Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Independent models for estimation of daily global solar radiation: A review MARK
and a case study
⁎
Muhammed A. Hassan , A. Khalil, S. Kaseb, M.A. Kassem
Mechanical Power Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Independent models are models that estimate daily horizontal global solar radiation without need for prior
Solar energy records of any solar or meteorological parameters such as sunshine duration, cloud cover or temperature. These
Global radiation models are based on the day number, which means that they are very simple, enabling the user to estimate
Independent model global radiation using only a pocket calculator. Though, they are relatively newer and much fewer as compared
Regression analysis
to other dependent models such as sunshine-based models. In this study, a first comprehensive review of all
Empirical models
Day number
such models is provided. Besides, daily radiation data integrated from highly accurate minutely irradiance data
measured at Cairo (Egypt) is used to recalibrate and compare independent models statistically. All models are
trained and cross-validated using a detailed novel approach. The results show that, despite their simplicity,
independent models have very good estimations of solar irradiation with coefficients of determination no less
than 82%.

1. Introduction
Estimating incident solar radiation on earth's surface using em-
pirical models is an old approach. This is mainly due to the lack of solar
radiation records at most of locations around the world [1]. Solar
radiations records are much scarcer than those of other common
meteorological parameters such as temperature and relative humidity,
due to many technical and financial issues such as the expensive costs,
need for highly skilled labor, and requirements of periodical main-
tenance, cleaning and calibration of the solar sensors [2].
Models of solar radiation can be categorized based on different
criteria. For instance, model output (global, beam or diffuse radiation),
model input(s) (meteorological data, climatological data or other radiation
components), time scale (daily, monthly average daily, hourly, monthly
average hourly or even minutely basis), spatial coverage (site-dependent
or global model), methodology (stochastic or time-series modeling),
approach (physical, semi-physical or empirical), inclination of surface
(horizontal, tilted or tracking surfaces), and type of sky (all sky or clear sky
conditions) [2]. Other classifications may also be considered, including the
algorithm used (statistical analysis or machine-learning algorithms), time
coverage (all-year or seasonal), interaction of time-scales (modeling solar
components from others in the same time scale, or from lower time-
resolution records). In the next paragraphs, we introduce a concise review
of empirical models of daily global horizontal solar radiation.
The oldest method to estimate daily horizontal global solar irradia-
tion was introduced by Angstrom [3] in 1924, in which the ratio
between actual global horizontal irradiation (H) and clear day global
irradiation (Hc) was correlated linearly to the sunshine fraction (SF).
The sunshine fraction is defined as actual to theoretical sunshine
duration ratio. The actual sunshine duration (S) can be either
measured or calculated from direct normal irradiance data, while the
theoretical sunshine duration (So) is calculated as So = (2/15) cos−1(-
tan φ tan δ), where φ and δ are the latitude and declination angles,
accordingly. However, the definition and estimation of clear day global
irradiation are also challenging. Thus, the original correlation was
modified later by Prescott [4], by replacing the clear day global
irradiation term with horizontal extraterrestrial irradiation (Ho), which
can be determined mathematically, to form the well-known Angstrom-
Prescott equation:
H = Ho(a + bSF ), (1)
where a and b are the well-known Angstrom coefficients. The model
was refitted later for different locations and it was frequently reported
as a site-dependent model since the Angstrom coefficients vary
significantly according to the location and type of climate [5]. Other
modified forms of the model have been suggested for sake of better
estimations, for instance: quadratic [6], cubic [7], logarithmic [8],
linear-logarithmic [9], exponential [10], linear-exponential [11], ex-

⁎
Correspondence to: Mechanical Power Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, P.O. Box:12613, Giza, Egypt.
E-mail addresses: mhd.zidan17@eng.cu.edu.eg, mhd.zidan17@gmail.com (M.A. Hassan), khalila2@asme.org, adelkhk@yahoo.com (A. Khalil), kaseb@cu.edu.eg (S. Kaseb),
mahmoudkassem2@gmail.com (M.A. Kassem).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.002
Received 21 December 2016; Received in revised form 29 April 2017; Accepted 1 July 2017
Available online 08 July 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Hassan et al.
Nomenclature
H Global horizontal solar irradiation, MJ/m2.day
Ho Extraterrestrial horizontal solar irradiation, MJ/m2.day
δ Declination angle, degrees
N Day number
I Global horizontal irradiance, W/m2
Kt Daily global clearness index
ponent [11] and simple power forms [12]. Other modified models
included geographical parameters such as latitude angle or was
developed in seasonal forms [13], but they are less common. These
models are usually called: sunshine-based models. It worth noting that
the equation is frequently reported in daily and monthly average daily
time scales, where using the equation for modeling global radiation in a
different time scale may lead to under- or over-estimation of the actual
global radiation values. The inequality of the two time scales was
demonstrated analytically by Muneer in [1].
Another category of empirical global radiation models, called:
cloud-based models, was developed by correlating daily global clear-
ness index (Kt = H/Ho) to another meteorological parameter: cloud
cover (C). Black [14] firstly introduced the method by fitting a
quadratic correlation between the two variables:
H = Ho(a + bC + cC 2 ).
Here, C is the mean total cloud cover (octal). Paltridge and Proctor
[15] proposed a more complex set of equations that estimates the
instantaneous global irradiance and total daily global irradiation using
solar zenith angle, day length and cloud factor (a parameter that varies
from zero during clear sky days to 1 during overcast days). It can be
determined using the cloud cover and the number of cloudy days in
each month. The authors also provided an equation to convert cloud
cover records to cloud factor. Badescu [16] modified the original
Black's equation by refitting it into different order polynomials. Other
modified or refitted models are available in literature [17–19].
However, this category of models is less common and usually less
accurate than the former one [13].
Despite their strong relationship with global radiation, sunshine
duration and cloud cover records are less available if compared to more
common meteorological parameters such as temperature and relative
humidity [20,21]. In addition, their measurements encounter more
inherent sources of error. To deal with this situation, simpler models of
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the relation between global horizontal radiation and: (a) day number, (b) declination angle, and (c) horizontal extraterrestrial radiation.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575
R2 Coefficient of determination
MBE Mean bias error, MJ/m2.day
RMSE Root mean square error, MJ/m2.day
MPE Mean percentage error, %
NDRMSE Non-dimensional root mean square error, %
r Correlation coefficient
solar radiation have been developed to replace sunshine duration and
cloud cover by air temperature. The first temperature-based model was
suggested by Hargreaves and Samani [22], by estimating global
radiation using only maximum daily temperature difference (δT) and
latitude:
H = Ho(a δT ), (3)
where δT = Tmax - Tmin, and Tmax and Tmin are the maximum and
minimum daily temperatures, respectively, in °C. The empirical
coefficient (a) was initially set to 0.17 for arid and semi-arid regions,
while modified later by Hargreaves [23] to 0.16 and 0.17 for interior
and coastal regions, accordingly. Samani [24] suggested a modified
form of the original equation by replacing the empirical coefficient with
a second order polynomial function of δT. Chen et al. [25] and Hunt
et al. [26] added other empirical coefficients for better estimations of
(2)
the model. Another important model in the temperature-based cate-
gory is the well-known Bristow and Campbell model [27], in which the
global irradiation is evaluated based on another temperature difference
term (ΔT) and three empirical coefficients (a-c):
H = Ho(a(1 − exp(− b ∆T c ))). (4)
Here, ΔT is defined as ∆Tj = Tmax j −0.5(Tmin j + Tmin j+1), where j is a
day index (j for current day and j + 1 for the following day). The
regression coefficients are mainly dependent on the environment type
(e.g. humid, arid,.. etc.), with typical values of: a = 0.700, b = 0.004–
0.001 and c = 2.400 [20,27]. The equation was modified later by
Goodin et al. [28], by inserting another Ho term in the exponential as a
scaling factor. Simpler models that replace sunshine fraction in the
Angstrom-Prescott equation with temperature terms:
H = Ho(a + b(Temperature Term )) were also suggested. The temperature
term could be the daily average temperature (T) [29] or the tempera-
ture ratio (Tratio, minimum to maximum daily temperature ratio) [30].
An important multivariate linear equation of this type was suggested by
1566
M.A. Hassan et al.
Li et al. [31], in which the daily maximum and minimum temperatures
were used:
H = Ho(a + bTmax + cTmin )
(5)
A hybrid method is frequently adopted, in which different meteor-
ological variables are used as model's inputs. These models are usually
called meteorological parameters-based models, and the commonly
used meteorological variables are sunshine duration, cloud cover,
temperature, daily average pressure (P), water vapor pressure (Pv),
wind speed (W), relative humidity (RH) and precipitable water vapor
[13]. Perhaps the most important models in this category are those
proposed by Abdalla [32], who has correlated the global clearness
index with different meteorological variables using a set of multivariate
linear equations:
H = Ho (a + bSF + cδT ), (6)
H = Ho (a + bSF + cδT + d RH ), (7)
H = Ho (a + bSF + cδT + d RH + e(P / Pv )), (8)
where a–e are the regression coefficients. There are a numerous
number of such models in the literature with different types of inputs
and different degrees of complexity [13,33]. In most cases, these
models provided better estimations of global radiation. However,
complex models are not usually the best choice for model users, since
some of these variables may not be recorded at the considered location.
Besides, adding more inputs does not always improve the model
estimations [13], and whenever it does, the improvements are not
always significant [34]. Thus, these models must be subjected to a
careful cross-validation procedure to estimate the optimum number
and type of inputs.
In order to simplify global radiation models, especially for locations
where no solar or meteorological variables are recorded, independent
models have been recently developed. These models make use of the
semi-linear relation between global irradiation and extraterrestrial
horizontal irradiation (or declination angle). Alternatively, they can
be developed based on the sinusoidal behavior of global radiation
throughout the year, as a function of the day number (Fig. 1). Since
these models have no meteorological variables that vary (with random
components) from day to day, they have rough estimations of global
radiation. Nevertheless, they are frequently reported with good or very
good statistical measures. There are many reviews on other dependent
models [20,21,35–39]. However, there are no comprehensive reviews
on independent models. An extensive review of such models is
provided below.
Despite their simplicity, independent models are relatively newer
than other types of global irradiation models. In 1999, Ertekin and
Yaldiz [40] proposed a simple-linear model correlating global radiation
to declination angle. The model was tested using global radiation
records of six-years at Antalya, Turkey. In the same year, Togrul and
Onut [41] suggested another close model by replacing the declination
angle with its sine term. Additionally, they proposed another simple-
linear equation between global irradiation and daily horizontal extra-
terrestrial radiation. The two models were tested at Elazig (Turkey)
using solar records of one-year duration. Al-Salaymeh [42] started
another method by correlating global irradiation directly to the day
number. This is a simpler method since it excludes the prior calcula-
tions of declination angle or extraterrestrial radiation. The author
proposed four different forms of the correlation between the two
variables, namely: sinusoidal, 4th order polynomial, Lorentzian and
Gaussian forms. The four correlations were tested using measured data
at Amman, Jordan. It was found that the first three forms provide
excellent estimations of global radiation at the considered location.
Kaplanis and Kaplani [43] proposed a cosine-wave equation between
global irradiation and day number, which was fitted using solar data of
six years at six locations in Greece. Bulut and Buyukalaca [44]
simulated long-term measured radiation data (from 10 up to 19 years
1567
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575
of measurements) at 68 locations in Turkey using a trigonometric
function of the day number. Li et al. [45] developed a relatively
complex sine-cosine form of the correlation between global irradiation
and day number. They validated the performance of the model by
comparing its results with measurements at nine major stations in
China. They also compared its performance to that of the models
proposed by Kaplanis and Kaplani [43], Bulut and Buyukalaca [44],
and the sine-wave model by Al-Salaymeh [42]. The new model was
found more accurate at the considered locations. Zang et al. [46]
suggested a close, but simpler, sine-cosine model for estimation of
global radiation over 35 stations in six climatic zones in China to be
used for generation of typical meteorological years. Their results
showed that the new sine-cosine model performs better than the
cosine model by Kaplanis and Kaplani [43] and the trigonometric
model by Bulut and Buyukalaca [44]. Finally, Quej et al. [47] refitted
the previous models by Bulut and Buyukalaca [44], Kaplanis and
Kaplani [43] and Li et al. [45] for Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. They
also refitted the sine wave model by Al-Salaymeh [42] but failed to refit
his Gaussian model. Consequently, they modified it by making use of
summation of two Gaussian function, which resulted in very good
predictions. Based on the available measured data, they found that
their new modified Gaussian model performs better than all other
models.
In addition to the previously mentioned studies that were dedicated
to developing independent global radiation models, some other studies
have been carried out to calibrate former models for other locations
and compare their performance statistically. Khorasanizadeh and
Mohammadi [48] used long-term global solar radiation records to test
six day number-based models (trigonometric model by Bulut and
Buyukalaca [44], cosine model by Kaplanis and Kaplani [43], sine-
cosine model by Li et al. [45], and the Gaussian, 4th order polynomial
and sine-wave models by Al-Salaymeh [42]) at four cities in Iran
(Bandarabass, Isfahan, Kerman and Tabass). The sine-cosine wave
model was found better in three cities, while the 4th order polynomial
model showed best results at the fourth city. They also assessed the
performance of independent models by comparing their estimations
with the predictions of some existing monthly averaged models and
found that the newly refitted independent models are superior.
Khorasanizadeh et al. [49] carried out a study to compare the accuracy
of day number-based models with other more common categories,
namely: sunshine- and temperature-based models. The city of Birjand
(Iran) was considered as a case study. Models by Kaplanis and Kaplani
[43], Li et al. [45] and Zang et al. [46] have been refitted for the new
location, validated using long-term measured radiation data, and
compared to the other dependent models. The results revealed the
superiority of day number-based models as compared to temperature-
based models. Sunshine-based models, however, were slightly more
accurate. The authors concluded that day number-based models are
qualified as proper alternatives to sunshine-based models due to their
simplicity. In a recent study, Hassan et al. [50] used a dataset of more
than 20 years of daily global solar radiation records to refit and validate
different day number-based models for ten cities in Egypt. The
validated models are those of Bulut and Buyukalaca [44], Kaplanis
and Kaplani [43], Li et al. [45] and the four models proposed by Al-
Salaymeh [42]. They found that the sine-cosine wave model by Li et al.
[45] and the 4th order polynomial model by Al-Salaymeh [42] have the
best performance measures.
Machine learning algorithms have been adopted recently in many
studies in order to refine solar radiation estimations. Despite being
widely used to develop sunshine-, temperature- and meteorological-
based models [51–56], very few studies are available for independent
models. An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model was
developed by Mohammadi et al. [57] using long-term measured data at
Tabass, Iran. Their results assessed the capability of that algorithm in
modeling global solar irradiation. In addition, the authors revealed the
superiority of the developed ANFIS model as compared to six
M.A. Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575

recalibrated empirical models. Gani et al. [58] adopted the neural A close model was suggested by Togrul and Onut [41]:
network auto-regressive model with exogenous inputs (NN-ARX) for (11)
H = a + bsinδ.
predicting irradiation values using only day number as a sole input.
Seven Iranian cities have been considered as case studies. They also Model: M3
developed ANFIS models for the different locations for comparison. They also developed a new method by correlating global radiation
Their results proved the accuracy and reliability of predicting daily to corresponding extraterrestrial radiation using the following simple-
global solar radiation using only day number. The superiority of NN- linear equation [41]:
ARX model over ANFIS was indicated. Hassan et al. [59] investigated H = a + bHo. (12)
the potential of four machine-learning algorithms, namely: multi-layer
perceptron neural networks, support vector machines, ANFIS and Daily horizontal extraterrestrial radiation (Ho) is the integration of
decision trees, in modeling daily global irradiation. The authors instantaneous horizontal extraterrestrial irradiance over the daylight
developed different models of global irradiation for Cairo (Egypt) period [60]:
based on those machine-learning algorithms and other empirical
24*3600*Ic ⎛ ⎛ πω ⎞ ⎞
equations and categorized the developed models in four groups: Ho = *⎜cos φ cos δ sin ωs + ⎜ s ⎟sin φ sin δ ⎟ .
sunshine-, temperature-, meteorological parameters- and day num- π ⎝ ⎝ 180 ⎠ ⎠ (13)
ber-based models. Among their results, the authors found that The solar constant (Ic) is equal to 1367 W/m [2], while ωs is the
2
temperature and day number-based models are reliable in modeling sunset hour angles, respectively:
solar radiation at locations where no sunshine records are available. In
contrast to other groups of models, the proposed decision tree ωs = cos−1(−tan φ tan δ ). (14)
algorithms were found more accurate in modeling global radiation
Model: M4
independently.
Al-Salaymeh [42] proposed four different equations correlating
Based on this careful review of available literature on empirical
global radiation and day number. The first one is a sine-wave equation:
modeling of daily horizontal global radiation, independent models
seem undervalued considering their simplicity and very good estima- ⎛ 2π ⎞
tions. The next sections provide a comparative study of all previous H = a + b sin ⎜ N + d ⎟ ,
⎝ c ⎠ (15)
empirical independent models using solar radiation data measured at
Cairo (Egypt) as a case study. All models are refitted for the new where a, b, c, and d are the amplitude, the phase shift, the wavelength,
location and cross-validated using a novel detailed technique of data and the intercept.
portioning in order to determine the true performance of each model Model: M5
and choose the most suitable model for quantifying global radiation at The second equation is a 4th order polynomial equation:
the considered location.
H = a + bN + cN 2 + d N 3 + eN 4, (16)

2. Materials and methods where a–e are the regression parameters.

Model: M6
2.1. Independent models The third equation has a Lorentzian structure:
a
H= .
In this section, we present all empirical independent models that N−b 2
1+( ) (17)
have been suggested in literature chronologically. c

Model: M1 Here, a, b and c are the amplitude, the center, and the width.
The first model found was a simple linear model, proposed by Model: M7
Ertekin and Yaldiz [40], between global radiation (H) and declination The fourth function has a Gaussian form:
angle (δ):
⎛ 2⎞
1⎛N − b⎞ ⎟
H = a + bδ, (9) H = a exp ⎜⎜ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟,
⎝ 2⎝ c ⎠ ⎠ (18)
where a and b are the regression parameters. The declination angle
is calculated as a function of the day number (N) as follows: with parameters a, b and c standing for the amplitude, the center, and
⎛ 360 ⎛ ⎞⎞ the width.
δ = 23.45sin⎜ ⎜N +284⎟⎟ . Model: M8
⎝ 365 ⎝ ⎠⎠ (10)
Kaplanis and Kaplani [43] suggested a different cosine-wave
Model: M2 equation based on day number, with three regression coefficients (a-c):

Table 1
Original regression coefficients and reported accuracy of independent models.

Model a b c d e f g Accuracy City

M1 13.580 0.333 – – – – – r = 0.984 Antalya

M2 4.089 6.459 – – – – – r = 0.975 Elazig
M3 −1.320 0.675 – – – – – r = 0.974 Elazig
M4 5250.650 2782.090 375.430 4.783 – – – r = 0.964 Amman
M5 8220.000 183.400 119.800 – – – – r = 0.961 Amman
M6 7905.650 183.210 107.620 – – – – r = 0.960 Amman
M7 2706.825 −15.554 0.836 −0.004 0.000 – – r = 0.964 Amman
M8 15.140 10.326 9.405 – – – – r = 0.996 Athens
M9 21.410 2.570 – – – – – r = 0.840 Istanbul
M10 16.440 −7.889 0.909 8.360 0.519 1.946 7.915 r = 0.972 Minqin
M11 15.976 1.934 0.975 −3.374 0.883 – – r = 0.826 Sanya
M12 10.269 7.633 109.048 41.191 5.355 226.989 43.932 R2 = 0.863 Calakmul

1568
M.A. Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575

⎛ 2π ⎞ heliometer is used for measuring direct normal irradiance. The three

H = a + b cos ⎜ N + c⎟ .
⎝ 364 ⎠ (19) sensors are mounted on a Kipp & Zonen-SOLYS2 sun tracker with
shading ball assembly. Detailed specifications of the two sensors are
Model: M9 provided in Table 2. The sunshine duration is computed from recorded
Bulut and Buyukalaca [44] proposed a trigonometric form of the pyrheliometer's data instead of being measured directly since it is
underlying function between incident radiation and day number: defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as the time
⎛ π ⎞ 1.5 during which the beam normal irradiance exceeds the threshold of
H = a + (b − a ) sin ⎜ (N +5)⎟ . 120 W/m2 [60]. Alongside with the radiation sensors, the station is
⎝ 365 ⎠ (20)
equipped a CS215 temperature and relative humidity sensor, an NRG
Model: M10 #40 C anemometer, an NRG #200 P wind direction vane, and a Setra-
Li et al. [45] developed a sine-cosine form of the relation between 278 barometric pressure sensor. A National Instruments data acquisi-
global radiation and day number, with seven regression parameters (a- tion system is used to monitor, record and integrate all measured
g): variables.
The data is recorded in minutely time-resolution. This high resolu-
⎛ 2πc ⎞ ⎛ 2πf ⎞
H = a + b sin ⎜ N + d ⎟ + e cos ⎜ N + g⎟ . tion enables the user to detect any suspicious data, where atmospheric
⎝ 365 ⎠ ⎝ 365 ⎠ (21) parameters exceed their physical limits. It addition, the user can
Model: M11 monitor small variations of variables and take instant actions, e.g.
Zang, H. et al. [46] suggested a close, but simpler model (fewer cleaning the sensors. Besides, when the user needs to estimate hourly
regression parameters): or daily total radiation, the high resolution of collected data results in
more accurate integrated values. In the solar station described above,
⎛ 2πc ⎞ ⎛ 2πe ⎞ solar radiation data has been recorded from October 2012 to December
H = a + b sin ⎜ N ⎟ + d cos ⎜ N ⎟.
⎝ 365 ⎠ ⎝ 365 ⎠ (22) 2016, with one major interruption (April 2013 – December 2013).
Model: M12
Finally, Quej, V. et al. [47] modified the Gaussian model of Al-
2.3. Data filtering and smoothing
Salaymeh for Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico by making use of sum of two
Gaussian functions:
In the majority of studies dedicated to modeling daily global solar
⎛ 2⎞ ⎛ 2⎞ radiation, the dataset is usually available in daily time-resolution from
1⎛ N − c⎞ ⎟ 1 ⎛N − f ⎞ ⎟
H = a + b exp ⎜⎜ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ + e exp ⎜⎜ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟. meteorological administrations. In this study, however, the solar
⎝ 2⎝ d ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ 2⎝ g ⎠ ⎠ (23) irradiance (in W/m2) is measured in minutely time-resolution in order
The original regression coefficients, as well as the reported accuracy to be integrated to daily time-resolution (in MJ/m2.day). Therefore, a
of all previously discussed models, are listed in Table 1. In case if detailed procedure is described below for filtering and smoothing
regression coefficients are reported for different locations, only one measured data.
location is selected to be listed in the table. The correlation coefficient While ground measurements of solar radiation are the best method
(r) is defined as: for the knowledge of incident radiation, errors can be expected as in
n
any type of measurements. Solar radiation measurements, in particu-
∑i =1 (Hc − Hc )(Hm − Hm ) lar, are more likely to have errors than measurements of other
r=
n n
[∑i =1 (Hc − Hc )2][∑i =1 (Hm − Hm )2 ] meteorological parameters. Usually, questionable values appear even
(24)
when sensor cleaning, maintenance, and calibration procedures are
th
where n is the number of observations. Hc and Hm are the i calculated performed periodically [1,61]. In order to make sure that all measured
and measured values of global irradiation, respectively. While Hc and data points are reliable, a hybrid procedure is adopted based on the
Hm are the means of calculated and measured values, all in MJ/m2.day. restrictions suggested by Jacovides et al. [62] Reindl et al. [63], and
Scharmer and Greif [64]. Firstly, data points of night or blocked
2.2. Measured data radiation periods are excluded: I (global irradiance) ≥ 0. Periods of low
sun elevations are also excluded due to the cosine response: α (solar
The solar radiation dataset used in this study has been collected at altitude angle) ≥ 5°, and I ≥ 5 W/m2. A 10% allowance is considered for
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University (El-Sheikh Zayed annex, shading ring correction: Id /I (diffuse fraction, kd: diffuse to global
latitude: 30.04°N, longitude: 31.01°E). A solar-meteorological station irradiance ratio) ≤ 1.1. Global irradiance values have to be within the
is operated since 2012 to measure radiation and atmospheric para- range of the expected clear-sky extreme values by considering the
meters. As for solar radiation sensors, the station is equipped with two influence of the atmospheric layer: I/Io,h (global clearness index, kt:
Kipp & Zonen-CMP21 pyranometers for measuring horizontal global global to extraterrestrial horizontal irradiance ratio) ≤ 1.2. Here, the
and diffuse irradiance components, while a Kipp & Zonen-CHP1 pyr- value of the clearness index may exceed 1 for minutely data due to

Table 2
Specifications of CMP21 pyranometer and CHP1 pyrheliometer.

CMP21 pyranometer CHP1 pyrheliometer

ISO classification Secondary standard First class

Response time (95%) <5s 5s
Zero offsets due to ambient temperature change (5 K/h) ± 2 W/m2 ± 1 W/m2
Non-stability (change/year in percentage of full scale) ± 0.5% ± 0.5%
Non-linearity ± 0.2% (at 500 W/m2 within 100–1000 W/m2) ± 0.2% (0–1000 W/m2)
Temperature dependence of sensitivity ± 1% (−20 °C to + 50 °C) ± 0.5% (−20 °C to + 50 °C)
Expected daily uncertainty (in clean state) ± 2% ± 1%
Full opening view angle 180° 5° ± 0.2°
Operating temperature −40 °C to + 80 °C −40 °C to + 80 °C
Spectral range (50% points) 310–2800 nm 200–4000 nm

1569
M.A. Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575

sunlight reflecting off clouds and into the sensor. However, as the time sample are saved, and the regression coefficient considered for this
resolution decreases (e.g. hourly or daily means), the number of data sample are those of the fold that has the closest RMSE to the average
points with values near or greater than 1 significantly decreases [65]. RMSE of all folds. At this point, the model has been cross-validated
The normal irradiance must be less than its corresponding extrater- using a single random sample. The performance of the model is highly
restrial component: In ≤ Io. Measured data must lie within the expected dependent on the order of observations in the data matrix, especially
kd-kt envelop: Id/Io,h ≤ 0.8, Id/I ≥ 0.9 for kt < 0.2, and Id/I ≤ 0.8 for kt when the data points are serially correlated [69]. In order to get a more
> 0.6. Another set of restrictions is considered for integrated or honest performance indicators of model, the whole procedure de-
averaged daily values. Upper and lower limits of daily mean clearness
index (Kt) are considered as 1 and 0.015, respectively. Daily total
sunshine duration is also checked such as to be less than or equal to its
corresponding astronomical value (SF < 1).
Missing data is caused by equipment failure, cleaning and main-
tenance routines, equipment being offline, or due to discarding
recorded values when applying the quality control procedure.
Different methods have been used for estimating missing values such
as Average Nearest Observation (ANO) [66]. The ANO is a very simple
method since it replaces missing values with the mean of nearest
previous and following observations. However, it generates different
estimations depending on the marching direction (i.e. forward or
backward). Therefore, it has a poor performance when applied to time
series data that has weak autocorrelation and/or strong daily season-
ality [67]. The ANO method, however, is the basis of the advanced Two-
directional Exponential Smoothing method (TES) used here, which
estimates the missing observations based on the autocorrelations of the
time series to account for the fact that the missing values occur at non-
random times. Firstly, all missing observations are generated using the
ANO method in forward and backward directions. Then, the missing
values are estimated using Holt's linear trend method: Hi = 0.5
(Hi,forward + Hi,backward) [68].

2.4. Data portioning

The common approach in modeling solar radiation using empirical

models is to split measured data without randomization into two sub-
datasets for training and validating the models. For instance, if a
dataset of four years is available, three years of measurements may be
chosen for training stage while the fourth year is kept for model
validation. This approach, however, does not account for the annual
variations of solar radiation, especially when the dataset is too large,
i.e. covering a decade or more. Another issue is that choosing the
optimum model, in case of comparing different models, is subjective.
The performance of each model highly depends on which data points
have been chosen for validation, and which have been chosen for
training.
Another simple technique of portioning measured data and validat-
ing the models is suggested here based on the repeated K-fold cross-
validation method. Instead of splitting the data chronologically,
measured data are randomized using the software (MATLAB
R2016a®), and the only interference is choosing the number of folds
(K) and the number of samples (U) in the cross-validation process. As
shown in Fig. 2, solar radiation data is collected and the quality control
procedure, described above, is applied to raw data. Next, TES method
is used to handle missing data. Measured data is now used to construct
an n ×P + 1 matrix, where P is the number of inputs (the extra column
in the matrix is for the target output). Afterward, the rows (observa-
tions) of the matrix are randomized for the first sample, and the K-folds
cross-validation method is applied. Using 10 folds (K = 10), the
randomized data matrix is split into 10-equally sized sub-matrices.
The first nine sub-matrices are used to construct the training data
matrix, while the remaining one is kept for validation. Each model is
fitted using the training matrix and then validated using the validation
matrix [69]. The resulted regression coefficients and validation statis-
tical indicators are saved. After that, another sub-matrix is preserved
for validation, while the other nine are used for training. This process is
repeated until all data points are used for training and validating the Fig. 2. A flowchart of the procedure used for training and validation of independent
model. The average statistical indicators of all folds of this random models.

1570
M.A. Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575

n
Table 3 ∑i =1 (Hc − Hm )2
Recalibrated regression parameters of independent models. R2 = 1− n
∑i =1 (Hm − Hm )2 (29)
Model Model parameters
It worth noting that a conflict usually appears when comparing
a b c d e f g different models based on different statistical indicators, where a model
M1 20.507 0.357 – – – – – may have the best performance based on one statistical indicator (e.g.
M2 20.486 21.044 – – – – – MBE), while another model is the best based on another statistical
M3 −2.173 0.711 – – – – – indicator (e.g. RMSE) [2]. In such cases, the model with lowest RMSE
M4 19.969 −8.704 1.003 13.782 – – – is preferred, since the RMSE is usually better in showing the true
M5 11.843 0.027 0.002 0.000 0.000 – –
M6 28.906 172.492 143.213 – – – –
accuracy of the model.
M7 28.015 173.574 123.267 – – – – Table 3 shows the recalibrated regression parameters of all
M8 20.546 −8.422 6.454 – – – – considered models for the new location. Table 4, on the other hand,
M9 10.869 28.241 – – – – – provides the statistical measures of training and validation stages. It is
M10 20.297 −0.566 2.487 −5.641 −8.421 0.966 6.553
clear that all refitted models, except for models M11 and M12, have
M11 20.512 41.718 −0.005 −2.542 2.237 – –
M12 21.240 −9.269 5.906 −23.907 −3.331 51.486 −14.839 very good estimations of global solar radiation with all R2 values
greater than 82%, and all NDRMSE values less than 8.5%. The results
also suggest that the recalibrated 4th order polynomial model is the
scribed is repeated using different random order of observations. In best choice for modeling daily global radiation without need to
this study, the process is repeated 1000 times for each model (U = meteorological data. It has validation RMSE and R2 of 7.761% and
1000). For each sample, the regression coefficients and statistical 86.231%, respectively, which is very appealing regarding its simplicity.
indicators are saved. The reported statistical indicators are the average It also performs better in training stage. Its competitors are the
of corresponding statistical indicators of all samples, while the reported recalibrated sine-cosine model by Li et al. [45] and the two declination
regression coefficients are those of the sample that has the closest angle-based models. Models M11 and M12, on the other side, failed to
RMSE to the average RMSE of all samples. generalize to the new data even when single training/validation step is
performed. The original models (without recalibration) also showed
poor performance in the new location, suggesting that they have poor
3. Results and discussion generalization characteristics as compared to elder models, which have
been refitted before for different locations.
The previously discussed independent models are recalibrated here Fig. 3 shows scatter plots of measured daily global irradiation
for the new location and cross-validated according to the procedure against estimated values for all trained models. Data points are
provided in the previous section. The performance of these models is distinguished according to their random assignment (training or
evaluated based on different statistical measures, namely: Mean Bias validation). The shown plots are for the fold (k) with closest RMSE
Error (MBE), Mean Percentage Error (MPE), Root Mean Square Error to the average RMSE of all folds, in the sample (u) with closest RMSE
(RMSE), Non-Dimensional Root Mean Square Error (NDRMSE) and to the average RMSE of all samples. The failure of models M11 and
Coefficient of Determination (R 2 ), defined as: M12 in generalization to new data is shown visually. Fig. 4, on the
n
∑i =1 (Hc − Hm ) other hand, depicts the distribution of models’ residuals against
MBE = , MJ/m2.day, estimated radiation values. All models have almost random distribu-
n (25)
tions, except for models M11 and M12 whose residuals have apparent
n⎛ Hc − Hm ⎞ patterns.
1
MPE = ∑⎜ ⎟*100%, A time-series plot of measured and estimated values of global
i =1 ⎝
n Hm ⎠ (26) radiation is shown in Fig. 5 for all successfully validated models. Since
all models depend mainly on the day number, all curves have close
n
1 trends throughout the year with some significant deviations at the
RMSE = ∑ (Hc − Hm )2 ,MJ/m2.day,
n i =1 (27) beginning and the end of the year. Model M3 has a different behavior
due to the sine term of sunrise angle in the extraterrestrial radiation
n ⎛ Hc − Hm ⎞2 equation. The inset in the same figure is for model M5, where only 20
1
NDRMSE = ∑⎜ ⎟ *100%, random days in 2014 are shown. For these days, the uncertainty
i =1 ⎝
n Hm ⎠ (28) bounds of measurements, as well as the 95% confidence interval of the

Table 4
Training and validation statistical measures of re-fitted models. Best values are shown in bold font.

Model Training Validation

MBE RMSE R2 MPE % MBE RMSE NDRMSE % R2

M1 0.000 2.347 0.862 0.002 0.000 2.330 7.845 0.860

M2 0.000 2.345 0.862 0.002 0.000 2.328 7.837 0.860
M3 0.000 2.374 0.859 0.000 0.000 2.355 7.927 0.856
M4 0.000 2.488 0.832 −0.006 −0.002 2.473 8.328 0.828
M5 0.000 2.318 0.866 0.001 0.000 2.305 7.761 0.862
M6 0.008 2.519 0.828 0.039 0.011 2.507 8.442 0.825
M7 −0.028 2.435 0.852 −0.094 −0.028 2.419 8.143 0.849
M8 0.000 2.345 0.862 0.001 0.000 2.336 7.863 0.859
M9 0.000 2.403 0.855 0.000 0.000 2.387 8.037 0.853
M10 0.000 2.319 0.866 −0.002 −0.001 2.312 7.784 0.861
M11 0.053 5.189 0.266 0.125 0.036 5.176 17.422 0.255
M12 0.000 5.668 0.201 0.005 0.000 5.651 19.024 0.188

1571
M.A. Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575

Fig. 3. Scatter plots of estimated and measured radiation values.

Fig. 4. Scatter plots of models’ residuals.

model, are displayed. Good agreement between the two intervals can be
noticed.
For further assessment of the prediction performance, the inde-
pendent models are compared to five different dependent models,
namely: the 3rd order polynomial sunshine-based model by Zabara [7],
the linear temperature-based model by Chen et al. [25], the non-linear
meteorological parameters-based model by Allen [70], the multivariate
linear meteorological parameters-based model by El-Sebaii et al. [71],
and the non-linear meteorological parameters-based model by Ododo
et al. [72]. All dependent models have been trained and validated using
the same procedure of independent models. Table 5 provides a list of
those dependent models, alongside with their corresponding refitted
parameters and statistical measures. The provided results demonstrate
the importance of sunshine duration in estimating the global solar
irradiation. The two models with the sunshine fraction is an input
(models: D1 and D5) have superior performance as compared to other

1572
M.A. Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575

Fig. 5. Time-series plot of models’ estimations in comparison with measured radiation values.

Table 5
Statistical results of refitted dependent models. Best values are shown in bold font.

Model Ref. Equation Refitted parameters Training Validation

a b c d e MBE RMSE R2 MBE MPE % RMSE NDRMSE % R2

D1 [7] H = Ho(a + b SF + c SF2 + d SF3) 0.437 −0.125 0.858 −0.451 – −0.036 1.362 0.954 −0.120 −0.036 1.364 4.593 0.952
D2 [25] H = Ho(a + b δT0.5) 0.345 0.080 – – – 0.008 2.162 0.883 0.022 0.006 2.158 7.265 0.879
D3 [70] H = Ho(a(P/Po)0.5 δT0.5) 0.172 – – – – −0.259 2.462 0.848 −0.871 −0.259 2.427 8.172 0.845
D4 [71] H = Ho(a + bT + c RH) 0.727 0.001 −0.002 – – 0.041 2.311 0.866 0.142 0.042 2.298 7.737 0.863
D5 [72] H = Ho(a + b SF + cTmax + d RH + e 0.579 0.228 −0.005 −0.001 0.005 0.006 1.324 0.956 0.021 0.006 1.322 4.452 0.955
Tmax SF)

Fig. 6. A graphical comparison between models D2, D5 and M5: (a) statistical comparison plot using validation dataset, (b) one-year time-series plot.

dependent and dependent models in both training and validation
stages. On the other side, when the sunshine fraction is excluded
(models: D1-D3), the performance of the model drops significantly to
the accuracy level of independent models. This can be also noticed
when comparing the statistical measures of models D1 and D5, where
adding temperature and relative humidity terms slightly improved the
predictions. This suggests that complicating the models by adding
some meteorological parameters such as temperature, mean sea-level
pressure or relative humidity is not worthy, and the independent
models are preferred in locations where sunshine duration is not
recorded. A graphical comparison between model D2 (temperature-
based model), model D5 (meteorological parameters-based model) and
the best independent model (model M5) is shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6a
shows a statistical comparison using validation dataset (validation data
points are different for each model due to the randomization proce-
dure), while Fig. 6b shows a one-year time-series plot of the three
models. While model D5 is capable of capturing the variation of global
radiation during overcast days, the independent model provides rough
estimations of global radiation behavior throughout the year.
Finally, Fig. 7 demonstrates the importance of cross-validating the
models using random samples. Histograms of validation RMSE are
displayed for three models: M4, M5, and M10. The histograms show
the distribution of all RMSEs of the 1000 samples, while the vertical
lines indicate the average of these RMSEs (as given in Table 4). Here,

1573
M.A. Hassan et al.
Fig. 7. Histograms of validation RMSE: models M4, M5 and M10.
the performances of models M5 and M10 are appealing since they show
fewer variations in their accuracies with change of input data. The two
distributions are close to a normal one. Also, their RMSEs are much
lower than that of model M4, which suffers from multimodal nature (its
accuracy in estimating global irradiation is highly affected by the
training and validation entries). The most important issue here is that
there is an overlap in the distributions of the three models, which
means that choosing the best model from a set of different models
based on chronological portioning of data is somehow subjective.
Model M5, which has the best generalization abilities among all models
considered here, may result in a greater RMSE than other models if a
single sample is used. Adopting the procedure described here leads to a
more honest judgment of the true performance of validated models.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a comprehensive review of all studies concerned with
modeling horizontal global radiation using independent models is
provided. All empirical independent models have been recalibrated
and cross-validated using a detailed novel method. The results assess
the accuracy of independent models considering their simplicity, with
coefficient of determination ranging from 82.5% up to 86.2%. When
compared to other dependent models, the independent models were
less accurate than sunshine-based models due to the strong relation
between sunshine duration and global irradiation. However, they were
at the same accuracy level of temperature- and meteorological para-
meters-based models (with sunshine fraction is not an input). This
suggests that they are more suitable for modeling global radiation at
locations where no sunshine records are obtainable. The importance of
adopting the provided procedure of randomizing and portioning the
data and cross-validating the models is demonstrated, to be used in
studies dealing with modeling solar radiation empirically.
References
[1] Muneer T. Solar radiation and daylight models, 2nd ed.. New York: Elsevier; 2004.
[2] Gueymard CA, Myers DR. Validation and ranking methodologies for solar radiation
models. In: Badescu V, editor. Modeling solar radiation at the earth's surface1st ed..
New York: Springer; 2008. p. 479–509.
[3] Angstrom A. Solar and terrestrial radiation. Report to the international commission
for solar research on actinometric investigations of solar and atmospheric radiation.
Q J R Meteorol Soc 1924;50: p. 121–5.
1574
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575
[4] Prescott JA. Evaporation from a water surface in relation to solar radiation. Trans R
Soc South Aust 1940;64: p. 114–25.
[5] Myers DR. Solar radiation: practical modeling for renewable energy applications,
1st ed.. New York: CRC Press; 2013.
[6] Ogelman H, Ecevit A, Tasdemiroglu E. A new method for estimating solar radiation
from bright sunshine data. Sol Energy 1984;33:619–25.
[7] Zabara K. Estimation of the global solar radiation in Greece. Sol Wind Technol
1986;3:267–72.
[8] Ampratwum B, Dorvlo AS. Estimation of solar radiation from the number of
sunshine hours. Appl Energy 1999;63:161–7.
[9] Newland FJ. A study of solar radiation models for the coastal region of South China.
Sol Energy 1988;31:227–35.
[10] Almorox J, Benito M, Hontoria C. Estimation of monthly Angstrom–Prescott
equation coefficients from measured daily data in Toledo, Spain. Renew Energy
2005;30:931–6.
[11] Bakirci K. Correlations for estimation of daily global solar radiation with hours of
bright sunshine in Turkey. Energy 2009;34:485–501.
[12] Sen Z. Solar energy fundamentals and modeling techniques: atmosphere environ-
ment, climate change and renewable energy, 1st ed.. London: Springer; 2008.
[13] Besharat F, Dehghan AA, Faghih AR. Empirical models for estimating global solar
radiation: a review and case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:798–821.
[14] Black JN. The distribution of solar radiation over the earth's surface. Arch Met
Geophys Bioklim 1956;7:165–89.
[15] Paltridge GW, Proctor D. Monthly mean solar radiation statistics for Australia. Sol
Energy 1976;18:235–43.
[16] Badescu V. Correlations to estimate monthly mean daily solar global irradiation:
application to Romania. Energy 1999;24:883–93.
[17] Reddy SJ. An empirical method for estimating sunshine from total cloud amount.
Sol Energy 1974;15:281–5.
[18] Supit I, Van Kappel RR. A simple method to estimate global radiation. Sol Energy
1998;63:147–60.
[19] Ehnberg JSG, Bollen MHJ. Simulation of global solar radiation based on cloud
observations. Sol Energy 2005;78:157–62.
[20] Almorox J, Hontoria C, Benito M. Models for obtaining daily global solar radiation
with measured air temperature data in Madrid (Spain). Appl Energy
2011;88:1703–9.
[21] Benghanem M. Solar radiation estimated from measured air temperature: a review
and proposed new model. Int J Renew Energy Technol 2013;4:191–211.
[22] Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J Irrig Drain
Eng 1982;108:225–30.
[23] Hargreaves GH. Simplified coefficients for estimating monthly solar radiation in
North America and Europe. Departmental Paper, Dept of Biol and Irrig Engrg,
Utah State University, Logan; 1994.
[24] Samani Z. Estimating solar radiation and evapotranspiration using minimum
climatological data (Hargreaves-Samani equation). J Irrig Drain Eng
2000;126:265–7.
[25] Chen R, Kang E, Lu S, Yang J, Ji X, Zhang Z, Zhang J. New methods to estimate
global radiation based on meteorological data in China. Energy Convers Manag
2006;47:2991–8.
[26] Hunt LA, Kuchar L, Swanton CJ. Estimation of solar radiation for use in crop
modelling. Agric Meteorol 1998;91:293–300.
[27] Bristow KL, Campbell GS. On the relationship between incoming solar radiation
and daily maximum and minimum temperature. Agric Meteorol 1984;31:159–66.
[28] Goodin DG, Hutchinson L, Vanderlip R, Knapp M. Estimating solar irradiance for
M.A. Hassan et al.
crop modeling using daily air temperature. Data Agron J 1999;91:845–51.
[29] Kirmani S, Jamil M, Rizwan M. Empirical correlation of estimating global solar
radiation using meteorological parameters. Int J Sustain Energy 2015;34:37–41.
[30] Adaramola MS. Estimating global solar radiation using common meteorological
data in Akure, Nigeria. Renew Energy 2012;47:38–44.
[31] Li M, Liu H, Guo P, Wu W. Estimation of daily solar radiation from routinely
observed meteorological data in Chongqing, China. Energy Convers Manag
2010;51:2575–9.
[32] Abdalla YAG. New correlations of global solar radiation with meteorological
parameters for Bahrain. Int J Sol Energy 1994;16:111–20.
[33] El-Metwally M. Simple new methods to estimate global solar radiation based on
meteorological data in Egypt. Atmos Res 2004;69:217–39.
[34] Mohammadi K, Khorasanizadeh H, Shamshirband S, Tong CW. Influence of
introducing various meteorological parameters to the Angstrom–Prescott model for
estimation of global solar radiation. Environ Earth Sci 2015;75:1–12.
[35] Al-Mostafa ZA, Maghrabi AH, Al-Shehri SM. Sunshine-based global radiation
models: a review and case study. Energy Convers Manag 2014;84:209–16.
[36] Yao W, Li Z, Wang Y, Jiang F, Hu L. Evaluation of global solar radiation models for
Shanghai, China. Energy Convers Manag 2014;84:597–612.
[37] Almorox J, Hontoria C. Global solar radiation estimation using sunshine duration
in Spain. Energy Convers Manag 2004;45:1529–35.
[38] Almorox J, Bocco M, Willington E. Estimation of daily global solar radiation from
measured temperatures at Canada de luque, Cordoba, Argentina. Renew Energy
2013;60:382–7.
[39] Yacef R, Mellit A, Belaid S. New combined models for estimating daily global solar
radiation from measured air temperature in semi-arid climates: application in
Ghardaia, Algeria. Energy Convers Manag 2014;79:606–15.
[40] Ertekin C, Yaldiz O. Estimation of monthly average daily global radiation on
horizontal surface for Antalya (Turkey). Renew Energy 1999;17:84–91.
[41] Togrul IT, Onat E. A study for estimating solar radiation in Elazig using
geographical and meteorological data. Energy Convers Manag 1999;40:1577–84.
[42] Al-Salaymeh A. Modelling of global daily solar radiation on horizontal surfaces for
Amman City. Emir J Eng Res 2006;11:49–56.
[43] Kaplanis S, Kaplani E. A model to predict expected mean and stochastic hourly
global solar radiation I(h;nj) values. Renew Energy 2007;32:1414–25.
[44] Bulut H, Buyukalaca O. Simple model for the generation of daily global solar-
radiation data in Turkey. Appl Energy 2007;84:477–91.
[45] Li H, Ma W, Lian Y, Wang X. Estimating daily global solar radiation by day of year
in China. Appl Energy 2010;87:3011–7.
[46] Zang H, Xu Q, Bian H. Generation of typical solar radiation data for different
climates of China. Energy 2012;38:236–48.
[47] Quej VH, Almorox J, Ibrakhimov M, Saito L. Estimating daily global solar radiation
by day of the year in six cities located in Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. J Clean Prod
2017;141:75–82.
[48] Khorasanizadeh H, Mohammadi K. Prediction of daily global solar radiation by day
of the year in four cities located in the sunny regions of Iran. Energy Convers
Manag 2013;76:385–92.
[49] Khorasanizadeh H, Mohammadi K, Jalilvand M. A statistical comparative study to
demonstrate the merit of day of the year-based models for estimation of horizontal
global solar radiation. Energy Convers Manag 2014;87:37–47.
[50] Hassan GE, Youssef ME, Ali MA, Mohamed ZE, Shehata AI. Performance
assessment of different day-of-the-year-based models for estimating global solar
radiation - Case study: Egypt. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 2016;149:69–80.
[51] Olatomiwa L, Mekhilef S, Shamshirband S, Mohammadi K, Petkovic D, Sudheer C.
A support vector machine-firefly algorithm-based model for global solar radiation
prediction. Sol Energy 2015;115:632–44.
1575
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1565–1575
[52] Piri J, Kisi O. Modelling solar radiation reached to the earth using ANFIS, NN-
ARX, and empirical models (Case studies: Zahedan and Bojnurd stations). J Atmos
Sol-Terr Phys 2015;123:39–47.
[53] Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Danesh AS. Temperature-based estimation of
global solar radiation using soft computing methodologies. Theor Appl Climatol
2015;125:101–12.
[54] Shamshirband S, Mohammadi K, Lip P, Petkovi D. A comparative evaluation for
identifying the suitability of extreme learning machine to predict horizontal global
solar radiation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1031–42.
[55] Ramedani Z, Omid M, Keyhani A, Shamshirband S, Khoshnevisan B. Potential of
radial basis function based support vector regression for global solar radiation
prediction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:1005–11.
[56] Yadav AK, Chandel SS. Solar radiation prediction using artificial neural network
techniques: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:772–81.
[57] Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Wen C, Amjad K, Petkovic D. Potential of
adaptive neuro-fuzzy system for prediction of daily global solar radiation by day of
the year. Energy Convers Manag 2015;93:406–13.
[58] Gani A, Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Khorasanizadeh H, Seyed Danesh A, Piri
J, Ismail Z, Zamani M. Day of the year-based prediction of horizontal global solar
radiation by a neural network auto-regressive model. Theor Appl Climatol
2016;125:679–89.
[59] Hassan MA, Khalil A, Kaseb S, Kassem MA. Potential of four different machine-
learning algorithms in modeling daily global solar radiation. Renew Energy
2017;111:52–62.
[60] Kalogirou SA. Solar energy engineering: processes and systems, 1st ed.. London:
Elsevier Inc; 2009.
[61] Moradi I. Quality control of global solar radiation using sunshine duration hours.
Energy 2009;34:1–6.
[62] Jacovides CP, Tymvios FS, Assimakopoulos VD, Kaltsounides NA. Comparative
study of various correlations in estimating hourly diffuse fraction of global solar
radiation. Renew Energy 2006;31:2492–504.
[63] Reindl DT, Beckman WA, Duffie JA. Diffuse fraction correlations. Sol Energy
1990;45:1–7.
[64] Scharmer K, Greif J, editors.European solar radiation atlas. Vol. 1: fundamentals
and maps. Paris: Les Presses de l’Ecole, Ecole des Mines; 2000.
[65] Vignola F, Michalsky J, Stoffel T. Solar and infrared radiation measurements. New
York: CRC Press; 2012.
[66] Gupta P, Srinivasan R. Missing data prediction and forecasting for water quantity
data. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and
Control. Singapore: IACSIT Press; 2011.
[67] Huo J, Cox CD, Seaver WL, Robinson RB, Jiang Y. Application of two-directional
time series models to replace missing data. J Environ Eng 2010;136:435–43.
[68] Nzuza MB. Statistical modelling and estimation of solar radiation (M.Sc. Thesis).
Durban, South Africa: University of Kwazulu-Natal; 2014.
[69] Wilks DS. Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences, 3rd ed.. Massachusetts:
Academic Press; 2011.
[70] Allen R. Evaluation of procedures of estimating mean monthly solar radiation from
air temperature. Technical Report. Rome:Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO); 1995.
[71] El-Sebaii AA, Al-Ghamdi AA, Al-Hazmi FS, Faidah A. Estimation of global solar
radiation on horizontal surfaces in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Energy Policy
2009;37:3645–9.
[72] Ododo JC, Sulaiman AT, Aidan J, Yuguda MM, Ogbu FA. The importance of
maximum air temperature in the parameterisation of solar radiation in Nigeria.
Renew Energy 1995;6:751–63.