Failure Rates of Thin Film Modules during QualificaBon TesBng

Transcription

1 Failure Rates of Thin Film Modules during QualificaBon TesBng A Presentation from TUV Rheinland Group Presented by Mani G. TamizhMani PV Module Reliability Workshop-NREL-28Feb2013

2 Outline Introduction Results and Analysis ( 3 out of 7 Labs data presented here) Lab 1: Failure Rate and Failure Distribution Lab 2: Failure Distribution Lab 3: Failure Distribution Conclusions 2

3 Failure Rate vs. Failure Distribution Failure Rate = Number of Modules Failed in a Specific Test Total Number of Modules Tested in the Specific Test Failure Distribution = Number of Module Failures in a Specific Test Total Number of Module Failures in All the Tests 3

4 Lab 1: Failure Rates (Total modules tested in period = 1111) Failure Rate 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Qualification Testing of c- Si Modules at TUV Rheinland PTL ( ) % 0% c-si Top 3 Failure Rate Tests ( ): 4

5 Lab 1: Failure Criteria Failure Rate Qualification Testing o 1111 c- S Modules at TUV Rheinland PTL Distribution of Failure Criteria ( ) 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Visual Dry insulation Wet resistance Power loss c-si 5

6 Cause for Wet Resistance Failure c-si 6

7 Lab 1: Failure Rates (Total modules tested in period = 272) Failure Rate 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Qualification Testing of Thin- Film Modules at TUV Rheinland PTL ( ) Top 3 Failure Rate Tests ( ): 7

8 Lab 1: Failure Criteria 8

9 Cause for Wet Resistance Failure 9

10 Lab 1: Failure Distribution (Total failures = 26) LAB 1: DistribuBon of test failures for thin- film PV modules (IEC 1646 only) Humidity freeze test 31% Robustness of Thermal cycling test Other terminabons Thermal cycling test tes (50) (200) 0% 0% 0% 4% Damp heat test 23% Mechanical load test Light- soaking IniBal measurement 0% 34% 8% Hot- spo test 0% Top 3 Failure Distribution ( ): Light soaking; Humidity freeze; Damp heat 10

11 Lab 2: Failure Distribution (Total failures = 142) Lab 2: DistribuBon of test failures for thin- film PV modules (IEC 1646 only) Thermal cycling test (50) Robustness of Thermal cycling test Humidity freeze test 4% terminabons test (200) 6% 2% Other 9% 7% Light- soaking 10% Hot- spo test Damp heat test 11% 25% IniBal measurement 12% Top 3 Failure Distribution ( ): Damp heat; Mechanical load; Hotspot Mechanical load test 14% 11

12 Lab 3: Failure Distribution (Total failures = 9) Lab 3: DistribuBon of test failures for thin- film PV modules (IEC 1646 only) Humidity freeze test 33% Thermal cycling test (200) 11% Hot- spot test 0% Robustness of Other terminabons Thermal cycling test test (50) 0% 0% 0% Light- soaking 0% IniBal measurement Dampheattest 0% 56% Mechanical load test 0% Top 3 Failure Distribution ( ): Damp heat; humidity freeze; thermal cycling 12

13 Global Labs: Failure Distribution (Total failures = 177) Global Labs: Distribution of test failures for thin-film PV modules (IEC 1646 only) Humidity freeze test 11% Thermal cycling test (200) 8% Thermal cycling test (50) 3% Terminations test 2% Other 6% Light-soaking 13% Damp heat test 26% Hot-spot test 9% Initial measurement 11% Mechanical load test 11% Top 3 Failure Distribution (Global): Damp heat; light soaking; humidity freeze/mechanical load 13

14 Higher Failure Distribution Variability Between Labs: Attributed to Large Design Variability and Limited Sample Size Failure Distribution (%) Lab 1 (sample size = 26) Lab 2 (sample size = 142) 40 Lab 3 (sample size = 9)

15 Conclusions: PV Modules Failure rates in the accelerated qualification tests have overall decreased in period as compared to the previous periods of , and Failure rates ( ) between the accelerated qualification tests range between 0% and 22% depending on the test type. This implies that the failure rate in the actual field conditions could be significantly influenced by the site climatic condition. Top three failure rate tests ( ) are humidity freeze, damp heat and light soaking. Global results indicate that the top three failure distribution tests are damp heat, light soaking and humidity freeze/mechanical load tests. Higher failure distribution variability between labs is attributed to large design variability and limited sample size 15