You are on page 1of 19

The Interrelationship and Characteristic Distribution

of Direct, Diffuse and Total Solar Radiation*


By Benjamin Y. H. Liu$ and Richard C. Jordan~

Based upon the data now available, this paper I~h = intensity of diffuse radiation on a
presents relationships permitting the determina- horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
tion on a horizontal surface of the instantaneous ]ah = long term average of the hourly diffuse
i n t e n s i t y o f d i f f u s e r a d i a t i o n o n clear d a y s , t h e radiation received on a horizontal sur-
l o n g t e r m a v e r a g e h o u r l y a n d d a i l y s u m s o f diffuse face = long term hourly average of
radiation, and the daily sums of diffuse radiation the intensity of diffuse radiation on a
for v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s o f d a y s o f differing d e g r e e s horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
o f c l o u d i n e s s . F o r t h e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , it is lob = intensity of solar radiation incident
necessary to have, either from actual measure- upon a horizontal surface outside the
m e n t s or e s t i m a t e s , a k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t o t a l atmosphere of the earth, B t u / h r - s q ft
(direct p l u s diffuse) r a d i a t i o n o n a h o r i z o n t a l Io,~ = intensity of solar radiation at normal
s u r f a c e - - i t s m e a s u r e m e n t is n o w r e g u l a r l y m a d e incidence outside the atmosphere of
at 98 l o c a l i t i e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d C a n a d a . the earth = r I . , , B t u / h r - s q ft
For localities where only an estimate of the long I~ = solar c o n s t a n t = 442 B t u / h r - s q ft =
t e r m a v e r a g e t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is a v a i l a b l e , r e l a t i o n - 2 ly/min
s h i p s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s p a p e r c a n be u t i l i z e d t o I rh = intensity of total (direct plus diffuse)
determine the statistical distribution of the daily radiation incident upon a horizontal
t o t a l r a d i a t i o n at t h e s e l o c a l i t i e s . surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
= long term average of the hourly total
NOMENCLATURE
radiation received on a horizontal sur-
D and/) = daily and m o n t h l y average daily dif- face = long term hourly average of
fuse radiation received on a horizontal the intensity of total radiation on a
surface, B t u / d a y - s q ft horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
f = fractional time during which the daily Kd a n d / ~ ' , = D / H o and f ) / H o , dimensionless
total radiation received on a horizontal K~ = ( H -- D ) / H , , , dimensionless
surface is less t h a n or equal to a cer- K r a n d / ~ ' r = H / H o and f i l / H o , dimensionless
tain value, dimensionless L = l'aitude, degrees
H and 17 = daily and m o n t h l y average daily total m = air mass = cscc~ except at low altitude,
(direct plus diffuse) radiation received
dimensionless
on a horizontal surface, B t u / d a y - s q ft
= ratio of solar radiation intensity at
Ho = extraterrestrial daily insolation re-
normal incidence outside the atmos-
ceived on a horizontal surface, B t u /
phere of the earth to solar constant,
day-sq ft
I~., = intensity of direct radiation incident dimensionless
upon a horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft r~ = I,+h/D = ratio of hourly to daily dif-
ID,~ = intensity of direct, radiation at normal fuse radiation, dimensionless
incidence, B t u / h r - s q ft rr = ratio of hourly to daily total radiation,
dimensionless
* This paper is in part the result of researches sponsored bv
a grant from the National Science Foundation, Washingtmi, a = solar altitude angle, degrees
1). C. Portions of the material presented in this paper are = solar declination, degrees
drawn from the thesis of Benjamin Y. H. Liu prepared in ~i
partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of 1)octor rD = I v . / I o , , = l v h / I o , = transmission co-
of Philosophy.
? Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineer- efficient for direct solar radiation, di-
ing, University of Minnesota. mensionless
:~ Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical En-
gineering, University of Minnesota. 7"d = l,~h/l,,~ = transmission coefficient for
TABLE 1.--Solar Declination, ~, and the ratio, r, of Solar Radiation Intensity at Normal Incidence Outside Earth's Atmosphere to
Solar Constant

Day of Month

Month 8 15 22

January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --23°04 ' 1.0335 --22°21 ' 1.0325 --21°16 ' 1.0315 --19o51 ' 1.0300
February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --17o19 ' 1.0288 -- 15o14' 1.0263 -- 12o56' 1.0235 --10028 ' 1.0207
March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --7053 ' 1.0173 --5Oll ' 1.0140 --2026 , 1.0103 0o20 ' 1.0057
April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4o15 ' 1.0009 6055' 0.9963 9030 ' 0.9913 11°56 ' 0.9875
May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14°51 ' 0.9841 16053 ' 0.9792 18°41 ' 0.9757 20°14 ' 0.9727
June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21°57 ' 0,9714 22°47 ' 0.9692 23°17 ' 0.9680 23o27 ' 0.9670
July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23010 ' 0,9666 22034 ' 0.9670 21%9' 0.9680 20026 ' 0.9692
August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18013 ' 0.9709 16°22 ' 0.9727 14°18 ' 0,9757 12°03 ' 0.9785
September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8034 ' 0.9828 5°59 ' 0.9862 3020 ' 0.9898 0o37 ' 0.9945
October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --2054 , 0.9995 -5036 ' 1.0042 _8o14 , 1.0087 --10047 ' 1.0133
November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 14Oll , 1.0164 --16021 , 1.0207 --18°18 ' 1.0238 --19058 , 1.0267
December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -21°41 ' 1.0288 -22°39 ' 1.0305 --23°14 ' 1.0318 --23027 ' 1.0327

diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l sur- r e c e n t v a l u e of 2.00 l y / m i n , * or 442 B t u / h r - s q ft, given


face, dimensionless b y J o h n s o n , 2 in t e r m s of t h e S m i t h s o n i a n P y r h e l i o m e t r i c
rr = I rh/Io~,, = t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficient for Scale of 1932t shall be a d o p t e d . T h e solar c o n s t a n t is
t o t a l r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l surface, t h e r a t e at, w h i c h solar e n e r g y is i m p i n g i n g u p o n a
dimensionless u n i t surface, n o r m a l to s u n ' s r a y s , in free space, a t t h e
¢0 = h o u r angle, degrees e a r t h ' s m e a n d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e sun. It, is in general
¢0~ = s u n s e t h o u r angle, r a d i a n s s l i g h t l y different f r o m t h e solar r a d i a t i o n a t n o r m a l
incidence a t t h e o u t e r l i m i t of t h e a t m o s p h e r e d u e to
INTRODUCTION t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e e a r t h a n d t h e
T h e increase in r e c e n t y e a r s of t h e p r o b l e m s w i t h sun. (See T a b l e 1.)
w h i c h solar r a d i a t i o n is i n v o l v e d has m a d e solar r a d i a -
t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n f r e q u e n t l y n e e d e d b y w o r k e r s in Relationships Between the Intensities of Direct
m a n y fields. A l t h o u g h solar r a d i a t i o n d a t a are now and Diffuse Radiation on Clear Days
a v a i l a b l e for m a n y localities, difficulties are s o m e t i m e s As solar r a d i a t i o n p e n e t r a t e s t h e a t m o s p h e r e it is
e n c o u n t e r e d in utilizing these d a t a since t h e y consist d e p l e t e d b y a b s o r p t i o n a n d s c a t t e r i n g . N o t all of t h e
p r i m a r i l y of t o t a l ( d i r e c t plus diffuse) r a d i a t i o n o n l y s c a t t e r e d r a d i a t i o n is lost, since p a r t of it e v e n t u a l l y
a n d a k n o w l e d g e of t h e diffuse c o m p o n e n t is often re- a r r i v e s a t t h e surface of t h e e a r t h in t h e f o r m of dif-
quired. Since t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o m p u t a t i o n of diffuse fuse r a d i a t i o n . T h e t e r m , diffuse r a d i a t i o n , is used here
r a d i a t i o n is e x t r e m e l y difficult if n o t i m p o s s i b l e a t t h e in t h e c u s t o m a r y w a y to d e n o t e t h i s s h o r t w a v e l e n g t h
p r e s e n t t i m e , a n a t t e m p t is m a d e in t h i s s t u d y to in- r a d i a t i o n coming f r o m all p a r t s of t h e sky. I t should
vestigate, from the limited data now available, the be d i s t i n g u i s h e d clearly f r o m t h e a t m o s p h e r i c t h e r m a l
r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n diffuse a n d t o t a l r a d i a t i o n in r a d i a t i o n which, a l t h o u g h also diffuse in n a t u r e , is of
o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y be utilized for t h e e s t i m a t i o n of m u c h longer w a v e l e n g t h s .
diffuse r a d i a t i o n for localities w h e r e o n l y t h e t o t a l T o f a c i l i t a t e t h e discussion, t h e following d i m e n s i o n -
r a d i a t i o n is k n o w n . T h i s was first a t t e m p t e d b y P a r - less t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficients shall b e defined:
melee ~ for cloudless d a y s only, b u t no extension was
rD = t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficient for d i r e c t solar r a d i a t i o n
m a d e to c l o u d y d a y s .
I n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n it h a s also b e e n f o u n d n e c e s s a r y = I•,,/Io+ = I.h/Ioh

to s t u d y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o t a l r a d i a - rd = t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficient for diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a


tion. T h e results o b t a i n e d serve to i n d i c a t e t h e t y p e s
h o r i z o n t a l surface = I a h / I o h
of p a r a m e t e r s to be used in t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of o t h e r
T h e s e t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficients a r e f u n c t i o n s of t h e
s t a t i s t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of solar r a d i a t i o n should t h e
solar a l t i t u d e , a t m o s p h e r i c w a t e r v a p o r c o n t e n t , d u s t
need for t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s arise. T h e p r e s e n t s t u d y
c o n t e n t , o z o n e c o n t e n t , a n d a n y o t h e r r a d i a t i o n de-
is r e s t r i c t e d to r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l surface only.
* 1.0 langley/rain = 1,0 gm cal/min-sq cm ~ 3.687 Btu/min-
Solar Constant sq ft -- 69.7 milliwatts/sq cm.
t The 1932 Pyrheliometric Scale of the Smithsonian In-
Since a definite v a l u e for t h e solar c o n s t a n t m u s t be stitution is 2.5% below the scale of 1913, 1.0% above the Ang-
strom scale and 0.5% below the recently proposed International
used c o n s i s t e n t l y t h r o u g h o u t this s t u d y , t h e m o s t Pyrheliometric Scale.a
pleting factors. However, in a nonindustrial locality The experimental points of Fig. 1 are derived from
where the atmosphere is relatively clean and the ef- the measurements made at H u m p Mountain, N o r t h
fect of dust small, the daily variation of these trans- Carolina, by Moore and Abbot 5 whose data appear to
mission coefficients for the sun at a fixed altitude, is be the best available. In computing the experimental
primarily due to the variation of the atmospheric water transmission coefficients, however, the direct and dif-
vapor. Thus as the atmospheric water vapor content fuse radiation intensities from the original data have
varies from d a y to day causing both rD and r~ to vary, been reduced by 2.5 % in order that the radiation in-
a functional relationship between ro and r,~ is generated. tensities be expressed in the 1932 Smithsonian Pyrhelio-
The four upper curves of Fig. 1 show the theoretical metric scale upon which the presently adopted solar
relationships between ro ~nd rj for a cloudless and dust constant of 2.00 ly/min is based.
free atmosphere for four air masses, l, 2, 3 and 4 cor- The fact that both the theoretical curves and experi-
responding to solar altitude angles of 90, 30, 19.5 and mental points of Fig. 1 show that the values of Td cor-
14.5 respectively. These relationships can be derived responding to a fixed value of ro depend only very
readily from the transmission coefficients computed by moderately upon the air mass indicates that, for the
Kimball when the assumption is made that the diffuse degree of accuracy here sought, a relationship which is
radiation received on a horizontal surface is half of the independent of the air mass is adequate. The following
solar radiation scattered by the atmospheric constitu- equation of a straight line, obtained b y the method of
ents. 4 However, due to the fact that Kimball's compu- least squares, best fits the experimental points:
tations are based upon a zero air mass solar spectrum ra = 0.2710 -- 0.2939ro [1]
low in the ultraviolet, the theoretical values of rD and
A total of 149 points representing the data of 28 clear
r,t in Fig. I have been reduced by 3 %. Since these theo-
days were used in obtaining this equation. The prob-
retical relationships have been derived without con-
able error computed by the equation,
sidering the effect of dust and are based upon an as-
sumption which is known to be only approximately A[//
Probable error - 0.6745 'l/ n ~
~12
correct, they should not be expected to represent the
correct relationships between r . and rd under actual is 0.0052, where ~ is the difference between the experi-
cloudless sky conditions and are derived here to serve mental value of r,~ and the value of rj given by the
merely as guides in the search of experimental relation- straight line at the same value of r . , and n the total
ships. number of points used.
0.20
z
0
0

n,," ,.= 0.16


W I--(
(/3 ',

I.L .

t:3 ',' 0.12


r~

0.08
,-2~-
it. TM
~ O
O N

12)
7 "I" 0 . 0 4
O

~z
IE o
7 0
ne 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0,56 0,60 0,64 0.68 0.72 0.76
~- TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR DIRECT RADIATION, 'I"D= I o n / / I o n = I D h / I o h
I:]~;. l--Theoretical and experimental relations between the intensities of direct and diffuse radiation oil -~ horizontal surface for a
cloudless atmosphere at 4800 ft elevation.
z 0.20
0
I-.
<{

[ "L" = 0 . 2 7 1 0 - 0.2939 "CO


r~ ~ 0.16
/
{f) "o
::3 • / 0 n
LL
h II"O 0
/ o

0/
¢

n- ,,i O J2 o o
.I
~ ,,,,,~ ) n
O0 - ~ 0 u 0 (

i, o ~ ;e R e) 9

Z
hi (~ L °'!o ."
~ j 0.08 I•{

Oo
~'~ N • EXPERIMENTAL DATA OF BLUE HILL, MASS. ) • " ~ . ~ "~ L

LATITUDE 4 2 ° 1 3 ' N , ELEVATION 6 2 9 FT •


g ~ 0.04
-- -r • m41.5
or) o m >1.5
CO ,,~
~Z
CO 0 ] 1 I)I
Z
n,"
i i II}
F-
0.52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.80
TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR DIRECT RADIATION, '~O = Ion/Ion = Ioh/lob
Fx(~. 2 - - C o m p a r i s o n of the empirical relation between the intensities of direct a n d diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a horizontal surface derived
from the d a t a for H u m p M o u n t a i n , N. C., with the d a t a for Blue Hill, Mass.

z 0.20
0
I-
.=
II
EXPERIMENTAL DATA OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
II II II
LATITUDE 4 4 ° 5 8 ' N , ELEVATION 8 9 2 FT
Q: ~ 0J6
P Y R H E L I O METER
(/1 "~
:3 H DIFFUSE DIRECT NORMAL
• E P P L E Y NO. 1979 EPPLEY NO. :5365
o E P P L E Y NO. 5195 EPPLEY NO. 3 3 6 5
.. ~ o.~2
OC.) I
zm /
/ •0 ~i=
o
~ =
IM
- J 0,08 /
u. I -
~ Z / "L"d = 0 . 2 7 1 0 - 0 . 2 9 5 9 "Z"D
~O v
ON

~o.o4
CO
~EZ
(nO
z
<[ 0
0.4 4 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.76
I-
TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR DIRECT R A D I A T I O N , " ~ D = I D n / I o n =IDh/Ioh
FI(~. 3 - - C o m p a r i s o n of the empirical relation between the intensities of direct a n d diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a horizontal surface derived
from the data for H u m p M o u n t a i n , N. C., w i t h the data for Minneapolis, Minn.

4
The reasons that the observed diffuse radiation values siderable scattering and the diffuse radiation measure-
are lower than the theoretical values computed for a ments are higher than those for Hump Mountain, the
dust free atmosphere, under the assumption that half agreement is still quite satisfactory. The agreement of
of the scattered radiation reaches the earth's surface, Equation [1] with the experimental data for Minne-
are not immediately apparent. Since the theoretical apolis is extremely good and the small differences are
relationships do not take into consideration the effects entirely within the experimental uncertainties of the
of dust and since an atmosphere is never completely diffuse radiation measurements by the Eppley pyrheli-
dust free, the observed diffuse radiation intensities ometers. (Examination of Fig. 3 shows that diffuse
would be expected to be higher than those predicted if radiation measured by two different Eppley pyrheli-
the usual assumption is made that dust particles scat- ometers differ by about 10 %.) Therefore, it is felt that
ter but do not absorb radiation. 4,6 The effect of terrain Equation [1] and hence Equation [2] are of general
reflection which was not considered in obtaining the validity and should be applicable to many localities
theoretical relationships would also tend to increase the where the albedo (reflectivity) of the surrounding ter-
diffuse radiation, since the radiation thus reflected is in rain and the atmospheric contamination by dust are
turn scattered by the atmospheric constituents and a not greatly different from those at Hump Mountain,
fraction of this scattered radiation again arrives at the Blue Hill, and Minneapolis.
earth's surface. Furthermore, the assumption that half
of the scattered radiation reaches the earth's surface is Relationship Between Daily Diffuse and Daily
true for pure Rayleigh scattering by air molecules only. Total Radiation on Cloudy Days
The more intensely forward scattered components Due to the extremely variable cloudiness the inten-
usually associated with watex vapor scattering prob- sities of direct and diffuse radiation under sky condi-
ably should increase the observed diffuse radiation in- tions not. completely cloudless will also be highly
tensity to values even greater than those predicted. variable and their values at any one instant are im-
Therefore, it appears that in travelling toward the possible to predict. Therefore, any attempt to establish
earth's surface a substantial fraction of the scattered a relationship between diffuse radiation and total radia-
radiation must have been absorbed by the atmospheric tion during cloudy days must involve statistical aver-
water vapor or other absorbing media in the atmos- ages which can be obtained from experimental data
phere. Nevertheless, this factor alone does not seem to covering a sufficiently long period of time.
have an effect of sufficient magnitude to account for the If one month is taken as a period during which the
differences between the theoretical and experimental solar declination does not vary excessively, and conse-
diffuse radiation intensities, as shown in Fig. 1. How- quently the daily solar radiation incident upon a hori-
ever, regardless of the reasons for this difference, zontal surface outside the atmosphere at a locality
Equation [1] provides a means for estimating the in- also remains fairly constant, then during a month the
tensity of diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface day to day variation of the daily total and daily diffuse
under a cloudless atmosphere when the intensity of radiation received on a horizontal surface at a locality
direct radiation at normal incidence is known. Since is prim,~rily due to the variation of cloudiness, and to
the intensity of total radiation on a horizontal surface much lesser extents, the variation of the atmospheric
is/he sum of the intensities of direct and diffuse radia- water vapor, dust, and ozone contents. Since the
tion on a horizontal surface, the followin~ relation be- amount of total radiation received on a horizontal
tween r~ and r r can be readily derived from Equation surface during a day is an indication of the degree of
[1] atmospheric cloudiness whose variability is largely re-
sponsible for the observed diffuse radiation variations
r~ = 0.3840 -- 0.4160rT [2]
from day to day, it is expected that, when suitable
where rr is the ratio of the intensity of total radiation statistical averages are taken, a relationship will exist
on a horizontal surface to the intensity of radiation between the daily total and daily diffuse radiation for
incident upon a horizontal surface on top of the at- each month at a given locality.
mosphere. Fig. 4 shows such relationships derived from the ten
To test whether Equation [1] also represents the year (1947-1956) data for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, s
correct relationship between the intensities of direct for the three months, December, March and June. The
and diffuse radiation at localities other than Hump value of the daily diffuse radiation, D, at each point in
Mountain, it has been compared with the data of Fig. 4 is the average of the daily diffuse radiation re-
Hand 7 for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, and measurements ceived on days with daily total radiation equal to H.
made by the authors at the University of Minnesota, However, due to the fact that the number of days with
Minneapolis, Minnesota. These are shown in Figs. 2 exactly equal values of daily total radiation is extremely
and 3. Even though the data for Blue Hill show con- small even within the same month, the value of H at
280
LO
0
<
u_
n,, 240
D
ch

_J
"~
I-
200
t
O>-
N ,:I

o 0c 160
-r I..l.J
fit.

Z )-
o 12o
z Z

~ 8O

D 40

-
< 0
0 I00 200 500 400 500 600 T00 BOO 900
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE, LANGLEY PER DAY
Fro. 4 - - T h e relation between the daily t o t a l r a d i a t i o n a n d daily diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a horizontal surface for December, M a r c h
and June at Blue Hill, Mass.
each point in Fig. 4 is actually the average of the daily and Ho, the extraterrestrial daily insolation received
total radiation for days whose .daily total radiation fall on a horizontal surface, is computed from the following
within a small interval of values (the size of the inter- equation
val is indicated by the difference in the values of H of
the neighboring points in Fig. 4). Since ten year data H0 = __24rLc(cos L cos ~ sin ~ + ~, sin L sin ~) [5]
for each month are used and approximately ten points
are obtained for each month, each point in Fig. 5 repre- with the use of the mean solar declination for each
sents approximately the average of thirty days. month. The sunset hour angle, ~0,, i.e. the hour angle
The results of Fig. 5 show that a fairly smooth rela- at which the sun sets in the west, in Equation [5] can
tionship exists between the daily diffuse and daily total be determined as follows:
radiation for each of the three months. Furthermore, cos ~, = --tan L tan ~ [6]
the similarities between the forms of the three curves
indicate the possibility of obtaining a unique repre- The solar declination for the selected days of each
sentation of these relations through normalizing the month and the ratio, r, of the intensity of radiation at
coordinates. T h a t this indeed is the case can be seen normal incidence outside the atmosphere to the solar
by referring to Fig. 5 showing the relationship between constant are given in Table 1. A graphical representa-
the daily diffuse and daily total radiation for the entire tion of Equation [6] is shown in Fig. 6 with Ho plotted
twelve months in the normalized coordinates K~ and against the latitude and with the month as a parameter.
K r where Despite a more than threefold increase in the value
of Ho from December to June at the latitude (42°13'N)
Ka = D/Ho [3] of Blue Hill, as an examination of Fig. 6 will show, the
K r = H/Ho [41 results of Fig. 5 show that a fairly definite relationship
exists between the two dimensionless quantities Kd and A special comment is needed for the few points with
K r . It is of'l interest to note that on days which are KT > 0.75 as they appear to deviate from the general
relatively cloud free ( K r = 0.75) the diffuse radiation trend of the other points. It should be recalled that in
received on a horizontal surface is approximately 12 % Equations [3] and [4], Ho was computed using the
(Kd = 0.12) of the solar radiation outside the atmos- average solar declination for each month. Thus the
phere. On certain partly cloudy days (KT = 0.40), values of K r (or K~) for each point in Fig. 5 truly
however, the diffuse radiation is over twice the clear represent the fraction of the extraterrestrial daily
day value and reaches as much as 25 % of the extra- insolation transmitted through the atmosphere as total
terrestrial insolation. With increasing cloudiness, as Kr radiation (or as diffuse radiation), and thus accurately
approaches zero, K~ also approaches zero as would be provide an indication of the degree of cloudiness, only
expected. if the value of Ho so computed is the true average of
The curves of Fig. 5 thus offer an interesting possi- the extraterrestrial insolation for the days whose data
bility for a method of estimating, to an average ac- are used in obtaining each point. Since the extrater-
curacy of approximately ± 5 %, the daily diffuse radia- restrial daily insolation does vary to some extent during
tion at localities where measurements of daily total a month, this then requires that the days whose data
radiation are made, provided, of course, that the rela- are used to obtain a point distribute themselves sym-
tionships of Fig. 5 also hold for other localities. Since metrically with respect to the middle of the month.
additional data is sparse, it has not been possible to In analyzing the data for Blue Hill it was found that
extend the studies to other locations. However, it will this requirement is nearly obeyed for all points with
be shown in subsequent developments that the results K r < 0.75 but not for the few points with K r > 0.75.
derived assuming the validity of these results continue In fact the large values of K r for these points are
to compare favorably with all available experimental direct consequences for the fact that the values of Ho
evidence. used are smaller than the true average. A much better

,.1:,: o
II
"0
v

0
I-
n,,"

0 0.1 0.2 0,3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE
RATIO KT = "~":
EXTRATERRESTRIAL DAILY INSOLATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE

FIG. 5--The relation between the daily total radiation and daily diffuseradiation on a horizontal surface.
4800-

4400- 120(

Z
4000-
0
IOOC
I--
'<w" 3600-
_1
(n 32oo-
CI
o 80C
oJI 2 8 0 0 - (Z:
I- LU
--..j u. (2.
¢: 2 4 0 0 - >-
uJ
-5 Q. ~j 60C
D 2000 (.9
~N
m
Z
t-
I- in
J
tn2: 1600
u.i G G400
n-- I "I-
uJ z 1200-
1--
40

l-
800- 200
X
hl
400-

O_ 0
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
NORTH LATITUDE, L, DEGREES
FIG. 6 - - E x t r a t e r r e s t r i a l daily insolation received on a horizontal surface.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ho DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE
RAT I0 KT=
6
m
EXTRATERRESTRIAL DAILY INSOLATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE

¢r

FIc. 7 - - T h e ratio of t h e daily diffuse r a d i a t i o n to t h e daily total r a d i a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of t h e cloudiness index KT.


LI.

CO
_1

II

Ld..J

,~1--
0 0.1 0.3 0.20.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
RATIO KD= H-D= DAILY DIRECT RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE
HO EXTRATERRESTRIAL DAILY INSOLATION ON h HORIZONTAL SURFACE
I!
FIG. 8--Comparison of the relations between the daily direct radiation and the daily diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface on
clear and cloudy days.
result would have been obtained had the "correct" and represents the fraction of the extraterrestrial
average Ho been employed. This was not done in order daily insolation transmitted through the atmosphere as
that Ho for each month might have a definite value. To direct radiation. Since Kd and KD are respectively the
overcome this difficulty it is recommended that when weighed averages of ~d and To, and since on clear days
KT > 0.75 the average ratio 0.16 of D / H for these the relation between r~ and rz) is linear, when Kd and
points be used. Kz) are substituted for rd and ~-, in Equation [1], an
The ratio D / H is shown as a function of K r in trig. equation is obtained which represents the relationship
7. Since the diffuse and total radiation should be equal between the daily direct and diffuse radiation received
for completely overcast days, the ratio D / H should oil a horizontal surface on clear days. Thus, on clear
approach the limit one when KT approaches zero. An days,
inconsistency in the data is seen for the points with Kd = 0.2710 -- 0.2939Kt~ [8]
values of K r near zero. The solid curve is so drawn that
which is also plotted in Fig. 8.
the ratio D / H is brought to unity when KT equals zero,
The effects of clouds on diffuse radiation is clearly
and it is recommended that this curve be used for
seen from Fig. 8 which shows that the value of Ku on
practical application.
cloudy days is higher than the corresponding value of
C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e C l e a r a n d C l o u d y Day R e l a - Kd on clear days at the same values of K o . The higher
t i o n s h i p s B e t w e e n t h e Daily D i r e c t a n d D i f f u s e diffuse radiation on cloudy days is obviously due to the
Radiation additional scattering effects of clouds.
A comparison between the clear and cloudy day dif- Statistical Distribution of the Daily Total Radia-
fuse radiation is shown in Fig. 8 where Kd of Fig. 5 is tion on a Horizontal Surface
plotted against KD with In the majority of cases it is more important to have
K~) = ( H -- D ) / H , , = KT - gd [7] a knowledge of the monthly average of the daily dif-
I!

I!

"4

O
v

a: 0 0.'2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH
DALLY TOTAL RADIATION ~< H
FIG. 9--Monthly Kr curves for/~T = 0.3.

fuse radiation, /5. However, in order to compute /3, cal examples of these comparisons are shown in Figs. 9,
with the use of the relationship of Fig. 7, the statistical 10 and II.
distribution of the daily total radiation must be known. Each of the curves of Fig. 9, 10 and 11 have been
For reasons to be discussed it has been suspected constructed using five year (primarily 1954-1958)
that a correlation possibly exists among the statistical data of daily total radiation from the Weather Bureau
distribution curves of different localities. To test publication, Climatological Data, National Summary,
whether this indeed is the case, statistical distribution and the curves have been so arranged that the values
curves of daily total radiation for widely separated o f / ~ r for curves on the same graph are approximately
localities have been constructed and compared. Typi- equal where

10
fir = I:I/Ho [9] A comparison of the different curves in the same
and /I, the monthly average of the daily total radia- figure shows that although the curves are not identical,
tion for the particular month at the particular locality the differences among them are not large and may be
under consideration, and Ho, the extraterrestrial daily neglected for many practical purposes. The fact that
insolation, have been obtained from Fig. 6. The sta- such widely separated localities as Schenectady, New
tistical distribution curves so obtained will be termed York, and Annette, Alaska, in Fig. 9 and localities with
the "monthly K r curves" since they represent the as much difference in elevation as Albuquerque, New
statistical distribution of the quantity K r and are Mexico, and Wake Island in Fig. 11 should have almost
constructed on a monthly basis. identical monthly K r curves indicates that such a

i!
b-
hg
O
n

¢r

FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH


DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ~ H
I~IG. 1 0 - - M o n t h l y KT ('IlFVeS f o r A T = 0 . 5 .

ll
O
1- I
II

o
t-
rr ~0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ~ H
FIG. ll--Monthly K r curves for/~T = 0.7.

correlation between the forms of the monthly K T curves constructed with the data of the localities shown in
and the values of /~ r need not be restricted to these Table 2. These generalized curves are shown in Fig.
localities. Thus if a set of monthly K r curves corre- 12 and Table 3.
sponding to different mean values of /~r is obtained,
they m a y be used as a close approximation to the Relationship Between Monthly Average Daily
actual monthly K r curves and can be utilized to de- Total and Monthly Average Daily Diffuse Radi-
termine the statistical distribution of the daily total ation
radiation when the monthly average daily total radia- T h e generalized monthly K r curves of the preceding
tion is known. A set of such "generalized monthly KT section m a y be used in conjunction with the curve in
curves" corresponding to /~T of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and Fig. 7 to compute the monthly average of the daily
0.7 has been obtained from the monthly K r curves diffuse radiation as follows.

12
TABLE 2 . - - S t a t i o n s S e l e c t e d for t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e G e n e r a l i z e d M o n t h l y KT C u r v e s

Latitude Elevation // KT Period of Data


Station (North) (ft.) Month (lg/day)

Annette, Alaska ....................... 55o02 ' 110 Nov. 199 •307 1954-1958
S c h e n e c t a d y , N. Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42050 ' 217 Nov. 380 .295 1954-1958
S. Ste. M a r i e , M i c h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46o28 ' 721 Nov. 326 .304 1954-1958

Boston, Mass .......................... 42o22 ' 15 Dec. 298 •399 1955-1958


Cleveland, O ........................... 41030 ' 787 Dec. 310 .400 1955--1958
Indianapolis, Ind ...................... 39o44 ' 793 Nov. 434 .401 1954-1958
Oak Ridge, Tenn ....................... 36o01 ' 905 Jan. 429 •399 1952, '54, '55, '57
'58
Put-in-Bay, O ........................ 41o39 ' 575 NOV. 404 .396 1950-1953
State-College, Pa ..................... 40o48 ' 1175 Jan. 357 .406 1954-1958

Atlanta, Ga ........................... 33o39 ' 975 Jan. 468 • 498 1954-1958


Blue Hill, Mass ....................... 42o13 ' 629 July 994 .500 1954-1958
N e w p o r t , R. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41029 ' 60 Sept. 730 .500 1954-1958
Ottawa, Ont .......................... 45020 ' Apr. 815 •498 1954-1958
San Antonio, Tex ..................... 29°32 ' 792 Apr. 902 •499 1954-1958
Seattle, Wash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47036 ' 14 Aug. 858 .502 1951, '52, '54, '55,
'58

Apalachicola, Fla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29o44' 13 Mar. 778 .6OO 1952, 1955-1958


B i s m a r c k , N. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46046 ' 1650 Aug. 862 •599 1954-1958
Cleveland, O .......................... 41o30 ' 787 May 963 •597 1951, 1955-1958
G r a n d Lake, Colo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40o15 ' 8389 Apr. 850 •598 1950-1953, 1957
Midland, Tex ......................... 32o01 ' 2854 Oct. 661 .601 1954-1958
R a p i d C i t y , S. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44o09 ' 3165 Apr. 825 .600 1954-1958

A l b u q u e r q u e , N. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35003 ' 5310 July 997 • 703 1954-1958


G r a n d J u n c t i o n , Colo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39006 ' 4849 June 1019 .699 1954, '55, '57, '58
Las Vegas, N e v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36o04 ' 2162 July 998 • 698 1954-1958
Riverside, Calif ....................... 33o58 ' 1050 Sept. 797 .700 1954-1958
Santa Maria, Calif .................... i 34o56 ' 238 July 997 • 700 1954-1958
W a k e I s l a n d s P.A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19o18 ' 11 Dec. 635 • 698 1954-1958

I f f=l ff=lH
TABLE 3 - - T h e G e n e r a l i z e d M o n t h l y K r C u r v e s
f,T = fI/Ho = ~ f=o Hdf= f=o df
Value of f for KT = f=l
[lOl
KT
.3 .5 •6 .7
=
ff
~0
KT, df

.09O .000
However, since the ratio of D/H is a unique function of
.04 073 •015
.08 162 .070 .008 .000 KT as shown in Fig. 7, when/~a is defined as
.12 245 .129 .o451 •021 .007
.16 299 • 190 •082 •039 .007 Kd = ]D/Ho [11]
.20 395 •249 .121 •053 .007
• 24 496 •298 / .160 ' •076 .007 it is seen that
.28 513 .346 194
• • 101 •013
.32
.36
.40
579
628
• 687
.379
•438
.493
• 234
• 277
•323
.126
.152
.191
.013
.027
.034
ff~= f/=x D d f =
f=o H0
f f=IDKrdf
f=0
[12]
.44 748 .545 •358 .235 .047
.48 • 793 .601 •400 .269 .054 Equation [12] states that when the ordinate, K T , of
.52 •824 • 654 .460 .310 .081
• 56 • 861 .719 .509 .360 .128 a monthly K r curve is multiplied by the ratio D/H from
.li0 9O4 .760 .614 .410 .161 Fig. 7, the area under the curve so obtained is numeri-
• 1)4 936 •827 • 703 .467 .228
• 68 953 .888 • 792 .538 .295 cally equal to the value of/~d • The value o f / ) can then
.72 967 • 931 •873 .648 .517 be obtained easily by multiplying /~a by the extra-
.76 979 .967 .945 .758 .678
.80 986 .981 .980 .884 .859 terrestrial daily insolation Ho from Fig. 6.
.84 993 .997 •993 .945 .940 When the coordinates K r of the generalized monthly
• 88 995 .999 1.000 .985 .980
.92 998 •999 .996 1.000 K r curves of Fig. 12 are multiplied by the ratio D/H
.96 1.000 .999 from Fig. 7, the curves of Fig. 13 are obtained. The
1.00 1.000
areas under these curves, according to Equation [12],
are numerically equal to the values of/~'a • A graphical
It should be observed that the area under any integration produces the result shown in Table 4.
monthly K r curve is numerically the same as the value The value of hTd corresponding to hT~ = 0.75 in
of /~T, since from the definitions of /~r and "f" in Table 4 is taken from Fig. 5, since a locality w i t h / ~ =
Figs. 9, 10, l l or 12, 0.75 should have almost constant clear weather from

13
day to day and therefore Kd and K T should remain derived from the data of Blue Hill, strongly suggests
almost constant from day to day and be respectively the existence of a similar unique relationship between
equal to/~d a n d / ~ r • /~d a n d / ~ r .
It should be noticed that the results of Table 4, in In examining Table 4, it should be noted that a
which /~d is a single valued function of -Kr, can be locality may be considered to be extremely cloudy, if
obtained only when a correlation between the monthly on a monthly average basis, the daily extraterrestrial
K r curves a n d / ~ r such as those shown in Figs. 9, 10 solar radiation transmitted through the atmosphere is
and 11 exists. Indeed this was the reason which ini- only 30% (/~r = 0.30). However, a locality may be
tially led the authors to suspect such a correlation, considered to be very sunny i f / ~ r = 0.70. The results
since the relationship between Kd and K r of Fig. 5, of Table 4 show that irrespective of the markedly dif-

- r : I :O

g
b--
0¢ v0 0.2 O.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION -~ H
FIG. 12--The generalized monthly Kv curves.

14
b-
v

t:~-r
II

I!

v
0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH DALLY TOTAL RADIATION 4~ H
FIG. 13--Curves for the determination of ](,t.

TAm.E 4--The Relation Between the Monthly Average ])ally ther examination of the data of London shows that the
Total and the Monthly Average Daily Diffuse
Radiation reason that the experimental values of /~e are higher
than those predicted is due, at least in part, to the fact
/~T 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 (0.75) that a "shading ring" correction of 1% to 0% had
/~ 0.179, 0.183 0.188 0.174 0.149 (0.125)
been added to the measured diffuse radiation. The
agreement would have been entirely satisfactory if this
ferent atmospheric conditions associated with the correction had not been applied to the measured dif-
different values of / ~ r , on a monthly average basis, fuse radiation as with the data of the other localities.
the fractions of the extraterrestrial daily insolation The r a t i o / ) / / 7 plotted as a function of £ ' r is shown
transmitted through the atmosphere as diffuse radia- in Fig. 14. The experimental ratio for each month and
tion, i.e. the values of Kd, show only a very moderate for each of the four localities are also shown o~l the
variation--from a minimum of 0.125 to a maximum of same graph for comparison.
0.188. Furthermore an analysis of the data of daily
total radiation published by the U. S. Weather Bureau Relationship Between Hourly and Daily Diffuse
shows that for a great majority (over 70%) of locali- Radiation
ties and months, the values o f / ~ r lie in the range of
A knowledge of the average intensity of diffuse
0.3 to 0.6. Thus one should expect, from the results of radiation at different times of the day is needed in
Table 4 alone, that for many localities Kd is within the many problems dealing with solar radiation. Since
range from 0.174 to 0.188. From the limited diffuse solar radiation data are not presented for intervals
radiation data available, the twelve months average of shorter than one hour, the nearest approach to the
/~d is 0.178 at Blue Hill, Massachusetts, (10 year true average intensity at an instant obtainable from
average); s 0.185 at Nice, France, (3 year average);9 the solar radiation data commonly available is the
0.189 at Helsingfors, Finland, (4 year average);10 and hourly average intensity. Again it must be emphasized
0.205 at London, England, (5 year average). H A fur- that extremely variable cloudiness precludes the possi-

15
I, ll'=
II

II

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0
I..-
RATIO KT='-'~o= MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY TOTAL RADIATION
EXTRATERRESTRIAL DALLY INSOLATION

FIG. 14--The ratio of the monthly average daily diffuse radiation to the monthly average d:~ily total radiation as a
function of the cloudiness index K T.

bility of obtaining a true instantaneous radiation in- Therefore


tensity during cloudy days except from direct experi- ~r cos L cos/I cos ~ -t- sin L sin
mentation. rd = [17]
24 cos L cos ~ sin ~8 q- o~ sin L sin
By Equation [11]
When the sunset hour angle, o~,, of Equation [6], is
D = ff~Ho [13] substituted into Equation [17], the expression is ob-
If the assumption is made t h a t the same fraction, tained,*
lid, also represents the ratio of the average intensity C O S ¢0 - - C O S COs
of diffuse radiation to the extraterrestrial radiation r~ - [18]
24 sin o~ -- ~ cps ~
intensity, i.e.
Using the ten year data for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, s
id~ = f ~ I o h [14]
and the four year data for Helsingfors, Finland, ~2 the
where _Tdj,is the average intensity of diffuse radiation experimental ratio of the monthly average hourly to
received on a horizontal surface, then the ratio rd of daily diffuse radiation for the hours: 11:00-12:00 a.m.
the average intensity of diffuse radiation to the daily and 12:00-1:00 p.m., 10:00-11:00 a.m. and 1:00-2:00
diffuse radiation is p.m., etc., are plotted as shown in Fig. 15 against the
rd = T-dh/D = Io,,/Ho [15] sunset hour angle ~s computed b y means of Equation
[6] with the use of the mean solar declination for each
The correctness of this assumption can be tested only
month. The data for the morning and afternoon hours
when the ratio computed by means of Equation [15] is
symmetrical with respect to solar noon have been
compared with the ratio derived from the experimental
combined in obtaining these ratios. If these average
data.
An expression for Ho is given in Equation [5], and the * An equation which is slightly different, but practically
the same as Equation [18] was first derived by Whillier in his
instantaneous radiation intensity can be shown to be investigation of the relation between the hourly and daily
total radiation on a horizontal surface to be discussed in the
Ioh= rI~c(cosLcos~cos~ ~- s i n L s i n S ) [16] following section.

16
hourly diffuse radiation are considered as the average Thus both Equation [14] and Fig. 15 may be utilized
intensities of diffuse radiation at the mid-point of for the determination of the average intensity of dif-
these hours, a comparison with the theoretical ratio rd fuse radiation when the value of /(d, which can be
of Equation [18] can be made. The ratio r~ computed determined from Table 3 and Fig. 14, is known.
by means of Equation [18] using the hour angle at ½,
1½, 2~, etc., hours from solar noon is shown plotted in Relationship Between the Hourly and Daily Total
Fig. 15 as the solid curves. Radiation
The excellent agreement between the experimental If the subscript "d" for diffuse radiation in Equa-
ratios and those computed by means of Equation [18] tions [13] and [141 is replaced by the subscript, " T " for
substantiates the assumption made in Equation [14]. total radiation, an expression which is identical to r~

0.2("

0.11

0.1(

z Iz
_o 0.1'

,, O.lt

°'°'

O.Oq
0
n..
0,0,

0.0:

L
8 9 I0 II 12 15 14 15 16
HOURS FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET
I I I
6O 75 9'0 i
105 120
SUNSET HOUR ANGLE, ~ S ' DEGREES
FIG. 15--Theoretical and experimental ratio of the hourly diffuse radiation to the daily diffuse radiation.

17
C.__

5~
I~n,-

>

~- C
o_
(l:
C

8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16
HOURS FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET
I I I t
60 75 90 105
SUNSET HOUR ANGLE,u) S , DEGREES
FIG. 16--Experimental ratio of the hourly total radiation to the daily total radiation.

of Equation [18], is obtained for r r , the ratio of the point from the mean curve is no more than =t=5% for
average intensity of total radiation incident upon a all hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. sun time.
horizontal surface to the daily total radiation received The experimental curves in Fig. 16 in the range of 9
on the horizontal surface. I t was shown by Whillier L~ to 15 hours from sunrise to sunset are those presented
and Hottel and Whillier ~4 that the experimentally de- by Hottel and Whillier) 4 T h e extension beyond this
termined ratios r r are different from those computed range has been made with data from Winnipeg, Can-
b y means of Equation [18]. However, it was also shown ada. 1~
t h a t when the experimental ratios r r derived from the The following two examples illustrate some of the
d a t a of widely separated localities are plotted against possible applications of the relations derived in the
the sunset hour angle, a mean curve for each hour is preceding sections.
obtained such t h a t the deviation of a n y individual Example 1: Estimate the intensities of diffuse and

18
t o t a l r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l surface a t 12:00 noon d i a n a p o l i s . S i m i l a r l y for 76 % of t h e t i m e (or 23 d a y s
on J u n e 23 a t a l o c a l i t y on 36°N l a t i t u d e . T h e d i r e c t in t h e m o n t h ) t h e d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is less t h a n or
r a d i a t i o n i n t e n s i t y , I ~ , , , a t n o r m a l incidence, a c c o r d - equal to ( 0 . 6 0 ) ( 1 3 7 0 ) = 820 B t u / d a y - s q ft. T h e
ing to T h r e l k e l d a n d J o r d a n , ~6 is 280 B t u / h r - s q ft for a c t u a l a v e r a g e (1954-1958) n u m b e r of d a y s in J a n u -
the a s s u m e d basic a t m o s p h e r e . T h e solar a l t i t u d e is a r y w i t h r a d i a t i o n below t h e a b o v e v a l u e s are re-
77.5 ° . s p e c t i v e l y 6½ a n d 23 d a y s in I n d i a n a p o l i s .
Solution: F r o m T a b l e l , on J u n e 23, r -- 0.9670. T h e generalized m o n t h l y K T curves can also be
Therefore, Ion = r l ~ = ( 0 . 9 6 7 0 ) ( 4 4 2 ) = 428 B t u / h r - utilized to d e t e r m i n e a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e s t a t i s t i c a l
sq ft a n d rD = ID,/lo,, = 280/442 = 0.655. B y m e a n s d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n for localities
of E q u a t i o n [1], Td = 0.2710 -- (0.2939)(0.655) = where o n l y a n e s t i m a t e of t h e m o n t h l y a v e r a g e of t h e
0.079. T h u s Iah = r~Io~ = (0.079) ( 4 2 8 ) ( s i n 77.5 °) = d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is k n o w n ~7 since t h e o n l y i n f o r m a -
33 B t u / h r - s q ft a n d Irl, = i,~, + Id~ = ( 2 8 0 ) ( s i n tion n e e d e d is the v a l u e of H.
77.5 °) + 33 = 307 B t u / h r - s q ft.
H a d t h e i n t e n s i t y of t o t a l r a d i a t i o n of 307 B t u / h r - s q REFERENCES
ft been given, Iah a n d I , , , can be c o m p u t e d as follows: 1. Parmelee, (L V., "Irradiation of Vertical and Horizontal
Surfaces by Diffuse Solar Radiation from Cloudless Skies,"
Since r r = Irh/Iot, = 3 0 7 / ( 4 2 8 ) ( s i n 77.5 °) = 0.734, A S H V E Transaction 60: 341-358, 1954.
a n d b y m e a n s of E q u a t i o n [2] r~ = 0.3840 -- (0.4160) 2. Johnson, F. S., "The Solar Constant," Journal of Meteor-
ology, 11: 431-439, December, 1954.
(0.734) = 0.079, I a h = ~',doh = 33 B t u / h r - s q ft as 3. Drummond, A. J. and Greer, H. W. : "Fundamental Pyrhe-
before. T h e r e f o r e , ID,, -- (I~h, -- I d h ) / s i n a = (307 -- liometry," The Sun at Work 3(2) : 3-5, 11, June, 1958.
4. Klein, W. H., "Calculation of Solar Radiation and the
3 3 ) / s i n 77.5 ° = 280 B t u / h r - s q ft. Solar Heat Load on Man," Journal of Meteorology, 5:
E x a m p l e 2: T h e five y e a r (1954-1958) a v e r a g e of 119-129, August, 1948.
5. Moore, A. F. and Abbot, L. H., "The Brightness of the
the d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n , / t , on a h o r i z o n t a l surface for Sky," Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, 71(4): 1-36,
J a n u a r y in I n d i a n a p o l i s , i n d i a n a , ( L a t . 39°44'), is February. 1920.
6. Fritz, S., "Solar Radiation During Cloudless Days,"
553 B t u / d a y - s q ft a c c o r d i n g to d a t a p u b l i s h e d b y t h e Heating and Ventilating, 46: 69-74, January, 1949.
U. S. W e a t h e r B u r e a u in C l i m a t o l o g i c a l D a t a , N a - 7. Hand, I. F., "Methods of Calculating Solar Radiation
Values at Blue Hill Observatory, Milton, Massachusetts,"
t i o n a l S u m m a r y . T h e a v e r a g e of t h e d a i l y diffuse r a d i a - Monthly Weathev Review, 82: 43-49, February, 1954.
tion a n d t h e a v e r a g e i n t e n s i t i e s of t o t a l a n d diffuse 8. Diffuse and total radiation data for Blue Hill, Massachu-
setts, were obtained from Mr. C. V. Cuniff, U. S. Weather
radiation during the hour l l :00-12:00 and 12:00-1:00 Bureau, Blue Hill Observatory, Milton, Massachusetts.
are to be e s t i m a t e d . For instrumentation and methods of measurement see:
Hand, I. F. and Wollaston, F. A., "Measurements of
Solution: B y m e a n s of Fig. 6 or E q u a t i o n [5] Ho = Diffuse Solar Radiation at Blue Hill Observatory," Techni-
1370 B t u / d a y - s q ft. T h e r e f o r e / ~ r = t t / H o = 5 5 3 / cal Paper No. 18, U. S. l)epartment of Commerce, Weather
Bureau, Washington, I). C., May, 1952.
1370 = 0.403, a n d b y m e a n s of Fig. 1 4 , / ) / / t = 0.454. 9. Gorcynski, W., "Enregistrements due Rayonnement
Hence 1)= (D/H)(f-t) = (0.454)(533) = 242 Solaire au Moyan des Solarigraphy et des Pyrhelio-
graphes," Nice. O~ce Meteorologique, Annalcs, Tome !1:
B t u / d a y - s q ft. 117-165, 1933.
Since t h e s u n s e t h o u r angle, o~, is given b y E q u a - 10. Imnelund, H., "Contribution to the Knowledge of Solar
Radiation in Finland," Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten,
tion [6], a n d on J a n u a r y 16, the d e c l i n a t i o n is - 2 1 °, Helsingfors, Commentationes Physico-Mathematicae, 7(11):
cos ~.~ = - ( t a n 3 9 ° 4 4 ' ) ( - t a n 2 l ° ) = 0.323, ~o~ = 1-58, February, 1934.
l l . Blackwell, M. J., "Five Years Continuous Recording of
71 ° (or x~ 7~ × 2 = 9.45 hours b e t w e e n sunrise a n d sun- Total :tnd Diffuse Radiation at Kew Observatory," Paper
s e t ) . F r o m Figs. 16 a n d 15, r r = 0.172 a n d ra = 0.161. of the Meteorological Research Committee (London), No.
895, 1954.
Therefore, t h e a v e r a g e i n t e n s i t i e s of t o t a l a n d diffuse 12. Lunehmd, H., "Records of Solar Radiation in Helsing-
r a d i a t i o n d u r i n g t h e hours 1 1 : 0 0 - 1 2 : 0 0 a n d 1 2 : 0 0 - fors," Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten, Helsingfors, Com,-
mentationes Physico-Mathematicae 7(1) : 1-28, 1933.
l : 0 0 are r e s p e c t i v e l y , irp~ = r r H = ( 0 . 1 7 2 ) ( 5 5 3 ) = 13. Whillier, A., "The l)etermination of Hourly Values of
95 B t u / h r - s q ft a n d 1,,, = ref) = ( 0 . 1 6 1 ) ( 2 4 2 ) = 39 Total Solar Radiation from Daily Summations," Archly
fl~r Meteorologie, Geophysik i~nd Bioklimatologie, Vienna,
B t u / h r - s q ft. Series B., 7: 197-244, 1956.
Using t h e generalized m o n t h l y K r curves of Fig. 12 14. Hottel, H. C. and Whillier, A., "Evahmtion of Flat-Plate
Solar Collector Performance," Transaction of the Con-
or T a b l e 3, it is possible to d e t e r m i n e a p p r o x i m a t e l y , ference on the (:se of Solar Energy: The Scientific Basis,
from t h e given v a l u e of H , t h e f r a c t i o n a l t i m e s d u r i n g Vol. II, Part I, Section A, pp. 74-104, 1955.
15. Data of total radiation for Winnipeg, Canada, are obtained
which t h e d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is less t h a n or equal to from Mr. ]). M. Robertson, Regional Meteorologist,
c e r t a i n values. F o r e x a m p l e , a c c o r d i n g to T a b l e 3 or District Aviation Forecast Office, Winnipeg, Canada.
16. Threlkeld, J. L. and Jordan, R. C., "Direct Solar Radiation
Fig. 12, w h e n K r = 0.20, f = 0.249. T h u s for 25 % of Available on Clear Days," Heating, Piping and Air Con-
t h e t i m e (or 7½ d a y s d u r i n g t h e m o n t h ) , t h e d a i l y ditioning, 29:(12): 135-145, l)ecember, 1957.
17. Fritz, S. and MacDonald, T. H., "Average Solar Radiation
t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is less t h a n or equal to K T H o = (0.20) in the United States," Heating and Ventilating, 46(7): 61-
(1370) = 274 B t u / d a y - s ( l ft d u r i n g J a n u a r y in I n - 64, July, 1949.

19