Energy 107 (2016) 550e561

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Comparison of different technologies for solar PV (Photovoltaic)

outdoor performance using indoor accelerated aging tests for long
term reliability
Rahnuma Siddiqui*, Rajesh Kumar, Gopal Kumar Jha, Ganesh Gowri, Manoj Morampudi,
Pragati Rajput, Sneh Lata, Swati Agariya, Bharat Dubey, Gayatri Nanda,
Sykam Sahan Raghava
National Institute of Solar Energy, 19th Milestone, Gwalpahari, Gurgaon-Faridabad Road, Haryana, 122001, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents comprehensive study on performance comparison of different photovoltaic tech-
Received 23 October 2015 nologies, when subjected to five distinct proportions of temperature and humidity in a controlled
Received in revised form environment under biasing conditions. The study considers five different PV (Photovoltaic) technologies
18 March 2016
(Mono, Multi, a-Si, CdTe, CIGS) based on their electrical parameters. It is observed that CIGS (Copper
Accepted 12 April 2016
Indium Gallium Selenide) performs with best efficiency at 60
C, 60% RH (relative humidity) while CdTe
Available online 6 May 2016
performs with best efficiency at 85
C, 85% RH.
The descriptive statistics shows that the largest possible Variance in Maximum Power of a-Si out of all
Keywords:
Photovoltaic technologies
available technologies is about 20.85 whereas the lowest noted in Mono C-Si is 0.917. The variability of
Accelerated aging data is further checked using Analysis of Variance tool. Finally the study establishes the performance
Environmental testing dominance of C-Si (Mono) technology over all the thin film technologies based on stress tests and
ANOVA evaluation through the repeated measurement of maximum Power, module efficiency and cell efficiency.
Degradation © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction manufacturers it is important to have profit as well as security

Energy security is one of the most discussed topics today among
the readers. For developed nations, the growth of energy con-
sumption is 1% per year, while for developing nations it is around
5% per year [1]. Now in order to maintain the growing energy need
there is a need to shift from conventional source of energy to
renewable energy, which are sustainable and environment friendly.
In this text solar energy has become fuel of the future and has
large potential. But the challenge remains of capturing the available
solar energy and converting it efficiently to electrical energy. The
current problem is very much prevalent while generating power at
large scale. Studies reveal that power output can be increased from
25% to 30% by tracking the sun in both the directions [2].
Cost effectiveness of PV (Photovoltaic) systems is increasingly
gaining importance with the ongoing growth of PV market. 70% of
capital investment for PV systems is related to the module part. For
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rmsphy@gmail.com, ganeshgowri@outlook.com (R. Siddiqui).
while investing, therefore they require guaranteed, certified quality
of PV modules. The certification/qualification of Crystalline and thin
film technologies are generally done according to the International
standard IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 61215 [3]
and IEC 61646 [4].
A qualification test indicates that whether a PV module is suit-
able or not for long term operation when kept under normal
environmental condition. In other words the purpose of qualifica-
tion testing is to do characterization of the module while exposing
it before and after the different types of stress [5].
Qualification test is done for rapid detection of failures of PV
modules in the controlled environment. It also gives the instant
rating of relative strengths and accepts abilities of design alterna-
tives during product development. The quantitative analysis of PV
module while keeping it under real time stress is often complicated
and challenging. There are specific test regimens desired by the PV
industry to provide a simulated value for the lifetime of a PV
module, which would assure a minimum prescribed lifetime for the
PV module. One of the limitations of qualification test is that it is
performed on a limited number of modules (less than 10) as

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.054
0360-5442/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561
List of abbreviations
AAT Accelerated Aging Test.
ANOVA Analysis of Variance.
ARIMA Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average.
a-Si Amorphous Silicon.
CdTe Cadmium Telluride.
Cell. Eff % Cell Efficiency in Percentage.
CIS/CIGS Copper Indium Gallium Selenide.
CSD Classical Seasonal Decomposition.
C-Si Crystalline Silicon.
DH Damp Heat Test.
EVA Ethyl Vinyl Acetate.
FF Fill Factor.
compared to 1000 of PV modules that are produced a year. Also it
does not confirm that all production modules will pass. Some
specialized accelerated tests are also being used as screening tests
along with the standard tests to investigate failures or potential
problems unique to particular module designs [6].
Wohlgemuth reported that qualification tests are important,
with limitations attached to it. The stress levels are design depen-
dent and the goal is to have all commercially available products
capable of passing the test sequence, In general qualification test
characterizes the PV module with specific standards but does not
give certainty for its long term performance [7,8].
In most accelerated indoor testing, PV modules are exposed to
extreme ranges of temperature and humidity whereas in normal
outdoor analysis of PV modules, they are exposed to temperature,
humidity and light simultaneously. So, in order to investigate
possible effects, it is necessary to perform a combined exposure test
[8].
The performance of PV modules is also affected when moisture
enters the back sheet of PV modules through the EVA (ethyl vinyl
acetate) sheets [9], as it can weaken the interfacial adhesive bonds
when penetrating the polymer and reaching the solar cell. This
results in delamination [10], loss of passivation [11], increased no of
ingress paths and corrosion of solder joints [12,13].
To have long term reliability of PV system and valuable data for
evaluating efficiency, it is important to know the PV module's
degradation behavior along with its outdoor field condition and
fault diagnostics. The accelerated aging tests done gives a perfor-
mance prediction that the PV module is durable and reliable for up
to 25 years, which otherwise is challenging in the actual scenario.
So accelerated aging tests give a long term prediction while
applying a great amount of stress for a short duration on PV
modules. There are other means also for detecting and diagnosing
defects in PV modules including monitoring methods like cur-
rentevoltage measurements and infrared thermography, but there
is a need for further research to predict long term reliability of
modules [14].
AAT (Accelerated aging test), is used to study the degradation
and failure mechanisms in PV modules, [15e21]. One of the
accelerated life tests for PV module is continuous light-soaking
(100% duty cycle) without elevated irradiance [22,23].
Such life test can be directly correlated with actual environment
using the average daily irradiance profiles from the target site,
depending on the geographical location. As the data for outdoors is
available, but literature data for the acceleration factors of crys-
talline silicon are quite sparse. As studies done by Osterwald stated
that attempts have been made to correlate the number of hours at
551
HIT Hetero Intrinsic Thin Layer.
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission.
IRT Infrared Thermography.
Isc Short Circuit Current of the PV Module.
LOESS Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing.
LR Linear regression.
Mod.Eff % Module Efficiency in Percentage.
NISE National Institute of solar Energy.
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratories.
Pmax Maximum Power of the PV Module at STC.
PV Photovoltaic.
RH Relative Humidity in Percentage.
STC Standard Test Condition.
Voc Open Circuit Voltage of the PV Module.
85
C, 85% RH (relative humidity)Damp Heat with years of opera-
tion in a humid climate [24].
The common quality criteria used in the standard qualification
test are type approval testing of terrestrial PV modules for both
crystalline (1) and thin film (2) modules. Many publications have
discussed the defects and failure rates associated with the testing of
commercial PV modules [25e27].
According to IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission)
61215, many studies were attempted in the past to find out the
reliability of PV modules using Damp Heat test to determine the
effect of long term penetration of humidity on materials. Laronde
et al. [28] reported that modules are degraded because of corrosion
while employing DH (Damp Heat) testing [29].
Peike et al. [30] reported that the effect of damp heat test on PV
modules is grid corrosion or reduced conductivity. It also reported
that higher temperatures accelerate water vapor permeation into
the module and the subsequent degradation reactions.
Analysis of indoor test data with outdoor failure mechanisms
pertaining to PV installations has not been attempted till now. This
will require data from PV installations till now about the failure
type and frequency. Several studies have reported that IEC 61215
certified PV module guarantees between 15 and 20 years of lifetime
in a fairly moderate climate [31e33].
There is a vast difference in results observed from the indoor
and outdoor analysis. The defects that appear in these IEC 61215
tests are different than those that appear in the field. For e.g. e in
thermal cycles and damp heat tests commonly observed defect is
tedlar delamination whereas in real operating conditions
commonly observed defect is tedlar detachments [34,35].
Module lifetime cannot be extrapolated from the results of C-Si
and p-Si PV modules, as for crystalline and polycrystalline silicon
PV modules, there is a yearly power reduction of 2%, while amor-
phous and CIS solar modules exhibit a significantly higher power
reduction. Degradation and power loss in PV modules is also
observed resulting from the stress exerted by system voltage bias.
The qualification tests and standards do not adequately evaluate
the durability of the modules to the long term effects of high
voltage bias experienced in field arrays.
Degradation caused by voltage bias is directly connected with
the leakage current or coulombs passed from the silicon active layer
through the encapsulant and glass to the grounded module frame.
It has to be considered that competing processes make the effect
nonlinear [36].
Laboratories like NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
performed indoor and outdoor testing to characterize the long-
term effects of system voltage applied to the active layers of solar
552 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561

cells. It is found that at low humidity conditions, current flows
through the encapsulant/glass interface between the module frame
and the active layer, whereas at high humidity it is seen that current
flows on the surface of the glass and through its bulk. System
voltage bias can be classified according to its polarity. Different
degradation mechanisms are observed under positive and negative
system bias voltage. A negative system bias voltage is more crucial
than positive ones. This is because when the system bias voltage is
applied to the active layer, it leads to more rapid and catastrophic
module power degradation within 1000 h [37].
There are studies on thin film modules which not only include
indoor study but a chain of indoor as well as outdoor [38].
One of the studies also includes modeling and performance
behavior of a-Si module in real outdoor operating conditions. The
behavior of the module was studied keeping it periodically indoors.
The technologies included were six modules of single, double and
triple junction and the period of study was one year. Further, the
effect of temperature and irradiance was studied in the second part
where light soaking and thermal annealing cycles were performed
while keeping the modules at indoors [39].

Table 1
Technical details of experimental setup.

Equipment/Model no Description Technical details

Sun simulator It is capable of measuring the I-V characteristics
Quicksun 700A of even the largest size photovoltaic modules (2 m  2 m)
whether they are made of thin film or crystalline material.
It is effective and reliable both in production and
quality control applications.
Thermal imager An infrared camera measures and images the emitted
FLIR e T62101 infrared radiation from an object. The fact that radiation
is a function of object surface temperature makes it possible
for the camera to calculate and display this temperature.
To measure temperature accurately, it is therefore necessary
to compensate for the effects of a number of different radiation
sources. This is done on-line automatically by the camera.
Environmental chamber The chambers simulate climatic conditions artificially. These ch
CW-60/10 ambers having Test volume of 10 m3, can accommodate
Test Specimen of PV modules up to 300 Kg, and 200 kg
module holder. It offers feasibility to perform the
desired test condition
 Class A solar simulator according to IEC 904-9.
 Xenon flash tube with AM 1.5 G filter.
 ±2% irradiance uniformity with proprietary optics.
 Irradiance and temperature corrections according to IEC 891.
 Proprietary electronic load and data sampling system
 Measurement reliability surpasses IEC 904-1.
 Irradiance level adjustable from 200 to 1200 W/m2
 Testing capacity 60e120* modules per hour *depending
on test area size.
 The accuracy of the I-V characteristic measurement of
this system is by construction greater than 0.5%.
 The total absolute power measurement accuracy is,
however, mainly dominated, by the accuracy and proper
choice of the reference module used for calibration.
⋄ High thermal sensitivity (N.E.T.D): <0.045
C @ 30
C
⋄ Wide temperature range: 4
F to 2192
F (20
C to 1200
C)
with ±2% or 2
C accuracy
⋄ Focal plane array detector with 320  240 pixels infrared
resolution (76,800 pixels)
⋄ Measurement modes: Spot (up to 5), Area (up to 5),
Isotherm, Hot/Cold, Delta T
⋄ Interchangeable lens with 1X-8X continuous zoom
⋄ Spectral range 7.5e13 mm
Temperature tests-
Temperature range- - 60
C to 100
C
Temperature Fluctuation under stabilized conditions- ±0.5e1 K
temporary. (Under Stabilized conditions the temperature do
not fluctuate more than 1 K, it is the tolerance limit).
Average temperature change rate with test specimen
measured in the air supply-
Heating: 2 K/min in the range from 40
C to 85
C.
Cooling: 2 K/min in the range from þ85
C to 40
C.
Climate Tests:

Temperature range e 10
C to þ90
C

Humidity range e 10% to 95% relative humidity
At dew point range- þ5
C to þ89
C
Temperature fluctuation: ±0.1e0.5 K
Humidity fluctuation under stabilized conditions- ±1 to ±3%
relative humidity temporary.
The technical data refer to an ambient temperature of þ25
C,
nominal voltage 400 V, without specimen nor radiation
nor accessories.
Uncertainty of Temperature: 0.15%
Humidity: 0.94%
Insulation tester With this it is possible to check the insulation resistance of the ❖ Insulation resistance: 200 kU to 200GU
1550C PV module in between the cells and outer frame ❖ Leakage Current: 2 mA to1nA.
(current carrying parts), it also provides the leakage ❖ Capacitance: 20.00 mFe0.01 mF.
current, capacitance, Dielectric Absorption Ratio ❖ Dielectric Absorption Ratio of Insulation resistance
(ratio of the resistance of 60 s to the resistance of 30 Seconds) ❖ Polarization Index
functionality is to check the Dielectric of the insulating ❖ Waveform; Step or Ramp
material, and Polarization Index ❖ Timer:0e99 min.
(Ratio of resistance of 10 min to the resistance of 1 min).
Thermocouple The meter can fit two thermocouple Jacks which can ❖ Display: 4 digits LCD
meter (BTH 900) match any standard type K or J sensor. It has provision ❖ Resolution: 0.1
C (below 1000
C), 1
C (above 1000
C).
of measuring the average and difference ❖ Range: K-Type (200 to 1300
C)
of the two temperatures, also displays Maximum and Minimum ❖ Accuracy: (100 to 1300
C) ± (0.1% reading þ0.7
C)
values between them. ❖ Sample rate: 1 time/sec.
DC power supplies D C Power Supplies are used to simulate the irradiance effect ❖ DC Voltage: 0e120 V.
by using external biasing. ❖ DC current: 0e20 A.
❖ Accuracy: ±1%
 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561 553

Table 2a
Constructional details with product specifications.

Sr. No Technology Product ID Model number Module area (cm) Cell area (cm) Number of cells in series Pmax Voc Isc

1. Multi C-Si WS11139000887601 WS-100 115  67.5 15.6  12 36 100W 21V 6.35A
2. Mono C-Si 20132215991123101948961438 75W36 86.8  65.5 131.91 36 75W 21.6V 4.7
3. a-Si 1123101948961438 S100E 131.2  111 127.60 109 100W 96V 1.7A
4. CdTe 080901131957 FS-262 120  60 57.6  1 117 62.5W 86V 1.17A
5. CIGS 0100025929 STN-125 165.2  65.6 96.9 100 125W 55V 3.45A

A similar kind of study was carried out considering 44 mono-
crystalline PV modules while exposing them in real sunlight in
three different sessions and indoor assessment was done prior and
after each exposure using solar simulator. Finally the initial stabi-
lization of a statistical sample was measured [40].
Different PV technologies were exposed in the outdoor for 28
months and its long term reliability was studied [41]. The test
procedure includes visual inspection, thermal imaging and I-V
Characteristic measurements and degradation analysis was carried
out by STC (Standard Test Condition) Comparisons of various
technologies and rate of decay per year was also mentioned as 0.4%,
0.5%, 0.36% for a-Si, multi C-Si and HIT (Hetero Intrinsic Thin Layer)
modules respectively.
Methods have been developed to overcome the obstacles for
studying long term experiments of PV module degradation under
real conditions [42].
The uncertainty in the prediction of photovoltaic yield is one of
the important aspects to be estimated. Studies have shown that
statistical simulations have been done with model software to have
the value of combined uncertainty (standard deviation). To achieve
increase reliability it is necessary to have the provision for reducing
uncertainty in module ratings and simultaneously investigating
losses [43].
Different methods have been developed for measuring degra-
dation rate of different photovoltaic technologies. Each method
yields different results of varying uncertainties depending on the
equipment used for measurement. From literature review, four
major statistical analysis methods were identified for calculating
degradation rates i) LR (linear regression), ii) classical seasonal
decomposition (CSD), iii) ARIMA (Auto Regressive Integrated
Moving Average) and iv) locally weighted scatterplot smoothing
(LOESS) with LR being the most common. Finally it was seen from
the results that performance of modules is not only technology or
site dependent but also methodology dependent [44].
It is difficult to have a full description of indoor illumination
conditions. The study includes comparison of performance of
different PV modules using indoor applications for low power de-
vices [45].
Today AAT (accelerated aging tests) are often used in knowing
the failure and degradation mechanism in solar cells. A novel
approach of accelerated aging tests was developed for high con-
centration IIIeV multi junction solar cells using thermal cycles. The
study proposed an alternative set up for performing more realistic
thermal cycles under irradiation cycling. The work was completed
without involving environmental chambers. Finally the study
developed a basis for future analysis on the reliability and failure
mechanisms of PV modules [46].
Another study includes comparison of polycrystalline module
of 250 W (in accelerated ageing test) with similar polycrystalline
silicon module (under real time). Investigations were done for
environmental aging effects using standard environmental
chamber. This chamber was equipped with single-sun irradiance
providing uniformity of illumination of 98%. Simulations were
carried out showing good comparison between the chamber
tested system and fielded tested system with 2.5% degradation in
efficiency [47].
Previous studies done by several researchers shows that long
term performance of modules is not assured by qualification test as
they check for specific set of requirements. It is also not easy to
equate the number of years of outdoor exposure test to loss of
power induced by damp heat test.
To check the long term experiments of PV module degradation
under real condition, many statistical simulations have been done
and the value of combined uncertainty is estimated [43,44]. From
inferences it is observed that different method yields different
results of varying uncertainties depending on the equipments
being used. From the previous results it may be concluded that
performance of modules depends on technology, site and
methodology.
The AAT (accelerated aging test) is used for studying degrada-
tion and failure mechanism on PV modules. This paper emphasizes
on use of accelerated damp heat test for different PV technologies
like C-Si, a-Si, CdTe and CIGS (Copper Indium Gallium Selenide)
when exposed to different ranges of temperature and humidity for
a continuous period of time.
The variation in the performance of modules is assessed
before and after each damp heat test using a sun simulator of
class AAA and difference in the performance of different PV
modules is studied including leakage current. Comparative study
is done experimentally using descriptive statistics. Other infer-
ential statistics are based on probability theory, while descriptive
statistics is the discipline of quantitatively describing the main
features of a collection of information about the central tendency
and variability of data further supported by analysis of variance

Table 2b
Initial data of insulation test; performance at STC.

Sr. No Initial measurements

Insulation test at 1000 V STC

Insulation resistance (GU) Leakage current (nA) Voc (V) Isc (A) F.F Pmax (W) Cell eff.% Mod eff.%

1. 20.6 48.54 22.40 6.36 0.733 104.5 15.5 13.5

2. 583 MU 1.715 mA 22.46 4.79 0.765 82.4 17.4 14.1
3. 3.49 286.5 97.6 1.50 0.681 99.8 7.18 6.85
4. 11.7 85.47 92.1 1.08 0.495 49.6 7.36 6.89
5. 1.70 588.23 58.9 3.14 0.574 106.3 11.0 9.81

#Note: It is required that degradation of maximum output power as per IEC 61215 and IEC 61646 shall not exceed 5% of the value measured before the test.
554 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561

Fig. 1. (a) Diagram for different ranges of temperature and humidity in environmental chamber. (b) Timeline diagram of different temperature and humidity ranges applied during
the experiment. (c) STC measurement setup. (d) Apparatus of insulation resistance testing of PV module.

without replication (when data is classified on two different
dimensions).
The main objective of this paper is to compare different tech-
nologies for solar PV module outdoor performance using indoor
accelerated aging tests for long term reliability.
2. Description of experimental set up for PV module test
facility
In order to study rapid feedback of relative strengths of different
PV modules, following apparatus were used as shown in Table 1
 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561 555

Table 3
Details of PV module at each cycle after subjected to 200 h of testing at different ranges of temperature, humidity.

Technology At room temperature Duration in hours STC parameters

Insulation resistance (GU) Leakage current (nA) Temp and humidity range Voc (V) Isc (A) F.F Pmax (W) Cell eff.% Mod. Eff. %

Multi C-Si 20.6 48.54 0hr 22.40 6.36 0.733 104.5 15.5 13.5


24 41.66 200hr (85 C, 85%) 22.00 6.37 0.750 105 15.6 13.5


31.4 31.84 200hr (75 C, 70%) 22.57 6.36 0.737 105.8 15.7 13.6


22.8 43.85 200hr (70 C, 65%) 22.47 6.29 0.727 102.7 15.2 13.2


1.10 909 200hr (65 C, 65%) 22.24 6.28 0.739 103.2 15.3 13.3
361 MU 2.77 mA 200hr (60

C, 60%) 22.25 6.25 0.738 102.6 15.2 13.2
Mono C-Si 583 MU 1.715 mA 0hr 22.46 4.794 0.765 82.4 17.4 14.1
392 MU 2.551 mA 200hr (85

C, 85%) 22.51 4.759 0.772 82.7 17.4 14.5
943 MU 1.060 mA 200hr (75

C, 70%) 22.61 4.778 0.770 83.2 17.5 14.6
616 MU 1.623 mA 200hr (70

C, 65%) 22.70 4.717 0.769 82.3 17.3 14.5
353 MU 2.832 mA 200hr (65

C, 65%) 22.45 4.664 0.776 81.3 16.8 14.3
122 MU 8.196 mA 200hr (60

C, 60%) 22.34 4.729 0.763 80.6 16.7 14.2
CIGS 1.70 588.23 0hr 58.9 3.145 0.574 106.3 11.0 9.81


1.41 709.21 200hr (85 C, 85%) 59.8 3.117 0.590 110.0 11.4 10.2


2.30 434.78 200hr (75 C, 70%) 60.2 3.107 0.603 112.7 11.6 10.4


1.04 961.53 200hr (70 C, 65%) 60.6 3.070 0.614 114.2 11.8 10.5
253 MU 3.95 mA 200hr (65

C, 65%) 60.6 3.080 0.610 113.9 11.8 10.5
86.6 MU 11.54 mA 200hr (60

C, 60%) 60.7 3.066 0.615 114.3 11.8 10.5
CdTe 11.7 85.47 0hr 92.1 1.087 0.495 49.6 7.36 6.89


3.93 254.45 200hr (85 C, 85%) 93.6 1.079 0.503 50.9 7.55 7.06


16.8 59.52 200hr (75 C, 70%) 92.8 1.083 0.493 49.6 7.35 6.88


4.02 248.75 200hr (70 C, 65%) 92.0 1.071 0.497 49.0 7.26 6.80
870 MU 1.149 mA 200hr (65

C, 65%) 91.2 1.075 0.496 48.6 7.21 6.75
330 MU 3.03 mA 200hr (60

C, 60%) 91.7 1.065 0.478 46.7 6.93 6.49
a-Si 3.49 286.5 0hr 97.6 1.502 0.681 99.8 7.18 6.85


8.26 121.06 200hr (85 C, 85%) 99.4 1.493 0.653 96.9 6.97 6.66


8.42 118.76 200hr (75 C, 70%) 99.3 1.499 0.659 98.2 7.06 6.75


3.85 259.74 200hr (70 C, 65%) 98.3 1.469 0.632 91.3 6.56 6.27
233 MU 4.291 mA 200hr (65

C, 65%) 99.3 1.466 0.620 90.3 6.49 6.20
142 MU 7.04 mA 200hr (60

C, 60%) 100.4 1.480 0.599 89.1 6.40 6.11

#Every cycle consists of 200 h of damp-heat soaking of PV modules along with biasing in the chamber except initial.
1st Cycle: 85
C, 85% RH; 2nd Cycle: 75
C, 70% RH; 3rd Cycle: 70
C, 65% RH; 4th Cycle: 65
C, 65% RH; 5th Cycle: 60
C, 60% RH.

a) Endeas Quick sun 700 Class AAA Sun Simulator 3.1. Visual inspection of the modules
b) Thermal Imager
c) Environmental chamber. Test Facility- Bare eye and microscope up to 50 Magnification.
d) Insulation tester. Outcome of the Test- No defects found on all five modules of
Multi C-Si, Mono C-Si, a-Si, CdTe and CIGS.

3. Degradation analysis methodology 3.2. IeV characteristic measurement

Prior to the deployment at the experimental test bed facility in
environmental chambers at NISE (National Institute of solar En-
ergy), the constructional data of all the modules of each technology
with product specification were noted (as shown in Table 2a) and
their I-V characteristics were measured indoors, using a class A sun
simulator at NISE, in order to generate a baseline data for further
comparison.
The performance analysis of each individual PV technology has
been investigated through a comprehensive test campaign as
follows
IeV characteristics of each individual module are measured and
compared using Endeas Quick Sun 700 Class A, Sun Simulator with
initial measurements.
The values of characteristic parameters: Short Circuit Current
(Isc), Open Circuit Voltage (Voc), Maximum Power (Pmax) and FF (Fill
Factor) has been analyzed.
IeV characteristics were measured under STC conditions i.e.
1000 W/m2 irradiance, Air Mass (AM) 1.5 and ambient temperature
25
C as per IEC 60904-1 [48].

4. Performance analysis methodology

a. Visual Inspection of the PV modules.
b. Insulation Test (setup as shown in Table 2b)
c. Initial I-V Curve measurement of five technologies is noted (as
shown in Table 2b).
d. The Temperature and Humidity Ranges are selected according to
the chart as shown in Fig. 1a and procedure which is followed for
performing this experiment is presented in timeline form as
shown in Fig. 1b along with accelerated ranges of temperature
and humidity with time in hours.
e. STC and Insulation test is carried out at an interval of every
200 h after subjecting each range of temperature and humidity,
their experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1c and d respectively.
The power output of PV modules in general depends on the
metrological parameters like irradiance, temperature and humidity
applied on each module. The same effects were simulated by using
environmental chamber and power supplies. The light effect was
created by external biasing; while the combined effect of temper-
ature and humidity (Damp heat) was generated in an Environ-
mental chamber.
The test program consists of various levels of severities as
shown in Fig. 1b. Each cycle represents a definite combination of
temperature and humidity. The sequence is designed in such a way
that the severities keep on descending at definite intervals. The
556 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561

Fig. 2. Thermal images of different technologies showing maximum minimum temperatures and mismatch in modules. # The significance of thermal images are to trace out the
possible defects such as interconnects, broken and shorted cells which generally occurs during the applied severities.

consequence of the Test program was better explained (described)
by using the statistics.
After completion of each cycle modules were brought to normal
atmospheric temperature and cooled by natural convection, further
visually inspected and performed electrical tests. The necessity to
perform the visual inspection and electrical tests is to ensure that
the modules are not showing any defects while undergoing these
stress cycles.
All the modules have shown positive results in case of insulation
test which means that they are not suffering any degradation
regarding encapsulation. Thus, in order to understand and quantify
performance analysis of each PV technology, after each environ-
mental test, STC as well as wet leakage current test is performed (as
shown in Table 3) and their corresponding thermal images related to
the observations for different technologies showing higher tem-
peratures and mismatches in modules is noted (as shown in Fig. 2).
 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561 557

Table 4
Descriptive statistics

Variable Parameter Multi C-Si Mono C-Si CIGS CdTe a-Si

Mean Pmax 103.96 82.083 111.9 49.066 94.26

Module efficiency 13.383 14.366 10.318 6.8116 6.4733
Cell efficiency 15.416 17.1833 11.566 7.2766 6.7766
Standard Error Pmax 0.5407 0.3910 1.2994 0.5701 1.864
Module efficiency 0.0703 0.080270 0.1122 0.0774 0.1292
Cell efficiency 0.0872 0.14004 0.1308 0.084 0.1355
Median Pmax 103.85 82.35 113.3 49.3 94.1
Module efficiency 13.4 14.4 10.45 6.84 6.465
Cell efficiency 15.4 17.35 11.7 7.305 6.765
Standard deviation Pmax 1.3246 0.9579 3.183 1.3966 4.566
Module efficiency 0.1722 0.1966 0.2749 0.1896 0.3166
Cell efficiency 0.2136 0.3430 0.3204 0.2058 0.3320
Sample variance Pmax 1.7546 0.9176 10.132 1.9506 20.8506
Module efficiency 0.0296 0.0386 0.0756 0.0359 0.10026
Cell efficiency 0.04566 0.1176 0.1026 0.0423 0.1102
Kurtosis Pmax 1.946 0.4899 1.0737 1.6381 2.6070
Module efficiency 2.3671 1.8281 2.3539 1.6368 2.63487
Cell efficiency 2.1498 1.6585 1.2396 1.5896 2.6004
Skewness Pmax 0.3073 0.7083 1.3764 0.75896 0.0695
Module efficiency 0.02609 0.2542 1.6516 0.7651 0.0409
Cell Efficiency 0.2322 0.8588 1.3537 0.7071 0.0689
Range Pmax 3.2 2.6 8 4.2 10.7
Module efficiency 0.4 0.5 0.69 0.57 0.74
Cell efficiency 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.62 0.78
Largest Pmax 105.8 83.2 114.3 50.9 99.8
Module efficiency 13.6 14.6 10.5 7.06 6.85
Cell efficiency 15.7 17.5 11.8 7.55 7.18
Smallest Pmax 102.6 80.6 106.3 46.7 89.1
Module efficiency 13.2 14.1 9.81 6.49 6.11
Cell efficiency 15.2 16.7 11 6.93 6.4
Confidence level Pmax 1.3901 1.0053 3.3404 1.4657 4.7919
Module efficiency 0.18075 0.20635 0.2885 0.19905 0.3323
Cell efficiency 0.2242 0.3599 0.3362 0.2160 0.3484

5. Individual analysis of each technology
Descriptive statistics is used to derive information regarding
the central tendency and variability of the data including
maximum power, module efficiency and cell efficiency (as shown
in Table 4).
The performance analysis of each technology is then quantified
using Analysis of Variance two factor, without replication data
analysis tool (as shown in Table 5).
In this tool, there are two null hypotheses* one for the ranges of
humidity and temperatures (rows) and the other for the charac-
teristic parameters like Voc, Isc, FF, Pmax, Cell Efficiency, Module

Table 5
Reconfirmation of checking the variability of the data including maximum power, module efficiency and cell efficiency.

ANOVA two factor Pmax(W) Module efficiency (%) Cell efficiency (%)
without replication
Multi C-Si Mono C-Si CIGS CdTe a-Si Multi C-Si Mono C-Si CIGS CdTe a-Si Multi C-Si Mono C-Si CIGS CdTe a-Si

0h 104.5 82.4 99.8 106.3 49.6 13.5 14.1 6.85 9.81 6.89 15.5 17.4 7.18 11.0 7.36
1st round 105.0 82.7 96.9 110.0 50.9 13.5 14.5 6.66 10.2 7.06 15.6 17.4 6.97 11.4 7.55
2nd round 105.8 83.2 98.2 112.7 49.6 13.6 14.6 6.75 10.4 6.88 15.7 17.5 7.06 11.6 7.35
3rd round 102.7 82.3 91.3 114.2 49.0 13.2 14.5 6.27 10.5 6.80 15.2 17.3 6.56 11.8 7.26
4th round 103.2 81.3 90.3 113.9 48.6 13.3 14.3 6.20 10.5 6.75 15.3 16.8 6.49 11.8 7.21
5th round 102.6 80.6 89.1 114.3 46.7 13.2 14.2 6.11 10.5 6.49 15.2 16.7 6.40 11.8 6.93
variance 1.754 0.917 10.13 1.95 20.85 0.029 0.03 0.075 0.03 0.10 0.045 0.117 0.102 0.042 0.11
P value* 9.29E-20 1.13E-24 2.31E-25
F value* 503.0 1570.906 1842.868
F critical 2.866081 2.866081 2.866081
Null hypothesis Since p value < 05 and F Value > Since p value < 05 and F Value > Since p value < 05 and F Value >
F Critical, we reject null hypothesis F Critical, we reject null hypothesis F Critical, we reject null hypothesis
and so at 95% level of confidence and so at 95% level of confidence and so at 95% level of confidence
we conclude there is significant we conclude there is significant we conclude there is significant
difference in the maximum power difference in the Module Efficiency difference in the Cell Efficiency
considering all ranges of considering all ranges of temperature considering all ranges of temperature
temperature and humidity. and humidity. and humidity.

Null hypotheses- is a general statement which refers there is no relation between two measured phenomena or there is no difference among groups. When null hypotheses
rejected, it concludes that there is a relation between two measured phenomena or difference among groups.
P value- is a function which is used to testing a statistical hypotheses. In other words it is probability of obtaining a result which can be equal or more extreme when compared
with the actual observed results.
F value- is used to determine the P value (which is probability) and is also variance between the means of two populations significantly different.
P value is probability whereas F value test Statistics.
F Value ¼ (Variance of the group mean)/(the mean within group variance).
Fig. 3. Graphical analysis related to the observations related to different technologies to different ranges of temperature, humidity- STC parameters of different PV technologies
after completion of every cycle. (a) a-Si (b) Mono C-Si (c) CdTe (d) Multi C-Si (e) CIGS.
 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561 559

Efficiency (columns). The analysis can be done using data analysis
tool as well as the same result can be produced using formulas.
6. Results and conclusion
A detailed comparison of different PV technologies is presented
w.r.t parameters like maximum power, module efficiency and cell
efficiency, when modules are exposed to different ranges of tem-
perature and humidity in environmental chambers applied for a
definite period of time. Their graphical analysis depicted related to
the different technologies (as shown in Fig. 3) and further analysis
is done depicting groups of same numerical data for module effi-
ciency, maximum power and cell efficiency through their quartiles
by box and whisker plot (as shown in Fig. 4).
All technologies depict a variable behavior. While studying
descriptive statistics, it is clear that mono C-Si has shown best
performance in terms of small variation in maximum power and a-
Si technology has shown poorest performance in terms of large
variation in maximum power. While considering module efficiency
and cell efficiency, a significant difference in the performance for all
technologies is not observed. Further to reconfirming the results,
another statistical tool ANOVA (analysis of variance without repli-
cation) is used to study the performance.
Apart from finding the variance, probability value is studied for
parameters like max power, module efficiency and cell efficiency
for all the technologies and finally statistical significant difference
is studied among the different ranges of temperature and
humidity.
For technologies like multi, mono, CIGS, CdTe and a-Si there is
statistical significant difference between the initial and final value
of Pmax, module efficiency and cell efficiency. Finally the order of
performance of each technology while applying rigorous stress
tests of different ranges of humidity and temperature for a definite
period of time in indoors in decreasing order in terms of variance is
as mono C-Si (0.9176), multi C-Si(1.7546), CdTe(1.9506), CIGS
(10.132) and a-Si(20.8506).
The results are only representative of the considered conditions.
The temperature and humidity are the major impacts as far as the
PV modules are concerned. Their combined effect could replicate
the same effect of environmental exposure. The Article deals with
the two prominent factors like temperature and humidity which
will affect the PV module performance in long-run, as there are
present in every part of the globe.
Considering the construction of a-Si and C-Si, both are
having front glass and back tedlar. While in technologies like
CdTe and CIGS, front and back both are made of glass, so there is
high possibility of moisture ingressing through back sheet in
both a-Si and C-Si. As a-Si is having very thin layer of active
material, so its degradation is more as compared to other
technologies.

Fig. 4. Graphical analysis of depicting groups of numerical data for module efficiency, maximum power and cell efficiency through their quartiles by box and whisker plot: (a)
Maximum power (b) Module efficiency (c) Cell efficiency. # The whisker plots enables us to understand the maximum minimum deviation of each technology across the different
severities applied.
560 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561
From the experimental results it is clear that CIGS is showing
better performance regarding electrical parameters like Voc, Pmax,
F.F at low ranges of temperature and humidity whereas CdTe is
showing better performance at high ranges of temperature and
humidity. So the assumption can be made that CIGS will show
better performance in moderate climatic zones and CdTe will show
better performance in hot and humid climatic zones. Here an
attempt is made to select operating condition with the help of
experimental results for the modules, which are going to be
deployed in outdoors according to the technology commonly
available in the market.
The inference drawn would include that only performing damp
heat test (indoor test) for all the technologies would not be suffi-
cient to give each module reliability, there is a need to give distinct
proportions of temperature and humidity to each technology to
have its preeminent performance. There is need to form stringent
rules in standards to mention operating temperature and relative
humidity of the module for its optimum performance and also for
customer benefit.
We stress that the manufacturers should specify these two pa-
rameters as compulsory on their nameplate details for various
technologies susceptible to different environments.
Further experiments would include tests like humidity freeze
(specific effect of humidity on the module) and thermal cycling
(specific effect of temperature on the module). Finally salt mist test
can be included for studying difference in the performance of
crystalline and thin film technologies and also differentiate that
which technology is preferred for a particular location.
References
[1] Muneer T, Asif M, Munawwar S. Sustainable production of solar electricity
with particular reference to the Indian Economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
October 2005;9(5):444e73.
[2] Bezawada HV, Sekhar AS, Reddy KS. Design analysis of dual axes tracking
system for solar photovoltaic modules. Int J Eng Dev Res 2014;2(3):
3181e9.
[3] IEC 61215(Ed.2) - Crystalline Silicon terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) modules e
design qualification and type approval.
[4] IEC 61646(Ed.2) - Thin-film terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) modules e design
qualification and type approval.
[5] Mau S, Krametz T, Jahna W, Fechner H. Quality testing for PV modules ac-
cording to standards and performance control for supporting manufacturing.
19th EUPVSEC. June 2004. p. 7e11 [Paris, France].
[6] Osterwald CR, Mc Mahon TJ. History of accelerated and qualification testing of
terrestrial photovoltaic modules: a literature Review. Prog Photovolt Res Appl
2009;17:11e33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip. 861.
[7] Wohlgemuth J.H, Cunningham D.W, Amin D, Shaner J., Xia Z and Miller J,
proceedings of the 23rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference,
September 2008, Valencia, Spain, 2663e2669.
[8] Sample T, Skoczek A, Field M, Kohl M, Geyer D. Accelerated ageing of seven
different thin-film module types by sequential exposure to damp heat or
damp heat with either additional applied voltage or ultraviolet light. In:
Proceedings of the 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference; Sept
2009. p. 3241e7. Hamburg, Germany.
[9] Kempe MD. Modeling of rates of moisture ingress into photovoltaic modules.
Sol energy Mater Sol cells 2006;90(16):2720e38.
[10] Morita K, Inoue T, Kato H, Tsuda I, Hishikawa Y. Degradation factor analysis of
crystalline eSi PV modules through long term field exposure test. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion;
May 2003. p. 1948e51.
[11] Van Dyk EE, Chamel JB, Gxasheka AR. Investigation of delamination in an edge
e defined film-fed growth photovoltaic module. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2005;88(4):403e11.
[12] Dhere NG, Raravikas NR. Adhesional shear strength and surface analysis of a
PV module deployed in harsh coastal climate. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2001;67(1e4):363e7.
[13] Han X, Wang Y, Zhu L, Xiang H, Zhang H. Mechanism study of the electrical
performance change of silicon concentrator solar cells immersed in de-
ionized water. Energy Convers Manag 2012;53(1):1e10.
[14] J.A.Tsanakas, M. Karoglou, E.T.Delegou, P.N. Botsaris, A. Bakolas, A. Moro-
poulou, Assessment of the performance and defect investigation of PV mod-
ules after accelerated ageing tests, International Conference on Renewable
Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ13), Bilbao (Spain), 20th to 22nd march,
2013.
[15] Mclntosh KR, Powell NE, Norris AW, Cotsell JN, Ketola BM. The effect of damp
heat and UV aging tests on the optical properties of silicone and EVA
encapsulants. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 2011;19.
[16] Hacke P, Terwillinger K, Gleck S, Trudell D, Bosco N, Johnston S, et al. Test to
failure of crystalline silicon modules. In: Proc. 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Spe-
cialists Conference, Honolulu(Hawaii), U.S.A; 2010.
[17] Hacke P, Kempe M, Terwillinger K, Glick S, Call N, Johnston S, et al. Charac-
terization of multicrystalline silicon modules with system bias voltage applied
in damp heat. In: Proc. 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference
and Exhibition, Valencia, Spain; 2010.
[18] Mathew JK, Kuitche J, Tamizmani G. Test to failure of PV Modules hot spot
testing. In: Proc.35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Honolulu
(Hawaii), U.S.A; 2010.
[19] Wohlgemuth JH, Kurtz S. Using accelerated testing to predict module reli-
ability. In: Proc. 37th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists conference, Seattle, U.S.A;
2011.
[20] Kumar S, Kumar G. Analysis of effect of thermal cycling test on photovoltaic
module using EL Techniques. Inter J Adv Eng Res 2012;3(5).
[21] Packard CE. The challenge to move from one size fits all to PV Modules the
customer needs. In: Proc. 26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Confer-
ence and Exhibition (EUPVSEC), Hamburg, Germany; 2011.
[22] KLotz FH, Massano G, Sarno A, Zavarese L. Determination and analysis of the
performance and degradation of a-Si modules using outdoor, simulator and
open circuit voltage decay (OCVD) measurements. In: Proceedings of the 8th
European Commission PV Solar Energy Conference, Florence, Italy; 1988.
p. 499e503.
[23] Ragot P, Berre R, Desmettre D, Paes P, Royer D. Laboratory and field testing
of amorphous silicon modules and arrays. In: Proceedings of the 8th Euro-
pean Commission PV Solar Energy Conference, Florence, Italy; 1988.
p. 499e503.
[24] Tony Sample, Artur Skoczek and Michael T. Field, Michael Kohl, Dieter Geyer,
Accelerated Ageing of seven different thin film module types of sequential
Exposure to damp heat or damp heat with either additional applied voltage or
ultra violet light, 24th EU- PVSEC, Hamburg, Germany. DOI- 10.4229/24th
EUPVSEC.2009-4 CO.2.6 Conference.
[25] Sample T, Skoczek A, Dunlop ED, Ossenbrink HA. Data analysis of electrical
performance measurements from 15 years of module qualification tests. In:
Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion,
vol. 2; May 2006. p. 2042e5. Waikoloa, HI, USA.
[26] Skoczek A, Sample T, Dunlop ED, Ossenbrink HA. Electrical performance
results from physical stress testing of commercial PV modules to the
IEC 61215 test sequence. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2008;92:
1596e604.
[27] Li B, Arends T, Kuitche J, Shisler W, Kang Y, Tamizmani G. IEC and IEEE design
qualifications: an analysis of test results acquired over nine years. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference;
September 2006. p. 2078e80. Dresden, Germany.
[28] Laronde R, Chaki A, Bigaied D. Lifetime estimation of a photovoltaic module
subjected to corrosion due to damp heat testing. J Sol Energy Eng
2013;135(2). Article ID 021010, 8pages.
[29] Park NC, Oh WW, Kim DH. Effect of temperature and humidity on the
degradation rate of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic module. Int J Photo
energy 2013;2013.
[30] Peike C, Hoffmann S, Hulsmann P, Thaidigsmann B, Weib KA, Koehl M, et al .
Origin of damp heat induced cell degradation. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2013;116:pp.49e54.
[31] Manuel Vasquez and Ignacio Rey- Stolle. Photovoltaic module reliability
model based on field degradation studies. Prog Photovolt Res Appl
2008;16(5):419e33.
[32] Wohlgemuth JH, Cunningham DW, Nguyen AM, Miller J. Long term reliability
of PV module. In: 20th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Bar-
celona, Spain; 2005. p. 1942e6.
[33] Ossenbrink H, Simple T. Results of 12 years of module qualification to
the IEC 61215 standard and CEC specification 503. In: Proceedings on
3rd World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion; 2003.
p. 1882e7.
[34] Chianese D, Realini A, Cereghetti N, Rezzonico S, Bura E, Friesen G, et al.
Analysis of weathered C-Si PV modules. In: 3rd World Conference on
Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, Osaka, Japan; 2003. p. 2922e6.
[35] Bura E., Realini A., Cereghetti N., Chianese D., and Rezzonico S., Mean time
before failure of photovoltaic modules (MTBF-PVm), Annual Report 2002,
Swiss Federal Office of Energy, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
242190872_Mean_time_before_failure_of_photovoltaic_modules_MTBF-PVm
[36] Peter Hacke, Kent Terwilliger, Ryan Smith, et al, System voltage potential-
induced degradation mechanisms in PV modules and methods for test, pre-
sented at the 37th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, June 19e24,
2011, Seattle, Washington.
[37] P. Hacke, M.Kempe, K. Terwillinger, S. Glick, N. Call, S. Johnston, et al., Char-
acterization of multicrystalline silicon modules with system bias voltage
applied in damp heat, presented at the 25th European Photovoltaic Solar
Energy Conference and Exhibition, September 6e10, 2010, Valencia, Spain.
[38] Meyer EL, Van Dyk EE. Characterization of degradation in thin film photo-
voltaic module performance parameters. Renew Energy July 2003;28(9):
1455e69.
 R. Siddiqui et al. / Energy 107 (2016) 550e561
[39] Polverini Davide, Kenny Robert, Huld Thomas, Tzamalis Georgios. Toward a
model for a-Si modules performance behavior under real outdoor operating
conditions. Sol Energy June 2015;116:388e98.
[40] Collia Alessandra, Vasquezb Johan, Zaaimanc Willem J. Initial Stabilization of a
statistical sample of forty efour monocrystalline photovoltaic modules.
Renew Energy 2015;75:326e34.
[41] Sharma Vikrant, Sastry OS, Kumar Arun, Bora Birinchi, Chandel SS. Degrada-
tion Analysis of a-Si, (HIT) Hetero-junction intrinsic thin layer silicon and m-c-
Si solar photovoltaic technologies under outdoor conditions. Energy August
2014;72:536e46.
[42] Ndiayea Ababacar, Charkib Abde rafi, Kobib Abdessamad, Ke  bea Cheikh MF,
Ndiayea Pape A, et al. Degradation of silicon photovoltaic modules: a litera-
ture review. Sol Energy Oct 2013;96:pp.140e151.
[43] Thevenarda Didier, Pellandb Sophie. Estimating the uncertainty in long term
photovoltaic yield predictions. Sol Energy May 2013;91:pp.432e445.
561
[44] Phinikarides Alexander, Kindyni Nitsa, Makrides George, Georghiou George E.
Review of photovoltaic degradation rate methodologies. Renew Sustain En-
ergy Rev 2014;40:143e52.
[45] Saccoa Adriano, Rolleb Lidia, Scaltritob Luciano, Tressoa Elena, Pirria Candido
Fabrizio. Characterization of photovoltaic modules for low- power indoor
application. Appl Energy February 2013;102:1295e302.
[46] Tsanakas JA, Sicre M, Carriere C, Elouamari R, Vossier A, De Salins JE, et al.
A novel approach of accelerated ageing tests for high concentration IIIeV
multijunction solar cells through rapid irradiation/thermal cycles. Sol Energy
June 2015;116:205e14.
[47] T Lai, R. Biggie, A Brooks, B.G Potter, K. Simmons- Potter, Environmental
ageing in polycrystalline-Si photovoltaic modules: comparison of chamber e
based accelerated degradation studies with field- test data, Proc. SPIE 9563,
Reliability of Photovoltaic cells, Modules, Components and Systems VIII,
956309(September24, 2015), DOI: 10.1117/12.2188696.
[48] IEC 60904e1(Ed.2) - Photovoltaic devices e Part 1: measurement of photo-
voltaic current-voltage characteristics.