The Comparative Study in the Performance of Bifacial and Monofacial c-Si Photovoltaic Modules under the Specific Sequential Tests

Lien, Chin; Yang, Wei-Lun; Lu, Kuan-Wu; Ting, San-Yu; Chen, Ssu-Hung; Hsieh, Chun-Yu; Tsai, C.S.; Wu, Hsien-Shun; Wu, Tong

doi:10.1109/pvsc.2018.8547859

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While no module had any glass cracking, cell cracks were observed only in the G/B case. This observation is consistent with the lower mechanical stress on cells predicted by FEM [72,73] and by studies such as Lien et al [68] discussed above.…”

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…EL imaging has also been used to compare mechanical stability between G/G and G/B packaging. Figure 9(b) shows EL images from the study by Lien et al comparing bifacial G/G modules to monofacial G/B modules subjected to three different accelerated stress sequences [68]. In all cases, the bifacial G/G modules degraded less severely.…”

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Such a mechanism could enable the imaging of cell cracks in G/G modules. However, it is also worth noting that cell cracking may be a very infrequent problem in G/G modules, as indicated by the mechanical and FEM studies discussed above [68,72,73].…”

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although Lien et al mainly observed the difference in mechanical strength and cell cracking during DML and not during TC, finite element modeling (FEM) suggests that G/G modules should have a higher resistance to cell cracking under both DML and TC due to higher bending stiffness as well as a symmetrical structure that can balance differences in coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) for the bonded materials across the module laminate [68]. In line with these studies, Romer et al showed that anisotropic and temperaturedependent CTEs of PV backsheets can impact cell cracking in G/B modules during thermomechanical stress [72].…”

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Glass/glass photovoltaic module reliability and degradation: a review

Sinha¹,

Sulas‐Kern²,

Owen‐Bellini³

et al. 2021

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glass/glass (G/G) photovoltaic (PV) module construction is quickly rising in popularity due to increased demand for bifacial PV modules, with additional applications for thin-film and building-integrated PV technologies. G/G modules are expected to withstand harsh environmental conditions and extend the installed module lifespan to greater than 30 years compared to conventional glass/backsheet (G/B) modules. With the rapid growth of G/G deployment, understanding the outdoor performance, degradation, and reliability of this PV module construction becomes highly valuable. In this review, we present the history of G/G modules that have existed in the field for the past 20 years, their subsequent reliability issues under different climates, and methods for accelerated testing and characterization of both cells and packaging materials. We highlight some general trends of G/G modules, such as greater degradation when using poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) encapsulants, causing the industry to move toward polyolefin-based encapsulants. Transparent backsheets have also been introduced as an alternative to the rear glass for decreasing the module weight and aiding the effusion of trapped gaseous degradation products in the laminate. New amendments to IEC 61215 standard protocols for G/G bifacial modules have also been proposed so that the rear side power generation and UV exposure will be standardized. We further summarize a suite of destructive and non-destructive characterization techniques, such as current–voltage scans, module electro-optical imaging, adhesion tests, nanoscale structural/chemical investigation, and forensic analysis, to provide deeper insights into the fundamental properties of the module materials degradation and how it can be monitored in the G/G construction. This will set the groundwork for future research and product development.

show abstract

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Electro-optical and Thermal Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Glass/glass photovoltaic module reliability and degradation: a review

Sinha¹,

Sulas‐Kern²,

Owen‐Bellini³

et al. 2021

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They estimated that the microcracks correspond to a power loss of 0.82% to 3.21% for poly-crystalline modules and 0.55-0.9% for mono-crystalline technology. Lien et al [71] performed several tests indoors to represent the degradation for monofacial PV and bifacial PV with double glass in variable environmental conditions and mechanical stress based on the IEC 62892. For the mechanical strength test, BPV showed to be more resilient, with less tendency to cracks and less power degradation.…”

Section: Microcracksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review on the Sources of Power Loss in Monofacial and Bifacial Photovoltaic Technologies

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An evaluation of the degradation effects on photovoltaic modules is essential to minimise uncertainties in the system operation. Bifacial photovoltaic technology is attracting attention due to the capacity of generating energy from the front and rear sides. This paper presents a review of degradation factors, for both conventional monofacial and bifacial photovoltaic modules, to highlight how the current and voltage characteristics of these technologies are affected by degradation. Microcracking, encapsulant discoloration, and light induced degradation seem to have similar effects on both modules. Contrarily, bifacial modules are more prone to potential induced degradation as the electromagnetic shielding is affected by the bifaciality. Bifacial devices are less affected by light and elevated temperature induced degradation. The degradation (1.3%) is similar for both technologies, up to 40 kWh/m2 of solar radiation. Above this value, monofacial degradation increases faster, reaching values of 7%. For tilted systems, the front side soiling degradation of 0.30% per day is similar for both technologies. For vertical systems, soiling loss for bifacial is considerably lower with values of 0.02% per day.

show abstract