Models and hierarchical methodologies for evaluating solar energy availability under different sky conditions toward enhancing concentrating solar collectors use: Texas as a case study
- 261 Downloads
Abstract
The precise estimation of solar radiation data is substantial in the long-term evaluation for the techno-economic performance of solar energy conversion systems (e.g., concentrated solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic plants) for each site around the world, particularly, direct normal irradiance which is utilized commonly in designing solar concentrated collectors. However, the lack of direct normal irradiance data comparing to global and diffuse horizontal irradiance data and the high cost of measurement equipment represent significant challenges for exploiting and managing solar energy. Consequently, this study was performed to develop two hierarchical methodologies by using various models, empirical correlations and regression equations to estimate hourly solar irradiance data for various worldwide locations (using new correlation coefficients) and different sky conditions (using cloud cover range). Additionally, the preliminary assessment for the potential of solar energy in the selected region was carried out by developing a comprehensive analysis for the solar irradiance data and the clearness index to make a proper decision for the capability of utilizing solar energy technologies. A case study for the San Antonio region in Texas was selected to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed methodologies for estimating hourly direct normal irradiance and monthly average hourly direct normal irradiance data at this region. The estimated data show a good accuracy comparing with measured solar data by using locally adjusted coefficients and different statistical indicators. Furthermore, the obtained results show that the selected region is unequivocally amenable to harnessing solar energy as the prime source of energy by utilizing concentrating and non-concentrating solar energy systems.
Keywords
Solar irradiance Direct normal irradiance Concentrated solar collectors Photovoltaic Parametric models Decomposition models Hierarchical methodologies Clearness indexList of symbols
- \(\bar{H}_{\text{d}}\)
Monthly average daily diffuse irradiance (kWh/m^{2})
- \(\bar{H}_{\text{G}}\)
Monthly average daily global irradiance on a horizontal surface (kWh/m^{2})
- \(\bar{H}_{\text{o}}\)
Monthly average daily extraterrestrial solar irradiance on a horizontal surface (kW/m^{2})
- \(\bar{I}_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{H}}}}\)
Monthly average hourly direct solar irradiance on a horizontal surface (kW/m^{2})
- \(\bar{I}_{\text{DNI}}\)
Monthly average hourly direct solar irradiance (kW/m^{2})
- \(\bar{I}_{\text{d}}\)
Monthly average hourly diffuse irradiance (kW/m^{2})
- \(\bar{I}_{\text{G}}\)
Monthly average hourly global irradiance on a horizontal surface (kW/m^{2})
- \(\bar{K}_{\text{T}}\)
Monthly mean clearness index
- \(\bar{S}_{\text{o}}\)
Maximum possible monthly average daily length (h)
- \(a_{1}\), \(a_{2}\), \(a_{3}\), \(a_{4}\), \(a_{5}\)
Transmission functions
- \(a_{\text{w}}\)
Water vapor absorptance
- \(\bar{H}\)
Monthly average daily global radiation on a horizontal surface (kWh/m^{2})
- \(H_{\text{sc}}\)
Solar constant (W/m^{2})
- \(I_{{{\text{G}}_{\text{cc}} }}\)
Hourly global solar radiation on a horizontal surface under cloud cover condition (kW/m^{2})
- \(I_{{{\text{G}}_{\text{cs}} }}\)
Hourly global solar radiation on a horizontal surface under cloudless sky (kW/m^{2})
- \(I_{\text{cal}}\)
Calculated value
- \(I_{\text{d}}\)
Hourly diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface (kW/m^{2})
- \(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{KC}}}}\)
Direct normal irradiance (DNI) under different sky conditions (kW/m^{2})
- \(I_{\text{DNI}}\)
Direct normal irradiance (W/m^{2})
- \(I_{{{\text{meas}},{\text{avg}}}}\)
Average of measured data
- \(I_{\text{meas}}\)
Measured value
- \(I_{\text{o}}\)
Solar constant (W/m^{2})
- \(I_{\text{oN}}\)
Extraterrestrial radiation measured on the plane normal to the radiation (W/m^{2})
- \(L_{\text{ao}}\)
Aerosol optical depth (cm)
- \(L_{\text{st}}\), \(L_{\text{loc}}\)
Standard meridian for local time zone and longitude
- \(m_{{{\text{air}},{\text{KUM}}}}\)
A specific air mass
- \(m_{\text{air}}\)
Air mass at actual pressure
- \(m_{\text{e}}\)
Air mass corrected for elevation
- \(m_{{{\text{r}},{\text{ABW}}}}\)
A specific air mass
- \(m_{\text{r}}\)
Air mass at standard pressure
- \(p_{\text{o}}\)
Standard pressure (mbar)
- \(r_{\text{d}}\)
Ratio of monthly average hourly diffuse irradiance to monthly average daily diffuse irradiance
- \(r_{\text{t}}\)
Ratio of monthly average hourly global irradiance to monthly average daily global irradiance
- \(\bar{S}\)
Monthly average daily sunshine hours (hr)
- \(T_{\text{amb}}\)
Ambient temperature (K)
- \(T_{\text{dew}}\)
Dew point temperature (C)
- \(T_{\text{LTF}}\)
Linke turbidity factor
- \(T_{\text{o}}\)
Temperature at zero altitude (K)
- \(U_{1}\)
Pressure-corrected relative optical-path length of precipitable water (cm)
- \(U_{3}\)
Ozone’s relative optical-path length (cm)
- \(W^{\prime }\)
Precipitable water vapor thickness under the actual condition
- \(X_{\text{o}}\)
Total amount of ozone in a slanted path
- \(X_{\text{w}}\)
Total amount of precipitable water in a slanted path
- \(N_{j}\)
Number of the day (from 1 on 1 January to 365 on 31 December)
- \(a_{\text{aa}}\), \(b_{\text{aa}}\), \(c_{\text{aa}}\)
Constants
- A, B
Site climate-related constants
- a, b, c, d, e, f
Empirical coefficients
- A, B, C, D
Empirical coefficients
- E
Time equation
- H
Site elevation (m)
- L
Latitude (m)
- N
Cloud cover number (Oktas)
- N
Number of observations
- P
Actual pressure (mbar)
- R
Relative humidity (%)
- SDT
Standard time (h)
- ST
Solar time (h)
- T
Average maximum temperature (°C)
Subscript and superscript symbols
- Amb
Ambient
- Ao
Aerosol optical
- Avg
Average
- Cal
Calculated
- CC
Cloud cover
- D
Diffuse
- Dew
Dew point
- DNI
Direct normal Irradiance
- E
Elevation
- G
Global
- H
Horizontal
- Loc
Local
- LTF
Linke turbidity
- Meas
Measured
- N
Normal
- SC
Solar constant
- St
Standard
- W
Water
Greek symbols
- \(\theta_{\text{z}}\)
Zenith angle (°)
- \(\beta_{1} , \beta_{2}\)
Angstrom exponent and Angstrom turbidity coefficient, respectively
- \(\theta_{\text{h}}\)
Solar hour angle (°)
- \(\theta_{\text{hs}}\)
Sunset hour angle (^{o})
- \(\theta_{\delta }\)
Declination angle
- \(\tau_{\text{aa}}\)
Atmospheric attenuation
- \(\tau_{\text{as}}\)
Aerosol scattering transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{at}}\)
Aerosol transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{bulk}}\)
Bulk atmospheric transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{gt}}\)
Gas transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{md}}\)
Direct transmittance of all molecular effects except water vapor for Atwater
- \(\tau_{\text{ot}}\)
Ozone transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{rt}}\)
Air transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{w}}\)
Precipitable water transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{wt}}\)
Water transmittance
- \(\tau_{\text{o}}\)
Ozone transmittance
- \(\alpha_{\text{w}}\)
Water vapor absorption
Introduction
Renewable energy sources have taken increasingly significant attention these days. Particularly, solar energy that could contribute efficiently to attain the proper solution for the rapid growth problem in energy demand. The short-term solution can be through offering the sustainable system design via hybridizing solar energy with fossil fuel to sustain the existing energy resources, while the long-term solution can be the entirely replacing for the conventional energy sources to compensate the shortage in these resources. The depletion of fossil fuel resources (oil, natural gas, coal) approximately would be up to 2042, except coal which will last after 2042 [1].
The primary assessment of the potential of solar energy at a specific site is essential for selecting and designing solar energy systems (e.g., photovoltaic systems and solar concentrated collectors). However, the substantial impact of uncertainty of the solar irradiance forecast (especially, direct normal irradiance) on the solar power plants output and their profitability over time should be addressed. Moreover, much attention should been paid to the significance of acquiring hour-ahead or day-ahead forecasts of solar irradiance [2]. Accordingly, most recent studies have emphasized on attaining the best forecast accuracy based on high-quality solar irradiance data to reduce the effect of the intermittency nature of solar energy on the uncertainty in the optimal design parameters and the errors in all modeling and measurements [3, 4, 5].
The solar radiation that travels through the sky until reaching the earth’s surface can obtain various forms: direct (beam), diffuse, and reflected (scattered) radiation based on the distance traveled through the atmosphere, the cloudiness amount, the ozone layer intensity, the concentration of haze in the air (water vapor, dust particles, pollutants, etc.), and types of ground surface [6]. Indeed, the most relevant component of solar radiation for concentrated solar power technologies (including parabolic trough, central receiver, linear Fresnel reflector, and parabolic dish) is the direct normal irradiance (DNI). Thus, the performance of the previous technologies reduces dramatically with growing cloud cover; whereas, photovoltaics can generate electric power from diffuse irradiation. Therefore, the long-term evaluation for the technical and economic performance of solar energy technologies is based on the availability of solar radiation data and their accuracy. To move successfully from the investment in small to large-scale solar projects, accurate solar radiation data are essential because small uncertainty in the measured and estimated quantity of solar radiation may jeopardize the economic feasibility of proposed solar projects [7]. Solar radiation measuring instruments (e.g., pyranometer and pyrheliometer) are utilized to obtain reliable solar radiation data over various periods of time [6]. However, the measured data may not available or easily accessible due to the high cost of instruments which used in measuring stations and the technical difficulties to calibrate these instruments, especially in developing countries.
The lack of measured DNI data at the most solar project’s sites is a challenging task for researchers and workers in the field of solar energy applications. Despite the availability of global a horizontal irradiance (GHI) and diffuse (DHI) a horizontal irradiance data that can be used to obtain DNI values, there is still a need to model the solar resource in most cases. Consequently, most researchers in this field have formulated various models, regression equations, and empirical correlations to predict solar radiation based on the division basis of the time period (e.g., hourly, daily, monthly) and on the meteorological and geographic parameters. These parameters are maximum and minimum temperature, relative humidity, sunshine duration, cleanness index, cloud cover, geographical site, etc. [7]. The estimated datasets from various models, regression equations, and empirical correlations require precise validation via comparing with high-quality measured datasets. For large-scale solar projects, the importance of the mutual relationship between a lower uncertainty in solar radiation data, minimal financial risks, and profitability has been discussed in [5].
Existing models and methods
The significance of solar radiation modeling emerged through presenting numerous literature which include developing various models, regression equations, and empirical correlations to estimate solar radiation. However, the considerable abundance of models that use for obtaining the solar radiation data sets requires assessing their validity and performance. Therefore, the “Existing models and methods” of this work is allocated for introducing a comprehensive overview of the existing models and methods which included in the various literature. The two categories of solar radiation models: parametric and decomposition are used to predict beam (direct), diffuse, and global components of irradiance based on the availability of other measured or calculated quantities. The parametric (broadband) models have been formulated based on astronomical, atmospheric and geographic parameters to predict the solar irradiance precisely. Additionally, these models are the better choice than decomposition models when meteorological data are not obtainable [6, 8, 9, 10]. First models have been formulated and tested to estimate the amount of clear-sky direct and diffuse solar radiation on a horizontal surfaces under various climate conditions [11, 12, 13]. The attenuation influence of a large range of atmospheric constituents on the DNI has been studied. This study demonstrated that the major attenuation was occurred by effecting of constituents, molecular scattering, and water vapor absorption, respectively, while the ozone layer and CO_{2} have a minor effect. The tested models have shown a reasonable agreement with small values of the zenith angle [14, 15]. The availability of the input parameters (aerosol optical depth or Link turbidity) and implementation simplicity were used as the selection criteria for a number of clear-sky solar irradiance models and to evaluate their accuracy. The parameters, which are measured locally, were more recommended than climatic data sets to avoid underestimated values of the direct and global irradiance [16]. Several simple clear and cloudy sky models of solar global irradiance that do not need meteorological data as inputs have been evaluated. The models can be used to predict the global irradiance for the next few hours or might be for the next day. In addition, the clear-sky model can be used for partially cloudy days and the estimated total cloud amount is crucial for the cloudy sky model [17]. Three types of analyses have been used to assess the validity, limitations, and performance of many clear-sky solar irradiance models. These analyses were carried out based on studying the effect of atmospheric effects (e.g., water vapor absorption, aerosol extinction), statistical evaluation, and comparison with a large number of calculated and measured data [18]. The performance of broadband models has been evaluated to identify their accuracy to predict clear-sky direct normal irradiance (DNI) by comparing with high-quality measurements along with a large range of conditions that were selected carefully. Furthermore, the uncertainty in the predicted values of DNI increase pointedly with air mass and they were more sensitive to errors in values of turbidity and precipitable water, which are the two substantial inputs of the parametric models [9, 19]. The evaluation procedure, which consists of 42 stages, has been created to test 54 parametric models through the sensitivity analysis. These models can be used to compute global and diffuse irradiance on a horizontal surface. The input data for the models have been adopted from satellite measurements including ground meteorological data and atmospheric column integrated data [20]. The significant review for eighteen clear-sky models has been carried out to assess their performance by comparison between predicted values and measured values under various climate conditions. The high-quality input data were collected from five locations. The selected models can be applied to set up solar datasets, solar resource maps, and large-scale applications. All models were ranked based on their accuracy that determined by four statistical indicators. It has also been found that there is complexity in the prediction of DNI, the prediction of DHI is less accurate, and the number of the model input may not have that obvious influence on its performance and precise [21]. To select a suitable site to install the concentrating solar power plant, seventeen clear-sky models have been studied to verify which model can be used for predicting the more precise values of direct normal irradiance. The performance and accuracy of the models have been tested by comparing their predictions with measured irradiance of a specific site along with using the statistical accuracy indicators. The parametric models have been classified into two groups: simple models that are included less than three inputs (astronomical and geographical parameters) such as ASHRAE, Meinel, HLJ, etc., and complex models that are based on various parameters (the air mass, the ozone layer, aerosols, precipitable water and Linke turbidity factor) such as Bird family models. It is worth noting that simpler models can offer more accurate DNI data than complex models, in other words, an increase in the number of model inputs (e.g., atmospheric parameters) may not necessarily enhance the accuracy and performance of a model [22].
Based on the above-mentioned, the clear-sky models (parametric models) have been developed to estimate the clear-sky irradiation (in the absence of clouds). Hence, they cannot be used to predicate direct normal irradiance (DNI) under cloudy conditions. Consequently, decomposition models are based on the phenomenon of fitting the historical experimental data through empirical correlations, which are typically utilized to calculate direct normal radiation and diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface from global solar radiation data [23]. It is axiomatic that the availability of solar radiation at the earth’s surface is considerably influenced by cloudy sky condition. The direct normal irradiance is attenuated significantly with increasing cloud cover and its value may be reached to zero. In contrast, once the value of cloud cover attains intermediate range values, the diffuse solar irradiance (sky radiation) starts growing in the sky until mounting to a maximum value at high range values of cloud cover, or fading to zero at the overcast sky condition [24]. Because of that, the sky state study, based on the temporal and spatial distribution modeling of clouds, is crucial to estimate the availability of all radiation types at a specific site [25]. The various concepts of cloud detection and classification have been discussed, various techniques were developed for cloud classification based on instruments (ground-based, satellite integrated) that used to determine the state of the sky [26, 27, 28].
Numerous types of cloud cover-based models have developed to estimate hourly and daily solar radiation using cloud cover data [2, 29, 30, 31]. The cloud-cover radiation model (CRM) is widely used to obtain hourly global solar irradiance forecast based on the cloud cover, which is measured in Oktas and ranging from zero Oktas (an entirely clear sky) through eight Oktas (an entirely overcast sky). The CRM was developed by Kasten and Czeplak using 10 years of hourly cloud amount data [32]. Many researchers have tested the Kasten–Czeplak model (CRM) using the dataset of various sites around the world, and to improve the model’s accuracy, the locally fitted coefficients for each of the selected locations were determined by regression analysis [25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36].
In order to obtain average hourly solar radiation values from long-term daily values, global solar radiation decomposition models can be used to transform daily solar radiation values into hourly solar radiation values [37]. The existing models can be divided into three categories based on parameters, physical significance, and constructing methods: the first group of models entails the time factor like solar time, day length, solar hour angle, etc. The most widely used models are the Whillier model [38], Liu and Jordan model [39], and Collares-Pereira and Rabl model [40, 41], the second group of models is developed in the Gaussian function form such as Jain model 1 [42], Jain model 2 [43], Shazly model [44], and Baig et al. model [45]. Newell model [46] is the most known model of the third group of models, which is modified from the Collares-Pereira and Rabl model [8, 36, 47].
Other empirical models have been developed by correlating the clearness index, diffuse fraction, and meteorological parameters based on using the measured data of selected sites to estimate the global and diffuse solar irradiation. The meteorological parameters consist of sunshine period, cloud cover, minimum and maximum temperature, relative humidity, and geographical location.
The clearness index is a random parameter which can sense the meteorological stochastic effects (e.g., atmospheric aerosols, cloudiness, temperature, etc.) on the solar radiation for a time of the day, a season of the year, and a geographical site [48]. It should be noted that the clearness index is sensitive to the short-term effects (atmospheric influences which are described by statistics and the long-term effects (Earth’s movement which is described by astronomy) [49]. In general, it represents the ratio of the global solar irradiance on a terrestrial a horizontal surface (which is a stochastic quantity) to the global solar irradiance on an extraterrestrial a horizontal surface (which is a deterministic quantity) for the same time and site [6, 50]. In this context, the concepts of long-term of solar radiation data (either daily or monthly average daily) and short-term of solar radiation data (either hourly or monthly average hourly) can be utilized to estimate the cleanness index [6]. As already stated, the clearness index and diffuse fraction are essential factors for evaluating the impacts of cloud on extraterrestrial radiation. Therefore, they both should be considered as random variables to construct probability functions (PDF and CDF) through studying the statistical distribution of their past occurrence to predict their future values within a precise range. Based on that, several investigators have used probability function, which depends on local conditions, in modeling clearness index to predict terrestrial solar radiation and to classify the level of the sky clearness [10, 39, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55].
The sunshine duration is another key indicator for specifying the different sky conditions along with the clearness index and cloud cover. It is the ratio of the actual (bright) hours of sunshine (which is a stochastic value) to the average daylight hours (which is a deterministic value). When the sky is completely cloudless, the bright sunshine hours will be equal to the average daylight hours and the ratio will be 1 and the majority of radiations that gained by the solar energy systems are direct normal irradiance (DNI). In contrast, on a completely or partially cloudy day, the bright sunshine hours may reach zero, thus diffuse radiation will dominate the working of solar energy systems during the time of spreading scattered thin clouds in the sky [36]. When the sunshine duration fraction is approximately 0.3–0.5, the highest diffuse radiation values typically is obtained [23]. However, the uncertainty influence of scattered clouds and their movement in the sky is still representing a great obstacle in estimating a nature and quantity of received radiations on the earth surface [56]. The estimation of sunshine duration data from cloud cover by developing an empirical correlation is quite useful to calculate global solar radiation on a horizontal surface [57]. In the same context, a simple theoretical model has been presented that represents the interrelation of sunshine duration and cloud cover fraction to predict cloud cover fraction that can be further used to calculate global solar radiation on a horizontal surface (GHI) under different sky conditions [56].
Thus, the Angstrom–Prescott correlation, which represents the simple, linear, and pioneering relationship between clearness index and relative sunshine, was established by Angstrom and then was modified by Prescott [58, 59]. Over the last decades, there were considerable endeavors for evaluating and interpreting the Angstrom–Prescott equation [60]. New formulations (either linear or non-linear) of the Angstrom–Prescott equation were proposed by many researchers using clearness index against sunshine fraction [8, 36, 47, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69], ambient temperature [8, 47, 62, 67, 69, 70], relative humidity [8, 47, 69], precipitation [47, 62, 71, 72], cloud cover [47, 57, 61, 73], and multi-parameters [47, 60, 67, 69, 74].
It is obvious that the performance evaluation of solar energy systems (solar photovoltaics and solar thermal applications) and selecting their optimized design depends on the availability of solar radiation data and its components. The diffuse radiation is undoubtedly a significant component besides direct normal irradiance for assessing the solar radiation quality. Hence, numerous empirical correlations have been developed to predict diffuse radiation or monthly average daily diffuse solar radiation using clearness index, relative sunshine duration, and cloud cover data [10]. The first correlation developed by Liu and Jordan [39] to estimate hourly diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface from global solar radiation, and based on the same concept, many correlations have been modified by researchers using a large amount of data from different locations over a period of years [75, 76, 77, 78, 79]. Other models have been developed for calculating monthly average diffuse solar radiation by employing regression analysis to correlate diffuse fraction with clearness index and relative sunshine duration [39, 80, 81, 82]. To enhance the accuracy of models for estimating diffuse solar radiation or monthly average daily diffuse solar radiation, several researchers have demonstrated the importance of adding more variables such as ambient temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover, etc. [83]. The prediction of hourly, daily, and monthly global solar radiation and its components on inclined surfaces were discussed in [48, 84, 85] because the maximum amount of incident solar radiation is received on inclined surfaces.
Although the quite abundant of models and evaluation methods for them that were presented by the existing literature over a few decades ago, it is rarely, in the current literature, finding proper methodologies that can be easily followed by researchers, engineers, and workers in the field of designing solar energy systems to create solar radiation datasets and to evaluate solar energy availability under different sky conditions for assorted solar radiations. Consequently, the aim of this study is to develop two hierarchical calculation methodologies for estimating hourly solar irradiance using various models, empirical correlations and regression equations. Specifically, hourly direct normal irradiance data are utilized for designing solar concentrated collectors. Additionally, the preliminary evaluation for the potential of solar energy in the selected region is carried out by performing a comprehensive analysis of the solar irradiance data and the clearness index to make a proper decision for the capability of utilizing solar energy technologies. The validation and performance evaluation of the proposed approaches for estimating solar data are carried out by using various statistical indicators while comparing with measured solar data.
Theoretical analysis
The design and operation of various solar energy technologies and their applications such as photovoltaic systems and concentrated solar thermal energy systems require obtaining high-quality solar irradiance data for a specific site at any time of a day and a year to make the long-term evaluation for the techno-economic performance for these technologies. Thus, various existing models, empirical correlations and regression equations, which have been discussed in detail in “Existing models and methods”, will be investigated along with developing some regression equations in this work to predict different solar radiation types based on the time period and the meteorological and geographic parameters.
Estimation of hourly direct normal irradiance
Parametric (broadband) models
Summary of selected parametric models
Equation | Description | ||
---|---|---|---|
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{FR }}}} = I_{\text{oN}} \tau_{\text{bulk}}^{{m_{\text{e}} }}\) | (1) | Fu and Rich model | [9] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{ASH}}}} = A {\text{exp}}\left[ {\frac{ - B}{{\cos \theta_{\text{z}} }}} \right]\) | (2) | ASHRAE model | |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{HLJ}}}} = I_{\text{oN}} \tau_{\text{aa}}\) \(\tau_{\text{aa}} = a_{\text{aa}} + b_{\text{aa}} {\text{exp}}\left[ { - \frac{{c_{\text{aa}} }}{{\cos \theta_{\text{z}} }}} \right]\) \(a_{\text{aa}}\), \(b_{\text{aa}}\), \(c_{\text{aa}}\) are constants [13, 22] | (3) | HLJ model | [22] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{KUM}}}} = 0.56 I_{\text{oN}} [\exp ( - 0.65 m_{\text{air}} ) + { \exp }( - 0.095 m_{{{\text{air}},{\text{KUM}}}} )]\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = \{ [1229 + \left( {614 \cos \theta_{\text{z}} } \right)^{2} ]^{0.5} - 614 \cos \theta_{\text{z}} \}\) | (4) | Kumer model | [9] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{HS}}1}} = I_{\text{oN}} \exp ( - m_{\text{air}} \sigma T_{\text{LTF}} )\) \(\sigma = 1/\left( {6.62960 + 1.7513m_{\text{air}} - 0.1202m_{\text{air}}^{2} + 0.0065m_{\text{air}}^{3} - 0.00013m_{\text{air}}^{4} } \right)\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 1/\cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) \(T_{\text{LTF}}\): Linke turbidity factor [22] | (5) | Heliosat-1 model | [9] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{ESRA}}}} = I_{\text{oN}} \exp ( - m_{\text{air}} \sigma T_{\text{LTF}} )\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) | (6) | ESRA model | [9] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{Bird}}}} = 0.9662 I_{\text{oN}} \tau_{\text{total}}\) \(\tau_{\text{total}} = \tau_{\text{rt}} \tau_{\text{ot}} \tau_{\text{gt}} \tau_{\text{wt}} \tau_{\text{at}}\) \(\tau_{\text{rt}} = { \exp }\left[ { - 0.0903 m_{\text{air}}^{0.84} \left( {1 + m_{\text{air}} - m_{\text{air}}^{1.01} } \right)} \right]\) \(\tau_{\text{ot}} = 1 - [0.1611U_{3} (1 + 139.48U_{3} )^{ - 0.3035} - 0.002715U_{3} \left( {1 + 0.044U_{3} + 0.0003U_{3}^{2} )^{ - 1} } \right]\)\(\tau_{\text{gt}} = \exp ( - 0.0127m_{\text{air}}^{0.26} )\) \(\tau_{\text{wt}} = 1 - 2.4959U_{1} [1 + 79.034U_{1} )^{0.6828} + 6.385U_{1} ]^{ - 1}\) \(\tau_{\text{at}} = { \exp }\left[ { - L_{\text{ao}}^{0.873} \left( {1 + L_{\text{ao}} - L_{\text{ao}}^{0.7808} } \right)m_{\text{air}}^{0.9108} } \right]\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) \(L_{\text{ao}} = f\left( {\beta_{1} , \beta_{2} } \right)\) | (7) | Bird model | |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{Hoyt}}}} = I_{\text{o}} \left( {1 - \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{5} a_{i} } \right) \tau_{\text{as}} \tau_{\text{r}}\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) \(m_{r} = [\cos \theta_{z} + 0.15 (93.885 - \theta_{z} )^{ - 1.253} ]^{ - 1}\) \(a_{1}\), \(a_{2}\), \(a_{3}\), \(a_{4}\),\(a_{5} = f\left( {U_{1} ,U_{3} ,m_{\text{r}} ,m_{\text{a}} ,\tau_{\text{ot}} ,\tau_{\text{as}} } \right)\) | (8) | Hoyt (Iqbal B) model | |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{MET}}}} = 0.9751 I_{\text{oN}} \tau_{\text{total}}\) All transmittances \((\tau_{\text{total}} )\) are similar to Bird model except aerosol transmittance, \(\tau_{\text{at}} = { \exp }\left( { - m_{\text{air}} L_{\text{ao}} } \right)\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) | (9) | METSTAT model | [9] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{CSR}}}} = C_{\text{CSR}} I_{\text{oN}} \tau_{\text{total}}\) \(C_{\text{CSR}} = \left[ {50 + \left| {{ \cos }\left( {\frac{{N_{j} }}{325}} \right)} \right|} \right]/49.25\) All transmittances \((\tau_{\text{total}} )\) are similar to Bird model except aerosol transmittance, \(\tau_{\text{at}} = { \exp }\left( { - m_{\text{air}} L_{\text{ao}} } \right)\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) | (10) | CSR model | [22] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{IqbalC}}}} = 0.9751 I_{\text{oN}}\)\(\tau_{\text{total}}\) All transmittances (\(\tau_{\text{total}}\)) are similar to Bird model | (11) | Iqbal model C | [10] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{MIqbalC}}}} = 0.9751 I_{\text{oN}} \tau_{\text{total}}\) \(\tau_{\text{at}} = \left( {0.12445\beta_{1} - 0.0162} \right) + \left( {1.003 - 0.125\beta_{2} } \right){ \exp }\left[ { - m_{\text{air}} \beta_{1} \left( {1.089 \beta_{2} + 0.5123} \right)} \right]\)\(\tau_{\text{w}} = 1 - 2.4959U_{1} [1 + 79.034U_{1} )^{0.6828} + 6.385U_{1} ]^{ - 1}\) \(U_{1} = W^{{\prime }} m_{\text{r}}\) \(W^{{\prime }} = 0.1\exp \left( {2.2572 + 0.05454 T_{\text{dew}} } \right) = {\text{Won'sequation}}\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) | (12) | Modified Iqbal model C | [22] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{AWB}}}} = I_{\text{o}} \left( {\tau_{\text{md}} - a_{\text{w}} } \right) \tau_{\text{at}}\) \(\tau_{\text{md}} = 1.041 - 0.16 [m_{\text{r}} (949 \times 10^{ - 6} p + 0.051 )]^{0.5}\) \(a_{\text{w}} = 0.077(U_{1} m_{\text{air}} )^{0.3}\) \(U_{1} = W m_{\text{r}}\) \(W = W^{{\prime }} \left( {\frac{p}{{p_{\text{o}} }}} \right)^{0.75} (T_{\text{o}} /T_{\text{amb}} )^{0.5}\) \(W^{{\prime }} = 0.1\exp \left( {2.2572 + 0.05454 T_{\text{dew}} } \right) = {\text{Won'sequation}}\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) | (13) | Atwater and Ball model. (The model can be used for clear and cloudy sky) | |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{DH}}}} = I_{\text{o}} \left( {\tau_{\text{o}} \tau_{\text{rt}} - \alpha_{\text{w}} } \right) \tau_{\text{A}}\) \(\tau_{\text{o}} = \left\{ {\left[ {\frac{{\left( {1 - 0.02118X_{\text{o}} } \right)}}{{\left( {1 + 0.042X_{\text{o}} + 0.000323X_{\text{o}}^{2} } \right)}}} \right] - [(1.082X_{\text{o}} )/(1 + 138.6X_{\text{o}} )^{0.805} ] - [(0.0658X_{\text{o}} )/(1 + (103.6X_{\text{o}} ))^{3} } \right\}\)\(\alpha_{\text{w}} = 2.9X_{\text{w}} /[(1 + 141.5X_{\text{w}} )^{0.635} + 5.925 X_{\text{w}} )]\) \(\tau_{\text{A}} = \left( {0.12445\alpha - 0.0162} \right) + \left( {1.003 - 0.125\alpha } \right) {\text{exp}}\left[ { - \beta m_{\text{air}} \left( {1.089\alpha + 0.5123} \right)} \right]\) \(X_{\text{o}} = U_{3} m_{\text{r}}\) \(X_{\text{w}} = U_{1} m_{\text{r}}\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{z} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) | (14) | Davies and Hay model | [12] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{DPP}}}} = 950.2 \left\{ {1 - \exp \left[ { - 0.075 \left( {90{^\circ } - \theta_{\text{z}} } \right)} \right]} \right\}\) | (15) | Daneshyar–Paltridge–Proctor (DPP) model | [8] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{Meinel}}}} = I_{\text{oN}} 0.7^{{m_{\text{air}}^{0.678} }}\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 1/\cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) | (16) | Meinel model | [8] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{Laue}}}} = I_{\text{oN}} \left[ {\left( {1 - 0.14 L} \right) 0.7^{{m_{\text{air}}^{0.678} }} + 0.14 L} \right]\) \(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) \(m_{\text{r}} = 1/\cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) | (17) | Laue model | [8] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{Haw}}}} = 1098 \cos \theta_{\text{z}} \exp [ - 0.057/\cos \theta_{\text{z}} ]\) | (18) | Haurwitz model | [86] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{BD}}}} = 0.70 I_{\text{oN}} \cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) | (19) | Berger and Duffie model | [86] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{ABCG}}}} = 951.39 (\cos \theta_{\text{z}} )^{1.15}\) | (20) | Adnot, Bourges, Campana and Gicquel model | [86] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{KC}}}} = 910 \cos \theta_{\text{z}} - 30\) | (21) | Kasten and Czeplak model | [86] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{RS}}}} = 1159.24 \{ (\cos \theta_{\text{z}} )^{1.179} \exp [ - 0.0019 (90 - \theta_{\text{z}} )]\}\) | (22) | Robledo and Sole model | [86] |
Summary of astronomical and atmospheric parameters
Equation | Parameters name | Parameters type | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
\(\cos \theta_{\text{z}} = \sin L \sin \theta_{\delta } + \cos L \cos \theta_{\delta } \cos \theta_{\text{h}}\) | (23) | Solar zenith angle | Astronomical | [6] |
\(\theta_{\delta } = 23.45\sin \left[ {\frac{360}{365}(284 + N_{j} )} \right]\) | (24) | Declination angle | Astronomical | [6] |
\(\theta_{\text{h}} = 15{^\circ }\left( {{\text{ST}} - 12} \right)\) | (25) | Solar angle | Astronomical | [6] |
\({\text{ST}} = {\text{SDT}} + 4\left( {L_{\text{st}} - L_{\text{loc}} } \right) + E\) \(E\, = \,229.2 \, (75\, \times \,10^{ - 6} + 186 \times 10^{ - 6} \sin B - 0.032207 \sin B - 0.014615 \sin 2B - 0.04089 \sin 2B)\) \(B = (N_{j} - 1)\frac{360}{365}\) | (26) | Solar time Time equation | Astronomical | [22] |
\(I_{\text{oN}} = I_{\text{o}} \left[ {1 + 0.033\cos \left( {\frac{{360N_{j} }}{365}} \right)} \right]\) | (27) | Extraterrestrial radiation measured on the plane normal to the radiation | Astronomical | [6] |
\(m_{\text{e}} = \exp \left( { - 0.000118\;{\text{h}} - 1638 \times 10^{ - 9} {\text{h}}^{2} } \right)/\cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) | (28) | Air mass corrected for elevation | Atmospheric | [22] |
\(m_{\text{r}} = \{ [1229 + (614 \cos \theta_{\text{z}} )^{2} ]^{0.5} - 614 \cos \theta_{\text{z}} \}\) | (29) | A specific air mass | Atmospheric | [22] |
\(m_{\text{air}} = m_{\text{r}} p/p_{\text{o}}\) | (30) | Air mass at actual pressure | Atmospheric | [9] |
\(m_{\text{r}} = 1/\cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) | (31) | Air mass at standard pressure | Atmospheric | [9] |
\(m_{{{\text{air}},{\text{MIqbalC}}}} = m_{\text{r}} \exp \left( { - 0.001184 {\text{h}}} \right)\) | (32) | Actual air mass value depends on altitude and relative air mass at standard pressure | Atmospheric | [22] |
\(m_{\text{r}} = 35/[(1224 {\text{cos}}^{2} \theta_{\text{z}} ) + 1]^{0.5}\) | (33) | Air mass at standard pressure | Atmospheric | [12] |
\(m_{\text{r}} = [\cos \theta_{\text{z}} + 0.15 (93.885 - \theta_{\text{z}} )^{ - 1.253} ]^{ - 1}\) | (34) | Air mass at standard pressure | Atmospheric | [22] |
Cloud cover model (CRM)
Cloud-cover radiation model (CRM)
Equation | Description | ||
---|---|---|---|
\(I_{{{\text{G}}_{\text{cs}} }} = A\sin \theta_{\alpha } - B\) \(\sin \theta_{\alpha } = \cos \theta_{z} = \sin L \sin \theta_{\delta } + \cos L \cos \theta_{\delta } \cos \theta_{h}\) \(\sin \theta_{\text{h}} = \frac{{\sin \theta_{\alpha } - \sin \theta_{\delta } \sin L}}{{\cos \theta_{\delta } \cos L}}\) A, B: empirical coefficients | (35) | Hourly global solar radiation on a horizontal surface under cloudless sky | [30] |
\(I_{{{\text{G}}_{\text{cc}} }} = I_{{{\text{G}}_{\text{cs}} }} \left[ {1 - C\left( {\frac{\text{N}}{8}} \right)^{D} } \right]\) \(N = {\text{cloud cover}}\; ({\text{Oktas}});\quad [0({\text{clear}}\;{\text{sky}}) - 8 ( {\text{completely}}\;{\text{overcast}}\;{\text{sky)}}]\) C, D: empirical coefficients | (36) | Hourly global solar radiation on a horizontal surface under cloud cover condition | |
\(I_{\text{d}} = I_{{{\text{G}}_{\text{cc}} }} \left[ {0.3 - 0.7\left( {\frac{\text{N}}{8}} \right)^{2} } \right]\) | (37) | Hourly diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface | [30] |
\(I_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{KC}}}} = \left( {I_{{{\text{G}}_{\text{cc}} }} - I_{\text{d}} } \right)/\cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) | (38) | Direct normal irradiance (DNI) under different sky conditions |
A hierarchical calculation methodology
Estimation of monthly average hourly direct solar irradiance from daily data
Daily global solar radiation (decomposition models)
Two decomposition models
Equation | Description | ||
---|---|---|---|
\(r_{\text{t}} = \frac{{\bar{I}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }} = \frac{\pi }{24} \left( {a + b\cos \theta_{\text{h}} } \right) \left[ {\frac{{\cos \theta_{\text{h}} - \cos \theta_{\text{hs}} }}{{\sin \theta_{\text{hs}} - \left( {\frac{{\pi \theta_{\text{hs}} }}{180}} \right)\cos \theta_{\text{hs}} }}} \right]\) \(\theta_{\text{hs}} = \cos^{ - 1} \left[ { - \tan L \cdot \tan \theta_{\delta } } \right]\) \(\theta_{\text{h}} = \pm 0.25 \left( {{\text{number}}\;{\text{of}}\;{\text{minutes}}\;{\text{from}}\;{\text{local}}\;{\text{solar}}\;{\text{noon}}} \right)\) \(a = 0.4090 + 0.5016\sin (\theta_{\text{hs}} - 60)\) \(b = 0.6609 - 0.4767\sin (\theta_{\text{hs}} - 60)\) | (39) | Collares-Pereira and Rabl correlation (ratio of monthly average hourly global irradiance to monthly average daily global irradiance) | [6] |
\(r_{\text{d}} = \frac{{\bar{I}_{\text{d}} }}{{H_{\text{d}} }} = \frac{\pi }{24} \left[ {\frac{{\cos \theta_{\text{h}} - \cos \theta_{\text{hs}} }}{{\sin \theta_{\text{hs}} - \left( {\frac{{\pi \theta_{\text{hs}} }}{180}} \right)\cos \theta_{\text{hs}} }}} \right]\) | (40) | Liu and Jordan correlation (ratio of monthly average hourly diffuse irradiance to monthly average daily diffuse irradiance) | [6] |
\(\bar{I}_{\text{DNI,H}} = \bar{I}_{\text{G}} - \bar{I}_{\text{d}}\) | (41) | Monthly average hourly direct solar irradiance on a horizontal surface | |
\(\bar{I}_{\text{DNI}} = \bar{I}_{{{\text{DNI}},{\text{H}}}} /\cos \theta_{\text{z}}\) | (42) | Monthly average hourly direct solar irradiance |
Angstrom–Prescott correlation
Regression equations of Angstrom–Prescott model
Equation | Description | ||
---|---|---|---|
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = a + b\frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }}\) | (43) | Linear model | [60] |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = a + b \frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }} + c \left( {\frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }}} \right)^{2}\) | (44) | Quadratic model | [47] |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = a + b \frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }} + c T + d R\) | (45) | Multi-parameters model | [47] |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = a + b\cos L + c H + d \frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }} + e T + f R\) | (46) | Gopinathan’s model | [74] |
\(\bar{K}_{\text{T}} = \frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }}\) | (47) | Monthly mean clearness index | [6] |
\(H_{\text{o}} = \frac{24}{\pi } H_{\text{sc}} \left[ {1 + 0.033\cos \left( {\frac{{360N_{j} }}{365}} \right)} \right]\left[ {\cos L \cos \theta_{\delta } \sin \theta_{\text{hs}} + \frac{\pi }{180} \theta_{\text{hs}} \sin L \sin \theta_{\delta } } \right]\) | (48) | Monthly average daily extraterrestrial solar irradiance on a horizontal surface | [6] |
\(S_{\text{o}} = 2 \theta_{\text{hs}} /15\) | (49) | Maximum possible monthly average daily length (h) | [6] |
Empirical models
Summary of empirical models
Equation | Description | ||
---|---|---|---|
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{d}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }} = 1.39 - 4.027 \left( {\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }}} \right) + 5.5310\left( {\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }}} \right)^{2} - 3.108\left( {\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }}} \right)^{3}\) | (50) | Liu and Jordan model | [82] |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{d}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }} = 1.2547 - 1.2547 \left( {\frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }}} \right)\) | (51) | Iqbal model | [82] |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{d}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }} = 1.194 - 0.838\left( {\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }}} \right) - 0.0446\left( {\frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }}} \right)\) | (52) | Gopinathan model | [82] |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{d}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }} = 0.775 + 0.00606 \left( {\theta_{\text{hs}} - 90} \right) - \left[ {0.505 + 0.00455 \left( {\theta_{\text{hs}} - 90} \right)} \right]{\text{cos }}\left( {115 \left( {\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }}} \right) - 103} \right)\) | (53) | Collares-Pereira and Rabl | [6] |
A hierarchical calculation methodology
Site description and data collection
Statistical methods of model evaluation
Statistical indicators
Equation | Description | |
---|---|---|
\({\text{MBE}} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} \left( {I_{\text{cal}} - I_{\text{meas}} } \right)}}{n}\) | (54) | Mean bias error |
\({\text{RMSE}} = \sqrt {\frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} (I_{\text{cal}} - I_{\text{meas}} )^{2} }}{n}}\) | (55) | Root mean square error |
\({\text{MPAPE}} = \frac{100}{n} \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{{\left( {I_{\text{cal}} - I_{\text{meas}} } \right)}}{{I_{\text{meas}} }}\) | (56) | Absolute percent error |
\(R^{2} = 1 - \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} (I_{\text{cal}} - I_{\text{meas}} )^{2} }}{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} (I_{\text{meas}} - I_{\text{meas,avg}} )^{2} }}\) | (57) | Coefficient of determination |
\(t_{\text{stat}} = \left[ {\frac{{\left( {n - 1} \right){\text{MBE}}^{2} }}{{{\text{RMSE}}^{2} - {\text{MBE}}^{2} }}} \right]^{1/2}\) | (58) | t Statistic method |
\(e{\text{\% }} = \frac{{I_{\text{cal}} - I_{\text{meas}} }}{{I_{\text{meas}} }}\) | (59) | Percentage error |
Results and discussion
Monthly average hourly and daily values for the clearness index
Month | Hour | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Daily | |
January | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.42 | 0.32 | 0.462 | |||
February | 0.24 | 0.34 | 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.476 | |||
March | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.478 | ||
April | 0.16 | 0.29 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.54 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.502 | |
May | 0.02 | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.54 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.51 | 0.517 | |
June | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.44 | 0.568 |
July | 0.01 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.44 | 0.582 |
August | 0.20 | 0.36 | 0.49 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.53 | 0.39 | 0.590 | |
September | 0.14 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.46 | 0.558 | ||
October | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.37 | 0.522 | |||
November | 0.21 | 0.34 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.30 | 0.479 | |||
December | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.51 | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.29 | 0.462 |
It is apparent from the above-mentioned comprehensive analysis of the irradiance data and the clearness index, the selected region is characterized by a relatively high value of the monthly average percentage for sunny and partly cloudy days, which can be more than 80% throughout the year. Furthermore, the monthly average percentage of sunny daytime hours exceeds more than 50% in the interval time June–October along with a relatively high (\(k_{\text{t}}\) > 0.5). Consequently, the San Antonio region in Texas is unequivocally amenable to harnessing solar energy as the prime source of energy by utilizing concentrating and non-concentrating solar energy systems.
Ambient temperature, relative humidity and daily sunshine ratio for San Antonio region
Month | T (°K) | RH% | \(\frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }}\) |
---|---|---|---|
January | 16 | 62 | 0.194 |
February | 18.7 | 60 | 0.283 |
March | 23.1 | 54 | 0.349 |
April | 26.8 | 54 | 0.451 |
May | 29.6 | 57 | 0.476 |
June | 33.2 | 54 | 0.573 |
July | 35 | 50 | 0.603 |
August | 35.2 | 49 | 0.676 |
September | 31.8 | 53 | 0.605 |
October | 27.6 | 53 | 0.528 |
November | 22.2 | 54 | 0.351 |
December | 17.5 | 59 | 0.278 |
The results of testing the performance of 22 parametric models through using statistical indicators were tabulated in Appendix 1 (Tables 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22). In addition to more complicated models that consist of a large number of atmospheric parameters such as Davies–Hay, Hoyt (Iqbal B) models, some simpler models like Meinel and Laue have shown a good fit accuracy for all months during the year. Also, the models can be classified into two groups based on their performance during the months of summer and winter seasons. The first group, which includes simple models with a few parameters (less than three geographic and astronomical parameters) such as Meinel, Laue, Haurwitz, Berger–Duffie, ABCG, Kasten–Czeplak, Robledo–Sole, ASHRAE, Kumer and HLJ, can provide relatively accurate DNI values. While the second group, which comprises more sophisticated (complex) models such as Bird, Iqbal C, METSTAT, Modified Iqbal C, CSR, Atwater–Ball, ESRA, Hoyt (Iqbal B), Heliosat-1, Davies–Hay and Iqbal A models, have shown more accuracy in estimating DNI values during winter months (October–March) than summer months (April–September). Thus, precise values of DNI that are essential for selecting a proper location to install solar energy conversion systems and calculating the harvested amount of solar irradiance on the earth surface may be estimated using simpler parametric models.
Regression coefficients and statistical indictors of correlations
Equation | Description | MBE | RMSE | MAPE | e % | R^{2} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = 0.3841 + 0.2946 \frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }}\) | Linear model | − 0.11 | 0.17 | − 3.4 | 3.7 | 0.98 |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = 0.4656 - 0.1235 \frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }} + 0.4767\left( {\frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }}} \right)^{2}\) | Quadratic model | − 0.11 | 0.18 | − 3.3 | 4.2 | 0.98 |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = 0.235 + 0.179 \frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }} + 0.0036 T + 0.0019 R\) | Multi-parameters model | − 0.10 | 0.17 | − 3.4 | 3.8 | 0.98 |
\(\frac{{\bar{H}_{\text{G}} }}{{\bar{H}_{\text{o}} }} = 0.801 - 0.378\cos L + 0.0128 H + 0.316 \frac{{\bar{S}}}{{\bar{S}_{\text{o}} }} - 1.214 \times 10^{ - 3} T - 1.049 \times 10^{ - 3} R\) | Gopinathan’s model | − 0.02 | 0.14 | − 1.4 | 2.8 | 0.99 |
Conclusions
Based on the preliminary assessment for the potential of solar energy for the selected location by performing the comprehensive analysis. The San Antonio region in Texas is unequivocally amenable to harnessing solar energy as the prime source of energy by utilizing concentrating and non-concentrating solar energy systems because the analysis of the monthly average hourly clearness index through the classification of the clearness index level shows that more than 80% of the days can be defined as either sunny (\(k_{\text{t}}\) > 0.5) or partly cloudy (0.3 ≤ \(k_{\text{t}}\) ≤ 0.5) and less than 20% of the days are classified as cloudy (\(k_{\text{t}}\) < 0.3).
Based on five statistical indictors, most estimated values of hourly direct normal irradiance for 22 parametric models are in favorable agreement with the measured values for all the months of the year.
Some simple parametric models that have a few parameters (less than three geographic and astronomical parameters) such as Meinel and Laue have shown a good fit accuracy for most months during the year with the values of R^{2} are in the range of 0.93–0.99. While some values were not consistent perfectly with the measured data.
More sophisticated (complex) parametric models such as Bird, Iqbal C, METSTAT, Modified Iqbal C, CSR, Atwater–Ball, ESRA, Hoyt (Iqbal B), Heliosat-1, Davies–Hay and Iqbal A models have shown more accuracy in estimating DNI values during winter months (October–March) with the values R^{2} are in the range of 0.87–0.99 than summer months (April–September) with the values of R^{2} are in the range of 0.33–0.96.
The significant influence of cloud amount on reducing the intensity of global solar radiation, specifically DNI, was studied by using the cloud-cover radiation model (CRM) and the cloud amount indicator in Oktas, ranging from 0 to 8. For illustrate, the global solar radiation intensity has been attenuated from 765 W/m^{2} (0 Oktas, clear sky) to 213 W/m^{2} (8 Oktas, overcast sky). While the amount of diffuse irradiance increases in the atmosphere with growing the cloud amount until reaching zero under the overcast sky.
The estimated values of the monthly average daily global solar radiation on a horizontal surface obtaining from four formulations of the Angstrom–Prescott correlation, which were developed through regression analysis to determine their local coefficients, show a good agreement with measured data from different databases with the values of R^{2} are in the range of 0.98–0.99.
The validation of four selected empirical models was performed by comparing their estimated values of monthly average daily diffuse solar irradiance against the measured data. Clearly, the estimated values, which were obtained from three models including Collares-Pereira and Rabl, Liu and Jordan, Gopinathan models, are in good agreement with the measured data with the values of R^{2} are ranging from 0.94 to 0.98 except for Iqbal model that shows less consent with measured data with the R^{2} value is 0.65.
The estimated values of monthly average hourly direct solar irradiance on a horizontal surface, which were calculated to attain monthly average DNI values through utilizing the Angstrom–Prescott correlation (linear model), the empirical model (Liu and Jordan model), two decomposition models, and zenith angle, showed a relative agreement (R^{2} = 0.82) with the measured data because some used models require obtaining locally fitted coefficients.
It is obvious that the proposed methodologies have offered a reasonably good estimation for the hourly solar radiation values and they can be implemented for other locations around the world by creating new locally fitted coefficients for empirical and regression correlations. However, it is worth noting that the estimated solar data (by solar radiation modeling) can never substitute the measured solar data (by measurement equipment).
Notes
References
- 1.Singh, B.R., Onkar, S.: Global trends of fossil fuel reserves and climate change in the 21st century, vol. 8. (2012)Google Scholar
- 2.Pepe, D., Bianchini, G., Vicino, A.: Model estimation for solar generation forecasting using cloud cover data. Sol. Energy 157, 1032–1046 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Law, E.W., et al.: Direct normal irradiance forecasting and its application to concentrated solar thermal output forecasting—a review. Sol. Energy 108, 287–307 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Ferretti, Fabio, et al. Addressing forecast uncertainty impact on CSP annual performance. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1850, no. 1. AIP Publishing (2017)Google Scholar
- 5.Gueymard, C.A.: A review of validation methodologies and statistical performance indicators for modeled solar radiation data: towards a better bankability of solar projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39, 1024–1034 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kalogirou, S.A.: Solar energy engineering: processes and systems. Academic Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
- 7.Gueymard, C.A.: Direct and indirect uncertainties in the prediction of tilted irradiance for solar engineering applications. Sol. Energy 83(3), 432–444 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Wong, L.T., Chow, W.K.: Solar radiation model. Appl. Energy 69(3), 191–224 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Gueymard, C.A.: Direct solar transmittance and irradiance predictions with broadband models. Part I: detailed theoretical performance assessment. Sol. Energy 74(5), 355–379 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Iqbal, M.: An introduction to solar radiation. Elsevier, New York (2012)Google Scholar
- 11.Atwater, M.A., Ball, J.T.: A numerical solar radiation model based on standard meteorological observations. Sol. Energy 21(3), 163–170 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Bird, R.E., Roland L.H.: Simplified clear sky model for direct and diffuse insolation on horizontal surfaces. No. SERI/TR-642-761. Solar Energy Research Inst., Golden, CO (USA) (1981)Google Scholar
- 13.Hottel, H.C.: A simple model for estimating the transmittance of direct solar radiation through clear atmospheres. Sol. Energy 18(2), 129–134 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Bird, R.E., Hulstrom, R.L.: Review, evaluation, and improvement of direct irradiance models. Trans. ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng. 103, 182–192 (1981b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Batlles, F.J., et al.: Comparison of cloudless sky parameterizations of solar irradiance at various Spanish midlatitude locations. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 66(1–2), 81–93 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Ineichen, P.: Comparison of eight clear sky broadband models against 16 independent data banks. Sol. Energy 80(4), 468–478 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Badescu, V.: Verification of some very simple clear and cloudy sky models to evaluate global solar irradiance. Sol. Energy 61(4), 251–264 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Gueymard, C.: Critical analysis and performance assessment of clear sky solar irradiance models using theoretical and measured data. Sol. Energy 51(2), 121–138 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Gueymard, C.A.: Direct solar transmittance and irradiance predictions with broadband models. Part II: validation with high-quality measurements. Sol. Energy 74(5), 381–395 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Badescu, V., et al.: Computing global and diffuse solar hourly irradiation on clear sky. Review and testing of 54 models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16(3), 1636–1656 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Gueymard, C.A.: Clear-sky irradiance predictions for solar resource mapping and large-scale applications: Improved validation methodology and detailed performance analysis of 18 broadband radiative models. Sol. Energy 86(8), 2145–2169 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Behar, O., Khellaf, A., Mohammedi, K.: Comparison of solar radiation models and their validation under Algerian climate—the case of direct irradiance. Energy Convers. Manag. 98, 236–251 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Scarpa, F., Marchitto, A., Tagliafico, L.A.: Splitting the solar radiation in direct and diffuse components; insights and constrains on the clearness-diffuse fraction representation. Int. J. Heat Technol. 35(2), 325–329 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Valko, P.: An introduction to meteorological measurements and data handling for energ' applications, chap. 8. DOE/ER-0084 (1980)Google Scholar
- 25.Brinsfield, R., Yaramanoglu, M., Wheaton, F.: Ground level solar radiation prediction model including cloud cover effects. Sol. Energy 33(6), 493–499 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Tapakis, R., Charalambides, A.G.: Equipment and methodologies for cloud detection and classification: a review. Sol. Energy 95, 392–430 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Smith, C.J., Bright, J.M., Crook, R.: Cloud cover effect of clear-sky index distributions and differences between human and automatic cloud observations. Sol. Energy 144, 10–21 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Bone, V., et al.: Intra-hour direct normal irradiance forecasting through adaptive clear-sky modelling and cloud tracking. Sol. Energy 159, 852–867 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Ahamed, M.S., Huiqing, G., Karen, T.: Evaluation of a cloud cover based model for estimation of hourly global solar radiation in Western Canada. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 38(1), 64–73 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Muneer, T., Gul, M.S.: Evaluation of sunshine and cloud cover based models for generating solar radiation data. Energy Convers. Manag. 41(5), 461–482 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Yang, D., Jirutitijaroen, P., Walsh, W.M.: Hourly solar irradiance time series forecasting using cloud cover index. Sol. Energy 86(12), 3531–3543 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Kasten, F., Czeplak, G.: Solar and terrestrial radiation dependent on the amount and type of cloud. Sol. Energy 24(2), 177–189 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Park, Sung-Won, et al.: An irradiation prediction model for photovoltaic power generations under limited weather information. IFAC Proc. 47(3), 3670–3675 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Kim, K.H., Baltazar, J.C., Haberl, J.S.: Evaluation of meteorological base models for estimating hourly global solar radiation in Texas. Energy Procedia 57, 1189–1198 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Badescu, V., Dumitrescu, A.: Simple models to compute solar global irradiance from the CMSAF product cloud fractional coverage. Renew. Energy 66, 118–131 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Didari, S., Zand-Parsa, S.: Estimation of daily global solar irradiation under different sky conditions in central and southern Iran. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 127(3–4), 587–596 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Yao, W., et al.: New decomposition models to estimate hourly global solar radiation from the daily value. Sol. Energy 120, 87–99 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Whillier, A.: The determination of hourly values of total solar radiation from daily summations. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie, Serie B 7(2), 197–204 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Liu, B.Y.H., Jordan, R.C.: The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct, diffuse and total solar radiation. Sol. energy 4(3), 1–19 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Collares-Pereira, M., Rabl, A.: The average distribution of solar radiation-correlations between diffuse and hemispherical and between daily and hourly insolation values. Sol. energy 22(2), 155–164 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Gueymard, C.: Mean daily averages of beam radiation received by tilted surfaces as affected by the atmosphere. Sol. Energy 37(4), 261–267 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Jain, P.C.: Comparison of techniques for the estimation of daily global irradiation and a new technique for the estimation of hourly global irradiation. Sol. Wind Technol. 1(2), 123–134 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Jain, P.C.: Estimation of monthly average hourly global and diffuse irradiation. Sol. Wind Technol. 5(1), 7–14 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Shazly, S.M.E.: Estimation of hourly and daily global solar radiation at clear days using an approach based on modified version of Gaussian distribution. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 13, 349–358 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Baig, A., Akhter, P., Mufti, A.: A novel approach to estimate the clear day global radiation. Renew. Energy 1(1), 119–123 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Newell, T.A.: Simple models for hourly to daily radiation ratio correlations. Sol. Energy 31(3), 339–342 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Ahmad, M.Jamil, Tiwari, G.N.: Solar radiation models—A review. Int. J. Energy Res. 35(4), 271–290 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Mousavi Maleki, S.A., Hizam, H., Gomes, C.: Estimation of hourly, daily and monthly global solar radiation on inclined surfaces: models re-visited. Energies 10(1), 134 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Pavanello, Diego, et al.: Statistical functions and relevant correlation coefficients of clearness index. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 130, 142–150 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Giannis, K., et al.: A stochastic model for the hourly solar radiation process for application in renewable resources management. Adv. Geosci. 45, 139–145 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Hollands, K.G.T., Huget, R.G.: A probability density function for the clearness index, with applications. Sol. Energy 30(3), 195–209 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O.: Prediction of monthly average global solar radiation based on statistical distribution of clearness index. Energy 90, 1733–1742 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.Okogbue, E.C., Adedokun, J.A., Holmgren, B.: Hourly and daily clearness index and diffuse fraction at a tropical station, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Int. J. Climatol. J. Royal Meteorol. Soc. 29(8), 1035–1047 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Chang, T.P.: Investigation on frequency distribution of global radiation using different probability density functions. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 8(2), 99–107 (2010)Google Scholar
- 55.Khorasanizadeh, H., Aghaei, A.: Attaining optimum tilts of flat solar surfaces utilizing measured solar data: case study for Ilam. Iran. Iran. J. Energy Environ. 5, 224–232 (2014)Google Scholar
- 56.Kómar, L., Kocifaj, M.: Statistical cloud coverage as determined from sunshine duration: a model applicable in daylighting and solar energy forecasting. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 150, 1–8 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Sarkar, M.N.I.: Estimation of solar radiation from cloud cover data of Bangladesh. Renew. Wind Water Sol. 3(1), 11 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 58.Angstrom, A.: Solar and terrestrial radiation. Report to the international commission for solar research on actinometric investigations of solar and atmospheric radiation. Q. J. Royal Meteorol. Soc. 50(210), 121–126 (1924)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 59.Prescott, J.A.: Evaporation from a water surface in relation to solar radiation. Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Aust. 46, 114–118 (1940)Google Scholar
- 60.Paulescu, M., et al.: Ångström-Prescott equation: physical basis, empirical models and sensitivity analysis. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 62, 495–506 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Bennett, I.: Correlation of daily insolation with daily total sky cover, opaque sky cover and percentage of possible sunshine. Sol. Energy 12(3), 391–393 (1969)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 62.Badescu, V.: Correlations to estimate monthly mean daily solar global irradiation: application to Romania. Energy 24(10), 883–893 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 63.Das, A., Park, J., Park, J.: Estimation of available global solar radiation using sunshine duration over South Korea. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 134, 22–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64.Poudyal, K.N., et al.: Estimation of global solar radiation using sunshine duration in Himalaya Region. Res. J. Chem. Sci. 2(11), 20–25 (2012)Google Scholar
- 65.Okonkwo, G.N., AOC, : Nwokoye. Relationship between global solar radiation and sunshine hour duration for Bida in Nigeria. Int. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 3(2), 43–46 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 66.Abdalla, Y.A.G.: New correlations of global solar radiation with meteorological parameters for Bahrain. Int. J. Sol. Energy 16(2), 111–120 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 67.Jahani, B., Dinpashoh, Y., Nafchi, A.R.: Evaluation and development of empirical models for estimating daily solar radiation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73, 878–891 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 68.Jemaa, A.B.E.N., et al.: Estimation of global solar radiation using three simple methods. Energy Procedia 42, 406–415 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 69.Soufi, A., et al.: Investigating the performance of chosen models for the estimation of global solar radiation on horizontal surface-a case study in Terny Hdiel, Tlemcen of Algeria. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 7(3), 45–49 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 70.De Jong, R., Stewart, D.W.: Estimating global solar radiation from common meteorological observations in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73(2), 509–518 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 71.Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A.: Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J. Irrig Drain Div. 108(3), 225–230 (1982)Google Scholar
- 72.Elagib, N.A., Babiker, S.F., Alvi, S.H.: New empirical models for global solar radiation over Bahrain. Energy convers. Manag. 39(8), 827–835 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 73.Black, J.N.: The distribution of solar radiation over the earth's surface. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie, Serie B 7(2), 165–189 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 74.Gopinathan, K.K.: A new model for estimating total solar radiation. Sol. Wind Technol. 5(1), 107–109 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 75.Orgill, J.F., Hollands, K.G.T.: Correlation equation for hourly diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface. Sol. Energy 19(4), 357–359 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 76.Erbs, D. G., S. A. Klein, and J. A. Duffie. Estimation of the diffuse radiation fraction for hourly, daily and monthly-average global radiation. Solar energy 28.4 (1982): 293-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 77.Spencer, J.W.: A comparison of methods for estimating hourly diffuse solar radiation from global solar radiation. Sol. Energy 29(1), 19–32 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 78.Reindl, D.T., Beckman, W.A., Duffie, J.A.: Diffuse fraction correlations. Sol. Energy 45(1), 1–7 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 79.Lam, J.C., Li, D.H.W.: Correlation between global solar radiation and its direct and diffuse components. Build. Environ. 31(6), 527–535 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 80.Gopinathan, KK, Empirical correlations for diffuse solar radiation Solar Energy, Solar Energy 40 (1988): 369-370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 81.Oliveira, A.P., et al.: Correlation models of diffuse solar-radiation applied to the city of Sao Paulo. Brazil. Appl. Energy 71(1), 59–73 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 82.Jamil, B., Siddiqui, A.T.: Generalized models for estimation of diffuse solar radiation based on clearness index and sunshine duration in India: Applicability under different climatic zones. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 157, 16–34 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 83.Li, H., et al.: Further investigation of empirically derived models with multiple predictors in estimating monthly average daily diffuse solar radiation over China. Renew. Energy 44, 469–473 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 84.Mefti, A., Bouroubi, M.Y., Adane, A.: Generation of hourly solar radiation for inclined surfaces using monthly mean sunshine duration in Algeria. Energy Convers. Manag. 44(19), 3125–3141 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 85.Noorian, A.M., Moradi, I., Kamali, G.A.: Evaluation of 12 models to estimate hourly diffuse irradiation on inclined surfaces. Renew. Energy 33(6), 1406–1412 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 86.Soulayman, S. Economical and technical considerations for solar tracking: methodologies and opportunities for energy management. IGI Global 1–647 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2950-7
- 87.Google Maps. City of San Antoino, Texas. Map, Google. https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6152471,-96.3493117,14z. Accessed 20 Apr 2019
- 88.Daher, B., et al.: Toward creating an environment of cooperation between water, energy, and food stakeholders in San Antonio. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2913–2926 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 89.Al-Aboosi, F., El-Halwagi, M.: An integrated approach to water-energy nexus in shale-gas production. Processes 6(5), 52 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 90.Al-Aboosi, F.Y., El-Halwagi, M.M.: A stochastic optimization approach to the design of shale gas/oil wastewater treatment systems with multiple energy sources under uncertainty. Sustainability 11(18), 4865 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 91.Mohtar, R.H., et al.: Economic, social, and environmental evaluation of energy development in the Eagle Ford shale play. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 1601–1614 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 92.Daher, B., Lee, S.H., Kaushik, V., Blake, J., Askariyeh, M.H., Shafiezadeh, H., Zamaripa, S., Mohtar, R.H.: Towards bridging the water gap in Texas: A water-energy-food nexus approach. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 449–463 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 93.Abdul S.P. et al. (eds). Water-energy-food nexus: principles and practices, vol. 229. Wiley (2017)Google Scholar
- 94.Knapp, C.L., Stoffel, T.L., Whitaker, S.S.: Insolation data manual. US Government Printing Office (1980)Google Scholar
- 95.Solar Energy Laboratory.: T.U.o.T.a.A., National Solar Radiation Data Base Sites for Texas (2019). http://www.me.utexas.edu. Accessed 20 Apr 2019
- 96.Local, S.E.: Solar Energy Local, Solar Data, Statistics & Information (2019). https://www.solarenergylocal.com/. Accessed 20 Apr 2019
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.