2020
DOI: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2019.1342
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Photovoltaic cell defect classification using convolutional neural network and support vector machine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, a recent study 24 developed a method for automatically detecting PV module defects in electroluminescence images, using a light convolutional neural network architecture to identify defects in EL images, achieving 93.02% accuracy on the solar cell dataset. Additionally, the classi cations of solar cell defects are based on two machine learning approaches proposed by 25 utilizing features extraction-based support vector machines (SVMs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Using suitable hyperparameters, algorithm optimizers, and loss functions, they have achieved 91.58% accuracy in cell detection classi cation.…”
Section: Known Asmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, a recent study 24 developed a method for automatically detecting PV module defects in electroluminescence images, using a light convolutional neural network architecture to identify defects in EL images, achieving 93.02% accuracy on the solar cell dataset. Additionally, the classi cations of solar cell defects are based on two machine learning approaches proposed by 25 utilizing features extraction-based support vector machines (SVMs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Using suitable hyperparameters, algorithm optimizers, and loss functions, they have achieved 91.58% accuracy in cell detection classi cation.…”
Section: Known Asmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ahmad et al [8] develop a CNN-inspired architecture for fault detection with EL extract samples of the PV cell surface. The authors report a respectable accuracy of 91.58%.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] In terms of pure defect classification without segmentation determining if there is a defect, e.g., a microcrack or a finger interruption, many CNN approaches using EL and IR images of cells and modules are proposed. [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] To address the problem of a limited amount of data, a method based on generative adversarial networks (GANs) is demonstrated, which enables improvement of prediction results through artificially created EL images. [44] Both segmentation and classification approaches vary strongly in terms of the CNN architecture, dataset, data processing, and defect sought, so the quality of the predictions can only be compared to a limited extent.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%