2020
DOI: 10.1109/jphotov.2020.2996750
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Inline Crack Detection Systems for Multicrystalline Silicon Solar Cells

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This indicates that the recall rate in our rating was 64% [= 16 cells (consisting of nine HC cells and seven MC cells) / 25 cells]. Because this rate is comparable to those (67 ± 15%) reported in a previous article [ 60 ], there is no contradiction between the cracked cell sizes estimated from the bimodal distribution of the time constants and those presumed by the actual inspection. Consequently, we deduce that the remarkable decrease in the time constant of the carrier recombination should be recognized as a specific electrical signature for all cracked PV cells (including MC cells).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 81%
“…This indicates that the recall rate in our rating was 64% [= 16 cells (consisting of nine HC cells and seven MC cells) / 25 cells]. Because this rate is comparable to those (67 ± 15%) reported in a previous article [ 60 ], there is no contradiction between the cracked cell sizes estimated from the bimodal distribution of the time constants and those presumed by the actual inspection. Consequently, we deduce that the remarkable decrease in the time constant of the carrier recombination should be recognized as a specific electrical signature for all cracked PV cells (including MC cells).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Possible solutions include using better augmentation strategy, adopting more complicated deep learning structures, gathering and labeling more EL images of defective modules with minor defects. Second, just as Greulich et al, 29 recently studied, the reproducibility problem of human labeling does exist that our four well trained people surly have divergence of some ambiguous defects and some of them were wrongly labeled or forgot to label. Although the four people would discuss about the ambiguities and an appointed experienced leader would make the decision, mistakes were not evitable.…”
Section: Application In Production Linementioning
confidence: 84%
“…Furthermore, it has been shown that even experts have difficulties finding all defects and the human defect detection rate can vary strongly. [ 10,32 ] This causes the labeling process to be error‐prone, and thus leads CNNs to partially identify false structures as defects. The disadvantage of the time‐consuming labeling process becomes even more important when the algorithms have to be adapted to other cell lines.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One drawback relates to the label process and to the labels themselves. Labels as well as heuristic filters are error‐prone, [ 10 ] time‐consuming, costly, and use only a part of the information contained in the measurement images because they focus, e.g., only on the detection of one defect. Another disadvantage pertains to the usability of the results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%