See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254027313

Quality assurance of large scale PV power plants

Article  in  Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference · June 2011

DOI: 10.1109/PVSC.2011.6186343

CITATIONS READS

12 553

4 authors, including:

Klaus Kiefer Nils Holger Reich

Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE
42 PUBLICATIONS   862 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   697 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christian Reise
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE
65 PUBLICATIONS   1,428 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PERFORMANCE - A science base on photovoltaics performance for increased market transparency and customer confidence View project

PVSAT-1 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nils Holger Reich on 06 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF LARGE SCALE PV POWER PLANTS
K. Kiefer, N.H. Reich, D. Dirnberger, Ch. Reise
Fraunhofer ISE, Freiburg, Germany
ABSTRACT
An overview on quality assurance measures for large-
scale PV power plants is given. Areas discussed include
yield assessment, module testing and power rating, on-
site system testing and yield monitoring. In addition, we
present a procedure for the analysis of module and
system long-term stability using performance monitoring
data of systems. For PV systems with standard c-Si
modules, calculated rates of change in the initial ~5-7
years are statistically insignificant. Although this gives
confidence about the fairly good long-term stability of c-Si
modules, longer monitoring durations may be needed in
order to address degradation rates by monitoring data
analysis. Concerning PV performances more generally,
today’s high Performance Ratio is proof that solar PV has
matured into both a highly reliable and well-performing
technology.
INTRODUCTION
The Performance Ratio (PR) of German PV systems
monitored by Fraunhofer ISE steadily increased between
years 2001 and 2010, as illustrated in Fig. 1. A detailed
analysis of these ~100 systems totalling ~30MWp is given
elsewhere [1], including descriptions of the systems, their
PR development since the start of the German “1000-
roofs-programme” and detailed comparisons of monitored
with simulated loss mechanisms.
Figure 1: Development of PR for systems monitored
by Fraunhofer ISE between years 2001 and 2009
On top of increased component efficiencies, also quality
assurance measures contribute to the achievement of high
system performances. In order to establish quality
assurance as a daily practice, the so-called “PV Quality
978-1-4244-9965-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: FhI fur Solare Energiesysteme. Downloaded on April 06,2021 at 16:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Assurance Cycle” was developed at Fraunhofer ISE, in
close collaboration with financial institutions and investors.
The cycle covers all phases of the PV system completion
process.
The working areas shown within the “PV Quality
Assurance Cycle” are in most cases linked to phases of
planning, construction, handover of ownership and plant
operation, respectively. Each of these areas is briefly
described in the following sections. An analysis of long-
term module stability using monitoring data of PV power
plants is subsequently presented.
Figure 2: PV quality assurance cycle
YIELD ASSESSMENT
Yield assessments provide information on the expected
system performance under given site constraints, selected
technologies and selected components. An independent
yield assessment represents the first step along the road
toward optimized yields: Yield assessments allow for the
early detection of suboptimal designs and/or unfavourable
choices of components. The latter relates to both the
performance of individual components and their interaction
within the system as a whole. It is therefore often
mandatory to include one or more independent yield
assessments for financing institutions.
The assessments of expected yield require high-quality
and long-term meteorological data for the particular site in
question. Different data sources are used and compared
to respective yield potentials wherever possible. We use
meteorological data provided by national weather services
or specialized companies such as Meteocontrol and Geo-
model.
Irradiation data usually comprise only global horizontal
irradiation intensity time series. It is therefore necessary to
calculate irradiation intensity onto the module plane
(plane-of-array irradiation HPOA) based on global horizontal
data for particular module-orientation and -inclination.
001987
Actual system power output is then calculated based upon
simulated operating conditions, mainly irradiation intensity
incident onto the module plane and module temperature.
The determination of module power output at conditions
other than STC is usually based upon model parameters
derived from data sheet specifications. However, a
comparison of parameters derived this way with
parameters determined by own measurements revealed
relatively high deviations [2]. Interestingly, errors in
simulated yield related to deviating temperature
coefficients reportedly do not have as large an effect as
deviations in low-light characterization of modules. It
therefore seems desirable to at least test for the low-light
performance of modules during module measurements,
which are currently used primarily for testing the rated
STC module power output (see following section).
Regarding irradiation data, row shading and external
shading may need to be considered in addition to deriving
HPOA from global horizontal irradiation data. Modelling the
influence of shading, however, is not easy, because,
amongst other issues, one shaded cell of one single
module may affect entire module strings. An example for
ongoing research in this area is an electrical model that
distinguishes each cell for shaded solar generators, with
initial results already having been presented [3].
MODULE MEASUREMENTS
Once planning comes to an end and actual modules are
purchased, it is essential to assure that shipped modules
actually meet their specifications. For example, for a one-
megawatt plant and today’s cost- and feed-in-tariff
structure, a financial loss of as much as ~50,000€ would
result over a plant operating period of 20 years, if average
module power is only one percent lower.
In order to ensure that irregularities are identified before
installation, the measurement of a representative number
of modules is recommended, preferably in accredited
laboratories. An accredited laboratory ensures that work is
conducted according to state-of-the-art standards [4-8]
and that measurements with only small uncertainties of
reported figures are trustworthy. Prerequisites for the latter
are traceable calibrations of all parts of the measurement
equipment, an uncertainty calculation according to
international standards [9, 10] and a thorough quality
management including regular international round robin
tests [11]. Frainhofer ISE’s CalLab PV Modules provides
measurement uncertainties of 2% for crystalline silicon
modules and 3.5% to 5% for most thin film modules,
depending on the technology and measurement procedure
chosen. Temperature coefficients and low light
performance can also be verified in this laboratory.
Testing a “representative number of modules” for a PV
power plant in the MW range, however, is next to
impossible: A number-related definition of “statistically
representative” will result in an unfeasibly large amount of
measurements. A special distribution-related procedure to
select representative module batches from manufacturers’
“flash lists” was therefore developed. A “flash list”
indicates the manufacturer-measured power of each
978-1-4244-9965-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: FhI fur Solare Energiesysteme. Downloaded on April 06,2021 at 16:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
module. Usually, only about 0.05% to 0.5% of the total
number of modules is needed for the comparison with
power ratings obtained by independent testing facilities.
This way, potential deviations in manufacturer-indicated
power output claims can be uncovered, enabling more
reliable information on the actual power output of all
modules shipped by the particular supplier.
Figure 3: Example of module power output verification
by random sampling approach in module testing.
One example for module power output verification by
random sampling is given in Fig. 3, showing comparisons
for 20 modules from each of the 4 manufacturers. The
rated module power (as labelled on the back of the
modules) and actually measured power output by
Fraunhofer ISE’s CalLab Modules is depicted in this
graph. As shown, overrated modules were shipped by
manufacturer 2, for which the largest difference of
manufacturer-claimed vs. ISE-measured efficiency was
~4%. However, underrated modules were also detected,
which was likely caused by so-called “plus-tolerances” in
the module purchase contract.
SYSTEM TESTING
To assure that systems already in operation deliver their
specified power output, it is necessary to test the entire
system. Tests may include both the identification of
(general) defects and the documentation of deviations in
system specifications.
On-site testing of systems can also contribute to the
verification of module power, which has actually been
installed. The procedure and general test setup is shown
in Fig. 4. Here, the total installed PV capacity at a site is
tested by I-V curve measurements of sub-arrays or
individual strings, usually for ~20% of all modules installed
at a site. This may reveal weak module power and/or
cabling faults. One downside of on-site system testing is
the dependency on weather conditions: Field I-V curve
measurements can only be performed under clear skies
with fairly high and constant irradiance (> 800 W/m²),
which is due to the need for extrapolation from actual
conditions deviating from STC [12]. This also requires
careful determination of temperature coefficients of the
module (type) in question. Measurement uncertainties of
on-site power verification are roughly 2.5% to 5%,
001988
depending on the current weather conditions, assuming request an independent system test with a report that
I-V curves are measured according to standards, using includes a comparison between the as-built and as-
primary calibrated equipment and meticulously determined planned system.
parameters, as presented in [13]. In addition, external
influences such as module soiling or electrical losses need YIELD MONITORING
careful consideration.
Continuous monitoring of PV systems assures the early
detection of system faults (such as inverter breakdowns)
and long-term performance analysis (such as a detailed
I-V curve quantification of loss-mechanisms and annual variations of
Measurement
the PR related to changing meteorological conditions). In
addition, monitoring also helps in validating and further
developing models and yield simulation software.
Measured Power
Data acquisition systems of Fraunhofer ISE monitoring
services typically record the plane-of-array irradiation
HPOA, module temperature, ambient temperature,
CORRECTION TO STC
Power at STC Temperature measured total AC power output by connecting to the
& Irradiance utility feed-in meter, and measured DC and AC power
Measurement
ACCOUNTING FOR output of reference (sub) systems to test for DC and AC
Power at STC, performances in the systems.
corrected for losses Irradiation is measured by calibrated irradiance sensors
Soiling DC wiring
Wiring losses
with uncertainty of ± 2%. For larger systems, often both a
VERIFICATION OF
Electrical mismatch pyranometer and a monocrystalline silicon sensor
(referred to as simply ‘reference cell’) are installed.
Labeled Module Power
Involved measurement uncertainties are listed in the
following section (see Table I).
Figure 4: On-site measurement of solar generator I-V
The DC output of a reference (sub) system is measured
curves for testing installed PV capacity.
between the solar generator and inverter, which allows for
the calculation of solar generator efficiency (SG) and
In addition, system testing may also include more detailed
inverter efficiency (Inv) on top of the Performance Ratio
examinations, such as the identification of damaged
(PR) of the plant as a whole. Monitoring data is acquired
modules or modules not working optimally by thermograph
from 1-second measurements and is usually aggregated
images obtained from infrared cameras, see Fig. 5.
to 5-minute averages.
Exemplary charts from monitored data are shown in Fig. 6,
depicting measured PV efficiencies, currents and voltages
as a function of measured irradiation intensity. Also
inverter efficiency as a function of normalized DC to AC
power output is shown. A detailed analysis of monitoring
data and comparisons of simulated with monitored (sub)
system performances will be given elsewhere [1].

Figure 5: On-site system inspection using thermo-

graphic imaging techniques to identify malfunctions.

From our experience in many on-site system inspections,

it can be concluded that component specifications which
are actually installed often vary considerably from planned
specifications. Even labelled module power output or
system inclination and orientation sometimes differ,
despite the high influence on energy yields. This ends up
being a problem when the original yield assessments are
taken as a reference for altered system specifications, for
example in closed funds or advertisements. In case of
doubts as to which status of a power plant the yield
assessment is actually referring to, investors may want to Figure 6: Exemplary monitoring charts

978-1-4244-9965-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 001989

Authorized licensed use limited to: FhI fur Solare Energiesysteme. Downloaded on April 06,2021 at 16:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM MODULE STABILITY In total, monitoring data used for this study included 489
USING MONITORING DATA years of data, was performed for 107 systems, 16 of which
have modules with either string-ribbon or edge-defined
Long-term PV module stability is usually investigated by film-fed growth (EFG) solar cells and all others having
focusing upon individual modules installed outdoors over standard c-Si cells. We excluded systems with thin film
long time periods, or by accelerated lifetime testing modules in the analysis presented here. On average, data
accompanied by subsequent or continuous module availability was 99.4% for all systems in the entire period.
characterization in the laboratory. Both these approaches,
however, are cumbersome in that modules need to be Resulting “rates of change” of module power
handled and measured individually. In addition, results are
not necessarily representative, because only individual Obtained change rates from above described filtering
circumstances of these individual modules are focused on, procedure varied between –3%/yr…+3%/yr for standard c-
in regards to both the conditions the modules are operated Si modules in the initial ~5-7 years of operation. The
at and the modules themselves. To this end, we embarked statistical spread in changing power output over time is
upon an analysis of PV module degradation by means of evenly distributed, i.e., about the same decrease in PV
evaluating a large quantity of monitoring data of entire PV power output (usually referred to as degradation) as well
power plants [14, 15]. as an increase was observed. For EFG and string ribbon
In order to exclude influences from different climatic solar cells, however, the resulting rate of change is
conditions in different years, data points at comparable consistently negative. The results are illustrated in Fig 9
and failure-free conditions had to be selected. We decided for all individual systems.
on the following steps:
- Filtering of 5-minute averages at irradiation intensity
between 800 W/m² and 1000 W/m²:
- Avoiding shading and angle of incidence effects
due to relatively high sun elevation
- Efficiency of crystalline silicon based modules is
almost constant between 800-1000 W/m²
- Binning data points by temperature into 5K intervals:
The bin with the most data points was selected for the
analysis of each system, typically 40°C…45°C
- Exclusion of outliers: All data points with a deviation
of more than ± 5% from the annual median
Around 700 to 1000 data points remained per year for the
analyzed systems, for which a linear slope was fitted to
derive an annual rate of change. The filtering procedure is
illustrated in Fig. 7.
Figure 8: The ‘rate of change’ of rated power output
estimates (in %/yr) resulting from the degradation
analysis using monitoring data.

The statistical spread with an average close to zero for c-

Si modules with conventional cells leads to the conclusion
that it is not necessarily relevant to consider degradation
of crystalline silicon modules on the system level in the
initial years of plant operation. Here, start-up effects on the
system level may mask module power output reduction
which occurs over time, i.e., increased performances
resulting from identified and solved system issues may
outbalance degradation effects. Such issues are described
in the previous section ‘system testing’. In addition,
however, measurement uncertainty of system monitoring
needs to be considered.
The most important influences of uncertainties due to the
measurement setup are depicted in Fig. 7. However, not
all listed sources of uncertainty need to be considered
relevant. For example, one may assume reflection losses
at both modules and reference cell glass covers to be very
Figure 7: Filtering monitored data points (see text).
similar. Since crystalline silicon sensors were used to

978-1-4244-9965-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 001990

Authorized licensed use limited to: FhI fur Solare Energiesysteme. Downloaded on April 06,2021 at 16:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
monitor crystalline silicon modules, effects due to
changing spectral conditions supposedly level out too. The
most critical quantity in the monitoring-measurements is
irradiance intensity, notably the relatively large initial
uncertainty of ~2% in reference cell calibration. In addition,
uncertainty introduced by temperature correction of the
reference cell signal has to be considered [13].
Global spectral irrandiance
on Module + sensor plane
However, more detailed studies are needed before we are
able to include uncertainty figures related to soiling effects.
The estimated combined uncertainty of monitoring data is
detailed in Table I. As listed, we anticipate ~3%...4% in
overall uncertainty, which is about the same as the initial
variation of rates of change. This variation of the rate of
change, for all systems, is illustrated in Fig. 10, which
shows the distribution of calculated rates of change for all
systems monitored >1.5 years and >5 years.

Worst Case Best Case

Sensor soiling
Module soiling Irradiance 2.0% 2.0%
Sensor Temperature
Spectral Response Irradiance incl. T-correction 2.3% 2.3%
Spectral Response
Reflection losses Temperature 1K 1K
Reflection losses DC Current 0.6% 0.6%
DC Voltage 1.6% 0.3%
Sensor short circuit current
AC Energy 2.0% 0.5%
Estimated Combined uncertainty
Temperature dependent signal
Solar Generator Efficiency 4.5% 2.9%
Temperature coefficient of Performance Ratio 4.3% 2.8%
sensor and shunt
Temperature correction
procedure applied
Table I: Estimated measurement uncertainties

Temperature corrected signal

Calibration value

Available Irradiance for

Measured Irradiance
Modules

Stability of Sensor Module temperature

Module output

Stability of performance

Rate of change

Figure 10: The distribution of aggregated ‘rates of

Figure 9: Influences on uncertainty of the irradiance
measurement when deriving degradation rates
For an accurate result of a degradation analysis, it is also
important that the irradiance sensor itself has a high
stability. An important issue regarding sensor stability is
soiling of sensors. We measure soiling levels for all
reference cells being replaced every 2 years. To this end,
additional measurements before the actual re-calibration
are taken, i.e., an additional calibration value is obtained
prior to the appropriate cleaning procedure of sensor glass
covers. Preliminary results indicate typical soiling levels in
the 1%...3% range. However, up to –5% and exceptionally
higher deviations were detected.
Soiling is extremely location dependent, so a general
soiling rate could not be derived. Nor could a correlation
between sensor operation period and soiling rate be
identified. Soiling of sensors and modules is also
dependent on the frequency and intensity of precipitation,
and measured soiling levels will also depend on the time
between the last rainfall and the sensor replacement.
change’ for all systems combined.
From Fig. 10 it can be discerned that the variation of the
calculated rate of change decreases significantly with a
longer monitoring duration. Also, the rate of change is no
longer evenly distributed but shifted toward a negative rate
of change (usually referred to as ‘degradation’). For the
systems investigated this would mean -0.35%/yr, however,
we believe more monitoring systems over even longer
time periods are needed in order to be able to state
reliable degradation rates derived from monitoring data.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We presented an overview on the quality assurance
measures available today in all phases of the PV system
completion process. The quality assurance measures
described in this paper can be linked to phases of
planning, construction, handover of ownership and plant
operation, respectively, and range from yield assessment
over module characterization to on-site system testing and

978-1-4244-9965-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 001991

Authorized licensed use limited to: FhI fur Solare Energiesysteme. Downloaded on April 06,2021 at 16:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 yield monitoring. Especially continuous monitoring of PV
systems is relevant, as it assures the early detection of
system faults (such as inverter breakdowns). In addition,
monitoring also helps in validating and further developing
yield simulation software and allows for long-term
performance analyses. Combined, all quality assurance
measures ascertain that high performances ratio of up to
90% can not only be achieved but also sustained.
One issue of sustained high PV performance is so-called
module degradation. Most often, degradation rates are
investigated by focusing upon individual modules, either
installed outdoors during long time periods or in the
laboratory using accelerated lifetime testing. Both these
approaches, however, are cumbersome in that modules
need to be handled and measured individually. In addition,
results are not necessarily representative, because of the
focus on only individual circumstances. To this end, we
presented an analysis of PV module degradation by
means of evaluating a large quantity of monitoring data of
entire PV power plants.
Rates of change were determined in an analysis of
module degradation using monitored system performance
data of 107 systems including 489 years of monitoring
experience. Obtained rates of change varied
between -3%/yr…+3%/yr for standard c-Si modules in the
initial ~5-7 years of operation. For EFG and string ribbon
solar cells, however, the obtained rate of change was
consistently negative, suggesting it is a feasible approach
to use monitoring data of large-scale systems to perform
power degradation analyses.
Statistical spread in changing power over time of standard
c-Si modules was evenly distributed. Such a statistical
spread with an average close to zero leads to the
conclusion that it is not necessarily relevant to consider
degradation of standard crystalline silicon modules on the
system level in the initial years of plant operation.
In conclusion, today’s high Performance Ratio prove solar
PV has matured into both a highly reliable and well-
performing technology. On top of increased component
efficiencies, also quality assurance measures contribute in
achieving and sustaining these high system performances.
REFERENCES
[1] N.H. Reich et al.,”Performance Ratio revisited: Are
th
PR > 90% realistic”, to be presented at the 26 EUPVSEC,
Hamburg, Germany, 2011
[5] IEC60904-2 Ed.2 (2007-03), Photovoltaic devices –
Part 2: Requirements for reference solar devices
[6] IEC60904-4 Ed.1 (2009-06), Photovoltaic devices –
Part 4: Reference solar devices – Procedures for
establishing calibration Traceability
[7] IEC60904-7 Ed.3 (2008-11), Photovoltaic devices –
Part 7: Computation of the spectral mismatch correction
for measurements of photovoltaic devices
[8] IEC60904-9 Ed.2 (2007-10), Photovoltaic devices –
Part 9: Solar simulator performance requirements
[9] ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008: Uncertainty of measurement
– Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement
[10] Müllejans et al.,”Analysis and mitigation of
measurement uncertainties in the traceability chain fort he
calibration of photovoltaic devices”, Measuring Science
and Technology 2009 (20) pp. 1-6.
[11] Werner Herrmann, Klaus Kiefer et al.,”PV Module
output power characterisation in test laboratories and in
the PV industry – Results of the European Performance
Project“, 25th EU PVSEC, Valencia, Spain, pp. 3879 -
3883
[12] IEC60891 Ed. 2 (2009-12), Photovoltaic devices -
Procedures for temperature and irradiance corrections to
measured I-V characteristics
[13] D. Dirnberger et al.,”Uncertainty of field I-V-curve
Measurements in large Scale PV-Systems“, 25th EU
PVSEC, Valencia, Spain, 2010, pp. 4587 - 4594
[14] K. Kiefer et al., “A Degradation Analysis of PV Power
Plants”, 25th EUPVSEC, 2010, Valencia, Spain, pp. 5032
– 5037
[15] M. Jantsch and Ch. Reise,”PV module and system
degradation including BOS effects”, Report D4.5.1 of the
“Performance” project 2010, www.pv-performance.org

[2] B. Müller et al.,“Simulation of irradiation and

temperature dependent efficiency of thin film and
crystalline silicon modules based on different
parameterization”, 25th EUPVSEC, 2010, pp. 4240 - 4243

[3] S. Elies et al.,”Influence of row-shading on the

performance of PV systems – simulation and
measurement”, 25th EUPVSEC, 2010, pp. 4640 - 4646

[4] IEC60904-1 Ed.2 (2006-09), Photovoltaic devices –

Part 1: Measurement of photovoltaic current-voltage
characteristics

978-1-4244-9965-6/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 001992

Authorized licensed use limited to: FhI fur Solare Energiesysteme. Downloaded on April 06,2021 at 16:29:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
View publication stats