Next Article in Journal
Guest Editorial on Image and Signal Processing
Next Article in Special Issue
Improving Diabetes Education and Metabolic Control in Children Using Social Robots: A Randomized Trial
Previous Article in Journal
A Tutorial on the Use of Physics-Informed Neural Networks to Compute the Spectrum of Quantum Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Deep Learning-Based Vision Systems for Robot Semantic Navigation: An Experimental Study
 
 
Correction published on 28 May 2025, see Technologies 2025, 13(6), 220.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Enhancing Solar Plant Efficiency: A Review of Vision-Based Monitoring and Fault Detection Techniques

by
Ioannis Polymeropoulos
,
Stavros Bezyrgiannidis
,
Eleni Vrochidou
and
George A. Papakostas
*
MLV Research Group, Department of Informatics, Democritus University of Thrace, 65404 Kavala, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Technologies 2024, 12(10), 175; https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12100175
Submission received: 15 August 2024 / Revised: 14 September 2024 / Accepted: 23 September 2024 / Published: 26 September 2024 / Corrected: 28 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence Stage)

Abstract

:
Over the last decades, environmental awareness has provoked scientific interest in green energy, produced, among others, from solar sources. However, for the efficient operation and longevity of green solar plants, regular inspection and maintenance are required. This work aims to review vision-based monitoring techniques for the fault detection of photovoltaic (PV) plants, i.e., solar panels. Practical implications of such systems include timely fault identification based on data-driven insights and problem resolution, resulting in enhanced energy outputs, extended lifetime spans for PV panels, cost savings, as well as safe and scalable inspections. Details regarding the main components of PV systems, operation principles and key non-destructive fault detection technologies are included. Advancements in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methods, offering enhanced monitoring opportunities, are in focus. A comparative analysis and an overall evaluation of state-of-the-art vision-based methods for detecting specific types of defects on PVs is conducted. The current performance and failures of vision-based algorithms for solar panel fault detection are identified, raising their capabilities, limitations and research gaps, towards effectively guiding future research. The results indicate that shading anomalies significantly impact the performance of PV units, while the top five fault detection methodologies, according to preset evaluation criteria, involve deep learning methods, such as CNNs and YOLO variations.

1. Introduction

Solar energy is an inexhaustible clean power source that is increasingly significant in both technological advancements and environmental sustainability. As climate changes and the depletion of traditional energy resources pose serious threats to our future, photovoltaic (PV) systems emerge as a pioneering solution. These systems harness the photovoltaic effect to convert solar radiation into electrical energy, providing a clean and limitless power source [1].
The journey of PV technology began in 1839 when French physicist Edmond Becquerel discovered the photovoltaic effect. Since then, research and technological advancements have led to the development of the first PV cells, which now offer impressive performance and applications across various needs [2].
PV systems are not just technical innovations; they are ecological necessities. Each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by photovoltaic systems reduces carbon dioxide emissions, making them vital for environmental protection. Additionally, solar energy provides economic benefits, especially in sunny regions where investing in photovoltaics can result in significant savings and profits [3]. Therefore, it is essential that PV plants remain reliable and function effectively, referring to excellent installation, frequent maintenance, and high-quality inspections for faults. Faults may occur while manufacturing, transporting, assembling and operating PV panels. Faults need to be detected on time, so as to be repaired and prevent safety issues and energy losses.
Currently, fault detection methods have been in research focus, especially those that are not intrusive and can also provide details on the location of faults. Vision-based inspection has prevailed over other methods, due to the continuous advancements of camera technologies and graphics processing unit (GPU) architectures, as well as the progress of artificial intelligence (AI) and computer vision (CV) algorithms. The latter combination has the potential to detect, classify and localize faults, with low costs, and high reliability.
Contemporary challenges in vision-based PV fault detection systems include data overload issues due to the vast amount of produced data from various integrated sensors, creating barriers to the need for real-time fault detection. High-resolution images are needed to accurately detect faults; yet, their processing requires significant time and resources. Contemporary challenges also include the need for the improvement of fault detection accuracies by developing more advanced detection algorithms. The investigation of common faults, resulting mainly due to external environmental conditions, need to be identified so as to focus research on their effective detection.
To this end, this work aims to provide a review on AI vision-based solar panel inspection techniques, focusing on dealing with contemporary challenges. Many reviews have been recently published on the subject [1,3,4,5,6,7]. Yet, most of these review works focus on specific monitoring techniques and are not meant to be generic so as to cover multiple aspects of PV systems. These approaches aim to holistically summarize the key detection technologies, as well as machine learning and deep learning methodologies. The primary gaps we identified in these review works, and eventually aim to address in the proposed work, are the following:
  • The lack of study on faults in relation to the performance of photovoltaic modules.
  • The lack of evaluation of the proposed methodologies.
To this end, the contributions of this work that are not addressed cumulatively in other papers are summarized as follows:
  • Presentation of PV systems’ fundamentals.
  • Evolution of computer vision algorithms for PV fault detection within the decade.
  • Summarization of all key monitoring techniques for PV fault detection, along with individual and comparative assessment of their capabilities and limitations.
  • A focus on PV fault detection using AI-based computer vision, including machine learning and other pattern recognition methods, image processing techniques, and deep learning methods.
  • Common faults detectable by CV algorithms in PV systems and how they affect the systems’ performance.
  • Review of CV-based fault detection methodologies, cumulative performance tables and guidelines to select the appropriate one based on proposed criteria.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 summarizes the fundamentals of PV systems. Section 4 presents the evolution of CV algorithms in PVs over the last decade. Capabilities and limitations of basic detection technologies are included in Section 5, focusing on fault detection using AI-based CV algorithms. Section 6 summarizes CV detected PV faults and related PV system performance. Section 7 provides an overview of CV-based PV fault detection methodologies and their evaluation. Finally, Section 8 and Section 9 discuss the research findings and conclude the paper, respectively.

2. Research Methodology

To provide a comprehensive review that manages to effectively address the identified gaps, we pose the following four research questions (RQ):
  • RQ1: How have CV algorithms evolved in the context of fault detection in photovoltaic systems over the past decade?
  • RQ2: What are the capabilities and limitations of key CV-based detection technologies concerning faults in photovoltaic systems?
  • RQ3: What are the common faults that can be detected with CV in photovoltaic systems, and which of these significantly affect system performance?
  • RQ4: What CV-based fault detection methodologies are identified in the literature, and how can the appropriate method be selected?
Figure 1 outlines the followed roadmap for addressing these four research questions. Research questions in this work are answered through a comprehensive review of identified articles relevant to the subject of interest. Figure 1 aims to illustrate the RQs and define the connection between them, as well as to indicate the exact order in which the questions are answered in the subsections entitled with the same name as each RQ, i.e., to align the RQs with specific subsections towards guiding the reader through the content logically.
The research of relevant articles in this work was conducted in the Scopus database within Article title, Abstract and Keywords, by using the query: “computer vision” AND “PV” AND “faults detection” OR “defects” OR “anomalies”. The search returned 52 articles ranging from 2014–2024.
To further refine the research results, the following eligibility criteria were applied:
  • Language was limited to English.
  • Subject area was limited to Engineering and Computer Science.
  • Document types were limited to Conference papers and Articles.
By applying these limitations, 38 related documents were identified and used as sources in the following.

3. Fundamentals of PV Systems

In this section, the fundamentals of PV systems are summarized, including the main components of a PV system and PV operating principles.

3.1. Components

A PV system comprises the following main components, as illustrated in Figure 2:
  • Photovoltaic Panels (PV Modules):
    a.
    Made up of photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight into electrical energy.
    b.
    Panels can be monocrystalline, polycrystalline or thin-film, each with unique performance characteristics and costs.
  • Inverter:
    a.
    Converts the direct current (DC) produced by the photovoltaic panels into alternating current (AC) for use by electrical appliances or the grid.
    b.
    Different types of inverters, such as half-bridge and full-bridge, have various applications and features.
  • Mounting System:
    a.
    Includes the supports and structures that hold the photovoltaic panels, either fixed or adjustable for solar tracking systems.
  • Wiring and Connections:
    a.
    Essential for connecting the photovoltaic panels to the inverter and the power grid.
    b.
    Includes DC and AC cables, as well as grounding and lightning protection systems.
  • Telemetry System:
    a.
    Ensures the monitoring and control of the photovoltaic system’s performance.
    b.
    May include wireless or wired connections for data transmission.

3.2. Operating Principles

The photovoltaic effect relies on semiconductor materials that convert solar radiation into electrical energy. When photons (packets of energy from sunlight) hit the photovoltaic cells, they excite the electrons in the semiconductor materials, causing an electric current to flow. This current is then collected and converted into usable electrical energy by the inverter.
The efficiency of a photovoltaic system depends on several factors, including the quality of materials, the intensity of solar radiation, and environmental conditions. Despite its limitations, photovoltaic technology continues to advance, offering more efficient and cost-effective solutions for generating clean energy.
In summary, photovoltaic systems represent an innovative and sustainable response to modern energy challenges, providing an environmentally friendly and economically viable solution. Continuous research and development in this field promise a bright future for solar energy and its role in creating a sustainable and clean environment.

4. Evolution of Computer Vision Algorithms in PVs over the Last Decade

This section provides a comprehensive overview of how computer vision algorithms have evolved in photovoltaic fault detection over the last decade (RQ1). Using Scopus, we explored over 60 relevant studies. Table 1 includes the findings we have traced regarding the advancements and shifts in focus in this scientific field. More specifically, for each distinct period within the decade, the focus of research, the current state-of-the-art technologies and algorithms, as well as the key developments and limitations of each period are identified and summarized in the table.
In the early 2010s, traditional image processing techniques like edge detection and segmentation dominated the field [8]. These methods relied heavily on rule-based techniques and manual parameter adjustments. The latter posed limitations, since manual feature extraction can be time-consuming and may fail to capture the inherent characteristics of faults, leading to poor detection accuracies especially for complex faults. As the decade progressed, machine learning started to make its mark. Algorithms such as Support Vector Machine (SVM) [9] and Random Forest (RF) [10] appeared, employing handcrafted features and initial feature classifiers to improve detection accuracy. The limitation of feature engineering, feature extraction and selection, was still evident, while problem complexities could not efficiently be handled. Moreover, generalization issues were reported due to the varying environmental conditions and different PV systems, making algorithms difficult to generalize well. By the late 2010s, the field experienced a significant shift with the advent of deep learning, particularly Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) [11]. These models enabled automated feature learning, leading to substantial improvements in detection accuracy and efficiency. However, data requirements were excessive. Large benchmark datasets with annotated data were needed, while the training time of algorithms and the needs for computational resources began to augment. In the early 2020s, the focus shifted towards integrating multiple modalities, using CNNs in combination with infrared (IR), visible and electroluminescence (EL) imaging [12,13,14]. This integration resulted in enhanced fault detection capabilities under various conditions. Multiple data modalities posed many challenges, such as data overload, and data synchronization. Moreover, the need for sophisticated fusion techniques emerged. The processing of multiple data streams increased system complexity and computational burden. At the same time, the need for explainable deep learning algorithms started to show, revealing the research gap of interpretability of multimodal deep models. Currently, the trend is moving towards real-time detection and adaptability [17]. Advanced models like CNNs and YOLO are being employed for on-site processing, enabling real-time detection and adaptability to varying environmental conditions [15]. Interpretable AI algorithms, adaptability to new faults, and robustness to environmental changes were, therefore, in focus. Limitations included costs and scalability, since the size of PV installations tend to increase, producing vast amount of data and needing significant computational power.
Looking ahead, the future direction of research in this field is expected to focus on scalability and economic viability. Researchers are working on developing scalable deep learning models that can be economically viable and provide comprehensive fault detection solutions. A foreseen challenge is that of cybersecurity, since AI systems may be vulnerable to cyber and adversarial attacks, requiring robust AI models and secure communication protocols and encryption techniques to protect algorithms and data integrity.
Subsequently, by analyzing the content of the studied papers, and by using the functionalities of Scopus, Figure 3 was derived. Figure 3 depicts the key developments and research efforts, in terms of published works, over the past decade regarding the use of computer vision algorithms for detecting faults, defects and anomalies in PV systems, along with the key technological developments that marked the decade. The research was conducted within Article title, Abstract and Keywords, by using the query: “computer vision” AND “PV” AND “faults detection” OR “defects” OR “anomalies”. The search returned 52 articles ranging from 2014–2024. It is clear that the introduction of CNNs in PV fault detection in the late 2010s has brought a significant increase in the number of related documents, resulting an upward trend in the following years.

5. Capabilities and Limitations of Basic Detection Technologies

Faults and failures in PV modules can be detected with many methods, including UAV-based or visual inspections, I-V curve and electromagnetic induction measurements, infrared thermography, electroluminescence and photoluminescence imaging, ultraviolet fluorescence methods, and spectroscopy. In what follows, the key fault detection technologies for PV systems are reviewed, reporting their capabilities and limitations. Moreover, extended research in CV based fault detection technologies is conducted (RQ2).

5.1. Key Fault Detection Technologies for PV Systems

5.1.1. UAV-Based Inspection

The effectiveness of basic detection technologies has been tested in several preliminary laboratory experiments. These promising results have encouraged researchers to explore using these inspection techniques for large photovoltaic installations. The solution identified by field experts, which has become a standard in recent years, involves using specialized unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as drones, equipped with cameras for fault detection [18]. This method has two main advantages: (1) it is suitable for inspecting large photovoltaic fields as the entire installation can be surveyed in a few flights (depending on the size of the installation and the UAV’s battery life), and (2) it significantly reduces the cost and time required for analysis compared to traditional inspection techniques. The suitability of this solution has been evaluated through qualitative analysis in real photovoltaic fields to verify which anomalies are visible with moving cameras and to determine the impact of flight parameters on detection capabilities, thus testing the reliability of specialized UAVs [19,20,21,22,23,24].
Specifically, two types of architectures for anomaly detection can be identified: (1) real-time image analysis of photovoltaic modules during the UAV flight, and (2) offline image analysis, examining the video recorded during the inspection. Naturally, the first solution is faster and allows the operator to verify in real-time whether the photovoltaic modules have been inspected correctly; yet it requires careful software design to accelerate the image processing algorithm. Moreover, for real-time inspection, UAVs need to operate at certain heights and at specific time in the day so as to clearly capture details without sun reflections and facilitate processing. Moreover, note that UAVs can detect only visible external defects, while internal defects are not considered, e.g., non-functional diodes.
UAVs typically carry thermal cameras, visible light RGB cameras and photoluminescence cameras. Thermal cameras are used for thermographic analysis, while visible light cameras can store color images related to potential anomalies identified by the image processing algorithm. The idea is that images of defective photovoltaic modules, accompanied by geographical coordinates measured by the GPS sensor, can serve as a powerful and effective tool for automatic photovoltaic inspection [20]. However, the current accuracy of GPS sensors is in the order of several meters, whereas the required accuracy for the geographical placement of photovoltaic panels should be within a few centimeters. Therefore, with the current state of technology, computer vision algorithms cannot utilize the geographical coordinates calculated by GPS sensors to recognize and identify each photovoltaic panel but must provide a mechanism for tracking each unit and detecting potential anomalies in the image. The latter is a challenge being addressed by several techniques, as reviewed in the following.

5.1.2. Visual Inspection

Visual inspection refers to the process of examining the PV panels visually to identify signs of damage, wear, or malfunction and it is considered the fastest and most efficient way especially when conducted by experts. However, it is not suitable for modules exposed to weather conditions and it must be conducted before and after the exposure of modules to stress, either electrical, mechanical, or environmental. Common stress testing methods to evaluate modules indoor include moisture cooling or thermal cycles, liquid heat testing, ultraviolet (UV) radiation testing, mechanical loads, application of thermal stress, etc. [25]. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards 61646 [26] and 61215 [27] require illumination of more than 1000 lux to conduct visual tests towards for considering defects visible to the naked eye. Such defects include: delamination, yellowing, and blistering on the front of the module; cracks, broken parts, and discoloration of the reflective coating on the cells; burning and oxidation of metallization; bending, breaking, scratches, and poor alignment of the module frame; delamination, yellowing, scratches, burning, and more, as referenced in [4,28].
Specifically, visible defects such as yellowing of the encapsulant have been identified as major causes of power loss [29,30]. In order to identify defects visually and assess their impact, the modules are compared with a reference similar and intact module [29]. Such approaches can be found in the literature; Bouaichi et al. in their study [29] identified discoloration on panels exposed to hot climate for a period of two years, associated to power loss of modules. The same conclusion was made by Kahoul et al. [30] who also associated power loss to modules being exposed to severe environmental conditions for more than a decade, same as in [31]. In addition to power loss, several defects have been detected in all cases, such as cell cracking, corrosion, glass breakage, discoloration and more kinds of visible degradations. It should be noted that discoloration is commonly observed to panels that operate in extreme hot conditions, such as in deserts [32].

5.1.3. I-V Curve Measurements

The current-voltage (I-V) curve measurement for PC fault detection involves the analysis of I-V characteristics of a panel towards identifying potential faults or abnormalities [33], and it is considered as the most comprehensive among all detection method [34].
Measurements can be conducted in either indoor or outdoor conditions, under artificial lighting sources or the sunlight, respectively. In both cases, measurements are first converted to standard test conditions (STC) towards being compared with the reference measurements set by the manufacturers. From the conducted comparison between the I-V reference and measured curves, any observed variations are associated to modules’ degradation. If the variations between the I-V curves are small, referring to minor failures on the panels, these may fail to be identified [35]. Moreover, it should be noted that the study of the I-V curve characteristics does not provide any information of the exact defects’ location [36]. An alternative measurement to identify faults involves electromagnetic methods [37]. Electromagnetic methods use electromagnetic waves to detect faults in PV modules through the analysis of their electrical or magnetic properties, such as electrical conductivity, electromagnetic inference (EMI), frequency responses, partial discharges, induced currents, and more. Regarding the electrical properties of PV modules, DC testings analyze and evaluate electrical parameters, such as insulation resistance, continuity and electrical output, directly related to the PV modules’ performance, [38] while in AC testing, alternating current is used to test systems that operate on AC, focusing more on parameters related to AC power quality and performance [39].
Other methods to identify electrical and morphological failures in PV modules include electron beam-induced current (EBIC) and scanning acoustic microscopy (SAM) [40,41,42]. EBIC is performed by using a scanning electron microscope, which scans the solar cells with an electron beam aiming to generate electron-hole pairs towards measuring current properties [43]. SAM methods use sound waves to map the internal structure of the materials of panels, revealing cracks, voids and delamination; thus, it is more appropriate to detect morphological failures. The combination of both methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of both electrical and structural integrity of PV modules, allowing for more accurate fault detection assessments [44,45].
One more method that belongs in this category is the differential current analysis, which involves the comparison of the current flow entering and leaving different sections of the modules [25], by using current sensors placed in the PV system. Thus, the difference between measured input and output currents at different points is calculated, indicating potential defects if significant differences in the currents are measured. A major advantage of this method is that it can indicate the exact location of the fault, which makes it useful to accurately detect and locate faults for timely maintenance of modules.

5.1.4. Infrared Thermography

Infrared thermography (IR) involves measuring the surface heat of PV modules. By capturing and analyzing the temperature patterns emitted by the components of the system, possible defects can be detected. Studies have shown that there’s a correlation between cell power output and temperature variations in IR images [46].
In such cases, IR cameras are used, that can detect infrared variation, referring to the heat emitted by the system. All components of the PV system may emit heat, in varying levels, which may alter in case of defects. Therefore, the IR camera can capture the temperature variations across the entire system, indicating anomalies such as hot spots. Note that hot spots are known to reduce the overall efficiency of PV modules, therefore early detection can prevent significant damages and deterioration of its efficiency [47].
Based on the source of thermal excitation, thermographic measurements can be: (1) Passive or under steady conditions, when the module is scanned during its operation in outdoor environments and is not heated by external sources [48] (Figure 4a); it can also be performed in doors by detaching the module and take in-lab measurements [47] (Figure 4b). Setups for indoor and outdoor thermography can also be found in [49]. (2) Active or lock-in thermography when the module is heated periodically by an external source. This technique has less thermal impact on cells and can be performed in dark or illuminated conditions [50,51,52,53,54,55]; (3) Flash or pulse thermography when flashes of light are used to heat the surface of PV modules. The surface temperature rises uniformly, and a high-resolution thermal camera captures images to detect defects like bubbles and electrical connection anomalies. Various defects visible in IR images are provided in Figure 5 [56].
Several aspects need to be considered during IR imaging [57] regarding emissivity setup, shading effect, and more, as well as regarding the setup of thermal camera such as its distance from the PV module since glass reflections can provoke measurement errors. Adjusting the camera angle can help reduce reflection issues [57]. As already mentioned, severe environmental conditions can impact defects. Modules in hot climates with detected hot spots tend to display greater degradation under IR thermography compared to those located in less hot regions [58].

5.1.5. Electroluminescence Imaging

Electroluminescence (EL) imaging involves capturing images of the luminescent effect that is produced when an electric current comparable to the module’s short-circuit current (ISC) passes through the solar cells, causing them to emit EL radiation [59,60]. EL radiation is commonly detected by charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras that are more affordable, by indium gallium arsenide sensors that typically are more expensive, as well as by modified RGB cameras [61]. EL imaging is conducted in dark settings, with defects captured as dark areas/lines on grayscale images, and have been employed in several studies towards defects detection [62]. A reported disadvantage is due to the challenges related to the detection of faults in outdoor EL imaging due to casual dark regions and spots on the images [63] that may obstruct the process. However, it could be advantageous, i.e., quick and accurate, for indoor defects detection. An EL imaging experimental setup is illustrated in Figure 6, while typical defects in EL images can be visualized in Figure 7 [56].
The average pixel intensity of a cell in an EL image is strongly associated to the module’s maximum power output [62]. The latter helps to determine the degree of the module’s degradation. Moreover, EL emissions’ intensity is correlated to the degree of applied voltage, thus, defective regions can be identified by comparing EL images under different polarizations [64].

5.1.6. Photoluminescence Imaging

Photoluminescence (PL) imaging is another effective approach for PV modules’ defects detection, by capturing images of the luminescent effect which occurs when the PV materials absorb photons and retransmit them as light. More specifically, the PV absorbs energy that causes electrons to jump to a higher energy level triggering them to emit light when they return to their original state. Specialized camera sensors are able to capture the emitted light, which is analyzed to detect variations of the luminescence across the PV module [65]. A typical PL imaging setup is shown in Figure 8.
Additionally, PL imaging can be performed by using optical filters and current modulation. Optical filtering is employed to allow the selective passing of specific wavelengths of light, so as to isolate it from environmental noises. Thus, PL images are clearer and thus easier to detect underlying anomalies. Current modulation aims to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, by modulating the luminescence signal to separate it from background noises. The latter process allows for more accurate and high-quality PL imaging towards easily detecting defects in PV systems. The obtained PL images are then compared with the EL images towards identifying cracks, high-disorder areas, and poorly performing cells [66]. This enhanced PL imaging setup, and the resulting image are shown in Figure 9.
The combination of spectral and spatially resolved PL imaging can be used to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the condition of materials in a PV system. The type and location of defects can be identified, providing valuable feedback for timely maintenance and quality control of modules [67].

5.1.7. Ultraviolet Fluorescence Method

Ultraviolet fluorescence (UVF) was first exploited to detect discoloration issues such as yellowing effect in PV modules [28]. Later, dark lines in a UVF were associated with cracks in the panel.
UV-based detection is based on fluorescence effect of the material in PV modules namely polymeric lamination. Fluorescence refers to the emitted light by a material like the encapsulant that is active due to absorption of light [68]. A camera with UV-pass filter can capture the fluorescence, which is being interrupted by defects on solar cells. Thus, a variety of fluorescence patterns can be formed, providing information about the type of defect, their age and severity [69,70]. UVF experiments are conducted in darkness to eliminate inferences from ambient light, therefore, to capture a clearer fluorescent image. By exposing the PV module to sunlight prior imaging, helps to charge the materials within the module, resulting to more intense luminescence and high-quality images. Typically a 30-s exposure time is recommended [71]. An experimental UV fluorescence imaging setup is shown in Figure 10, including a PV module, a CCD camera, a highpass filter and a UV light source.
The emitted fluorescent falls within the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, thus it can be captured by a digital camera. To ensure accurate imaging, filters are typically employed to block out any remaining UV rays to prevent them from interfering with the captured images. Both UVF and EL imaging provide valuable information about PV modules defects resulting in similar visual representations of the condition of modules, where defective areas are highlighted with darker color [72]. However, UVF imaging uses external UV light while EL imaging applies electric current to the module, to excite its materials. Therefore, UVF can be implemented outdoors during the module’s operation while EL imaging requires controlled environment. Both methods can be used complementary towards providing a more comprehensive analysis of a PV module’s status [70].

5.1.8. Spectroscopy

Spectroscopy is a powerful technique that is used to analyze the interaction of matter with electromagnetic radiation. When spectroscopy is applied to PV fault detection, refers to the measurements of the produced spectra by using spectrometers when the PV module is exposed to different light wavelengths. Several types of spectroscopies are available, such as photoluminescence, Raman, electroluminescence, impedance, Fourier transform infrared, and fluorescence spectroscopy.
Raman spectroscopy is capable of identifying stress, stain and several other defects on PV modules by using inelastic scattering of photons that provides information about the molecular and structural composition of materials. When laser light interacts with the molecules in the material’s structure, mainly it scatters elastically, while a small part scatters inelastically, namely the Raman scattering light. The latter results in a shift in the light’s energy which is analogous to the vibrational modes of the molecules, thus, it can characterize the material’s composition. The Raman scattering light is collected and analyzed using a spectrometer. A hyper Raman head measure is employed to measure the spectrometry maps and detect defects PV modules [73]. To map snail trails, point measurements are taken using Raman spectroscopy, and then converted into Raman maps, which visually represent the spatial distribution of different materials and defects across the PV module. At this step, florescence images can also be produced to provide complementary information to Raman maps. To enhance the quality of maps, Gaussian fiters can be employed to smooth the image and reduce noise effects. Such a measurement setup is shown in Figure 11 [73]. Raman spectroscopy also measures thermomechanical stresses in PV modules during manufacturing [74]. A confocal Raman spectrometer is used to measure stress in solar cells, caused by metallization, lamination, etc., during manufacturing, by detecting shifts in the Raman peaks, associated to changes in the vibrational modes of materials [74].
Fluorescence spectroscopy is used in [71] to study modules exposed to ageing. The module is illuminated by a light source, that excites the electrons in the material of the PV modules, making them move to higher energy states. Returning to their initial state causes them to emit light of different wavelengths, i.e., fluorescence. Fluorescence light is detected and measured using a spectrometer. The properties of the detected light such as the intensity and wavelength can provide insight regarding the properties of the module.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) is used to acquire and analyze the molecular structure of PV materials [71]. The interaction between mid-infrared radiation and the material can excite molecular vibrations corresponding to specific absorption wavelengths which appear in the infrared spectra, revealing detailed information about the molecular structure of the material.

5.1.9. Electromagnetic Induction-Based Measurements

Electromagnetic (EM) radiation induction for PV fault detection uses electromagnetic waves to identify faults in the modules. Usually, it is combined with IR thermography and EL to provide more comprehensive assessments since they provide complementary type of information; EM analyzes changes in the electrical properties of a PV module exposed to electromagnetic waves and can detect electrical faults, thermography measures the thermal profile of modules with an IR camera and can detect thermal anomalies, while EL measures emitted light by the modules when electric current is applied and can detect structural defects.
The combination of IR thermography with EM induction can effectively detect defects in PV modules. An electromagnetic wave is applied to the PV module to heat the electrical resistant materials, inducing currents within the module. The induced currents heat the defected areas that disrupt the flow of current, revealing impurities. An IR camera captures the thermal properties of the module, aiming to indicate faults in the module. Figure 12a illustrates an active electromagnetic induction infrared thermography system for PV cells from the literature [75].
Similarly, the combination of EL imaging with EM induction can provide the accuracy of PV fault detection. First, EM induction is employed, while applied electric current causes electroluminescence captured by an IR camera that provides the EL image with highlighted the defected areas.
In general, the combination of different techniques can provide a more complete picture of the module’s health status. Towards this direction, Yang et al. [76] in their work compare the fusion results of a set of techniques, evaluating PV performance based on well-known metrics. The used EM induction-based thermography and EL imaging setup of Yang et al. is shown in Figure 12b.

5.1.10. Capabilities and Limitations

After reviewing the key detection technologies individually, this section aims to identify their capabilities and limitations by examining fault detection technologies in combination, aiming to answer RQ2. To achieve this, we utilize two comprehensive tables (Table 2 and Table 3) that detail the strengths and limitations of the different basic detection technologies and ultimately how they relate to various faults in photovoltaic systems, based on an extensive literature analysis.
Besides the individual application of each basic detection technology, various studies examine the comparative application of multiple CV-based technologies on PV modules. The findings of these comparative applications are summarized in Table 3.

5.2. Fault Detection Using AI-Based Computer Vision

Computer vision is rapidly gaining traction as a groundbreaking technology aiming to replace conventional monitoring systems in the PV sector, satisfying escalating global energy demands driven by the exponential growth of population. The integration of AI into PV energy systems is becoming a topic of interest, since AI is foreseen to play a pivotal role in addressing future energy requirements.
Computer vision systems in the PV sector comprise high-resolution camera, sophisticated imaging devices, such as RGB, EL, IR cameras or Light Detection and Ranging (LiDARs) devices, drones for aerial inspections, edge computing devices for on-site processing, and corresponding machine/deep learning algorithms to analyze the captured images and identify underlying issues. Thus, computer vision systems aim to make the latter components work together, to endow devices with adequate intelligence, so as to enhance the real-time monitoring, maintenance, and efficiency of PV systems based on image data analysis. The extracted information is then used by control systems for efficient decision making, leading to automated alerts, predictive maintenance and optimization actions, performance reports, and more, to ensure high efficiency and extended lifespan of PV systems. The computer vision-based inspection process is implemented similarly as experienced human workers perform visual inspections, yet they enhance the process with their energy and labor savings, risk reduction, speed, accuracy, and advanced analytical capabilities.
Essentially, the monitoring and fault detection in PV systems are automated through machine learning and deep learning algorithms and image processing techniques, as extensively acknowledged in the literature. Deep learning, in particular, has demonstrated exceptional performance in this domain. For instance, automated image classification and detection systems can replace EL image analysis of PV cells or modules, while automatic edge detection in IR imaging, defects detection and localization in RGB imaging, quality assessment of silicon wafer in PL images, and cracks segmentation tasks in EL imaging are also notable examples.
In these examples, computers or machines exhibit human intelligence, referred to as automated or AI-based methods, regardless the used data [87], and are utilized for several tasks, including predictions, modeling, and predictive maintenance analyses [88,89,90]. Specific types of algorithms are selected depending on the task; SVMs, ANNs, CNNs, etc., for both classification and regression. Regarding the most commonly used image processing techniques, Canny edge detection, color quantification, filtering, morphological operations, and data augmentation are reported. Moreover, in classification tasks, a preprocessing step includes usually features extraction and features selection methodologies. At present, AI-based methods are minimally utilized in PV monitoring. Yet, rising energy demands and the ongoing establishment of large PV farms, foretell the indispensable adoption of automated methods.

5.2.1. Machine Learning and Other Pattern Recognition Methods

Automatic classification of PV images as either normal or defective, is implemented by using machine learning algorithms. Demant et al. [91] classified cracked and normal photoluminescence images using the SVM algorithm. In [92], crack patterns were defined using the gradient location and orientation histogram (GLOH). A limitation of the method is that it is sensitive to region errors, which can be corrected, but will result in a very time-consuming algorithm implementation.
In order to classify a module as defective or not, image feature extraction methods can be employed, along with a classifier to assess the panels’ status. In [93], Kato extracted features, using HOG [94] and SURF [95] algorithms, from PV image sequences resulting from a captured video, and employed an SVM classifier to assess faults resulted by the collision of PV cells with metal conductors in varying forces.
Pattern recognition methods can also be used. Demant et al. [96] in their work used an SVM classifier with radial basis function kernel to automatically detect cracks in photoluminescence and IR images, by utilizing pattern recognition methods based on the extraction of local descriptors.
Other approaches, such as the one presented in [63], use Fourier image reconstruction techniques towards detecting defects on PV panels. In the latter approach, faults were visible in images like bar or line-shaped objects, and the authors concluded in an effective approach, yet with some limitations; faults with more complex shapes could not be detected, and the implementation was relatively slow, reporting inference of 0.29 s for testing one cell.
Pre-processing tasks are also reported in the literature, such as filtering, towards extracting crack saliency maps [97]. In [97], crack saliency maps were created by employing evidence filtering in EL images. The map was then processed with a local threshold process to detect cracks based on segmentation. Then, the minimum spanning tree connected crack fragments, and finally, cracks were detected by skeleton extraction. A drawback of the method was that the segmented crack may miss a part when morphological operations were applied to remove non-crack pixels, affecting the performance of the detection algorithm especially when curvilinear crystal grains were in the background.
Another reported technique included independent component analysis (ICA) [98]. ICA reconstruction procedure was initiated by selecting a normal image for training after being preprocessed to be centered and whitened. Then the ICA algorithm was used to compute the independent components, that were sorted in downward order and rearranged so as to select a number of them, and the unmixing matrix, that was reshaped. Thus, the image was reconstructed and binarized. As a reported disadvantage of this method, was the fact that finger interruptions in cells were handled identically to small and deep cracks.
In general, the limitations of machine learning algorithms, as already mentioned in Section 4, are due to the need for representative features for each fault type. The latter process can be time-consuming and could prove insufficient to capture the characteristics of each fault. Traditional machine learning methods fail to generalize well in case of new unseen data, which is a limitation in case of PV faults, where input images can be under various and different environmental conditions. Moreover, large datasets and high-resolution images are hard to feasibly handle and process in real-time.
Referenced methods of this section are further comparatively evaluated in Section 7, based on preset performance criteria.

5.2.2. Image Processing Techniques

Several image processing methods are also utilized for PV defects detection, based on the literature [99]. Alsafasfeh et al. [100] captured IR images of a PV farm using a drone. The captured images were subjected to grayscale conversion and segmentation, and morphological operations were applied, along with Canny edge detection. A reported disadvantage of the proposed approach was the appearance of shadowing in images, seriously obstructing hot spots detection.
Li et al. [101], aiming to detect visible faults like snake trails and dust, implemented other image processing techniques to the captured RGB images of PV systems from a drone. Image conversion to single-channel model (red, green, blue) was first implemented to make the processing more efficient and reduce complex computations, followed by image filtering by using the first derivative of the Gaussian function (FODG) towards noise reduction. Finally, to determine the faults, an edge detection algorithm was used. A disadvantage of this approach was the limitation of the drone’s flight height, restricted sun-angles and flights conducted only in ideal weather conditions, so as to provide efficient results.
Canny edge detection method was used as a preprocessing step for segmentation tasks towards the identification of hot spots in IR images [102,103]. Both works reported as limitation the fact that Canny edge, in case of any specular object present in the background, caused grey-level variations that were false assumed as hot spots. Segmentation is also used to detect defects in infrared module images [104], yet was not efficiently performing in case of whole modules with several defects. Dotenco et al. [105] employed statistical methods and other image processing methodologies to evaluate PV faults from UAV IR images. In [106], the authors used a combination of segmentation and morphological methods to detect hot spots in PV panels. However, the proposed method could not detect other types of faults.
Segmentation was also combined with filtering operations for PV fault detection [99,107]. In [47], preprocessing included filtering, color quantization, and Canny edge detection towards faults detection of different severities (normal, slight defected, severe defected) in IR images.
Finally, the vesselness-based algorithm for segmentation can also be used for the automatic fault detection scheme. This method was used in [108] for EL images. It has some limitations, such as only considering cracks longer than 20 mm, and disregarding other defect types and cracks shorter than 20 mm.
Same as in traditional machine learning algorithms for PV fault detection, the limitations of image processing methods, as already mentioned in Section 4, are due to the need for exhausting manual feature extraction. Such methods are sensitive to noise and environmental variations, leading to poor adaptability, requiring fine-tuning for each specific case, and subsequently resulting in poor detection performances. Scalability for covering large PV farms, and complexity of large datasets, are also evident.
Referenced methods of this section are further comparatively evaluated in Section 7, based on preset performance criteria.

5.2.3. Deep Learning Methods

Deep learning methods are also used for PV defects detection, as reported in the literature [109,110,111,112]. For example, Demant et al. [113] engaged a CNNs in the production of solar cells, to perform quality control and monitor the process. Their method, however, was constrained by the used low-resolution camera.
Mehta and Azad, in [114], used a Mask FCNN model to predict defects and localize them in PV modules, also aiming to predict power losses. All methodologies mentioned refer to the detection of visible faults. Yet, there are also works that use deep learning methods to both EL and IR images. In [114], the authors utilize EL images, features extraction methods including KAZE, SIFT, HOG, and SURF, and an SVM model.
It should be noted that optimal performances were reported by utilizing CNNs and transfer learning. In both works [115,116], the researchers proposed CNN architectures, and an open EL image dataset of PV cells, and applied transfer learning utilizing the VGG model. Evaluation results indicated deterioration in the detection performance due to labelling errors, particularly at the edges of cracks.
Akram et al. [11] used a lightweight CNN model and generalization approaches to detect faults in EL images of various defects. Data augmentation was employed to balance the dataset and deal with limited original image data. The authors reported efficient performance by utilizing simple hardware; however, all results were from in-lab testing.
In another work, the same authors Akram et al. [49], employ standalone deep learning and transfer learning, to detect faults in IR imaging. Regarding standalone learning, the authors utilized a lightweight CNN trained from scratch. Regarding transfer learning, the authors utilized a base pre-trained model on another EL image dataset. The second approach with transfer learning returned better performance results, while classification errors were mainly noticed for defects with small number of images in the dataset.
Greco et al. [117] employed a YOLO model to detect hot spots in IR images. The proposed method conducted features fusion using bypass connections, and image segmentation for hot spots detection. Results implied a robust method with high efficiency, that could run in real-time without vast resources.
In [118,119], the authors use VGG and MobileNet models towards faults detection and classification from IR imaging. The captured images were subjected to feature extraction, by using SIFT and dense SIFT algorithm, and were classified with an SVM model as normal and defective. Both polynomial and radial basis function kernels were tested for the SVM, with the first one reporting optimal performance. Reported disadvantages include model complexities, and computational burden, that need to be further considered.
Wei et al. [12] employed a Faster R-CNN towards detecting hot spots in thermal IR images. For the latter implementation, the weights of the pre-trained model were adjusted based on the used dataset. Moreover, preprocessing steps included Hough line transform and Canny edge detection. The used deep model reported efficient results, yet with high computational demands, posing a challenge for UAV-based implementations considering their limited capabilities in memory and GPU for processing. Transfer learning was also used by Buratti et al. [120]. The authors conducted features extraction from EL images and classification of faults, reaching 96% of accuracy. The used dataset comprised monocrystalline silicon cell EL images (busbar-free, with 3 busbars, and with 5 busbars), and their matching I-V parameters.
These methods and applications highlight the potential of deep learning in detecting and classifying defects in PV systems, emphasizing their effectiveness and significance in the field.
In general, the limitations of deep learning algorithms, as already mentioned in Section 4, are due to the need for large amounts of labeled and diverse input data. Data acquisition and annotation could be exhausting. Moreover, deep models require powerful GPUs especially for real-time applications. Explainability of deep models is an additional challenge, closely related to the trust on their outputs, especially for stakeholders who want to invest in this technology.
Referenced methods of this section are further comparatively evaluated in Section 7, based on preset performance criteria.

6. CV Detectable Faults and Related Performance of PV Systems

Photovoltaic modules (PVMs) can experience various types of failures, often covered by the system’s warranty if they happen under normal operating conditions [93]. When these systems fail, it can lead to safety risks, reduced efficiency, decreased power availability and compromised system reliability. Common issues found in PVMs include discoloration, cracks, snail trails, damage to the reflective coating, bubbles, pollution, oxidation of distribution bars, corrosion and breakdown of encapsulation on cells and interconnections. Additionally, problems like loss of adhesion of the back sheet are also noted [28,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128].
There are various strategies to detect these failures, focusing on issues like encapsulation, unit corrosion, cell cracks and problems with the photovoltaic inverter [128]. Failures in PVMs are generally categorized into two types: permanent and temporary. Permanent issues include delamination, bubbles, yellowing, scratches and burned cells, typically requiring the replacement of the defective modules. Temporary problems, like partial shading, dust accumulation, dirt and snow on the PVM, can usually be resolved by the users without needing to replace the modules. Failures can arise from both external and internal causes, both of which can decrease the system’s output power, efficiency and reliability.
The main types of failures that can occur in a PVM are summarized in Table 4. Moreover, their effects on the systems’ performance are also included in the table, along with the affected elements and the causes, based on the examined literature (RQ3). More details regarding failures and their relation to performance can be found in the following subsections.

6.1. Hot Spot Faults

Hot spot (HS) faults can happen when some cells in a photovoltaic (PV) panel have differing current–voltage (I–V) characteristics [125]. This typically occurs due to inconsistencies in manufacturing, which lead to high-resistance points or poor solder joints [125]. Dust and dirt buildup on the panels [129,130,147,148] (Figure 13b), aging of the cells, incomplete insulation at the edges with transparent materials, manufacturing tolerances and uneven sunlight exposure can also contribute to these issues. Partial shading of the panels (Figure 13a) is a common example of such imbalances. HS issues (Figure 13c) arise when the bypass diodes of shaded cells fail or become isolated. This results in a drop in current and a negative voltage, causing the shaded cells to consume energy from the non-shaded cells instead of generating it. If this condition persists, it can damage the affected solar cells [133] (Figure 13d). Detection methods for HS faults are discussed in [36], with many quick detection techniques relying on infrared measurements to identify the problematic areas.

6.2. Diode Faults

Bypass and blocking diodes are vital components in PV systems, ensuring their efficient and safe operation. Bypass diodes (BpD) help protect the system from reverse voltage while blocking diodes (BkD) prevent reverse current. Common issues with these diodes include short circuits and open circuits, which can occur if a PV string is partially shaded for long periods [134]. The bypass diode is critical for the system’s safe operation [93], but the blocking diode, which is connected in series with the PV module, can sometimes interfere with the proper functioning of Overcurrent Protection Devices (OCPD) [136]. If the reverse current drops below a certain level, known as the Negative Loading Point (LLF), the blocking diode will cut off the current, causing the system to fail. To avoid these types of faults, it is important to carefully choose and thoroughly test both bypass and blocking diodes.

6.3. Junction Box Faults

The junction box (JB) is a critical component for the reliability of photovoltaic (PV) panels during their operation in the field [137]. Corrosion over time can cause the resistance in the JB to increase rapidly [138]. This can lead to electrical arcing between connections, resulting in overheating and melting of the junction box. Such incidents can damage the PV modules and the entire string, leading to significant energy production losses for the system owner. To avoid these issues, several actions and recommendations have been proposed. Regular inspections and maintenance can help detect early signs of wear and corrosion. Ensuring proper installation and using high-quality materials can also reduce the risk of faults. Implementing these strategies can significantly enhance the reliability and lifespan of the junction box, thereby improving the overall performance of the PV system [137].

6.4. PV Module Faults

PV module faults can happen for a variety of reasons, such as corrosion, aging components, internal current leaks, or manufacturing defects. These issues can cause disconnections or internal short circuits within the modules [28,123,124]. When such faults occur, they can pose serious risks like electric shocks or fires. For example, Figure 14 shows various types of defects in PV modules; Figure 14a illustrates a broken glass panel, Figure 14b–d show common problems like oxidation, delamination and bubbles, respectively. These kinds of defects are often seen in PV modules and can affect both the safety and performance of the system. To prevent these issues from escalating, regular inspections and maintenance are crucial. Identifying and addressing these problems early can help maintain the system’s efficiency and longevity.

6.5. Ground Faults

Ground faults in photovoltaic systems (PVSs) happen when there’s an unintended electrical short circuit between the ground and one or more of the system’s energized wires [141]. These faults are a major safety concern because they can create DC electrical arcs at the fault location, which, if left unaddressed, can lead to fires [140]. Detecting ground faults is especially challenging in ungrounded PV systems, as these faults don’t produce enough fault current to be easily detected during normal operations [142]. Ground faults are the most common type of fault in PVSs and can arise from various causes. These include accidental short circuits between wires and the ground, insulation failure of cables and internal ground faults within PV modules (PVMs). A common outcome of ground faults is Potential Induced Degradation (PID), which happens when there’s a significant voltage difference between the cells and the ground. These faults not only pose a fire risk but also affect the overall performance of the system. To mitigate these risks, it’s recommended to use Ground Fault Detectors to monitor insulation in both residential and large-scale PV systems, enhancing safety and reliability [143]. Regular maintenance and timely detection are key to preventing ground faults and ensuring the longevity of PV systems.

6.6. Arc Faults

An arc fault happens when electricity jumps across a gap through the air or another insulating material. These faults come in two main types: (1) Series Arc Faults (AFa), when there is a break or gap in a single electrical wire, and (2) Parallel Arc Faults (AFa), between two wires with potential difference [144]. It is essential for every electrical system to have an Arc Fault Detector to identify these faults.
There are two primary methods for detection [145]:
  • DC Method: This method involves monitoring the DC in a wire. By adding a small resistance in series with the circuit, the voltage across the resistor can be measured to detect any anomalies.
  • AC Method: this method uses the AC flowing through a wire, with a current transformer acting as a sensor to detect changes caused by an arc fault.
To prevent fires and protect the photovoltaic system (PVS), these detectors need to activate safety circuits when an arc fault is detected. Arc faults pose a significant fire hazard, so detecting and preventing them is critical for the safety and reliability of PV systems. By implementing these detection methods, we can ensure that the system runs safely and efficiently.

6.7. Line-to-Line Faults

Line-to-line faults (LLFs) happen when there is an unintended low-resistance connection between two points with potential different in an electrical system. In PV system, this usually means a short circuit between the cables of different PVMs or arrays with different voltages [146]. These faults in PV arrays can be caused by:
  • Cable Insulation Failure: when the insulation around cables deteriorates or fails, it can lead to accidental short circuits between wires.
  • Poor Insulation and Mechanical Stress: if the insulation between string connectors is inadequate or if the cables are subjected to mechanical stress, it can result in LLFs.
To prevent these faults, many companies have developed specialized protective devices. These devices detect and mitigate LLFs, ensuring the system remains safe and functional. Along with using these protective devices, regular maintenance and careful installation are key to prevent LLFs and ensure the reliability and safety of photovoltaic systems.

6.8. Relationship of Faults-Performance of PV Systems

The study [149] explores how different environmental factors impact the performance of PV systems. It specifically looks at four factors: (1) dust accumulation, (2) water droplets, (3) bird droppings and (4) partial shading. The key findings from the study are:
  • Dust, Shading and Bird Droppings: these factors significantly reduce the current and voltage in PV systems, leading to lower energy production.
  • Shading: This has the most significant impact on PV efficiency. When shading covers a quarter, half and three-quarters of the panel surface, the power output drops by 33.7%, 45.1% and 92.6%, respectively.
  • Water Droplets: inlike the other factors, water droplets can actually help by cooling the panels, which increases the voltage difference and boosts power output by at least 5.6%.
  • Dust: accumulation of dust on panels reduces power output by 8.80% and efficiency by 11.86%.
  • Bird Droppings: these decrease system performance by about 7.4%.
These findings emphasize the need for regular cleaning and maintenance of PV panels to ensure they perform at their best. By keeping the panels clean, we can minimize the negative effects of environmental factors and maintain optimal energy production.
In general, environmental factors such as extreme weather conditions, can also severely impact the effectiveness of PV fault detection technologies. Extreme heat can affect thermal cameras to misinterpret overheated areas, while extreme cold may reduce the operational time of drones and cameras by affecting their battery. Rain and humidity can cause obstructions and blur to camera lenses, posing obstacles for accurate faults detection. Strong wind conditions can cause blurry images due to stabilization issues of cameras, while drones could not be able to operate in case of strong winds. Snow and ice may cover the panels, obstructing detection or ever damaging drones and cameras. Finally, direct sunlight may also affect the quality of images due to sun glaring.

7. Evaluation of CV-Based PV Fault Detection Methodologies

Having outlined the fundamental detection and imaging technologies concerning key faults in photovoltaic systems, we now aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the detection methodologies identified in the literature, as imposed by RQ4. For this purpose, a comprehensive table, Table 5, has been structured, linking all the primary automated detection technologies with the use of computational intelligence algorithms, for detecting each specific set of anomalies in PV systems in the literature. The table records the performance of each methodology achieved in each study, in relation to (1) the ability to identify photovoltaic panels and (2), the performance of each methodology in detecting a corresponding set of anomalies.
However, since Table 5 is extensive and conclusions cannot easily draw, a color-coded evaluation table (Table 6) was also created. More specifically, the information from the cumulative Table 5 which connects the performance of each identified technique with the corresponding faults, has been coded by using four color levels: red for performances 0–30%, yellow for 30–70%, green for 70–100%, gray when no numerical performance is reported. UAV-based applications were also considered. Next, three evaluation criteria were selected:
  • The total number of green indicators, showing the range of faults that the methodology effectively addressed (degree of satisfactory for anomaly coverage).
  • Whether it satisfactorily detects shading anomalies (dust, snail trails, bird droppings and snow deposits), which significantly affect cell performance, as already discussed.
  • The degree of automation provided by the methodology, consisting of two sub-questions:
    a.
    Does the methodology in this study detected photovoltaic units? (Column: “Panel Detection”)
    b.
    Was the automated image acquisition in this study via UAV technology? (Column: “UAV Inspection”)
By applying these criteria to each row of Table 6, we rank the top five optimal methods from our literature findings in the final column. The latter approach aims to identify and evaluate the best performing approaches of the literature according to preset criteria.
It should be noted that cost-effectiveness and economic viability of each proposed PV fault detection method is crucial, especially towards their large-scale adaption in the solar industry. Yet, the comparison of the various methods could not include such cost information since the latter was not reported within the articles and therefore was not available. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of camera-based PV panel inspection systems is not easily comparable since the viability of each method depends on several factors, such as the type of the used cameras, and the size of the solar installation that will be applied to. Low cost RGB cameras can be used, however hotspots and other defects can be better detected by thermal cameras which are most cost effective. For cameras mounted on drones, high resolution is essential, which are more pricey. Combined systems integrating both thermal and high-resolution cameras are more advanced and expensive options that may offer enhanced detection capabilities. Yet costs are closely related to the size of the solar installation. Ground based inspection systems can be more affordable, yet they are not feasible solutions for large scale PV farms. Drone-based systems on the contrary, can be affordable for large scale PV installations regardless costly mounted high-resolution cameras and thermal imaging equipment, while the latter would not be economically beneficial to use it in small PV installations. Therefore, in order to compare and choose the most cost-effective method, all the above aspects should be carefully considered according to each application case.

8. Discussion

In this holistic literature review, we analyzed existing methodologies for fault detection in photovoltaic systems using computer vision, machine learning and deep learning techniques. The main observations and conclusions of the study are summarized as follows:
  • Evolution of Detection Technologies: The advancement of computer vision algorithms in recent years has significantly improved the accuracy and effectiveness of fault detection. In particular, DL techniques, especially CNNs, have proven to be highly efficient in detecting anomalies in photovoltaic units.
  • Shading Anomalies: Fault detection and regular maintenance of photovoltaic panels are critical for maintaining optimal performance. Environmental factors that increase panel shading, such as various types of dust and bird droppings, can significantly impact system performance, making continuous monitoring and cleaning essential.
  • Methodology Evaluation: From the evaluation of various methodologies, the CNN variant Resnet 50 shows a very promising future among the other literature findings. It is also evident that DL techniques, such as YOLO variants and combinations of CNN with SVM classifiers, provide high detection accuracy and cover a wide range of faults. However, traditional methods, such as thresholding techniques, while satisfactory in some cases, have limitations in covering different types of anomalies.
To further improve fault detection in photovoltaic systems and develop more efficient and economically viable solutions, the following directions are proposed:
  • Scalability and Economic Viability: The development of scalable deep learning models that can incorporate economic analyses will be important. This will enable the application of these technologies on a large scale and ensure the viability of solutions in large photovoltaic parks.
  • Real-Time Detection: Adapting and improving real-time detection techniques is crucial. Developing algorithms that can operate effectively under various environmental conditions and provide immediate feedback will enhance maintenance efficiency and the performance of photovoltaic systems.
  • Integration of Multiple Technologies: Integrating technologies such as infrared imaging, electroluminescence imaging and RGB imaging, combined with deep learning algorithms, will allow for better fault detection and diagnosis. Hybrid models that could combine different AI techniques could also be investigated to improve the accuracy of PV fault detection, as well as the integration of IoT and edge computing devices for continuous real-time data collection. All the above could lead to more comprehensive and reliable detection solutions.
  • Data augmentation and synthetic data generation: data collection can be also enhanced through augmentation techniques and the generation of synthetic data, towards creating balanced benchmark datasets of all kinds of faults to effectively train AI models.
With ongoing research and development in these areas, fault detection in photovoltaic systems is expected to improve significantly, offering higher performance and longer lifespan for photovoltaic systems. Therefore, practical implications of vision-based PV systems that could be translated into actionable insights for PV industry stakeholders, include the following:
  • Cost management due to the early detection of faults, preventing minor faults to expand and ruin the entire system, therefore reducing repairing and replacement costs for PV farms. Data analysis could also aim towards preventing faults before occurring through the identification of patterns, resulting in PV installations performance optimization. In general, data-based insights can overall improve predictive maintenance strategies of PV installations, due to the ability to prevent, plan and act.
  • Efficiency of operations for large PV installations, since automated monitoring solutions can reduce inspection time, as well as both human labor and human error.
  • By reducing human involvement, safety is provided for PV installation personnel, since inspections in the field involve hazards due to the nature of the PV structures that require the worker to climb ladders or high places in order to properly inspect, as well as their exposure to potentially adverse environmental conditions.
  • Safety is also a requirement for PV system operations. Fault detection aims towards compliance with regulations, i.e., standards and requirements for PV installations, to ensure their operation safety as predefined by corresponding guidelines.
  • Computer-vision PV fault detection strategies may lead to more consistent, reliable and efficient PV inspection, making PV installations that adapt such technologies more competitive in the market.
More analytically, regarding the color-coded evaluation of Table 6, we observe that the detection methodology from the study [152] ranks first. This methodology was based on infrared thermography with UAVs, using Mask FCNNs for detecting photovoltaic units, and employed the DL network Resnet 50 to detect and classify seven out of the total seventeen anomalies. Of these, six were detected with satisfactory accuracy and one with average (less than 70%) accuracy.
The second highest performance according to our criteria, goes to the methodology presented in [155], which utilizes RGB imaging via UAVs, CNN for feature extraction and SVM for anomaly classification. This method also satisfactorily covers six out of seventeen faults. However, it lacks an integrated algorithm for detecting photovoltaic units, which reduces its level of automation compared to the top-ranked method. It is worth noting that of the six faults detected with satisfactory accuracy, two are shading anomalies (dust accumulation and snail trails). Given our observations on our second research finding—shading anomalies significantly impact the performance and output of PV units—this could potentially place the methodology in the first rank depending on the priorities of each specific implementation (e.g., resource allocation relative to desired PV unit performance). Accordingly, we could continue to rank all other methodologies based on the overall degree of satisfactory anomaly coverage, anomaly detection capability and the level of automation included in each specific study.
Another significant observation from the evaluation results is that the top five methodologies all involve DL techniques, with the top three including CNNs or their variations and two using YOLO variations. In contrast, segmentation methodologies with thresholding, while providing satisfactory accuracy, are able to detect a narrow range of different anomaly types. It is also noteworthy that the SVM classifier was found in the second position. This shows that even when combined with a CNN for feature extraction, SVM remains a highly competitive ML method for effective anomaly detection in photovoltaic units, despite the current trend towards using DL algorithms in computer vision tasks.
Practical applications and real-world implementations of vision-based PV fault detection can be found solely for large scale PV installations. The most well-known PV power station is that of Kamuthi in Tamil Nadu region in India. The latter is the largest PV farm, spreading across an area of 10 km2. The farm employes drones equipped with high-resolution cameras and thermal sensors to overall monitor the status of all PV modules. Drones fly over the PV farm to collect images, and data analysis is performed afterwards to detect anomalies and various types of faults. Challenges in real-world implementations include as already mentioned in Section 6.8, mainly the effects of environmental conditions that influence the accuracy of cameras, and the demanding processing of the vast number of generated data

9. Conclusions

In this work, a comprehensive review was conducted focusing on vision-based monitoring techniques for fault detection of PV systems. The research was guided by four research questions, aiming to identify (1) the evolution of computer vision algorithms for PV fault detection within the decade, (2) to present all key monitoring techniques for PV fault detection, along with an individual and comparative assessment of their capabilities and limitations, focusing on AI-based machine vision techniques, (3) to identify the common faults in PV system and how they affect the systems’ performance and finally (4) to conclude to the most efficient CV-based methodologies through the review of the literature. Results indicated that among seventeen identified faults, shading anomalies are those that significantly impact the performance of PV units, while the top five CV-based PV fault detection methodologies, according to preset evaluation criteria, involve deep learning methods, such as CNNs and YOLO variations.
Key findings reveal that advancements of computer vision algorithms in recent years have significantly improved the accuracy of PV fault detection, indicating CNNs as highly efficient performing models for PV fault detection. Moreover, DL techniques, such as YOLO variants and combinations of CNN with SVM classifiers, can provide high detection accuracies and cover a wide range of different faults. Research concluded that fault detection and regular maintenance of photovoltaic panels are critical for maintaining optimal performance, while environmental factors are those to mainly affect the systems’ performance.
It is evident from the literature that research on PV fault detection is ongoing, and it is expected that future technological developments, such as powerful processors to run AI-powered CV algorithms in real-time on UAVs, will further enhance this area of research, offering higher efficiency and longer lifetime for PV systems. Future research direction stemming from this work suggest the development of cutting-edge CV algorithms that could combine different sensing modalities, such as thermography and electroluminescence, towards more efficient PV fault detection. Hybrid models that could combine different AI techniques could also be investigated to improve the accuracy of PV fault detection. Real-time monitoring is a requirement in fault detection; therefore, efforts could focus on the integration of IoT and edge computing devices for continuous real-time data collection. Data collection can be also enhanced through the generation of synthetic data, towards creating balanced benchmark datasets of all kinds of faults to train AI models.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.A.P.; methodology, G.A.P., I.P. and S.B.; investigation, I.P. and S.B.; resources, I.P. and S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, I.P., S.B. and E.V.; writing—review and editing, I.P., S.B., E.V. and G.A.P.; visualization, G.A.P.; supervision, G.A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the MPhil program “Advanced Technologies in Informatics and Computers”, which was hosted by the Department of Informatics, Democritus University of Thrace, Kavala, Greece.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Meribout, M.; Kumar Tiwari, V.; Pablo Peña Herrera, J.; Najeeb Mahfoudh Awadh Baobaid, A. Solar Panel Inspection Techniques and Prospects. Measurement 2023, 209, 112466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Prabhakaran, S.; Annie Uthra, R.; Preetharoselyn, J. Deep Learning-Based Model for Defect Detection and Localization on Photovoltaic Panels. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 2023, 44, 2683–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Miquela, A.; Bagul, D.; Ezzat, A.A. Defect Detection in Solar Photovoltaic Systems Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Houston, TX, USA, 13–16 June 2023; IEOM Society International: Southfield, MI, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. Waqar Akram, M.; Li, G.; Jin, Y.; Chen, X. Failures of Photovoltaic Modules and Their Detection: A Review. Appl. Energy 2022, 313, 118822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hussain, T.; Hussain, M.; Al-Aqrabi, H.; Alsboui, T.; Hill, R. A Review on Defect Detection of Electroluminescence-Based Photovoltaic Cell Surface Images Using Computer Vision. Energies 2023, 16, 4012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hijjawi, U.; Lakshminarayana, S.; Xu, T.; Piero Malfense Fierro, G.; Rahman, M. A Review of Automated Solar Photovoltaic Defect Detection Systems: Approaches, Challenges, and Future Orientations. Sol. Energy 2023, 266, 112186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tang, W.; Yang, Q.; Dai, Z.; Yan, W. Module Defect Detection and Diagnosis for Intelligent Maintenance of Solar Photovoltaic Plants: Techniques, Systems and Perspectives. Energy 2024, 297, 131222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chao, K.-H.; Ho, S.-H.; Wang, M.-H. Modeling and Fault Diagnosis of a Photovoltaic System. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2008, 78, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yi, Z.; Etemadi, A.H. A Novel Detection Algorithm for Line-to-Line Faults in Photovoltaic (PV) Arrays Based on Support Vector Machine (SVM). In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Boston, MA, USA, 17–21 July 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  10. Malof, J.M.; Bradbury, K.; Collins, L.M.; Newell, R.G.; Serrano, A.; Wu, H.; Keene, S. Image Features for Pixel-Wise Detection of Solar Photovoltaic Arrays in Aerial Imagery Using a Random Forest Classifier. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), Birmingham, UK, 20–23 November 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 799–803. [Google Scholar]
  11. Akram, M.W.; Li, G.; Jin, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, C.; Zhao, X.; Khaliq, A.; Faheem, M.; Ahmad, A. CNN Based Automatic Detection of Photovoltaic Cell Defects in Electroluminescence Images. Energy 2019, 189, 116319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wei, S.; Li, X.; Ding, S.; Yang, Q.; Yan, W. Hotspots Infrared Detection of Photovoltaic Modules Based on Hough Line Transformation and Faster-RCNN Approach. In Proceedings of the 2019 6th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT), Paris, France, 23–26 April 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1266–1271. [Google Scholar]
  13. Su, Y.; Tao, F.; Jin, J.; Zhang, C. Automated Overheated Region Object Detection of Photovoltaic Module with Thermography Image. IEEE J. Photovoltaics 2021, 11, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shen, Y.; Fan, T.; Lai, G.; Na, Z.; Liu, H.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Chen, X.; Lou, Z.; et al. Modified U-Net Based Photovoltaic Array Extraction from Complex Scene in Aerial Infrared Thermal Imagery. Sol. Energy 2022, 240, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yin, W.; Lingxin, S.; Maohuan, L.; Qianlai, S.; Xiaosong, L. PV-YOLO: Lightweight YOLO for Photovoltaic Panel Fault Detection. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 10966–10976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jalal, M.; Khalil, I.U.; Haq, A. ul Deep Learning Approaches for Visual Faults Diagnosis of Photovoltaic Systems: State-of-the-Art Review. Results Eng. 2024, 23, 102622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Iqbal, M.S.; Niazi, Y.A.K.; Amir Khan, U.; Lee, B.-W. Real-Time Fault Detection System for Large Scale Grid Integrated Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 130, 106902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Aghaei, M.; Grimaccia, F.; Leva, S.; Mussetta, M. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Photovoltaic Systems Monitoring Applications. In Proceedings of the 29th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22–26 September 2014; pp. 2734–2739. [Google Scholar]
  19. Grimaccia, F.; Leva, S.; Dolara, A.; Aghaei, M. Survey on PV Modules’ Common Faults After an O&M Flight Extensive Campaign Over Different Plants in Italy. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2017, 7, 810–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tsanakas, J.A.; Ha, L.D.; Al Shakarchi, F. Advanced Inspection of Photovoltaic Installations by Aerial Triangulation and Terrestrial Georeferencing of Thermal/Visual Imagery. Renew. Energy 2017, 102, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Leva, S.; Aghaei, M.; Grimaccia, F. PV Power Plant Inspection by UAS: Correlation between Altitude and Detection of Defects on PV Modules. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), Rome, Italy, 10–13 June 2015; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1921–1926. [Google Scholar]
  22. Aghaei, M.; Dolara, A.; Leva, S.; Grimaccia, F. Image Resolution and Defects Detection in PV Inspection by Unmanned Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Boston, MA, USA, 17–21 July 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  23. Grimaccia, F.; Leva, S.; Niccolai, A. PV Plant Digital Mapping for Modules’ Defects Detection by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2017, 11, 1221–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Quater, P.B.; Grimaccia, F.; Leva, S.; Mussetta, M.; Aghaei, M. Light Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for Cooperative Inspection of PV Plants. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2014, 4, 1107–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sinha, A.; Sastry, O.S.; Gupta, R. Nondestructive Characterization of Encapsulant Discoloration Effects in Crystalline-Silicon PV Modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2016, 155, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. International Electrotechnical Commision (IEC). IEC 61646 Ed2.0-Thin-Film Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) Modules-Design Qualification and Type Approval; International Electrotechnical Commision (IEC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  27. International Electrotechnical Commision (IEC). IEC 61215-2: Crystalline Silicon Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) Modules—Design Qualification and Type Approval; International Electrotechnical Commision (IEC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  28. Köntges, M.; Kurtz, S.; Packard, C.E.; Jahn, U.; Berger, K.; Kato, K.; Friesen, T.; Liu, H.; Van Iseghem, M. Review of Failures of Photovoltaic Modules; International Energy Agency: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2014; ISBN 9783906042169. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bouaichi, A.; Merrouni, A.A.; El Hassani, A.; Naimi, Z.; Ikken, B.; Ghennioui, A.; Benazzouz, A.; El Amrani, A.; Messaoudi, C. Experimental Evaluation of the Discoloration Effect on PV-Modules Performance Drop. Energy Procedia 2017, 119, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kahoul, N.; Chenni, R.; Cheghib, H.; Mekhilef, S. Evaluating the Reliability of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules in Harsh Environment. Renew. Energy 2017, 109, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bouraiou, A.; Hamouda, M.; Chaker, A.; Lachtar, S.; Neçaibia, A.; Boutasseta, N.; Mostefaoui, M. Experimental Evaluation of the Performance and Degradation of Single Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules in the Saharan Environment. Energy 2017, 132, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bouraiou, A.; Hamouda, M.; Chaker, A.; Neçaibia, A.; Mostefaoui, M.; Boutasseta, N.; Ziane, A.; Dabou, R.; Sahouane, N.; Lachtar, S. Experimental Investigation of Observed Defects in Crystalline Silicon PV Modules under Outdoor Hot Dry Climatic Conditions in Algeria. Sol. Energy 2018, 159, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tománek, P.; Škarvada, P.; Macků, R.; Grmela, L. Detection and Localization of Defects in Monocrystalline Silicon Solar Cell. Adv. Opt. Technol. 2010, 2010, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gallardo-Saavedra, S.; Hernández-Callejo, L.; Alonso-García, M.d.C.; Santos, J.D.; Morales-Aragonés, J.I.; Alonso-Gómez, V.; Moretón-Fernández, Á.; González-Rebollo, M.Á.; Martínez-Sacristán, O. Nondestructive Characterization of Solar PV Cells Defects by Means of Electroluminescence, Infrared Thermography, I–V Curves and Visual Tests: Experimental Study and Comparison. Energy 2020, 205, 117930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Osawa, S.; Nakano, T.; Matsumoto, S.; Katayama, N.; Saka, Y.; Sato, H. Fault Diagnosis of Photovoltaic Modules Using AC Impedance Spectroscopy. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), Birmingham, UK, 20–23 November 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 210–215. [Google Scholar]
  36. Simon, M.; Meyer, E.L. Detection and Analysis of Hot-Spot Formation in Solar Cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2010, 94, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Du, B.; Yang, R.; He, Y.; Wang, F.; Huang, S. Nondestructive Inspection, Testing and Evaluation for Si-Based, Thin Film and Multi-Junction Solar Cells: An Overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 1117–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cotfas, D.T.; Cotfas, P.A.; Kaplanis, S. Methods to Determine the Dc Parameters of Solar Cells: A Critical Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 588–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cotfas, D.T.; Cotfas, P.A.; Kaplanis, S. Methods and Techniques to Determine the Dynamic Parameters of Solar Cells: Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 61, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yu, J.; Song, L.; Chen, F.; Fan, P.; Sun, L.; Zhong, M.; Yang, J. Preparation of Polymer Foams with a Gradient of Cell Size: Further Exploring the Nucleation Effect of Porous Inorganic Materials in Polymer Foaming. Mater. Today Commun. 2016, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Meng, L.; Nagalingam, D.; Bhatia, C.S.; Street, A.G.; Phang, J.C.H. SEAM and EBIC Studies of Morphological and Electrical Defects in Polycrystalline Silicon Solar Cells. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium, Anaheim, CA, USA, 2–6 May 2010; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 503–507. [Google Scholar]
  42. Topolovec, S.; Krenn, H.; Würschum, R. Electrochemical Cell for in Situ Electrodeposition of Magnetic Thin Films in a Superconducting Quantum Interference Device Magnetometer. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2015, 86, 063903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. de Andrade, M.C.; de Escobar, A.L.; Taylor, B.J.; Berggren, S.; Higa, B.; Dinh, S.; Fagaly, R.L.; Talvacchio, J.; Nechay, B.; Przybysz, J. Detection of Far-Field Radio-Frequency Signals by Niobium Superconducting Quantum Interference Device Arrays. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2015, 25, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nakatani, Y.; Hayashi, T.; Itozaki, H. Observation of Polycrystalline Solar Cell Using a Laser-SQUID Microscope. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2011, 21, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nakatani, Y.; Hayashi, T.; Miyato, Y.; Itozaki, H. SQUID Microscopy of Magnetic Field Induced in Solar Cell by Laser Spot Irradiation. Phys. Procedia 2012, 27, 340–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Takyi, G. Correlation of Infrared Thermal Imaging Results with Visual Inspection and Current-Voltage Data of PV Modules Installed in Kumasi, a Hot, Humid Region of Sub-Saharan Africa. Technologies 2017, 5, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Waqar Akram, M.; Li, G.; Jin, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, C.; Zhao, X.; Aleem, M.; Ahmad, A. Improved Outdoor Thermography and Processing of Infrared Images for Defect Detection in PV Modules. Sol. Energy 2019, 190, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rajput, P.; Tiwari, G.N.; Sastry, O.S.; Bora, B.; Sharma, V. Degradation of Mono-Crystalline Photovoltaic Modules after 22 Years of Outdoor Exposure in the Composite Climate of India. Sol. Energy 2016, 135, 786–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Akram, M.W.; Li, G.; Jin, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, C.; Ahmad, A. Automatic Detection of Photovoltaic Module Defects in Infrared Images with Isolated and Develop-Model Transfer Deep Learning. Sol. Energy 2020, 198, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chung, T.; Wang, C.-H.; Chang, K.-J.; Chen, S.-Y.; Hsieh, H.-H.; Huang, C.-P.; Arthur Cheng, C.-H. Evaluation of the Spatial Distribution of Series and Shunt Resistance of a Solar Cell Using Dark Lock-in Thermography. J. Appl. Phys. 2014, 115, 034901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Isenberg, J.; Warta, W. Spatially Resolved Evaluation of Power Losses in Industrial Solar Cells by Illuminated Lock-in Thermography. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2004, 12, 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kasemann, M.; Schubert, M.C.; The, M.; Köber, M.; Hermle, M.; Warta, W. Comparison of Luminescence Imaging and Illuminated Lock-in Thermography on Silicon Solar Cells. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 224102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Netzelmann, U.; Walle, G.; Lugin, S.; Ehlen, A.; Bessert, S.; Valeske, B. Induction Thermography: Principle, Applications and First Steps towards Standardisation. Quant. Infrared Thermogr. J. 2016, 13, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vinod, P.N.; Joseph, S.; John, R. The Detection and Quantification of the Defects in Adhesive Bonded Joints of the Piezoelectric Sensors by Infrared Thermographic Nondestructive Testing. Nondestruct. Test. Eval. 2017, 32, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, Y.; Ke, H.; Shi, J.; Gao, B.; Tian, G. Impact Damage Detection and Characterization Using Eddy Current Pulsed Thermography. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Far East NDT New Technology & Application Forum (FENDT), Nanchang, China, 22–24 June 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 223–226. [Google Scholar]
  56. Glavas, H.; Vukobratovic, M.; Primorac, M.; Mustran, D. Infrared Thermography in Inspection of Photovoltaic Panels. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Smart Systems and Technologies (SST), Osijek, Croatia, 18–20 October 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  57. Chattopadhyay, S.; Dubey, R.; Bhaduri, S.; Zachariah, S.; Singh, H.K.; Solanki, C.S.; Kottantharayil, A.; Shiradkar, N.; Arora, B.M.; Narasimhan, K.L.; et al. Correlating Infrared Thermography with Electrical Degradation of PV Modules Inspected in All-India Survey of Photovoltaic Module Reliability 2016. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2018, 8, 1800–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Buerhop, C.; Wirsching, S.; Bemm, A.; Pickel, T.; Hohmann, P.; Nieß, M.; Vodermayer, C.; Huber, A.; Glück, B.; Mergheim, J.; et al. Evolution of Cell Cracks in PV-modules under Field and Laboratory Conditions. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2018, 26, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kirchartz, T.; Helbig, A.; Reetz, W.; Reuter, M.; Werner, J.H.; Rau, U. Reciprocity between electroluminescence and quantum efficiency used for the characterization of silicon solar cells. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2009, 17, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Frazão, M.; Silva, J.A.; Lobato, K.; Serra, J.M. Electroluminescence of Silicon Solar Cells Using a Consumer Grade Digital Camera. Measurement 2017, 99, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ramspeck, K.; Bothe, K.; Hinken, D.; Fischer, B.; Schmidt, J.; Brendel, R. Recombination Current and Series Resistance Imaging of Solar Cells by Combined Luminescence and Lock-in Thermography. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 90, 153502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Islam, M.A.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Rahim, N.A. Investigation of the Potential Induced Degradation of On-Site Aged Polycrystalline PV Modules Operating in Malaysia. Measurement 2018, 119, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tsai, D.-M.; Wu, S.-C.; Li, W.-C. Defect Detection of Solar Cells in Electroluminescence Images Using Fourier Image Reconstruction. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2012, 99, 250–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Crozier, J.L.; van Dyk, E.E.; Vorster, F.J. Identifying Voltage Dependant Features in Photovoltaic Modules Using Electroluminescence Imaging. In Proceedings of the 29th EU-PVSEC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22–26 September 2014; pp. 22–26. [Google Scholar]
  65. Haunschild, J.; Reis, I.E.; Chipei, T.; Demant, M.; Thaidigsmann, B.; Linse, M.; Rein, S. Rating and Sorting of Mc-Si as-Cut Wafers in Solar Cell Production Using PL Imaging. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2012, 106, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bhoopathy, R.; Kunz, O.; Juhl, M.; Trupke, T.; Hameiri, Z. Outdoor Photoluminescence Imaging of Photovoltaic Modules with Sunlight Excitation. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2018, 26, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Olsen, E.; Flø, A.S. Spectral and Spatially Resolved Imaging of Photoluminescence in Multicrystalline Silicon Wafers. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2011, 99, 011903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kontges, M.; Morlier, A.; Eder, G.; Fleis, E.; Kubicek, B.; Lin, J. Review: Ultraviolet Fluorescence as Assessment Tool for Photovoltaic Modules. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2020, 10, 616–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Eder, G.C.; Voronko, Y.; Hirschl, C.; Ebner, R.; Újvári, G.; Mühleisen, W. Non-Destructive Failure Detection and Visualization of Artificially and Naturally Aged PV Modules. Energies 2018, 11, 1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Eder, G.C.; Voronko, Y.; Dimitriadis, S.; Knöbl, K.; Újvári, G.; Berger, K.A.; Halwachs, M.; Neumaier, L.; Hirschl, C. Climate Specific Accelerated Ageing Tests and Evaluation of Ageing Induced Electrical, Physical, and Chemical Changes. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2019, 27, 934–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Morlier, A.; Siebert, M.; Kunze, I.; Mathiak, G.; Kontges, M. Detecting Photovoltaic Module Failures in the Field during Daytime with Ultraviolet Fluorescence Module Inspection. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2017, 7, 1710–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Muehleisen, W.; Eder, G.C.; Voronko, Y.; Spielberger, M.; Sonnleitner, H.; Knoebl, K.; Ebner, R.; Ujvari, G.; Hirschl, C. Outdoor Detection and Visualization of Hailstorm Damages of Photovoltaic Plants. Renew. Energy 2018, 118, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. de Biasio, M.; Leitner, R.; Hirschl, C. Detection of Snail Tracks on Photovoltaic Modules Using a Combination of Raman and Fluorescence Spectroscopy. In Proceedings of the 2013 Seventh International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST), Wellington, New Zealand, 3–5 December 2013; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 334–337. [Google Scholar]
  74. Beinert, A.J.; Romer, P.; Büchler, A.; Haueisen, V.; Aktaa, J.; Eitner, U. Thermomechanical Stress Analysis of PV Module Production Processes by Raman Spectroscopy and FEM Simulation. Energy Procedia 2017, 124, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. He, Y.; Du, B.; Huang, S. Noncontact Electromagnetic Induction Excited Infrared Thermography for Photovoltaic Cells and Modules Inspection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 14, 5585–5593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yang, R.; Du, B.; Duan, P.; He, Y.; Wang, H.; He, Y.; Zhang, K. Electromagnetic Induction Heating and Image Fusion of Silicon Photovoltaic Cell Electrothermography and Electroluminescence. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020, 16, 4413–4422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kropp, T.; Berner, M.; Stoicescu, L.; Werner, J.H. Self-Sourced Daylight Electroluminescence from Photovoltaic Modules. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2017, 7, 1184–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Köntges, M.; Kajari-Schröder, S.; Kunze, I. Cell Cracks Measured by UV Fluorescence in the Field. In Proceedings of the 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Frankfurt, Germany, 24–28 September 2012; pp. 3033–3040. [Google Scholar]
  79. Breitenstein, O.; Bauer, J.; Bothe, K.; Hinken, D.; Mueller, J.; Kwapil, W.; Schubert, M.; Warta, W. Luminescence Imaging versus Lock-in Thermography on Solar Cells and Wafers. In Proceedings of the 26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Hamburg, Germany, 5–6 September 2011; pp. 1031–1038. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ebner, R.; Kubicek, B.; Újvári, G.; Novalin, S.; Rennhofer, M.; Halwachs, M. Optical Characterization of Different Thin Film Module Technologies. Int. J. Photoenergy 2015, 2015, 159458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Breitenstein, O.; Bauer, J.; Hinken, D.; Bothe, K. The Reliability of Thermography- and Luminescence-Based Series Resistance and Saturation Current Density Imaging. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2015, 137, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Berardone, I.; Lopez Garcia, J.; Paggi, M. Analysis of Electroluminescence and Infrared Thermal Images of Monocrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules after 20 Years of Outdoor Use in a Solar Vehicle. Sol. Energy 2018, 173, 478–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hoyer, U.; Buerhop, C.; Jahn, U. Electroluminescence and Infrared Imaging for Quality Improvements of PV Modules. In Proceedings of the 23rd EU-PVSEC, Valencia, Spain, 1–5 September 2008; pp. 2913–2916. [Google Scholar]
  84. Mühleisen, W.; Hirschl, C.; Brantegger, G.; Neumaier, L.; Spielberger, M.; Sonnleitner, H.; Kubicek, B.; Ujvari, G.; Ebner, R.; Schwark, M.; et al. Scientific and Economic Comparison of Outdoor Characterisation Methods for Photovoltaic Power Plants. Renew. Energy 2019, 134, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sulas, D.B.; Johnston, S.; Jordan, D.C. Comparison of Photovoltaic Module Luminescence Imaging Techniques: Assessing the Influence of Lateral Currents in High-Efficiency Device Structures. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 192, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. van Mölken, J.I.; Yusufoğlu, U.A.; Safiei, A.; Windgassen, H.; Khandelwal, R.; Pletzer, T.M.; Kurz, H. Impact of Micro-Cracks on the Degradation of Solar Cell Performance Based on Two-Diode Model Parameters. Energy Procedia 2012, 27, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mellit, A.; Tina, G.M.; Kalogirou, S.A. Fault Detection and Diagnosis Methods for Photovoltaic Systems: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wu, Y.; Lan, Q.; Sun, Y. Application of BP Neural Network Fault Diagnosis in Solar Photovoltaic System. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, Changchun, China, 9–12 August 2009; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 2581–2585. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lu, X.; Lin, P.; Cheng, S.; Lin, Y.; Chen, Z.; Wu, L.; Zheng, Q. Fault Diagnosis for Photovoltaic Array Based on Convolutional Neural Network and Electrical Time Series Graph. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 196, 950–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mellit, A.; Kalogirou, S.A. Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Photovoltaic Applications: A Review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2008, 34, 574–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Demant, M.; Oswald, M.; Welschehold, T.; Nold, S.; Bartsch, S.; Schoenfelder, S.; Rein, S. Micro-Cracks in Silicon Wafers and Solar Cells: Detection and Rating of Mechanical Strength and Electrical Quality. In Proceedings of the 29th European PV Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22–26 September 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mikolajczyk, K.; Schmid, C. A Performance Evaluation of Local Descriptors. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2005, 27, 1615–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Kato, K. PV Module Failures Observed in the Field-Solder Bond and Bypass Diode Failures. In Proceedings of the 27th EUPVSEC, Frankfurt, Germany, 24–28 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
  94. Dalal, N.; Triggs, B. Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05), San Diego, CA, USA, 20–25 June 2005; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2005; Volume 1, pp. 886–893. [Google Scholar]
  95. Bay, H.; Ess, A.; Tuytelaars, T.; Van Gool, L. Speeded-Up Robust Features (SURF). Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 2008, 110, 346–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Demant, M.; Welschehold, T.; Oswald, M.; Bartsch, S.; Brox, T.; Schoenfelder, S.; Rein, S. Microcracks in Silicon Wafers I: Inline Detection and Implications of Crack Morphology on Wafer Strength. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2016, 6, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chen, H.; Zhao, H.; Han, D.; Liu, K. Accurate and Robust Crack Detection Using Steerable Evidence Filtering in Electroluminescence Images of Solar Cells. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2019, 118, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Tsai, D.-M.; Wu, S.-C.; Chiu, W.-Y. Defect Detection in Solar Modules Using ICA Basis Images. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2013, 9, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vergura, S.; Marino, F.; Carpentieri, M. Processing Infrared Image of PV Modules for Defects Classification. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), Palermo, Italy, 22–25 November 2015; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1337–1341. [Google Scholar]
  100. Alsafasfeh, M.; Abdel-Qader, I.; Bazuin, B.; Alsafasfeh, Q.; Su, W. Unsupervised Fault Detection and Analysis for Large Photovoltaic Systems Using Drones and Machine Vision. Energies 2018, 11, 2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Luo, X.; Yan, W. Visible Defects Detection Based on UAV-based Inspection in Large-scale Photovoltaic Systems. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2017, 11, 1234–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Tsanakas, J.A.; Chrysostomou, D.; Botsaris, P.N.; Gasteratos, A. Fault Diagnosis of Photovoltaic Modules through Image Processing and Canny Edge Detection on Field Thermographic Measurements. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2015, 34, 351–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tsanakas, J.A.; Vannier, G.; Plissonnier, A.; Ha, D.L.; Barruel, F. Fault Diagnosis and Classification of Large-Scale Photovoltaic Plants through Aerial Orthophoto Thermal Mapping. In Proceedings of the 31st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Hamburg, Germany, 14–18 September 2015; pp. 1783–1788. [Google Scholar]
  104. Hepp, J.; Machui, F.; Egelhaaf, H.; Brabec, C.J.; Vetter, A. Automatized Analysis of IR-images of Photovoltaic Modules and Its Use for Quality Control of Solar Cells. Energy Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Dotenco, S.; Dalsass, M.; Winkler, L.; Wurzner, T.; Brabec, C.; Maier, A.; Gallwitz, F. Automatic Detection and Analysis of Photovoltaic Modules in Aerial Infrared Imagery. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Lake Placid, NY, USA, 7–10 March 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  106. Aghaei, M.; Gandelli, A.; Grimaccia, F.; Leva, S.; Zich, R.E. IR Real-Time Analyses for PV System Monitoring by Digital Image Processing Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Event-based Control, Communication, and Signal Processing (EBCCSP), Krakow, Poland, 17–19 June 2015; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  107. Petrosyan, A.; Hovhannisyan, A. Infrared Image Processing for Solar Cell Defect Detection. In Proceedings of the International Conference Computer Science and Information Technologies, Lviv, Ukraine, 21–23 August 2017. [Google Scholar]
  108. Stromer, D.; Vetter, A.; Oezkan, H.C.; Probst, C.; Maier, A. Enhanced Crack Segmentation (ECS): A Reference Algorithm for Segmenting Cracks in Multicrystalline Silicon Solar Cells. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2019, 9, 752–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chen, H.; Pang, Y.; Hu, Q.; Liu, K. Solar Cell Surface Defect Inspection Based on Multispectral Convolutional Neural Network. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020, 31, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ding, S.; Yang, Q.; Li, X.; Yan, W.; Ruan, W. Transfer Learning Based Photovoltaic Module Defect Diagnosis Using Aerial Images. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Power System Technology (POWERCON), Guangzhou, China, 6–8 November 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 4245–4250. [Google Scholar]
  111. Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Lou, Z.; Yan, W. Deep Learning Based Module Defect Analysis for Large-Scale Photovoltaic Farms. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2019, 34, 520–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Wang, J.; Chen, Z.; Yan, W. Intelligent Fault Pattern Recognition of Aerial Photovoltaic Module Images Based on Deep Learning Technique. In Proceedings of the IMCIC 2018-9th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics, Proceedings, Orlando, FL, USA, 13–16 March 2018; pp. 1287–1289. [Google Scholar]
  113. Demant, M.; Virtue, P.; Kovvali, A.S.; Yu, S.X.; Rein, S. Deep Learning Approach to Inline Quality Rating and Mapping of Multi-Crystalline Si-Wafers. In Proceedings of the 35th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Brussels, Belgium, 24–28 September 2018; pp. 814–818. [Google Scholar]
  114. Mehta, S.; Azad, A.P.; Chemmengath, S.A.; Raykar, V.; Kalyanaraman, S. DeepSolarEye: Power Loss Prediction and Weakly Supervised Soiling Localization via Fully Convolutional Networks for Solar Panels. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Lake Tahoe, NV, USA, 12–15 March 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 333–342. [Google Scholar]
  115. Buerhop-Lutz, C.; Brabec, C.J.; Camus, C.; Hauch, J.; Doll, B.; Berger, S.; Gallwitz, F.; Maier, A.; Deitsch, S. A Benchmark for Visual Identification of Defective Solar Cells in Electroluminescence Imagery. In Proceedings of the 35th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Brussels, Belgium, 24–28 September 2018; pp. 1287–1289. [Google Scholar]
  116. Deitsch, S.; Buerhop-Lutz, C.; Sovetkin, E.; Steland, A.; Maier, A.; Gallwitz, F.; Riess, C. Segmentation of Photovoltaic Module Cells in Uncalibrated Electroluminescence Images. arXiv 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Greco, A.; Pironti, C.; Saggese, A.; Vento, M.; Vigilante, V. A Deep Learning Based Approach for Detecting Panels in Photovoltaic Plants. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applications of Intelligent Systems, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, 7–12 January 2020; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  118. Mahmud, A.; Shishir, M.S.R.; Hasan, R.; Rahman, M. A Comprehensive Study for Solar Panel Fault Detection Using VGG16 and VGG19 Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 2023 26th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, 13–15 December 2023; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  119. Tang, C.; Ren, H.; Xia, J.; Wang, F.; Lu, J. Automatic Defect Identification of PV Panels with IR Images through Unmanned Aircraft. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2023, 17, 3108–3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Buratti, Y.; Sowmya, A.; Evans, R.; Trupke, T.; Hameiri, Z. Half and Full Solar Cell Efficiency Binning by Deep Learning on Electroluminescence Images. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2022, 30, 276–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Colli, A. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis for Photovoltaic Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 804–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Djordjevic, S.; Parlevliet, D.; Jennings, P. Detectable Faults on Recently Installed Solar Modules in Western Australia. Renew. Energy 2014, 67, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Munoz, M.A.; Alonso-García, M.C.; Vela, N.; Chenlo, F. Early Degradation of Silicon PV Modules and Guaranty Conditions. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 2264–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Forman, S.E. Performance of Experimental Terrestrial Photovoltaic Modules. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 1982, 31, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Massi Pavan, A.; Mellit, A.; De Pieri, D.; Lughi, V. A Study on the Mismatch Effect Due to the Use of Different Photovoltaic Modules Classes in Large-scale Solar Parks. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2014, 22, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Massi Pavan, A.; Tessarolo, A.; Barbini, N.; Mellit, A.; Lughi, V. The Effect of Manufacturing Mismatch on Energy Production for Large-Scale Photovoltaic Plants. Sol. Energy 2015, 117, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Massi Pavan, A.; Mellit, A.; De Pieri, D.; Kalogirou, S.A. A Comparison between BNN and Regression Polynomial Methods for the Evaluation of the Effect of Soiling in Large Scale Photovoltaic Plants. Appl. Energy 2013, 108, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Cristaldi, L.; Faifer, M.; Lazzaroni, M.; Khalil, M.M.A.F.; Catelani, M.; Ciani, L. Diagnostic Architecture: A Procedure Based on the Analysis of the Failure Causes Applied to Photovoltaic Plants. Measurement 2015, 67, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Massi Pavan, A.; Mellit, A.; De Pieri, D. The Effect of Soiling on Energy Production for Large-Scale Photovoltaic Plants. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 1128–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Adinoyi, M.J.; Said, S.A.M. Effect of Dust Accumulation on the Power Outputs of Solar Photovoltaic Modules. Renew. Energy 2013, 60, 633–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Ndiaye, A.; Charki, A.; Kobi, A.; Kébé, C.M.F.; Ndiaye, P.A.; Sambou, V. Degradations of Silicon Photovoltaic Modules: A Literature Review. Sol. Energy 2013, 96, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Hu, Y.; Cao, W.; Ma, J.; Finney, S.J.; Li, D. Identifying PV Module Mismatch Faults by a Thermography-Based Temperature Distribution Analysis. IEEE Trans. Device Mater. Reliab. 2014, 14, 951–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Yang, H.; Xu, W.; Wang, H.; Narayanan, M. Investigation of Reverse Current for Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells—New Concept for a Test Standard about the Reverse Current. In Proceedings of the 2010 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 20–25 June 2010; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 002806–002810. [Google Scholar]
  134. Winter, C.J.; Sizmann, R.L.; Vant-Hull, L.L. Solar Power Plants: Fundamentals, Technology, Systems, Economics. Choice Rev. Online 1992, 29, 29–3922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Rezgui, W.; Mouss, N.K.; Mouss, L.-H.; Mouss, M.D.; Amirat, Y.; Benbouzid, M. Faults Modeling of the Impedance and Reversed Polarity Types within the PV Generator Operation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Environmental Friendly Energies and Applications (EFEA), Paris, France, 19-21 November 2014; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  136. Zhao, Y.; Lehman, B.; de Palma, J.-F.; Mosesian, J.; Lyons, R. Challenges to Overcurrent Protection Devices under Line-Line Faults in Solar Photovoltaic Arrays. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 17–22 September 2011; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  137. Maoyi, C.; Chienyu, C.; Hsueh, C.H.; Hsieh, W.J.; Yen, E.; Ho, K.L.; Chuang, H.P.; Lee, C.Y.; Chen, H.M. The Reliability Investigation of PV Junction Box Based on 1GW Worldwide Field Database. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14–19 June 2015; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  138. Jakobi, K.-M.; Nasse, W.; Parterna, M.; Ansorge, F.; Baar, C.; Ring, K. Faults of Contacts in PV Module Junction Boxes Due to Fretting Corrosion. In Proceedings of the 29th EUPVSEC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2014; pp. 2505–2510. [Google Scholar]
  139. Stellbogen, D. Use of PV Circuit Simulation for Fault Detection in PV Array Fields. In Proceedings of the Conference Record of the Twenty Third IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference-1993 (Cat. No.93CH3283-9), Louisville, KY, USA, 10–14 May 1993; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 1302–1307. [Google Scholar]
  140. Falvo, M.C.; Capparella, S. Safety Issues in PV Systems: Design Choices for a Secure Fault Detection and for Preventing Fire Risk. Case Stud. Fire Saf. 2015, 3, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zhao, Y.; Lehman, B.; de Palma, J.-F.; Mosesian, J.; Lyons, R. Fault Analysis in Solar PV Arrays under: Low Irradiance Conditions and Reverse Connections. In Proceedings of the 2011 37th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 19–24 June 2011; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 002000–002005. [Google Scholar]
  142. Karmacharya, I.M.; Gokaraju, R. Fault Location in Ungrounded Photovoltaic System Using Wavelets and ANN. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2018, 33, 549–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Flicker, J.; Johnson, J.; Albers, M.; Ball, G. Recommendations for Isolation Monitor Ground Fault Detectors on Residential and Utility-Scale PV Systems. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14–19 June 2015; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  144. Johnson, J.; Montoya, M.; McCalmont, S.; Katzir, G.; Fuks, F.; Earle, J.; Fresquez, A.; Gonzalez, S.; Granata, J. Differentiating Series and Parallel Photovoltaic Arc-Faults. In Proceedings of the 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 3–8 June 2012; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 000720–000726. [Google Scholar]
  145. McCalmonit, S. Low Cost Arc Fault Detection and Protection for PV Systems. Contract 2013, 303, 275–300. [Google Scholar]
  146. Zhao, Y.; Ball, R.; Mosesian, J.; de Palma, J.-F.; Lehman, B. Graph-Based Semi-Supervised Learning for Fault Detection and Classification in Solar Photovoltaic Arrays. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2015, 30, 2848–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Lorenzo, E.; Moretón, R.; Luque, I. Dust Effects on PV Array Performance: In-field Observations with Non-uniform Patterns. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2014, 22, 666–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kalogirou, S.A.; Agathokleous, R.; Panayiotou, G. On-Site PV Characterization and the Effect of Soiling on Their Performance. Energy 2013, 51, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Mustafa, R.J.; Gomaa, M.R.; Al-Dhaifallah, M.; Rezk, H. Environmental Impacts on the Performance of Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Addabbo, P.; Angrisano, A.; Bernardi, M.L.; Gagliarde, G.; Mennella, A.; Nisi, M.; Ullo, S. A UAV Infrared Measurement Approach for Defect Detection in Photovoltaic Plants. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for AeroSpace (MetroAeroSpace), Padua, Italy, 21–23 June 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 345–350. [Google Scholar]
  151. Carletti, V.; Greco, A.; Saggese, A.; Vento, M. An Intelligent Flying System for Automatic Detection of Faults in Photovoltaic Plants. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2020, 11, 2027–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bommes, L.; Pickel, T.; Buerhop-Lutz, C.; Hauch, J.; Brabec, C.; Peters, I.M. Computer Vision Tool for Detection, Mapping, and Fault Classification of Photovoltaics Modules in Aerial IR Videos. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2021, 29, 1236–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Pratt, L.; Govender, D.; Klein, R. Defect Detection and Quantification in Electroluminescence Images of Solar PV Modules Using U-Net Semantic Segmentation. Renew. Energy 2021, 178, 1211–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Di Tommaso, A.; Betti, A.; Fontanelli, G.; Michelozzi, B. A Multi-Stage Model Based on YOLOv3 for Defect Detection in PV Panels Based on IR and Visible Imaging by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Renew. Energy 2022, 193, 941–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Li, X.; Li, W.; Yang, Q.; Yan, W.; Zomaya, A.Y. An Unmanned Inspection System for Multiple Defects Detection in Photovoltaic Plants. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2020, 10, 568–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Chen, X.; Karin, T.; Jain, A. Automated Defect Identification in Electroluminescence Images of Solar Modules. Sol. Energy 2022, 242, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Li, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, T. GBH-YOLOv5: Ghost Convolution with BottleneckCSP and Tiny Target Prediction Head Incorporating YOLOv5 for PV Panel Defect Detection. Electronics 2023, 12, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Naveen Venkatesh, S.; Sugumaran, V. Machine Vision Based Fault Diagnosis of Photovoltaic Modules Using Lazy Learning Approach. Measurement 2022, 191, 110786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Fioresi, J.; Colvin, D.J.; Frota, R.; Gupta, R.; Li, M.; Seigneur, H.P.; Vyas, S.; Oliveira, S.; Shah, M.; Davis, K.O. Automated Defect Detection and Localization in Photovoltaic Cells Using Semantic Segmentation of Electroluminescence Images. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2022, 12, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Karimi, A.M.; Fada, J.S.; Liu, J.; Braid, J.L.; Koyuturk, M.; French, R.H. Feature Extraction, Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning Classification of PV Cell Electroluminescence Images. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 7th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (WCPEC) (A Joint Conference of 45th IEEE PVSC, 28th PVSEC & 34th EU PVSEC), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 10–15 June 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 0418–0424. [Google Scholar]
  161. Duranay, Z.B. Fault Detection in Solar Energy Systems: A Deep Learning Approach. Electronics 2023, 12, 4397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Su, B.; Chen, H.; Zhou, Z. BAF-Detector: An Efficient CNN-Based Detector for Photovoltaic Cell Defect Detection. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2022, 69, 3161–3171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Jeong, H.; Kwon, G.-R.; Lee, S.-W. Deterioration Diagnosis of Solar Module Using Thermal and Visible Image Processing. Energies 2020, 13, 2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Arenella, A.; Greco, A.; Saggese, A.; Vento, M. Real Time Fault Detection in Photovoltaic Cells by Cameras on Drones. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 617–625. ISBN 9783319598758. [Google Scholar]
  165. Addabbo, P.; Angrisano, A.; Bernardi, M.L.; Gagliarde, G.; Mennella, A.; Nisi, M.; Ullo, S.L. UAV System for Photovoltaic Plant Inspection. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 2018, 33, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Vega Díaz, J.J.; Vlaminck, M.; Lefkaditis, D.; Orjuela Vargas, S.A.; Luong, H. Solar Panel Detection within Complex Backgrounds Using Thermal Images Acquired by UAVs. Sensors 2020, 20, 6219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Dunderdale, C.; Brettenny, W.; Clohessy, C.; van Dyk, E.E. Photovoltaic Defect Classification through Thermal Infrared Imaging Using a Machine Learning Approach. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2020, 28, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Zhang, H.; Hong, X.; Zhou, S.; Wang, Q. Infrared Image Segmentation for Photovoltaic Panels Based on Res-UNet. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 611–622. ISBN 9783030316532. [Google Scholar]
  169. de Oliveira, A.V.; Aghaei, M.; Rüther, R. Automatic Fault Detection of Photovoltaic Array by Convolutional Neural Networks during Aerial Infrared Thermography. In Proceedings of the 36th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Marseille, France, 9–13 September 2019; pp. 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  170. Pierdicca, R.; Malinverni, E.S.; Piccinini, F.; Paolanti, M.; Felicetti, A.; Zingaretti, P. Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Automatic Detection of Damaged Photovoltaic Cells. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2018, 2, 893–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Zhang, J.; Yang, W.; Chen, Y.; Ding, M.; Huang, H.; Wang, B.; Gao, K.; Chen, S.; Du, R. Fast Object Detection of Anomaly Photovoltaic (PV) Cells Using Deep Neural Networks. Appl. Energy 2024, 372, 123759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Dwivedi, D.; Babu, K.V.S.M.; Yemula, P.K.; Chakraborty, P.; Pal, M. Identification of Surface Defects on Solar PV Panels and Wind Turbine Blades Using Attention Based Deep Learning Model. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 131, 107836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Thirwani, A.; Nair, R.; Kulkarni, K. A Generative Adversarial Network Based Approach for Accurate Detection of Bright Spots in Photovoltaic Panels. In Proceedings of the 2024 11th International Conference on Signal Processing and Integrated Networks (SPIN), Noida, India, 21–22 March 2024; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 349–354. [Google Scholar]
  174. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Han, J.; Lian, J.; Qi, Y.; Liu, X.; Guo, J.; Yin, X. Research on Surface Defect Detection Method of Photovoltaic Power Generation Panels——Comparative Analysis of Detecting Model Accuracy. EAI Endorsed Trans. Energy Web 2024, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Bao, J.; Yuan, X. YOLO-ICBAM: An Improved YOLOv4 Based on CBAM for Defect Detection. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Signal Processing Systems (ICSPS 2023), Xi’an, China, 17–19 November 2023; Zhang, Z., Li, C., Eds.; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2024; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
  176. Wang, Z.; Geng, Y.; Wu, Z. An Approach to PV Fault Defect Detection Based on Computer Vision. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2023 7th International Conference on Deep Learning Technologies, Dalian, China, 27–29 July 2023; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  177. Nitturkar, K.; Vitole, S.; Jadhav, M.; Sridhar, V.G. Solar Panel Fault Detection Using Machine Vision and Image Processing Technique. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Next Generation Electronics (NEleX), Vellore, India, 14–16 December 2023; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  178. Faniar, A.A.; Şeker, C. Detection of Faulty Solar Panels Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Methods. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 3rd Mysore Sub Section International Conference (MysuruCon), Hassan, India, 1–2 December 2023; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  179. Nadia, D.; Fathia, C. Automatic Detection of Solar Cell Surface Defects in Electroluminescence Images Based on YOLOv8 Algorithm. Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2023, 32, 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Rocha, D.; Lopes, M.; Teixeira, J.P.; Fernandes, P.A.; Morais, M.; Salome, P.M.P. A Deep Learning Approach for PV Failure Mode Detection in Infrared Images: First Insights. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 49th Photovoltaics Specialists Conference (PVSC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 5–10 June 2022; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 0630–0632. [Google Scholar]
  181. Shou, C.; Hong, L.; Ding, W.; Shen, Q.; Zhou, W.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, C. Defect Detection with Generative Adversarial Networks for Electroluminescence Images of Solar Cells. In Proceedings of the 2020 35th Youth Academic Annual Conference of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC), Zhanjiang, China, 16–18 October 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 312–317. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The followed roadmap. Connection of RQs and corresponding subjections where RQs are addressed.
Figure 1. The followed roadmap. Connection of RQs and corresponding subjections where RQs are addressed.
Technologies 12 00175 g001
Figure 2. PV system main components.
Figure 2. PV system main components.
Technologies 12 00175 g002
Figure 3. Evolution of trends and the corresponding number of papers on computer vision algorithms for PV fault detection according to Scopus, on the same reference timeline from 2014 to 2024.
Figure 3. Evolution of trends and the corresponding number of papers on computer vision algorithms for PV fault detection according to Scopus, on the same reference timeline from 2014 to 2024.
Technologies 12 00175 g003
Figure 4. (a) Indoor and (b) outdoor thermography setups [49].
Figure 4. (a) Indoor and (b) outdoor thermography setups [49].
Technologies 12 00175 g004
Figure 5. Defects in IR Imaging: (a) breakage of front glass; (b) overheated cell due to internal cell problems; (c) hot spot; (d) overheating due to external shading; (e) open junction box and overheated diode; (f) overheated junction box; (g) overheating due to shading by neighboring PV module row; (h) overheated bypass diode [56]. Colors from green to red indicate cold to heat-up (defected) areas. Images serve as indicative depictions of the specified defects in IR imaging, and the letterings within them are of no significance.
Figure 5. Defects in IR Imaging: (a) breakage of front glass; (b) overheated cell due to internal cell problems; (c) hot spot; (d) overheating due to external shading; (e) open junction box and overheated diode; (f) overheated junction box; (g) overheating due to shading by neighboring PV module row; (h) overheated bypass diode [56]. Colors from green to red indicate cold to heat-up (defected) areas. Images serve as indicative depictions of the specified defects in IR imaging, and the letterings within them are of no significance.
Technologies 12 00175 g005
Figure 6. EL imaging setup [11].
Figure 6. EL imaging setup [11].
Technologies 12 00175 g006
Figure 7. Different types of defects in EL imaging [56]: (a) PID-s affected module; (b) crack pattern due to impacts; (c) polycrystalline PV module with cracked cells; (d) monocrystalline PV module with potential induced degradation; (e) busbar corrosion in cell; (f) cracked cell; (g) cracked cell of original orientation; (h) cracked cell of different orientation, rotated 180°; (i) cracked cell of different orientation, flipped about x-axis; (j) cracked cell of different orientation, flipped about y-axis; (k) module having undergone damp-heat exposure; (l) monocrystalline PV module with induced degradation.
Figure 7. Different types of defects in EL imaging [56]: (a) PID-s affected module; (b) crack pattern due to impacts; (c) polycrystalline PV module with cracked cells; (d) monocrystalline PV module with potential induced degradation; (e) busbar corrosion in cell; (f) cracked cell; (g) cracked cell of original orientation; (h) cracked cell of different orientation, rotated 180°; (i) cracked cell of different orientation, flipped about x-axis; (j) cracked cell of different orientation, flipped about y-axis; (k) module having undergone damp-heat exposure; (l) monocrystalline PV module with induced degradation.
Technologies 12 00175 g007
Figure 8. Typical PL imaging setup [65].
Figure 8. Typical PL imaging setup [65].
Technologies 12 00175 g008
Figure 9. Enhanced PL imaging setup using optical filtering and current modulation [66].
Figure 9. Enhanced PL imaging setup using optical filtering and current modulation [66].
Technologies 12 00175 g009
Figure 10. UV-F imaging setup for cells in outdoor and laboratory conditions [4].
Figure 10. UV-F imaging setup for cells in outdoor and laboratory conditions [4].
Technologies 12 00175 g010
Figure 11. Measurement setup using a Raman spectrometer and Raman superhead [73].
Figure 11. Measurement setup using a Raman spectrometer and Raman superhead [73].
Technologies 12 00175 g011
Figure 12. (a) Experimental setup of an EIIT thermography system for PV cells [75]; (b) thermography and EL imaging setup based on electromagnetic induction [76].
Figure 12. (a) Experimental setup of an EIIT thermography system for PV cells [75]; (b) thermography and EL imaging setup based on electromagnetic induction [76].
Technologies 12 00175 g012
Figure 13. HS faults: (a) shading; (b) soiling and dust accumulation; (c) HS damaged on solar cells; (d) detected HS phenomena on a PVM using infrared equipment [87].
Figure 13. HS faults: (a) shading; (b) soiling and dust accumulation; (c) HS damaged on solar cells; (d) detected HS phenomena on a PVM using infrared equipment [87].
Technologies 12 00175 g013
Figure 14. Module defects: (a) broken glass; (b) oxidation and discoloration; (c) delamination; (d) bubbles [87].
Figure 14. Module defects: (a) broken glass; (b) oxidation and discoloration; (c) delamination; (d) bubbles [87].
Technologies 12 00175 g014
Table 1. Evolution of computer vision algorithms in PV fault detection over the last decade.
Table 1. Evolution of computer vision algorithms in PV fault detection over the last decade.
PeriodFocusTechnologies/
Algorithms
Key DevelopmentsLimitations
Early 2010sTraditional Image ProcessingEdge Detection, Segmentation [8]Rule-based techniques, manual parameter tuningManual feature extraction, accuracy of fault detection
Mid 2010sIntroduction of Machine LearningSVM [9], Random Forests [10]Use of handcrafted features, initial use of feature classifiersFeature engineering, scalability, complexity of faults, generalization
Late 2010sShift to Deep LearningCNNs [11]Automated feature learning, significant accuracy improvementsBenchmark datasets, training time, computational resources
Early 2020sIntegration of Multiple ModalitiesCNNs with IR, Visible, and EL Imaging [12,13,14]Enhanced fault detection under various conditionsData overload, synchronization, fusion, computational burden, interpretability
Current TrendReal-Time Detection
and Adaptability
CNNs, YOLO, On-Site Processing [15]Real-time processing, adaptability to environmental changesCost and scalability
Future DirectionScalability
and Economic Viability
Scalable DL models and Economic Analysis [16]Scalable deep learning models incorporating economic analysisCybersecurity
Table 2. Cumulative table of limitations and capabilities of basic PV fault detection technologies. CV based fault detection technologies are marked in bold.
Table 2. Cumulative table of limitations and capabilities of basic PV fault detection technologies. CV based fault detection technologies are marked in bold.
TechnologyDescriptionCapabilitiesLimitations
UAV-based inspectionSpecialized UAVs equipped with cameras for fault detection fly over PV farms.Suitable for inspecting large photovoltaic fields
Reduces the cost and time required for analysis com-pared to traditional inspection techniques
Limited accuracy of GPS sensors Need to track each unit
Only defects visible from distance can be detected
Not suitable for real-time detection
Visual InspectionDefects detected with naked eye, such as delamination, browning, yellowing, corrosion, bending, bubbling and degradation of the anti-reflective coating.Quick and efficient
No instrumentation required
Cannot detect non-visible defects
Not feasible for large-scale outdoor applications
I-V Curve
Analysis
A primary approach for characterizing silicon cells. Typically combined with other methods for detailed information. Changes in the I-V curve lead to identification of PV module degradation.Low-cost methodology
Easy measurements
Can be used for quantitative calculations
Cannot pinpoint the exact location of defects
May be ineffective with minor variations
Contact method requiring instruments
TG/IR ImagingA method that measures the surface temperature of PV modules. Infrared rays emitted by the modules are captured by thermal cameras. Various types suitable for different applications.Suitable for large-scale outdoor applications
Easily detects hot spots
Provides quantitative measurements
High-resolution images
Non-destructive
Can detect areas of internal short circuits
Difficult to precisely locate the defect
Expensive thermal cameras
Long measurement time with lock-in IR method
Thermal blur issues
Indoor IR requires external power source
Micro-crack damage is not fully represented
EL ImagingCaptures electroluminescence radiation emitted by cells due to electron-hole recombination. This radiation is in the near-infrared spectrum.Primarily for detecting micro-cracks and edge interruptions
Fast, efficient and accurate for indoor use
Non-destructive
Can be performed with a modified digital camera
Random dark spots/lines/areas in the background due to crystallographic defects
Requires more experience and expertise
Requires external power source
Mainly for indoor use
Induction heating issues blur interior areas
PL ImagingThe sample is stimulated with light radiation/laser source and luminescence radiation is emitted near-infrared region. Fast
Non-destructive
High spatial resolution
Can detect cracks
Requires an excitation source
Branched areas appear quite blurred
UV-F ImagingUses an ultraviolet light source to stimulate the luminescent pigments in the encapsulating material. This stimulation leads to the emission of fluorescence luminescence The emitted rays are then imaged by a camera.Easy detection of snail trails
Easy detection of discolorations
Can detect cracks
Fluorescent light is in the visible range, so a digital camera can be used
Non-destructive
Requires long exposure time for good fluorescence image
Requires light source for stimulation
Fluorescence effect develops in modules after prolonged outdoor use
Cannot detect PID
Shorted or open bypass diode is not detectable
SpectroscopyMeasuring and studying spectra produced by the interaction with radiation.Highly sensitive
Can differentiate between different fault types
Costly equipment
Complexity of spectral data
Affected by external conditions
EM inductionIdentifies variations in electrical properties caused by faultsScalability for large systems monitoring
Fast scanning
Complex interpretations
Environmental interference
Table 3. Comparative table of limitations and capabilities of basic CV-based PV fault detection technologies.
Table 3. Comparative table of limitations and capabilities of basic CV-based PV fault detection technologies.
Ref.TechnologiesFindings
[77]Indoor
vs.
Outdoor TG/IR
External IR thermography results show relatively fewer or no defects in PV modules. Conversely, internal IR thermography images depict defects more clearly. Possible reasons for differences include absorption of radiation by other parts such as the backsheet, high heat dissipation rate, abrupt environmental changes causing thermal instability and minor defects of negligible impact.
[78]UV-F
vs.
EL
Cracks in EL images clearly correlate with dark areas in UV-F images. However, due to darkness around cell edges, cracks along the edges are not detectable in UV-F images. The marble pattern in EL images caused by crystallographic defects in polycrystalline silicon makes crack detection in EL images harder compared to UV-F. UV-F better illustrates areas typically hotter during operation.
[79,80,81,82,83]TG/IR Imaging
vs.
EL Imaging
EL Imaging IR Imaging:
Advantages
High resolution
Direct measurement (non-contact) recognizable defects: defective laser cut, shorted bypass circuits, disconnected cell areas, short circuits broken cells and layer defects
Recognizable defects: different thermal behavior, short circuits, hot spots, moisture, shading, incompatibilities, installation failures, etc.
Disadvantages
Origin of defect not recognizable
Hard to determine defect impact on cell/module performance
Normal-looking EL images can reveal high-temperature areas in IR images because both techniques capture different physical properties
Not all defects cause temperature rise
High-temperature areas are not always defect sources
Difficult to pinpoint exact defect location in numerous small spots
Requires electrical interface
Cannot distinguish between weak and high series resistance
[84,85,86]Visual Inspection
vs.
TG/IR
vs.
UV-F
Hot-spots easily detectable with IR, but EL and UV-F do not clearly detect them
Hot-spots above 120 °C easily visible with visual inspection, appearing as dark black or brown area in RGB images
Cell cracks not clearly detected with IR thermography but evident in EL images. UV-F shows similar crack patterns, but formation can take weeks
Snail trails are easily detected with UV-F and EL
Potential Induced Degradation (PID) faults are detected with IR thermography, EL images, but not with UV-F
Shorted/opened bypass diodes detectable by all methods except UV-F and partially by visual inspection
Common visible faults include discoloration, broken glass and backsheet tearing
Table 4. Summary of fault types, effected elements, causes and effects on system performance.
Table 4. Summary of fault types, effected elements, causes and effects on system performance.
Ref.Fault TypeAffected ElementCausesEffects
ExternalInternal
[36,125,129,130,131,132,133]Hot Spot Faults (HSF)PV Cells, PV Modules
  • Covered by: Dust, Snow, Shadow
  • Different classes of PV Modules or technology
  • Fragmentation of cells
  • Current mismatch between cells
  • High-resistance or “cold” solder points
  • Aging and degradation of solar cells
  • Destruction of PV panels
  • Open circuits
  • Reduced efficiency
  • Reliability issues
[93,134,135,136]Diode Faults (DF)Bypass Diode (BpD),
Blocking Diode (BkD)
  • Partially shaded cells
  • Overheating
-
  • Destruction of diodes
  • Short circuited diode
  • Open circuited or Isolated diode
[137,138]Junction Box Faults (JB)Junction Box-
  • Wear
  • Corrosion
  • Loosen connections
  • Oxidation
  • Destruction of PV cells
  • Fire hazard
  • Reduce efficiency
  • Reliability issues
[4,28,123,139]PV module faults (PVMF),
PV array fault (PVAF)
PV Modules
  • Glass breakage of PV Modules frameless caused by the clamps
  • Connector failure
  • Ground Isolation
  • Encapsulation
  • Installation wiring mistake
  • Corrosion of solar cells
  • Manufacturing defects
  • Delaminated
  • Bubbles effect
  • Yellowing
  • Scratches
  • Burnt solar cells
  • Isolated modules
  • Short circuit between modules
  • Current leakage
  • Destruction PV modules
  • Reduce efficiency
  • Reliability issues
  • Reduced output power
[140,141,142,143]Ground Faults (GF)PV Array,
PV String
-
  • Insulation failure of cables
  • Wire ground fault
  • Ground fault inside solar panel cable insulation during installation
  • Ground fault inside solar panel from bad sealing
  • Insulation destruction of cables
  • Short circuit inside the solar panel junction box
  • Fire hazard
[144,145]Arc Faults (AF)PV Modules-
  • Wire short break
  • Two wires with potencies different are place near one other
  • Bad soldering connection
  • Leakage inside to solar panel from mechanical damage
  • Wildlife junction box
  • Loosening of screws
  • Destruction of PV panels
  • Fire hazard
[146]Line to line faults (LLF)PV Array-
  • Low resistance between two points with potencies different
  • Insulation failure of cables
  • Short circuit between wires
  • Insulation failure between string connectors
  • Mechanical stress
  • Destruction of PV panels
  • Wires damage
  • Fire hazard
Table 5. Evaluation summary of PV fault detection methodologies.
Table 5. Evaluation summary of PV fault detection methodologies.
Ref.TechnologyInput DataPanel Detection MethodologyFault Detection MethodologyPanel Detection Evaluation (%)Anomalies Detection Evaluation
[109]Multispectral imaging15,330 PV cell images without defects
5915 images with defective cells
Training 80%
Testing 20%
-Multispectral (MSI) CNN-Accuracy:
Thick Line: 76.4%
Broken gate: 80.4%
Scratches: 48.6%
Paste Spot: 82.1%
Color diff.: 100%
Dirty Cells: 87.2%
No Anomalies: 98.1%
[105]IR Thermography37 images with 1544 PV cells
(Images from UAV)
Creation of background temperature map, automatic thresholding to segment panels from background, removal of unwanted background, estimation of PV panel row orientation, panel dimension correction, preparation for panel analysisGrid Cell Medians: Division of the panel into a 9 × 10 cell grid and calculation of the median temperature from the individual temperatures in each grid cell.F1-score: 92.8%Hot Spots,
Hot Substring,
Hot Panel (overheat)
Average F1-score: 93.9%
[114]RGB ImagingOriginal dataset: 45,754 images
Training set: 27,537
Validation set: 18,217
-Detection Model (ImpactNet), Localization Technique (Mask FCNN) to predict power loss and soiling localization, localization enhancement through BiDIAF, soiling type categorization with WebNN-Dust,
Snow,
Bird Poop,
Crack
Overall Accuracy: 84.5%
[100]Visible light camera (CCD)
& IR Thermography
-
(Images from UAV)
Morphological transformation and Canny Edge algorithmThermal imaging and CCD video processing, Hot Pixel-based hot spot detection-Hot Spots
Cracks & Wear,
Delamination
Connection Faults
[150]IR ThermographyA series of flights on a test site
(Images from UAV)
Template matchingTemplate matchingAccuracy: 81%Hot Spots,
Bypass Diodes,
Mechanically damaged cells, Fault Contact points
Mean Accuracy: 85%
[151]Visible light camera (RGB)
& IR Thermography
15 videos manually annotated for local and general thermal anomalies by three thermal cameras resolutions
(Images from UAV)
Image preprocessing to remove noise from the image, Canny algorithm to detect PV edges, Line Separation using Hough Transform, Line Segmentation and Processing, Panel Model ApplicationLocal Hot Spot Detection to detect thermal anomalies within the area of each photovoltaic panel, Global Hot Spot Detection, tracking algorithm to identify and follow the same panels across different frames as the UAV flies over the photovoltaic parkOverall Accuracy: 83%Local hot spot
Accuracy: 73%
Global hot spot
Accuracy: 85%
[152]IR Thermography4.3 million IR images of 107,842 pv panels
Panel detection: Training 90%, Testing 10%
Anomaly detection: Training 70%, Testing 20%, Validation 10%
(Images from UAV)
Panel segmentation through Mask R-CNNResNet-50 classifierOverall Accuracy: 90.01%Accuracy:
Healthy panel: 95.35 ± 0.21%
Connection interruption–panel: 98.83 ± 0.42%
Short circuit: 66.67 ± 47.14%
Connection interruption-string: 100 ± 0%
Short circuit string: 83.80 ± 0.76%
PID panel: 86.69 ± 1.75%
Multiple hot cells: 33.33 ± 23.57%
Single hot cell: 57.41 ± 6.93%
Hot cells: 80.39 ± 0.26%
Diode overheating: 90.06 ± 0.55%
Hot spost: 7.07 ± 7.04%
[153]EL Imaging148 images of PV cells for the U-net
Training: 108 (73%)
Testing: 30 (20%)
Validation: 10 (7%)
-Encoder VGG-16 to extract features, Semantic Segmentation with U-net to predict the presence and type of defects-Recall:
Cracks: 84%
Offline areas: 69%
Faults in the panel’s conductor lines: 53%
[108]EL Imaging47 images of PV panels: 7 healthy panel
40 panels with cracks of different lengths
-Εnhanced Crack Segmentation (eCS)-Cracks from 20 mm up to the entire length of the panel
AUC: 91.14%
[154]IR & RGB Imaging2038 thermal images (LWIR) for hotspot detection:
Training: 1426 (70%)
Testing: 306 (15%)
Validation: 306 (15%)
1500 low-res visible spectrum digital images (VIS-LR):
Training: 1050 (70%)
Testing: 225 (15%)
Validation: 225 (15%)
(Images from UAV)
Canny Algorithm to detect edges of PV modules, Line Separation using Hough Transform, Image rotation optimal detectionYOLOv3Accuracy: 98%Accuracy:
hotspot: 80.30%
hotspot on junction box accuracy: 90.27%
puddle accuracy: 82.48%
bird dropping accuracy: 81.97%
raised panel: 84.00%
delamination: 93.61%
strong soiling: 73.75%
soiling accuracy: 90.00%
[155]RGB Imaging126 images of multiple defects on PV panels:
Training 66.6%
Testing 33.3%
(Images from UAV)
-Detecting anomalies with the Kirsh Operator image segmentation technique, the trained CNN extracts feature vectors of anomalies, the resulting anomaly vectors are inserted into a Multi Class-SVM which classifies 5 final anomalies-Accuracy:
Dust shading: 97.63%
Encapsulant delamination: 98.59%
Glass breakage: 98.42%
Gridline Corrosion: 95.84%
Snail trails: 95.03%
Yellowing: 97.76%
[156]EL ImagingDataset 19,228 EL images 640 × 512
For YOLO model 1025 images used:
Training: 762 (74.5%)
Testing: 134 (12.5%)
Validation: 134 (13.0%)
Automatic Perspective Transform, Automatic Cell Segmentation to identify cell boundaries, UNet to extract panel features, OpenCV for Line and Corner Detection.Object Detection with YOLOv3 Model, Image Classification with ResNet18, ResNet50 and ResNet152 models to classify cells into 4 types of anomalies (cracks, intra-cell defects, oxygen induced defects and solder disconnections)Accuracy: 98.6%Average F1-score:
YOLO: 78%
ResNet18: 83%
[157]EL ImagingPV Multi-Defect dataset: 305 images 5800 × 3504 of 5 types of anomalies. After preprocessing,
1108 anomaly images:
80% for Training
20% for Testing and Validation
-Ghost convolution with BottleneckCSP YOLOv5 (GBH-YOLOv5)-mAP:
Broken Glass: 99.5 ± 0.01
Hot Spot: 97.5 ± 0.02%
Black_Border: 97.2 ± 0.02%
Scrath: 97.4 ± 0.02%
No_Electricity: 98.0 ± 0.02%
[117]IR Thermography18 videos, of which:
13 (72%) for Training
5 (28%) for Testing
(Images from UAV)
YOLOv2 and YOLOv3: Image Inclusion, Image Division, Bounding Box Predictions-YOLOv2: Accuracy 89%
YOLOv3: Accuracy 91%
-
[158]RGB Imaging3150 images with 6 anomaly classes
(Images from UAV)
-AlexNet for Feature Extraction, J48 decision tree for Feature Selection, Classification with k-nearest neighbors (kNN): Locally weighted learning (LWL) and K-star are compared-Accuracy:
Delamination: 99.61%
Burn marks: 97.90%
Discoloration: 98.85%
Snail Trail: 99.61%
Glass Breakage: 99.61%
Good Panel: 98.09%
[159]EL ImagingUCF EL Defect Dataset inluding 17,064 EL images:
80–20 ratio for training and testing/validation
-Semantic Segmentation with DeepLabv3 and ResNet-50 as backbone-Accuracy:
No Defect: 98%
Crack: 81%
Contact: 66%
Interconnection Interruption: 26%
Corrosion: 69%
[160]EL Imaging6264 images: 5011 images (80%) for training, 1253 images (20%) for testing-Unsupervised ML–Principal Component Analysis—PCA to reduce the dimensionality of image data, Hierarchical Clustering to group images based on features similarity, Feature Extraction–Haralick Feature, Supervised ML–CNN and SVM classification-Defects: Cracks, Busbar corrosion, Dark spots, Clear or in good condition
Mean accuracy of Models:
SVM: 98.95%
CNN: 98.24%
[161]IR ThermographyInfrared Solar Modules dataset: 20,000 IR images:
10,000 with no anomalies
10,000 with 11 categories of anomalies:
For feature extraction the model Efficientb0 used was pre-trained.
(Images from UAV)
For classification in SVM, 80% was used for Training/20% for Testing
-The Efficientb0 model for feature extraction, Network Component Analysis (NCA) method to select most significant features, Classification with SVM classifier-F1-scores:
Hot-Spot: 88.05%
Multiple Cells Hot-spot: 84.27%
Cracks: 91.40%
Active bypass diode: 97.51%
Diodes: 95.04%
Thin film hot-spot: 84.45%
Multiple film hot-spots: 85.89%
Offline module: 90.93%
Shadowing: 91.01%
Soiling: 82.17%
Vegetation: 89.30%
No anomaly: 97.85%
[162]EL Imaging 3629 images, 2129 defective and 1500 non-defective:
Training: 847 defective images and 452 non-defective images
-Bidirectional Attention Feature Pyramid Network (BAFPN), Multi-head Cosine Non-local Attention Module,
Embedding of BAFPN into Region Proposal Network (RPN) in Faster RCNN+FPN
-Classification:
F-score: 98.70%
Detection:
mAP: 88.7%
[163]IR Thermography and RGB Imaging240 panel images:
80% for Training, 20% for Testing
Region proposal by Maximally Stable Extremal Regions (MSER) + filtering by sizeSegmentation by binary thresholding-Accuracy:
Hot spot: 97%
[164]IR Thermography 1171 panel images with hot spots
(Images from UAV)
Edge extraction by Hough transform + postprocessingSegmentation by binary thresholdingF-score: 69%Hot Spot
F-score: 59.0%
[23]IR Thermography and RGB Imaging34 visual and 34 IR images
(Images from UAV)
From visual images, module recognition, mosaicking, numbering and countingFrom IR images, image filtering and elaboration, defect identification--
[165]IR Thermographypanel images with one anomaly class
(Images from UAV)
Template matchingTemplate matchingF-score: 83.0%Hot Spot
F-score: 75.0%
[166]IR Thermography 100 thermal images: Training 80%, Testing 20%
(Images from UAV)
Rectangle extraction by adaptive thresholding + SVM classifier on texture features-F-score: 98.9%-
[167]IR Thermography 798 panel images, with 398 images of 4 class anomalies and 400 non-defective images:
Training 80%, Testing 20%
-Defect classification: SIFT feature extraction + RF classifier, VGG16 and MobileNet-Accuracy:
Feature-based: up to 91.2%
DL models: up to 89.5%
[168]IR Thermography 235 panel images: Training 92%, Testing 8%
(Images from UAV)
DL semantic segmentation (ResNet-34+U-Net)-F-score: 97.11%-
[169]IR Thermography Dataset of frames of videos recorded in grayscale
(Images from UAV)
-Segmentation by VGG-16 based DL model-Hot spot, disconnections (strings and substrings)
[170]IR Thermography 3336 thermal images, with 811 of damaged and 2525 of normal PV cells: 80% Training, 20% Testing
(Images from UAV)
-DCNN (training by VGG-16) of entire video frame-2 classes: defective (e.g., hot spot), normal
mean F1-score: up to 69.0%
[171]Near-infrared EL imagePVEL-AD-2021 benchmark dataset-Partial Convolution and Switchable Atrous Convolution YOLOv7-Precision: 88.3%
[172]RGB imagingSolar panel soiling image dataset of 45,469 images-Vision transformer (ViT)-Accuracy: 97%
[173]EL imagingTraining with 2018 images of bright and 101,376 of non-bright hot spots patches-Feature extraction and generative adversarial networks (GANs)-F1-score: 93%
[174]RGB imaging4500 PV defect datasets including cracks, broken grids, black cores, thick lines and hot spot-Faster-RCNN and YOLOv5-mAP:
Faster-RCNN: 92.6%
YOLOv5q 91.4%
[175]EL imagingPVEL-AD dataset-YOLOv4 with an improved Convolutional Block Attention Module (YOLO-iCBAM)-F1-score: 71.6%
mAP: 74.8%
[176]EL imaging593 cell images, 80,000 images-C2f module in YOLOv8 to replace the C3 module in the backbone network-mAP: 67.5%
[177]IR Thermography Thermal camera mounted on a UAV
(Images from UAV)
-Image processing: contour defining, color/pixel selection-Accuracy: 75%
[178]RGB imaging2624 grayscale images of solar cells of two classes-Decision Tree, SVM, KNN,
Ensemble and Discriminant
-Accuracy: up to 98.34% with Ensemble
[179]EL imagingGlobal public dataset of EL images of Hebei and Beijing University (80–20 split)-YOLOv8-Average precision: 90.5%
[180]IR Thermography Database from a solar power plant of 42,048 modules
(Images from UAV)
-Mask R-CNN-mAP: 72.1%
[181]EL imaging584 of normal (300 × 300) and 197 images of abnormal solar cells GAN and auto-encoder (AE) Accuracy: 90%
Table 6. Evaluation summary of PV fault detection methodologies (Performance color code: red for performances 0–30%, yellow for 30–70%, green for 70–100%, gray for no numerical performance reported). Shading anomalies are marked in blue font.
Table 6. Evaluation summary of PV fault detection methodologies (Performance color code: red for performances 0–30%, yellow for 30–70%, green for 70–100%, gray for no numerical performance reported). Shading anomalies are marked in blue font.
Ref.Hot spotsCracksGlass
Breakage
ScratchesDelaminationDiscolorationCorrosionConnection
Faults
Short CircuitPID Ground
Faults
Diode FaultsBurn MarksInactive CellsDustSnail TrailsBird PoopSnowPamel
Detection
UAV
Inspection
Rank
[109] XX X X XX XX XXXXX5
[105] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[114]X XXXXXXXXXXX X XX
[100] XX XX XXXXXXXXXX
[150] XXXXXXXXX X XXXX
[151] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[152] XXXXXX X XXXX 1
[153]X XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX
[108]X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[154] XXX XX XXXXX X X 3
[155]XX X XXXXXX XXX2
[156]X XXXX XXXXX XXXX X
[157] X XXX XXXX XXXXXX
[117]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[158]XX X XXXXX XX XXX4
[159]X XXXX XXXX XXXXXX
[160]X XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX
[161] XXXXXXXX X XXXXX
[162] XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[163] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[164] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[23] XXXX XXXXXXX XX
[165] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[166]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[168]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[169] XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
[170] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[171] XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[172] XXXXXXXXXXXX X XX
[173] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[174] X XXXXXX XXXXXXX
[175] XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[176] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[177]X XXXXX X XX XXXX
[178]X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[179]X XX XX XX XXXXXXX
[180] XXXXXX XXX XXXXX
[181] XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Polymeropoulos, I.; Bezyrgiannidis, S.; Vrochidou, E.; Papakostas, G.A. Enhancing Solar Plant Efficiency: A Review of Vision-Based Monitoring and Fault Detection Techniques. Technologies 2024, 12, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12100175

AMA Style

Polymeropoulos I, Bezyrgiannidis S, Vrochidou E, Papakostas GA. Enhancing Solar Plant Efficiency: A Review of Vision-Based Monitoring and Fault Detection Techniques. Technologies. 2024; 12(10):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12100175

Chicago/Turabian Style

Polymeropoulos, Ioannis, Stavros Bezyrgiannidis, Eleni Vrochidou, and George A. Papakostas. 2024. "Enhancing Solar Plant Efficiency: A Review of Vision-Based Monitoring and Fault Detection Techniques" Technologies 12, no. 10: 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12100175

APA Style

Polymeropoulos, I., Bezyrgiannidis, S., Vrochidou, E., & Papakostas, G. A. (2024). Enhancing Solar Plant Efficiency: A Review of Vision-Based Monitoring and Fault Detection Techniques. Technologies, 12(10), 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12100175

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop