Health diagnostics of PV panels by means of single
cell analysis of thermographic images
Pierluigi Guerriero, Gerardo Cuozzo and Santolo Daliento
Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology
University of Naples Federico II
Naples, Italy
Abstract—This paper proposes an automated diagnostic
procedure able to detect and classify malfunctioning leading to
the overheating of cells embedded in solar panels. The analysis of
the temperature gradients over defective cells allows to
distinguish hot spots caused by shadowing from overheating
caused by cell defects. Such nonintrusive approach provides an
accurate and inexpensive diagnostic tool, thus reducing operation
and maintenance costs and enhancing the energy yield of PV
plants.
Keywords—hot spot, thermography, solar cell, UAV
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years photovoltaic (PV) energy production
experienced a really impressive growth, bringing this
technology to cover a not negligible part of the energy demand
in many industrialized countries. Such a pervasive diffusion
has been facilitated by the strong reduction of the investment
costs, nevertheless, the return of the investment can be only
achieved if solar panels don't degrade their performance over a
long period of time. Nevertheless, many solar fields
experience lower energy yields than expected, often because
of low quality materials or because of poor assembling, in
spite of the progresses made in both silicon solar cells
technology and characterization techniques [1]-[7], along with
the efficiency of electronic converters [8]-[12].In order to not
discourage potential investors, solar panels producing
companies typically offer very long warranty coverage (up to
25 years), by assuring defective panels replacement.
Unfortunately, the identification of single malfunctioning solar
panels, when they are embedded in a solar field, is one of the
most challenging task that can be imaged. Nevertheless, as it
is well known, the effect on power production of even single
underperforming solar panel can be dramatic. Difficulties arise
from the inherent structure of solar fields that are modularly
built by series connecting single solar panels to form "strings"
that are, in turn, parallel connected to form "arrays". The result
of such architectures is that even medium size solar plants can
be likely formed by thousands of solar panels, individually
contributing to the overall electrical behavior of the PV
system.
In the last few years, many efforts have been devoted to
the development of effective monitoring/diagnostic systems
able to identify fault events and their impact on energy
production. It is unquestionable that the most performing
978-1-5090-2320-2/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
solution would be single panel real time characterization as
proposed in [13]-[18] where power production of solar panels
is continuously acquired, thus allowing high selectivity
identification of underperforming ones. The drawback of those
kind of approaches, that can be generally referred as "high
granularity monitoring approaches", is the need of equipping
each solar panel with a costly electronic board whose impact
on the global balance should be carefully evaluated. To the
opposite side "low granularity approaches" monitor electrical
performance at an higher level (string, array, global dc power,
ac power) the more is "high" the level the low is the cost and,
at the same time, the selectivity.
A good compromise between cost and selectivity can be
achieved by performing thermal analysis in place of electrical
measurements [19]-[23]. Diagnostic capabilities of the thermal
analysis depend on the fact that many fault conditions give
rise to uneven temperature distribution, both inside solar
panels and among panels. Thus, thermographic images (in the
IR range) of the entire PV system can give global information
about the healthy state of the installation while identifying
eligible fault panels; high resolution images of solar panels
identified as probably faulted can brought to the identification
of the physical defect.
The recent diffusion of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is
making this technique widely accessible so that it is becoming
the standard for PV fields diagnosis [20]-[23]. However, in
spite of the quite simple data acquisition procedure, data
interpretation is not as straightforward as one would wish. The
first obstacle is the large number of pictures to analyze.
Automatic data managing intelligent systems, exploiting
advanced signal processing algorithms for computer vision,
able to both identify single panel frames and to give the
temperature distribution across them are needed. The second
obstacle is the relation between temperature distribution and
faults. The simple assumption that "hot" means "defective"
can bring to overestimate the number of possible faulted
panels with consequent wasted time for their individual
analysis (which is always needed before asking for
replacement).
In this paper we propose an automatic procedure for
thermographic images processing that, in addition to the
features already presented in other papers (single panel
localization, temperature mapping over the panel, localization
of hot spots) analyzes the temperature distribution across
single solar cells in order to distinguish overheating induced C. Prospective error compensation
by "normal" operating conditions (like hot spots induced by A regression procedure performed on each group of pixels
shadows) from that induced by inherent solar cells defects analytically identifies the four sides of the polygon (red line in
(like cracks, metal rupture and so on) thus leading to rules for Fig. 2a) enclosing the active area. The vertexes of such
solar panel classification and supporting maintenance polygon defines the best linear transformation to correct the
decisions. prospective error, thus gaining a normal view of the active
II. EFFECT OF CELL DEFECTS ON TEMPERATURE area in the monitored panel (Fig. 2b).
DISTRIBUTION. The sub-set of pixels corresponding to each individual cell
Overheating in a solar cell typically occurs when, for some is obtained by dividing the active area into rows and column
reason, it supplies less current than the others series connected as reported in the datasheet of the specific module.
cells, thus getting reverse biased (because of the intervention
of the bypass diode) and dissipating power. The most
frequently encountered overheating phenomenon, the "hot
spot", occurs when the solar cell is shadowed by an external
shield; it is worth noting that this phenomenon is independent
from the healthy state of the cell. The hot spot in healthy cells
give rise to uniform cell heating and should not be considered
as a defect (even if the shading cause should be, if possible,
removed). Conversely, an uneven temperature distribution
over a solar cell is a certain sign for cell defects.
III. THERMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The proposed diagnostic approach automatically processes
thermal images according to an innovative detection and
classification algorithm. In the following a description of the
algorithm steps is provided.
A. Temperature maps
The algorithm is performed on the discrete temperature
map T(i,j) carried out by processing thermal images provided
by the thermo-camera (HT THT70, 384x288 pixels ). The Fig. 1. Panel identification procedure.
generic pixel Pij in the thermal image is originally expressed
by the three-dimensional vector [rij, gij, bij] in the RGB space.
Then a suited transformation is exploited to obtain the one-
dimensional T(i,j) representing in a 64-level range the mean
temperature detected in the cell area covered by the pixel Pij.
B. Panel identification
The algorithm automatically selects in the temperature
maps T(i,j) the pixels corresponding to the specific PV panel
to be analyzed according to the following assumptions: (i) the
panels occupy the great part of the image (i.e., the mode T is
representative of the temperature reached by the great part of
the cells), (ii) the panel under analysis is at the center of the
thermal image, and (iii) the frame has a lower temperature
with respect to the cells (e.g., the panel has a metallic frame). Fig. 2. Prospective error compensation: a suited transformation corrects the
prospective error in (a), thus obtaining a normal view on the only active area
The typical behavior of the temperature along a row and a of the monitored panel (b).
column near the center of the image is reported in Fig. 1. The
pixel on the edge of the active area (array of cells, green area D. Thermal analysis
in the figure) are easily detected by assuming they achieve a The proposed approach rests on the assumption that in
temperature equal to T − σ , where ʍ is the standard deviation normal operation (i.e., evenly operating cells and uniform
of the temperature over the whole thermal image. The irradiation) a panel expresses an almost uniform temperature
procedure has to be repeated for several rows and columns all distribution resulting by the following equilibrium
around the center in order to obtain four group of points, one
for each side of the active area. Rth,i ⋅ (Tamb − Tcell ,i ) = Gin ⋅ A − Vi ⋅ I i = Gin ⋅ A ⋅ (1 − ηi ) (1)

where Gin is the solar radiation impacting the cell, A is the area
of the cell, Ș is the conversion efficiency, Rth is the cell
thermal resistance, Tamb is the ambient temperature, while Tcell
is the operating cell temperature. V and I are the operating
voltage and current, respectively. It is worth noting the heat
transfer among cells and between cell and metallic frame (i.e.,
Rth,i=Rth) are neglected. Moreover, the border effects inside
individual cells are also ignored, thus resulting in
Tcell , n  T (i, j ) ∀i, y ∈ nth cell (2)
The occurrence of an hot-spot is supposed to produce an
overheating of the whole cell, with a reduced variation of the
temperature over the cell with respect to the maximum
temperature increase. Therefore an hot-spot event is detected
as the following inequality is satisfied
σn
< ε hot − spot (5)
Tmax, n − T

According with the above considerations, it is evident that
a local irradiation reduction and/or a variation in the operating
point of the cell change its temperature distribution T(i,j).
In order to highlight a temperature variation, the expected
operating temperature of the cell is estimated as the modal
value T (i.e., the value with higher occurrence ) in the map
T(i,j).
The classification algorithm is performed only on the set of
cells in the panel satisfying the following inequality
max(T (i, j )) − T > ε1
where İ1 depends on the maximum power dissipation accepted
on the cell
where Tmax,n is the maximum temperature reached on the cell
and ın is the standard deviation of the temperature
distribution. The threshold İhot-spot is set to about 0.1.
Conversely, the occurrence of cracks and/or soldering
issues favors the overheating of just a portion of the cell with
respect to the remaining part, thus resulting in an uneven
temperature distribution. Moreover the evaluation of the
temperature slope allows to distinguish the two kinds of fault.
To this aim the gradient g(i,j) is evaluated according to the
following expression
(3)
g(i, j ) = g x (i, j ) ⋅ xˆ + g y (i, j ) ⋅ yˆ (6)
where

η Gin A T (i + 1, j ) − T (i − 1, j )
ε1 = (4) g x (i, j ) =
Rth 2
(7)
T (i, j + 1) − T (i, j − 1)
g x (i, j ) =
The algorithm depicted in Fig. 3 is firstly performed on the 2
cell exhibiting the highest temperature increase (as defined in
(3)). In a cell crack, the temperature variation is confined in a
small area along the crack itself. If we assume this region so
σn tight as to be enclosed in a one-pixel-width curve, the
< ε hot − spot
Tmax,n − T maximum magnitude of the gradient has the following
Yes expression
Hot-spot
No
max( g n (i, j ) ) ε crack Tmax, n − Tmin, n
> max( g n (i, j ) ) = (8)
Tmax,n − Tmin,n 2 2
Yes
Cell crack where
No

max( g n (i, j ) ) ε soldering

>
(g (i, j ) ) + ( g n , y (i, j ) )
2 2
Tmax, n − Tmin, n 2Nx g n (i, j ) = n, x (9)

§ gn, y ·
sin ¨
¨g ¸¸ < ε soldering and Tmax,n and Tmin,n the maximum and the minimum
© n, x ¹ temperature in the nth cell. Actually the algorithm classifies the
Soldering cell as cracked as the following inequality is satisfied
No Yes issue
max( g n (i, j ) ) ε crack
Other effects > (10)
Tmax, n − Tmin, n 2
Fig. 3. Algorithm flow chart.
where İcrack is set to 0.8.
The aim is classifying the faults into three classes: hot- On the contrary, the temperature variation in a cell
spots, cracks, and soldering issues. suffering of a soldering effect (e.g., a disconnected bus bar) is
supposed to be lower with respect to the case of crack and to
take place along the x direction (i.e., the bus bars direction). In investigation; nevertheless the eight solar cells surrounding
the worst case, the temperature changes linearly with a cell 5,3 are also selected due to their significant raise in
constant slope temperature.

Tmax, n − Tmin, n
g n, x = (11)
2N x

where Nx is the number of pixels in x direction in the cell.

According to the latter considerations, a fault is classified
as soldering issues if the magnitude of the gradient satisfies
the following inequality

max( g n (i, j ) ) ε soldering

> (12)
Tmax, n − Tmin, n 2Nx

while the mean gradient

Fig. 4. Thermal image of a solar string.
1 ª Nx Ny Nx Ny º
gn = « ¦¦ g n, x (i, j ) ⋅ xˆ + ¦¦ g n , y (i, j ) ⋅ yˆ » (13)
N x N y ¬ i =1 y =1 i =1 y =1 ¼

is oriented almost along the x direction

§ g n, y ·
sin ¨
¨g ¸¸ < ε soldering (14)
© n, x ¹

where İsoldering is 1 2.
The algorithm in Fig. 3 is to be repeated for all the selected
cells. Nevertheless each time a fault is detected in a cell, the
algorithm purges from the list of candidates the neighboring
cells resulting not heat sources, but just heated by the faulty Fig. 5. Active region detection: red polygon, obtained from the red circle by
cell. means of a regression approach, adequately encloses the active region.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Experiments shown hereafter were taken from various
solar fields selected because of their underperforming
behavior.
Let us start from the thermal image shown in Fig. 4. As
requested by the automatic procedure depicted in Fig. 1, the
panel to be analyzed is located almost at the center of the
picture, while other panels occupy the remaining part. Fig. 5
shows the result of active region detection procedure.
The subsequent processing step performed on the thermal
image corrects the perspective error by means of a suited
linear transformation base on the knowledge of the vertexes of
the polygon enclosing the active region (red line in Fig. 5). As
shown in Fig. 6, this step allows to easily divide the solar
panel into cells by exploiting geometry information taken
from data sheets.
After that, the temperature map is processed to identify the Fig. 6. Solar panel with compensated perspective and solar cells frames.
solar cells exhibiting such an over-temperature that (3) is met.
Table I reports all the parameter evaluated to complete the
Cell 5,3 (line, column) exhibits the highest temperature in classification procedure for cell 5,3. From the table it can be
the panel, thus resulting the first candidate for further inferred that the cell is almost uniformly overheated (the
standard deviation is only 0.1 °C, while the peak value reaches
85 °C), thus leading to classify the fault as a probable "hot
spot" caused by partial shadowing.

TABLE I. CELLS THERMAL PARAMETERS.

Panel 1 Panel 2
Cell 5,3 Cell 4,3 Cell 3,5
Maximum temp. [°C] 84 78 73
Minimum temp. [°C] 83 45 45
Mean temp. [°C] 83 54 61
Modal Temperature [°C] 45 45 45
Temp. STD [°C] 0.1 7.3 6.5
Max. thermal gradient (magnitude) 4.8 33 38.5
[°C/cm]
Mean thermal gradient (magnitude) 5e-3 8 1.1
[°C/cm]
Mean thermal gradient (phase) - -95 6
[degrees] Fig. 8. Magnitude and direction of thermal gradients inside cell 4,3.
Final Response Hot spot Mutual Metal
heating Lift-off

In order to better clarify the proposed approach, the

gradient magnitude exiting cell 5,3 is shown Fig. 7. The
analysis of the figure reveals that active area of the cell has no
defects (i.e., the mean gradient reaches only 5·10-3 °C/cm),
thus proving cell 5,3 is healthy.
Even though the algorithm initially selects the neighboring
cells as probably faulty, the magnitude and the direction of the
thermal gradient reveal they are not heat sources, but just
heated by cell 5,3. As an example, the behavior of thermal
gradient in cell 4,3 is depicted in Fig. 8, while the maximum
magnitude (33 °C/cm), the mean (8 °C/cm), and the mean
phase (-95°) are reported in Table I.

Fig. 9. Thermal image of an overheated solar cell.

Fig. 7. Thermal gradient magnitudes for cell 5,3.

A defective cell is shown in Fig. 9 (cell 3,5 panel 2 in
Table I). The algorithm classifies the cell as affected by a
metal lift-off by analyzing the magnitude (Fig.6) and the phase
(Fig.7) of the gradient according to (12)-(14).
Fig. 10. Thermal gradient magnitude for the solar cell of Fig.5.
Fig.6 clearly evidences a line where a strong discontinuity
in the temperature exists. The appearance of such a line is
prognostic for a defective cell. As reported in Table I, the
average direction of the line follows the direction of the bus
bar that collects the cell current.

Fig. 11. Thermal gradient phase for the solar cell of Fig.5.
As can be seen from Fig. 11 the phase of the gradient
along the line is +20 degrees in the upper half of the cell and -
20 degree in lower half, this fact means that heat propagates
perpendicularly to the fracture. On the other hand, the absolute
temperature increases toward the right side of the cell (where
the current is collected by the other bus bar) thus suggesting a
metal lift-off, whereas in a local shunt the temperature is
expected to be higher than the rest of the cell.
V. CONCLUSIONS
An automated diagnostic procedure has been proposed,
which is able to detect and classify faults leading to the
overheating of cells embedded in solar panels. The procedure
exploits the analysis of the temperature gradients over
defective cells to distinguish hot spots caused by shadowing
from overheating caused by cell defects. The process steps
have been explained in detail and experimental results have
been discussed to prove the effectiveness of the proposed
approach.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Daliento, L. Mele, E. Bobeico, L. Lancellotti, P. Morvillo, "Analytical
modelling and minority current measurements for the determination of
the emitter surface recombination velocity in silicon solar cells", Solar
Energy Material and Solar Cells 91 (8), pp. 707-713, 2007.
[2] S. Daliento, L. Mele, "Approximate closed-form analytical solution for
minority carrier transport in opaque heavily doped regions under
illuminated conditions", IEEE Transaction on Electron Devices, Vol. 53,
no. 11, pp. 2837-2838, 2006.
[3] S. Bellone, G.D. Licciardo, S. Daliento, L. Mele, "Experimental
measurements of majority and minority carrier lifetime profile in SI
epilayers by the use of an improved OCVD method", IEEE Electron
Devices Letters, Vol. 26, no 7, pp. 501-503, 2005.
[4] A. Cutolo, S. Daliento, A. Sanseverino, G. Vitale, L. Zeni, " An optical
technique to measure the bulk lifetime and the surface recombination
velocity in silicon samples based on a laser diode probe system" Solid
State Electronics,Volume 42, 6, pp 1035-1038 June 1998.
[5] S. Daliento, A. Sanseverino, P. Spirito, "An improved model for
extraction of strongly spatial dependent lifetimes with the ac lifetime
profiling techniqe", IEEE Transaction on Electron Devices, Vol. 46, no.
8, pp. 1808-1810, 1999.
[6] V. d’Alessandro, P. Guerriero, S. Daliento, M. Gargiulo, "Accurately
extracting the shunt resistance of photovoltaic cells in installed module
strings". In: Proceedings of IEEE 3rd International Conference on Clear
Electrical Power (ICCEP), Ischia, Italy, pp. 164–168, June 2011.
[7] S. Daliento, O.Tari, L. Lancellotti, "Closed-form analytical expression
for the conductive and dissipative parameters of the MOS-C equivalent
circuit" IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices Volume 58, Issue 10,
Pages 3643-3646, October 2011.
[8] M. Coppola, F. Di Napoli, P. Guerriero, D. Iannuzzi, S. Daliento, A. Del
Pizzo, " An FPGA-based advanced control strategy of a grid-tied PV
CHB inverter", IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, Volume 31,
Issue 1, pp. 806-816, January 2016.
[9] Coppola, M., Daliento, S., Guerriero, P., Lauria, D., Napoli, E., 2012.
"On the design and the control of a coupled-inductors boost dc-ac
converter for an individual PV panel", In: Proceedings of IEEE 21st
International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives,
Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM)", Sorrento, Italy, pp. 1154–1159,
June 2012.
[10] Daliento, S., Mele, L., Spirito, P., Carta, R., Merlin, L., "Experimental
study on power consumption in lifetime engineered power diodes",
IEEE Tran. on Electron Devices 56 (11), pp. 2819-2824, 2009.
[11] M. Coppola, P. Guerriero, F. Di Napoli, S. Daliento, D. Lauria, A. Del
Pizzo, “A PV AC-module based on coupled-inductors boost DC/AC
converter” International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical
Drives, Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM), pp.1015-1020, 2014.
[12] P. Guerriero, F. Di Napoli, V. d’Alessandro, S. Daliento, "Accurate
maximum power tracking in photovoltaic systems affected by partial
shading", International Journal of Photoenergy, Article number 824832,
2015.
[13] L. Ciani, L. Cristaldi, M. Faifer, M. Lazzaroni, and M. Rossi, “Design
and implementation of a on-board device for photovoltaic panels
monitoring,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Instrum. Meas. Technol. Conf., 2013,
pp. 1599– 1604.
[14] F. J. Sanchez-Pacheco, P. J. Sotorrio-Ruiz, J. R. Heredia-Larrubia, F.
Perez-Hidalgo, and M. Sidrach De Cardona, “PLC-Based PV plants
smart monitoring system: Field measurements and uncertainty
estimation,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 2215–2222,
Sep. 2014.
[15] Guerriero, P., d’Alessandro, V., Petrazzuoli, L., Vallone, G., Daliento,
S., 2013. "Effective real-time performance monitoring and diagnostics of
individual panels in PV plants", Proceedings of IEEE 4th International
Conference on Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP), Alghero, Italy, pp. 14–
19. June 2013.
[16] P. Guerriero, F. Di Napoli, G. Vallone, V. d'Alessandro, S. Daliento,
"Monitoring and Diagnostics of PV Plants by a wireless self-powered
sensor for individual panel", IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 6 (1), pp.
286–294, January 2016.
[17] F. Di Napoli, P. Guerriero, V. d'Alessandro, S. Daliento, "Single panel
voltage zeroing system for safe access on PV plants", IEEE Journal of
Photovoltaics 5 (5), pp. 1428–1434, 2015.
[18] d’Alessandro, V., Di Napoli, F., Guerriero, P., Daliento, S., "An
automated high-granularity tool for a fast evaluation of the yield of PV
plants accounting for shading effects£. Renewable Energy, 83, pp. 294–
304, 2015.
[19] G. S. Spagnolo, P. Del Vecchio, G. Makary, D. Papalillo, A..
Martocchia, "A review of IR thermography applied to PV systems". In:
Proceedings of IEEE 11th International Conference on Environment and
Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), Venice, Italy, pp. 879–884, May 2012.
[20] M. Aghaei, F. Grimaccia, C. A. Gonano, S. Leva, "Innovative
Automated Control System for PV Fields Inspection and Remote
Control", IEEE Tran. on Industrial Electronics, VOL. 62, NO. 11, 2015.
[21] S. Vergura, M.F. De Ruvo, F. Manno, A GUI based analysis of infrared
images of PV modules” 5th International Conference on Clean Electrical
Power: Renewable Energy Resources Impact, ICCEP 2015.
[22] C. Buerhop-Lutz, R. Weibmann, H. Scheuerpflug, R. Auer, C.J. Brabec,
"Quality Control of PV-Modules in the Field Using a Remote-Controlled
Drone with an Infrared Camera", Proceeding of the 27th EUPVSEC pp.
3370- 3373, September 2012.
[23] M. Aghaei, P. Bellezza Quater, F. Grimaccia, S. Leva, M. Mussetta,
"Unmanned Aerial Veichles in Photovoltaic System Monitoring
Applications, Proceeding of the 29th EUPVSEC, pp. 2734 - 2739,
September 2014.