When a solar system underperforms or stops working, identifying the specific fault requires a systematic approach using the right diagnostic methods. Different types of faults require different detection techniques: some issues are visible to the naked eye, others show up only on thermal cameras, and some can only be found through electrical testing. Understanding which diagnostic method to use for which problem saves time and money by avoiding unnecessary testing and getting to the root cause efficiently.
The main diagnostic methods range from simple visual inspection and monitoring data analysis that homeowners can do themselves, through to specialist techniques like thermal imaging, electroluminescence testing, and IV curve tracing that require professional equipment. A UK study of over 3.3 million solar panels found that 36.5% had thermal defects detectable by infrared imaging, with around 900,000 showing hotspots. Many of these faults were not visible during standard visual inspection, highlighting the importance of using the right diagnostic tools.
This guide explains each fault finding method, what types of faults each can detect, when to use each approach, and how the methods work together to provide a complete diagnostic picture. We cover both what homeowners can check themselves and what requires professional equipment and expertise, including typical costs for professional diagnostic services in the UK.
Quick Overview
| Visual inspection | Detects physical damage, discolouration, soiling, snail trails |
| Monitoring data analysis | Identifies underperforming panels, patterns, trends |
| Thermal imaging | Detects hotspots, bypassed substrings, connection faults |
| Electroluminescence (EL) | Detects microcracks, cell damage, invisible defects |
| IV curve tracing | Measures electrical performance against specifications |
| Insulation resistance testing | Detects ground faults, damaged cable insulation |
| Continuity testing | Verifies connections, bonding, cable integrity |
| UK thermal defect rate | 36.5% of panels in one study had detectable thermal defects |
Types of Solar Panel Faults
Panel-Level Faults
Two of the most common panel-level problems deserve their own guides: see solar panel hotspots explained and solar panel microcracks for the detail on causes, impact and what to do about each.
| Fault Type | Causes | Best Detection Method |
|---|---|---|
| Hotspots | Shading, cell defects, microcracks, soiling | Thermal imaging |
| Microcracks | Manufacturing, transport, installation, thermal stress | Electroluminescence |
| Snail trails | Moisture ingress, encapsulant degradation | Visual inspection |
| Delamination | Adhesion failure, moisture, thermal cycling | Visual inspection |
| Yellowing/browning | EVA encapsulant degradation, UV exposure | Visual inspection |
| Bypass diode failure | Heat damage, manufacturing defect | Thermal imaging, IV curve |
| Junction box fault | Moisture ingress, connection failure, heat damage | Thermal imaging |
| Glass damage | Impact, hail, thermal shock | Visual inspection |
| Backsheet damage | UV degradation, mechanical damage | Visual inspection |
| PID (Potential Induced Degradation) | High voltage stress, humidity | EL imaging, IV curve |
Electrical and Connection Faults
| Fault Type | Causes | Best Detection Method |
|---|---|---|
| Ground fault / isolation fault | Damaged insulation, moisture in connectors | Insulation resistance test |
| Open circuit | Broken conductor, disconnected connector | Continuity test, IV curve |
| High resistance connection | Corroded or loose connector | Thermal imaging, continuity test |
| DC arc fault | Loose connection, damaged cable | Arc fault detector, thermal imaging |
| String mismatch | Mixed panels, uneven degradation | IV curve comparison |
| Cable damage | Rodent damage, UV degradation, mechanical | Visual inspection, insulation test |
Inverter and System Faults
Inverters usually tell you what’s wrong via their display and monitoring app – see our guide to solar inverter error codes for interpreting the most common messages across GivEnergy, Solis, Huawei, SolarEdge, Fronius and others.
| Fault Type | Causes | Best Detection Method |
|---|---|---|
| Inverter failure | Component failure, overheating | Error codes, monitoring data |
| MPPT fault | Software issue, hardware failure | IV curve analysis, monitoring |
| Communication fault | Network issue, hardware failure | Monitoring system check |
| CT clamp error | Misplacement, failure | Compare inverter vs meter readings |
| Optimiser failure | Component failure, connection issue | Panel-level monitoring, thermal imaging |
Visual Inspection
What Visual Inspection Can Detect
| Defect | What to Look For | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Snail trails | Brownish lines following cell edges or cracks | Moderate; indicates moisture ingress |
| Yellowing | Encapsulant turning yellow or brown | Progressive; reduces light transmission |
| Delamination | Bubbling, separation of layers, milky areas | Serious; moisture will enter |
| Glass damage | Cracks, chips, shattered areas | Serious; panel may need replacement |
| Backsheet damage | Cracks, holes, peeling, discolouration | Serious; safety concern |
| Frame damage | Bent, cracked, or corroded frame | Moderate to serious |
| Soiling | Dirt, bird droppings, moss, lichen | Varies; cleaning may resolve |
| Junction box damage | Cracks, discolouration, melting | Serious; potential fire risk |
| Cable damage | Exposed conductors, cracked insulation | Serious; safety concern |
| Connector damage | Melted, discoloured, loose MC4 connectors | Serious; fire and shock risk |
What Visual Inspection Cannot Detect
| Defect | Why Not Visible | Detection Method Required |
|---|---|---|
| Microcracks | Too small to see (10 to 100 micrometres) | Electroluminescence imaging |
| Internal cell damage | Hidden within cell structure | EL imaging, thermal imaging |
| Hotspots (early stage) | No visible discolouration yet | Thermal imaging |
| Bypass diode failure | Inside junction box | Thermal imaging, IV curve |
| High resistance connections | Connector may look normal | Thermal imaging |
| Insulation degradation | Internal to cable | Insulation resistance test |
| PID | No visible signs in early stages | EL imaging, IV curve |
How to Conduct Visual Inspection
| Method | What You Can See | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| From ground with binoculars | Major damage, heavy soiling, obvious defects | Cannot see detail; may miss smaller issues |
| Photographs with zoom lens | Better detail; can review and compare over time | Still limited by angle and distance |
| Drone with camera | Close-up views; multiple angles; full array coverage | Requires drone skills or professional service |
| On-roof inspection | Best detail; can check connections and cables | Safety risk; should be done by professional |
Monitoring Data Analysis
What Monitoring Data Can Tell You
Monitoring data is the homeowner’s most powerful diagnostic tool – if something’s underperforming, the data usually shows it before the damage becomes visible. For context on expected output, see our guide on how efficient solar panels are.
| Data Type | What It Reveals | Fault Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Total system output | Overall production level | Significant drop from expected or historical |
| String-level data | Performance by string | One string much lower than others |
| Panel-level data | Individual panel performance | Specific panels underperforming |
| Optimiser status | Individual optimiser health | Offline or error status |
| Inverter error log | Historical faults and warnings | Patterns of recurring errors |
| Grid voltage readings | Supply quality | High voltage causing trips |
| Production curves | Daily generation pattern | Unusual shapes indicating shading or faults |
Patterns That Indicate Faults
| Pattern | Likely Cause | Investigation |
|---|---|---|
| Sudden drop to zero | Inverter fault, tripped breaker, isolator off | Check error codes, breakers, isolators |
| Gradual decline over months | Soiling buildup, progressive degradation | Visual inspection, cleaning trial |
| One panel consistently low | Panel defect, localised shading, soiling | Visual inspection, thermal imaging |
| Entire string low | String-level shading, connection issue, inverter MPPT | Check connections, MPPT settings |
| Morning or afternoon dip | Shading at specific times | Observe panels at affected time |
| Flat-topped production curve | Inverter clipping (oversized array) | Check DC:AC ratio; not necessarily a fault |
| Erratic daily variation | Intermittent connection, inverter fault | Check connections, error logs |
| Data gaps | Communication fault, monitoring issue | Check inverter display separately |
Comparing to Expected Output
| Comparison Method | How to Use |
|---|---|
| Same month last year | Account for seasonal variation; shows year-on-year change |
| Similar local systems | Online forums, neighbours; shows relative performance |
| Online calculators (PVGIS, EST) | Compare actual vs modelled output for your location |
| MCS certificate prediction | Compare to installer’s original estimate |
| Weather-adjusted comparison | Factor in actual irradiance data for the period |
Thermal Imaging
How Thermal Imaging Works
Thermal imaging cameras detect infrared radiation emitted as heat. When solar panels operate normally, they produce heat relatively uniformly across their surface. Faults disrupt this uniform heat distribution, creating detectable thermal anomalies. Defective areas that cannot conduct electricity efficiently convert energy to heat instead, making them appear hotter than surrounding cells. Thermal imaging is non-destructive and can be performed while the system is operating.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Detects infrared radiation emitted as heat |
| What it shows | Temperature differences across panel surface |
| Best conditions | Clear sky, irradiance above 700 W/m², low wind |
| When to perform | Mid-morning to mid-afternoon on sunny days |
| Equipment | Thermal camera (handheld or drone-mounted) |
Thermal Anomaly Patterns
| Pattern | Appearance | Likely Cause |
|---|---|---|
| Single cell hotspot | One cell significantly hotter than neighbours | Cell defect, microcrack, localised soiling |
| Multiple cell hotspots | Several cells hotter in scattered pattern | Multiple cell defects, widespread damage |
| Heated substring (1/3 panel) | One third of panel uniformly hotter or cooler | Bypass diode activated or failed |
| Hot junction box | Junction box area significantly elevated | Connection fault, bypass diode heating |
| Hot connector | MC4 connector area elevated | High resistance connection, corrosion |
| Entire panel cold | One panel cooler than array (not generating) | Open circuit, disconnected, failed panel |
| String pattern | All panels in one string show similar anomaly | String-level issue, inverter MPPT fault |
| Shading pattern | Hot cells correspond to shaded areas | Partial shading causing reverse bias |
Temperature Thresholds
| Temperature Difference | Severity | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 10°C above neighbours | Minor; monitor | Note location; recheck in 6 to 12 months |
| 10°C to 20°C above neighbours | Moderate; investigate | Further testing recommended |
| 20°C to 40°C above neighbours | Significant; action needed | Professional assessment; possible replacement |
| Over 40°C above neighbours | Severe; safety concern | Immediate professional attention |
Thermal Imaging Methods
| Method | Advantages | Limitations | Typical Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Handheld from ground | Low cost; immediate results | Limited angle; cannot see all panels | DIY or £100 to £200 |
| Handheld on roof | Good detail; close inspection | Safety risk; requires roof access | £150 to £300 |
| Drone-mounted | Full coverage; consistent angle; safe | Weather dependent; requires pilot | £200 to £500 |
| Smartphone thermal attachment | Low equipment cost; convenient | Lower resolution; limited sensitivity | £150 to £400 for device |
Electroluminescence (EL) Imaging
How EL Imaging Works
Electroluminescence imaging works by applying current to solar panels, causing them to emit light (the reverse of their normal operation). A specialised camera captures this emitted light, revealing the internal structure of cells. Defective areas that cannot conduct electricity appear dark because they cannot emit light. EL imaging can detect microcracks and cell damage that are invisible to both visual inspection and thermal imaging.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Principle | Panels emit light when current is applied (reverse of generation) |
| What it shows | Internal cell structure; cracks; inactive areas |
| When to perform | In darkness (night-time or covered panels) |
| Equipment | Modified camera sensitive to near-infrared; power supply |
| Resolution | Can detect cracks as small as 10 micrometres |
What EL Imaging Can Detect
| Defect | EL Image Appearance | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Microcracks | Dark lines across cells | 0% to 40% depending on severity and location |
| Cell fractures | Large dark areas within cells | Significant; affected area inactive |
| Broken fingers/busbars | Dark stripes parallel to busbars | Reduces current collection |
| Inactive cell regions | Dark patches not following crack lines | Proportional to dark area size |
| PID damage | Cells appearing uniformly darker | Progressive; can be severe |
| Solder joint failure | Dark areas at interconnect points | Can worsen over time |
| Manufacturing defects | Various patterns depending on defect type | Present from installation |
EL vs Thermal Imaging Comparison
| Aspect | Thermal Imaging | EL Imaging |
|---|---|---|
| Best for detecting | Hotspots, connections, bypass diodes | Microcracks, cell damage, PID |
| When performed | Daytime, sunny conditions | Night-time or darkness |
| System state | Operating normally | External power applied |
| Speed | Fast; can scan array quickly | Slower; individual panel imaging |
| Equipment cost | £300 to £10,000+ | Specialist equipment; £5,000+ |
| Service cost (UK) | £100 to £500 | £200 to £400 |
| DIY possibility | Yes, with consumer thermal cameras | No; specialist equipment required |
Electrical Testing
Insulation Resistance Testing
Insulation resistance testing measures the resistance between conductors and ground, detecting degradation in cable insulation that could cause ground faults. A megohmmeter applies a high DC voltage (typically 500V to 2500V for solar systems) and measures the resulting leakage current. Low insulation resistance indicates damaged insulation, moisture ingress, or contamination.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Detect ground faults and insulation degradation |
| Test voltage | Typically 500V, 1000V, or 2500V DC |
| Acceptable result | Generally above 1 megohm (1 MΩ) |
| When to test | Commissioning, after isolation faults, routine maintenance |
| Equipment | Insulation resistance tester (megohmmeter) |
| Safety note | System must be isolated; test applies high voltage |
Interpreting Insulation Resistance Results
| Reading | Interpretation | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Above 40 MΩ | Excellent insulation | No action needed |
| 10 MΩ to 40 MΩ | Good insulation | Normal operation |
| 2 MΩ to 10 MΩ | Acceptable but monitor | Retest periodically; investigate if declining |
| 1 MΩ to 2 MΩ | Marginal; investigate | Identify affected section; check for moisture |
| Below 1 MΩ | Unacceptable; fault present | Locate and repair fault before operation |
IV Curve Tracing
IV curve tracing measures the current-voltage characteristics of solar panels or strings, comparing actual performance to manufacturer specifications. The IV curve shape reveals information about panel health, shading, and connection quality. Deviations from the expected curve indicate specific fault types.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Verify electrical performance against specifications |
| What it measures | Current and voltage at multiple operating points |
| Key parameters | Voc (open circuit voltage), Isc (short circuit current), Pmax |
| Standard conditions | Results normalised to STC (1000 W/m², 25°C) |
| Equipment | IV curve tracer, irradiance meter, temperature sensor |
| When to use | Commissioning, warranty claims, performance verification |
IV Curve Fault Signatures
| Curve Shape | Indicates | Likely Cause |
|---|---|---|
| Normal shape, reduced power | General degradation | Age, soiling, uniform degradation |
| Steps in curve | Bypass diode activation | Shading, cell mismatch, defective cells |
| Rounded knee | Series resistance increase | Corroded connections, damaged busbars |
| Sloped top section | Shunt resistance decrease | Cell damage, moisture ingress |
| Low Voc | Fewer cells contributing | Bypass diode short, cell failure |
| Low Isc | Reduced current generation | Soiling, shading, cell damage |
| Multiple curves from one string | Intermittent connection | Loose connector, damaged cable |
Continuity Testing
| Test | Purpose | Expected Result |
|---|---|---|
| String continuity | Verify complete circuit through string | Low resistance path exists |
| Bonding continuity | Verify earthing connections | Less than 1 ohm to main earth |
| Polarity check | Confirm correct wiring | Positive and negative correctly identified |
| Open circuit voltage | Verify string is generating | Within expected range for conditions |
Systematic Diagnostic Approach
Step 1: Gather Information
| Information | Source | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| System specifications | MCS certificate, installation documents | Know what system should produce |
| Historical production data | Monitoring app, generation meter | Identify when problem started |
| Error codes and alerts | Inverter display, monitoring app | Direct indication of faults |
| Recent events | Homeowner; weather records | Identify potential causes (storm, work on roof) |
| Symptoms observed | Homeowner; inspection | Guide diagnostic focus |
Step 2: Basic Checks
| Check | How to Check | If Problem Found |
|---|---|---|
| Isolators and breakers | Visual check all switches are on | Switch on; monitor for trips |
| Inverter status | Check display for errors; lights | Note codes; refer to manual |
| Communication status | Check monitoring app connectivity | Restart router/gateway if needed |
| Visual panel condition | Binoculars or photos from ground | Note any visible damage or soiling |
| Shading assessment | Observe panels at different times | Note when and where shadows fall |
Step 3: Data Analysis
| Analysis | What to Look For | Indicates |
|---|---|---|
| Production vs expected | Significant shortfall | System-wide or specific issue |
| Panel-level comparison | Individual underperformers | Panel-specific faults |
| String-level comparison | One string low | String-level issue |
| Daily production curve | Unusual shape or dips | Shading, intermittent faults |
| Error log review | Patterns, frequency | Recurring issues, grid problems |
Step 4: Targeted Investigation
If the problem turns out to be a soiling issue – bird droppings, pollen, traffic film – often a simple clean is the fix. See our guide to solar panel cleaning for safe methods.
| Suspected Issue | Diagnostic Method | Expected Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Panel defect | Thermal imaging, EL imaging | Hotspots, cracks, inactive areas |
| Connection fault | Thermal imaging, continuity test | Hot connector, high resistance |
| Insulation fault | Insulation resistance test | Low resistance reading |
| Performance degradation | IV curve tracing | Deviation from specifications |
| Inverter fault | Error codes, AC/DC measurements | Specific fault indication |
Step 5: Confirm and Document
Thorough documentation isn’t just good diagnostic practice – it’s essential evidence if the fault turns out to be a manufacturing defect or insurable event. See our guides on solar panel warranty claims and solar panel insurance claims for what to record.
| Action | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Verify fault location | Ensure correct component identified |
| Assess severity | Determine urgency of repair |
| Document findings | Support warranty claims; track history |
| Photograph evidence | Visual record for claims and comparison |
| Record measurements | Baseline for future comparison |
Professional Diagnostic Services UK
Service Types and Costs
| Service | What It Includes | Typical Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Basic inspection | Visual check, inverter review, basic electrical tests | £100 to £200 |
| Thermal imaging survey | Handheld or drone thermal scan of all panels | £150 to £300 |
| Drone thermal survey | Full coverage drone inspection with report | £200 to £500 |
| EL imaging | Night-time electroluminescence imaging | £200 to £400 |
| Full electrical testing | IV curves, insulation, continuity, earth | £200 to £400 |
| Comprehensive health check | All methods combined with detailed report | £400 to £800 |
When to Use Each Service
| Situation | Recommended Service |
|---|---|
| Annual routine check | Basic inspection or thermal survey |
| Suspected panel defect | Thermal imaging plus EL if thermal inconclusive |
| Isolation fault recurring | Full electrical testing with insulation resistance |
| Warranty claim evidence | Comprehensive health check with documentation |
| Purchasing used system | Comprehensive health check before purchase |
| Insurance claim | Comprehensive health check with photographic evidence |
Finding Qualified Professionals
| Qualification/Certification | What It Means |
|---|---|
| MCS certified installer | Qualified for installation and maintenance |
| NAPIT/NICEIC registered | Competent electrician; can certify work |
| Thermography certification (PCN/BINDT) | Trained in thermal imaging interpretation |
| Drone pilot licence (CAA) | Legal for commercial drone operations |
DIY vs Professional Fault Finding
What Homeowners Can Do
| Task | Equipment Needed | Skill Level |
|---|---|---|
| Visual inspection from ground | Binoculars, camera with zoom | Basic |
| Monitoring data analysis | App access, spreadsheet | Basic to intermediate |
| Check isolators and breakers | None | Basic |
| Note inverter error codes | Camera to photograph display | Basic |
| Shading observation | Time and observation | Basic |
| Basic thermal imaging | Smartphone thermal attachment | Intermediate |
What Requires Professional Help
| Task | Why Professional Required |
|---|---|
| On-roof inspection | Fall risk; working at height regulations |
| Electrical testing | High voltage hazard; specialist equipment |
| IV curve tracing | Specialist equipment; interpretation skills |
| EL imaging | Specialist equipment; night work; interpretation |
| Insulation resistance testing | High voltage test; system isolation required |
| Drone surveys | CAA licence required for commercial work |
| Any repair work | Safety; warranty; certification requirements |
Summary
| Diagnostic Method | Best For Detecting | Accessibility |
|---|---|---|
| Visual inspection | Physical damage, soiling, snail trails | DIY possible from ground |
| Monitoring data | Underperforming panels, patterns, trends | DIY with monitoring access |
| Thermal imaging | Hotspots, connections, bypass diodes | DIY basic; professional recommended |
| EL imaging | Microcracks, cell damage, PID | Professional only |
| IV curve tracing | Performance verification, electrical faults | Professional only |
| Insulation testing | Ground faults, cable damage | Professional only |
Effective solar panel fault finding requires using the right diagnostic method for the suspected problem. Visual inspection and monitoring data analysis are good starting points that homeowners can do themselves, identifying obvious issues like soiling, physical damage, or clear underperformance patterns. However, many faults are invisible to the naked eye and require specialist diagnostic techniques to detect.
Thermal imaging is the most widely used professional diagnostic tool, capable of detecting hotspots, connection faults, and bypass diode issues while the system operates normally during daylight. A UK study found that over a third of solar panels had thermal defects detectable by this method. For faults that thermal imaging cannot see, such as microcracks and internal cell damage, electroluminescence imaging provides detailed visibility of the panel’s internal structure.
Electrical testing complements imaging methods by measuring the actual performance characteristics of the system. Insulation resistance testing is essential for diagnosing ground faults, while IV curve tracing compares electrical performance against manufacturer specifications. These tests require specialist equipment and expertise to perform safely and interpret correctly.
A systematic approach to fault finding starts with gathering information and performing basic checks, then uses data analysis to narrow down the problem area before deploying targeted diagnostic methods. This approach saves time and money by avoiding unnecessary testing and getting to the root cause efficiently. For complex or safety-critical issues, professional diagnostic services provide the expertise and equipment to identify faults accurately and provide documentation for warranty claims or insurance purposes.
Before calling an engineer, do the homework that costs nothing: photograph your monitoring app history, note any inverter error codes, check your MCS certificate’s predicted annual generation figure, and observe your panels at different times of day for shading patterns. A professional diagnostic visit with this information takes 30 minutes rather than 2 hours.
For warranty-age panels (most have 25-year product warranties), insist on documented diagnostic evidence before any work is done. A thermal image plus IV curve data showing deviation from spec is what a manufacturer needs to accept a claim – verbal diagnosis is rarely enough.