Isc of 2.5 A, Voc of
56 V, and Pmp of 118 W. The max power point has a current
of 2.4 A and a voltage of 49.2 V.
The PV array model is comprised of a number of strings
wired in parallel. Each string is composed of 7 modules in
series (Figure 2). Each module is connected to a bypass diode
(Isat=4.710-12 A, N=1). When multiple modules are placed in
series to form a string, the frames of all the modules are
connected to earth via equipment grounding conductors [7].
This results in leakage current from the module to ground. In
this work, to model leakage current, the positive terminal of
each module in a string has a leakage resistor connected to
ground.
 While there is current leakage from a number of places in
the array, the primary source of leakage in a PV array is in the
modules. Module leakage current is defined as the current
between the module, biased at some high voltage, and the
grounded frame. Leakage current measurements for
crystalline Silicon modules are described by IEC 61215
(section 10.15.3) [8] and UL1703 (section 21.5) [9]. In order
to simulate the leakage current of a real array, the positive
terminal of each module in a string has a leakage resistor
(Rleak) connected to ground. Rleak is taken to be a value of 5
M, giving a 100 A leakage current for a module biased at
500 V (UL maximum leakage current for a 1.5 m 2 module is
11.1 A at 500 V).
Figure 2: Schematic for a two-string array of modules that have a
leakage current, Rleak. The red lines denotes the current path through
the GFPD for a fault to ground.
In each simulation, the PV array is constructed with
multiple modules connected to a central inverter. A grounded,
isolated, central inverter is modeled because this topology is
susceptible to faults that are undetected by the ground fault
fuse. A resistor is taken as a basic approximation of the real
input impedance of an inverter and is set at the resistance
required to generate maximum PV power, R mp, of the
unfaulted array.
Although physical inverters are a complex system
containing transistors, capacitors, and switching controls [10],
only the real component of the inverter impedance is modeled
here since, if voltage ripple and max power tracking [11] are
ignored, the PV system can be approximate by a steady state
DC system with a constant resistance. This means that the
imaginary components of the inverter impedance have no
effect on the steady state solution before and after the fault
occurrence. During changes in state of the array, transients
due to energy storage elements are not long lasting enough to
trip GFPDs.
The SPICE simulations carried out in this work have
focused on various aspects of GFPD sizing related to the PV
array, including array size, module leakage, GFPD resistance,
and fault location. However, due to space considerations in
this abstract only details related to GFPD sizing will be
discussed.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A set of simulations was carried out for a 25  fault at the
positive terminals of modules 1 through 7, denoted as 1+
through 7+ (Figure 3). The GFPD current is sub-linear with
respect to array size and has a near linear relationship with
array size for small array sizes and a nearly independent
relationship for large array sizes. This is due to the inverter
Rmp decrease as array size increase. As strings are added in
parallel, the PV current is increased without a corresponding
increase in output voltage. Since R mp has an inverse
dependence on system current, Rmp decreases rapidly for
smaller array sizes while remaining fairly constant for large
array sizes.
Figure 3: GFPD current vs. array size for 25  fault at various
module positions. The GFPD current is clearly sub-linear with
respect to array size. For large array sizes, the load resistance (Rmp)
is small enough compared to the fault resistance to divert a
significant amount of current from the GFPD through the load.
For small arrays, the value of R mp is large compared to the
fault resistance, so that the current path through the
inverter/load is much more resistive than the current path
through the fault/GFPD. As more strings are added, most of
the added current flows through the fault path.
For large array sizes, the value of Rmp has decreased so that
the resistance of the inverter current path is smaller than the
resistance of fault/GFPD path. As more strings are added,
nearly all of the added current flows through the inverter and
the GFPD current is nearly constant with regards to array size.
UL1741 [12] defines the maximum GFPD detection setting
as a function of array size. The standard lists a maximum
rating of 1 A for array sizes 0-25 kW, 2 A for 25- 50 kW, 3 A
for 50-100 kW, 4 A for 100-250 kW, and 5 A for arrays
greater than 250 kW. The simulation data shown in Figure 3
shows GFPD currents for certain fault conditions which would
not meet the maximum GFPD detection settings.
For example, for arrays in the 100-250 kW range, the GFPD
rating is allowed to be upwards of 4 A. SPICE simulations of
ground faults have shown that, in this case, the fault current
for a ground fault at the positive terminal of either of the first
two modules (1+ or 2+) is below this threshold of protection.
Most disturbing is the 1+ fault cause, which provides less
than 1 A of GFPD current for all array sizes. This GFPD
threshold is undetectable by the UL1741 standard for GFPD
rating for any array size.
Figure 4 shows a close-up view of the 1+ fault shown in
Figure 3. The GFPD current of a 1+ fault (red trace) shows a
very small dependence on array size for large arrays. The
entirety of this slope is due to module leakage current (blue
trace). It is apparent that the UL1741 standards would not
detect such a fault for any array size. In order to fully protect
a PV system from a 25  fault, it would be required to have a
0.25 A fuse for 1- and 2-string arrays (IGFPD=0.30 and 0.45 A).
Larger array sizes could utilize a 0.5 A fuse if there were
extremely high module leakage currents, e.g., 1 mA (~120
times larger than the IEC 61215 requirement). However, a
0.25 A fuse would almost certainly not experience nuisance
tripping from leakage current alone (shown by the 100 A
blue trace) even for large array sizes.
Figure 4: Close-up view of the 2+ and 1+ fault positions. The 1+
fault position has a sub-linear dependence on array size with a smal
slope at large array sizes (due entirely to module leakage current).
For any array size, a 1 A fuse (the lowest fuse rating mandated by
UL1741) would be insufficient to catch such a fault.
IV. CONCLUSION
Undetected fault conditions in PV arrays present dangers to
normal PV operations because they have been the cause of
fires in the past. This is especially problematic for roof-
mounted systems. It is vital to mitigate fire hazards by
increasing the fault detection window and decreasing the
changes of an undetected fault condition. However, care must
be taken to increase detection without a significant increase in
nuisance tripping due to transients or module leakage.
In this work, SPICE simulations of ground fault conditions
of arrays of various sizes have shown that even modestly
resistive ground faults can be undetected if the UL1741
maximum allowable GFPD ratings are used. The results
strongly suggest that GFPD ratings can be lowered below 1 A,
even for large array sizes, without inducing nuisance tripping
due to module leakage.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the DOE Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Sandia National
Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and
operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of
Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under
contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Brooks. (2012, Mar) Bakersfield Report SolarPro. 62-
70.
[2] A. Rosenthal, G. Ball, B. Brooks, and J. C. Wiles, "The
SolarABCs Ground-Fault Research Project - Examination
of Inverter Ground-Fault Detection Blind Spot and
Recommendations for Mitigation," In Press.
[3] Y. Zhao, B. Lehman, J. de Palma, J. Mosesian, and R.
Lyons, "Challenges to overcurrent protection devices under
line-line faults in solar photovoltaic arrays," Audio,
Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on, pp. 20-27,
Sep 01 2011.
[4] L. W. Nagel and D. O. Pederson, "SPICE (Simulation
Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis)." vol. ERL-
M382, ed: University of California, Berkeley, 1973, p. 62.
[5] L. Castaner and S. Silvestre, Modelling Photovoltaic
Systems using PSPICE. Chichester, West Sussex, England:
John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2002.
[6] A. Devasia and S. K. Kurinec, "Teaching solar cell I-V
characteristics using SPICE," American Journal of Physics,
vol. 79 (12), p. 1232, 2011.
[7] J. C. Wiles, "Photovoltaic System Grounding," ed, 2012,
pp. 1-29.
[8] International Electrotechnical Commission, "Crystalline
Silicon Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) Modules-Design
Qualification and Type Approval," 2nd ed. Geneva, p. 102.
[9] Underwriters Laboratories, "Flat-Plate Photovoltaic
Modules and Panels," 3rd ed. Northbrook, IL, 2008, pp. 1-
82.
[10] J. Worden and M. Zuercher-Martinson. (2009, May) How
Inverters Work. SolarPro. 68-85. Available:
http://xiazai.inktronics.com.cn/Uploadfile/DownFile/
10-08-13/100813131907_hjkg.pdf
[11] J. Flicker, R. Kaplar, M. Marinella, and J. Granata, "PV
Inverter Performance and Reliability: What is the Role of
the Bus Capacitor?," Photovoltaic Specialists Conference
(PVSC), Austin, TX, 2012, p. 6.
[12] Underwriters' Laboratory, "Inverters, Converters,
Controllers, and Interconnection System Equipment for
Use with Distributed Energy Resources," UL 1741 ed.
Northbrook, IL, 2001.