Comparative Study of Sky Diffuse Irradiance

Models Applied to Photovoltaic Systems

Michelle Kitayama da Silva, Karen Barbosa de Melo,

Tatiane Silva Costa, Dante Inga Narvez, Daniel de Bastos Mesquita,
Marcelo Gradella Villalva, Member, IEEE
Department of Energy Control and Systems
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Campinas, Brazil
michelle.kitayama@gmail.com, karen.bmelo@gmail.com,
tati costa@rocketmail.com dante.innar@gmail.com,
mesquita.b.daniel@gmail.com, villalva@g.unicamp.br

Abstract—The increasing energy demand and the search for
greener energy resources are expanding interests on photovoltaic
systems. These systems need an accurate climatic and irradiation
data in order to precisely estimate the energy yield of PV systems.
However, most of the available irradiance data, are only for the
horizontal plane. The precise estimation of the total irradiance
incident on the surface of photovoltaic modules is one of the
most important steps in the performance analysis of PV systems.
In order to estimate the irradiance on a tilted surface from the
irradiance data on the horizontal plane, there are many models
available in the literature, they can be classified in isotropic and
anisotropic models. This study aims to access the performance of
an isotropic and three anisotropic models, which are used by PV
system simulation softwares, and the impact of each of them on
the estimated energy generation. The results are compared with
measured energy data collected at Politec®, Araçariguama in
Brazil. Results showed that positioning the module at the correct
tilted angle and facing north can optimise the global irradiance
incident on the module’s surface. Hay & Davies model presented
the lowest Mean Bias Error and Root Mean Squared Error while
also showing a correlation coefficient close to 1.
Index Terms—Photovoltaic systems, Solar irradiance, Sky
diffuse models, Isotropic model, Anisotropic models.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The interest on renewable energy sources to generate elec-
tricity has been increasing worldwide. Among these sources,
photovoltaic systems are increasing significantly over years,
both due to distributed generation and the installation of
large solar photovoltaic power plants [1]. The solar resource,
together with the decreasing costs of photovoltaic systems and
the possibility of installing them in remote areas, have been
encouraging the development of this technology in Brazil. In
addition, recent government initiatives which offered financial
incentives, have contributed to the dissemination of the pho-
tovoltaic energy [2].
The estimation of energy generation of a photovoltaic (PV)
system requires, firstly, the specification of a few important
input parameters. Among them, the global irradiance on the
tilted surface is the most import. Due to the complexity to mea-
sure the irradiance on a slope surface, most databases provide
data only for the horizontal surface [3]. Inaccurate irradiance
data may cause a significant increase of the uncertainties
involved in the process of estimation of energy generated by a
PV system [2] [4]. To perform the estimation of the irradiance
on a tilted surface there are different transposition models
available in the literature which are based on the global and
diffuse irradiance on the horizontal. These models parametrize
the irradiance incident on a sloped surface into direct, diffuse
and ground reflected irradiances.The direct component can
be obtained through simple relationship between the direct
normal irradiance on the horizontal and the incident angle.
Also, to estimate ground reflected irradiance one can consider
simple isotropic algorithms. However, the diffuse component
estimation is more complex due to its strong angular depen-
dence, which vary according to the zenith angle and clouds
[3].
The models to estimate the diffuse component of the irra-
diance on a slope surface, can be classified as isotropic and
anisotropic. The isotropic model considers that the intensity of
the sky diffuse irradiance is uniform around the sky dome and
the anisotropic model assumes the anisotropy of the diffuse sky
irradiance in specific areas as the circumsolar region, which is
the portion of the sky around the solar disk, and the horizon
brightening. For the other areas of the sky dome a isotropic
component is considered [2]. The purpose of this study is to
compare different empirical models widely applied to estimate
the solar radiation on a sloped surface and their impact on the
global irradiance on a tilted plane and the monthly energy
generation of a PV system.

978-1-7281-1156-8/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

 II. I RRADIANCE ON A T ILTED S URFACE III. M ODELS
Considering a PV system placed at an optimum orientation A. Liu & Jordan
and inclination, the irradiance that reaches the surface of the The isotropic sky diffuse model proposed by Liu & Jordan
module can be considerably higher than the irradiance on the [8] is one of the simplest models to estimate the sky diffuse
horizontal plane [5]. This occurs due to the fact that a tilted irradiance. The model considers that the diffuse irradiance
surface receives the irradiance from many directions such as propagates uniformly, with the same intensity in all directions
the irradiance reflected on the ground Eg , the sky diffuse from the sky dome. Therefore, the component is a fraction of
irradiance Ed and the direct or beam irradiance on a tilted the diffuse irradiance on the horizontal (DHI) surface and the
surface Eb . The total irradiance on a tilted surface can be relationship with the tilted angle β . In this model, neither the
expressed by (1) [6]. circumsolar or horizon brightening factors are not considered
[8]. This model is described by (4) [9]:
EGT = Eb + Eg + Ed (1)
1 + cos(β)
Ed,iso = DHI (4)
The beam component can be estimated from a relation of 2
the direct normal irradiance on the horizontal surface (DN I) Although, the uncertainties increase by considering the
and the incidence angle (θ) as shown in the (2) [6]: irradiance isotropic, this model was very important as it was
used as base for the development of more complex models
Eb = DN Icos(θ) (2)
subsequently.
The irradiance reflected on the ground is calculated based
B. Klucher
on the irradiance incident on the ground, which is considered
equivalent to the global horizontal irradiance (GHI), the Klucher [10] developed a model which considers two factors
reflectance index of the ground (albedo) and the tilted angle proposed by Temps and Coulson [11]. The first one estimates
of the modules (β) as can be seen in (3) [7]: the horizon brightening and the second one the circumsolar
component. They are represented by the Equations (5) and (6),
1 − cos(β) respectively, where φ is the zenith angle. These components
Eg = GHI · albedo · (3)
2 are then adjusted by the factor F 0 showed in the Equation
The sky diffuse irradiance can be divided into three main (7). Finally, the model estimates the sky diffuse component
components, which are an isotropic, the circumsolar and the according to Equation (8).
horizon brightness as shown in Fig. 1. There are many different  
β
models available to estimate the sky diffuse irradiance on a 1 + sin3 (5)
2
tilted surface. This study will focus on four main models
1 + cos2 (θ)sin3 (φ) (6)
widely used by different PV systems design and simulation
2
softwares. The difference between them lays on the number DHI

F0 = 1 − (7)
of diffuse components considered and how they estimate each GHI
of them [7]. The different models considered with different Ed =DHI
1+cos(β)


1+F 0 sin3 β



(1+F 0 cos2 (θ)sin3 (φ)) (8)
2 2
complexities will be briefly described in the following sec-
tions. Kluchers model considers the anisotropy nature of the
diffuse irradiance, and presented accurate results for clear sky
conditions, nevertheless, the model does not present the same
accuracy for overcast or cloudy days [7].
C. Hay & Davies
In this model, Hay & Davies [12] considered two com-
ponents of the diffuse irradiance, which are the isotropic
component and the circumsolar. To each of these components,
an anisotropy factor Ai , is applied. This factor relates the
direct normal irradiance on the horizontal (DN I) to the extra-
terrestrial irradiance (I0 ) according to Equation (9):
DN I
Ai = (9)
I0
Finally, the sky diffuse component is estimated based on
the diffuse irradiance on the horizontal (DHI), a factor which
relates the incidence angle (θ) and the zenith angle (φ) and
Fig. 1. Diffuse irradiance components the tilt angle of the modules (β), as can be seen in Equation
(10):
 TABLE I The purpose of the simulations is to evaluate how the
H ORIZONTAL IRRADIANCES IN W/m2 application of different transposition models may affect on the
GHI-W/m2 DHI-W/m2 BHI-W/m2 DNI-W/m2
estimation of the energy yeild estimation of a PV system. In
JAN 226.65 118.03 108.62 138.7 order to evaluate the accuracy of the models regarding their
FEB 245.27 110.19 135.08 179.746 impact on the energy yeild of a PV system, statistical tests such
MAR 225.13 95.14 129.98 173.81 as mean bias error (MBE), root mean square error (RMSE)
APR 206.25 75.92 130.34 203.21
MAY 173.3 63.14 110.17 192.8 and the correlation coefficient (CC) were performed. These
JUN 125.14 63.76 61.38 114.38 statistical figures were suggested by Iqbal [16] to evaluate the
JUL 160.15 62.22 97.93 179.44 models to estimate solar radiation. The MBE indicates the
AUG 161.95 67.87 94.08 151.27
average deviation of the estimated data and can be obtained
SEP 195.57 77.11 118.46 171.2
OCT 164.26 100.51 63.75 82.06 by (13).
NOV 253.74 108.8 144.93 191.3 PN
DEC 243.45 118.84 124.6 160.63 (yi − xi )
M BE = i=1 (13)
N
In this equation, yi is the ith estimated value, xi is the ith
h 1 + cos(β) i measured value and N is the total number of data. The model
Ed = DHI Ai Rb + (1 − Ai ) (10) presents a better accuracy the more the MBE approaches zero
2
[16].
cos(θ) The RMSE is always a positive value and represents the
Rb = (11) variation of the estimated and measured values. Ideally, it
cos(φ)
is a more accurate model presents a RMSE value closer to
D. Reindl zero. The RMSE value can be significantly high if the sample
The model proposed by Reindl [13] was based on the Hay includes a few large variations compared to the measured
& Davies [12] model. It uses the same anisotropy coefficient value. This statistical test can be performed by the equation
but in addition, Reindl included the horizon brightening in the (14) [16].
model as shown in Equation (12).
n PN (y − x ) 2 o 12
i=1 i i
RM SE = (14)
 q


1+cos(β) DN Ixcos(φ)
Ed =DHI Ai Rb +(1−Ai ) 2 1+ GHI sin3 β
2 (12) N
IV. M ETHODOLOGY The CC evaluates the linear relationship of the estimated
value and the measured one. In this case, the closer the CC
The irradiance on the horizontal surface used in this study get from 1 more similar the samples between the estimated
was collected by the solarimetric station located at Politec® data are from the measured data.
(23.45 S, 47.11W), Araçariguama in Brazil. To measure the
PN
global irradiance on the horizontal, two pyranometers first i=1 (yi − ȳ)(xi − x̄)
class SR11 were used to collect data in 2 minutes interval CC = PN PN 1
(15)
{[ i=1 (yi − ȳ)2 ][ i=1 (xi − x̄)2 ]} 2
during January 2018 to December 2018. The Erbs [14] model
was used to obtain the direct and diffuse component of the V. R ESULTS
irradiance on the horizontal surface and the results are shown The transposition of the irradiance to the sloped surface of
in Table I. The estimation of the direct and ground diffuse the module was performed with irradiance on the horizontal
irradiance on the array surface remained the same for all data of the location at latitude -23.44o and longitude -47.11o .
models however the sky diffuse component changed according Table II shows the variance of the irradiance per month with
to the previously mentioned models. each transposition model compared to the global horizontal
The PV system considered in this study consists of a irradiance. It can be seen that even though the global irradiance
string with 12 modules Talesun® TP672P-310, 310Wp and a on the module surface decreases during the summer months
Fronious® inverter of 5000W. The modules are installed with compared to the horizontal irradiance, the increase in the
a fixed tilt of 30o and azimuth 0o , which are the ideal tilt irradiance during the other months, which can reach values
for the latitude considered and orientation for a location at in the order of 30% higher. Therefore, it compensates the
the southern hemisphere [15]. The energy generated by this slightly low irradiance found in a few months. Consequently,
system was measured in a 5 minutes interval during the same the overall irradiance is higher when positioning the module
period as the global irradiance in order to guarantee a more at the optimum tilt and azimuth facing north for this specific
accurate result. location.
In order to consider the losses involved in the energy gen- The global irradiances on a 30 tilted surface obtained
eration, the system was simulated initially with the software through the different models are shown in Figure 2. The Hay &
PVSyst® which indicated 0.6% loss due to irradiance level, Davies and Reindl models presented similar results throughout
1.1% due to mismatch loss, 1.1% of ohmic wiring loss, 5.5% the year which means that the additional horizon brightness
due to the inverter efficiency. component of the Reindl model did not affect the final result in
 TABLE II
VARIANCE OF THE IRRADIANCE ON A TILTED SURFACE OF 30 COMPARED
TO THE HORIZONTAL IRRADIANCE

Isotropic Klucher Hay & Davies Reindl

JAN -9.198 % -7.715 % -10.146 % -9.846 %
FEB -5.862 % -3.797 % -6.096 % -5.822 %
MAR 1.278 % 4.647 % 2.712 % 2.979 %
APR 13.280 % 18.512 % 16.926 % 17.159 %
MAY 24.046 % 31.633 % 30.060 % 30.299 %
JUN 22.337 % 30.911 % 28.579 % 28.876 %
JUL 26.882 % 35.478 % 33.808 % 34.066 %
AUG 15.123 % 20.518 % 18.810 % 19.046 %
SEP 6.490 % 10.073 % 8.549 % 8.768 %
OCT -3.343 % -1.085 % -2.983 % -2.668 %
NOV -9.255 % -7.638 % -10.189 % -9.937 %
DEC -11.359 % -9.861 % -12.768 % -12.473 %
Overall 3.71 % 7.56 % 5.48 % 5.74 %
Fig. 3. Energy yeild obtained using sky diffuse models compared with the
measured data

an expressive way for this location and tilt angle. The Klucher
TABLE III
results differ considerably from the other models results during S TATISTICAL COEFFICIENTS OF THE MODELS IMPACT ON THE ENERGY
the the beginning and the end of the year. This difference YIELD
decreases as it approaches the months of May until July, when Statistical coefficients
the Klucher models results are similar to the Hay & Davies MBE (%) RMSE (%) CC
and Reindl models. This fluctuation may occur due to the fact Isotropic -3.822 14.324 0.9628
that the location has a rainy and cloudy summer and a dry Klucher 12.865 15.479 0.9857
Hay & Davies 4.563 9.885 0.9852
and clear winter. As mentioned previously, Kluchers model Reindl 5.648 10.398 0.9853
presents accurate results for clear sky condition but loses its
accuracy for overcast and cloudy days.
presenting a slightly overestimation in the energy yield, lowest
RMSE which is lower than 10% and a CC close to 1. Reindl’s
model presented very close result from the estimation using
Hay & Davies model. The results with Reindl’s model only
presented values slightly higher than the Hay & Davies model.

Fig. 2. Global irradiance on a 30 tilted surface
Figure 3 shows the energy yeild obtained by using each sky
diffuse irradiance model to then estimate the global irradiance
on a 30 tilted surface. The monthly energy values obtained are
then compared with the monthly measured energy via MBE,
RMSE and CC as shown in the Table III.
The MBE value allows to determine if the model underesti-
mates or overestimates the measured data. It can be seen that
by using the isotropic model there was an underestimation of
the total energy yield as can be seen with a negative MBE
value. When using the Klucher’s model for this study, results
showed the highest overestimation, presented by the highest
MBE.
Hay & Davies model showed the best response in this study,
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper analysed and compared the results of four
different models to estimate the diffuse irradiance on a tilted
surface and its impact on the energy generated by a PV
system. Among the models there was an isotropic and three
anisotropic which were, Kluchers, Hay & Davies and Reindls,
respectively in order of complexity. The Hay & Davies and
Reindls models presented very similar results even though
Reindls model considers the horizon brightening which was
not included in the Hay & Davies model. The Hay & Davies
model presented the best results, as can be seen by the
statistical coefficients, even though it is less complex then
models such as Reindl’s. By using the isotropic model one
could notice an underestimation of the energy yield at the end
of the process, on the other hand Klucher’s model presented
the highest overestimation, which might be caused by its not
so accurate performance under overcast and cloudy conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the agencies CNPq, CAPES
and FAPESP (2016/08645-9), and BYD ENERGY through
the PADIS program. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
support of Politec® for providing the data used in this work.
 R EFERENCES
[1] IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017, 2017.
[2] D. Denes and S. Kindl, “Solar Energy Growth in Brazil : Essential
Dimensions for the Technological Transition,” vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 293–
302, 2018.
[3] R. Mubarak, M. Hofmann, S. Riechelmann, and G. Seckmeyer, “Com-
parison of modelled and measured tilted solar irradiance for photovoltaic
applications,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 11, 2017.
[4] L. G. M. Oliveira, “Avaliação De Fatores Que Influenciam Na Estimativa
Da Geração E Operação De Sistemas Fotovoltaicos Conectados À Rede
Elétrica,” Ph.D. dissertation, 2017.
[5] A. Padovan and D. Del Col, “Measurement and modeling of solar
irradiance components on horizontal and tilted planes,” Solar Energy,
vol. 84, no. 12, pp. 2068–2084, 2010.
[6] S. A. Kalogirou, Solar Energy Engineering: Processes and Systems,
second edi ed. Elsevier Ltd, 2014.
[7] P. G. Loutzenhiser, H. Manz, C. Felsmann, P. A. Strachan, T. Frank,
and G. M. Maxwell, “Empirical validation of models to compute solar
irradiance on inclined surfaces for building energy simulation,” Solar
Energy, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 254–267, 2007.
[8] R. Liu, B.; Jordan, “Daily insolation on surfaces tilted towards equator,”
ASHRAE, vol. 10, 1961.
[9] W. A. Duffie, John A.; Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Pro-
cesses , 2nd ed. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., 1980.
[10] T. M. KLUCHER, “Evaluation of models to predict insolation on tilted
surfaces,” Solar Energy, vol. 23, pp. 111–114, 1979.
[11] R. C. Temps and K. L. Coulson, “Solar Radiation Incident Upon Slopes
of Different Orientations,” Solar Energy, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 179–184,
1977.
[12] J. E. Hay and J. A. Davies, “Calculation of the solar radiation incident
on an inclined surface,” Proceedings First Canadian Solar Radiation
Data Workshop, 1980.
[13] D. Reindl, W. Beckman, and J. Due, “Diuse fraction correlations,” Solar
Energy, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1990.
[14] D. G. Erbs, S. A. Klein, and J. A. Duffie, “Estimation of the diffuse ra-
diation fraction for hourly, daily and monthly-average global radiation,”
Solar Energy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 293–302, 1982.
[15] M. G. Villalva, Energia Solar Fotovoltaica Conceitos e Aplicações,
2nd ed. Saraiva, 2015.
[16] M. Iqbal, An Introduction to Solar Radiation. Toronto, Canada:
Academic Press, 1983.