Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450

www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

A critical review on the estimation of daily global

solar radiation from sunshine duration
Mehmet Yorukoglu, Ali Naci Celik *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Mustafa Kemal University, 31024 Antakya, Hatay, Turkey

Received 23 May 2005; accepted 15 November 2005

Available online 28 December 2005

Abstract

Models such as the Angström–Prescott equation are used to estimate global solar radiation from sunshine duration. In
the literature, researchers investigate either the goodness of the model itself or the goodness of the estimation of global
solar radiation based on a set of statistical parameters such as R2, RMSE, MBE, MABE, MPE and MAPE. If the former
is the objective, then the statistical analysis should naturally be based on H/Ho  S/So (the ratio of daily solar radiation to
extraterrestrial daily solar radiation vs. the ratio of sunshine duration to day length). If the latter is investigated, then the
statistical analysis should be based on Hc  Hm (calculated daily solar radiation vs. measured daily solar radiation). A lit-
erature survey undertaken in the present article showed that these two data sets are apt to be confused, drawing the sta-
tistical parameters to be used in assessment of the estimation model from the latter data set or the vice versa set. The
statistical parameters are clearly derived from the basics for both of the data sets, and the inconsistencies caused by this
confusion and other factors are exposed. A case study of the estimation models and global solar radiation estimation from
sunshine duration is presented using five different models (linear, quadratic, cubic, logarithmic and exponential), which are
the most common models used in the literature, based on 6 years long measured hourly global solar radiation data.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Estimation of daily global solar radiation; Angström–Prescott model; Sunshine duration

1. Introduction

The amount of global solar radiation and its temporal distribution are the primary variables for designing
solar energy systems. Knowledge of these parameters is required for prediction of the system efficiency of a
possible solar energy system at a particular location. However, global solar radiation is measured only at a
limited number of sites in the world, while sunshine duration is measured in many stations. Therefore, it
has been the most widely available factor for solar radiation estimations [1]. Then, objective interpolation
of solar radiation measurement is often required for the sites where measurements do not exist, using global

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 532 2277353; fax: +90 326 2455499.
E-mail address: ancelik@hotmail.com (A.N. Celik).

0196-8904/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2005.11.002
2442 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450

Nomenclature

a–d empirical constants

Gsc solar constant (Gsc = 1367 W/m2)
H daily global solar radiation on horizontal surface (MJ/m2)
Ho daily extraterrestrial radiation on horizontal surface (MJ/m2)
n number of day of year starting from first of January
k eccentricity correction factor
R2 coefficient of determination
S sunshine duration (h)
So day length (h)

Greek letters
xs sunset hour angle (degree)
d solar declination (degree)
/ latitude of site (degree)
r standard deviation

Acronyms
MAE mean absolute error
MABE mean absolute bias error
MAPE mean absolute percentage error
MBE mean bias error
MPE mean percentage error
NSE Nash–Sutcliffe equation
RMSE root mean square error
SEE standard error of estimate

solar radiation estimations calculated from sunshine duration data. Furthermore, sunshine duration measure-
ment is easier than global radiation measurement. It is, therefore, likely that the accuracy of sunshine duration
measurement is higher than that of global solar radiation.
Research for estimating global solar radiation from the duration of sunshine was initiated by Angström in
the 1920s [2]. He first proposed the following linear relationship between the ratio of global irradiation (H) to
cloudless global irradiation (Hcl) and the ratio of sunshine duration (S) to astronomical day duration (So, i.e.
day length),
H S
¼ a þ ð1  aÞ ð1Þ
H cl So
Angström determined the value of ‘a’ as 0.25 from Stockholm data. However, 30 years after publishing his
first article, Angström stated that Eq. (1) was obtained from mean monthly data and should not be used with
daily data [3].
To estimate H from sunshine records, Angström’s model required measurements of global radiation on
completely clear days (Hcl). This limitation prompted Prescott [4] to develop a model that was a function
of the extraterrestrial radiation on a horizontal surface (Ho), rather than Hcl, since Ho can be easily calculated.
This modified Angström equation is known as the Angström–Prescott equation [5,6], which is given as
H S
¼aþb ð2Þ
Ho So
The model coefficients of a and b were determined as 0.22 and 0.54, respectively, by Prescott [4].
 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450 2443

In Eq. (2), Ho and So can be theoretically calculated. The extraterrestrial solar radiation on a horizontal
surface is calculated from,
24x3600  pxs 
Ho ¼ Gsc k cos / cos d sin xs þ sin / sin d ð3Þ
p 180
where Gsc is the solar constant (= 1367 W/m2 [7]), and k is the eccentricity correction factor. The eccentricity
correction factor k can be calculated using the following:
 
360n
k ¼ 1 þ 0:033 cos ð4Þ
365
where n is the number of the day of the year starting from the first of January. The declination d can be found
from the equation of Cooper [8]:
 
284 þ n
d ¼ 23:45 sin 360 ð5Þ
365
The sunset hour angle xs can be found from the equation given in Ref. [8] as:
xs ¼ cos1 ð tan / tan dÞ ð6Þ
where / is the latitude of the site. The day length So can be calculated using the following equation [9]:
2xs
So ¼ ð7Þ
15

2. Parameters used in assessing the estimation models

Models such as the Angström–Prescott equation are used to estimate global solar radiation from sunshine
duration. In the literature, researchers investigate either the goodness of the model itself or the estimation of
global solar radiation based on a set of statistical parameters such as R2, RMSE, MBE, MABE, MPE and
MAPE. If the goodness of the model is investigated, then the statistical parameters should naturally be drawn
from the data set of H/Ho  S/So, as given in Fig. 1. If the latter is the objective of a study, then the statistical
parameters should be obtained from the data set of Hc  Hm, as given in Fig. 2. It is shown below that
researchers do not always use the correct statistical parameters to assess the estimation model or the global
solar radiation estimation, drawing the statistical parameters from the latter data set to assess the estimation

Hm
= ym
Ho

Hi,m Hc
= yi,m = yc
Hi,o Ho
di1

Hi,c
= yi,c
Hi,o

Si S
= xi =x
Si,o So

Fig. 1. The least squares regression for Angström–Prescott equation (subscript c denotes the calculated value and m the measured value).
2444 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450

Hm Hm = H c

H i,m

'
Hm
d i2

Hi,c

Hi , c Hc

Fig. 2. The least squares regression for Hc  Hm (calculated daily solar radiation  measured daily solar radiation).

model or vice versa. The statistical parameters are clearly derived from the basics for both the data sets, and
the confusions and inconsistencies in the definitions of the statistical parameters that are quite common in the
literature are exposed below.

3. Derivation of statistical parameters

The goal of regression analysis is to determine the values of the parameters that minimize the sum of the
squared residual values for the set of observations [10]. In linear regression, the function is a linear (straight
line) equation. This is known as a ‘least squares’ regression fit, minimizing the sum of d 2i s as shown in Fig. 1.
However, it is a well known fact that some phenomena cannot be accurately modelled by a linear equation.
Then, curvilinear regression is employed with non-linear functions such as a quadratic or exponential [10]. The
Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient, or correlation coefficient (R) for short is a measure of the
degree of linear relationship between two variables, as labelled x and ym in Fig. 1. Applying the least squares
regression for the Angström–Prescott equation, as given in Fig. 1, Eq. (8) is obtained,
Xn Xn
 2 X
n
 2
F ¼ d 2i ¼ y i;m  y i;c ¼ y i;m  ða þ bxi Þ ð8Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1

By determining the values of a and b that minimise F, the best line can be found. The following method can be
used to determine these parameters. Firstly, the following are obtained:

oF Xn
 
¼ 2 y i;m  ða þ bxi Þ ¼ 0 ð9Þ
oa i¼1

oF Xn
 
¼ 2 y i;m  ða þ bxi Þ xi ¼ 0 ð10Þ
ob i¼1

The following equations are then formed depending on a and b:

X
n X
n
an þ b xi ¼ y i;m ð11Þ
i¼1 i¼1
X
n X
n X
n
a xi þ b x2i ¼ xi y i;m ð12Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450 2445

Finally, the parameters are calculated as

Pn Pn
i¼1 y i;m  b i¼1 xi
a¼ ¼ y  bx ð13Þ
Pn n Pn Pn
n i¼1 xi y i;m  i¼1 xi i¼1 y i;m
b¼ Pn  Pn  2 ð14Þ
n i¼1 x2i  i¼1 xi

If it is a nonlinear regression, the unknown parameters can be calculated in a similar manner, forming as many
equations as the number of unknown parameters. The correlation coefficient R is then defined by
P P P P 
r2x;y n XY  X Y ðX  X ÞðY  Y Þ
R¼ r
¼  ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi q
¼ Pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð15Þ
rx ry P 2 P 2  P 2 P 2 2P 2
n X  ð XÞ n Y  ð YÞ ðX  X Þ ðY  Y Þ

The correlation coefficient R ranges between 1 and +1. The value of the correlation coefficient is a measure
of the strength of the relationship. A correlation coefficient of R = 0.50 indicates a stronger degree of linear
relationship than one of R = 0.40. Likewise, a correlation coefficient of R = 0.50 shows a greater degree of
relationship than one of R = 0.40. Thus, a correlation coefficient of zero (R = 0.0) indicates the absence of a
linear relationship and correlation coefficients of R = +1.0 and 1.0 indicate a perfect linear relationship. The
coefficient of determination is,
Pn 2
ðy i;m  y i;c Þ
R ¼ 1  Pi¼1
2
n 2
ð16Þ
i¼1 ðy i;m  y m Þ

Applying Eq. (16) to Fig. 1, the following is obtained:

Pn H i;m H i;c 2
i¼1 H i;o  H i;o RMSE21
R21 ¼ 1  P  D E2 ¼ 1  ð17aÞ
n H i;m Hm r21
i¼1 H i;o  H o

Applying Eq. (16) to Fig. 2, the following is obtained:

Pn
2 ðH i;m  H i;c Þ2 RMSE22
R2 ¼ 1  Pni¼1  2 ¼ 1  ð17bÞ
r22
i¼1 H i;m  H m

Expressing R2 as in Eqs. (17a) and (17b) contributes to understanding of the relationships between the param-
eters; that is R2 is a function of RMSE and r. A further deduction is that R2 increases as RMSE decreases or
vice versa because r2 is constant for a particular data set. Similar to Eqs. (17a) and (17b), applying the def-
initions of the parameters of di, RMSE, MBE, MABE, MPE and MAPE, as described in Refs. [11–13], to
Figs. 1 and 2, Table 1 is obtained. As can be seen in Table 1, MPE and MAPE remain the same, while RMSE,
MBE and MABE change with the data set used. The subscripts of 1 and 2 denote the data set from which the
parameters are derived.

4. Critical review

An index of the researchers and the parameters that they used for assessing the goodness of an estimation
model or the estimation of daily or monthly global solar radiation from sunshine duration are presented in
Table 2. It is noted in Table 2 that some of the researchers drew the statistical parameters from the
H/Ho  S/So data set, for example, Elagib and Mansel [11] and Elagib et al. [21], while most of the researchers
cited in Table 2 determined the statistical parameters from the Hc  Hm data set, mostly regardless of what
their objective was. Note in Table 2 that a question mark ‘?’ was used for the cases where the name of the
parameter was declared by the authors but the formula of the parameter was not given. It was, therefore,
impossible to deduce from the explanations whether they were from the H/Ho  S/So or the Hc  Hm data
sets, as in Almorox and Hontario [14], Lin and Lu [17] and Hussain et al. [20]. Amongst these, however,
 2446
M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450
Table 1
Formulae of di, RMSE, MBE, MABE, MPE and MAPE for two different data sets
Data set 1 (Fig. 1) Data set 2 (Fig. 2)
Formula Unit Equation Formula Unit Equation
H i;m H i;c – (18a) d i2 ¼ H i;m  H i;c (MJ m2 day1) (18b)
d i1 ¼ 
H i;o H i;o

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u n  (MJ m2 day1)
u1 X H i;m H i;c 2
– (19a) 1X n (19b)
RMSE1 ¼ t  RMSE2 ¼ ðH i;m  H i;c Þ2
n i¼1 H i;o H i;o n i¼1

n  
1X H i;m H i;c – (20a) 1X n
(MJ m2 day1) (20b)
MBE1 ¼  MBE2 ¼ ðH i;m  H i;c Þ
n i¼1 H i;o H i;o n i¼1

n  
1X H i;m H i;c – (21a) 1X n
  (MJ m2 day1) (21b)
MABE1 ¼  MABE2 ¼ H i;m  H i;c
n i¼1 H i;o H i;o n i¼1

n  
1X H i;m  H i;c – (22) MPE2 ¼ MPE1 – (22)
MPE1 ¼ 100
n i¼1 H i;m

n  
1X H i;m  H i;c – (23) MAPE2 ¼ MAPE1 – (23)
MAPE1 ¼ 100
n i¼1 H i;m
 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450 2447

Table 2

deducing from the R2 values presented, it is highly likely that Almorox and Hontario [14] drew the statistical
parameters from the data set of H/Ho  S/So. The researchers that use the H/Ho  S/So data set calculate the
statistical parameters that are the measure of the goodness of the estimation model. The researchers that use
the Hc  Hm data set calculate the statistical parameters that do not represent the goodness of the model used,
but that of H 0m . Because these two sets of parameters are completely different, it is meaningless to compare
them. However, it is quite common in the literature to refer to the numerical values of a particular set of
parameters as the other. For example, Almorox and Hontoria [14] refer to the coefficients calculated from
the Hc  Hm data set in Refs. [19,20], while they themselves deal with the statistical parameters of the data
set of H/Ho  S/So. This is because these two different sets of parameters are not distinguished properly.
As noted in Table 2, it is more common to calculate the statistical parameters based on the Hc  Hm data
set in the literature. Elagib and Mansel [11] and Elagib et al. [21] correctly drew the statistical parameters from
the H/Ho  S/So data set, as their objective was to study the estimation model itself (i.e. the relationship
between clearness index (H/Ho) and relative sunshine duration (S/So)). However, Ertekin and Yaldiz [13],
Chen et al. [16], Nguyen and Pryor [22] and Almorox et al. [23] drew the statistical parameters from the
Hc  Hm data set, while their objective, which is deduced from the title of their articles, was to determine
the coefficients of the Angström–Prescott equation.
Further inconsistencies are encountered in the literature, as presented in Table 2. Firstly, a particular
parameter was named differently by different researchers. For example, Chen et al. [16] named R22 as NSE
(Nash–Sutcliffe Equation). Almorox and Hontaria [14] named what are usually known as RMSE and MABE
as SEE and MAE, respectively. Tadros [18] denoted MAPE as e, defining it as the absolute percentage of the
deviation of the estimated measured values of global solar radiation. Secondly, the parameters were defined
incorrectly as in the case of Ampratwum and Dorvlo [12], who confused MPE and MAPE, and as in the case
of Toğrul and Onat [15], who confused MBE and MPE. Another inconsistency is that a particular parameter
was given by a different formula that is different from the usually accepted definition. For example, Toğrul and
Onat [15] described RMSE as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u n 
u1 X H i;c  H i;m 2
RMSE3 ¼ t ð24Þ
n i¼1 H i;m
2448 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450

Nguyen and Pryor [22] described RMSE and MBE as

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!ffi
u n
1 tu X ðH i;c  H i;m Þ
2
RMSE4 ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð25Þ
Hm i¼1
n

1 X n
ðH i;c  H i;m Þ
MBE3 ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð26Þ
H m i¼1 n

Finally, some researchers used completely different parameters than the commonly used parameters, for exam-
ple, Ertekin and Yaldiz [13] and Almorox et al. [23]. Ertekin and Yaldiz [13] described a parameter called the
percentage error as follows to assess the goodness of the global irradiation prediction,
 
H i;m  H i;c
e¼ 100 ð27Þ
H i;m

Almorox et al. [23] described a parameter called the t-statistic defined as

  0:5
t ¼ ðn  1ÞMBE2 = RMSE2  MBE2 ð28Þ
Another kind of inconsistency was realised in the article by Ampratwum and Dorvlo [12], who compared six
different models (linear, quadratic, linear–logarithmic, logarithmic, power and power-trigonometric) for a to-
tal of five stations in Oman using 10 years long monthly average daily solar radiation data. They analysed each
of the stations separately and concluded that the power-trigonometric model was the best amongst the models.
They assessed the goodness of the solar radiation estimations in terms of R22 and RMSE2. It is, however, inter-
esting to note that they calculated R22 ¼ 0:7193 and RMSE2 = 0.9936 MJ/m2 for the linear model and
R22 ¼ 0:7666 and RMSE2 = 1.0005 MJ/m2 for the power-trigonometric model for the Marmul station. How-
ever, as was pointed out earlier in Eq. (17b), this is not logical, because R22 cannot increase unless RMSE2 de-
creases or vice versa.

5. A case study

The Angström–Prescott equation has been widely used by researchers in solar radiation research since Pres-
cott developed it in 1940 [4]. Alternative models to the Angström–Prescott equation have since been proposed.
In the present article, five of the models, which were previously used by researchers commonly, are used to
estimate the daily global solar radiation from the measured duration of sunshine hours. The models used are

1. Linear model (Angström–Prescott model) as given by Eq. (2).

2. Quadratic model (Ögelman et al. model [24])
 2
H S S
¼aþb þc ð29Þ
Ho So So
3. Cubic model (Samuel model [25])
 2  3
H S S S
¼aþb þc þd ð30Þ
Ho So So So
4. Logarithmic model (Ampratwum and Dorvlo model [12])
 
H S
¼ a þ b log ð31Þ
Ho So
5. Exponential model (Almorox and Hontaria model [14])
H
¼ a þ beðSo Þ
S
ð32Þ
Ho
 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450 2449

Table 3
Regression results and the statistical parameters for various models for Ankara
Model Eq. R21 R22 RMSE1 RMSE2 MBE1 MBE2 MABE1 MABE2 MPE MAPE
Linear (2) 0.859 0.962 0.0589 1.4979 0.0001 0.0182 0.0437 1.1407 4.68 13.32
Quadratic (29) 0.866 0.963 0.0568 1.4719 0.0000 0.0094 0.0427 1.1270 3.88 12.41
Cubic (30) 0.876 0.966 0.0546 1.4188 0.0000 0.0317 0.0403 1.0664 3.36 11.49
Logarithmic (31) 0.725 0.929 0.0969 1.8928 0.0000 0.0507 0.0561 1.4300 6.73 18.07
Exponential (32) 0.825 0.953 0.0648 1.6546 0.0000 0.0090 0.0481 1.2582 5.84 15.17

Six years long hourly average global solar radiation data on a horizontal surface and sunshine duration of
Ankara, Turkey (39.95N; 32.88E; 891 m elevation) are used in the present article. The data, measured by the
Turkish State Meteorological Service, covers the years from 1995 to 2000. The daily solar radiation (H) and
sunshine hours (S) are derived from the hourly values. The daily extraterrestrial radiation and the day length
are calculated from Eqs. (3) and (7), respectively. The parameters of the models used are then calculated as
was discussed above. The regression results and other statistical parameters calculated using the models are
presented in Table 3.
As the statistical parameters indicate for the Ankara data, overall, the cubic (third degree polynomial func-
tion) model returns the most favourable statistical results. As indicated by Eqs. (17a) and (17b), the values of
the R2s increase as the RMSEs decrease. The logarithmic and exponential models return relatively lower R21
values when compared to the others, indicating less suitable models for the present data. The MABE1 and
MAPE values, although secondary to either R21 or RMSE1, are also an indication of the goodness of the mod-
els. Although the MPE seems to support the R21 values as observed in Table 2, this may not always be the case.
The MBE1 values are usually equal to zero or very close to zero and, therefore, do not provide any informa-
tion about the goodness of the models. Similarly, the MBE2 values do not show any similar trend to the pri-
mary parameters of either R22 or RMSE2 and, therefore, are poor indicators of the goodness of the global solar
radiation estimation.

6. Conclusions

Estimation of global solar radiation from sunshine duration is a common procedure used in solar energy
engineering. Models such as the Angström–Prescott equation are used for this purpose. The most important
conclusions arising from the current article are:

• The objective in this particular field of research is to investigate either the goodness of the model itself or the
goodness of the estimation of global solar radiation, each requiring a different data set. The researchers
conduct this investigation by means of a set of statistical parameters such as R2, RMSE, MBE, MABE,
MPE and MAPE.
• The statistical parameters acquire a different mathematical meaning for each different data set. It is quite
common in the literature to compare the numerical values of a particular set of parameters to those of the
other. This is because the researchers seem not to distinguish between these two different sets of parameters
properly. This leads to inconsistencies in assessing the models or the estimation of global solar radiation.
Therefore, researchers should choose the appropriate data set according to their objective.
• It is quite common that a particular parameter is named differently by different researchers. Furthermore,
some parameters are defined incorrectly.
2
• It was shown that R2 could be derived as a function of RMSE and r as R2 ¼ 1  RMSE r2
. As the direct indi-
2
cator of the goodness of fit, R and RMSE are the primary parameters used in assessing the goodness of
models or the goodness of the estimation of global solar radiation from the duration of sunshine hours.
• It was noted that MABE and MAPE values support the primary parameters for the present data. Even
though MPE seems to support the R2 value, this may not always be the case, as there is not any mathemat-
ical relationship between them. MBE1 and MBE2 values do not show any similar trend to the primary
parameters and, therefore, are poor indicators of the goodness of fit.
2450 M. Yorukoglu, A.N. Celik / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 2441–2450

• Amongst the five different models analysed in the present article, the Angström–Prescott equation, the qua-
dratic and the cubic models returned quite similar values of R21 and RMSE1. Even though the cubic model
returned the highest R21 and the lowest RMSE1, when compared with the Angström–Prescott model that is
the simplest amongst the models studied, it is noted that it is only slightly better than the latter. Therefore,
the advantage of the cubic model may be abandoned in return for a simpler model with half of the
parameters.

References

[1] S
ß en Z. Angström equation parameter estimation by unrestricted method. Solar Energy 2001;71(2):95–107.
[2] Angström A. Solar and terrestrial radiation. Q J R Met Soc 1924;50:121–5.
[3] Angström A. On the computation of global radiation from records of sunshine. Arkiv Geof 1956;2:471–9.
[4] Prescott JA. Evaporation from a water surface in relation to solar radiation. Trans R Soc S Aust 1940;64:114–8.
[5] Martinez-Lazono JA, Tena F, Onrubia JE, De La Rubai J. The historical evolution of the Angström formula and its modifications:
review and bibliography. Agric Forest Meteoral 1984;33:109–18.
[6] Gueymard C, Jindra P, Estrada-Cajigal V. A critical look at recent interpretations of the Angström approach and its future in global
solar radiation prediction. Solar Energy 1995;54(5):357–63.
[7] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1991.
[8] Cooper PI. The absorption of solar radiation in solar stills. Solar Energy 1969;12(3):313–31.
[9] Iqball M. An introduction to solar radiation. Toronto: Academic Press; 1983.
[10] NLREG, Nonlinear regression and curve fitting. Available from: http://www.nlreg.com/intro.htm.
[11] Elagib NA, Mansell MG. New approaches for estimating global solar radiation across Sudan. Energy Conv Manag 2000;41:419–24.
[12] Ampratwum DB, Dorvlo ASS. Estimation of solar radiation from the number of sunshine hours. Appl Energy 1999;63:161–7.
[13] Ertekin C, Yaldiz O. Comparison of some existing models for estimating global solar radiation for Antalya (Turkey). Energy Conv
Manag 2000;41:311–20.
[14] Almorox J, Hontaria C. Global solar radiation estimation using sunshine duration in Spain. Energy Conv Manag 2004;45(9):1529–35.
[15] Toğrul IT, Onat E. A comparison of estimated and measured values of solar radiation in Elaziǧ, Turkey. Renew Energy
2000;20:243–52.
[16] Chen R, Ersi K, Yang J, Lu S, Zhao W. Validation of five global radiation models with measured daily data in China. Energy Conv
Manag 2004;45(11–12):1759–69.
[17] Lin W, Lu E. Correlations between monthly average global solar radiation on horizontal surface and relative duration of sunshine in
Yunnan Province, China. Renew Energy 1998;13(3):355–62.
[18] Tadros MTY. Uses of sunshine duration to estimate the global solar radiation over eight meteorological stations in Egypt. Renew
Energy 2000;21:231–6.
[19] Toğrul IT, Toğrul H, Evin D. Estimation of monthly global solar radiation from sunshine duration measurement in Elaziǧ. Renew
Energy 2000;19:587–95.
[20] Hussain M, Rahman L, Rahman MM. Techniques to obtain improved predictions of global radiation from sunshine duration. Renew
Energy 1999;18:263–75.
[21] Elagib NA, Alvi SH, Mansell MG. Correlationships between clearness index and relative sunshine duration for Sudan. Renew Energy
1999;17:473–8.
[22] Nguyen BT, Pryor TL. The relationship between global solar radiation and sunshine duration in Vietnam. Renew Energy
1997;11(1):47–50.
[23] Almorox J, Benito M, Hontaria C. Estimation of monthly Angström–Prescott equation coefficients from measured daily data. Renew
Energy 2005;30:931–6.
[24] Ögelman H, Ecevit A, Tasßdemiroǧlu E. A new method for estimating solar radiation from bright sunshine data. Solar Energy
1984;33(6):619–25.
[25] Samuel TDMA. Estimation of global radiation for Sri Lanka. Solar Energy 1991;47(5):333–7.