An Overview of Spread Spectrum Time Domain
Reflectometry Responses to Photovoltaic Faults
Mashad Uddin Saleh, Student Member, IEEE, Chris Deline, Senior Member, IEEE, Evan Benoit, Student
Member, IEEE, Samuel Kingston, Student Member, IEEE, Ayobami S. Edun, Student Member, IEEE,
Naveen Kumar Tumkur Jayakumar, Student Member, IEEE, Joel B. Harley, Member, IEEE, Cynthia
Furse, Fellow, IEEE, Michael Scarpulla, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Spread spectrum time domain reflectometry
(SSTDR) is a broadband electrical reflectometry technique
that has been used to detect and locate faults on live
electrical systems, including photovoltaic (PV) systems. In
this paper, we evaluate the detectability and localizability
from both existing literature and our own measurements
using SSTDR of open circuit faults, connection faults, short
circuit faults, ground faults, arc faults, shading faults,
bypass diode faults, and accelerated degradation faults in
PV cells and mini-modules. Reflection magnitudes for these
faults are compared. Preliminary data on buried and
grounded PV cable along with arc fault detection are
presented.
Index Terms—Degradation, reflectometry, arc faults, ground
faults, photovoltaic cells, spread spectrum time domain
reflectometry (SSTDR), open circuit faults, connection faults,
short circuit faults, ground faults, arc faults, shading faults, bypass
diode faults, accelerated degradation faults.
I. INTRODUCTION
F aults (any problem or imperfection) in photovoltaic (PV)
systems can occur due to degradation, weather,
mishandling, etc. Common electrical problems include ground
faults (GF), arc faults (AF), open circuits faults (OC),
accelerated degradation faults (ADF), shading faults (SF),
bypass diode fault (BDF), connection faults (CF), and broken
cells or modules (BRK) [1]. Recent surveys of advanced fault
detection approaches include model-based difference
measurements [2], real-time difference measurements [3], and
output signal analysis [1]. These studies include initial
assessments of SSTDR for detection and location of mainly
ground and arc faults, but the range of faults had not yet been
thoroughly tested. We seek to extend that assessment in this
paper. Commercially available protection schemes including
ground fault detection and interruption (GFDI) and arc fault
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under
Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) Agreement Number DE-
EE0008169. Also, we want to express gratitude to Gardner Energy (West
Haven, UT) for their support with testing on their PV modules. Also, we want
to thank Kent Terwilliger and Byron McDanold for their help with
measurements at NREL.
M. U. Saleh is with the Department of ECE, University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, UT 84112, USA (email: mashad.saleh@utah.edu). C. Deline is with
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd, Lakewood, CO
80401 (email: chris.deline@nrel.gov). E. Benoit, S. Kingston and N. K. T.
Jayakumar are with the Department of ECE, University of Utah, Salt Lake City,
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
circuit interruption (AFCI) [2], detect the faults and protect the
system but do not locate the faults to allow fixing the root cause.
Time-domain reflectometry (TDR) techniques [5] are well-
established methods for both locating and detecting faults in
electrical systems. An electromagnetic signal is sent through the
system, and reflections from impedance discontinuities return
to the test end where they are analyzed. The time delays
between the incident signal and the reflections indicate the
distances to the discontinuities, and magnitudes and phases of
the reflected signals are related to the types of impedance
discontinuities.
Each type of reflectometry uses a different type of signal and
method of analyzing the reflections [5]. Traditional TDR uses
stepped or pulsed voltages. Frequency domain reflectometry
(FDR) [6] and mixed-signal reflectometry (MSR) [7] use
sinusoidal signals. Chaos or noise domain reflectometry [8], [9]
use existing or added noise in the system. Spectral [10] or
binary [11] time domain reflectometry use pseudo-noise (PN)
codes, and spread spectrum time domain reflectometry
(SSTDR) [12] uses modulated PN codes. The magnitudes of the
reflections will be essentially the same for each reflectometry
approach, if the bandwidth is the same [5]. In this paper, we
evaluate SSTDR for detecting and location faults in PV
systems. A major advantage of this method over other
reflectometry approaches is its ability to detect and locate faults
within operating (energized) electrical systems.
Originally developed for the location of faults on live aircraft
wires [13], SSTDR has been demonstrated for detection and
location of open and short faults [12], arc faults [14], conductor
damage [15], monitoring power electronic devices [16]. In PV
systems, it has been used to detect, and in some cases locate
ground faults [17], arc faults [18], disconnection faults [12], and
broken panels [19]. The magnitude of the reflected signal
indicates the magnitude of the impedance of the fault, and the
delay indicates its location. In this paper, we will review the
UT 84112, USA (email: evan.benoit@utah.edu, u0763921@utah.edu,
naveen.tumkurjayakumar@utah.edu).
A. S. Edun and J. B. Harley is with the Department of ECE, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6200, USA (email: aedun@ufl.edu,
joel.harley@ufl.edu).
C. M. Furse is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA, and LiveWire Innovation.
(e-mail: cfurse@ece.utah.edu).
M. Scarpulla is with the Department of Materials Science and Engineering
and the Department of ECE, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112,
USA (email: mike.scarpulla@utah.edu).
relative magnitude of reflections from common PV faults to W50A0093 SSTDR instrument [23]. Its characteristic
evaluate the potential capability of SSTDR technique to detect impedance is ZSSTDR = 68 Ω. We used 24 MHz continuous
and locate faults in PV power plants. mode, which uses a 24 MHz PN code modulated by a 24 MHz
In section II, we will explain the SSTDR measurement square wave. Table II shows the single cell mini-module
techniques and parameters. In section III, we will review parameters from National Renewable Energy Laboratory
common types of faults seen in PV systems, and provide a (NREL) cell team. Illuminated current-voltage (I-V)
quantitative comparison of the magnitudes of SSTDR characteristics were measured in two ways: using Kelvin probes
reflections from these faults. This is used to determine the at both ends of each bus bar; and with multipoint probes
detectability and localizability of the faults using SSTDR. The distributed along the bus bars. The Kelvin probe measurements
conclusions are summarized in section IV. get the proper short-circuit current density, Isc, but have a
reduced fill factor due to added series resistance. The multipoint
II. SSTDR RESPONSES probe measurements get the proper fill factor but have reduced
Spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR) [20] Isc due to shading.
sends a square-wave modulated pseudo-noise (PN) code signal Figure 1(b) shows the SSTDR signatures for open circuit
into an electrical system. Reflections from impedance (OC), short circuit (SC) loads, and from a PV cell 50 ft from the
discontinuities return to the SSTDR instrument, where the SSTDR. The SSTDR signature is normalized to the magnitude
returned signal is cross-correlated with a delayed version of the of the open circuit response at this location, which the effects
incident signal to create the reflectometry signature. In Fig. 1 of attenuation in the cable. A similar but inverted signature is
(a), the setup schematic for an open circuit (OC), short circuit seen for the short circuit load. The distance (from the SSTDR)
(SC), and a PV single cell mini-module at the end of a twin lead shown in Fig. 1 was calculated by taking the measured time
leader cable is shown. delay and dividing by the velocity of propagation, vop. We
smoothed and spline interpolated the peaks as described in [22]
for improved accuracy. In addition to the reflection signatures
shown at the load, there is always a similar pulse at the
impedance discontinuity from the SSTDR instrument to
transmission line (distance =0), which we have not shown.
(a) Table I
PV cable [21] and SSTDR parameters
1 Open circuit
Parameters Values
Short circuit
0.8
PV single cell mini-module Conductor diameter (dc) 2.94 mm
0.6
Conductivity of copper (𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐 ) 5.98 × 107 S/m
0.4

Loss tangent of XLPE 4 × 10−4

0.2

𝜇𝜇𝑟𝑟 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 0.999994

Normalized Reflection

XLPE insulation thickness (𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ) 3.375 mm

-0.2

-0.4
Distance between conductors (Dc) 11 mm

-0.6
𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 2.3

-0.8
𝑍𝑍𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 68 Ω
𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚 24 MHz
-1
vop 0.722 ± 0.008
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Zo 178 Ω
Distance [feet]
ZSSTDR 68 Ω
(b)
Fig 1. Measured SSTDR reflection responses for a simple test system (a). The Table II
smoothed and normalized SSTDR responses (b) are shown for various loads Single cell mini-module parameters
(Short circuit, open circuit, and a PV single cell mini-module).
Parameters Values

The twin-lead cable is made up of 10 (AWG) gauge multi- Cell area 244.2 cm2 ± 0.1%
conductor cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) coated 2 kV Open circuit voltage (VOC) 0.6267 ± 0.0011 V
photovoltaic wires [21] taped together to form a twin-lead cable,
Short circuit current (ISC) 9.035 ± 0.055 A
with parameters given in Table I. To find its characteristic
impedance, we attached a potentiometer as the load and tuned Maximum Current (Imax) 8.542 ± 0.052 A
it until reflections were not visible at the SSTDR. This gave Zo Maximum voltage (Vmax) 0.527854 ± 0.000074 V
= 178 Ω. The velocity of propagation, vop = 0.722 ± 0.008 times Maximum power (Pmax) 4.509 ± 0.028 W
the speed of light in vacuum (co), was found by measuring the
SSTDR response of an open circuit on a known length of cable Efficiency 18.46 ± 0.11 %

[22]. For our tests, we used a Livewire Innovation ARNOLD

Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.

Overview of the SSTDR Technique for fault detection and location
Detected Fault Conditions
OC CF GF AF SF
Detection: √ √ √ √
Location: √ √ * *
[12] [12] [14] [17] [18]
√ Demonstrated * Potentially Feasible (Work in progress)
Note: GF: Ground Fault, AF: Arc fault, OC/SC: Open Circuit / Short Circuit Fault, SF: Shading Fault, BDF: Bypass Diode Fault, CF: Connection Fault,
ADF: Accelerated Degradation Fault, BRK: Broken Cell/Module Fault.
We created mini-modules with one PV cell which
wasencapsulated in glass and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA),
similar to a typical PV module [25]. The cells (6-inch by 6-inch
custom-made polycrystalline silicon solar cells similar to [26])
were soldered to busbars covered by EVA and then covered
with a back sheet (made of Tedlar composite). MC4 connectors
were soldered to the lead tabs.
In reflectometry (TDR, SSTDR, etc.), the reflection
coefficient (Γ) tells how much signal will be reflected, and is a
function of the impedances of the transmission line Zline and
fault Zfault:
𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑍𝑍𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 −𝑍𝑍𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝛤𝛤 = = (1)
𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑍𝑍𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 +𝑍𝑍𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
in which 𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 and 𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 are the reflected and incident
voltages. The reflection coefficient is frequency-dependent,
however, when the fault is not frequency-dependent (such as
OC, SC, CF), Γ is equal at all frequencies and can be applied
across the time domain reflection signature [27]. For OC, Γ= 1.
For SC, Γ= -1. These can be seen in Fig. 1 (b), where the OC
magnitude is normalized to 1, the SC has the same shape and
magnitude as for OC but is inverted. For OC and SC, all of the
SSTDR signal is reflected either in phase (OC) or out of phase
(SC). This is the largest reflection we can expect in any
electrical system, and we will consider our ability to locate all
other types of faults relative to this maximum reflection
coefficient (Γ= 1). The location of the reflection (the x-axis in
Fig. 1 (b)) is found by multiplying the time delay by the velocity
of propagation on the cable. SSTDR can detect and locate OC
and SC faults in realistic wiring systems without disconnecting
them and while energized [12]. In the following section, we will
evaluate the magnitude of the reflection for various types of
faults in PV systems, to evaluate the relative magnitude of the
reflections from these faults, which is the key parameter to
determine if reflectometry can detect and locate them.
III. DETECTING FAULTS IN PV STRINGS
There are several types of faults that can disrupt power from
PV systems. These include ground faults (GF), arc faults (AF),
open circuits faults (OC), accelerated degradation faults (ADF),
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
Table III
Advantages and Limitations
BDF BRK ADF
 Fault detection independent of fault
current levels [13]
√ * √ √  Can be used in live systems [10]
* * * *  Can both detect and localize faults [10]
 May require baseline for assessment
[12]
 More complex, less accurate on
parallel branched circuits [24]
[19]
shading faults (SF), bypass diode fault (BDF), connection faults
(CF), and broken cells or modules (BRK) [1]. In this section,
we will review these types of faults, and provide quantitative
comparisons of their SSTDR reflections. We also compare the
use of SSTDR to detect and locate faults with contemporary
detection techniques and summarize in Table III.
A. Open Circuit (OC), Connection Faults (CF), Short Circuit
(SC) Faults
Open (OC, with impedance Z = ∞) and short circuit (SC, with
Z=0) faults can be caused by damaged or corroded connectors,
physical damage to the wiring or PV elements, or as an after
effect of arc faults of various kinds. Connection faults (CF),
which are open circuits or high impedance, nearly open circuits
can occur between modules because of improper installation,
damage to connectors and insulators from weather,
rough handling during installation or maintenance, corrosion,
etc. These faults create the largest reflections of any of the faults
and are therefore the easiest to detect and locate.
Using today’s non-SSTDR techniques, OC and CF faults can
be detected but not located using output voltage and current at
maximum power points [2] [28] and output DC power [29].
Location is often done by visual inspection and general
electrical debugging (such as sequentially disconnecting
portions of the system to determine which section has the fault).
Using SSTDR, connection faults can be detected and located
between PV cells and modules [12]. The maximum change in
SSTDR normalized reflection magnitude was reported as 0.5
for disconnections between seven mini-modules connected in
series and 0.7 for disconnections between eight full-sized
series-connected modules [12]. However, for larger strings, the
change in magnitude might be smaller due to attenuation and
increased multiple reflections in the string.
B. Ground Faults (GF)
Ground faults (GF) occur if there is a connection between a
current-carrying conductor and a grounding path [1]. This is a
very common fault in PV systems. Generally, GF are detected
by analyzing the output voltage and current [30] and output
power [31]. Ground faults are more complex than simple short
circuit (SC) faults because the return path for the reflection is
no longer a single, low-loss wire. It is now typically a larger,
distributed conductor (such as earth/dirt, chassis, or the
framework holding the PV modules). This reduces the effective
reflection coefficient through both multipath reflections and
attenuation. SSTDR has been used for detecting and locating
ground faults (to the airframe) in aircraft wiring [14] and ground
faults in PV systems [17], indicating that this type of fault can
be detected in PV systems.
A simple experiment imitates a ground fault and gives an
example of the magnitude of the reflection from GF. One lead
of a twin lead wire (18 AWG lamp cord 50 feet long with a
short on the end) was manually shorted to a grounded metal
plate (8 feet by 6 feet) (shown in Fig. 3). The fault was
introduced at 43.5 feet by removing a 0.5-inch section of
insulator from one of the wires making up the twin lead and
manually touching it to the metal plate. The SSTDR signals
shown in Fig. 2 clearly indicate that the fault is detectable, both
in the initial reflection at 43.5 feet and in subsequent multiple
reflections. The maximum change in normalized SSTDR
reflection magnitude is 0.15 at the location shown by asterisks
in Fig. 2.
0.4
No fault
0.3 Ground fault
0.2
0.1
0 0
Normalized Reflection
-0.1
-0.2
*
-0.3
-0.4 0.15
* -1
-0.5
30 40 50 60 70
Distance [feet]
Fig 2. SSTDR measurements of a ground fault on a 50-foot twin-lead lamp cord
with a short circuit on the end. Insulation was removed from one wire of the
twin lead at 43.5-feet from the SSTDR. It was manually touched to the metal
plate shown in Fig. 3, simulating a ground fault.
Another qualitative measure, “area” was introduced in [17].
This area is found from the sum of the absolute values of the
element-wise differences between the average autocorrelation
plot (similar to Fig. 1 (b)) with a ground fault in a specific
location and the baseline measurement of the system with no-
fault. Using this analysis, ground faults were found to be
detectable. A preliminary method was also presented to locate
the fault position. The detectable fault area is about 3 times the
system noise area, which is similar to our observations.
Another type of ground fault can be imitated by submerging
a cable in water. A 50-foot long twin-lead lamp cord (fully
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
insulated, undamaged) with a short circuit on the end was run
through a 5-foot section of metal conduit, as shown in Fig. 3.
Tap water was poured into the metal conduit to submerge the
portion of the cable in the conduit, simulating the filling of a
buried conduit by water. This changed both the magnitude of
the reflection and velocity of propagation (seen from the delay
in the reflection), as shown in Fig. 4. Future experiments to
detect and locate ground faults in a full PV system are
recommended.
Fig 3. A portion of a 50-feet long lamp cord is fed through a 5-feet long metal
electrical conduit where the wires are held about 1.5 inches from the steel plate.
the twin lead lamp cord is fully insulated (undamaged). The conduit is either
dry or filled with water. For the ground fault experiment, the portion of wire
was stripped of insulation and touched to the metal plate.
1
Dry
0.8
Wet
0.6
0.4
0.2
Normalized Reflection
-0.2
-0.4 delay
-0.6
-0.8
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
80
Distance [feet]
Fig. 4. SSTDR measurements for fully insulated, undamaged lamp cords in
metal electrical conduit, dry or full of water. The delay indicates the reduction
in the velocity of propagation.
C. Arc Faults (AF)
Arc faults are short circuits that carry a large current that arcs
between two conductors. They can be caused by damage or
insulation breakdown [4]. Parallel arc faults occur between
conductors, while series arcs occur between two segments of a
single conductor. Currently, AF are detected on PV systems by
analyzing the output currents [32] [33] or signal to power ratio
(arc power to inverter noise) [34]. A parallel arc fault is
effectively a short circuit (SC), but for a very transient duration
(often only fractions of a millisecond) [14]. Series arc faults
produce partial disconnections (OC) such as those seen in [19],
and these are often intermittent, as well. In many cases, this arc
is so fast that it does not produce enough energy and heat to trip
a traditional circuit breaker, so arc fault breakers that evaluate
the output current are used to detect (but not locate) them. The
impedances of both parallel and series AFs are similar to their
SC and OC counterparts, but they occur for only very short
times and therefore require a very fast system that is actively
testing while they occur.
The SSTDR technique was used to detect series and parallel
AF in PV systems [18] and to detect and locate parallel AF in
aircraft [14]. In [18], the magnitude of the normalized reflection
from an arc fault was about 0.24 times that of the baseline
SSTDR signature. We also see similar results. The system
design tradeoffs between test speed and sensitivity limit the
distance from the SSTDR to which test systems can be sensitive
to AF. It is important to note that for SSTDR, the current
induced by the arc (typically a very noisy signal) does not
interfere with the test system. In fact, unlike arc fault breakers
and other arc fault detection schemes, it is the impedance
change (the short/ open circuit of the arc), not the arc current
that is detected and analyzed.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5. (a) PV arc fault test setup is made up of two copper rods that are slowly
separated to create an arc similar to those produced by faulty MC-4 connectors.
(b) SSTDR can locate this arc.
We tested SSTDR for series arc faults in small PV systems
at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) using
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
the test setup shown in Fig. 5 (a) [35]. The test string had an
open circuit voltage (VOC) of 650 V and short circuit current
(ISC) of 18 A. The goal was to simulate the arc produced by a
faulting MC-4 connector. Two copper rods aligned axially were
used to simulate the connector contacts. An arc was created
across a very small separation between the tips of the rods. The
rods were then slowly moved apart until the arc dissipated. The
SSTDR signatures (initial, final and several tests during the
period the arc was present) are shown in Fig. 5(b). Similar tests
were also reported in [18]. The maximum change in normalized
SSTDR reflection magnitude is 0.3 at the location shown by
asterisks in Fig. 5 (b).
D. Shading Fault (SF)
Shading faults can be temporary (e.g. clouds, flying birds,
dust, or shadows) or permanent (soiling, long term dust
accumulation, debris). SFs can cascade to produce short circuit
faults or hot spots [36]. Hot spot heating occurs when a number
of series-connected PV cells cause a large reverse bias across
the shaded cell, leading to large dissipation of power in that cell.
Shading faults are detected by analyzing output power, voltage
and current [29] [37] by existing power electronics. These test
methods cannot locate which cell or panel has the fault, but
visual inspection may be used for this purpose.
(a)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Normalized Reflection
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4 Shading Module A
0.12
Shading Module B
-0.5
Day data without shading
180 200 220 240 260 280
Distance [feet]
(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Schematic for the test setup to take shading fault measurements, and
(b) SSTDR measurements from data taken in full sun with and without shading.
Shading faults create impedance changes in the PV module,
similar to those from day/night variation, albeit over a smaller
section of the module. A preliminary experiment to detect SF
was done at our test station at the University of Florida. A 194-
ft leader cable was used to connect two PV modules (36 cell
modules from Renogy) in series. SSTDR measurements were
taken in full sun. Fig 6 (a) shows the setup schematic. Fig. 6
(b) shows the normalized reflection with no modules shaded,
and with either module A or B shaded. The maximum change
in normalized SSTDR reflection magnitude is 0.12 at the
location shown by asterisks in Fig. 6 (b).
Moreover, day/night changes are also detectable, as can be
seen in Fig. 7. The experiment was done in our test station at
the University of Florida. Fig 7 (a) shows the schematic of the
setup, and Fig. 7 (b) shows the SSTDR responses during the
day (in full sun) and at night.
(a)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Normalized reflection
0 -0.4
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
100 150 200
Distance [feet]
(b)
Fig. 7. (a) Schematic for the test setup to take day/ night measurements, and (b)
SSTDR measurements from day and night.
E. Bypass Diode Fault (BDF)
Bypass diodes are present in almost all commercially
available PV modules to protect against reverse bias and
resultant hot spots and damage to cells from partial shading.
Bypass diodes are connected in reverse polarity between strings
of PV cells (or modules) and have no effect on the forward bias
output. Bypass diodes fail as either open (OC) or short (SC)
circuits [38]. Analyzing output power can help detect BDF [29],
but these are notoriously difficult to detect and locate. There are
some configurations where we could expect SSTDR to be able
to detect and locate BDF (such as when they fail as series OC),
and others (failing as series SC) where it could be extremely
difficult if not impossible. This is an area that warrants further
investigation.
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
F. Broken Cell/Module Fault (BRK)
Cells or modules can be broken due to mishandling during
transport or installation, weather and extreme environmental
conditions or bad packaging. Infrared (IR) imaging,
electroluminescence imaging, and visual/ manual inspections
are normally used to detect and locate broken cells/modules in
a string [39]. Not all breaks cause impedance changes
(especially when the busbars remain intact), but when they do,
we would expect SSTDR to be able to detect and locate BRK
faults. As an example, SSTDR responses before and after
breaking a Jinko JKM285W module are shown in Fig. 8 [19].
The maximum change in normalized SSTDR magnitude is 0.1
which is shown by asterisks in Fig. 8. In addition to changes in
the first reflection, additional changes are seen in later
(multiple) reflections.
0.4
No broken cell in the module
0.3 Broken cells in the module
0.2
0.1
Night
Day 0
Normalized Reflection
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
*
-0.5
0.1
*
-0.6
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance [feet]
Fig. 8. SSTDR responses before and after breaking the Jinko PV module.
250
G. Accelerated Degradation Fault (ADF)
Degradation faults occur in PV modules due to aging and poor
material or climatic stress. Degradation can take many forms
including deterioration and changes in the dielectric materials
that make up the PV cells, corrosion or increased resistance of
the busbars or their connections, yellowing or deterioration of
the glass or polymer materials, etc. [40] [41]. The degradation
that impacts the module’s performance may be detected
through J-V monitoring, but pinpointing the degraded
module(s) is not possible with this technique [42].
To test the effect of accelerated degradation on SSTDR
responses, single cell mini-modules similar to those described
in section II were degraded using damp heat (DH), damp heat
along with potential induced degradation (DH+PID) or
humidity freeze (HF).
A single cell PV mini-module was kept inside a damp heat
(DH) chamber at 85°C and 85% relative humidity for 67 hours.
This is only a fraction of the 1000 hours of degradation
specified by the IEC 61215 standard [43]. It is difficult to
estimate what outdoor exposure the IEC 61215 test represents,
and different module designs will experience very different
stress from this exposure [44].
SSTDR measurements were taken before and after DH
degradation and are shown in Fig. 9. The maximum change in
normalized reflection is 0.02, which is shown by asterisks in
Fig. 9. Even this small amount of DH degradation introduces a
measurable change in normalized reflection. In addition to the
change in magnitude, a time delay is also seen, which indicates
the particular magnitudes we observed are specific to the PV
systems we measured and the location of the faults. Faults that
are further from the SSTDR will experience additional
attenuation and a reduced reflection magnitude. The ability of
SSTDR to detect and locate faults in PV systems is summarized
in Table III.
1

a change in the velocity of propagation (2.32%). This would be

consistent with an aging-induced change in electrical
0.9

permittivity of the materials in the mini-module, which would 0.8

in turn cause a change in the velocity of propagation. 0.7

0.6

Change in Normalized Reflection

Before DH
0.5
After DH
0.2
0.4

0.3
0
0.2
*
Normalized Reflection

0.1
-0.2 *
0
OC CF GF AF SF BRK ADF

-0.4
Type of faults

Fig. 10. A comparative analysis of SSTDR magnitude for different fault

conditions. * Submerging the cable in water and damp heat accelerated aging
* also change the velocity of propagation.
-0.6 * 0.02

40 60 80 100 120 To determine if these faults are detectable in practice, we

Distance [feet]
Fig. 9. SSTDR responses from mini-modules before and after damp heat
degradation.
To check the damp heat and PID effect together, a single-cell
PV mini-module was aged in a DH+PID chamber. Again, this
represents only a small amount of accelerated aging, as full
degradation tests are normally run for at least 1000 hours.
Similar to DH aging, a time delay is seen in the SSTDR
response, indicative of a change in velocity of propagation
(1.57%) and 2.88% of attenuation. Detailed measurements are
shown in [19] for this case.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
The changes in the normalized SSTDR reflection for each of
the tests described above are summarized in Fig. 10. this gives
a qualitative measurement of the relative detectability of
various faults in PV power plants using SSTDR. This would
apply to other types of reflectometry with similar bandwidth, as
well.
Open circuit and short circuit faults produce the largest
change in reflection magnitude (1.0), while for our tests,
accelerated degradation fault causes the least amount of change
(0.02). Other types of faults are in between the open circuit and
accelerated degradation faults, broken cell/ module faults (0.1),
arc faults (0.3), ground faults (0.15), shading faults (0.12) and
connection faults (0.7). The larger the magnitude of the
reflected signal, the easier the fault is to detect. Detection is
needed before location can be done, and faults with larger
magnitudes are also easier to locate. We should emphasize that
would need to know the accuracy of the SSTDR test system.
For our SSTDR instrument, the maximum variance was found
as <1% at the end of the leader cable, as well as the magnitude
of normal variations in the PV system (such as the day/night
variation). In summary, most of the common faults in PV plants
(open circuit faults, connection faults, ground faults, arc faults,
shading faults, broken cell/module faults, and accelerated
degradation faults) could be detected and located using the
SSTDR technique.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) under Solar Energy Technologies
Office (SETO) Agreement Number DE-EE0008169. Also, we
want to thank Kent Terwilliger and Byron McDanold for their
help with measurements at NREL.
DISCLOSURE
Dr. C.M. Furse is a co-founder of LiveWire Innovation, Inc.
which is commercializing SSTDR technology, and therefore
has a financial conflict of interest with this company.
REFERENCES
[1] D. S. Pillai, F. Blaabjerg, and N. Rajasekar, “A Comparative Evaluation
of Advanced Fault Detection Approaches for PV Systems,” IEEE J.
Photovolt., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 513–527, 2019.
[2] E. Garoudja, F. Harrou, Y. Sun, K. Kara, A. Chouder, and S. Silvestre,
“Statistical fault detection in photovoltaic systems,” Sol. Energy, vol.
150, pp. 485–499, 2017.

Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
[3] R. Hariharan, M. Chakkarapani, G. S. Ilango, and C. Nagamani, “A
method to detect photovoltaic array faults and partial shading in PV
systems,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1278–1285, 2016.
[4] M. K. Alam, F. Khan, J. Johnson, and J. Flicker, “A Comprehensive
Review of Catastrophic Faults in PV Arrays: Types, Detection, and
Mitigation Techniques,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 982–997,
May 2015.
[5] C. Furse, Y. C. Chung, C. Lo, and P. Pendayala, “A critical comparison
of reflectometry methods for location of wiring faults,” Smart Struct.
Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–46, 2006.
[6] C. Furse, Y. C. Chung, R. Dangol, M. Nielsen, G. Mabey, and R.
Woodward, “Frequency-domain reflectometry for on-board testing of
aging aircraft wiring,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 45, no.
2, pp. 306–315, 2003.
[7] P. Tsai, C. Lo, Y. C. Chung, and C. Furse, “Mixed-signal reflectometer
for location of faults on aging wiring,” IEEE Sens. J., vol. 5, no. 6, pp.
1479–1482, 2005.
[8] V. Velayudhan, I. Bzikha, and A. Reineix, “Experimental Detection of
Soft Faults on Cables Using Chaos Time-Domain Reflectometry,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., no. 99, pp. 1–7, 2018.
[9] C. Lo and C. Furse, “Noise-domain reflectometry for locating wiring
faults,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 97–104,
2005.
[10] P. Smith, C. Furse, and J. Gunther, “Analysis of spread spectrum time
domain reflectometry for wire fault location,” IEEE Sens. J., vol. 5, no.
6, pp. 1469–1478, 2005.
[11] F. Auzanneau, “Binary time domain reflectometry: a simpler and more
efficient way of diagnosing defects in wired networks,” in 2018 IEEE
AUTOTESTCON, 2018, pp. 1–8.
[12] M. U. Saleh et al., “Detection and Localization of Disconnections in
PV Strings Using Spread-Spectrum Time-Domain Reflectometry,”
IEEE J. Photovolt., pp. 1–7, 2019.
[13] C. Furse, Y. C. Chung, C. Lo, and P. Pendayala, “A critical comparison
of reflectometry methods for location of wiring faults,” Smart Struct.
Syst., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–46, 2006.
[14] C. Furse, P. Smith, M. Safavi, and C. Lo, “Feasibility of spread
spectrum sensors for location of arcs on live wires,” IEEE Sens. J., vol.
5, no. 6, pp. 1445–1450, 2005.
[15] C. Furse, P. Smith, and M. Diamond, “Feasibility of reflectometry for
nondestructive evaluation of prestressed concrete anchors,” IEEE Sens.
J., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1322–1329, 2009.
[16] A. Hanif, Y. Yu, D. Devoto, and F. H. Khan, “A Comprehensive
Review toward the State-of-the-Art in Failure and Lifetime Predictions
of Power Electronic Devices,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2018.
[17] 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, 2018.
[18] M. K. Alam, F. H. Khan, J. Johnson, and J. Flicker, “PV arc-fault
detection using spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR),”
in Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), 2014 IEEE,
2014, pp. 3294–3300.
[19] Mashad Uddin Saleh, “Photovoltaic String Monitoring Using Spread
Spectrum Time Domain Reflectometry (Expected Publication Date:
May 2020),” University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 2020.
[20] P. Smith, C. Furse, and J. Gunther, “Analysis of spread spectrum time
domain reflectometry for wire fault location,” IEEE Sens. J., vol. 5, no.
6, pp. 1469–1478, 2005.
[21] “‘Spec 5851 SunGen XLPE, Photovoltaic Wire, 2000 V, UL Type PV
or 1000 V, CSA RPVU90, Single Conductor, Copper.’ [Online].
Available: http://dtsheet.com/doc/1724396/spec-5851-sungen-xlpe--
photovoltaic-wire--2000-v--ul-type... [Accessed: 23-Aug-2018].” .
[22] N. K. T. Jayakumar et al., “Post-Processing for Improved Accuracy and
Resolution of Spread Spectrum Time Domain Reflectometry
(SSTDR),” IEEE Sens. Lett., 2019.
[23] “‘Live Cable Fault Detection by LiveWire Innovation,’ LiveWire
Innovation. [Online]. Available: http://www.livewireinnovation.com/.
[Accessed: 07-May-2018].” .
[24] C. Furse, P. Smith, C. Lo, Y. C. Chung, P. Pendayala, and K. Nagoti,
“Spread spectrum sensors for critical fault location on live wire
networks,” Struct. Control Health Monit. Off. J. Int. Assoc. Struct.
Control Monit. Eur. Assoc. Control Struct., vol. 12, no. 3–4, pp. 257–
267, 2005.
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
[25] J. Pern, “Module encapsulation materials, processing and testing
(presentation),” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO
(United States), 2008.
[26] “Aliexpress.com | Alibaba Group,” aliexpress.com. [Online].
Available: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Energia-Solar-Direct-
2016-Promotion-10pcs-High-Efficiency-4-33w-Poly-Solar-Cell-6x6-
for-
Diy/32626393408.html?src=ibdm_d03p0558e02r02&sk=&aff_platfor
m=&aff_trace_key=&af=&cv=&cn=&dp=. [Accessed: 30-Dec-2018].
[27] L. A. Griffiths, R. Parakh, C. Furse, and B. Baker, “The invisible fray:
A critical analysis of the use of reflectometry for fray location,” IEEE
Sens. J., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 697–706, 2006.
[28] F. Harrou, Y. Sun, B. Taghezouit, A. Saidi, and M.-E. Hamlati,
“Reliable fault detection and diagnosis of photovoltaic systems based
on statistical monitoring approaches,” Renew. Energy, vol. 116, pp. 22–
37, 2018.
[29] N. Gokmen, E. Karatepe, B. Celik, and S. Silvestre, “Simple diagnostic
approach for determining of faulted PV modules in string based PV
arrays,” Sol. Energy, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 3364–3377, 2012.
[30] A. Umana and A. S. Meliopoulos, “Detection of cell-level fault
conditions within a photovoltaic array system,” in 2016 IEEE/PES
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D),
2016, pp. 1–5.
[31] L. Chen, S. Li, and X. Wang, “Quickest fault detection in photovoltaic
systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1835–1847, 2018.
[32] N. L. 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, 2016.
[33] S. Chen and X. Li, “PV series arc fault recognition under different
working conditions with joint detection method,” in 2016 IEEE 62nd
Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts (Holm), 2016, pp. 25–32.
[34] H. Zhu, Z. Wang, and R. S. Balog, “Real time arc fault detection in PV
systems using wavelet decomposition,” in 2016 IEEE 43rd
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2016, pp. 1761–1766.
[35] W. R. Sekulic and P. F. McNutt, “Evaluating the Incident Energy of
Arcs in Photovoltaic DC Systems: Comparison Between Calculated and
Experimental Data,” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL),
Golden, CO (United States), 2019.
[36] K.-H. Chao, S.-H. Ho, and M.-H. Wang, “Modeling and fault diagnosis
of a photovoltaic system,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 78, no. 1, pp.
97–105, 2008.
[37] H. Mekki, A. Mellit, and H. Salhi, “Artificial neural network-based
modelling and fault detection of partial shaded photovoltaic modules,”
Simul. Model. Pract. Theory, vol. 67, pp. 1–13, 2016.
[38] 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, 2018.
[39] M. A. Munoz, M. C. Alonso-García, N. Vela, and F. Chenlo, “Early
degradation of silicon PV modules and guaranty conditions,” Sol.
Energy, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 2264–2274, 2011.
[40] Z. Xiong, T. M. Walsh, and A. G. Aberle, “PV module durability testing
under high voltage biased damp heat conditions,” Energy Procedia, vol.
8, pp. 384–389, 2011.
[41] C. Ferrara and D. Philipp, “Why do PV modules fail?,” Energy
Procedia, vol. 15, pp. 379–387, 2012.
[42] Y. Zhao, B. Lehman, R. Ball, J. Mosesian, and J.-F. de Palma, “Outlier
detection rules for fault detection in solar photovoltaic arrays,” in 2013
Twenty-Eighth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference
and Exposition (APEC), 2013, pp. 2913–2920.
[43] I. E. C. Standard, “61215," Crystalline silicon terrestrial photovoltaic
(PV) modules,” Des. Qualif. Type Approv., vol. 2.
[44] J. H. Wohlgemuth and S. Kurtz, “Using accelerated testing to predict
module reliability,” in Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC),
2011 37th IEEE, 2011, pp. 003601–003605.