4.6 Article

Photovoltaic ground fault detection recommendations for array safety and operation

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY
Volume 140, Issue -, Pages 34-50

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2016.10.017

Keywords

Photovoltaics; Ground fault; SPICE; Balance of systems; RCD; Isolation resistance measurement; Differential current measurement; Photovoltaic leakage current

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FC36-07GO17034]
  2. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
  3. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PV faults have caused rooftop fires in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere in the world. One prominent cause of past electrical fires was the ground fault detection blind spot in fuse-based protection systems discovered by the Solar America Board for Codes and Standards (Solar ABCs) steering committee in 2011. Unfortunately, while a number of alternatives to ground fault fuses have been identified, there has been limited adoption or historical use of these technologies in the U.S. Analytical and numerical SPICE simulations were conducted for a wide variety of ground faults and array configurations to understand the limitations of fuse-based ground fault protection in PV systems and determine proper trip settings for alternative GFPDs. Simulation results were compared with experimental measurements on arrays to validate the SPICE model as well as provide direction on proper thresholding of residual current detector (RCD), current sense monitor (CSM) and isolation monitor (R-iso) devices based on historical fault current data. We argue the combination of simulation results with historical data indicates robust settings are possible for each of these technologies to minimize unwanted tripping events while maximizing PV fault detection. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available