Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Real-time inspection and determination methods of faults on

photovoltaic power systems by thermal imaging in Turkey
M. Cubukcu*, A. Akanalci
Solar Energy Institute, Ege University, 35100, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent five years, the capacity of photovoltaic power systems (PVPS) based on solar energy had a
Received 2 February 2019 significant improvement in Turkey. Approximately 1.8 GWp PVPS was installed in 2017 and reached to
Received in revised form 5.062 GWp cumulative capacity at the end of the year 2018. In this development phase, it is critical to
10 August 2019
ensure a long-term high quality of PV power generation. To achieve a sustainable development, the
Accepted 15 September 2019
quality inspections has to be in place. It assures that expected commercial gains are caught and PV plants
Available online 18 September 2019
achieve a long service life. On-site testing of PVPS is very helpful to evaluate the real performance of the
plant and diagnose the failures. When compared to other inspection methods, the most time-efficient
Keywords:
Photovoltaic power systems
one is infrared thermal imaging (IRT) of the PV modules and also the electrical components. In this
Fault detection study, the results of IRT inspection for 19 different PVPSs in Turkey (115.36 MWp in total) is presented.
Thermal imaging The diagnosed defects were classified according to the failure type and the number of them were
Quality check normalized per MWp to evaluate the most frequently observed issues during the field tests. The
experimentation, both in terms of accuracy and processing time, confirms the effectiveness and the
efficiency of the thermal imaging approach. The results also showed that the sampling rate of testing is
very critical to get a right comparison and failure types are mainly caused due to active bypass diodes and
hotspots on PV modules, non-operative modules and strings, abnormally heated cables/fuses/breakers
and interconnection points.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Despite the fossil fuels still constitute a large share of total final
energy consumption throughout the world, countries are heading
towards renewable energy sources by defining the strategy plans
and putting the supportive legal regulations into operation. In this
context, solar energy has high potential of expansion due to its
potential, ease of use, cleanliness, renewability, and its environ-
ment-friendliness.
Solar Energy is also the most important alternative clean energy
resource which is still untapped in Turkey. The yearly average solar
radiation is 1311 kW h/m2 per year and 3.6 kW h/m2 per day. The
total yearly insulation period is approximately 2460 h per year and
7.2 h per day [1]. The energy yield potential for a PV plant reaches to
1500e1800 kW h/kWp. Upon the identification of legal regulations,
photovoltaic power systems (PVPS) based on solar energy have
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mete.cubukcu@ege.edu.tr, metecubukcu04@gmail.com
(M. Cubukcu).
been an attractive investment for any investors with small or large
scale budgets in Turkey. Approximately 1.8 GWp PVPS was installed
in 2017 and a growth which was greater than in any European
country has been experienced in the solar energy industry during
the year. The cumulative PVPS has reached to 5.062 GWp at the end
of 2018 according to the statistical data provided by Turkish Elec-
tricity Transmission Corporation [2]. In consideration that the
installed cumulative PVPS power was 6 MWp at the end of 2013
and 300 MWp at the end of 2015, it may be observed that there is
remarkable increase [3].
However, the elements driving such rapid expansion also in-
crease the risk of solar financial assets meeting long term fiscal and
performance goals. In order to achieve bankability and differenti-
ation, a premium level of quality assurance is required. Technical
risks may arise from the power plant components as well as from
operational processes during and after installation. In this context,
both technical component quality and the financial return of the
installed systems have gained great importance.
Thanks to modern technologies and inexpensive production
costs, photovoltaic power plants with capacities of Giga Watt may

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.09.075
0960-1481/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1232 M. Cubukcu, A. Akanalci / Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238
be installed. And this roughly means the provision of quality
assurance of a complete system possessing millions of modules,
kilometres of construction, kilometres of cables, hundreds of in-
verters and thousands of acres. In order to be able to obtain a high
performance excellent system, power plant units with standard-
ized quality and perfect systems that have passed inspections in
terms of both components and system design.
After PVPSs are getting in operation, the efficiency and reliability
of the systems are getting key components. Therefore, the fault
diagnosis on the field and maintenance strategy should be carefully
defined. A classical PVPS inspection method covers detailed visual
inspection of the installation and the complete system by an
experienced team. This kind of process is generally done before and
after module installation to assess electrical, mechanical, and
environmental stresses on the PV modules. However, the visual
inspection for large-scale PV systems is not feasible in real time
conditions due to high error rate and long process time [4]. Per-
formance assessment based on I-V measurements has been adop-
ted to analyse the power generation efficiency. The most common
measurements of PV modules include open-circuit voltage, short-
circuit current, fill factor, and maximum power point. I-V curve
measurement provides adequate operational performance infor-
mation of PV modules. Unfortunately, to get the data such as open-
circuit voltage, short circuit current and maximum power mea-
surements requires very good weather conditions and the PV
modules has to be taken out from the PV system, this will lead
direct interruption of the PV system operation and reduces the
power generation [5].
When compared to the visual inspection and I-V measurements,
the most time-efficient method to diagnose the failures of a PVPS is
thermal imaging method of the PV plant and also the electrical
components. The PV modules may be tested by using an infrared
camera during the operation of the system. With this process, the
temperature profiles inside individual modules and in larger
module arrays may be visible. Additionally, other electrical com-
ponents such as DC combiner boxes, cables, connectors, fuses, etc.,
may be checked for thermal defects.
The reliability of PV systems can be strongly affected by the
transportation and the installation of the components and also by
real (field) operation conditions. The failures on these stages may
result with excessive thermal and mechanical stresses on the
modules and also the other electrical components [4,6].
Electroluminescence (EL) and infrared thermal (IRT) imaging
comprise effective and powerful tools for qualitative characteriza-
tion of PV modules; not only to witness the presence of faults
within a PV plant, but also to detect their exact location, with high
accuracy [4].
A combination of EL and IRT techniques may be used in order to
identify as many defects as possible [7]. These tests are non-
destructive measurement techniques. These types of optical mea-
surements provide fast, real-time and high resolution images with
a two-dimensional distribution of the characteristic features of PV
modules [8,9].
While EL is superior for lifetime mapping, bulk defect imaging,
series resistance imaging and exact junction breakdown site im-
aging, IR-based techniques are superior for all tasks requiring
quantitative current measurements [10].
EL is a good method to detect micro cracks, interrupted contacts
or a number of process failures (e.g. shunts or defects in the anti-
reflection layer), but it was not possible to determine the impact of
these defects on the module power output. However, EL imaging
method is more complex than infrared imaging and the consuming
energy and time is much. These tests may be realized during night
time or after interrupting the PV plant's operation. It also often
needs to inspect the modules one by one. Therefore, EL imaging
may not be considered so practical for large scale PV plants [7,9].
IRT technique utilizes the concept of localized heat generation
because of joule heating effect due to the poor contacts, shunted
cells, short circuits. This happens because the cells which are
generating less current as compared to the other cells connected in
the series become reverse biased and start behaving like resistors
and dissipate heat. This dissipated heat results into a temperature
gradient which during thermal imaging appear as bright spots [6].
In the case of MWp ranged PV applications, IRT measurements
are more practical. These tests may be realized under a clear-sky
without interrupting PVPS's operation.
In the scope of this work, the results of infrared thermal imaging
inspections realized with different methods for 19 different PVPSs
in Turkey (115.36 MWp in total) are analysed. The diagnosed fail-
ures were classified and the number of them were normalized per
MWp to evaluate the most frequently viewed issues during the on-
site testing. The first part of this article reviews the basic charac-
teristics and advantages of different inspection methods for PV
plants. Then, the second part gives a thorough review of the most
common fault types and the measurement methods by IRT imag-
ing. The third part shares the real-time measurement experiments
and results for 19 different projects. On the basis of these previous
explanations, the fourth and fifth parts summarize the results and
discuss their contributions to the quality approach of PV plants.
Main objective of this article is to guide the investors and
commissioning companies to realize better and quick analysis
considering thermal analysis on photovoltaic power plants. With
the information provided in this paper, field workers can be able to
determine faults and their causes in a more clear way. The article
covers the experience on PVPSs installed in Turkey, but situated
problems are very likely represent the faults encountered world-
wide. Developing countries such as Turkey, needs more energy as
years passes by. Every bit of clean, renewable energy source has to
be operated properly in order to get better yields. So this paper may
lead to better performance outputs from photovoltaic power plants
by using thermal imaging.
2. Type of faults inspected by thermal imaging
The quality check of PV plants under certain operating condi-
tions by employing infrared imaging has acquired significance
during the last years [4,11,12]. High-resolution IR images made by
various institutes, result in better understanding of the observed
detects. Further investigations by thermal imaging were realized
for the modules and arrays installed on-site. After visual inspection,
this method most effortless and easy to perform in real time con-
ditions [13]. However, this method also needs adequate irradiance
for optimal results. Some examples showing temperature differ-
ences for the same hotspot failure under various irradiation levels
may be seen in Fig. 1.
The following three methods are commonly used for thermal
imaging worldwide and also in Turkey (Fig. 2).

By walking,

By crane or lift,

By drone
The information and pictures (Figs. 1e9) shared on this article
were taken directly from the onsite inspection of 19 different PVPSs
in Turkey. These images were selected to explain the different type
of faults and all of them are real-time field experiences.
For thermal imaging inspection method, the most important
factors are as the following:
 M. Cubukcu, A. Akanalci / Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238 1233

Fig. 1. Thermal inspection images at different irradiation levels results in different temperature values.

Fig. 2. Thermal inspection realized in PVPSs (a) by walking, (b) by crane, (c) by drone/UAV.

The quality of the camera: It is very important because it will
determine the monitoring distance and accuracy of the tem-
perature values thus the judgement. Usage of radiometric
thermal cameras is recommended. With that thermographic
image, the controller may measure the temperature of every
single point (pixel) of the photogram with the support of related
programs/tools.

Module angle: In order to acquire best results, the thermal
camera lens angle has to be adjusted perpendicular to tilted
module surface. So it is highly recommended that, with walking
method module inclination should not less than 15 if there are
more than two modules installed top of each other.

The field topology: For the fields that has wavy topological
structure, it is very hard to understand and view the standard
temperature distribution on the PV modules. Additionally it
makes walking method very frustrating for the thermal camera
operator thus the process takes longer to evaluate.
Crane/lift method takes shorter time to investigate thermally
visible faults compared to walking. This method is also significantly
less affected by module angle and field topology. On the other hand,
if the ground is wet, the vehicle will be in danger of sink to ground.
Additionally, some investors are not willing to let a crane to travel
on PVPS site. Although this method enables to get good quality
thermal images, some faults needs close up footage to investigate.
Another option is usage of drones with job specific made, special
small thermal cams and a handheld cam. The weight is the key
factor for that operation. One of major advantage of the drone is,
examination will not be depend on the module angle, topology or
ground conditions but the thermal camera operator still needs to
get permission to entry by drone from the investor. This method is
the fastest method between all. But the image quality reduced due
to vibration and weight allocation of the drone. The comparison of
all images from different methods can be seen in Fig. 3.
The most common defects found by IRT imaging on PV plants

Fig. 3. Thermal inspection image qualities by different methods, quality differences as can be seen from the pictures (a) by walking, (b) by crane, (c) by drone/UAV.
1234 M. Cubukcu, A. Akanalci / Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238

Fig. 4. Images of active diodes and back side of the PV module (a) Active bypass diode from front,

Hotspots on the photovoltaic modules: Hotspots could be occurred by various reasons. Such as different cell characteristics, broken cells, high resistance or cold solder
points due to manufacturing [16]. Additionally such problem may occur by soiling/dust accumulation or partial shading [17e20], faulty isolation on the module frame,
different degradation rates of the cells (Fig. 5).
(b) Active bypass diode from back side, (c) Junction box with active bypass diode.

Fig. 5. Hotspot faults are very common type of failures of the PV modules (a) internal cell soldering problem, (b) shading caused by plant.

Module strings or single modules that are not operative: In some plants, especially if the plant's commissioning has just finished, it is a big probability that some strings or
tables will not be connected to the inverters. Even in some cases, modules and strings are connected with wrong polarity. In the plants that are in operation for long time
period, this kind of faults can be seen because of the fuses, damaged cables over time. With the thermal inspection, operators are able to find these faults easily as seen in
Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Offline strings and tables (a) offline strings, (b) offline table.

Abnormally heated cables, fuses, breakers, interconnection points: As seen in Fig. 7, the PV cables inside of the PV connection point, wrongly calculated. As a result,
temperature of the wires are too high and losing its isolation integrity. Faults caused by loose screws on the interconnection points and faulty breakers are seen in Fig. 8.
Also as seen in Fig. 9, some connections are heated due to stress resulted in loose connection, caused by workers.

are listed below: these components is reverse voltage/reverse current protection.

These components are come into role when PV module or array

Active bypass diodes on the photovoltaic modules: Bypass di- shaded partially [14,15] and if the current is more than rated
odes are very significant components in PV modules, these are current, these diodes blow out to protect PV modules. It is very
placed to maintain performance of the module. Main role of important to select diode with the proper characteristics. As can
 M. Cubukcu, A. Akanalci / Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238 1235

Fig. 7. Heated cables due to faulty calculation of diameter and/or usage of damaged cables.

be seen in Fig. 4, active diode faults can easily be seen by infrared
camera.
Simulated performance of PV systems indicated that the per-
formance of the PV systems can be improved by 13% or more in
comparison with actually measured performance identified by field
test [6].
3. Fault diagnosis of 115.36 MWp PVPS IN Turkey
In the scope of this work, the results of thermal imaging in-
spections generated from various sized PVPSs in Turkey are
inspected. All these plants were investigated according to
commissioning tests. Therefore, the inspected systems were
operative at maximum four weeks. Table 1 shows all the PV plants
chosen for this research. These plants have total installed power of
115.36 MWp and total number of modules are 389486 pcs. In
Table 1, operation time refers to test time after plant is feeding
energy to the grid.
The percentages of the fault types derived from all plants are
seen in Fig. 10. The most detected faults are heated connection
points.
Distribution of faults in each plant are given in Fig. 11.
Number of faults are scaled for 1 MWp are seen in Fig. 12. As
seen, the number of faults are significantly higher in PVPS 3 and
PVPS 16, compared to other plants. When those systems are care-
fully inspected, it has been seen that those faults are mainly related
to workmanship errors.

Fig. 8. Heated connection points due to not properly tightened joints and fuse/breaker faults (a) breaker heated up too much due to loose screw, (b) cable terminal heated up too
much due to loose screw,
(c) faulty breaker, (d) breaker heated up too much due to loose screw.
1236 M. Cubukcu, A. Akanalci / Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238

Fig. 9. Heated connection points caused by workers stress/stretched, on the junction box and one of the PV string input side of inverter.

Table 1
All the locations and their properties that are evaluated with the thermal camera.

Plant Numbers Location Installed Power (MWp) PV Module Technology Unit PV Module Power (Wp) Number of Modules Operation Time (Week)

PVPS 1 Erzurum 2.22 c-Si 270 8228 4

PVPS 2 Erzurum 11.04 c-Si 270 40920 4
PVPS 3 Erzurum 1.14 c-Si 270 4224 4
PVPS 4 Erzurum 12.68 c-Si 270 46992 4
PVPS 5 Konya 3.54 c-Si 265 13376 2
PVPS 6 Konya 1.84 c-Si 265e280 3542 þ 3234 2
PVPS 7 Afyon 3.2 c-Si 265 12096 2
PVPS 8 Afyon 13.89 c-Si 265 52416 2
PVPS 9 Afyon 5.34 c-Si 265 20160 2
PVPS 10 Ankara 4.05 c-Si 270e275 11950 þ 3440 2
PVPS 11 Ankara 2.05 c-Si 265 7740 2
PVPS 12 Uşak 7.02 c-Si 325 21600 2
PVPS 13 Afyon 1.11 c-Si 320 3496 3
PVPS 14 Çanakkale 3.1 c-Si 265 11704 2
PVPS 15 Nig
de 1.82 c-Si 260 7000 1
PVPS 16 Antalya 2.16 c-Si 270 8000 4
PVPS 17 Denizli 10.7 c-Si 320 33450 2
PVPS 18 €
Odemiş 11.7 c-Si 325 36000 1
PVPS 19 Mersin 16.76 c-Si 270 62084 1

4. Results and discussion
PV market presented an impressive growth in Turkey by pre-
senting a nearly exponential rate during the recent five years. For
the operating PVPSs surpassed 5 GWp, the maintenance and fault
diagnosis became the key requirements for the reliability of highly
competitive plants.
Performance ratio (PR) and levelised cost of energy (LCOE) are
the key figures to evaluate the quality of large scale PV power
plants. Recently developed approaches allow for an independent
assessment both of component and of design quality in order to
maintain best figures of PR and LCOE over the system's life time.
Such an approach leads to lower technical risk and increases trust
and confidence for a PV system as a secure investment.
There are many small sized component connections that make
PVPS an operative electric plant. In that matter, fuses, breakers,
every cable connection point is a potential fault source. This fault
can be caused by both of the manufacturer and/or workmanship.
Generally, workers are the main responsible in these kind of faults,
it is rarely related to the manufacturers.
It is extremely important in terms of PVPS reliability and quality
to work with an experienced team and with a third party inde-
pendent organisation in the designing-installation-commissioning
and operation phases.
The experimentation on IRT inspection for 19 different PVPSs in
Turkey (115.36 MWp in total) showed that the following failure
types are common ones: active bypass diodes and hotspots on PV
modules, non-operative modules and strings, abnormally heated
cables/fuses/breakers and interconnection points. The results also
revealed that the sampling rate of testing is very critical to get a
right inspection. It is strongly suggested to inspect all PV modules
and the combiner boxes on-site.
Total number of detected faults are 241 during IRT inspection of
19 different projects. The classification of defected failures are as
the following (Fig. 10):

Heated connections (cables/fuses/breakers): 28%

Hot-spots on PV modules: 25%

Active by-pass diodes: 19%

Non-operative string tables: 13%

Heated junction boxes: 10%

Broken modules: 5%
The inspected failure types are also classified as the following
(Fig. 11):

7 of 19 inspected PVPSs consisted the active bypass diodes. One
of them (PVPS 8) was covering these failures extremely
(approximately 80% of total failure type). This failure was more
related to the manufacturer and also remarkable for PVPS 13,
PVPS 17 and PVPS 19.

11 of 19 inspected PVPSs consisted hotspots on PV modules. For
several cases these hotspots were caused due to the manufac-
turer failures like broken cells, high resistance or cold solder
 M. Cubukcu, A. Akanalci / Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238
Fig. 10. Percentage distribution of faults for observed 115.36 MWp PVPS in Turkey.
Fig. 11. Percentage distribution of faults in each PVPS.
Fig. 12. Number of faults when each system is scaled for 1 MWp
1237
points, faulty isolation on the module frame, different degra-
dation rates of the cells. For some cases, these hotspots occurred
due to partial shading and soiling/dust accumulations. This
failure was extremely for PVPS 5 and PVPS 6 (100% of total
failure type).

Non-operative string tables were detected for 7 of 19 inspected
PVPSs. These failures were mainly observed during the initial
operation phase of systems. In some cases, the strings are
formed with wrong polarities. During the operation phase, the
damaged cables and fuses may also cause these failures. One of
19 projects (PVPS 3) was having remarkable non-operative
string tables which is more related to workmanship errors.

15 of 19 inspected PVPSs consisted abnormally heated cables/
fuses/breakers and interconnection points. These failures may
be caused due to wrong calculation of cable dimensions, loose
screws on the interconnection points and faulty breakers.

8 of 19 inspected PVPSs consisted broken modules. These fail-
ures are mainly caused due to transportation and installation of
PV modules. Rarely, surrounding factors lead to these issues
(such as free falling bullets, bird droppings)
IRT inspection may be easily conducted for the ground mounted
and also the rooftop PV systems.
It is also concluded that the most effective IRT method may be
realized by crane/lift in Turkey. This method is also less affected by
module angle and field topology compared to the IRT imaging by
walking. Additionally, the walking method needs much time for
MW ranged PV systems. Besides, the image quality is reduced due
to vibration and weight allocation on IRT method by drone.
Additionally on the financial side of the IRT imaging methods,
due to workmanship costs, walking method is the cheapest one for
Turkey. Best picture quality acquired by this method. But it takes
longer time to realize the service. Also working in tough conditions
such as extreme heat, human errors are expected to be more occur
on the results with this method. Crane method is the medium cost.
Picture quality is acceptable by the investors. Service time is also
average. However this method needs stable field conditions such as
rigid ground. Besides, some investors do not take risks of operating
of crane in the field. Drone method is the most expensive method of
all methods due to available technology market prices for each
component. But drone method is the fastest method. Image quality
is below average. The pictures or videos that taken with drones are
usually not serviceable to investors. After the inspection of the
footages, some more photos has to be taken by field expert.
1238 M. Cubukcu, A. Akanalci / Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 1231e1238
5. Conclusions
This paper represents a comprehensive effort to review, classify
and highlight the inspected failures by thermal imaging under the
real-time operation of 19 different PVPS in Turkey. Various sized
PVPSs in Turkey were inspected for this study. The power capacities
of them are ranged between 1 to 17 MWp. When the number of
faults are scaled for 1 MWp, the most detected ones were observed
as heated connections and junction boxes. The next significant
defected failures were hot-spots on PV modules which are most
related to the partial shading and soiling/dust accumulations.
Investments on photovoltaic systems are safe, but experience at
the stage of practice has clearly shown us the following items: in-
spection of the engineering processes and component choices as
well as the installation process in compliance with standards by
third party independent organisations; final acceptance testing
prior to commissioning and proper performance monitoring during
the operation bear critical importance.
Generally, the main responsible of the failures was observed as
the workmanship. Manufacturer caused problems were rarely
inspected. Therefore, PVPS's performance may be improved
significantly with a right quality check strategy.
Consequently, IRT imaging is one of the fastest method to
inspect the failures on the operating phases of PVPSs.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper thank to the SolarMENA Energy and
_
Environment Tech. which is located in Izmir/Turkey. As being the
company partner and/or employee, the authors realized the quality
assurance inspection of 19 different PVPS projects under the
cooperation and assistance of this company.
References
[1] F. Dinçer, Overview of the photovoltaic technology status and perspective in
Turkey, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 3768e3779.
[2] Turkish electricity transmission corporation. www.teias.gov.tr/sites/default/
files/2019-01/kurulu_guc_aralik_2018.pdf. (Accessed 7 August 2019).
[3] TEDAS. Turkish Electricity Distribution Corporation. www.tedas.gov.tr, 2018.
(Accessed 15 November 2018).
[4] J. Tsanakas, L. Ha, C. Buerhop, Faults and infrared thermographic diagnosis in
operating c-Si photovoltaic modules: a review of research and future chal-
lenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 695e709.
[5] F. Gasparin, A. Bühler, G. Alexandre, et al., Statistical analysis of IeV curve
parameters from photovoltaic modules, Sol. Energy 131 (2016) 30e38.
[6] V. Sharma, S.S. Chandel, Performance and degradation analysis for long term
reliability of solar photovoltaic systems: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
27 (2013) 753e767.
[7] R. Ebner, S. Zamini, G. Újva ri, Defect analysis in different photovoltaic modules
using Electroluminescence (EL) and Infrared (IR)-thermography, in: Proc. 25th
EUPVSEC, 2010, pp. 333e336.
[8] R. Ebner, B. Kubicek, G. Újv ari, S. Novalin, M. Rennhofer, M. Halwachs, Optical
characterization of different thin film module technologies, Int. J. Photoenergy
(2015) 1e12, 2015.
[9] U. Jahn, M. Herz, M. Ko €ntges, et al., Review on Infrared and Electrolumines-
cence Imaging for PV Field Applications, IEA PVPS Task 13, 2018, ISBN 978-3-
906042-53-4. Subtask 3.3 Report IEA-PVPS T13-10:2018, March.
[10] O. Breitenstein, et al., Luminescence imaging versus thermography on solar
cells and wafers, in: 26th EUPVSEC, 2011, pp. 1031e1038.
[11] Cl Buerhop, D. Schlegel, M. Niess, et al., Reliability of IR-imaging of PV-plants
under operating conditions, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 107 (2012) 154e164.
[12] J. Tsanakas, L. Ha, F. Al Shakarchi, Advanced inspection of photovoltaic in-
stallations by aerial triangulation and terrestrial georeferencing of thermal/
visual imagery, Renew. Energy 102 (2017) 224e233.
[13] M. Simon, E. Meyer, Detection and analysis of hot-spot formation in solar cells,
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 94 (2010) 106e113.
[14] C.J. Winter, R.L. Sizmann, L.L. Vant-Hull, Solar Power Plants: Fundamentals,
Technology, Systems, Economics, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[15] W. Rezgui, N.K. Mouss, L.H. Mouss, M.D. Mouss, Y. Amirat, M. Benbouzid,
Faults modeling of the impedance and reversed polarity types within the PV
generator operation, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on
Environmental Friendly Energies and Applications, EFEA, 2014, pp. 1e6.
[16] A.M. Pavan, A. Mellit, D. De Pieri, V. Lughi, A study on the mismatch effect due
to the use of different photovoltaic modules classes in large-scale solar parks,
Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 22 (2014) 332e345.
[17] A.M. Pavan, A. Mellit, D. De Pieri, The effect of soiling on energy production for
large-scale photovoltaic plants, Sol. Energy 85 (2011) 1128e1136.
[18] E. Lorenzo, R. Moreto n, I. Luque, Dust effects on PV array performance: in-field
observations with non-uniform patterns, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 22 (2014)
666e670.
[19] S.A. Kalogirou, R. Agathokleous, G. Panayiotou, On-site PV characterization
and the effect of soiling on their performance, Energy 51 (2013) 439e446.
[20] M.J. Adinoyi, S.A. Said, Effect of dust accumulation on the power outputs of
solar photovoltaic modules, Renew. Energy 60 (2013) 633e636.