A Highly Abrasive-Resistant, Long-Lasting Anti-Reflective

Coating for PV Module Glass

Sergiu C. Pop, Venkata Abbaraju, Brenor Brophy, Y. Sam Yang, Sina Maghsoodi,
Peter Gonsalves
Yingli Green Energy Americas, San Francisco, CA 94108, USA
Enki Technology, San Jose, CA 95131, USA

Abstract More than 4% of incident light is reflected from
the front cover glass of photovoltaic (PV) modules. The industry-
wide trend to cost-effectively increase the efficiency of PV
modules has driven the widespread adoption of anti-reflective
coated (ARC) glass. The most common deposition methods for
these anti-reflective (AR) coatings are wet sol-gel processes, with
a small minority of glass manufacturers using vacuum-based
sputtering. Most commercial sol-gel coatings consist of single
layer porous silica and are highly transmissive across a broad
range of the solar spectrum. The mechanical strength of these
coatings is generally derived from high temperature treatment
during the tempering of the glass. However, as the PV industry
increasingly focuses on project levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE), PV module manufactures and system owners are
seeking ARC glass with increased durability and long-term
performance, particularly for systems operating in medium to
high soiling environments, where PV modules are subjected to
airborne particle abrasion and repeated washing. In this work,
we report durability test results for a new, low temperature
curable sol-gel AR coating from Enki Technology, showing
significantly improved abrasion-resistance compared to more
traditional AR coatings. The new coating is denser than the
traditional coatings and chemically derives its abrasion-
resistance at relatively low process temperatures without
sacrificing the optical performance. The samples under test in
this work were subjected to extensive testing following the
industry-standard abrasion test method in EN1096.2 and
accelerated environmental test procedures in IEC61215. Our
results show increased coating longevity for the new coating, up
to four times greater than existing coatings with comparable
optical performance. This increased mechanical strength directly
translates to reduced risk of handling during manufacturing and
installation, lower O&M costs, increased energy yield and
reduced warranty costs.
Index Terms amorphous materials, glass, materials
reliability, photovoltaic cells.
I. INTRODUCTION
Greater than 4% of normally incident light is lost due to
reflection at the interface of air and PV module glass. As the
industry has driven towards higher efficiencies at ever lower
costs it has widely adopted ARC for PV module front cover
glass. It is estimated that greater than 70% of silicon PV
modules now ship with ARC glass [1].
While a small minority of suppliers still provide vacuum
based AR coatings, the vast majority of traditional coatings
are based on single layer, porous silica, wet sol-gel technology
[2], [3]. These coatings typically derive their mechanical
strength through a high temperature sintering step that occurs
when the PV cover glass is tempered.
As the PV industry has grown PV module manufacturers
and system owners and operators are increasingly focused on
project LCOE. With growing experience in the long-term field
performance of these coatings they are seeking ARC glass
with increased durability and long-term performance,
particularly for systems operating in medium to high soiling
environments, where PV modules are subjected to airborne
particle abrasion and repeated washing [4], [5].
II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
We evaluated three traditional AR coatings and the new AR
coating on three different PV module glass substrates (A, B,
and C). The traditional coatings were received as coated from
the manufacturer on tempered 30x30cm glass sheets.
Uncoated samples of the same base glass were coated with the
new coating. For this work the new coating was prepared by
hydrolysis and partial condensation of organo-tri-alkoxy-
silanes and tetra-alkoxy-silanes. The resulting gel-free
homogenous solutions of the high silanol containing co-
polymers of silsesquioxane have long term shelf life stability
at room temperature. The sols were coated on pre-cleaned
substrates by flow coating technique, dried and cured at 300
C. The resulting thin-film was a homogenous, uniform,
transparent, defect-free, crack-free dense coating with
thickness in the range of 70-120 nm and excellent AR
properties.
Optical reflection was measured on coated sheets using a
Konica Minolta CM-2600d spectrophotometer. Based on the
difference in reflection spectra over 360~780nm between an
uncoated control and the coated sample a percentage increase
in transmission of solar weighted photons is calculated using
the AM1.5 spectrum [6]. This metric is used to measure
optical performance of the samples.
Six substrates (3 traditional, 3 new) were then submitted to
abrasion testing according to specification EN1096.2. This test
consists of 1000 strokes using a Taber linear abrader with a
14.5mm diameter, 10mm thick, medium density felt disk with
4N of force applied, at 30 strokes/minute and a stroke length


of approximately 10cm. The disk is rotated about 22 degrees
on every second stroke. Optical reflection was
every 200 strokes in the center of the abraded area and t
reduction in optical performance is calculated.
To test for reliability, five full size 60-cell multi
solar panels were tested at Underwriter Laborato
with the three most relevant tests for solar glass, under the
IEC61215 guidelines: Damp Heat (DH, 1000 hours at
and 85% relative humidity), Temperature Cycle (TC, 200
cycles between -40 C and +85 C) and Humidity Freeze (HF,
10 cycles between -40 C and +85 C). One panel was
uncoated, a second was coated with a traditional AR
equivalent to the coating on substrate C, and thre
coated with the new coating. These reliability tests require that
the power fall by no more than 5%, and that there are no
significant visual defects on the glass surface.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Optical Performance
A.1. Reflectance
Fig. 1 shows the initial optical performance
percentage increase of transmittance of solar weighted photons
of the traditional coatings versus the new
observed that the traditional coating on substrate C has the
highest optical performance. In the other two cases, on
substrates A and B respectively, the optical performance
recorded for the traditional coatings are slightly low
compared to the new coating. As is shown
properties of the new coating does not depend significantly on
the substrate type.
Fig. 1. Initial average optical performance expressed as % increase
transmission of solar weighted photons
By measuring optical performance during the abr
is possible to emulate how the coating wears
allows us to distinguish between a gradual
decline in performance as opposed to a catastrophic
Fig. 2 shows a measure of the linearity of the degradation
the optical performance during the abrasion test.
of approximately 10cm. The disk is rotated about 22 degrees
al reflection was re-measured
the center of the abraded area and the
calculated.
cell multi-crystalline
solar panels were tested at Underwriter Laboratories (UL)
with the three most relevant tests for solar glass, under the
amp Heat (DH, 1000 hours at 85 C
humidity), Temperature Cycle (TC, 200
C) and Humidity Freeze (HF,
C). One panel was
traditional AR coating
, and three panels were
coating. These reliability tests require that
than 5%, and that there are no

ISCUSSIONS
the initial optical performance expressed as the
weighted photons
itional coatings versus the new coating. It is
observed that the traditional coating on substrate C has the
. In the other two cases, on
the optical performance
or the traditional coatings are slightly lower
. As is shown the optical
not depend significantly on

l performance expressed as % increase
By measuring optical performance during the abrasion test it
how the coating wears over time. This
allows us to distinguish between a gradual and proportional
decline in performance as opposed to a catastrophic failure.
2 shows a measure of the linearity of the degradation of
test. By measuring
the abrasion resistance every 200 strokes, we can predict
whether a coating will slowly wear away over time, at a rate
comparable to the linear warranty offered by all solar panel
manufacturers, or whether the coating is easily removed. By
fitting a line between measurements of abrasion loss per 200
strokes, a metric of linearity can be deduced.
types the new coating shows values closer to unity
linear) compared to traditional coatings
higher degree of homogeneity of the
Fig. 2. Optical performance degradation l
abrasion testing
The total degradation experienced by each substrate
shown in Fig. 3 There is a very clear difference between the
traditional coatings on different substrate
coating. In each case the traditional coatings
is a few times higher than the new
substrate C the traditional coating suffered the highest
degradation, while the new film degradation was minimal
The traditional coating C had the grea
performance as shown in Fig. 1
performance is correlated to the large degradation rate
optical performance is caused by a highly porous coating
which often has poor adhesion and in
Fig. 3. Post abrasion weighted transmission values (top) and
reduction in optical performance due to the
the abrasion resistance every 200 strokes, we can predict
coating will slowly wear away over time, at a rate
comparable to the linear warranty offered by all solar panel
manufacturers, or whether the coating is easily removed. By
fitting a line between measurements of abrasion loss per 200
inearity can be deduced. For all substrate
coating shows values closer to unity (more
mpared to traditional coatings, attributable to a
the new AR coating.

Optical performance degradation linearity (R) during
experienced by each substrate is
a very clear difference between the
traditional coatings on different substrates and the new
the traditional coatings degradation rate
new film. Remarkably, for the
the traditional coating suffered the highest
film degradation was minimal.
had the greatest pre-test optical
However, this high initial
is correlated to the large degradation rate because
optical performance is caused by a highly porous coating
inhomogeneity.

Post abrasion weighted transmission values (top) and
eduction in optical performance due to the abrasion test (bottom).


The red line is the test fail criteria (-0.5%) showing
coatings failed the test
Another interesting observation is the apparent
been the types of films (traditional and new
type substrate (Fig. 3). The degradation rate
films increases from substrate A to C while the degr
the new film decreases, as demonstrated by the red line in Fig.
3.
TABLE I
ABRASION TEST RESULTS
Substrate A Substrate B
Trad. New Trad. New
Initial 2.26 2.29 1.75 2.07
Post 1.15 1.89 0.29 1.76
Delta -1.11 -0.40 -1.46 -0.31
Result Fail Pass Fail Pass
R
2
0.75 0.87 0.93 0.99

According to industry specifications, a degradation
optical performance of more than 0.5% is considered a fail
Table I shows the initial and post-abrasion values for all
experimental samples. As a result, all traditional coatings
apparently fail the industry test specifications
passes independently of the glass substrate type
A.2. Film thickness and refractive index
The uniformity of film thickness and refractive index were
measured at nine locations on each glass sample.
samples, with new and traditional coatings were subjected for
optical characterization using an ellipsometer.
Similar to the reflection results, the film thickness and
refractive index values shows an increased stability within
sample when comparing the new against the t
coating. The film thickness of the new coating, Fig.
stable value around 100 nm regardless of the glass substrate
type used. For each sample the uniformity is also very
across the three types of glass. In case of the traditional
coating the film thickness of the different substrates is quite
large, with median values from 87 nm to about
new coating shows a comparably wide range within each
substrate, however this is attributed to the flow coating
method used which inherently leaves a thin to thick profile in
the direction of flow, and was used for this study
0.5%) showing that all traditional
apparent correlation
(traditional and new) with the glass
rate of the traditional
increases from substrate A to C while the degradation of
ted by the red line in Fig.

Substrate C
Trad. New
3.35 1.85
1.29 1.77
-2.06 -0.08
Fail Pass
0.70 0.74
According to industry specifications, a degradation of
5% is considered a failure.
abrasion values for all
all traditional coatings
specifications while new film
type.
and refractive index were
glass sample. Both types of
coatings were subjected for
.
the film thickness and
refractive index values shows an increased stability within the
sample when comparing the new against the traditional
w coating, Fig. 4, shows a
the glass substrate
is also very similar
pes of glass. In case of the traditional
different substrates is quite
about 128 nm. The
new coating shows a comparably wide range within each
substrate, however this is attributed to the flow coating
method used which inherently leaves a thin to thick profile in
, and was used for this study only.
Fig. 4. Box plot of coating thickness (nm) uniformity measured
over nine points for each sample
TABLE II
FILM THICKNESS U
Substrate A Substrate B
Trad. New Trad.
Mean 102.2 102.5 128.3
Median 94.1 102.9 128.5
St. Dev 29.0 18.6 7.4
Min 71.8 72.0 112.5
Max 167.6 127.4 135.5

The refractive index, shown in Fig.
consistency than the thickness. In terms of absolute values, the
refractive index of the new coating shows in a consistent
manner almost the same value, 1.4
used. The absolute numbers for the traditional coatings varies
from 1.36 to 1.43 presumably due to thei
structure. The new coating also
distribution within each substrate and across all three
substrates. The traditional coatings
among the glass samples when the
compared and substrates A and C show a very wide
distribution within the substrate.

Box plot of coating thickness (nm) uniformity measured
TABLE II
UNIFORMITY
Substrate B Substrate C
New Trad. New
100.8 91.7 98.9
101.8 86.6 98.7
17.0 12.1 15.1
71.4 78.3 76.6
120.0 117.9 120.3
in Fig. 4, reveals even more
In terms of absolute values, the
e new coating shows in a consistent
almost the same value, 1.44, regardless the substrate
used. The absolute numbers for the traditional coatings varies
presumably due to their differing pore
also exhibits a very tight
distribution within each substrate and across all three
traditional coatings exhibit a larger spread
the three different vendors are
and substrates A and C show a very wide



Fig. 5. Box plot of coating refractive index uniformity measured
over nine points for each sample
TABLE III
FILM REFRACTIVE INDEX UNIFORMITY
Substrate A Substrate B Substrate C
Trad. New Trad. New Trad. New
Mean 1.36 1.44 1.43 1.44 1.36 1.44
Median 1.34 1.44 1.43 1.43 1.34 1.44
St. Dev 0.055 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.026 0.013
Min 1.31 1.43 1.42 1.43 1.33 1.43
Max 1.47 1.45 1.46 1.46 1.40 1.47

B. Reliability Test Data
Five modules were tested under damp heat (DH),
temperature cycle (TC) and humidity freeze (HF) cycles at
UL. These modules consisted of three modules with the new
coating, one module with a traditional coating and one
uncoated control module. All five had power losses less than
5%, which is the IEC requirement; however, there were
noticeable differences between the modules. The modules
with the new coating appeared defect free after cleaning with
water, as opposed to the traditional and control modules, as
shown by the images in Figs. 6 and 7. It can be seen that after
both DH and HF, the modules with the new coating showed
no discoloration, pockmarking, scratches or streaks, as
opposed to both the traditional coated and uncoated modules.
Fig. 8 shows the visual results after temperature cycling.
Normally this test would not be expected to cause damage to
an AR coating given the close CTE match between silica
coatings and glass. However, in this test while both the
uncoated module and the modules with the new coating are
unaffected, the module with the traditional coating shows
some visual defects.
These test results demonstrate both how traditional AR
coatings while meeting the electrically specifications in
IEC61215, are marginal for visual defect performance.
Furthermore they show the greatly improved durability of the
new coating and its ability to protect the glass surface.

Traditional New Uncoated
Fig. 6. Images showing visual appearance of modules after 1000
hours of damp heat testing according to specification IEC61215. The
new coated modules show no visual defects, whereas both the
traditional coating and uncoated modules show streaking.

Traditional New Uncoated
Fig. 7. Images showing visual appearance of modules after 10
cycles of humidity freeze testing according to specification
IEC61215. The new coated modules show no visual defects, whereas
both the traditional coating and uncoated module show spotting and
streaking.



Traditional New Uncoated
Fig. 8. Images showing visual appearance of modules after 200
cycles of temperature cycling according to specification IEC61215.
The new coated modules and the uncoated module show no visual
defects, whereas the traditional coated module show spotting and
streaking.
The degradation induced by a test such as DH to the solar
glass typically affects coated glass more than uncoated glass.
The streaking and haziness seen in the glass create aesthetic
defects that do not necessarily directly affect the measured I
SC

of the module. The percentage change of I
SC
and P
MAX
of the
modules after the DH test are displayed in Fig. 9. As can be
seen in Fig. 9, the I
SC
of the module with the traditional
coating (which was similar to that of substrate C above)
started higher, but dropped by 0.75% after the DH test. The
new coating as well as the uncoated glass had no reduction in
I
SC
(within measurement noise). Similarly, the P
MAX
of the
modules, which is a test of the uniformity of the defects on the
string of cells, shows a much larger decrease for the module
with the traditional coating compared to the new coating or the
uncoated module. More specifically, the module with the new
coating displayed on average a lower loss than even the
control glass, signifying an added protective capability of this
coating against moisture.


Fig. 9. Percentage change of module I
SC
and P
hours of DH testing. The module with the traditional coating shows
both the greatest reduction in I
SC
and P
MAX
whereas the module with
the new coating shows the lowest reduction and appears to have a
protective effect compared to the uncoated module.
C. Greater kWh gains vs. traditional coatings
There is little industry consensus on how the field
equivalent performance correlates to the abrasion testing
performed in this work (or indeed to any lab based abrasion
test). Therefore, we can only model field performance on a
relative basis in undetermined time units. That
coating may last 4 times longer than the other, but we don
know if that is 4 months vs 1 month or 20 years vs 5 years.
In order to quantify the kWh gain provided by the AR
coatings, we performed an energy prediction
10MW system. In the simulation we assume
in Tariff (FIT) value of $443/MWh, and a system gain of
1.84% from AR coating versus no coating
module degradation considered in the calculations was
The net present value (NPV) for the traditional
versus non-coating was found to be $20,
calculated value for new coated system versus non
was $186,623 which translates to an approximately
relative gain.
We conclude that the incorporation of new
into a 10MW system brings significant benefits
with the size of the project.
C.1. Predicted lifetime gains
The traditional coated modules show a slightly hig
starting value. However, considering the fact that
durable with rapid wear, the predicted AR gain reaches 0%
just in five time units.
The new AR coated modules has a good AR starting value
with a higher durability over time and the wear is more linear
which provides a better power prediction. In this case, t
gain reaches 0% in 23 time units which translates to a four
times longer life than traditional coatings.

and P
MAX
after 1000
The module with the traditional coating shows
whereas the module with
the new coating shows the lowest reduction and appears to have a
protective effect compared to the uncoated module.
Wh gains vs. traditional coatings
There is little industry consensus on how the field
to the abrasion testing
performed in this work (or indeed to any lab based abrasion
test). Therefore, we can only model field performance on a
ned time units. That is to say one
times longer than the other, but we dont
years vs 5 years.
provided by the AR
n energy prediction simulation of a
assumed an initial Feed
a system gain of
1.84% from AR coating versus no coating. The annual
module degradation considered in the calculations was 0.5%.
traditional ARC system
to be $20,676. The same
coated system versus non-coating
approximately eight times
incorporation of new film technology
benefits which scale
The traditional coated modules show a slightly higher AR
ct that they are less
durable with rapid wear, the predicted AR gain reaches 0%
a good AR starting value
durability over time and the wear is more linear
In this case, the AR
reaches 0% in 23 time units which translates to a four
Fig. 10. Optical performance decline of ARC as a function of time.
IV. SUMMARY AND C
Three traditional AR coatings for PV module glass were
tested for durability against a new AR coating from Enki
Technology. The new coating is shown to be up to 4
more durable than the traditional coatings.
modeled in a representative energy prediction simulation,
which shows an increase in durability resulting in an 8 fold
increase in the net present value of the coating. Since AR
coatings are the layer of the solar panel that is most heavily
subjugated to the stresses of the external en
coatings with high durability are crucial for PV systems
deployed in the field with predicted lifetimes of multiple
decades.
REFERENCES
[1] International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaics
2013 Results.
[2] C. Ballif, J. Dicker, D. Borchert, T. Hofmann
industrial porous SiO2 antireflection coating: measurements of
photovoltaic module properties improvement and
yearly energy yield gain Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells
vol. 82, pp. 331-344, 2004.
[3] R. Prado, G. Beobide, A. Marcaide, J. Goikoetxea, A. Aranzabe,
Development of multifunctional
reflection coatings with enhanced
Energy Materials & Solar Cells, vol. 94, pp. 1084
[4] K. Midtdal, B. P. Jelle, Self-cleaning glazing
of-the-art review and future research pathways
Materials & Solar Cells, vol. 109, pp.
[5] E. Klimm, T. Lorenz, K.-A. Weiss,
solar glass influence the degree of performance loss over time of
PV modules drastically? in the 28
Conference, 2013.
[6] http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/


Optical performance decline of ARC as a function of time.
CONCLUSION
traditional AR coatings for PV module glass were
tested for durability against a new AR coating from Enki
w coating is shown to be up to 4 times
l coatings. These results were
ergy prediction simulation,
which shows an increase in durability resulting in an 8 fold
increase in the net present value of the coating. Since AR
coatings are the layer of the solar panel that is most heavily
subjugated to the stresses of the external environment,
coatings with high durability are crucial for PV systems
deployed in the field with predicted lifetimes of multiple
EFERENCES
International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaics (ITRPV),
Borchert, T. Hofmann, Solar glass with
antireflection coating: measurements of
photovoltaic module properties improvement and modelling of
Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells,
R. Prado, G. Beobide, A. Marcaide, J. Goikoetxea, A. Aranzabe,
multifunctional solgel coatings: Anti-
self-cleaning capacity, Solar
, vol. 94, pp. 1084-1088, 2010.
cleaning glazing products: A state-
research pathways, Solar Energy
, pp. 126141, 2013.
A. Weiss, Can anti-soiling coating on
solar glass influence the degree of performance loss over time of
28
th
European PV Solar Energy
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/