Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

A technique for fault detection, identification and location in solar T

photovoltaic systems
⁎
Amit Dhoke, Rahul Sharma , Tapan Kumar Saha
School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Due to exponential growth of large-scale PV plants, automatic approaches for PV system protection are gaining
Fault detection prodigious importance. Even with the use of standard protection devices, faults in PV arrays may remain un-
PV systems detected. To address such an important issue, this paper focuses on string level monitoring to develop the
PV protection functionality of automatic fault detection, location and fault type identification. The fault detection is achieved
Fault current
through the generation of fault indicator signals called residuals and comparison with a pre-set threshold. The
String monitoring
automatic identification of fault type is achieved by the development of a procedure reliant on the variations in
the string current profiles relative to the type of fault. Finally, the location of faults is estimated through the
combination of analytical and regression expressions reliant on fault type, irradiance levels and string current
measurements. Various line-line fault cases are tested and verified using the proposed method through simu-
lations and experiments. The proposed method is experimentally evaluated for multiple fault scenarios on an
experimental setup located within an existing solar farm to emulate conditions akin to real world solar farms.

1. Introduction significant, and can be up to 38%. In general, faults in PV systems are

Worldwide solar photovoltaic (PV) penetration is increasing rapidly
due to the cost reduction of PV panels and beneficial governmental
policies for consumers. Worldwide Compound Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) of PV installations was 24% between 2010 and 2017
(Fraunhofer, 2019). The ongoing deployment in solar PV system is
expected to generate 5800 TWh power by 2025 (Jäger-Waldau, 2020).
In Australia, nearly 3 GW of new solar generation is currently com-
mitted and additional 22 GW is proposed (PV in Australia Report,
2017). Much of this anticipated growth in a solar generation is attrib-
uted to large-scale solar plants of increasingly large capacities. The
condition monitoring and fault detection in large-scale solar farms is
essential to ensure the longevity of equipment and maximized power
yield. The large-scale solar farms comprise of thousands of solar panels
that are spread over many hectares of land. The reliability of PV
modules has always been one of the important parameters for perfor-
mance analysis. To avoid situations involving faults remaining un-
detected for extended periods up to many months, it is essential to have
inspection personnel committed and/or condition monitoring devices
installed that are guided by appropriate fault detection, identification
and location methods. A recent study (Vargas et al., 2015) of a 1 MWp
PV system in the UK reported that energy loss without inspection is very
associated with design, installation and operational issues. As per the
PV system failure statistics (Kontges et al., 2014; De Lia et al., 2013;
Klise et al., 2018); Fig. 1 shows that more than 35% of faults that occur
in PV arrays (including cables) are caused by inefficient protection
devices or unknown problems. Since a PV array consists of a large
number of balance of system (BOS) components, it is extremely difficult
to detect the occurrence of a fault, identify the type of fault and locate
the fault within the array.
The faults in the PV array are mainly classified into line-line faults,
ground fault, mismatch faults and open circuit faults. The existing PV
system fault protection devices include overcurrent protection devices
(OCPD) and ground fault protection devices (GFPD). The purpose of
these devices is to predominantly protect the DC side and to eliminate
chances of fire hazards in PV plants. The OCPD and GFPD are usually
located at combiner box and inverter levels and, therefore, each in-
dividual OCPD and GFPD is connected to many hundreds of strings. As
a result, the existing protection devices are neither suitable nor in-
tended to promptly detect, identify and locate malfunctions and fault
deep within thousands of modules in large solar farms.
The existing literature provides various data analytics methods for
monitoring (Chouder et al., 2013; Woyte et al., 2014; Akram and
Lotfifard, 2015; Dhoke et al., 2016) and failure detection (Harrou et al.,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.dhoke@uq.edu.au (A. Dhoke), rahul.sharma@uq.edu.au (R. Sharma), saha@itee.uq.edu.au (T.K. Saha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.06.019
Received 22 February 2020; Received in revised form 29 May 2020; Accepted 4 June 2020
Available online 24 June 2020
0038-092X/ © 2020 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Dhoke, et al.
60%
50% (a)
Failure (%)
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fig. 1. PV system failure statistics based on (a) location of fault and (b) cause of failure (Vargas et al., 2015).
2015; Silvestre et al., 2013; Chine et al., 2014; Platon et al., 2015;
Dhimish and Holmes, 2016; Garoudja et al., 2017; Yi and Etemadi,
2017) in PV systems. An in-depth review study on fault detection and
monitoring systems for PV installations is presented in (Triki-Lahiani
et al., 2018). This study provides an overview of the different mon-
itoring techniques used to address the major system failures. Another
study (Daliento et al., 2017) presents the recent advances in mon-
itoring, diagnosis and power forecasting for PV systems. Most of the
monitoring and fault detection approaches use inverter level mon-
itoring for the ease of data collection and processing. However, most of
these approaches are incapable of locating faults within a PV string due
to a lack of visualisation. Many fault diagnostic techniques have been
proposed which are based on simulations for performance analysis
(Kurtz, et al., 2013), statistical analysis (Davarifar et al., 2013) using
current and voltage measurements that is reliant on accurate modelling
and processing to detect the fault. Another method (Takashima et al.,
2008) uses time domain reflectometry (TDR) to detect breakdown point
in PV array which can work in offline mode only. To detect the faults
online, methods based on the difference between simulated and mea-
sured results are proposed in (Hu et al., 2013; Gokmen et al., 2013;
Kang et al., 2012). These methods require climatic data such as radia-
tion temperature and require a personal computer (PC) to be connected
all the time with commercially available software (e.g. MATLAB or
LabVIEW). The method using adjacent string comparison is proposed in
(Davarifar et al., 2013) to detect faulty string. Power loss analysis
method based on the evaluation of current and voltage indicators is
proposed in (Chouder and Silvestre, 2010). The method proposed in
(Hu et al., 2015) relies on optimized voltage sensors and aims to locate
the faults, but the cost of the required system configuration is very high
and the approach itself lacks an automatic approach. Most of these
approaches are validated on the PV system which may not provide
feasibility of real time application. Clearly, the significance of advanced
fault diagnostics in large solar farms is now well understood and many
fault diagnosis methods have been developed for the PV systems.
Table 1
Comparison of the proposed method with some of the existing methods for fault detection, identification and location.
Method Monitoring level Fault detection Fault identification
Parameter comparison String ✓ ×
String comparison String ✓ ×
Outlier detection String ✓ ×
Power loss analysis String ✓ ×
Residual generation and regression String ✓ ✓
expression
865
Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874
(b)
However, these methods fail to automatically locate the specific faulty
module in a string and identify the fault type. However, main short-
coming in automated fault diagnosis is its inability to locate the faulty
modules in PV strings. Therefore, it is necessary to develop approaches
that automate fault detection and diagnosis (prediction of fault location
and identification of the fault type) of any maloperation in the solar PV
system.
This paper examines two types of unique line-line (short circuit)
faults found in a grid-connected PV array. The first one is intra-string
line-line fault that occurs within a single string and another is cross-
string line-line fault which occurs between two or more strings.
Previous literature mainly studied faults in PV arrays under high irra-
diance level in (Calais et al., 2008) and (Goss et al., 2011). In these
cases, the fault current is usually large enough to be cleared by pro-
tection devices easily. However, unlike ‘high irradiance’ conditions,
faults in the PV array under low irradiance (or panels with degradation)
tend to have a low fault current (Dhoke and Mengede, 2017) that may
remain undetected by protection. Thus, the fault current never reaches
the minimum trip level of OCPDs. As a result, the potentially dangerous
line-line fault is never cleared and remain present in the PV array
(Dhoke et al., 2018).
Table 1 highlights that the key novelty of the proposed approach is
its ability to automatically perform fault location up to module level
and fault type identification that are achieved with standard string
current measurements. Whilst string level monitoring is not common in
most existing solar installations, it is becoming more and more wide-
spread as the significance of PV system operation and maintenance cost
reduction is now acknowledged.
The overriding objective of the proposed approach is to develop
tools for automatic diagnostics of faulty underperforming solar panels.
The approach is specifically developed for intra-string and cross-string
line-to-line faults that are considered as the most frequently occurring
faults in solar farms (Appiah et al., 2019; Flicker and Johnson, 2013;
Han et al., 2018; Johnson and Flicker, 2013) and is reliant on the
Fault location at module Reference
level
× (Pei and Hao, 2019; Silvestre et al., 2014)
× (Spataru et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2020)
× (Ding et al., 2018)
× (Guerriero et al., 2017; Cristaldi et al.,
2015)
✓ Proposed method
A. Dhoke, et al. Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

standard string current and irradiance measurements. This paper builds Ii

on a recent paper (Dhoke et al., 2019) published by the same authors.
Threshold
Whilst (Dhoke et al., 2019) is dedicated to fault detection and location Outliers
of intra-string faults only, the approach presented in this paper con-
siders both intra-string and cross-string wiring faults. In addition to the
detection of the occurrence of a wiring fault, the proposed approach
automatically reveals the fault type and location on one or more strings.
The proposed approach is validated through simulations and experi-
mentation for multiple array configurations. The experimental setup
used in this work is physically located within The University of
Queensland’s 3.26 MWp Gatton Solar farm to perform experiments
ri
No fault Fault present
under conditions identical to a real solar farm.
The paper aims to facilitate the automatic diagnostics of under- Fig. 3. Distribution of PV string residuals.
performing PV modules. The main contribution of the paper is an ap-
proach for automatic location of faulty modules and identification type within a string (e.g. faults F1, F2 and F3) and cross string faults are the
of line-line wiring faults. Most existing fault diagnostics approaches, faults that occur between the two or more strings such as fault F4.
even in presence of string monitoring, only perform periodic offline
string current comparison that results in fault detection but do not
3. Proposed method
provide any information about the specific location of faulty module(s)
and the type of fault. The approach is experimentally validated on an
This section summarizes the proposed fault detection, identification
experimental setup physically located at The University of Queensland’s
and location methodology. The proposed PV array fault diagnosis
Gatton solar farm to emulate conditions identical to practical solar
strategy is implemented in three steps. In step 1, fault is detected based
farms.
on residuals; step 2 identifies the fault type within a single string or
This paper is organised as follows: problem description is presented
across multiple strings followed by the estimation of fault location in
in Section 2, the proposed methodology to detect, identify and locate
step 3.
faults is described in Section 3, results of simulation and experimental
validation are presented in Sections 4 and 5 respectively, and finally,
the conclusions are drawn in Section 6. 3.1. Fault detection

The fundamental idea behind fault detection is to determine an

2. Problem description
The objective of this paper is to detect, identify and locate two key
types of the wiring faults: intra-string and cross-string. Fig. 2 demon-
strates the intra-string and cross-string faults. The PV array schematic
shown in Fig. 2 consists of n strings connected in parallel with each
string comprising of m modules connected in series. The string current
measurements are denoted as Ii , i ∈ [1, n], where subscript ‘i’ refers to
the ith string measurement. Intra-string fault refers to faults that occur
outlier among the string current measurements. The approach taken to
indicate the occurrence of faults is through the production of fault
detection signals called the residuals. A residual signal (ri) for an ith
string refers to a fault indicator signal whose value is calculated in
terms of the difference between the actual string current and the ex-
pected string current under no fault conditions. Fig. 3 demonstrates a
collection of residual values with and without fault for various fault
conditions, fault locations and irradiation levels. In fault free condition
residual values are close to zero but in faulty condition residuals are

I1 I2 I3 In

Ia

11 21 31 n1
Inverter

F4
Grid
Va
12 22 32 n2 utility

F2 F1
GFPD

F3
PV module

1m 2m 3m nm
OCPD

Fig. 2. Schematic of typical PV system configuration.

866
A. Dhoke, et al.
Fig. 4. (a) String current outliers during intra-string fault, (b) representation of intra-string faults.
greater than the threshold. This variation in residual values can be used
to ascertain occurrence of faults. This same concept is presented in
(Flicker and Johnson, 2013) and is summarised below for completion.
In order to formulate the proposed residual-based fault detection
approach, let us calculate the mean string current I¯a using the string
current measurement
n
∑ Ii
i=1
I¯a =
n (1)
where n is the number of parallel strings in an array. Based on I¯a , re-
sidual as a fault indicator signal (ri ) for each ith string can be calculated
as
ri = |Ii − I¯a |, ∀ i = [1, n]
In order to detect occurrence of the fault as an outlier, letεTh re-
presents a predefined fault detection threshold which governs the
boundary around ri to ascertain the existence of an outlier within the
string current measurements. Based on (2) and the choice of εTh , fault
detection is governed by the following law:
|ri| ⩽ εTh ⇒ No fault
If ⎧
⎨
⎩ |ri | > εTh ⇒ Fault present in ith string
I µ̂ Th can be estimated using the following expression:
εTh = sup ∥ri ∥2 ⎫
under no fault condition
∀ i ∈ [1, n] ⎭ ⎬
In (4), ‘sup’ represents the supremum. Accordingly, εTh is based on
the calculation of the greatest lower bound on the values of string
current measurements under no-fault conditions. Examples of εTh cal-
culation are shown in the simulations and experimental results sections.
3.2. Identification of the fault type
The objective of the development of a fault identification procedure
is to ascertain whether the fault is within a single string or across two or
more strings. This section presents a novel method for fault type
identification. The fault identification method is based on the definition
Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874
and satisfaction of the following two conditions:
Condition (1):
∃ i ∈ [1, n]such that ∀ j ∈ [1, n]
where, ri or r j ⩽ εTh
j≠i (5)
Condition (2):
∃ i, j ∈ [1, n] ri > εTh and r j > εTh
where, ri = |Ii − I¯a | and r j = |I j − I¯a | (6)
Criteria for fault identification:
(2) ▪ Satisfaction of Condition (1) implies the fault type as an intra-string
fault.
▪ Satisfaction of Condition (2) implies the fault type as a cross-string fault.
An intra-string fault is expected to result in one outlier while a cross
string fault is likely to result in two or more outliers. In intra-string
faults, only one string can be affected by lowering the string current and
the rest of the other string currents must be normal. On other hand, in
cross-string line-line faults, more than one string can be affected, and
(3) the relative string's current varies based on the voltage of the fault lo-
cation between two strings. Based on the number of string outliers and
their currents, faults can be identified as an intra-string or as a cross-
string fault.
(4) As an example of line-line faults, Fig. plots the string currents under
intra-string faults within string 1 at various module locations (Lx), x
∈ [1,4] for a 4 × 4 array. For each fault location (Lx), respective current
magnitudes (I1) of string 1 are changing. It is clear from Fig. 4(a) that
the string current magnitude is heavily dependent on the location of the
fault within the faulty string. Furthermore, the change in current
magnitude is seen in string 1 only while the rest of the string currents
remain the same, indicating that an intra-string fault affects the current
output of the faulty string only. Each fault location represents bypassing
one PV module (see Fig. 4(b)) which results in the loss of that module’s
voltage. Since the faulted string is connected in parallel with other non-
faulted strings, the voltage across the string 1 modules increases to
maintain the same voltage across all the strings. It is also observed that
867
A. Dhoke, et al. Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

I1
L5

11 21 31 41

L4
String 1 String 2
10
12 22 32 42
5
String current (I)

0 L3
-5
Outliers between two strings 13 23 33 43
-10
-15 L2

-20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 24 34 44

Fault location (Lx) on string 1 L1

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. String current outliers during cross-string fault between strings 1 and 2, (b) location of cross-string faults (fault location on string 2 is kept fixed while the
locations on string 1 are changed).

string 1 current magnitudes represent negative values which are due to
the back-feed current that flows from healthy strings to faulty strings to
balance the string voltages.
In cross-string line-line faults, string current of two or more strings
deviates from the expected current levels. Different relative fault loca-
tions are accompanied with different potential differences that result in
different current differentials for different relative fault locations on
different faulty strings. This phenomenon is shown in Fig. 5(a) which
shows string current levels with a cross-string fault relative to fault
location differential. As seen in Fig. 5(a), the difference in string current
magnitudes is governed by ΔL magnitude, where ΔL is the deviation in
currents of faulty and non-faulty strings. For instance, the currents of
strings 2 are away from the normal current levels as opposed to only
one string for intra-string faults. The change in string currents during
cross-string faults are caused by the potential difference created by the
fault location. Due to that, upon the occurrence of a cross-string fault
one string comprises a greater number of PV modules than the other
string. Consequently, current flows from lower potential to higher po-
tential location which results in a change in string currents.
Fig. 5 shows the relationship between fault current magnitude and
fault location in an event of a cross-string fault between strings 1 and 2.
As illustrated in Fig. 5(b), the fault on string 2 is kept fixed while the
locations on string 1 are varied from L1 to L4. The corresponding results
of the analysis are presented in Fig. 5(a). At fault location L1, string 1
current is higher than string 2. Conversely, at location L2 - L4 the cur-
rent of string 1 is greater than string 2. These contradictory changes
happen due to the point of fault location within the two strings. As
current follows the path from higher potential to lower potential cre-
ated by the fault, the respective string current changes to high/low with
respect to each other or vice versa. However, at L2, both string currents
are equal due to the fault location being at the same location (same
potential).
3.3. Determination of the fault locations (Lx)
Once the fault is detected and identified, the next step is to de-
termine the location of faults in one or more strings. This section
presents a novel approach to estimate the location (Lx) of faulty
module(s). Let fault locations at the ith and jth faulty strings be de-
noted as Li and Lj. The corresponding current measurements are Ii
and Ij. Based on the measurements, the relationship established
using relative location and current is given by
ΔI = Ii − I j (7)
ΔL = Li − Lj (8)
As the fault location between the two strings vary and the associated
string current varies as well. As a result, if the ΔI is known, the fault
location of one of the strings is estimated and the fault location in
the second faulty string can be obtained using the Eq. (8). The
procedure to calculate cross-string fault location is given in the steps
below:
1. Establish a relationship between ΔL and ΔI
ΔL = f (ΔI )
In cross-string fault, one of the outliers has a larger current than
others. The string current (Ii) changes with fault location (Li) at a given
irradiation. From this observation, it is understood that the difference of
faulted string current (ΔI) is proportional to the difference in fault lo-
cations (ΔL) given as per Eqs. (7) and (8). Therefore, this relationship
can be used to formulate the fault location approach. The ΔI vs ΔL
characteristics are plotted for various fault combinations in 4 × 4 array
at a given irradiance level. Fig. 6 shows ΔI vs ΔL characteristics at the
irradiance 1000 W/m2.
2. Using string current measurements calculate ΔL
From Fig. 6, it is observed that ΔI and ΔL have a nearly linear re-
lationship especially in the irradiance range between 700 W/m2 to
1000 W/m2. At high irradiance levels, the linear relationship exists
regardless of the fault locations. Consequently, if the string currents are
known, the module mismatch percentage or number of bypassed
modules (ΔL) can be estimated using the following expression,
Δ L= k × Δ I+ b (9)
Table 2 shows the estimated values of slope (k) and intercept (b) for
plotted lines in Fig. 7 at the respective irradiation. In Eq. (9), the

868
A. Dhoke, et al. Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

Fig. 6. ΔI - ΔL characteristics for cross-string faults.

Table 2 given PV array the values of m and n are fixed. Furthermore, the tem-
Estimated values of slope and intercept for Fig. 7. perature (Ta) is assumed constant considering it has a weak effect on
Irradiation (W/m2) m B current, hence on the fault location. Therefore, for a given PV array the
expression (10) can be reduced to the following functional form:
1000 −0.1434 −0.0093
900 −0.1713 −0.0032 i = f (G, Ii )
L (11)
800 −0.20310 0.0491
700 −0.2415 0.1480 Our objective is to obtain a regression function f (G, Ii ) such that the
600 −0.2982 0.2779
precise location of fault within a string can be estimated once the fault
500 −0.3826 0.4419
400 −0.6379 0.4935
has occurred. For the derivation of a function f (G, Ii ) , the range of G is
taken between 400 W/m2 − 1000 W/m2. The choice of this range is
practically meaningful because in Queensland nearly 75% − 90% of
the time on a clear sky day the irradiance levels are within 400 W/m2
− 1000 W/m2.
To obtain the regression function for Eq. (11), a 3-dimensional data
set between Li-GHI-Ii is obtained through a series of simulations per-
formed using a simulation model developed in MATLAB/Simulink
(Marthworks, 2017). Various array configurations are implemented in
Simulink including 4 × 4, 6 × 3 and 15 × 4. Fig. 7 shows the data set
obtained for the 15 × 4 configuration. The data set is obtained by
running the simulation sweep for various fault locations (between 1 and
15) and solar irradiance (between 400 W/m2 − 1000 W/m2 in the steps
of 100 W/m2) combinations and the corresponding string (fault) cur-
rent levels.
In order to obtain L i as per Eq. (11), the dataset is fitted into a
regression model using MATLAB’s polynomial surface fit function
(Dhoke and Mengede, 2017) to obtain a regression expression in the
following form:
Fig. 7. Effect on string current with fault location and irradiation (Dhoke et al.,
2019). i = P1 + (P2 × GHI ) + (P3 × Ii ) + (P4 × GHI 2) + (P5 × GHI × Ii )+
L
(P6 × Ii 2) + (P7 × GHI 2 × Ii ) + (P8 × GHI × Ii 2) + (P9 × Ii3)
expression is obtained for 4 × 4 array. A similar expression can be (12)
obtained for any array size through ΔI and ΔL characteristics.
3. Estimate the fault location on one of the strings Using the simulation generated dataset, we estimate the values for
Once ΔL is calculated in step 2, estimation of the fault in either of parameters (P1 to P9). A cubic fit is selected to estimate coefficients of a
the faulty strings suffices to estimate the fault location on both the polynomial that fits a set of data in a least-squares sense. For the 15 × 4
faulty strings. Let us suppose that fault location on the ith string (Lî ) is to array configuration corresponding to Fig. 6, a cubic fit was found to be
be esimated. Since the current in string is dependent on the solar ra- the most suitable.
diation and voltage is dependent on the temperature, it is expected that Using the regression expression in Eq. (12), fault location can be
the fault location, irradiance, array size (string and module numbers) calculated at a given irradiance. The fault characteristics show that
and ambient temperature govern fault current. Therefore, the like- string currents during 600 W/m2 – 1000 W/m2 are nearly linear.
lyhood location of the fault within a string can be expressed as follows Therefore, the accuracy of fault location is best for irradiance levels
(Appiah et al., 2019): greater that 600 W/m2. Nonetheless, this has minimal effect on the
applicability of the proposed approach as most of the time on clear
i = f¯ (G, Ii , m , n, Ta)
L (10) sunny days irradiance remains above 600 W/m2.
4. Calculation of the location on any additional faulty string
i denote the estimate fault location within the ith string. For a
where L Once the fault is identified, the location for intra-sting fault (Li) can

869
A. Dhoke, et al. Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

Fig. 8. Flowchart of proposed fault, identification and location procedure.

be estimated through the procedure explained by Eqs. (10)–(12). For a Table 3

cross-string fault, the location of the fault on the additional faulty string Specifications of the PV module.
(referred to as the jth string and location denoted as Lj) can be estimated Parameter Value
using the following equation:
Cells per module 60
Lj = Li − ΔL (13) Module peak power (Pmax) 240 W
Open circuit voltage (Voc) 37.2 V
The overall approach of the discussed fault detection, identification Short circuit current (Isc) 8.37A
and location method is shown in Fig. 8. Voltage at MPP 30.4 V
Current at MPP 7.89A
Temperature coefficient of Voc −0.35%/°C
4. Simulation results Temperature coefficient of Isc 0.05%/°C

In this section, the proposed method is applied on three PV array

topologies to demonstrate its validity on different PV array configura-
tions: 4 × 4, 6 × 3 and 15 × 4 PV arrays. A simulation PV system
models are developed in Simulink/MATLAB. The developed PV system
has a similar structure as shown in Fig. 2. The PV modules (poly-
crystalline silicon) used in the simulation have the same characteristics
as the modules used for experimental validation. The main parameters
of each PV module at standard test conditions (STC) are given in
Table 3. This PV system is capable of studying faults among modules
with different array configurations. In order to test the ability of the
proposed approach to detect and locate the faults and identify the fault
types, a series of line-line faults within the string are used in the si-
mulations. The different (random) line-line faults are generated under
different irradiance levels (i.e. 400 W/m2 − 1000 W/m2 in the steps of
100 W/m2) the observed results for three different array sizes are given
in Tables 4–6.
The results show that accurate fault detection is performed by the
calculation and threshold evaluation of residuals. Using Eqs. (1) and
(2), residuals are calculated for each string and evaluated for a possible
occurrence of faults as per Eq. (3). The residuals are functions of string
currents therefore their values vary with changes in string currents even
under no-fault conditions. Further, the number of outlier residuals ac-
curately yield information about the identification of fault type. Upon
round up of the estimated fault locations to the nearest whole number,

870
A. Dhoke, et al. Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

Table 4
Verification for line-line faults for 4 × 4 PV array.

Table 5
Fault verification on 6 × 3 PV array.

Table 6
Fault validation on 15 × 4 PV array.

871
A. Dhoke, et al. Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

Table 7 Table 7 confirms the effectiveness of the proposed method under dif-
Intra-string line-line fault detection and location with variation in load. ferent load conditions.
GHI (W/ Load Detection Location
m2) (kW)
5. Experimental validation
Residual εTh Lx(actual) x(estimated)
L

r1 r2 r3 r4 5.1. Experimental PV system description

1000 2 2.02 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.34 1 1.07

A photograph of experimental setup used for validation is shown in
1000 2 1.21 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.34 2 2.03
1000 2 13.6 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.34 3 2.98
Fig. 9(a). The setup is located at UQ’s 3.26 MW large scale PV plant.
1000 2 33.5 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.34 4 4.01 The PV array is comprised of 16 modules with four strings and four
1000 3 1.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.42 1 1.06 series connected modules in each string. The array is inclined at 20° to
1000 3 8.45 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.42 2 2.04 the horizontal and the modules are rated for 240 W. The detailed
1000 3 19.4 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.42 3 3.02
specifications of the PV module at standard test conditions (STC) used
1000 3 33.4 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.42 4 3.97
1000 3.85 4.91 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.55 1 1 in the experimental setup are given in Table 3. CR Magnetics
1000 3.85 12.5 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.55 2 2.02 (5210ADC) current sensors with 4–20 mA output ratings are connected
1000 3.85 21.8 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.55 3 3.04 at the end of each string. An Easylog portable data logger is used to
1000 3.85 33.0 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.55 4 3.99 store the measured parameters. Also, a PV generated external power
1000 4 5.46 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.69 1 1.02
1000 4 12.9 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.69 2 2.06
supply consisting of a PV module, charge controller and battery is used
1000 4 22.0 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.69 3 3.04 for the measurement sensors. A 4 kW power resistor pack is connected
1000 4 32.8 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.69 4 4.01 as a load to the PV array. An adjustable OCPD (circuit breaker) of 15 A
is connected to each string. The experimental setup connections with
associated components are shown in Fig. 9(b).
the estimate fault locations reveal the true locations of faults regardless
of the fault type. It is obvious that if the number of strings is reduced,
the fault current will also reduce. The results confirm that the proposed 5.2. Validation of the proposed approach
approach is able to deliver accurate fault detection, fault type identi-
fication and accurately estimates the location of faulty modules re- To validate the proposed approach, two types of line-line faults are
gardless of the array size. created similar to the previous simulation results: (1) An intra-string
Fault detection and location under load variation: line-line fault with different fault locations (Lx); (2) A cross-string line-
Fault diagnostics performance of the proposed method under load line fault between two different points within two strings. First, two
variations is demonstrated using the 4 × 4 array. The solar irradiation strings are specially designed to create the line-line faults. During the
and temperature are kept constant whilst the proposed fault diagnostics experiments, multiple solar irradiation conditions and temperature
approach is applied under different load conditions. The results are ranges are considered to validate the effectiveness of the proposed
summarised in Table 7. Only intra-string fault conditions are included. method.
Cross-string conditions can be easily confirmed in an identical manner. The PV setup shown in Fig. 9(a) is used to configure 4 × 4 and
Table 7 shows performance of the proposed method under different 6 × 3 arrays to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed approach
load conditions in fault detection and accurate location of faulty for different types of array topologies. For validating the proposed ap-
modules. Multiple fault locations are tested under each load condition. proach, random line-line faults are created within the PV array. The
proposed fault detection, identification and location approach is

Fig. 9. (a) Picture of the experimental setup, (b) Connection diagram of PV system used in fault analysis.

872
A. Dhoke, et al. Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874

Table 8
Experimental results of fault detection, identification and location for different irradiance in 4 × 4 array.

Table 9
Experimental results of fault detection, identification and location for different irradiance in 6 × 3 array.

verified using various intra-string and cross-string line-line faults that
are created between strings 1 and 2. The intra-string fault analysis is
undertaken at 700 W/m2, 850 W/m2 and 950 W/m2 irradiance levels
and cross-string fault analysis is undertaken at 750 W/m2 and 800 W/
m2 irradiance levels respectively. The threshold is calculated using Eq.
(4) for each of the irradiation during fault free conditions. The results
observed from experiments are given in Tables 8 and 9.
The experimental validation result successfully confirms the ability
of the proposed approach for accurate fault detection, identification of
the fault type and locating the faults within the strings. The estimated
values of the fault locations are rounded off to the nearest whole
numbers to get the true reflection of actual fault locations.
6. Conclusions
The paper presents an approach to automatically detect, identify
and locate faulty under-performing PV modules in solar farms. The
proposed approach is based on characterisation of string currents under
various fault conditions thereby resulting in a distinct fault current
signature specific to occurring faults. For instance, the paper shows that

873
A. Dhoke, et al.
pattern on string current variations under line to line faults relative to
no-fault string conditions are quite distinct for intra-string and cross-
string line to line faults. In the event of a cross-string line to line faults,
two string currents will display abnormal residuals and the relative
magnitudes of string currents corresponding to faulty strings are de-
pendent on the locations of faults on each faulty string. The experi-
mental studies reveal that the levels of string current variations bear a
strong correlation with the fault type and fault location within one or
more strings. The paper demonstrates these correlations through si-
mulation and experimental studies, and exploits these correlations to
automate fault diagnosis through the available string current mea-
surements. Both simulation and experimental validations are performed
to evaluate the proposed method. The results analytically and com-
prehensively demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach for
accurate and reliable fault diagnosis.
Although the proposed method is specifically targeting fault diag-
nosis for two types of line-line faults (intra-string and cross-string
faults) that generally occur in PV arrays, the proposed approach high-
lights that the relative characteristics of string currents under various
fault currents can be used to automatically perform fault diagnosis in
solar farms. Future work will involve consideration and incorporation
of the effects of gradual module degradation on the proposed approach.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
An International Patent Application No. PCT/AU2019/051203 is
submitted on the basis of the work presented in this paper (submission
date: 31/10/2019). This work was performed in part or in full using
equipment and infrastructure funded by the Australian Federal
Government’s Department of Education AGL Solar PV Education
Investment Fund Research Infrastructure Project. The University of
Queensland is the Lead Research Organization in partnership with AGL,
First Solar and the University of New South Wales. The authors grate-
fully acknowledge the Ministry of social justice and welfare,
Maharashtra State, Government of India for Doctoral Fellowship (Amit
Dhoke, No. DSW/Edu/2014-2015/D-IV/114).
References
Akram, M.N., Lotfifard, S., 2015. Modeling and health monitoring of DC side of photo-
voltaic array. Sustain. Energy, IEEE Trans. 6 (4), 1245–1253.
Appiah, Albert Yaw, Zhang, Xinghua, Ayawli, Ben Beklisi Kwame, Kyeremeh, Frimpong,
2019. Review and performance evaluation of photovoltaic array fault detection and
diagnosis techniques. Int. J. Photoenergy 2019, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2019/6953530.
Calais, M., Wilmot, N., Ruscoe, A., Arteaga, O., Sharma, H., 2008. Over-current protection
in PV array installations. ISES-AP-3rd International Solar Energy Society Conference-
Asia Pacific Region (ISES-AP-08) Sydney.
Chine, W., Mellit, A., Pavan, A.M., Kalogirou, S.A., 2014. Fault detection method for grid-
connected photovoltaic plants. Renewable Energy 66, 99–110.
Chouder, A., Silvestre, S., 2010. Automatic supervision and fault detection of PV systems
based on power losses analysis. Energy Convers. Manage. 51 (10), 1929–1937.
Chouder, A., Silvestre, S., Taghezouit, B., Karatepe, E., 2013. Monitoring, modelling and
simulation of PV systems using LabVIEW. Sol. Energy 91, 337–349.
Cristaldi, L., Faifer, M., Leone, G., Vergura, S., 2015. Reference strings for statistical
monitoring of the energy performance of photovoltaic fields. International
Conference on Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP), pp. 591–596.
S. Daliento, A., Chouder, P., Guerriero, A.M., Pavan, A., Mellit, R., Moeini, Tricoli, P.,
2017. Monitoring, diagnosis, and power forecasting for photovoltaic fields: a review.
Int. J. Photoenergy 13, art. no. 1356851.
Davarifar, M., Rabhi, A., El Hajjaji, A., Dahmane, M., 2013. New method for fault de-
tection of PV panels in domestic applications. International Conference of Systems
and Control (ICSC) 727–732.
Davarifar, M., Rabhi, A., El Hajjaji, A., 2013. Comprehensive modulation and classifica-
tion of faults and analysis their effect in DC side of photovoltaic system. Energy
874
Solar Energy 206 (2020) 864–874
Power Eng. 5 (04), 230.
De Lia, F., Pistochini, P., Bonfiglio, L., Vivoli, F., Castello, A., 2013. Training on PV: Focus
on Maintenance, Fault Research and Plant performace optimization. 27th European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exposition, Paris.
Dhimish, M., Holmes, V., 2016. Fault detection algorithm for grid-connected photovoltaic
plants. Sol. Energy 137, 236–245.
Dhoke, A., Mengede, A., 2017. Challenges to overcurrent protection devices in PV array
during winter and low irradiation conditions in Australia. IEEE Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies - Asia (ISGT-Asia), pp. 1–6.
Dhoke, A., Sharma, R., Saha, T.K., 2016. Condition monitoring of a large-scale PV power
plant in Australia. In: 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting
(PESGM), Boston, MA (United States), pp. 1–5.
Dhoke, A., Sharma, R., Saha, T.K., 2018. PV module degradation analysis and impact on
settings of overcurrent protection devices. Sol. Energy 160, 360–367.
Dhoke, A., Sharma, R., Saha, T.K., 2019. An approach for fault detection and location in
solar PV systems. Sol. Energy 194, 197–208.
Ding, H., Ding, K., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Gao, L., Li, Y., Chen, F., Shao, Z., Lai, W., 2018.
Local outlier factor-based fault detection and evaluation of photovoltaic system. Sol.
Energy 164, 139–148.
Flicker, J.D., Johnson, J.D., 2013. Electrical simulations of series and parallel PV arc-
faults. IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference PVSC, 3165–3172.
Fraunhofer ISE, “Photovoltaics Report 2019”. Retrieved from www.ise.fraunhofer.de.
Garoudja, E., Harrou, F., Sun, Y., Kara, K., Chouder, A., Silvestre, S., 2017. Statistical fault
detection in photovoltaic systems. Sol. Energy 150, 485–499.
Gokmen, N., Karatepe, E., Silvestre, S., Celik, B., Ortega, P., 2013. An efficient fault di-
agnosis method for PV systems based on operating voltage-window. Energy Convers.
Manage. 73, 350–360.
Goss, B., Reading, C., Gottschalg, R., 2011. A review of overcurrent protection methods
for solar photovoltaic DC circuits.
Guerriero, P., Piegari, L., Rizzo, R., Daliento, S., 2017. Mismatch based diagnosis of PV
fields relying on monitored string currents. Int. J. Photoenergy.
Han, F.C., Chen, Z.C., Wu, L.J., Yu, J.L., Long, C., Lin, P.J., Cheng, S.Y., Su, F.P., 2018.
Online module-level fault detection of PV arrays using an improved two-stage hampel
identifier. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 188 (1), 012063.
Harrou, F., Nounou, M.N., Nounou, H.N., Madakyaru, M., 2015. PLS-based EWMA fault
detection strategy for process monitoring. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 36, 108–119.
Hu, Y., Gao, B., Song, X., Tian, G.Y., Li, K., He, X., 2013. Photovoltaic fault detection using
a parameter based model. Sol. Energy 96, 96–102.
Hu, Y., Zhang, J., Cao, W., Wu, J., Tian, G.Y., Finney, S., Kirtley, J.L., 2015. Online two-
section PV array fault diagnosis with optimized voltage sensor locations. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 62 (11), 7237–7246.
Jäger-Waldau, A., February 2020. Snapshot of photovoltaics. Energies 13 (4), 930.
Johnson, J.D., Flicker, J.D., 2013. Photovoltaic ground fault simulations using SPICE. No.
SAND2013-1394C. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Kang, B.K., Kim, S.T., Bae, S.H., Park, J.W., 2012. Diagnosis of output power lowering in a
PV array by using the kalman-filter algorithm. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 27 (4),
885–894.
Klise, G.T., Lavrova, O., Gooding, R., 2018. PV System Component Fault and Failure
Compilation and Analysis. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United
States).
Kontges, M., Kurtz, S., Packard, C., Jahn, U., Berger, K.A., Kato, K., 2014. Review of
failures of photovoltaic modules (external final report IEA-PVPS), IEA PVPS task 13.
International Energy Agency (IEA).
Kurtz, S., et al., 2013. Analysis of photovoltaic system energy performance evaluation
method. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
Marthworks, “Curve fitting Toolbox: User's Guide (r2017b)”. Retrieved on June 10, 2017
from https://www.mathworks.com/help/pdf_doc/curvefit/curvefit.pdf, 2017.
Pei, T., Hao, X., 2019. A fault detection method for photovoltaic systems based on voltage
and current observation and evaluation. Energies 12 (9), 1712.
Platon, R., Martel, J., Woodruff, N., Chau, T., 2015. Online fault detection in PV systems.
Sustain. Energy, IEEE Trans. PP (99), 1–8.
PV in Australia Report 2017, Australian Photovoltaic Institute, August 2019. Available
online: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads (accessed on 6 March 2020).
Silvestre, S., Chouder, A., Karatepe, E., 2013. Automatic fault detection in grid connected
PV systems. Sol. Energy 94, 119–127.
Silvestre, S., da Silva, M.A., Chouder, A., Guasch, D., Karatepe, E., 2014. New procedure
for fault detection in grid connected PV systems based on the evaluation of current
and voltage indicators. Energy Convers. Manage. 86, 241–249.
Spataru, S., Dezso, S., Tamas, K., Remus, T., 2015. Monitoring and fault detection in
photovoltaic systems based on inverter measured string IV curves. In: 31st European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, pp. 1667–1674.
Takashima, T., Yamaguchi, J., Ishida, M., 2008. Disconnection detection using earth
capacitance measurement in photovoltaic module string. Prog. Photovoltaics Res.
Appl. 16 (8), 669–677.
Triki-Lahiani, A., Bennani-Ben Abdelghani, A., Slama-Belkhodja, I., 2018. Fault detection
and monitoring systems for photovoltaic installations: A review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 82, 2680–2692.
Vargas, J.P., Goss, B., Gottschalg, R., 2015. Large scale PV systems under non-uniform
and fault conditions. Sol. Energy 116, 303–313.
Woyte, A., Richter, M., Moser, D., Reich, N., Green, M., Mau, S., Beyer, H., 2014.
Analytical monitoring of grid-connected photovoltaic systems - Good Practices for
Monitoring and Performance Analysis. IEA PVPS T13–03, 14–15.
Yi, Z., Etemadi, A.H., 2017. Fault detection for photovoltaic systems based on multi-
resolution signal decomposition and fuzzy inference systems. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
8 (3), 1274–1283.
Zhao, Y., Li, D., Lu, T., Lv, Q., Gu, N., Shang, L., 2020. Collaborative fault detection for
large-scale photovoltaic systems. IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy.