Index TermsPhotovoltaic arrays, line-line fault, fault

location, fault impedance, maximum power point tracking

(MPPT), overcurrent protection device (OCPD), PV fuse,
blocking diode.


Abstract Fault analysis in solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays is
a fundamental task to protect PV modules from damage and to
eliminate risks of safety hazards. This paper focuses on line-line
faults in PV arrays that may be caused by short-circuit faults or
double ground faults. The effect on fault current from a
maximum power point tracking (MPPT) of a PV inverter is
discussed and shown to, at times, prevent overcurrent protection
devices (OCPD) to operate properly. Furthermore, fault
behavior of PV arrays is highly related to the fault location,
fault impedance, irradiance level, and use of blocking diodes.
Particularly, this paper examines the challenges to OCPD in a
PV array brought by unique faults: One is a fault that occurs
under low irradiance conditions; the other is a fault that occurs
at night and evolves during night-to-day transition. In both
circumstances, the faults might remain hidden in the PV system,
no matter how irradiance changes afterwards. These unique
faults may subsequently lead to unexpected safety hazards,
reduced system efficiency and reduced reliability. A small-scale
experimental PV system has been developed to further validate
the conclusions.

I. INTRODUCTION
AULT analysis in solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays is a
fundamental task to increase system reliability, efficiency
and safety. Without proper protection, faults in PV systems
may damage PV modules and/or cables, as well as lead to DC
arcing hazards and even fire risks. For example, a multi-point
ground fault caused a fire hazard in a power plant in
Bakersfield, California [1]. In another instance, a fire hazard

Manuscript received January 5, 2012; revised April 14, 2012; accepted May
25, 2012.
1
This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science
Foundation under Grant 0901439.
Copyright 2009 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However,
permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the
IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
Y. Zhao and B. Lehman are with Northeastern University, Boston, MA
02115 USA (e-mail: zhao.ye@husky.neu.edu; lehman@ece.neu.edu).
J.F. de Palma, J. Mosesian and R. Lyons are with Mersen USA Newburyport-
MA, LLC, Newburyport, MA, 01950 USA (e-mail: jean-
francois.depalma@mersen.com; jerry.mosesian@mersen.com; robert.lyons@
mersen.com).

was caused by line-line faults in PV arrays in a large PV
power plant in California [2]. In addition to fire hazards,
faults in PV arrays may cause a large amount of energy loss.
For instance, in UK domestic PV systems, the annual energy
loss due to faults in PV systems is estimated to be up to
18.9% [3]. Motivated by these lessons, it has recently been
discovered that [4][7]: 1) There still exist some unknown
blind spots in PV protection schemes that need special
consideration; 2) PV arrays are distinctive from traditional
power sources and have unique fault scenarios. According to
location, fault analysis approaches for PV system can be
categorized into three parts: faults on PV arrays [3][14],
failure within power conditioning unit [15][20], and
abnormality on utility grid [21][23].
This paper focuses on fault scenarios on PV arrays, which
differ from other power sources. Similar to overcurrent
protection in power systems [24], fuses are usually added to
protect PV components from faults. This strictly follows
electrical codes like National Electrical Code (NEC) or
European IEC standard [25], [26]. But these overcurrent
protection devices (OCPD) are only able to clear faults and
isolate faulty circuits if they carry a large fault current [27],
[28]. However, this research paper shows that faults in PV
arrays may not be cleared by OCPD under some fault
scenarios, due to the current-limiting nature and non-linear
output characteristics of PV arrays. This leads to similar fire
and DC arcing hazards previously reported [1], [2].
Long-term performance data of PV systems has been
collected and categorized in various types of faults [3].
However, [3] only focuses on the annual energy losses rather
than detailed fault scenarios analysis. The study in [8]
summarizes the principal causes of failure in terrestrial PV
modules, such as open-circuit faults caused by cracked solar
cells and solder joint failure, short-circuit faults between cells
to ground, and local intense heating due to reverse-bias cells.
The I-V curve analysis in [9] is used to evaluate the overall
performance of the faulted PV array under typical faults,
instead of interconnections among PV modules/strings. The
DC arc fault detection in solar PV arrays has been developed
in [10]. But it does not discuss the line-line faults between
adjacent PV strings. The research in [11][14] shows that
mismatch on PV arrays caused by degradation and partial
shadings may lead to power losses and hot spots. To solve this
Line-Line Fault Analysis and Protection
Challenges in Solar Photovoltaic Arrays
Ye Zhao, Student Member, IEEE, Jean-Franois de Palma, Member, IEEE, Jerry Mosesian, Member, IEEE,
Robert Lyons, Member, IEEE, and Brad Lehman
1
, Senior Member, IEEE
F

problem, reconfiguration of PV modules by means of a
controllable switching matrix might be integrated with PV
arrays to minimize the fault hazards [29], [30]. Besides faults
on PV arrays, PV inverter failures including efficiency and
reliability of maximum power point tracking (MPPT) are
studied in [15][20]. For faults on the utility side, anti-
islanding protection has become an important function for PV
inverters [21][23].
This paper differs from the previous research in that we
consider the fault characteristics of fault location, fault
impedance, the influence of the MPPT, the effects of
irradiance conditions, and use of blocking diodes. Almost all
previous work considered faults in PV arrays as: 1) Stand-
alone systems without inverters; 2) Under high fault currents.
However, as this research discovers, line-line faults with
small-mismatched fault location might lead to small,
undetectable fault current. This paper also shows that, similar
to traditional power systems [31], high-impedance fault may
be difficult to detect in solar PV arrays. Furthermore,
irradiance conditions have great impact on fault scenarios in
solar PV arrays: some of the most dangerous faults in a PV
system may occur in low irradiance (or evening) conditions
because the MPPT may prevent the OCPD from clearing the
fault. Thus, the fault can remain hidden in the PV system,
keeping all the dangers associated with it.
Adding a blocking diode on each PV string might be a
solution to these unique fault scenarios. We show that
blocking diodes could cut off the backfed current at fault and
increase the maximum output power (P
mp
) of the faulted
array. However, blocking diodes may cause the OCPD to lose
proper fault interruption, and often, they are a first point of
failure in a PV system [2], [32].
This paper focuses on fault analysis in a large PV array
with a grid-connected PV inverter. We show that fault current
evolution in PV arrays strongly depends on several aspects: 1)
Fault location and impedance, 2) MPPT of PV inverter, 3)
Irradiance level, and 4) Use of blocking diodes. Specifically,
research contributions of the paper include:
1) It is shown that faults in PV arrays with small-
mismatched fault locations and with high fault
impedance tend to have low fault current among PV
modules, making them difficult to detect.
2) The influence of the MPPT on fault current is explained.
The MPPT is designed to respond to environmental
changes on PV arrays. We show that the MPPT may keep
optimizing output power of a PV array (system) under
fault condition, as long as the faulted PV array can
maintain the PV inverters operating voltage. For this
reason, instead of remaining the same, the fault current
in the PV array may be greatly reduced by the MPPT,
preventing the OCPD from clearing the fault.
3) The effect of irradiance conditions on fault current is
explained. Two irradiance levels are studied in detail.
One is a fault that occurs under low irradiance
condition. The other is a fault that evolves under night-
to-day transition (evening-to-sunrise). Both fault
conditions are difficult to protect against and are unique
types of faults to PV systems that have not been studied
in the literature. We demonstrate that the minimum start-
up voltage of PV inverters has great impact on the peak
of the backfed current during night-to-day transition.
4) Use of blocking diodes and its challenges to OCPD are
discussed. Blocking diodes prevent backfed current into
the faulted string and may increase the energy yield
under line-line faults. However, the blocking diodes
prevent the proper fault interruption of the OCPD.
5) An experimental test-bed has been built in real working
conditions and used to verify the findings.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
introduces the fundamental background of PV systems,
especially on the PV arrays (DC side). Section III studies the
fault location and fault impedance of line-line faults. Section
IV gives detailed fault analysis of line-line faults under low
irradiance conditions. After that, the fault evolution during
night-to-day transition is presented in Section V. The use of
blocking diode and its challenges to OCPD are discussed in
Section VI. In Section VII, the simulation results and
conclusions are further supported experimentally with a (low
power) PV test system. Finally, conclusions are given in
Section VIII.

II. FUNDAMENTALS OF PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS
A. Typical Grid-connected PV Systems
A PV system contains one or more solar modules to
generate electricity from incident sunlight. PV systems are
generally classified into grid-connected and stand-alone
systems, in which the grid-connected system has more than
95% of the worldwide installed PV capacity by 2009 [33].
Among various configurations of grid-connected PV systems,
Utility
grid
Centralized inverter
I
sys
I2
V
sys
PV module
I1 In In-1
GFPD
+
_
Module 1
Module 2
Module m-1
Module m Series fuse for
overcurrent protection
String 1 String 2 String n-1 String n
OCPD
G
sys

Fig. 1. A typical grid-connected PV array with a centralized inverter

a large PV array with a centralized inverter is the most
dominant type and has widely used applications.
As shown in Fig. 1, a typical grid-connected PV system
consists of several major components, including the PV
modules as power sources, power conditioning unit (i.e. PV
inverter) integrated with MPPT algorithm, electrical
connection wirings, and protection devices, such as
overcurrent protection devices (OCPD) and ground fault
protection devices (GFPD).
PV technology is modular and scalable that can be built
incrementally to match growing electricity demands. To scale
up to a PV array, firstly solar cells are electrically connected
and encapsulated in an environmentally protective laminate
as a PV module. As the fundamental building block of PV
systems, m number of PV modules can be assembled in series
to build a PV string. Then, n number of PV strings can be in
parallel to create a PV array with mn PV modules [34].
Grounding is achieved by having a conductive connection
between an electrical circuit or equipment and the ground.
The general purpose of grounding is to minimize electrical
shock hazards, minimize fire hazards caused by faults, protect
equipment from faults and induced surges, and reduce the
electromagnetic interference effects [35]. There are two types
of grounding in PV systems. The first one is equipment
grounding. The second one is system grounding, which varies
from country to country. In the US, the PV system with
voltage over 50V should have system grounding [25], [36].
The system grounding point G
sys
is either inside the GFPD or
integrated within the PV inverter.
B. Protection Devices in PV Arrays
Two types of fault protection devices are usually required
in PV arrays in the US. One is the overcurrent protection
device (OCPD). The US National Electrical Code (NEC)
requires that a single OCPD (e.g., fuse) shall be used in
series-connected strings to protect PV modules and
conductors [25]. The rating current of OCPD (I
N
) shall be no
less than 156 percent of PV modules rated short-circuit
current (I
sc
) at standard test condition (STC, 1000W/m
2
,
25C, 1.5 Air Mass) [25]. Furthermore, fuses only melt
according to their current vs. melting time characteristics. For
instance, the minimum breaking capacity (I
min-break
) of fuses is
rated at 1.35I
N
, according to UL standard 2579-7 [37].
Therefore, I
min-break
of PV fuses must be larger than 2.1I
sc

(=1.35*1.56I
sc
). The other protection device is the ground
fault protection device (GFPD), which is required in
grounded PV systems (e.g., in the US). To provide fire hazard
prevention in PV systems, GFPD should be capable of ground
fault detection, fault current interruption, and fault indication
[25].
In addition, there are two types of diodes for PV arrays:
blocking diodes and bypass diodes. The protection challenge
to OCPD from blocking diodes is discussed in Section VI.
Bypass diode is beyond the scope of this paper, since it only
prevents solar cells/modules from overheating problems
under partial shading or cell failure [13], [38].
C. Faults in PV Arrays
Two types of faults inside PV arrays usually cause
overcurrent backfeeding into the faulted modules: line-line
faults and ground faults. This paper focuses only on line-line
faults. A line-line fault is an accidental short-circuiting
between two points in the array with different potentials.
Although line-line faults are not as common as ground faults
in PV systems, they are more difficult to detect and clear by
conventional protection devices. Therefore, they must be
protected against for safety reasons. The line-line fault could
be interpreted as a short-circuit fault in a grounded system or
a double ground-fault in an ungrounded system.

III. FAULT LOCATION AND FAULT IMPEDANCE OF LINE-LINE
FAULTS
Theoretically, line-line fault location is arbitrary and may
occur between any two points in the PV array. Four typical
fault locations are considered in Fig. 2. Furthermore, fault
impedance varying from 0 to 50 ohm on the fault path has
been studied.
We derive two general approaches that can be used for
fault analysis in PV arrays:
1) I-V curve analysis approach (steady-state analysis): With
the help of simulation models (introduced in the
Appendix), the current vs. voltage (I-V) curves can be
plotted for the PV array under certain fault conditions.
Therefore, given the arrays operating voltage, the fault
currents can be predicted in steady-state analysis.
2) Fault current evolution with MPPT effects (transient in
time domain): Transient, time-domain simulations are
required to understand the influence of the MPPT on a
fault. Most MPPTs are designed to respond fast under
unexpected power drop on PV arrays (usually caused by
changing irradiance). Thus, the MPPT may quickly
Utility
grid
Centralized inverter
I
sys
V
sys
PV module
GFPD
+
_
I
g
Series fuse for
overcurrent protection
String 1 String 2 String 9 String 10
#1
#2
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6 #3
#4
Pos.
Neg.
Iback
IF-string I2 I9 I10
Ifault

Fig. 2. Line-line faults with various locations in the PV array

reduce the backfed current before the OCPD can clear the
fault, leaving the hazardous fault in place. This is
explained below by analysis, time-domain simulations,
and experiments under real working conditions.

Using the developed PV numerical model [39], this paper
builds a large simulation PV system (17.6kW) in
MATLAB/Simulink that consists of 1010 PV modules that
is capable of studying faults among modules. The main
parameters of the PV modules for STC are as follows: the
maximum power P
mp
=176W, the number of series solar cells
per module N
s
=72, the open-circuit voltage V
oc
=44.4V, the
maximum power voltage V
mp
=35.7V, the short-circuit current
I
sc
=5.4A, the maximum power current I
mp
=4.95A and 3
bypass diodes per module. The MPPT (e.g., Perturb &
Observe, P&O) of the inverter is included for fault analysis in
PV arrays. The MPPT ranges from 220V (V
min
) to 500V
(V
max
). The minimum start-up voltage (V
start
) for the PV
inverter is 300V.
To fully understand the evolution of fault currents, the
OCPD is not included in the simulation so that the fault can
evolve without interruption. In the following fault analysis, it
is considered that PV array is the only source of fault current,
since most PV inverters provide galvanic isolation between
PV arrays and utility grids [40]. See the Appendix for
simulation details.
A. Fault Location of Line-line Faults at STC
At first, assume STC and zero fault impedance (R
fault
=0)
for PV simulations. Four typical fault locations have been
studied under line-line faults: 1) Between F1 and negative
conductor (F1-Neg), 2) Between F2 and negative conductor
(F2-Neg), 3) Between F3 and F4 (F3-F4), and 4) Between F5
and F6 (F5-F6). Line-line fault #1 is defined as 80%
location mismatch, since it involves 8-module mismatch
between the fault points in the faulted string (normally 10
modules per string). Similarly, line-line fault #2, #3, and #4
are defined as 60%, 40% and 20% location mismatches,
respectively. For example, the faulted string current (I
F-string
),
the backfed current (I
back
), and the fault current on the fault
path (I
fault
) for line-line fault #1 are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3 shows the transient I
F-string
under the aforementioned
fault locations. The vertical current axis of the plot is the
normalized faulted string current, I
F-string
/I
sc
, where I
sc
is
5.4A. The fault occurs at time t=t
1
. The open-circuit voltage
(V
oc-array
) and the maximum power voltage (V
mp-array
) of the
faulted array are annotated in Fig. 3 as well. If I
F-string

becomes negative after the fault, we call it the backfed current
(I
back
). The backfed current will flow along the fault path in
Fig. 2 (shown by arrows) as well through a corresponding
OCPD (e.g., fuse). Fig. 3 shows that: (a) When the open-
circuit voltage of the faulted array is smaller than V
min
of the
inverter, such as under 80% location mismatch (V
oc-
array
=143.2V), then the faulted array cannot sustain the
inverters operation. The inverter will shut down and the
whole PV array will enter open-circuit conditions. Therefore,
the other (n-1) normal PV strings will backfeed a constant
current (~I
sc
for each) into the faulted string; (b) Under 60%,
40%, and 20% location mismatches, the MPPT (e.g., P&O) of
the inverter is still working. Then |I
back
/I
sc
| is reduced by the
MPPT after the fault, and a new maximum power point
(MPP) will be reached for the faulted array; (c) Faults
involving 40% or more location mismatches have the peak of
|I
back
| larger than I
min-break
(=2.1I
sc
) of PV fuses. According to
the specific current vs. melting time characteristics, fuses may
have sufficient time to clear these faults [41]. However, 20%
location mismatch fault may not be cleared by fuses, since it
only has the peak of |I
back
| as 0.074I
sc
, which is much smaller
than I
min-break
; (d) Notice that the MPPT converges slower
under "40% mismatch" fault than "60% mismatch" fault. The
reason is that the MPPT of "40% mismatch" has larger
voltage variations (V
array
). For "40% mismatch" fault, the
array voltage drops from pre-fault V
mp-array
=357V to post-fault
V
mp-array
=262V. Therefore, V
array
is 95V. But for "60%
mismatch" fault, the MPPT has V
oc-array
=68V. For the P&O
MPPT with similar perturbation step size, the convergence
time will increase as V
oc-array
increases [42].

Fig. 3. Normalized faulted string current of various fault locations (Rfault=0)

Fig. 4. Transient peaks of |Iback/Isc| under various fault locations and fault
impedances

B. Fault Impedance of Line-line Faults at STC
The fault path may consist of impedances resulting from
poor contact and DC arcs. Fault impedances ranging from 0
to 50 ohm have been considered under the same line-line
faults shown previously. The simulated transient peaks of
|I
back
/I
sc
| under STC are summarized in Fig. 4. It is shown that
the transient peak of |I
back
| decreases as R
fault
increases. In
some cases, |I
back
| becomes less than I
min-break
(=2.1I
sc
) so that
the fault may remain uncleared in PV arrays. Furthermore, in
our specific PV simulation, there could be no backfed current
into the faulted string, and the faulted string current remains
positive. For example, this occurs under certain conditions,
such as 20% location mismatch with R
fault
= 1 to 50 ohm, or
40% and 60% location mismatch with R
fault
= 50 ohm.
C. Discussion
The peak of |I
back
| into the faulted string would be
approximately (n-1)*I
sc
, coming from the other (n-1) number
of normally operating strings. This may occur under large
location mismatch as well as low fault impedance cases.
Under this circumstance, |I
back
| becomes much larger than the
minimum breaking capacity (I
min-break
) of PV fuses.
Consequently, the fault will be easily cleared by OCPD of the
faulted PV string.
It is a common mistake to assume that |I
back
| of the faulted
string is always as high as (n-1)*I
sc
(even under high
irradiance). This section has shown that the MPPT of the
inverter, fault location, and fault impedance all influence the
reduction of |I
back
| to become below the I
min-break
of PV fuses.
Moreover, the uncleared fault might bring potential safety
hazards to PV systems, even though |I
back
| is small. For
example, I
back
in the PV array could sustain the DC arcs on
the fault path and bring fire hazards.

IV. LINE-LINE FAULTS UNDER LOW IRRADIANCE
For an example, a line-line fault with 40% location
mismatch and zero fault impedance between two strings (line-
line #3 in Fig. 2) is studied in this section under low
irradiance. During this specific fault, the maximum of |I
back
|
depends on environmental factors irradiance and
temperature. Experimentally measured irradiance data (see
Fig. 5) with one-minute resolution is used as input for the
simulated PV system (cloudy day, Eugene, Oregon [43]). The
operating temperature (in simulation) of the PV modules is
assumed as 25C during the fault. Therefore, the peak of |I
back
|
varies with irradiance level only.
A. MPPT Affects on Line-Line Faults (Steady State)
The I-V curve of the fault under low irradiance (at
230W/m
2
) is plotted in Fig. 6. Once again, the vertical axis is
normalized PV current, I/I
sc
, where I
sc
is 5.4A. Before the
fault occurs, the PV array is operating at its first maximum
power point MPP1. At the moment of the fault, the I-V curve
of the array is changed suddenly with a reduced open-circuit
voltage (V
oc-array
) and a new maximum power point MPP2.
Because V
oc-array
is the maximum voltage that the faulted
array can maintain, the array voltage (V
sys
) drops to V
oc-array

with zero output current/power. In other words, the array

Fig. 7. I-V curves under a line-line fault under varying irradiance

Fig. 6. Simulated I-V curves under a line-line fault at low irradiance

Fig. 5. Irradiance level during a cloudy day

becomes open-circuit immediately after the fault. Since V
sys
is
large enough to sustain the inverters operation, the MPPT of
the inverter will still work. After the fault, the MPPT will
detect the sudden power drop of the PV array and begin to
optimize the arrays output. As a result, the operating voltage
of the array (V
sys
) will be reduced to increase output power.
Eventually, the optimal working point will be found at MPP2.
In addition, I
back
of the faulted string can be easily
predicted by the I-V curves (see Fig. 6). At the moment of the
fault, the array is at open-circuit condition with zero output
current (I
sys
=0). However, currents from unfaulted PV strings
have no path to flow but to backfeed into the most faulted
string (String #2 in this case). Therefore, I
back
reaches its
magnitude maximum, flowing reversely into String #2 (I
back
=
-1.9I
sc
). Instead of a power source, String #2 consumes power
as a load. The fault will not be cleared, since the peak of |I
back
|
is smaller than the minimum breaking capacity of the OCPD
(I
min-break
= 2.1I
sc
).
After that, the MPPT keeps optimizing the arrays output
power and reduces V
sys
until it becomes smaller than the
open-circuit voltage of the faulted String #2 (V
oc-string
). The
current of String #2 then becomes positive and generates
power again. Finally, the current of String #2 becomes
0.08I
sc
, when the array reaches its operating point MPP2.
Suppose that after the fault and PVs recovery to the new
MPP2, the irradiance begins to increase. Even in this case,
the faulted current remains below I
min-break
. Different I-V
curves are plotted under irradiance 230W/m
2
, 300W/m
2
,
600W/m
2
, 800W/m
2
, and 1000W/m
2
for illustration purposes
(in Fig. 7). MPP2, MPP3, MPP4, MPP5 and MPP6 are their
maximum power points, respectively. Assuming the PV array
will work along the MPPs of different I-V curves for this
range of irradiance, the current in String #2 is always clipped
less than 0.4I
sc
in simulation by the MPPT and is not large
enough to melt the OCPDs.
B. Fault Evolution under Low Irradiance
We assume the fault occurs in the morning at the time,
when the irradiance level is 230W/m
2
in Fig. 5. Notice that
the irradiance data varies significantly throughout the day,
which is a good test for fault protection schemes on the PV
system with MPPT.
The normalized array current (I
sys
/I
sc
) and faulted string
current (I
F-string
/I
sc
) under low irradiance are illustrated in Fig.
8. At t=t
1
, as previously predicted, I
back
reaches its negative
peak (-1.9I
sc
). After t=t
1
, the MPPT of the inverter identifies
the sudden drop of the arrays output power and begins to
look for a new MPP. The MPPT reduces the array voltage as
well as |I
back
|, in order to minimize the power consumed by
String #2. After t=t
2
, the MPPT begins to respond and reduce
I
back
to zero at t=t
3
. Finally, the current of String #2 is held to
a small value (<0.4I
sc
) by the MPPT at post-fault state, no
matter how the irradiance changes afterwards.
C. Discussion
In order to understand the low irradiance fault scenario,
it is helpful to compare with the same fault that occurs under
high irradiance condition, which is already given in Fig. 3.
Under high irradiance 1000W/m
2
, |I
back
| of 40% location
mismatch has its peak 4.56I
sc
in the simulation. If it lasts
longer than the fuses melting time, the fault can be cleared
by the fuse according to its current vs. melting time
characteristics. On the other hand, under low irradiance
230W/m
2
, |I
back
| only has its peak 1.9I
sc
, which is smaller
than the minimum breaking current of fuses (2.1I
sc
).
Therefore, the same line-line fault has a much larger chance
to be cleared under high irradiance than low irradiance.
More importantly, it may be incorrect to assume that the
fault can be cleared later in the day when irradiance becomes
higher (see changing irradiance in Fig. 5). The reason for that
is the MPPT control loop (P&O) responds faster than
changing irradiance conditions. The MPPT will keep the
system operating around a new optimal power point with
small |I
back
|. Therefore, after the fault, no matter how
irradiance changes, the line-line fault will remain hidden
throughout the day and likely will remain hidden forever.
This is a severe safety hazard and will substantially reduce
PV output power.

V. LINE-LINE FAULTS DURING NIGHT-TO-DAY TRANSITION
If the same line-line fault occurs at night with no solar
irradiance, the fault current evolves during night-to-day
transition and behaves distinctively. Specifically, suppose the
same fault as we discussed in previous section (line-line fault
#3 in Fig. 2) happens in the PV array at night when there is
no solar irradiance. During sunrise, the irradiance on the PV
array (see Fig. 5) increases slowly, as does the PV array
voltage. As long as the PV array voltage reaches the
minimum start-up voltage of inverter (V
start
), the PV inverter
and its MPPT begin to work. Then the PV system begins to
feed energy to the utility grid. The MPPT will respond Fig. 8. Fault evolution under low irradiance

quicker than the relatively slow irradiance changes, which
causes the system to operate at a lower power operation point.
Consequently, instead of causing large overcurrent, the
faulted PV array during night-to-day transition might lead to
a smaller fault current, which is difficult to detect with
conventional OCPD. On the other hand, if the same fault
occurred in daytime, it would have been detected.
A. MPPT Affects on Line-Line Faults (Steady State)
The I-V curve of the fault during night-to-day transition is
plotted in Fig. 9. When the fault occurs at night, there is no
fault current since the irradiance is zero. Meanwhile, the
configuration of the PV array is changed, resulting in a
reduced open-circuit voltage (V
oc-array
) and a new MPP. In this
particular case, before the irradiance level reaches 205W/m
2

in the simulation example, the MPPT of the inverter has not
started to work because the array voltage is below V
start

(=300V) of the inverter. Therefore, the PV array is working at
open-circuit condition. Meanwhile, the current from other
normal strings have no path to go but to backfeed into the
most faulted string (i.e. String #2). Thus, |I
back
| becomes
larger as the irradiance increases.
When the irradiance approaches 205W/m
2
, |I
back
| reaches
its maximum (1.7I
sc
). However, it is not high enough to melt
the fuse protection (I
min-break
is at least 2.1 I
sc
). When the
irradiance reaches 205W/m
2
, the PV system voltage reaches
V
start
and the MPPT of the PV inverter starts to work. The
simulated I-V curves as the PV inverter starts are shown in
Fig. 9. The MPPT of the inverter moves the operating point
from the open-circuit condition to MPP2. At the same time,
|I
back
| is significantly reduced by the MPPT. Therefore, the
fault cannot be detected or cleared by OCPD during sunrise.
As time evolves and irradiance increases, the MPPT responds
fast enough to move the array's operating point to work at
corresponding MPPs (similar to fault evolution after the fault
occurs under low irradiance in Section IV). Therefore, |I
back
|
never becomes high enough to melt the OCPD.
B. Fault Evolution during Night-to-Day Transition
Sunrise Night-to-Day Transition (turning inverter on)
The fault evolution in time domain is simulated during
night-to-day transition (see Fig. 10). During sunrise with
the irradiance increasing (T
1
<t<T
2
), |I
back
| is increasing with
irradiance as well. When V
sys
reaches V
start
of the inverter (at
t=T
2
), the inverter starts, and I
back
may drop to its negative
peak (~1.7I
sc
). Clearly, it is shown that the maximum of |I
back
|
is dependent on V
start
. For instance, higher V
start
of the
inverter may lead to larger peak of |I
back
|. Meanwhile, the
MPPT of the inverter starts to transition the PV array to work
at its MPP and keeps |I
back
| small for the varying irradiance.
During the changing irradiance throughout the day (T
2
<t<T
3
),
notice that |I
back
| never reaches a high enough magnitude to
melt the OCPD, and therefore, the fault remains undetected
during night-to-day transition.

Sunset Day-to-Night Transition (turning inverter off)
Fig. 10 also contains fault evolution during sunset. The
PV inverter shuts down at t=T
3
, when the irradiance and
array voltage are too low to maintain the PV inverter. Then
the PV array becomes the open-circuit condition. Since the
MPPT is not working anymore, other normal strings will
backfed current into String #2 and |I
back
| increases again
(~0.77I
sc
). But |I
back
| is not large enough to melt the OCPD.
As the irradiance decreases to zero (at t=T
4
), |I
back
| becomes
smaller until zero.
C. Discussion
The line-line fault with 40% location mismatch has
significantly reduced |I
back
| during night-to-day transition. If
the same fault occurs under high irradiance, the maximum of
|I
back
| may rise above the requested 2.1I
sc
for the OCPD to
melt (in the US). Also, |I
back
| never reaches a high value at
sunset during day-to-night transition. Similar to low
irradiance fault, night-to-day fault can also bring

Fig. 9. Simulated I-V curves when inverter starts during night-to-day
transition

Fig. 10. Simulated current evolution during night-to-day transition

protection challenges to OCPD and may remain hidden in the
PV array, until the entire system fails.

VI. BLOCKING DIODES IN PV ARRAYS
This section focuses on the challenges to OCPD brought
by the use of blocking diodes in the PV arrays. Blocking
diodes only permit the current flowing in one direction. For
the PV system shown in Fig. 11, blocking diodes may be
mounted on the top of each PV string to prevent the reverse
current into the PV strings. However, as shown below,
blocking diodes may stop OCPD from working properly
under faults.
A. Line-Line Faults with Blocking Diodes
The previously discussed line-line faults with 80%, 60%,
40%, and 20% location mismatch (representing line-line
faults #1, #2, #3, and #4, respectively) are studied with the
use of blocking diodes at STC. The simulations of faulted
string current in Fig. 12(a) and Fig. 12(b) show that the
backfed current is totally blocked by the diodes after the fault
occurs. Therefore, the OCPD does not have the chance to
detect the overcurrent. Notice that 80%, 60% and 40%
location mismatch have similar waveforms, since they have
identical PV array configuration after the faulted string is
isolated by the blocking diode. Note that the voltage drop of
forward-bias diodes is assumed as 0.7V.
B. Discussion
To better compare the blocking diode and the OCPD, the
maximum output power (P
mp
at STC) of the PV array under
various faults is summarized in Table I. Specifically, (a) If
there are no blocking diodes, as discussed in Section III, the
OCPD on the faulted string has a good chance to clear the
large backfed current properly. But the OCPD may fail to
interrupt the small backfed current under unique faults,
resulting in lower power operating points; (b) If both blocking
diodes and OCPD are installed in the PV array as in Fig. 11,
the backfed current is cut off by the diodes at the expense of
losing the proper fault protection of OCPD. However, as
Table I shows, blocking diodes may increase the output power
of the faulted array, since the power losses due to reverse
current on the faulted string is blocked; (c) The power loss on
blocking diodes is relatively small (~0.17% of P
mp
in our
simulations) and may be neglected.
Although blocking diodes are sometimes installed in PV
arrays, they are not required by NEC in the US [23] and are

Fig. 12. Normalized faulted string current with blocking diodes
TABLE I
MAXIMUM OUTPUT POWER OF THE PV ARRAY UNDER VARIOUS FAULTS
Protection
devices
No
fault
Line-
line
#1
Line-
line
#2
Line-
line
#3
Line-
line #3
under
unique
faults
a

Line-
line
#4
OCPD only
17.68
kW
15.9
kW
15.9
kW
16.01
kW
12.78
kW
16.42
kW
Can fault be
cleared by
OCPD?
N/A Yes Yes Yes No No
OCPD and
blocking
diode
17.65
kW
15.87
kW
15.87
kW
15.97
kW
15.97
kW
16.35
kW
Can fault be
cleared by
OCPD?
N/A No No No No No
a
Unique faults include faults at "low irradiance" condition and "night-to-
day" transition.
Utility
grid
Centralized inverter
I
sys
V
sys
PV module
GFPD
+
_
Series fuse for
overcurrent protection
String 1 String 2 String 9 String 10
Gsys
#1
#2
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6 #3
#4
Pos.
Neg.
Iback=0
IF-string I2 I9 I10
Ifault
Blocking diode

Fig. 11. Line-line faults with blocking diodes in the PV array

Fig. 13. Photograph of the experimental PV system

not permitted to be used as substitutes for OCPD [7]. This is
likely due to their documented reliability failures in PV
systems where they are often reported to be the first point of
failure [2], [32]. However, as Table I indicates, they provide
benefits to increased power production in PV faults at "low
irradiance" conditions and "night-to-day" transition.

VII. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
A. Experimental Setup
A small-scale test PV system (shown in Fig. 13) that is able
to create and record PV faults has been established to verify
our previous simulation results. Fig. 14 illustrates the PV
system by 26 modules in series-parallel configuration. Each
module has V
oc
=21.4V and I
sc
=0.58A. For its MPP at STC,
each module has V
mp
=15.8V, I
mp
=0.48A, and P
mp
=7.5W. The
whole array has V
oc-array
= 42.8V. The series OCPD (i.e. fuse)
is rated at 1A. The PV inverter uses a two-stage topology with
a flyback converter. The MPPT (P&O) has the voltage range
from 22V to 40V, and V
start
=28V.

B. Experimental Verification of Low Irradiance Fault
As shown in Fig. 14, a line-line fault occurs at String #1
under low irradiance. The experimental result of the fault is
given in Fig. 15, in which the time base is 1s/div, upper trace
is 20V/div for voltage V
sys
, and lower trace is 0.5A/div for
current I
1
. At t=t
1
the line-line fault occurs. The backfed
current (I
back
) into the faulted string has a small negative peak
(-0.86I
sc
) that cannot melt the OCPD. After that, the MPPT
responds fast enough to make the PV array work at its
optimum output point by reducing V
sys
. After t=t
2
, the MPPT
keeps I
back
small (-0.25I
sc
) below the minimum breaking
current of fuses (2.1I
sc
). In comparison with high
irradiance, the negative peak value of I
back
of the same fault
is -2.43I
sc
[4]. Therefore, as predicted in the simulation
results, the negative peak of I
back
is greatly reduced under low
irradiance, and it will never melt the OCPD. Even when high
irradiance occurs later in the day, the MPPT still restricts I
back

within a small value that is not high enough to melt the
OCPD.

C. Experimental Verification of Night-to-Day Transition
Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 illustrate the fault current evolution in
the PV array during night-to-day transition experiments.
Similar to our simulation results, Fig. 16 shows that the
magnitude of the backfed current (|I
back
|) into the faulted
string is increasing with irradiance during sunrise (T
1
<t<T
2
).
At t=T
2
, I
back
has a negative peak -1.3I
sc
when array voltage
reaches V
start
(=28V) of the inverter. After that, I
back
is clipped

Fig. 15. Experiments: Vsys and I1 at line-line fault under low irradiance

Fig. 16. Experiments: I/Isc in PV array during night-to-day transition

Fig. 17. Experiments: I/Isc in PV array during sunset
Line-line fault
Ifault F1
F2
Iback
Utility
grid
Centralized inverter
I
sys
I2
V
sys
I1 I6 I5
GFPD
+
-
Series fuse for
overcurrent protection
String 1 String 2 String 5 String 6
PV module

Fig. 14. The experimental PV system under line-line fault

between -0.34I
sc
to 0 by the MPPT of the inverter. Therefore,
|I
back
| during night-to-day transition is greatly reduced and
will not be high enough to melt the fuse protection (I
min-
break
=2.1I
sc
). During the sunset in Fig. 17, as our previous
analysis and simulation results predict, |I
back
| is not large
enough to melt the OCPD.

D. Experiments of Blocking Diodes under Line-line Faults
The same line-line fault is implemented in the
experimental PV system with blocking diodes. As shown in
Fig. 18, when the fault occurs under low irradiance at t=t
1
,
the backfed current into faulted String #1 is totally blocked by
the diode in series with String #1. As a result, the OCPD on
String #1 will never detect the backfed current. Furthermore,
by adding the blocking diode, Fig. 19 and Fig. 20 show that
the maximum output power of the array (at post-fault steady
state) is increased by 14.3% (P
mp
increases from 21W to
24W).

VIII. CONCLUSIONS
This paper explains the theory and fault evolution of line-
line faults in PV arrays, simulates the results, discusses the
protection challenges to overcurrent protection devices
(OCPD, e.g., fuse), and then verifies the results by a small-
scale experimental PV system. The simulation and
experimental results both show that the backfed current (I
back
)
into the faulted string may become so small that it cannot be
cleared by the OCPD. This may occur under the following
fault scenarios: small location mismatch fault, high-
impedance fault, low irradiance fault, night-to-day
transition fault, and when blocking diodes are being used.
Furthermore, this research demonstrates that the MPPT of the
PV inverter might still work after the fault occurs. This might
make |I
back
| even more difficult to clear. This paper also
discusses the challenges to OCPD brought by blocking
diodes: the OCPD on the faulted string may not detect or
clear the fault.
Although this research utilized P&O MPPT in simulations
and experiments, other local perturbation types of MPPT
(optimized P&O [18] or incremental conductance [19]) will
also lead to similar conclusions on OCPD. These types of
MPPTs will adjust the faulted PV array to the same, new,
post-fault MPP (assuming a single MPP, as in this paper).
Therefore, no matter which local perturbation MPPT method
is used, the post-fault backfed current is the same, leading to
the same effects and conclusions on the OCPD. However, our
future research will investigate the influence of the response
speed of the MPPT on the OCPD. To melt the OCPD (e.g.,
fuse), the backfed current is required to have a magnitude at
least 2.1I
sc
for a minimum lasting time. If the MPPT
converges faster than the OCPD can clear the fault, this may
lead to more challenges.
In summary, the dangers of uncleared faults are apparent:
The point of fault along the fault path may have large contact
resistance and may lead to overheating, arcing problems, or
even fire hazards. Also, the faults often lead to reduced MPP
of the whole array and power loss at the faulted string. As a
result, the hidden fault might become a potential hazard for
system reliability and efficiency.

Fig. 18. Experiments: Vsys and I1 at line-line fault in the PV system with
blocking diodes

Fig. 19. Experiments: line-line fault with blocking diode

Fig. 20. Experiments: the line-line fault without blocking diode

APPENDIX
A. Modeling and Simulation of PV modules
Several models for PV modules/arrays have been studied in
the literature [38], [39], [44][49]. However, some models are
not applicable for interconnection studies of PV modules in a
large PV array [44], [45]. A numerical simulation in [47]
adopts the Newton-Raphson method to solve the electrical
solutions for every electrical component in PV array. But
sometimes this method has convergence problems under PV
fault scenarios because the configuration of PV array is
greatly changed due to faults.
The one-diode model is used in this paper to model and
simulate PV modules [39], [48]. The equivalent circuit and
numerical model of the one-diode model are given in Fig.
21(a) and Fig. 21(b), respectively. The corresponding output
current equation is written in (1). Simulated in
MATLAB/Simulink, the PV module is able to take irradiance
and temperature as inputs. To build a PV array, a number of
simulation modules can be connected in series and parallel.
The PV current, I
pv
, in Fig. 21(a) is given as:

exp 1
pv pv s pv pv s
pv L S
S sh
V I R V I R
I I I q
AkT N R
( + + | |
=
( |

\ .
(1)

where I
pv
is the output current of PV module, I
L
is the light-
generate current, I
S
is the saturation current of the diode, V
pv

is the module voltage, R
s
is the equivalent series resistance of
module, R
sh
is the equivalent shunt resistance of module, A is
the diode ideal factor, q is the electron charge (1.610
-19
C), k
is the Boltzmann constant (1.3810
-23
J/K), T is the PV
module temperature (K), and N
s
is the number of series solar
cells in the module.

REFERENCES
[1] B. Brooks. (2011) The Bakersfield Fire - A Lesson in Ground-Fault
Protection. SolarPro Mag. pp. 62-70.
[2] D. E. Collier and T. S. Key, "Electrical fault protection for a large
photovoltaic power plant inverter," in Proc. 20th IEEE PVSC, 1988, pp.
1035-1042.
[3] S. K. Firth, K. J. Lomas, and S. J. Rees, "A simple model of PV system
performance and its use in fault detection," Solar Energy, vol. 84, pp. 624-
635, 2010.
[4] Y. Zhao, B. Lehman, J.F. de Palma, J. Mosesian, and R. Lyons, "Fault
evolution in photovoltaic array during night-to-day transition," in Proc.
IEEE COMPEL, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[5] Y. Zhao, B. Lehman, J.F. de Palma, J. Mosesian, and R. Lyons, "Fault
Analysis in Solar PV Arrays under: Low Irradiance Conditions and
Reverse Connections," in Proc. 37th IEEE PVSC, Seattle, WA, 2011.
[6] Y. Zhao, B. Lehman, J.F. de Palma, J. Mosesian, and R. Lyons,
"Challenges of Overcurrent Protection Devices in Photovoltaic Arrays
Brought by Maximum Power Point Tracker," in Proc. 37th IEEE PVSC,
Seattle, WA, 2011.
[7] Y. Zhao, B. Lehman, J.F. de Palma, J. Mosesian, and R. Lyons,
"Challenges to Overcurrent Protection Devices under Line-line Faults in
Solar Photovoltaic Arrays," in Proc. IEEE ECCE, Phoenix, AZ, 2011.
[8] S. E. Forman, "Performance of Experimental Terrestrial Photovoltaic
Modules," IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. R-31, pp. 235-245, 1982.
[9] D. Stellbogen, "Use of PV circuit simulation for fault detection in PV array
fields," in Proc. 23rd IEEE PVSC, 1993, pp. 1302-1307.
[10] H. Haeberlin, "Arc Detector for Remote Detection of Dangerous Arcs on
the DC Side of PV Plants," in 22nd EU PVSEC, Milano, Italy, 2007.
[11] F. Spertino and J. S. Akilimali, "Are Manufacturing I-V Mismatch and
Reverse Currents Key Factors in Large Photovoltaic Arrays?," IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, pp. 4520-4531, 2009.
[12] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, "Maximum Power Point Tracking Scheme for
PV Systems Operating Under Partially Shaded Conditions," IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 55, pp. 1689-1698, 2008.
[13] D. Nguyen and B. Lehman, "Modeling and Simulation of Solar PV Arrays
under Changing Illumination Conditions," in Proc. IEEE COMPEL, 2006,
pp. 295-299.
[14] E. L. Meyer and E. E. van Dyk, "Assessing the reliability and degradation
of photovoltaic module performance parameters," IEEE Trans. Rel., vol.
53, pp. 83-92, 2004.
[15] F. Chan and H. Calleja, "Reliability Estimation of Three Single-Phase
Topologies in Grid-Connected PV Systems," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, pp. 2683-2689, 2011.
[16] A. Ristow, M. Begovic, A. Pregelj, and A. Rohatgi, "Development of a
Methodology for Improving Photovoltaic Inverter Reliability," IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, pp. 2581-2592, 2008.
[17] J. Young-Hyok, et al., "A Real Maximum Power Point Tracking Method
for Mismatching Compensation in PV Array Under Partially Shaded
Conditions," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, pp. 1001-1009, 2011.
[18] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, "Optimization of
perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method," IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 20, pp. 963-973, 2005.
[19] M. Qiang, S. Mingwei, L. Liying, and J. M. Guerrero, "A Novel Improved
Variable Step-Size Incremental-Resistance MPPT Method for PV
Systems," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, pp. 2427-2434, 2011.
[20] S. V. Dhople, et al., "A Unified Approach to Reliability Assessment of
Multiphase DC-DC Converters in Photovoltaic Energy Conversion
Systems," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, pp. 739-751, 2012.
[21] Este, et al., "Performance Evaluation of Active Islanding-Detection
Algorithms in Distributed-Generation Photovoltaic Systems: Two Inverters
Case," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, pp. 1185-1193, 2011.
[22] G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, R. Teodorescu, M. Veerachary, and M. Vitelli,
"Reliability Issues in Photovoltaic Power Processing Systems," IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, pp. 2569-2580, 2008.
[23] Y. Byung-Gyu, M. Matsui, and Y. Gwon-Jong, "A Correlation-Based
Islanding-Detection Method Using Current-Magnitude Disturbance for PV
System," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, pp. 2935-2943, 2011.
[24] L. Kojovic and S. Hassler, "Application of current limiting fuses in
distribution systems for improved power quality and protection," IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 12, pp. 791-800, 1997.
[25] National Electrical Code, Article 690 - Solar Photovoltaic Systems, 2011.
[26] Electrical installations of buildings - Part 7-712: Requirements for
special installations or locations - Solar photovoltaic (PV) power supply
systems, IEC 60364-7-712 2002.
[27] J. C. Wiles and D. L. King, "Blocking diodes and fuses in low-voltage PV
systems," in Proc. 26th IEEE PVSC, 1997, pp. 1105-1108.
[28] W. Bower and J. Wiles, "Investigation of ground-fault protection devices
for photovoltaic power system applications," in Proc. 28th IEEE PVSC,
2000, pp. 1378-1383.
[29] G. Velasco-Quesada, F. Guinjoan-Gispert, R. Pique-Lopez, M. Roman-
Lumbreras, and A. Conesa-Roca, "Electrical PV Array Reconfiguration
Strategy for Energy Extraction Improvement in Grid-Connected PV
Systems," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, pp. 4319-4331, 2009.
ID Ish
ID
Vpv
Ipv
Ish
+
Rs
Rsh
IL-ID
Numerical Solution: IL-ID
Vpv
Ipv
Ish
+
Rs
Rsh
Diode
IL

(a) (b)
Fig. 21. The one-diode model for a PV module (a) the equivalent circuit, (b) the
numerical model

[30] D. Nguyen and B. Lehman, "An Adaptive Solar Photovoltaic Array Using
Model-Based Reconfiguration Algorithm," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 55, pp. 2644-2654, 2008.
[31] C. L. Benner and B. D. Russell, "Practical high-impedance fault detection
on distribution feeders," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 33, pp. 635-640,
1997.
[32] J. C. Schaefer, "Review of photovoltaic power plant performance and
economics," IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 5, pp. 232-238, 1990.
[33] IEA, "Trends in photovoltaic applications - Survey report of selected IEA
countries between 1992 and 2009," IEA, Rep. IEA-PVPS T1-19:2010,
2010.
[34] J. Wiles, "Photovoltaic Power Systems And the 2005 National Electrical
Code: Suggested Practices," Southwest Technology Development Institute,
Rep. Electronic version 1.91, 2010.
[35] IEA, "Utility aspects of grid connected photovoltaic power systems," IEA,
Rep. IEA-PVPS T5-01:1998, 1998.
[36] S. Jia-Min, J. Hurng-Liahng, and W. Jinn-Chang, "Novel Transformerless
Grid-Connected Power Converter With Negative Grounding for
Photovoltaic Generation System," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27,
pp. 1818-1829, 2012.
[37] Outline of investigation for low-voltage fuses - fuses for photovoltaic
systems, UL Subject 2579, 2010.
[38] L. F. L. Villa, D. Picault, B. Raison, S. Bacha, and A. Labonne,
"Maximizing the Power Output of Partially Shaded Photovoltaic Plants
Through Optimization of the Interconnections Among Its Modules," IEEE
J. Photovoltaics vol. 2, pp. 154-163, 2012.
[39] Y. Zhao, "Fault Analysis in Solar Photovoltaic Arrays," M.S. Thesis, ECE.
Dept., Northeastern Univ., Boston, MA, 2011.
[40] R. L. Steigerwald, A. Ferraro, and F. G. Turnbull, "Application of Power
Transistors to Residential and Intermediate Rating Photovoltaic Array
Power Conditioners," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. IA-19, pp. 254-
267, 1983.
[41] Catalog No. HP6M10, Special Purpose Fuses - Photovoltaic Fuses: HP6M
- 600VDC PV Rated Fuses, MERSEN, Newburyport, MA
[42] F. Boico and B. Lehman, "Multiple-input Maximum Power Point Tracking
algorithm for solar panels with reduced sensing circuitry for portable
applications," Solar Energy, vol. 86, pp. 463-475, 2012.
[43] Solar Radiation Laboratory, Data files from a Multifilter Rotating
Shadowband Radiometer (MFR-7) for Eugene, OR [Online]. Available:
http://solardat.uoregon.edu/SelectMFR.html
[44] M. Veerachary, "PSIM circuit-oriented simulator model for the nonlinear
photovoltaic sources," IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 42, pp.
735-740, 2006.
[45] M. E. Ropp and S. Gonzalez, "Development of a MATLAB/Simulink
Model of a Single-Phase Grid-Connected Photovoltaic System," IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 24, pp. 195-202, 2009.
[46] A. Chatterjee, A. Keyhani, and D. Kapoor, "Identification of Photovoltaic
Source Models," IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 26, pp. 883-889,
2011.
[47] V. Quaschning and R. Hanitsch, "Numerical Simulation of Photovoltaic
Generators with Shaded Cells," in Proc. 30th Univ. Power Eng. Conf.,
Greenwich, 1995, pp. 583-586.
[48] M. G. Villalva, J. R. Gazoli, and E. R. Filho, "Comprehensive Approach to
Modeling and Simulation of Photovoltaic Arrays," IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 24, pp. 1198-1208, 2009.
[49] R. Kadri, J. P. Gaubert, and G. Champenois, "Nondissipative String
Current Diverter for Solving the Cascaded DC-DC Converter Connection
Problem in Photovoltaic Power Generation System," IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 27, pp. 1249-1258, 2012.
















Ye Zhao (S11) received the B.S.E.E. from Beijing
Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, in 2005, and the
M.S.E.E. from Northeastern University, Boston, MA,
in 2011, where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering.
His research interests include fault analysis,
detection and protection in solar photovoltaic
systems.
Mr. Zhao received a Student Best Presentation
Award in Proc. 37th IEEE PVSC, Seattle, WA,
2011.


Jean-Franois de Palma (M'93) received the Ph.D.
E.E. from INSA, Lyon, France, in 1992.
He is currently a power electronics specification
engineering manager and VP of R&D for Mersen
Electrical Protection division, Newburyport, MA. He
is presently leading a team of specification engineers,
a team of experts in problem solving for busbars,
cooling and fault current protection for demanding
customer applications. He is a recognized expert in
power semiconductor protection and has published a
series of white papers on power semiconductor protection by fuses.


Jerry Mosesian (M98) received the BSEET from
University of Lowell, Lowell, MA, in 1989.
He joined Mersen (formerly The Chase Shawmut
Co.), Newburyport, MA, in 1975, where he is
currently a Sr. Technical Design Development Mgr.
His responsibilities include product
design/development of low voltage circuit protection
devices, such as fuses, fuse-holders, and surge
protection.



Robert Lyons Jr. (M'09) received the B.S. degree in
electrical and computer engineering from Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA in 2005, and is
currently pursuing the MBA from Suffolk
University, Boston, MA.
He is currently a Product Manager for Mersen,
Newburyport, MA. His responsibilities include
overseeing all aspects of the North American low-
voltage fuses and fuse gear product line to create and
deliver superior customer satisfaction, while
simultaneously providing long-term value to the company. Prior to Mersen, he
was a Sales Engineer for Traver IDC, Waterbury, CT.


Brad Lehman (M92SM08) received the Ph.D.
E.E. from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1992.
He is presently a Professor in the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at Northeastern
University and previously was a Hearin Hess
Distinguished Assistant Professor at Mississippi State
University. Dr. Lehman was previously an NSF
Presidential Faculty Fellow, and was a visiting
scientist at MIT. He was recently highlighted in the
inaugural edition of the book The 300 Best
Professors, Princeton Review, 2012.
Dr. Lehman serves as an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on
Power Electronics and previously served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control. In 1999, Dr. Lehman served as a science
advisor to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Science and Technology
Committee (State Senate) for the Y2K issue in the Power Industry. He performs
research in the areas of power electronics, with emphasis on the modeling,
design, and control of DC-DC converters with applications in solar energy, LED
lighting, battery chargers, electric motor drives, and telecommunication power
supplies.