Double glass module corrosion resistance

Do double glass modules have a better resistance to PID?

Double glass modules have superior moisture barrier properties and are expected to have a much better resistance to PID. Four Double-glass modules were subjected to a PID test under different conditions (-1000V, 65°C and 85°C, 85% R.H.) for 96 hours.

How reliable is Canadian Solar's Dymond double glass module?

Canadian Solar’s Dymond double glass module passed 3 times IEC standard test and IEC 61730-2:2016 multiple combination of limit test and obtained VDE report, which fully indicate high lifetime and high reliability of this double glass module. This paper presents a detailed reliability study of Canadian Solar’s Dymond double glass module.

Why are double-glass modules important?

Double-glass modules have increased resistance to cell micro-cracking, potential induced degradation, module warping, degradation from UV rays, and sand abrasion, as well as alkali, acids or salt mist.

Are double glass modules better than traditional modules?

Compared to traditional modules with backsheet, modules with double glass are stronger and more durable, presenting less degradation due to thermal cycling stress. Results from the thermal cycling test up to 400 cycles show about 35% to 43% less degradation with double- glass modules than with traditional modules with backsheet (Fig. 3).

What is the maximum deformation of a double glass module?

The maximum deformation of long side is tested according to the mechancial load of +5400 Pa for DH1000h, and -5400 Pa for DH2000h. Test result is that double glass module has no problems such as bubbles and delamination after tested under the condition of distortion +DH2000h, and the power loss is 2%.

What is the encapsulation reliability risk of double glass module?

The double glass module is superior to the conventional single glass module, which indicates that the encapsulation reliability risk of double glass module is good without delaminating risk. 90 Jing Tang et al. / Energy Procedia 130 (2017) 87–93 4 J. Tang et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Fig. 3.