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

net/publication/344194402

Failure Rates in Photovoltaic Systems: A Careful Selection of Quantitative

Data Available in the Literature

Conference Paper · September 2020

CITATIONS READS

5 2,755

4 authors:

Eduardo Abdon Sarquis Filho Andrés A. Zúñiga

Enmova GmbH Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST)
22 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

P. J. Costa Branco João Filipe Pereira Fernandes

Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) University of Lisbon
238 PUBLICATIONS 2,682 CITATIONS 97 PUBLICATIONS 551 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Abdon Sarquis Filho on 20 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FAILURE RATES IN PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS: A CAREFUL SELECTION
OF QUANTITATIVE DATA AVAILABLE IN THE LITERATURE

Eduardo A. Sarquis Filho, Andrés A. Zúñiga, João F. P. Fernandes, Paulo J. Costa Branco
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa,
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

ABSTRACT: The present work aims to gather, analyze and organize the information available in the literature about
failure modes and failure rates in photovoltaic systems, mapping their origins and conditions under which they were
obtained to provide unambiguous and trustworthy information for reliability studies on general PV systems. A set of
guiding questions have been listed to clearly detail the original context of each publication. Filtering the references
with failure information based on field data, the most common failures registered in PV systems were identified. With
this information, a list has been created containing the failure rates for the major components in the PV system:
transformer, inverter, and PV array. In particular, the failures in the PV module are detailed further according to its
internal components and failure modes. This information can be used in reliability studies regarding the general
behavior of a PV system.
Keywords: PV System, Reliability, Failure Rate.

1 INTRODUCTION methodology applied and “forget” to mention the origins

The study of the reliability of photovoltaic systems
involves the knowledge of the most common failures
observed as well as the frequency in which they occur.
This information can be obtained through statistical
analysis of the failure history of PV systems. The more
equipment operational history available, the more accurate
the failure rate calculation are. For example, a calculation
of a failure rate of a PV module would be more accurate if
you observe a power plant with thousands of modules
operating over the years rather than a single small rooftop
system with dozens of modules over a year.
Long life span can be a problem to determine the
failure rate of equipment manufactured to operate for
decades, as is the case with PV modules. In a laboratory,
it is possible to subject PV modules to extreme operating
conditions to accelerate the degradation process and test
its reliability. Data from these tests can be used to derive
the equipment failure rate.
An alternative approach is the calculation of a system's
failure rate based on the failure rates of its components
[11]. This approach allows the estimation of the failure
rate for any system irrespective of its size, but it does not
take into account the influence of the operating conditions.
Hence, additional methodologies have been developed to
adjust the failure rates according to the local climate [24].
A failure rate based on historic field data is preferable
to be used in reliability analysis because it already reflects
the influence of the operating conditions and all local
factors affecting the device's lifetime, which is difficult to
predict and to model accurately otherwise. In this case, the
resulting failure rates will be closely linked to the
operational conditions and environment under which the
data were originally acquired.
The quality of reliability studies is intrinsically
associated with the quality of the failure data used; hence,
before adopting a failure rate value, it is important to know
its origin and understand the conditions under which it was
calculated. However, in the literature is common to find
examples of failure rates cited in reliability studies without
given the required importance to the context where the
data was calculated, which can be coming from a different
climate region, or based on theoretical models with very
specific assumptions, or a second-hand citation, or even a
pure hypothetical value. Some studies focus solely on the
of the data used.
The present work aims to gather, analyze and organize
the information available in the literature about failure
modes and failure rates in photovoltaic systems, mapping
their origins and conditions under which they were
obtained to provide the photovoltaic research community
with clear information for reliability studies on general PV
systems.
From the literature, publications containing
quantitative information on failure rates in PV systems
have been listed according to a set of key questions
formulated to characterize the context under which the
failure rates were defined. The non-original references in
each article were traced back to their original publication
to assess the primary conditions under which the data were
obtained.
In this paper, the gathered information is critically
reviewed and filtered to highlight the most relevant and
reliable data regarding the failures in the PV system. A set
of guiding questions are listed to clearly detail the context
under which the failure data was collected. Filtering those
references with failure information based on field data, the
most common failures registered in PV systems were
identified. With this information, we created a list of the
failure rates for the major components in the PV system:
transformer, inverter, and PV array. The failures in the PV
module are detailed according to its internal components
and failure modes. Authors hope this “filtered”
information can be used in reliability studies regarding the
general behavior of PV systems.
2 FAILURE RATE DATA AVAILABLE IN THE
LITERATURE
Studies on failures in PV systems are increasingly
common in the literature. However, the volume of
publications containing quantitative information about
failure occurrence is still very limited. In this study, this
universe was further reduced by excluding the redundant
references where no original information about the failure
rate is available.
In the analyzed references, the PV system is usually
divided into a few components and subcomponents to
which one or more failure modes are associated. Despite
this similarity, studies vary widely in scope, level of detail Table I: List of references and characteristics of their
and context. There are purely theoretical studies, studies content.
with a history of failures of only one system over a few
years, and others that evaluate a portfolio of hundreds of Ref. Av. Data Section Detail Origin
solar power plants. Some studies scope is limited to only a [1] PO WS FM Field Data
statistical analysis of failure records, others go beyond and [2] PO WS SC Field Data
develop a failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) by [3] PO, MTBF WS SC Field Data
including the analysis of failures’ impacts and the ease of [4] FMEA WS FM Field Data
their detection, which combined give a sense of the risk of [5] FMEA, FR PV FM Field Data
each failure. [6] FMEA WS FM Field Data
[7] PO, FR, MTBF WS C Field Data
2.1 References characterization [8] DF, FR, MTBF WS C Field Data
The list of references analyzed was characterized [9] FR, MTBF WS SC Field Data
based on the four simple questions detailed below. Table I [10] FR WS SC Field Data
summarizes the answer for each reference. [11] DF, FR, MTBF WS FM Theoretical
[12] MTBF INV SC Theoretical
• What data is available? Different type of information [13] FR, MTBF INV C Theoretical
about failures is presented in each reference. Some [14] FR WS SC Citations
references disclosure only the percentage of [15] DF, FR WS SC Citations
occurrence (PO) of each failure type among the [16] FMEA, FR BoS SC Citations
universe of failure records. In contrast, other authors [17] DF, FR, MTBF WS SC Citations
present the specific failure rate (FR) or mean time [18] FR, MTBF WS C Hypothesis
before failure (MTBF) calculated for the observed [19] FR BoS SC Trans.Lines
failure. The studies involving failure mode and effects [20] FMEA WS FM No Info
analysis (FMEA) include the occurrence classification [21] FMEA WS FM No Info
according to an adopted criterion. A few studies [22] FMEA PV FM No Info
contain a more detailed analysis of the failures, [23] FR WS SC No Info
including the calculation of a probability distribution
Av. Data: PO – Percentage of Occurrence, FMEA - Failure
function (DF), but mostly studies assume that the time Mode and Effect Analysis Classification, DF –
to failure is exponentially distributed.
Distribution Function, FR – Failure Rate (), MTBF -
• Which section of the system is represented in this
Mean Time Before Failure;
data? The references also differ in their coverage and
Section: WS – Whole System, PV – PV Module, INV –
detail level. Most of the studies consider the whole
Inverter, BoS – Balance of System;
system, but a few of them focus on a single component
Detail: FM – Failure Mode, SC – Sub-Component, C –
such as the PV module, the inverter or the balance of
Component.
system (BoS), which encompasses all components of
the PV system other than the PV modules.
Therefore, five additional questions were posed to
• What is the level of detail in the failure records?
these references to understand more details about the
The failure details were categorized in three basic
conditions under which the field failure data were
levels: 1) component level (C), which means that each
collected. The questions are detailed below and the
failure register is associated with a major component,
answers are summarized in Table II.
but no further details are considered; 2) sub-
component level (SC), when the failure details are
• How many systems are considered? Some works are
given for inner parts of a component, such as the
based on data from a single photovoltaic system, while
bypass diodes in the PV module or the capacitors in
others have databases with historical records of
the inverter; or 3) failure mode level (FM), when
hundreds of photovoltaic systems. Logically, larger
different types of failure mechanisms are registered for
historical records would more accurately represent the
the same component or sub-component.
general behavior of PV systems, while data from a
• What is the origin of the data? Regarding the origin
single system could, at best, represent a specific
of the data, some references solely use failure data
configuration of the PV system. A study based on a
from citations. In contrast, others present original
single system could also be influenced by local
information, which in most cases are based on field
peculiarities or by problems on the installation and
data or theoretical analysis. It is also observed the
operation of the system.
occurrence of original data taken from other contexts
• How large are those systems? The size of the system
different than PV systems, or simple hypotheses, or
plays an important role in the circuit architecture of the
even without information of the source.
PV system, but also in the type and number of
components included in the analysis. For example,
2.2 Field derived data
large systems may adopt larger inverters equipped
To understand which are the most common failures
with more complex circuits, but also more reliable
observed in PV systems, we consider that publications
internal components.
with field derived data contain the most relevant data.
• How old are these systems? The age of the systems
Looking in detail at the origins of the field data for these
helps us to identify at which point in the life cycle
publications, we verified a great diversity of conditions.
failure rates are reflecting. PV systems are expected to
Some studies focus on specific regions highlighting the
operate for at least 25 years, and, like electrical
impacts of local climatic conditions on the occurrence of
systems in general, their failure rate is expected to
failures, while others cover a set of photovoltaic plants
follow the shape of the tub curve. It is high at the
spread over five continents.
 beginning and at the end, but approximately constant
over most of the lifetime. As 95% of the installed
capacity of PV systems worldwide has been installed
in the last ten years [25], it is natural that most
publications are concentrated in the first half of the
lifetime, skipping only the first year of operation.
• Under what climatic conditions do these systems
operate? The climate under which the system operates
is also a factor to be observed, as it has a direct
influence on the degradation of the equipment.
Different climates can present different types of
predominant failures. A study based on a system
operating under extreme weather conditions will
certainly reflect a particular failure profile. A more
diversified portfolio of systems and climates may
reveal the common failures observed, regardless of
weather conditions.
• When was the data collected? The industry that
manufactures PV modules and inverters is
continuously evolving and the reliability of the
components of photovoltaic systems has improved
significantly in the last decades [26]. Thus, the age of
the system combined with the year in which the data
was acquired can be correlated with the type of
technology available, which can influence the
reliability of the component.
The information available in [1] is the percentage of
occurrence associated with major components in the PV
system related to the overall failures registered in the
system. It also details the percentage of occurrence of
failure modes for the PV module, inverter and cablings.
Reference [2] also contains the percentage of
occurrence of failures for major components (mounting
structure, PV module, inverter) in the system and for the
subcomponents in the PV module and inverter.
The information available in [3] is the MTBF for the
internal components of the inverter, and for some major
components at the DC side: PV module, mounting
structure, PV string cabling, and fuses. In [4], there is a
section of an FMEA table with the most critical failure
modes identified, including the indication of the order of
magnitude of their failure rate. In [7], we have the failure
rate for a few major components in the whole system: PV
module, inverter, mounting structure. In [9], it is informed
the failure rate for inverter as a whole, but also for its
internal parts, and for the components of the PV array: PV
module, fuse, connector, string cable, etc.
The information from the references that contain
explicit failure rate values (given in failure per unit per
hour) is organized in Table III. If only MTBF is available,
we have assumed that the time to failure follows an
exponential probability distribution and, therefore, the
failure rate can be computed as the inverse of the MTBF.

3 TYPICAL FAILURES OBSERVED IN THE FIELD Table III: Failure rate per unit per hour for the
components and sub-components in the PV system.
To understand the typical failures of a PV system and
its respective failure rates, references that present a large Component F.R. Ref.
number of systems under a diverse or moderate climate Sub-Component (failures/unit-h)
were selected and analyzed. In Table II, references [1], [2], PV Array
[3], [4], [7] and [9] fit in this profile. Mounting Struct. (per string) 0.845x10-6 [3]
Mounting Structure 0.101x10-6 [7]
Table II: Summary of references with field data and their PV Module 0.065x10-6 [3]
respective failure data collection characteristics. PV Module 0.0152x10-6 [7]
PV Module 0.025x10-6 [9]
Ref. #Systems Size Age PV Module 0.035x10-6 [9]
[1] 772 Diverse 2.7 average PV Module 0.04x10-6 [9]
[2] 350 Few kW to 70 MW Up to 7 years PV Module Connector 0.0056x10-6 [9]
[3] 63 0.2 MW to 10 MW No info PV String cabling 0.845x10-6 [3]
[4] 57 No info No info PV String cabling 0.002x10-6 [9]
[5] 11 10 kW to 600 kW 4 to 18 years Fuses 2.28x10-6 [3]
[6] 1 115 kW 5 years Fuses 0.063x10-6 [9]
[7] 1242 Avg. 26 kW Up to 14 years Breaker 6.075x10-6 [9]
[8] 1 4.6 MW No info Inverter
[9] No info 1.4 MW to 3.4 MW 2 to 7 years Generic – 3 kW 16.3x10-6 [3]
[10] 1 20 kW No info Generic – 30 kW 65.1x10-6 [3]
Generic – 100 kW 217x10-6 [3]
Table II (cont.): Summary of references with field data Generic – 26 kW 11.2x10-6 [7]
and their respective failure data collection characteristics. Generic – Central type 74.0x10-6 [9]
Generic – Central type 130x10-6 [9]
Ref. Location Climate Data Collection Generic – String type 15.1x10-6 [9]
Capacitor 17.8x10-6 [9]
[1] Europe Diverse Up to 2016
Capacitor 41.5x10-6 [9]
[2] Worldwide Diverse Jan/2010 to Mar/2012
[3] Italy and Spain Medit. 2012 to 2016 Contactor 8.31x10-6 [3]
[4] Italy Medit. No info Ctrl & Communication board 26.7x10-6 [9]
Ctrl & Communication board 63.7x10-6 [3]
[5] Arizona, US Hot dry 2009 to 2013
Cooling fan 26.7x10-6 [9]
[6] Serbia Moderate No info
[7] Japan No info 2006 to 2012 IGBT module 16.6x10-6 [3]
[8] Arizona, US Desert 2003 to 2007 IGBT module 8.9x10-6 [9]
Relays 2.77x10-6 [3]
[9] No info No info No info
Transformer 17.8x10-6 [9]
[10] Langley, Canada Moderate 2010
Table IV: Failure rate per unit per hour for the failure failure rates within the same order of magnitude, except
modes of the sub-components in the PV module. for the mounting structure, PV string cabling and fuses.
The difference between failure rates reported for the
Sub-Component P.O. F.R.* Ref. mounting structure can be correlated with the system size.
Failure Mode (%) (failures/unit-h) The rooftop PV systems reported in [7] present lower
PV cells 17.1% 11.1x10-9 [2] failure rate for the mounting structure than the PV power
Cell cracks 0.23% 0.147x10-9 [1] plants reported in [3]. In addition, maintenance inspections
Corrosion 1.21% 0.788x10-9 [1] are usually more detailed and frequent in PV power plants
Hot-Spot 3.28% 2.13x10-9 [1] than in rooftop PV systems. More inspections tend to
PID 8.28% 5.38x10-9 [1] increase the number of failure records.
Snail track 7.14% 4.64x10-9 [1] The differences in the values for string cabling and
Front Glass 58.5% 38.1x10-9 [2] fuses in references [3] and [9] are significantly large
Glass breakage 10.8% 7.02x10-9 [1] (respectively 400 and 36 times), but there is no clear
Encapsulation explanation for this discrepancy.
Delamination 3.95% 2.57x10-9 [1] Regarding the PV module subcomponents and their
EVA discoloration 19.4% 12.6x10-9 [1] failure rates presented in Table IV, the most frequent
Defective back sheet 4.88% 3.17x10-9 [1] failure modes observed in the PV module are EVA
Defective back sheet 11.4% 7.42x10-9 [2] discoloration, glass breakage, PID, Snail Track and
Junction-box 8.57% 5.57x10-9 [2] defective back sheet.
Corrosion 0.09% 0.057x10-9 [1] Although the modules have a lower failure rate than
Overheat 1.65% 1.07x10-9 [1] the inverters, the number of panels far exceeds the number
Bypass diode 4.28% 2.78x10-9 [2] of inverters in any photovoltaic installation. Therefore, the
Diode failure 1.61% 1.05x10-9 [1] comparison is fairer if made between the failure rates
normalized by the equipment nominal power. The failure
*Based on PV module generic failure rate of 0.065x10-6.
rates associated to the PV modules range from 0.08 to
In Table III, for better comprehension, the components 0.36x10-6 failures per kWp per hour. At its highest values,
this range overlaps with the inverter failure rate range
in the DC side are aggregated as subcomponents of the PV
which is 0.25 to 3.34x10-6 per kWp per hour.
array. Failure rates associated with major components are
considered a generic failure of the component.
Although references [1] and [2] do not contain explicit
6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
failure rate values, the percentage of occurrence provided
for the PV module sub-components in [2] and its failure
modes in [1] can be used to derive the rate of occurrence The collection of failure rates with a clear
for each failure mode based on the failure rate of the understanding of the context under which the PV system
has been operating is critical for reliability. In this work,
component.
the authors have endeavored to gather the most relevant
The conversion of the percentage of occurrence to
failure rate can be done through a simple multiplication. publications for the representation of typical failure
However, this can only be applied if the failure modes behavior in PV systems in general. The result is a list of
failure rate values derived from field data of hundreds of
considered in the definition of the PO are the same failure
PV systems.
modes considered in the calculation of the failure rate. In
the reviewed studies, there is no clear information about PV systems are subject to several types of failures, and
the failure modes related to these failure rates, but it is a general collection of field records of failures helps
understand what the most relevant in terms of occurrence
reasonable to assume that all permanent failures were
are. The failure rates filtered in this paper can be used in
considered. Subsequently, we have filtered only the
permanent failure modes in the PV module from [1] and reliability studies regarding the general behavior of a PV
defined the percentage of occurrence to be multiplied by system.
the PV module failure rate to find the failure mode rate of In the process, a set of guiding questions have been
listed to clearly detail the context under which the failure
occurrence. Table IV summarizes the values obtained.
data is collected. Some references do not have enough
information to answer all the questions presented. So,
5 DISCUSSION these questions also intend to highlight what are the
relevant information to be provided along with the failure
data to complete characterize its context.
According to the collection of failure rates listed in
Table III, the highest number of failures per unit-hour The work performed in this paper is the first part of a
among the PV system components is related to the inverter failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) that will also
evaluates the impact of these failures in a PV system
and its internal components. The larger the inverter, the
performance as well as the ease of their detection using the
higher the failure rate, which can be explained by the
higher complexity of the circuit and the higher number of common inspection tools available.
internal components. The subcomponent in the inverter
that has the highest failure rate is the control and
7 REFERENCES
communication board, followed by the capacitors, the
cooling fan, the IGBT module, the contactor, and at last
the relays. [1] D. Moser, “Technical Risks in PV Projects, Report
on Technical Risks in PV Project Development and
The PV module has five failure rate values from three
PV Plant Operation,” p. 139, 2016.
studies, and all values are quite consistent with each other.
Same for the other components in Table III that have [2] A. Golnas, “PV system reliability: An operator’s
perspective,” in 2012 IEEE 38th Photovoltaic
 Specialists Conference (PVSC) PART 2, Jun. 2012,
pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/PVSC-Vol2.2012.6656744.
[3] S. Gallardo-Saavedra, L. Hernández-Callejo, and O.
Duque-Pérez, “Quantitative failure rates and modes
analysis in photovoltaic plants,” Energy, vol. 183, pp.
825–836, Sep. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.185.
[4] M. Villarini, V. Cesarotti, L. Alfonsi, and V. Introna,
“Optimization of photovoltaic maintenance plan by
means of a FMEA approach based on real data,”
Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 152, pp.
1–12, Nov. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.090.
[5] J. M. Kuitche, R. Pan, and G. TamizhMani (Mani),
“Investigation of Dominant Failure Mode(s) for
Field-Aged Crystalline Silicon PV Modules Under
Desert Climatic Conditions,” IEEE Journal of
Photovoltaics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 814–826, May 2014,
doi: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2014.2308720.
[6] L. S. Cickaric, V. A. Katic, and S. Milic, “Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis of Urban Rooftop PV
Systems – Case Study,” in 2018 International
Symposium on Industrial Electronics (INDEL), Nov.
2018, pp. 1–7, doi: 10.1109/INDEL.2018.8637640.
[7] T. Oozeki, T. Yamada, K. Kato, and T. Yamamoto,
“An Analysis of Reliability for Photovoltaic Systems
on the Field Test Project for Photovoltaic in Japan,”
in Proceedings of ISES World Congress 2007 (Vol. I
– Vol. V), Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 1628–1632,
doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75997-3_334.
[8] E. Collins, M. Dvorack, J. Mahn, M. Mundt, and M.
Quintana, “Reliability and availability analysis of a
fielded photovoltaic system,” in 2009 34th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Jun.
2009, pp. 002316–002321, doi:
10.1109/PVSC.2009.5411343.
[9] S. Baschel, E. Koubli, J. Roy, and R. Gottschalg,
“Impact of Component Reliability on Large Scale
Photovoltaic Systems’ Performance,” Energies, vol.
11, no. 6, p. 1579, Jun. 2018, doi:
10.3390/en11061579.
[10]P. Zhang, Y. Wang, W. Xiao, and W. Li, “Reliability
Evaluation of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Power
Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy,
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 379–389, Jul. 2012, doi:
10.1109/TSTE.2012.2186644.
[11]A. Charki and D. Bigaud, “Availability Estimation of
a Photovoltaic System,” in 2013 Proceedings Annual
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS),
Jan. 2013, pp. 1–5, doi:
10.1109/RAMS.2013.6517744.
[12]Z. J. Ma and S. Thomas, “Reliability and
maintainability in photovoltaic inverter design,” in
2011 Proceedings - Annual Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium, Jan. 2011, pp. 1–5, doi:
10.1109/RAMS.2011.5754523.
[13] E. Koutroulis and F. Blaabjerg, “Design
Optimization of Transformerless Grid-Connected PV
Inverters Including Reliability,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 325–335,
Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2012.2198670.
[14] A. Colli, “Failure mode and effect analysis for
photovoltaic systems,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 50, pp. 804–809, Oct. 2015,
doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.056.
[15] G. Zini, C. Mangeant, and J. Merten, “Reliability of
large-scale grid-connected photovoltaic systems,”
View publication stats
Renewable Energy, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 2334–2340,
Sep. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.036.
[16] L. Cristaldi, M. Khalil, and P. Soulatintork, “A root
cause analysis and a risk evaluation of PV balance of
system failures,” ACTA IMEKO, vol. 6, no. 4, p.
113, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.21014/acta_imeko.v6i4.425.
[17] M. Perdue and R. Gottschalg, “Energy yields of
small grid connected photovoltaic system: effects of
component reliability and maintenance,” IET
Renewable Power Generation, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 432–
437, 2015, doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2014.0389.
[18] L. H. Stember, “Reliability considerations in the
design of solar photovoltaic power systems,” Solar
Cells, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 269–285, May 1981, doi:
10.1016/0379-6787(81)90008-9.
[19] M. Mesić and T. Plavšić, “The contribution of
failure analyses to transmission network maintenance
preferentials,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 35,
pp. 262–271, Dec. 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.028.
[20] T. D. Han, M. R. M. Razif, and S. A. Sulaiman,
“Study on Premature Failure of PV Systems in
Malaysia using FMEA and Integrated ISM
Approaches,” MATEC Web Conf., vol. 225, p.
04004, 2018, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201822504004.
[21] J. B. Basu, “Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
(FMEA) of a Rooftop PV System,” vol. 3, no. 9, p. 5,
2014.
[22] M. Catelani, L. Ciani, L. Cristaldi, M. Faifer, M.
Lazzaroni, and P. Rinaldi, “FMECA technique on
photovoltaic module,” in 2011 IEEE International
Instrumentation and Measurement Technology
Conference, May 2011, pp. 1–6, doi:
10.1109/IMTC.2011.5944245.
[23] R. Hu, J. Mi, T. Hu, M. Fu, and P. Yang,
“Reliability research for PV system using BDD-based
fault tree analysis,” in 2013 International Conference
on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and
Safety Engineering (QR2MSE), Jul. 2013, pp. 359–
363, doi: 10.1109/QR2MSE.2013.6625601.
[24] R. Laronde, A. Charki, and D. Bigaud, “Reliability
of photovoltaic modules based on climatic
measurement data,” Int. J. Metrol. Qual. Eng., vol. 1,
no. 1, Art. no. 1, 2010, doi: 10.1051/ijmqe/2010012.
[25] IRENA, “Solar energy data - installed capacity
trends,” Infographic, Jan 2019. [Online].
Available:https://www.irena.org/en/solar
[26] D. C. Jordan and S. R. Kurtz, “Photovoltaic
Degradation Rates-an Analytical Review:
Photovoltaic degradation rates,” Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 12–29, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1002/pip.1182.