evaluation of models to predict insolation on tilted surfaces - eval m… · evaluation of models...
Post on 10-May-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
DOE/NASA/1022-78/28 NASA TM-78842
EVALUATION OF MODELS TO PREDICT INSOLATION ON TILTED SURFACES
Thomas M. Klucher National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135
March 1978
Prepared for
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Div is ion of Solar Energy Under lnteragency Agreement E(49-26)-1022
NOTICE
This report was prepared to document work sponsored by
the United States Government. Neither the United States
nor its agent, the United States Department of Energy,
nor any Federal employees , nor any of their contractors,
subcontractors or their employees, makes any warranty ,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy , completeness, or useful
ness of any information, apparatus, product or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
p r ivately owned rights.
1. Report No.
NASA TM-78842 I 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
EVALUATION OF MODELS TO PREDICT INSOLATION ON TILTED SURFACES
5. Report Date March 1978
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Thomas M. Klucher E-9556
~-------------------------------. 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 11. Contract or Grant No.
Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44135
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U. S. Department of Energy Division of Solar Energy Washington, D. C. 20545
15. Supplementary Notes
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
DOE/NASA/1022-78/2 8
Prepared wider Interagency Agreement E(49-26)-1022.
16. Abstract
An empirical study was performed to evaluate the validity of various insolation models which employ either an isotropic or an anisotropic distribution approximation for sky light when predicting insolation on tilted surfaces. Data sets of measured hourly insolation values were obtained over a six-month period using pyranometers which received diffuse and total solar radiation on a horizontal plane and total radiati~n on surf aces tilted toward the equator at 3 7° and 60° angles above the horizon. Data on the horizontal surfaces were used in the insolation models to predict insolation on the tilted surface; comparisons of measured versus calculated insolation on the tilted surf ace were examined to test the validity of the sky light approximations. It was found that the Liu-Jordan isotropic distribution model provides a good fit to empirical data under overcast skies but underestimates the amount of solar radiation incident on tilted surface under clear and partly cloudy conditions. The anisotropic-clear-sky distribution model by Temps and Coulson provides a good prediction for clear skies but overestimates the solar radiation when used for cloudy days. An anisotropic-all-sky model was formulated in this effort which provided excellent agreement between measured and predicted insolation throughout the six-month period.
17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(sl I
Solar radiation Insolation models
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
18. Distribution Statement
Unclassified - unlimited STAR Category 92 DOE Category UC -63d
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified 21. No. of Pages
"For saie by the National Technical Information Service. Springfield. Virginia 22161
22. Price·
EVALUATION OF MODELS TO PREDICT INSOLATION
ON TILTED SURFACES
by Thomas M. Klucher
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
SUMMARY
An empirical study was performed to evaluate the validity of various insola
tion models which employ either an isotropic or an anisotropic distribution ap
proximation for sky light when predicting insolation on tilted surfaces. Data sets
of measured hourly insolation values were obtained over a six-month period using
pyranometers which received diffuse and total solar radiation on a horizontal
plane and total radiation on surfaces tilted toward the equator at 37° and 60° angles
above the horizon. Data on the horizontal surfaces were used in the insolation
models to predict insolation on the tilted surface; comparisons of measured versus
calculated insolation on the tilted surface were examined to test the validity of the
sky light approximations. It was found that the Liu-Jordan isotropic distribution
model provides a good fit to empirical data under overcast skies but underestimates
the amount of solar radiation incident on tilted surface under clear and partly cloudy
conditions. The anisotropic-clear-sky distribution model by Temps and Coulson
provides a good prediction for clear skies but overestimates the solar radiation
when used for cloudy days. An anisotropic-all-sky model was formulated in this
effort which provided excellent agreement between measured and predicted insola
tion throughout the six-month period.
INTRODUCTION
Flat plate solar heating/cooling or solar electric arrays in field applications are
usually oriented at a fixed tilt angle to maximize the solar radiation falling on the
array for the period of use. Occasionally, angle adjustments are provided to opti
mize the insolation for shorter periods (i.e. , monthly or seasonally). Accurate
prediction of the tilt angle for best array performance is complicated, however,
by insufficient knowledge of the exact magnitude of solar radiation falling on
2
tilted surfaces. Estimates of insolation for a given array orientation and loca
tion usually cannot be based on radiation data on tilted surfaces because such
data are generally not available. Instead, the historical data bases of climatic
variables, which include cloud cover, percentage of sunshine, and solar radia
tion on horizontal surfaces, are generally used in combination with some inso
lation model to estimate insolation on tilted surfaces. Selection of the tilt angle is then dependent on the procedures and approximations employed in the insola-
tion model. A number of insolation models have been developed which predict the amount
of solar radiation incident on tilted arrays from historical data of solar radia
tion falling on a horizontal surface. Because of the variety and complexity of sky radiation, a common assumption made is that the diffuse component of solar
radiation (sky light) has an isotropic distribution (refs. 1 and 2) over the hemi
spherical sky. This assumption conveniently allows the direct and diffuse com
ponents on the horizontal plane to be corrected to total radiation on the inclined
plane by simple geometric relationships. However, it has been shown that sky
light is anisotropic in many instances and that the assumption of an isotropic
distribution may introduce significant error in modelling calculations for tilted
surfaces (refs. 3 and 4). Recently, a model for improving the diffuse radiation
approximation for clear skies was introduced by Temps and Coulson (reL 5);
simple correction terms were developed to account for the anisotropy of the
diffuse radiation field. Although the model gave good results for clear sky con
ditions, it was not extended to the cases for partly cloudy and overcast skies.
The objective of th~ present effort (a part of the National Photovoltaic Con
version Program established by the Department of Energy) was to test the
validity of certain insolation models which use either an isotropic or ani.so
tropic sky light distribution approximation to predict insolation on tilted sur
faces under cloudy as well as clear sky conditions. The approach taken to
achieve this objective was to establish a data set over a six-month period (January-June 1977) in Cleveland, Ohio, consisting of hourly average insola
tion measured by pyranometers on horizontal and inclined planes. Total and
diffuse radiation data i.n the horizontal plane were utilized in the Liu-Jordan
insolation model (reL 2) to predict insolation falling on tilted surfaces under
the assumptionof isotropic sky light. The,isotropic model was then modified by
the Temps-Coulson clear-sky (ref. 5) c:orrection terms to evaluate that anisotropic model under all sky conditions O Finally, th~ anisotropio-clear-sky model
was modified when it was found inadequate to account for cloudy sky conditions.
3
Evaluation of the validity of the three models was made by comparing the solar
radiation measured on the tilted surfaces with the radiation predicted by each in
solation model.
APPARATUS AND MEASUREMENTS
The test facility used to measure, catalog, and process the hourly solar
irradiance data has been previously described in reference 6. Figure 1 shows
the details of sensor orientation. Three precision pyranometers measure total insolation received at o0
, 37°, and 60° tilt angles facing due south. The diffuse component is measured by a fourth pyranometer horizontally mounted (0° tilt)
and equipped with a black shadow band to block out the direct radiation component. The amount of diffuse radiation which is screened by the shadow band
was added to the measured values by application of a correction factor recommended by Drummond (ref. 7). The pyranometers tilted at 37° and 60° were
equipped with black metal artificial horizon bands, which prevented any radia
tion reflected from below the horizon from reaching the sensors. Each pyranometer was corrected to a voltage-controlled oscillator and a
counter which integrated the data continuously. The integrated data were monitored every hour and time averages of the hourly data were obtained for evalua
tion.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The starting point for the evaluation of insolation models was the isotropic
sky model described by Liu and Jordan in reference 2. In this model, the inso
lation on a surface tilted toward the equator at an angle e to the horizontal is
given by:
(I - I ) ~ ~ I = H D cos l/J + I 1 + cos e T sin a D 2
\. I\ I
"""""" """"" Direct radiation
Diffuse
radiation
(1)
4
where
IT total insolation received by tilted surface
IH total insolation received by horizontal surface
In diffuse insolation received by horizontal surface
a solar elevation angle
¢ angle between sun direction and normal direction
e tilt angle above horizon of tilted surface
In this effort the insolation terms inserted into equation (1) were hourly average
values of insolation obtained from sunrise to sunset during each day. The geometric terms, cos ¢ and sin a, were hourly average values cal
culated from well established geophysical and astronomical equations (refs. 2 and 8). The insolation IH and In were measured by the pyranometers and used in equation (1) to calculate the total insolation received on the surfaces tilted at 37° and 60°. These calculated insolation values were then compared with the in-
o O '• solation IT measured at 37 and 60 to determine how well the Liu-Jordan model
predicted the insolation on each tilted surface. The data were also compared with the anisotropic-clear-sky model developed
by Temps and Coulson. In their model Temps and Coulson combined three cor
rection factors with the isotropic diffuse radiation term to account for each of three regions of anisotropy in the diffuse radiation field. They determined that a factor, 1 + sin 3(£/2), accounts for the increase in sky light observed near the
horizon during q\ear days; similarly, sky brightening near the sun could be approximated by the factor 1 + cos2
l/J sin 3 (90 - a). A third factor which accounts
for surface reflection enhancement is not included in this report because this effect was eliminated by the· horizon shades previously described. Applying the Temps and Coulson correction terms to the Liu-Jordan model, then, the anisotropio-clear-sky model has the form:
Here again, measured values for radiation on tilted surfaces were compared to those calculated from measured values of total and diffuse radiation on horizontal surfaces to determine the fit of the model.
5
The final model evaluated was an anisotropic model developed in this effort
based upon preliminary results found with the previous two models. This last
model involves an adjustment to the Temps-Coulson factors by a simple function
containing the ratio of diffuse to total insolation on the horizontal plane. As will
be shown in the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, the Liu-Jordan model worked well
for overcast days and the Temps-Coulson model worked well for clear days. The purpose of the new function was to modulate the Temps-Coulson factors as the skies varied from clear to overcast. This anisotropic, "all sky" model thus takes the form:
where F is the modulating function described above. Two slightly different
functions, F = 1 - ID/IH, and F = 1 - (ID/IH)2, were studied in the all-sky model.
Under overcast conditions, when the ratio of diffuse to total insolation, ID/IH' is unity, the all-sky model, using either "F", reduces to the Liu-Jordan isotropic model. Under clear sky, when the ratio of diffuse to total is observed to be small, the all-sky model approximates the Temps-Coulson anisotropic-clear-sky
model.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison plots of hourly measured versus calculated solar irradiance at 37° and 60° tilt angles were made for each month and each model to determine
how well each model predicts insolation on a tilted surface. A total of 48 plots
were examined for the six-month period from January to June 1977. In the interest of clarity, selected plots of the monthly data were chosen from this group for
discussion of the major results of this effort. A complete set of monthly plots for the three models are shown for comparative purposes at the end of the report
(figs. 16 to 27) • Figures 2 to 7 illustrate the results of the application of the Liu-Jordan model
to the prediction of solar radiation falling on the tilted sensor for the months of January, March, and June for 37° and 60°. Inspection of e~ch plot indicates that
the model provides a good fit to the empirical data at the low intensity conditions (<20 to 30 mw /cm 2); this might be expected, since the low intensities are primar-
6
ily associated with the occurrence of overcast sky conditions, little direct inso
lation, and uniform diffuse sky radiation. In additton, each of the plots also demonstrate a nearly linear correlation between computed and measured insola
tion. At the higher intensities (>50 mw /cm 2), however, figures 2 to 7 illus
trate that the Liu-Jordan model underestimates the amount of solar radiation
falling on tilted surfaces. This error is greatest in January - about 5 mw /cm2
at 37° and 8 mw /cm 2 at 60° tilt angles - and decreases to about 3 mw /cm2 in
June. These results clearly demonstrate that the isotropic sky model is defi
cient in predicting insolation on tilted surfaces for nonuniform (clear and partly
cloudy) sky conditions. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate typical results obtained when comparisons of mea
sured and calculated insolations are made using the anisotropic-clear- sky model of Temps and Coulson under partly cloudy and overcast, as well as clear-sky conditions. Data for days on which the sky was observed and recorded as clear and basically cloudless were inspected as an initial check of the Temps-Coulson
regression model for clear days. The comparison for clear days in MaTch (figs. s. and 9) were very good; the hourly data were found to fall along the 1:1
correlation line in the figures, indicating a good fit between measured and pre
dicted clear-sky insolation. Such good comparisons for clear-sky data were
found to be true throughout the six-month period of this eff<~rt and confirm the results of Temps and Coulson. On the other hand, during no.nclear days, the
comparison plots demonstrate that application of the Temps-Coulson corrective
terms to overcast and cloudy conditions often result in an overestimate of the
solar radiation falling on a tilted surface. Figures 8 and 9 show predicted values exceeding measured by as much as 10 mw /cm2; such overestimates are greater than 10 mw /cm 2 in winter and smallest in summer. In their report,
Temps and Coulson speculated that their sky model might improve modeling
predictions for scattered cloud conditions, but would not give good results for heavily clouded and overcast skies. The'. results in .thi's six-month study are con
sistent with their expectations. Comparison plots of the anisotropic-all-sky insolation model are shown in
figures 10 to 15. The model using parameter F = 1 - (In/IH>2 in equation (3) was chosen because it provides a slightly better fit to the empirical data than
does the linear parameter F = 1 - In/IH.
The primary effect of correction terms in the all-sky model was a reduction
in the systematic error previously observed in the January and March plots of the Liu-Jordan model. For example, the systematic error in January is reduced to
7
less than 2. 5 mw /cm2; similar reductions also occur in the March plots. In
June, when the Liu-Jordan model has a good fit to the measured data, the two
models appear to fit equally well. Comparisons between the Temps-Coulson clear
sky model and the all-sky model also demonstrate the effect of the correction
terms used in the all-sky model. While the error in January to June plots are
less than 2. 5 mw /cm2 in the all-sky model, the errors in the Temps-Coulson
model results range from about 12 mw /c~2 in January to 3 to 5 mw /cm2 in June during nonclear days. Since the accuracy of first-class pyranometer measurements is, at best, ,::2 mw /cm2
, the all-sky model is considered to fit well for the six months studied. Thus the anisotropic-all-sky model formulated in
this effort provides a better prediction of solar radiation on tilted surfaces than either the isotropic or anisotropic-clear-sky models.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the study of three insolation models which predict the solar
radiation incident on tilted surfaces from measured values of total and diffuse
radiation on a horizontal surface, the following conclusions were formed: (1) The commonly used Liu-Jordan isotropic-sky insolation model provides
a good fit to empirical data at low intensity conditions found during overcast
skies; however, the model underestimates the amount of solar radiation falling
on tilted surfaces at intensity levels above about 5gmw /cm 2
. In this effort the error is about 3 mw /cm2 in June and rises to 5 to 8 mw Lm2 in January. e, ..... 1,..
(2) The anisotropic-clear-sky model of Temps and Coulson provides a good
correlation between measured and predicted insolation on tilted surfaces for the case of clear skies. However, this model overestimates the insolation for
mostly cloudy and overcast conditions by as much as 12 mw /cm 2 in January and from 3 to 5 mw/cm2 in June.
(3) The anisotropic-all-sky model formulated in this effort provides a better
prediction of solar radiation on tilted surfaces than either the isotropic or
anisotropic-clear-sky models. The systematic error between measured and
predicted insolation resulting from the application of the anisotropic-all-sky
model is less than 2. 5 mw /cm2
.
8
REFERENCES
1. Liu, Benjamin Y. H.; and Jordan, Richard C.: Daily In.solation on Surfaces
Tilted Toward the Equator. ASHRAE J., vol. 3, no. 10, Oct. 1961,
pp. 53-59.
2. Liu, Benjamin Y. H.; and Jordan, Richard C.: The Long Term Average
Performance of Flat-Plate Solar-Energy Collectors. Sol. Energy, vol. 7,
no. 2, 1963, pp. 53-74.
3. Kondratyev, K. J.; and Manolova, M. P.: The Radiation Balance of Slopes.
Sol. Energy, vol. 4, no. 1, Jan. 1960, pp. 14-19.
4. Dave, J. V.: Validity of the Isotropic-D~stribution Approximation in Solar
Energy Estimations. Sol. Energy, vol. 19, no. 4, 1977, pp. 331-333.
5. Temps, Ralph C.; and Coulson, K. L.: Solar Radiation Incident Upon Slopes of Different Orientations. Sol. Energy, vol. 19, no. 2, 1977,
pp. 179-184.
6. Klucher, Thomas M.: Test Facility for Solar-Cell Reference Conditions.
Terrestrial Photovoltaic Measurements - II. NASA CP-2010, 1976,
pp. 67-77.
7. Drummond, A. J.: Comments on "Sky Radiation Measurement and Cor
rections". J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 3, Dec. 1964, pp. 810-811.
8. IGY fustruction Manual, Pt. VI, Radiation Instruments and Measurements.
Ann. Int. Geophys. Year, vol. V, 1958, pp. 371-466.
·11
South
Artificial horizon bands
Artificial horizon bands
6rP Tilt pyranometer
37° Tilt pyranometer
Horizontal pyranometer
Figure 1. - Sensor orientation.
Horizontal pyranometer with shadow band
~ c..:i
~
~ ~ ~
"' < C) ..... ...... ~ -..J C) U)
< ..... Cl li.J ~ ~ U)
~ li.J ~
~ t.)
Q
~ ~ ~
"' < C:) ..... ...... ~ -..J C) U)
< ..... Cl li.J ~ ~ U)
~ li.J ~
12.11
II.II JAN 't JAN 31 I 9 7i'
37 DEG, TI LT I.II.II
0 ,. <>o ()
,1· ••
t 111
() ~ ¢0,
611 /G;>.
5.11
,.
311
211
Ill
11)1:...---l... _ ___J...___...J._ _ ___.J. __ ~ _ __i._ __ ...__ _ _._ _ ___. __ _.___ ......... _ __.
IZJI
1111
IIIJJ
,11
811
111
611
611
,.
311'
u
Ill
•
II Ill 311 'tll 611 111 811 ,,, 11111 1111 1211
CALCULATED INSDLATIDN.11 HW/50 C/1
Figure 2. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the liu-Joroon isotropic-sky model.
JAN 't JAN 31 1977
6H DEG, TILT ¢
¢ ¢
0 0
~()()
0 0
~ 000
0 ()
o'o9
<> fo00
o<>!oo<> 0 ()
II Ill ZJI 311 tll SIi ,11 111 86 ,,, 11111 116 126
CALCULIJTED INSDLA T !ON11 HJ.I/SO C/1
Figure 3. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolatlon on a tilted surface using the Llu-Joroon Isotropic-sky model.
~ (_)
C?J
~ ::.:: ~
.. < C) ...... .._ 'l: ...J C) U)
< ......
Cl li.J Cl:: ::::i V")
'l: li.J ~
~ (_)
C?J
~ ::.:: ~
<> < C) ...... .._ 'l: -.J C) V")
< ......
Cl lLJ Q:: ::::i V")
'l: li.J ~
12.11'
II.II' MAR HAR 31 1977
37 DEG. TILT
ID
'"' 8S1
7.11'
6.11'
5.11'
'1-B
3g
UT
ISi
B g ISi ZB 3.11' 'tS1 5g 6B 1B BB ,sr IBSI 1111 1211
CAL CUL A TED INSOLA TJONr1 HW/SQ CH
Figure 4. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the Liu-Jordon isotropic-sky model.
12B
IISI MAR MAR 31 1977
68 DEG. TILT
IBSI 'bo
0£~ ~# ,.
o«<J/o
oj.o~ BB ~~
o§ 7.11' 00
,~0° 6B
(I)
oO SB .,s
0 0: 0 0,, 0 ,-g
0~ 38
~o
2.fil
Ill
S-----'-- ___. __ ..._ _ ___. __ __._ _ ___.._ __ _._ __ ~-_._---_L__ ~_J 3g SB 711 es I LS ldl'
CALCULATED JN50LATI0Nu
Figure 5. - Comparison between measured and calculated in solation on a tilted surface using the Liu-Jordon isotropic-sky model.
12.9
11.9 JUN JUN 3.0' 197?
37 DEG. TILT ~ 1.1111 CJ
~
~ ,.
~ ~
8.9
... < C) 1.9 ...... '-s:r:: -.J ""' C) V)
< S.9 ......
c::i ~ ,. ~ ::::i V) 'q: 3.9
~ ~
2.9
1.9
• • •• u 3.9 ... 5.9 u 1.9 8.9 ,g 1.911 JIB 12.9
CAL CUL A TED JNSOLA T JON11 HJ.I/SO C/1
Figure 6. • Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the Liu·Jordon isotropic·sky model.
12.9
1111 JUN JUN 30' 1977
6H DEG, TI LT ~ 1.1111 c..:,
~
\ 'fl
~ ~
Bfl
... ~ < C) ?fl ...... ..._ s:r:: -.J l,fl
C) V)
< Sfl ......
c::i li.J •fl ~ ::::i V) ,q:,: Jfl
li.J ~
211
Ill
II II lfl Zfl 3fl •11 Sil •fl 1(1 es ,11 11111 1111 12ll
CALCULATED INSDLA T!DNr1 MW/SQ C/1
Figure 7. • Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the Liu· Jordon isotropic·sky model.
IZB
1111 MAR MAR 31 197?'
37 DEG. TILT v
~ 11111 {.J
C?,
\ ,11
~ ~ a.B'
"' < C) ~II ...... ...... '<;t -J 68'
C:) V)
< 511 ......
Cl li.J 'tB
Cl:: ::::i V) '<;t 3B
li.J Note: shaded points - clear sky ~
ZB
Ill
B II IB ZB 311 '1-.ll SB 6B 1B BB ,11 11111 1111 1211
,() CAL CUL A TED INSDLA T !DNo HW/50 C/1 !.d !..) o, Figure 8. - Comparison between measured and calculated i nsolatlon on a tilted surface using the
I Temps-Cou Ison anisotropic-clear-sky method.
fij JU
1111 MAR MAR 31 197?
6JJ DEG. TILT ~ JJl'.ll {.J
C?,
~ ,.
~ ~ BIi
"' < C:) 111 ...... ...... '<;t -.J 6B C) V)
< SI! ...... (>
Cl li.J '1B
-~ Cl:: ~ V) ,q: 3Jl
li.J ~
u
Ill Note: shaded points - clear sky
II g IB ~II 3B '1-.11' S.11' 6.11' 111 811 ,11 11111 II.I! 12.1!
CAL CUL A TED JNSOLA TIDNo HW/50 C/1
Figure 9. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the Temps-Cou Ison anisotropic-clear-sky method.
~ c.:i
Q
~ ~ ~
.. < CJ ...... 1-... 'l: -.J CJ V)
< ......
C:} li.J ~ ~ V) 'l: li.J ~
IZll'
11.11
1.11.11
!Ill'
1.11
6SI
1JJ
318
218
ur
18'K----'---"---'----'-----'----L---'---'---,___ ___ __,~~
IZll'
211
ur
Jr IJI' 218 3.11 ,.11 5.11 &.11 1.11 8.11 1.11 11818 11.11 12.11
CALCULATED INSOLATIDNsi HW/50 CH
Figure 10. - Comparison between measured and calculated lnsolatlon on a tilted surface using the anisotropic-all-sky model.
l8'-"sr=--""'.,18:---2:-:.11:---3._,p_---J,,'-.,----'s-11---'-•II--.1.,11 __ .La11--.L.,11--uL111-___J11L...11---',211
CALCULATED INSDLATJONsi HW/50 CH
Figure ll. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the anisotropic-all-sky model.
1·
12.11'
II.II' MAR MAR 31 1977
37 DEG, TILT :t: 1.11.11' c...,
a V) ,11
~ :t: e.r
<' c:::, 1.11' ...... .._ q: -.J 611
c:::, V)
<' Sll ...... <>
c::.i l,.J "' <> 0( ~ V) q: 3ll
l,.J :t:
Zll
I.II'
" .J
Iii ur 2.11' Jl1 ,11 S.11' 6.ll Ill 8.11' ,.11 11111 II.II' IZ.11'
,() CAL CUL A TED INSOLATJONs, HJ.I/SQ C/1 l.) L) Figure 12. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilled surface using the { ,, anisotropic-all-sky model.
I
H l2ll
LI.II' MAR MAR 31 1977
6ftJ DEG, TILT :t: lll'lf (.J
a \ '" ~ :t: 8lf
<' c:::, '" ...... .._
q: -.J 6.11'
c:::, V)
<: 5.11 ......
c::.i ~ 'ti1 0( ~ V) q: 311
~ :t:
ZJ1
Ill
II ll Ill 2.11' 3.11 ,11 SIi 611 Ill •• ,. 11111 lllf 12.11'
CALCULATED INSOLA T JONs, HW/SQ CH
Figure 13. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the anisotropic-all-sky model.
~ c..:i
~
\ ~ ~
.. <: <:::) ...... .._ ,;c: -J c:::i lr)
<: ......
c:i li.J Cle :::::i V) ,;c: li.J ~
~ c..:i
~
\ ~ ~
Q
<: <:::) ..... .._ ,;c: -J c:::i tr, <: ..... c:i li.J Cl:: :::::i V) -q: li.J ~
~,· ?!9'
!SIi
,.
dB
1B
6B
SIi
~-3B
2B
IB
B
12B
1111
111.9'
,.
BB
111
611
SIi
'tlJ
311
Z/1
Ill
JUN JUN 3.0' 1977
37 DEG. TILT
11 111 ell .z.11 "B u LIi 111 BlJ ,. 1BII 1111 ll/1
CALCULATED !NSOLATJONo HW/5/J CH
Figure 14. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilled surface using the anisotropic-all-sky model.
JUN
6H DEG.
II i:;a;.... _ _.__ _ __. __ .....__ _ __._ __ ...__ _ _._ __ L-_ _.__ _ __, __ ......___--1. _ __, II Ill 2B 311 'tS SIi 611 ,a 811 911 IB/1 I IB 1211
CALCULATED INSDLATJONo HW/SQ CH
Figure 15. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface using the anisotropic-all-sky model.
'° ~) l,)
Ci' I
f.:il
IU
11•
~ u,ar (.)
Qi
~ ,.
~ ~ u
~ C) .. .... ..... st:. -.I .. C) CJ) ~ 58 ..... c:i liJ ... ~ ::::) tr, <c
,. lu ~
u
..
tal lsolroplc - sky model. 1111 Anisotropic • clear•sky model.
.. 5,1
t•
.. u
, . .
"' .... .. .. IU' IU'
CALCULATED JNSDLAT!ON1 MN/SO CH
lei Anisotropic • all•sky model.
Figure 16. - Comparison between measured and calculated lnsolatlon on a tllled surface for each sky model,
,,.
"' :a:: .. , l)
c:, Vl
~ ,.
:a:: u
:;; Cl .... '-s,: -.J Cl Vl <: .. Cl l;J
"' :::, Vl s,: l;J
,. 'IC:
..
JAN. 4 JAN ll 1977 lilDEG. TILT
. . ~ .. JI> . •.
I!,·· ,1 'l>O
'
\al lsotrc~:llc - sky model.
'IC: l)
c:, c,
~ :a::
:;; Cl .... ..... '<
c3 Vl <: .... c::, l..J
"' :::, Vl
' l..J :a:
Q • . ... !'
.
... ... '"
JAN. 4 JAN )l 1977 lilOEG. TILT
'l,Q
'* Q .
. Q •
oo\ 'I, t>
0 • "' ··;··~ ~ ti,• ~
(#' 0 .. "
,. .. ..
..
.. ,. .. bl Anisotropic - clt..1r·sky model.
JAN. 4 JAN Jl 1977 6Cl DEG. IILT
Q . ' . .s Q
CII LCULIITEO INSOL ll {!ON , N/./ /50 C /1
tel Anisotropic • all·sky model.
figure 17. - COnparison betwt«I mtiasuredand calculated ln~ation on a tilted surtac.e tor e.xh sky model.
. i.
" Q ..
" ... ...
ll•
11•
::t: IR (.)
Q
:('. =l: ::t:
~ c:i ,. ..... ._ <t: -.J c:i V)
~ ..... c:::i l.u .. Cl:: ::::i V)
st .. l,J ::t:
u
1•
l
\:;,J,
FEB FEB 28 1'117
37 DEG. TILT
<>~ o.V;oo <>·
o/ ~/
f/!,·'<>"o ~~
.J ~/$ <>
:,'1 <>
' ~ <> ..
la) Isotropic· sky model.
~ ID (.)
Q
:('. =l: ::t: ..
<: c:i ..... ._ st
~ ..
V)
~ s.o ..... Cl l.u .. Cl:: ::::i V)
st lJJ ::t:
FEB FEB 28 I'll?
37 DEii. TILT
9t,9 ($0
,<>
lb) Anisotropic· clear-sky moclel.
CALCULATED /NSOLAT/ON• HU/SQ CH
!Cl Anisotropic • all-sky model.
Figure 18. • Comparison between measured and calculated insolatlon on a tilted surface for each sky model.
1n
111 lsotrq,lc • sky model.
~ (.)
~
\ ~ ~
~ C) ..... ..._ <c .... C) I.I') ~ ......
C) llJ ~ ::::i I.I')
<c u \oJ ~
zir
l'fB l'EB is 1971
6S DfG. TJI.T
•• .. ..
CALCULATED JNSOLATION, H~/SO CH
ICI Anlsotfqllc • all-$1cy modal,
Figure 19. ~ COmparlson betwHn mrasured and calculated lnSOlallon on I tllled surface for each ~ model.
,. ..• ..• . ..
._)
0' I
f;r)
,a
MAR l MAR 31 1977
JI DEG. Tlll
(a I Isotropic - sky model, !bl Anisotropic - clear-sky model,
MAR I MAR 31 1'117
~ ·~~ (.J
C) U)
\ ::i: ~ .. -
~ C:) "'-.
'-<,:
~ .a
U)
~ c::: l..J ~ :::, U)
' LJ ::;,:
C-1LCUL4TtD l~SDL''IT!DNi M;,//50 C"1
tel Anisotropic - all-sky model.
Figure 20. - comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface for e.1ch sky model.
IU
11• ltAR NAR NM! 31 1977
t,.J :JE,;. blil DEG. TILT )::;: 1.a c..,
~
\ ,.
~ ~ .. .. < C) ,. ..... "-sq:; ..... .. C) Vi < s, ..... c:i ll.i .. Cl:: :::i V') sq:; ,. l..aJ ~
u
..
. ,. .. ,. .. ... '" 121 ,... ... ,,.
lal lsotrq>lc - slcy model. t>I Anisotropic - clear--sty model. ,u
11, NAR NAR 31 19;;,
6/J DEG. TILT ~ lff c..,
~
\ ,. ~ ~ .. < c:i ,. ..... "-sq:; ..... .. C) V'J < u ..... c:i ll.i Cl:: :::i V'J sq:; ,. l..aJ ~
u
.. .. 211 u .. u .. .. ... •i•
CALCULATED !NSOLA T IONP HJ.I/SQ CH
!cl Anisotropic • all-sty model.
Figure 21. • Comparison between mmured and calculated lnsolatlon on a tilted surrac:e for each sky 1111del.
,u
/ ... APR APR 3.IJ ,,n APR Al'R 3.0' 1'71
31 om. TI l T 37 OfG, TILT
lff
tal Isotropic· sky model. lbl Anisotropic • c11111r-sky model.
APR APR 38 I '117
3? DEG, TILT
CAL CUL/! TEO IN.,DL/i T JON• !11.//SQ CH
tel Anisotropic • all-sky model.
Figure 22. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a Ii tied surface for each sky model.
APR APR '3B 1'1?7
6B OEG, TILT
(al lsotrcplc - sky model.
,.
APR APR 3.0 1'177
6B DEG, Tl LT
CALCULATED JNSOLATIDN9 HW/50 CH
lcl Anisolropic - all-sky model.
Ill Anisotropic - clear-sky model.
Figure 23. - Comparison between measured and calcu laled insolatlon on a ti fled surface for each sky model.
,()
LJ ;_ l
tal Isotropic - sky model. lb) Anisotropic - clear-sky model.
MAY MAY 31 1977
U JU
CALCULATED JN5DLATIDN9 NW/SQ CN
lc) Aniwtropic - all-sky model.
Figure 24. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolation on a tilted surface for each sky model.
~ (.,)
Qi
\ ::.: ~ .. "' <':
C) , . ..... '-"C -.J C) I.I)
<: SIJ .... t:) l.lJ ct :::i I.I)
"C .. ll.i ~
u
..
Cal Isotropic· sky model. Ill AnlsolJ'oplc - clear-sty IIIOdll.
~ (.,)
Qi
\ ::.: ~
~ C) ..... '-"C ...... C) I.I) <: ..... t:) lU ct :::i vi "C lU ~
in
... , . .. ,.
n
CALCULATED JNSOLAT!ON• HW/50 CH
tel Anisotropic - all-sty model.
Figure 2S. • Comparison bttween measured and ca!eulaled lnsclallon on a Hlled surface for each sty model.
,() :...l L) (}'
I
f.r~
~ C.)
Cl
~ ::i: ~
< C) .... "-
" c5 V)
< .... c:i ,.._, Cle ::::i V)
" l.t.r ~
,.
.. .• ..
JUN JUN 3.3 I "li7
3? DEG. TILT
u .. 1a1 Isotropic - sky model. lbl Anisotropic - clear-sky model.
...
... .JUN JmJ 3.3 1<Jn / 3? OfG, TILT
~ C.)
Cl V)
~ ~
~ ~ .... "-
" ~ V)
< .... Cl lJ.J t• Cl,,: ::::i V)
<C ,.
,.._, ~ ..
CALCULATED /NSOLATIONP HW/50 CH
(cl Anisotropic - all-skv model.
Figure 26. - Comparison between me.1sured and calculated irisolatlon on a tilted surface lor each sky model.
:t:. C..)
la) Isotropic - sky model. Gl> Anisotropic - dear-sky model.
IU
JUN ,JUtl 3H 1'177
6H orr,, f!LT
CALCULATED !NSOLATJONP NN/SQ CH
IC) Anisotropic - all-sky model.
Figure l1. - Comparison between measured and calculated insolatlon on a tilted surface lor each sky model.
top related