IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO.
2, MARCH 2019
A Comparative Evaluation of Advanced Fault
Detection Approaches for PV Systems
Dhanup S. Pillai , Frede Blaabjerg , Fellow, IEEE, and Natarajan Rajasekar , Member, IEEE
Abstract—Even with the consistent growth in global photovoltaic
(PV) capacity, the necessity for fault detection in PV systems has
not been widely addressed regardless of its importance. With Inter-
national Electrotechnical Commission, Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, and National Electric Code protection stan-
dard recommendations for PV systems being vulnerable to fault
occurrences, advanced detection techniques are inevitable in PV
systems to avail guaranteed protection from electric shocks and
fire hazards. Even though numerous fault detection techniques
have been conceptualized in last few years, these techniques are
yet to be classified and quantified in a common platform. Hence,
this paper takes up an initiative to study, classify and analyze the
advanced fault detection approaches available in literature. Each
fault detection technique is segregated based on the detection ap-
proach and are reviewed with respect to: types of faults detected;
detection time; sensor requirement; procedural complexity; de-
tection variables; and level of protection achieved. Furthermore, a
compatibility study is conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of ad-
vanced fault detection techniques for protection against line-line,
line-ground, and arc faults that are most common in PV systems.
Overall, this investigation serves as a valuable reference for re-
searchers to improve fault detection possibilities in PV systems.
Index Terms—Fault diagnosis, photovoltaic power systems,
protection and solar power generations, protection standards.
I. INTRODUCTION
HOTOVOLTAIC (PV) systems contribute 2% of the
P world’s total energy consumption, i.e., 303 GW of the
power generation capacity. Being the foremost among existing
renewable energy resources, power reduction due to fault occur-
rences have been a major concern to the PV system efficiency
and its reliability [1]. Unfortunately, awareness on the PV fault
detection is relatively very slow compared to the rapid advance-
ments that have been made so far in the field of maximum power
Manuscript received November 1, 2018; revised December 12, 2018; ac-
cepted January 7, 2019. Date of publication January 24, 2019; date of current
version February 18, 2019. The work was supported by the Vellore Institute of
Technology, Vellore, through “VIT SEED GRANT.” (Corresponding author:
N. Rajasekar.)
D. S. Pillai and N. Rajasekar are with the Solar Energy Research Cell,
Department of Energy and Power Electronics, School of Electrical Engineer-
ing, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, India (e-mail:, dhanup.
research@gmail.com; nrajasekar@vit.ac.in).
F. Blaabjerg is with the Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg Univer-
sity, Aalborg 9100, Denmark (e-mail:,fbl@et.aau.dk).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2892189
2156-3381 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
513
point tracking (MPPT) [2], array reconfiguration (AR) [3], [4],
and grid interconnection [5], [6] of PV systems. Usually, for
dc side protection, PV installations follow standards, such as
National Electric Code (NEC) 690, IEEE standard 1374, and
European International Electrotechnical Commission Standard
(IEC) 62548 [7]–[9]. Yet, faults in PV arrays are unavoidable
and provoked recent fire events due to long term undetected
faults [10], [11]. In this paper, the fault detection in PV systems
receives colossal importance in endorsing the future growth of
PV installations.
Presently, PV protection standards available intend to protect
PV arrays from three major faults line-line (LL), line-ground
(LG), and arc faults. Even then, PV arrays are susceptible to nu-
merous other fault possibilities open circuit (OC) faults, bypass
diode failures, shade faults, hotspots, connection failures, and
degradation faults. Therefore, in addition to existing methods,
several advanced fault detection techniques have been proposed
in recent times to avail reliable protection. Further, each tech-
nique propounded for fault detection possesses conceptual dif-
ferences on the basic approach that they use to detect faults. Un-
fortunately in the literature, these approaches are yet to be classi-
fied and quantified to analyze its effectiveness. Hence, a detailed
study becomes inevitable to classify, analyze, and evaluate the
effectiveness of advanced fault detection approaches. Therefore,
this paper attempts to provide an in-depth analysis on various
advanced fault detection approaches and conducts a detailed
performance evaluation as well as a comparative study with re-
spect to the conventional protection schemes. Furthermore, the
detection techniques are categorized based on their detection
approach and reliability of each technique is reviewed based on-
types of faults detected, detection time, sensor requirements, ap-
plicability, detection variables, and level of protection. To com-
prehend, a compatibility study is also carried out to analyze the
effectiveness of advanced fault detection approaches in detect-
ing LL, LG, and arc faults that are most common in PV systems.
II. TYPICAL PV ARRAY FAULTS, PROTECTION SCHEMES, AND
NECESSITY OF ADVANCED DETECTION METHODS
A. PV Array Faults
Photovoltaic systems are frequently challenged by electrical
fault occurrences that arise due to abnormalities in the internal
system configuration. Among many, the most common faults
that occur in PV array are LG, LL, OC, and arc fault. LG
faults occur due to accidental connection between equipment
grounding conductor and current carrying conductor [12]–[14].
514
Fig. 1. Various faults occurring in a PV Array.
While, LL faults are created by accidental short-circuit be-
tween any two points in the PV array; and it can be either
intra string or cross string faults. Moreover, any open-circuit
between two panels induces OC faults and interrupts the current
flow [15]. Usually, OC faults occur as an after effect of short-
circuit faults or due to a connection failure in the PV array.
Arc faults can be either of series or parallel-type created due
to open-circuit faults in a string or due to insulation breakdown
between two points of adjacent strings [16]–[18].
Unlike electrical faults, shade faults are created by the un-
even distribution of shades over the PV array. Partial shading
(PS) occurs due to any one of the following events [19], such as
building shadows, tree shadows, passage of clouds, bird drop-
pings, and dust accumulation on the panel surface. In most
cases, PS is temporary; however, prolonged shade occurrences
due to dust accumulation and bird droppings lead to forma-
tion of hot spots and degrade PV panels if remain undetected.
Besides, low power rating of bypass diodes induces frequent
failures that constitute to bypass diode faults [11]. In addition,
any improper switching of the MPPT controller and age factor
increases the thermal stress on switch that leads to converter
faults [20]. Also, any abnormal charging conditions or internal
cell damage create battery bank fault. Even though battery bank
faults do not affect the PV array, it adversely affects the energy
management system. For clarity, all possible electrical faults that
occur in the dc side of a PV system are pictorially represented
in Fig. 1.
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO. 2, MARCH 2019
B. Conventional Protection Schemes and Its Limitations
Various conventional protection schemes available to protect
PV arrays against fault occurrences can be typically classified
into three as follows:
1) use of standard protection devices;
2) real-time/offline testing using diagnostic tools;
3) experimental analysis to detect the anomalies presents in
the system parameters.
According to NEC article 690, over current protection de-
vice (OCPD), ground fault detection and interruption (GFDI)
fuse and arc fault circuit interrupter (AFCI) are usually installed
in PV arrays for protection against LL, LG, and arc faults, re-
spectively. However, extensive studies carried out in [1], [10],
and [11] revealed that the inimitable operating characteristics
of PV systems frequently deceive these protection devices. For
instance, OCPDs fail to detect LL faults when I-V mismatch
level is less than 40%, faults occur in low irradiation levels, and
PV systems are installed with blocking diodes. Similarly, GFDI
fuses are ineffective at low irradiance and high fault impedance
levels. Moreover, the MPPT optimization limits the capability
of both OCPDs and GFDI fuses [1], [10]. On the other hand,
test reports on the confines of arc fault detection in PV sys-
tems using AFCIs are comprehensively studied and detailed in
[21]. Distinctive from the above, offline testing using insulation
measurement device and online testing using circuit tracers are
also employed for ground fault and open-circuit fault detection,
PILLAI et al.: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES FOR PV SYSTEMS 515

TABLE I
DIFFERENTIATION OF ADVANCED DETECTION TECHNIQUES

respectively [10]. However, despite of its advantages, these

methods also suffer from some prominent disadvantages, such as
large detection time, manual intervention necessity, and power
flow obstruction. On the whole, neither of the conventional tech-
niques available till date is trustworthy in protecting PV systems.
Therefore, reliable fault detection techniques/algorithms having
the ability to detect multiple faults without interfering with the
power generation is a mandatory requirement for reliability and
safety of PV systems.
III. ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES
Motivated by the protection concerns, several new fault de-
tection techniques have been proposed for PV systems recently.
Each advanced technique propounded for fault detection in PV
systems possesses conceptual differences on their basic ap-
proach that they use to detect faults. Hence, this paper classi-
fies the advanced detection approaches into four categories and
analyzes each approach in detail model-based difference mea-
surement (MBDM), real-time difference measurement (RDM),
output signal analysis (OSA), and machine learning techniques
(MLT). Table I specifies the fundamental differences between
each detection approach, technology requirement, and type of
thresholds required detection.
A. Model-Based Difference Measurement
PV modeling is the virtual realization of PV systems to ac-
curately emulate their real-time operating characteristics [22].
MBDM techniques work on the principle that faulty operation
of PV systems brings about a change in the real-time output
performance parameters, such as power delivered, operating
voltage, and operating current. The detection rule in MBDM
techniques is to compare the expected value of these perfor-
mance parameters with the sensed real-time values. The sensed
real-time instantaneous data, “Vdet real ” is compared with the
model predicted ideal parameter value, “Vdet sim ” to identify
the fault condition; and can be mathematically represented as
 
Faulty; Vdet real = ±k Vdet sim
Status =
Normal; Vdet real = Vdet sim
Fig. 2. Flowchart for model-based difference measurement approach.
In (1), “k” is the tolerance factor incorporated in the detection
rule to avoid nuisance tripping. For a better understanding, the
flowchart of the MBDM approach is given in Fig. 2. Further,
following the MBDM approach and using different detection
variables, various fault detection techniques have been proposed
to detect numerous faults in PV systems [23]–[41]. A brief
overview of these techniques along with its merits and demerits
is presented in Table II.
B. Real-Time Difference Measurement
RDM is a similar approach derived from the basic MBDM
technique. Unlike MBDM approach, real-time PV modeling
is not essential for RDM-based detection techniques. Instead,
in RDM, the PV modeling or real-time experimentations are
utilized to set the threshold limits for the detection variables in
an offline mode. The computed real-time values for detection
variables are then compared with the previously set threshold
limits to detect the fault. If “Vdet th m ax ” and “Vdet th m in ” are
the upper and lower threshold limits of the detection variable,
“Vdet ,” the operating status of the PV system is identified by
evaluating the following condition:
 
Normal; Vdet th m ax ≤ Vdet ≤ Vdet th m in
Status = .
Faulty; otherwise
(2)
For clarity, fault detection using the RDM approach is ex-
plained with the help of flowchart depicted in Fig. 3. RDM
techniques have been widely used for real-time fault detection
. (1)
in PV systems [42]–[54]; and different methods that employ
516 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO. 2, MARCH 2019

TABLE II
OVERVIEW ON MODEL-BASED DIFFERENCE MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR FAULT DETECTION

RDM approach for fault detection are reviewed and presented
in Table III.
C. Output Signal Analysis
Usually, irrespective of the environmental conditions, the
terminal characteristic of any PV system is affected due to the
occurrence of faults. For instance, shade faults, ground faults,
and short-circuit faults are associated with catastrophic changes
in the output signals; while, arc faults cause continuous oscilla-
tions and distortions in the output current and voltage waveforms
of the inverter. OSA techniques rely on suitable frequency/time
domain analysis to detect the anomalies present in the sampled
signals in order to identify a particular fault. Once, the threshold
limits for decision making are obtained using theoretical cal-
culations/analysis, the violation of these limits can be checked
to detect the presence of a fault. For a better understanding,
the flowchart for the OSA approach is presented in Fig. 4.
PILLAI et al.: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES FOR PV SYSTEMS 517

Fig. 3. Flowchart for real-time difference measurement approach.

Fig. 4. Flowchart for output signal analysis approach.

An outline of researches based on the OSA approach available in

the literature [55]–[68] are compiled and presented in Table IV.
D. Machine Learning Techniques
To improve the potential ways of fault detection in PV sys-
tems, machine learning techniques, such as artificial neural net-
works (ANNs), fuzzy logic systems, etc., are also deployed by
the researchers. In MLT-based fault detection, learning algo-
rithms are trained using experimental or model predicted PV
data to learn the relationship between input and output parame-
ters of a PV system. However, in addition to the normal PV data,
anomalous data due to fault occurrences are also required for
accurate training. An accurately trained artificial model can pre-
cisely predict the real-time performance parameters (both ideal
and faulty) once; the instantaneous irradiation levels and tem-
perature are sensed and fed as inputs to the model. Hence, any
faulty state of the PV array can easily be identified using simple
error evaluations. The flowchart for MLT-based fault detection
is presented in Fig. 5 and a brief survey and an analysis on the
various research works carried out in this domain [69]–[76] is
provided in Table V.
IV. COMPATIBILITY STUDY
After meaningful understanding on various advanced fault de-
tection approaches, it is intended to evaluate the compatibility of
these approaches for practical implementation. For which, two
different analysis have been carried out practical fitness analy-
sis and detection capability test. The review based on practical
fitness helps to analyze the procedural complexity involved in
various detection techniques and the easiness at which each
detection technique can be integrated with PV installations. On
the other hand, the detection capability test critically reviews the
reliability of each fault detection technique at different unique
operating conditions of PV systems.
A. Practical Fitness Analysis
In order to evaluate the practical fitness of each fault detection
technique, three important performance parameters are assessed
number of faults detected, number of steps involved in the detec-
tion process, and additional sensor and component requirement.
The results obtained for various MBDM, RDM, OSA, and MLT
fault detection techniques are illustrated in Fig. 6(a)–(d), re-
spectively. Note that the number of additional sensors/devices
indicated in the results shows the minimum number required
for a single PV string. From the data presented, the following
inferences are arrived.
1) Use of the real-time PV modeling in MBDM approaches
necessitates numerous additional components. For in-
stance, as illustrated in Fig. 6(a), all MBDM techniques
presented in [23]–[41] require at least one additional com-
ponent for accurate real-time PV modeling, i.e., irradiance
sensor for illumination measurement. In addition, except
[33], [36], and [39], all MBDM techniques require tem-
perature measurement as well. Moreover, utilization of
weather stations and data acquisition systems [23]–[25],
[29], [38], [40], and [41] makes MBDM schemes very
complex and difficult to integrate with PV installations.
2) Unlike MBDM, RDM techniques do not require addi-
tional components/sensors for online PV modeling. In-
stead, sensor requirement for RDM techniques depend
518 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO. 2, MARCH 2019

TABLE III
OVERVIEW ON REAL TIME DIFFERENCE MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR FAULT DETECTION

on the type of detection variables. For example, tech-
niques proposed in [46]–[48], and [52] require no addi-
tional sensors since, fault detection is based on the MPP
voltage and current data alone; that are available at the
converter terminals of MPPT-based PV systems. How-
ever, to further improve the accuracy, some specific RDM
techniques use additional irradiance and temperature mea-
surements [42]–[45] too. Further, techniques explained
in [49], [51], [53], and [54] need both data acquisition
system and irradiance measurement. Altogether, in con-
trast to MBDM, owing to the less component require-
ment, RDM techniques are more feasible for practical
implementation.
3) Compared to both MBDM and RDM approach, the addi-
tional sensor/component requirement for OSA techniques
is very less. This is because OSA techniques rely on signal
analysis that just requires an additional software platform
for feature extraction of output signals. Therefore, most
OSA techniques need only a single feature extraction de-
vice for practical implementation [55], [56], [58]–[60],
[62], [63], [65], [66], [68]. Thus, OSA techniques are
mostly compact, commercially effective, and practically
feasible.
4) On the other hand, machine learning techniques proposed
for fault detection needs the instantaneous values of ir-
radiance and temperature to classify the fault [69]–[76].
Apart from the sensor requirement, the prime disadvan-
tage of MLT-based fault detection is its site specific design
procedure; that makes the detection algorithm incompat-
ible for large-scale PV installations. Thus, lack universal
fault detection rules restrict the applicability of the MLT
approach for fault detection in PV systems.
PILLAI et al.: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES FOR PV SYSTEMS 519

TABLE IV
OVERVIEW ON OUTPUT SIGNAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR FAULT DETECTION

To summarize, the analysis conducted convey that, compared
to MBDM and MLT-based fault detection techniques, OSA and
RDM techniques are easy to integrate with already existing
as well as new PV installations with minimal modifications to
the system architecture. In this paper, techniques proposed in
[46]–[48], [52], [55], [56], [59], [60], [63], [65], [66], and [68]
following OSA and RDM approaches are realistic and seem to
be efficient for practical implementation.
B. Detection Capability Test
For detection capability test, LL, LG, and arc faults that are
most common in PV arrays are considered and the performance
520 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO. 2, MARCH 2019

TABLE V
OVERVIEW ON MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES FOR FAULT DETECTION

of each fault detection technique available for LL, LG, and arc
fault detection is evaluated in the context of existing protection
challenges.
1) LL and LG Fault Analysis: Any advanced method pro-
posed for LL and LG fault detection must be reliable to counter
act the conventional protection challenges involved with the
standard protection devices. Hence, the capability of advanced
LL/LG fault detection techniques to detect faults is evaluated
in the context of fault impedance, irradiation levels, percentage
mismatch, failure probability, applicability, and level of protec-
tion achieved. Here, fault impedance refers to the impedance
offered to the fault current flow and percentage mismatch indi-
cates the percentage of healthy modules in a faulty PV string. It
is important to note that, as per [1], [10], and [11], an ideal
LL/LG fault detection technique must be capable to detect
LL/LG faults with high fault impedance, in low irradiation lev-
els, and at low mismatch levels. Further, differentiating LL/LG
faults from PS conditions (PSCs) is equally important; since,
both possess the same signature. Therefore, the detection capa-
bility of each LL/LG fault detection technique is evaluated with
respect to the aforementioned constraints and the investigation
outcomes are elucidated in Table VI. It is evident from the re-
sults that RDM and OSA techniques are more realistic in case
of LL fault detection; since, most approaches are capable for
Fig. 5. Flowchart for machine learning techniques for fault detection. fault detection in low illumination levels, low mismatch levels
PILLAI et al.: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES FOR PV SYSTEMS 521

Fig. 6. Practical fitness analysis on advanced fault detection techniques.

522
TABLE VI
DETECTION CAPABILITY TEST FOR LL/LG FAULT DETECTION
and PSCs. Similarly, OSA techniques perform well in LG fault
detection too; whereas, RDM and MLT approaches are yet to
be adopted for LG fault detection. From the analysis given in
Table VI, the following conclusions can be arrived:
1) for LL fault detection, RDM techniques [51], [56], and
[57], and OSA techniques [61], [67], [68], and [73] are
efficient at mismatch levels below 25%, low illumination
levels even below 500 W/m2 and in PSCs;
2) for LG fault detection, OSA technique in [74] seems to
provide the most reliable solution;
3) all MBDM and MLT-based detection techniques except
[76] fail to detect LL/LG faults in PSCs and
4) detecting LL/LG faults with high fault impedance still
remains as a challenging task and only OSA methods [61],
[63], [67], [68], and [74] are capable of high impedance
fault detection.
Overall, RDM and OSA approaches are found to be pro-
ficient in LL/LG fault detection. However, irrespective of the
approach, a notable drawback of advanced LL/LG fault detec-
tion techniques is the inability to detect faults with high fault
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO. 2, MARCH 2019
impedance. It is also worth to mention that recently conceptual-
ized MPPT-based fault detection approach propounded in [77]
is highly reliable in all aforementioned aspects and opens up
new possibilities in the LL/LG fault detection.
2) Arc Fault Analysis: Protection of PV arrays from arc
faults using conventional AFCIs are not reliable since its op-
eration is primarily affected by the interference caused due to
inverter switching; that leads to frequent nuisance tripping [10].
Further, series arcs can be easily extinguished by opening the in-
verter terminals; while doing so in case of parallel arcs increases
the current flow through the arc path; as the PV array enters into
open-circuit conditions and operate at a higher voltage [10],
[11]. Therefore, any arc fault detection technique recommended
for PV systems must be proficient to discriminate series and par-
allel arc faults to ensure safe operation. Since dc arc faults are
characterized by signatures in both frequency and time domain,
analytical methods are usually adopted for PV arc fault detec-
tion. In the literature, compared to other faults, very few arc fault
detection techniques are available. To date, only OSA-based
fault detection techniques are applied for arc fault detection in
PILLAI et al.: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES FOR PV SYSTEMS 523

TABLE VII
DETECTION CAPABILITY TEST FOR ARC FAULT DETECTION

Fig. 7. Detection capability of advanced detection approaches. (a) LG faults. (b) LL faults. (c) Arc faults.

PV systems [59], [63], [64], and [66]. In order to evaluate the
compatibility of advanced arc fault detection techniques, each
technique is qualitatively gauged with respect to capability to
differentiate between series and parallel arc faults, domain used
for fault detection, dependency with inverter operation, and re-
quirement of manually set threshold limits. The review results
obtained after detailed evaluations are illustrated in Table VII.
Further, the evaluations exemplify that, none of the arc fault
detection techniques possess the capability to detect parallel
arcs. Further, most methods cannot detect arcs universally as
they require system specific and manually set threshold limits
for fault detection [63], [64], and [66]. Although the detection
technique suggested in [66] based on modified Tsallis entropy
is not suitable for parallel arc detection, it can automatically set
the threshold limits and is not influenced by inverter switching.
Therefore, compared to other detection techniques, [66] is ver-
satile in various aspects and is expected to be the most viable
method available for arc fault detection. In summary, PV arc
fault detection demands more research attention and potential
techniques that can detect both series and parallel arc faults are
yet be evolved. For clarity, the findings on detection capability
are consolidated and are pictorially represented in Fig. 7(a)–(c),
respectively, for LG, LL, and arc fault detection.
V. OVERALL REVIEW ON ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION
APPROACHES
The investigations carried out in the previous section evalu-
ated the compatibility of each fault detection technique in the
literature. In order to enhance the analysis, a comprehensive
comparative study based on the merits and demerits of various
approaches is carried out in this section. Further, the implica-
tions from the detailed survey conducted are utilized to arrive at
a generalized performance evaluation of various advanced fault
detection approaches in a common platform.
A. Merits and Demerits of Advanced Detection Approaches
As previously indicated, MBDM, RDM, and MLT-based fault
detection techniques rely on the PV modeling (either offline or
online) for fault detection. Hence, selection of PV model plays
a crucial role in imparting accuracy to these approaches. The
PV model applied must be accurate to predict precise detection
variables in all operating conditions. Therefore, accuracy of
MBDM, RDM, and MLT approaches is reliant on the reliability
of the parameter extraction technique used to define the PV
model; which in fact imparts accuracy to the model [78]. Further,
RDM, OSA, and MLT approaches can aid rapid fault detection
compared to MBDM as real-time PV modeling is not required
for detection; that significantly reduces the number of detection
steps. It is important to note that, although noise in sampling
signals affects the accuracy, OSA techniques are commercially
effective, product oriented, and accurate. On the other hand,
ML-based fault detection techniques do not require threshold
limits for fault detection and if properly trained classification
and localization of faults becomes very easy. However, noise in
the training data limits the accuracy of the trained model. To
conclude, a brief insight and concluding remarks on the merits
and demerits of various approaches are given in Table VIII.
524 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO. 2, MARCH 2019

TABLE VIII
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES

Fig. 8. Comparative evaluation of advanced fault detection approaches with conventional protection schemes.
PILLAI et al.: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES FOR PV SYSTEMS
B. Generalized Performance Evaluation
The implications drawn from the extensive analysis per-
formed in this paper are used to compare the performance of
advanced fault detection approaches in a general platform. Here,
each advanced detection approach is compared with the con-
ventional protection schemes with respect to six performance
parameters that are selected based on the implications drawn
from the investigations performed in the previous sections envi-
ronmental impact, procedural complexity, components required,
integration complexity, detection time, and effect of noise. The
performance evaluation of each approach based on the above-
mentioned performance parameters is prepared in the form of
spider diagrams; where every parameter is qualitatively assessed
to provide a fair taxation on the approach. The assessment is
presented with the help of four spider diagrams illustrated in
Fig. 8(a)–(d), respectively; with each axis in the spider chart rep-
resents a performance parameter that is qualitatively assessed
in a range from low to high starting from the center point. Note
that the chart can be understood in the following way; lower the
area covered, better the method is.
As previously studied, the primary challenge in advanced
fault detection is to cope up with the unique operating char-
acteristics of PV systems in different environmental condi-
tions. From Fig. 8, it is evident that all advanced fault detec-
tion approaches perform better than the conventional protection
schemes in terms of environmental impact. To be more precise,
except for the techniques presented in [34], [37], [39], [44],
[48], [54], [59], and [61], this observation holds true. Similar
analysis has also been conducted for all other performance pa-
rameters to realize the remaining spider diagram and it can be
visualized that all advanced approaches are practically feasible
with respect to integration complexity and components require-
ment. But, compared to conventional protection schemes, most
advanced detection approaches have elevated component re-
quirement and high procedural complexity. However, even with
its elevated requirements, advanced approaches are immensely
capable to counteract the conventional protection challenges.
For example, RDM techniques [49]–[51] and [53] and OSA
techniques [65], [67], and [68] need additional components
for implementation; but, can guarantee reliable fault detection.
Overall, among the various advanced fault detection approaches,
RDM and OSA approach possess uniform characteristics (see
Fig. 8) except for its sensitiveness to noise levels. Therefore,
these approaches can be presumed to be the most efficient and
feasible techniques available for real-time fault detection in PV
systems.
VI. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS AND SUGGESTIONS
This paper briefly discussed the necessity of advanced fault
detection approaches in PV systems. The advanced fault detec-
tion approaches were classified into four categories and were
comprehensively studied. In addition, two assessment tests
namely compatibility analysis and detection capability test have
also been carried out to evaluate the prominence of advanced
detection techniques. Furthermore, the performance of these ap-
proaches is compared with the conventional protection schemes
525
with respect to six different performance parameters. Based on
the critical implications presented in this paper, the following
conclusive remarks and suggestions that are likely to enhance
fault detection possibilities in PV systems are presented as
follows.
1) RDM and OSA-based fault detection techniques are ef-
ficient and can be integrated to any PV systems with
minimal modifications to the system architecture. How-
ever, component requirement and computational burden
are major disadvantages of these approaches. Therefore,
researches confined to improve these assets are expected
to give impetus for advanced detection techniques in near
future.
2) Among advanced detection techniques, for protection
against LL and LG faults, RDM and OSA techniques
are feasible to implement irrespective of the system-type
and rating. For arc fault detection, OSA techniques are
realistic; but necessitate future research advancements to
reduce the feature extraction time.
3) Arc fault detection is less studied in the literature com-
pared to other PV faults. Hence, a reliable arc fault detec-
tion technique that can detect both series and parallel arc
faults is essential for PV systems.
4) Differentiating parallel and series arcs is a major concern
in arc fault detection and mitigation. For which, the drop
in array current and voltage due to parallel arcs can be
utilized; which does not happen in the case of series arc
faults.
5) Setting thresholds for fault detection using PV model is
inevitable; hence, extended investigations to enrich PV
modeling and parameter estimation of different commer-
cially available PV modules perceive utmost importance.
Further, a PV model that can predict precise detection
variables at all operating conditions must be selected for
setting threshold limits.
6) Conventional protection schemes that rely on fault cur-
rent magnitudes can no longer protect PV systems in all
operating conditions. Therefore, to enhance the reliabil-
ity and safety of PV systems, advanced fault detection
techniques can be installed as a supplementary protection
scheme along with the conventional protection devices.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like thank the reviewers and the Ed-
itor, Prof. G. Spagnuolo, for their valuable comments and
suggestions.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Zhao, J. de Palma, J. Mosesian, R. Lyon, and B. Lehman, “Line-line
fault analysis and protection challenges in solar photovoltaic arrays,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 3784–3795, Sep. 2013.
[2] C. Huang et al., “A prediction model-guided Jaya algorithm for the PV
system maximum power point tracking,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45–55, Jan. 2018.
[3] H. S. Sahu and S. K. Nayak, “Extraction of maximum power from a
PV array under nonuniform irradiation conditions,” IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 4825–4831, Dec. 2016.
526
[4] D. S. Pillai, J. P. Ram, M. S. S. Nihanth, and N. Rajasekar, “A sim-
ple, sensorless and fixed reconfiguration scheme for maximum power en-
hancement in PV systems.” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 172, pp. 402–417,
Sep 2018.
[5] E. Scolari, L. Reyes, F. Sossan, and M. Paolone, “A comprehensive as-
sessment of the short-term uncertainty of grid-connected PV systems,”
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1458–1467, Jul. 2018.
[6] Y. Wang and B. Ren, “Fault ride-through enhancement for grid-tied PV
systems with robust control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 3,
pp. 2302–2312, Aug. 2017.
[7] Article 690: Solar PV Systems, National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA-70,
Nat. Fire Protection Assoc., Inc., Quincy, MA, USA, 2011.
[8] IEEE Guide for Terrestrial PV Power System Safety, IEEE Std. 1374.
1998.
[9] Installation and Safety Requirements for PV Generators, IEC Std. 62548,
2013.
[10] M. K. Alam, F. Khan, J. Johnson, and J. Flicker, “A comprehensive re-
view of catastrophic faults in PV arrays,” Types detection and mitigation
techniques,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 982–997, May 2015.
[11] D. S. Pillai and N. Rajasekar, “A comprehensive review on protection
challenges and fault diagnosis in PV systems,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 91, pp. 18–40, Aug. 2018.
[12] Y. Zhao, “Fault analysis in solar photovoltaic arrays,” Ph.D. diss., North-
eastern Univ., Boston, MA, USA, 2011.
[13] W. I. Bower and J. C. Wiles, “Analysis of grounded and ungrounded
photovoltaic systems.” in Proc. IEEE Photovolt. Spec. Conf., 1994, vol. 1,
pp. 809–812.
[14] S. E. Forman, “Performance of experimental terrestrial photovoltaic mod-
ules,” IEEE Trans. Rel. vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 235–245, Aug. 1982.
[15] R. Kase and S. Nishikawa, “Fault detection of bypass circuit of PV
module—Detection technology of open circuit fault location,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Elect. Mach. Syst., 2016, pp. 1–4.
[16] E. D. Spooner and N. Wilmot, “Safety issues, arcing and fusing in PV
arrays,” in Proc. ISESC, 2008.
[17] C. Strobl and P. Meckler, “Arc faults in photovoltaic systems.” in Proc.
IEEE Human Corneal Epithelial Cells, 2010, pp. 1–7.
[18] G. Dhere and N. S. Shiradkar, “Fire hazard and other safety concerns of
photovoltaic systems,” J. Photon. Energy, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 22006–22006,
Dec. 2012.
[19] E. Koutroulis and F. Blaabjerg, “A new technique for tracking the global
maximum power point of PV arrays operating under partial-shading con-
ditions.” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 184–190, Apr. 2012.
[20] S. V. Dhople, A. Davoudi, A. D. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a, and P. L. Chapman,
“A unified approach to reliability assessment of multiphase DC–DC con-
verters in photovoltaic energy conversion systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 739–751, Feb. 2012.
[21] J. Johnson et al., “Photovoltaic DC arc fault detector testing at San-
dia National Laboratories,” in Proc. IEEE Photovolt. Spec. Conf., 2011,
pp. 3614–3619.
[22] D. S. Pillai, N. Rajasekar, J. P. Ram, and V. K. Chinnaiyan, “Design
and testing of two phase array reconfiguration procedure for maximizing
power in solar PV systems under partial shade conditions (PSC),” Energy
Conv. Manag., vol. 178, pp. 92–110, Dec. 2018.
[23] W. Chine, A. Mellit, A. M. Pavan, and S. A. Kalogirou, “Fault detection
method for grid-connected photovoltaic plants,” Renew. Energy, vol. 66,
pp. 99–110, Jun. 2014.
[24] S. Silvestre, A. Chouder, and E. Karatepe, “Automatic fault detection
in grid connected PV systems,” Solar Energy, vol. 94, pp. 119–127,
Aug. 2013.
[25] M. Davarifar, A. Rabhi, A. Elhajjaji, and M. Dahmane, “New method for
fault detection of PV panels in domestic applications,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Semantic Comput., 2013, pp. 727–732.
[26] L. Bonsignore, M. Davarifar, A. Rabhi, G. M. Tina, and A. Elhajjaji,
“Neuro-fuzzy fault detection method for photovoltaic systems,” Energy
Procedia, vol. 62, pp. 431–441, Jan. 2014.
[27] M. Tadj, K. Benmouiza, A. Cheknane, and S. Silvestre, “Improving the
performance of PV systems by faults detection using GISTEL approach,”
Energy Convers. Manage., vol. 80, pp. 298–304, Apr. 2014.
[28] W. Chine, A. Mellit, A. M. Pavan, and V. Lughi, “Fault diagnosis in
photovoltaic arrays,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Clean Elect. Power, 2015,
pp. 67–72.
[29] R. Platon, J. Martel, N. Woodruff, and T. Y. Chau, “Online fault detection
in PV systems,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1200–1207,
Oct. 2015.
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 9, NO. 2, MARCH 2019
[30] M. Hosseinzadeh and F. R. Salmasi, “Determination of maximum so-
lar power under shading and converter faults—a prerequisite for failure-
tolerant power management systems,” Simul. Model. Pract. Theory,
vol. 62, pp. 14–30, Mar. 2016.
[31] C. Ventura and G. M. Tina, “Utility scale photovoltaic plant indices and
models for on-line monitoring and fault detection purposes,” Elect. Power
Syst. Res., vol. 136, pp. 43–56, Jul. 2016.
[32] M. Dhimish and V. Holmes, “Fault detection algorithm for grid-connected
photovoltaic plants,” Solar Energy, vol. 137, pp. 236–245, Nov. 2016.
[33] M. Bressan, Y. El Basri, A. G. Galeano, and C. Alonso, “A shadow fault
detection method based on the standard error analysis of IV curves,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 99, pp. 1181–1190, Dec. 2016.
[34] A. Umana and A. P. S. Meliopoulos, “Detection of cell-level fault con-
ditions within a photovoltaic array system,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy
Soc., 2016, pp. 1–5.
[35] W. Wang et al., “Fault diagnosis of photovoltaic panels using dynamic
current–voltage characteristics.” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31,
no. 2, pp. 1588–1599, Feb. 2016.
[36] T. Andrianajaina, E. J. R. Sambatra, C. B. Andrianirina, T. D. Razafima-
hefa, and N. Heraud, “PV fault detection using the least squares method,”
in Proc. IEEE Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl., 2016, pp. 846–851.
[37] A. Belaout, F. Krim, and A. Mellit, “Neuro-fuzzy classifier for fault detec-
tion and classification in photovoltaic module,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Model. Identification Control, 2016, pp. 144–149.
[38] E. Garoudja et al., “Statistical fault detection in photovoltaic systems,”
Solar Energy, vol. 150, pp. 485–499, Jul. 2017.
[39] F. Harrou, Y. Sun, B. Taghezouit, A. Saidi, and M. E. Hamlati, “Re-
liable fault detection and diagnosis of photovoltaic systems based on
statistical monitoring approaches.” Renew. Energy, vol. 116, pp. 22–37,
Feb. 2018.
[40] M. Dhimish, V. Holmes, B. Mehrdadi, and M. Dales, “Simultaneous fault
detection algorithm for grid-connected photovoltaic plants,” IET Renew.
Power Gener., vol. 12, pp. 1565–1575, Jul 2017.
[41] M. Dhimish, V. Holmes, B. Mehrdadi, and M. Dales, “Multi-layer pho-
tovoltaic fault detection algorithm.” High Voltage, vol. 4, pp. 244–252,
May 2017.
[42] T. Shimakage, K. Nishioka, H. Yamane, M. Nagura, and M. Kudo, “De-
velopment of fault detection system in PV system,” in Proc. IEEE 33rd
Int. Telecommun. Energy Conf., 2011, pp. 1–5.
[43] X. Xu, H. Wang, and Y. Zuo, “Method for diagnosing photovoltaic array
fault in solar photovoltaic system,” in Proc. IEEE Asia-Pac. Power Energy
Eng. Conf., 2011, pp. 1–5.
[44] M. Omana, D. Rossi, G. Collepalumbo, C. Metra, and F. Lombardi, “Faults
affecting the control blocks of PV arrays and techniques for their concur-
rent detection,” in Proc. IEEE Defect Fault Tolerance VLSI Nanotechnol.
Syst., 2012, pp. 199–204.
[45] N. Gokmen, E. Karatepe, B. Celik, and S. Silvestre, “Simple diagnos-
tic approach for determining of faulted PV modules in string based PV
arrays,” Solar Energy, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 3364–3377, Nov. 2012.
[46] J. Solórzano and M. A. Egido, “Automatic fault diagnosis in PV systems
with distributed MPPT,” Energy Convers. Manage., vol. 76, pp. 925–934,
Dec. 2013.
[47] S. Silvestre, M. A. da Silva, A. Chouder, D. Guasch, and E. Karatepe,
“New procedure for fault detection in grid connected PV systems based
on the evaluation of current and voltage indicators,” Energy Convers.
Manage., vol. 86, pp. 241–249, Oct. 2014.
[48] X. Lin, Y. Wang, M. Pedram, J. Kim, and N. Chang, “Designing fault-
tolerant photovoltaic systems,” IEEE Des. Test, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 76–84,
Jun. 2014.
[49] Y. Hu et al., “Online two-section PV array fault diagnosis with optimized
voltage sensor locations,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 11,
pp. 7237–7246, Nov. 2015.
[50] M. Alajmi and I. Abdel-Qader, “Fault detection and localization in solar
photovoltaic arrays using the current-voltage sensing framework,” in Proc.
IEEE Elect. Inf. Technol., pp. 307–312, 2016.
[51] R. Hariharan, M. Chakkarapani, G. S. Ilango, and C. Nagamani, “A
method to detect photovoltaic array faults and partial shading in PV sys-
tems,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1278–1285, Sep 2016.
[52] M. Bressan, Y. El-Basri, and C. Alonso, “A new method for fault detection
and identification of shadows based on electrical signature of defects,” in
Proc. IEEE 17th Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl., 2015, pp. 1–8.
[53] E. Garoudja, K. Kara, A. Chouder, S. Silvestre, and S. Kichou, “Efficient
fault detection and diagnosis procedure for photovoltaic systems,” in Proc.
IEEE 8th Int. Conf. Model. Identification Control, 2016, pp. 851–856.
PILLAI et al.: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED FAULT DETECTION APPROACHES FOR PV SYSTEMS
[54] A. Dhoke, R. Sharma, and T. K. Saha, “PV module degradation analysis
and impact on settings of overcurrent protection devices,” Solar Energy,
vol. 160, pp. 360–367, Jan 2018.
[55] Y. Zhao, B. Lehman, R. Ball, J. Mosesian, and J. de Palma, “Outlier
detection rules for fault detection in solar photovoltaic arrays.” in Proc.
IEEE 28th Ann. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2013, pp. 2913–
2920.
[56] Y. Zhao et al., “Fault experiments in a commercial-scale PV laboratory and
fault detection using local outlier factor,” in Proc. IEEE 40th Photovolt.
Spec. Conf., 2014, pp. 3398–3403.
[57] G. Wang, C. C. Youn, and A. M. Stankovic, “DC-side high impedance
ground fault detection for transformer less single-phase PV systems,” in
Proc. IEEE North Amer. Power Symp., 2015, pp. 1–6.
[58] I. S. Kim, “On-line fault detection algorithm of a photovoltaic system using
wavelet transform,” Solar Energy, vol. 126, pp. 137–145, Mar. 2016.
[59] N. Georgijevic, M. V. Jankovic, S. Srdic, and Z. Radakovic, “The detection
of series arc fault in photovoltaic systems based on the arc current entropy,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 5917–5930, Aug. 2016.
[60] K. A. Kim, G. Seo, B. Cho, and P. T. Krein, “Photovoltaic hot-spot de-
tection for solar panel substrings using AC parameter characterization,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1121–1130, Feb. 2016.
[61] L. Chen, S. Li, and X. Wang, “Quickest fault detection in photovoltaic
systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1835–1847, May 2018.
[62] Z. Yi and A. H. Etemadi, “Fault detection for photovoltaic systems based
on multi-resolution signal decomposition and fuzzy inference systems,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1274–1283, May 2017.
[63] S. Chen and X. Li, “PV series arc fault recognition under different working
conditions with joint detection method,” in Proc. IEEE Elect. Contacts,
2016, pp. 25–32.
[64] H. Zhu, Z. Wang, and R. S. Balog, “Real time arc fault detection in PV
systems using wavelet decomposition,” in Proc. IEEE 43rd Photovolt.
Spec. Conf., 2016, pp. 1761–1766.
[65] S. Dhar, R. K. Patnaik, and P. K. Dash, “Fault detection and location of
photovoltaic based DC microgrid using differential protection strategy,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4303–4312, Sep. 2018.
[66] Q. Xiong, S. Ji, L. Zhu, L. Zhong, and Y. Liu, “A novel DC arc fault
detection method based on electromagnetic radiation signal,” IEEE Trans.
Plasma Sci., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 472–478, Mar. 2017.
[67] B. P. Kumar, G. S. Ilango, M. J. B. Reddy, and N. Chilakapati, “Online fault
detection and diagnosis in photovoltaic systems using wavelet packets,”
IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 257–265, Jan 2018.
[68] S. Roy, M. K. Alam, F. Khan, J. Johnson, and J. Flicker, “An irradiance-
independent, robust ground-fault detection scheme for PV Arrays based
on spread spectrum time-domain reflectometry (SSTDR),” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 7046–7057, Aug. 2018.
[69] Y. Zhao et al., “Decision tree-based fault detection and classification in
solar photovoltaic arrays,” in Proc. IEEE 27th Annu. IEEE Appl. Power
Electron. Conf. Expo., 2012, pp. 93–99.
[70] M. N. Akram and S. Lotfifard, “Modeling and health monitoring of DC
side of photovoltaic array,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 6, no. 4,
pp. 1245–1253, Oct. 2015.
[71] E. Karatepe and T. Hiyama, “Controlling of artificial neural network for
fault diagnosis of photovoltaic array,” in Proc. IEEE 16th Int. Conf. Intell.
Syst. Appl. Power Syst., Sep. 2011, pp. 1–6.
[72] H. Mekki, A. Mellit, and H. Salhi, “Artificial neural network-based mod-
eling and fault detection of partial shaded photovoltaic modules,” Simul.
Model. Pract. Theory, vol. 67, pp. 1–13, Sep. 2016.
[73] L. L. Jiang and D. L. Maskell, “Automatic fault detection and diagnosis
for photovoltaic systems using combined artificial neural network and
analytical based methods,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Joint Conf. Neural Netw.,
2015, pp. 1–8.
[74] C. B. Jones, J. S. Stein, S. Gonzalez, and B. H. King, “Photovoltaic system
fault detection and diagnostics using laterally primed adaptive resonance
theory neural network,” in Proc. IEEE 42nd Photovolt. Spec. Conf., 2015,
pp. 1–6.
[75] K. U. Rao, A. G. Parvatikar, S. Gokul, N. Nitish, and P. Rao, “A novel
fault diagnostic strategy for PV micro grid to achieve reliability centered
maintenance,” in Proc. IEEE 1st Int. Conf. Power Electron. Intell. Control
Energy Syst., 2016, pp. 1–4.
[76] Z. Yi and A. H. Etemadi, “Line-to-line fault detection for photovoltaic ar-
rays based on multiresolution signal decomposition and two-stage support
vector machine,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 8546–
8556, Nov. 2017.
527
[77] D. S. Pillai and N. Rajasekar, “An MPPT based sensorless line-line and
line-ground fault detection technique for PV systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., to be published, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2018.2884292.
[78] D. S. Pillai and N. Rajasekar, “Metaheuristic algorithms for PV parameter
identification: A comprehensive review with an application to threshold
setting for fault detection in PV systems,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 3503–3525, Feb. 2018.
Dhanup S. Pillai received the B.Tech. degree in elec-
trical and electronics engineering and the M.E. de-
gree in power electronics and drives from Mahatma
Gandhi University, Kottayam, India, and Anna Uni-
versity, Chennai, India, respectively. He is working
toward the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at
the Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India.
From 2011 to 2016, he was an Assistant Professor
with the Musaliar College of Engineering and Tech-
nology, Pathanamthitta, India. His interests include
protection and fault detection in PV systems, Line-
Line and Line-Ground fault detection in PV systems, optimization techniques,
power electronics and applications of power electronics to renewable energy
systems.
Frede Blaabjerg (S’86–M’88–SM’97–F’03) re-
ceived the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, in 1995.
From 1987 to 1988, he was with ABB-Scandia,
Randers, Denmark. In 1992, he was an Assistant Pro-
fessor, an Associate Professor in 1996, and a Full
Professor of power electronics and drives in 1998.
In 2017, he was a Villum Investigator. From 1987 to
1988, he was with ABB-Scandia, Randers. He has
authored or coauthored more than 450 journal papers
in the fields of power electronics and its applications.
He is the Co-Author of two monographs and the Editor of six books in power
electronics and its applications. His research interests include power electronics
and its applications such as in wind turbines, PV systems, reliability, harmonics,
and adjustable speed drives.
Dr. Blaabjerg was the recipient of 18 IEEE Prize Paper Awards, the IEEE
PELS Distinguished Service Award in 2009, the EPE-PEMC Council Award
in 2010, the IEEE William E. Newell Power Electronics Award 2014, and the
Villum Kann Rasmussen Research Award in 2014. He was the Editor-in-Chief
of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS from 2006 to 2012. He
was a Distinguished Lecturer for the IEEE Power Electronics Society from 2005
to 2007 and the IEEE Industry Applications Society from 2010 to 2011 as well
as 2017 to present. In 2017, he became Honoris Causa at University Politehnica
Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania.
Natarajan Rajasekar (M’12) received the B.E De-
gree in electrical and electronics engineering from
the University of Madras, Chennai, India, and the
M.Tech. degree in power electronics and Drives from
SASTRA University, Thanjavur, respectively, and the
Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the Na-
tional Institute of Technology, Trichy, India, in 2007.
From 2005 to 2010, he was with the Institute of
Road and Transport Technology, Erode. He is cur-
rently a Professor with the Department of energy and
power electronics, School of Electrical Engineering
(SELECT), Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India. His research interests
include solar PV system, power electronics, application of power electronics in
renewable energy sources, and dc–dc converters.
Dr. Rajasekar was the recipient “SOPHIA LECTURING—RESEARCH
GRANT,” from Sophia University, Japan.