Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Quantifiers for the solar irradiance variability: A new perspective T

⁎
Robert Blaga, Marius Paulescu
Faculty of Physics, West University of Timisoara, V Parvan 4, 300223 Timisoara, Romania

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper focuses on variability in solar irradiance time series. Six quantifiers for the solar irradiance varia-
Solar radiative regime bility, very different in their nature, are analyzed. One of them, based on the cumulative distribution function of
Clearness index the increments of clearness index time series, is developed in this study. The new quantifier is obtained by
Sunshine number integrating the complementary cumulative distribution function over all values of the increments. The same
Variability criteria
level of variability is expressed by different quantifiers of different magnitudes. In order to surpass this obstacle a
normalizing procedure is applied. This is a key task in comparing the output of different quantifiers toward a
unique standard in the evaluation of the solar irradiance variability. As application, a new multi-parameter
ranking procedure for classifying the days according to the solar irradiance variability is introduced.

1. Introduction
The large-scale penetration of photovoltaic (PV) plants into an
electric grid is firmly limited by the uncontrollable variability of solar
irradiance at the ground level. This variability may cause erratic var-
iations in the output power of a PV plant at different time scales, which
are further propagated on the grid as flickers of voltage and frequency.
On the other hand, the fatigue of the PV modules materials may also be
accelerated by the solar irradiance fluctuations, which induces alter-
nating thermal regimes (Tomson 2010). All the above motivate the
importance of understanding the solar irradiance variability at different
temporal scales. A recent study by Perez et al. (2016) concludes that
considering the fundamentals of spatial and temporal scales in devel-
oping mitigating solutions for the variability of solar resources re-
presents a prerequisite in order to maximize effectiveness and minimize
costs of PV plants integration in an electrical grid.
Compact cloud fields lead to a low frequency variation of solar ir-
radiance causing a significant steep increase/decrease in the PV output
power. The transition occurs between two states, each of them being
stable for a quite long period of time. Scattered clouds may cause high
frequency variation in solar irradiance inducing a massive fluctuation
in the output power of a PV plant. For fast moving clouds, changes in
solar irradiance measured by a pyranometer can exceed more than half
of its peak in seconds. The time taken for a moving cloud to shade an
entire PV system depends on various factors, including the PV system
size and cloud speed. Mills et al. (2011) showed that a 75% solar ir-
radiance ramp in 10-seconds measured by a pyranometer was asso-
ciated with 20% variation in output power in the same 10-second in a
13.2-MW PV plant in Nevada. A severe event that changed the output of
a pyranometer by 80% in 60 s led to a 50% change of the output power
in the same time. Therefore, understanding the variability of solar ir-
radiance at various time scales is a key issue for an efficient perfor-
mance of a solar plant.
Generally, the actual level of solar irradiance at the Earth’s surface
results from the synergistic action of two factors: a deterministic one
associated with the Earth’s movement and a stochastic one associated
with moving clouds. A huge effort has been invested over time for ac-
curately quantifying the stochastic component of solar irradiance. This
component is isolated by means of the instantaneous clearness index,
defined as the ratio of solar irradiance measured at the ground level to
that at the top of the atmosphere (see Section 2.1 for a detailed defi-
nition). Woyte et al. (2007) argue that an analysis of the clearness index
variability must focus on the amplitude, persistence and frequency of
the fluctuations. Since the time series of the clearness index exhibit no
periodicity, this information cannot be retrieved by means of Fourier
analysis. Instead, a localized spectral analysis based on wavelet trans-
formation allows the decomposition of the clearness index into ortho-
normal components, each of them representing a specific scale of per-
sistence. Peled and Appelbaum (2013) quantified the solar irradiance
fluctuations using a combination of a statistical approach and wavelet
analysis. These authors reported a tool for converting the decomposed
components of the clearness index into useful forecasts for the operator
of the electric grid with high density of embedded PV generation. The
stochastic component of solar irradiance can also be isolated by means
of the clear-sky index, defined as the ratio of the solar irradiances
measured at the ground level to that estimated under clear-sky

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marius.paulescu@e-uvt.ro (M. Paulescu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.09.034
Received 19 June 2018; Received in revised form 29 August 2018; Accepted 13 September 2018
0038-092X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu
conditions. Based on the clear-sky index Perez et al. (2011) presented
an empirical model for quantifying the short-term variability using
satellite-derived hourly solar irradiance data. Their model introduces
the standard deviation of the global irradiance clear-sky index and the
mean change in clear-sky index between two consecutive intervals as
quantifiers for intra-hour variability of the solar resource.
There are different ways for classifying days from a meteorological
perspective. Common examples are: the daily average temperature la-
bels a day as “cold” or “warm”, the daily precipitation level labels a day
as “wet” or “dry”, the combination of the ambient temperature and
relative humidity labels a day as “comfortable” or “uncomfortable”.
Many quantifiers have likewise been defined for classifying different
intervals of time (mainly at daily or hourly scales) according to the
variability/stability in the solar irradiance time series. A procedure for
accurate classification turns out to be a useful tool for many applica-
tions: generation of a solar irradiance series like the typical meteor-
ological year (Cebecauer and Suri 2015), forecasting solar energy
(Paulescu et al. 2014) or the synthetic generation of high temporal
resolution solar radiation data (Polo et al. 2011). In particular, the
decomposition of solar irradiance into its direct and diffuse components
is strongly dependent on the type of the solar radiative regime
(Paulescu and Blaga 2016, 2018).
Maafi and Harrouni (2003) introduced fractal measures for daily
solar irradiance variability, aiming to classify days into three groups:
clear sky, partly-cloudy sky and overcast. Soubdhan et al (2009) clas-
sified the daily distribution of the clearness index in four classes using a
mixture of Dirichlet distributions. The sequential analysis of the time
series suggested that the solar radiative pattern is governed by a hidden
Markov chain with four states. Tomson et al. (2008) used criteria based
on the notion of global solar irradiance increment for characterizing a
given interval of time as stable or unstable. An increment is defined as
the difference between two subsequent measurements in a time series.
The magnitude of large-scale fluctuations is assessed by measuring their
positive and negative fronts (Tomson 2010). A positive/negative front
is defined as an event with monotonous increase/decrease in the solar
irradiance series with at least one increment greater than
50 W m−2 s−1. Thus, the solar irradiance series appears as a stochastic
process including positive and negative fronts and small-scale fluctua-
tions in between. Paulescu and Badescu (2011) introduced a binary
parameter, the sunshine stability number, for assessing the variability a
solar irradiance time series. Basically, the sunshine stability number
counts how many times the Sun is covered (or uncovered) by clouds in a
given time interval. Classifying the days from the view-point of the
stability of their radiative regime is performed by using the daily
average value of the sunshine stability number.
In recent years, special attention has been paid to characterizing the
solar irradiance variability at small temporal scales. Lave et al. (2015)
introduced a metric for quantifying high-frequency solar irradiance
variability, called the variability score from the ramp rate distribution.
The ramp rate in a solar irradiance time series is computed using a
definition based on moving averages. Schroedter-Homscheidt et al.
(2018) proposed an algorithm for classifying the hours within a day in
respect to the variability of the 1-minute direct-normal solar irradiance.
The algorithm is based on a combination of previously proposed
quantifiers. Lohmann (2018) reviewed recently published studies on
the quantification and small-scale averaging of solar irradiance varia-
bility in time and space. The author emphasized that even if there are
many articles dealing with solar irradiance variability at small temporal
scales, there is an acute need for more high-resolution measurements to
robustly validate the existing models.
The above summary shows that different quantifiers highlight dif-
ferent facets of the variability in a solar irradiance series. Currently
there is no general consensus on which a particular quantifier is the
most suitable for classifying different intervals of time according to the
solar irradiance variability. Because every quantifier is associated with
a set of criteria for classifying a given period of time as stable or
607
Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616
unstable, the border between stable and unstable is marked by un-
certainty.
This paper focuses on the characterization of the stochastic nature of
a solar irradiance series from various perspectives. Six different tech-
niques for classifying days according to the solar irradiance variability
pattern are analyzed. Among the novelties reported in this study we
mention here the following: (1) A new quantifier is introduced, based
on the cumulative distribution function of the increments of the
clearness index. The new quantifier is obtained by integrating the
complementary cumulative distribution function and integrating over
all existing values of the increments. (2) A normalizing procedure of
different quantifiers is proposed. Note that different quantifiers express
the same level of variability at different scales (in a mathematical
sense). Thus, the development of an accurate procedure for comparing
different quantifiers is a key task toward a unique standard in the
evaluation of the solar irradiance variability; (3) A new multi-para-
meter ranking procedure for classifying days according to the solar ir-
radiance variability pattern is introduced.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 the raw data
used in this study are presented and the post-processed quantities
(clearness index and sunshine number) are defined in detail. In Section
3, six quantifiers for the solar irradiance variability pattern (stability
index, standard deviation of increments, number of fronts, integrated
cumulative distribution function, sunshine stability number and fractal
dimension) are defined and assessed. In Section 4 the quantifiers are
standardized and a multi-parameter ranking procedure for classifying
the solar irradiance variability based on the aggregated behavior of the
six quantifiers is presented. The ability of the various quantifiers to
capture different types of variability is analyzed. The main conclusions
of this study and an outlook on the standardization of the definition of
stable and unstable solar irradiance pattern are given in Section 5.
2. Data
Global G and diffuse Gd solar irradiances recorded at the Solar
Platform of the West University of Timisoara (Solar Platform 2017) are
used in this study. The town of Timisoara (latitude 45°46′N, longitude
21°25′E, altitude 85 m asl) has a warm temperate climate, fully humid,
with warm summer, typical for the Pannonian Basin (Köppen climate
classification Cfb, based on the Kottek et al. (2006) digital world map
on climate classification). Measurements on the Solar Platform are
performed all day long at equal time intervals of PleaseCheck . Del-
taOHM LP PYRA 02 first class pyranometers which fully comply with
ISO 9060 standards and meet the requirements defined by the World
Meteorological Organization are employed. The sensors are connected
to a data acquisition system based on a National Instruments PXI
Platform.
2.1. Clearness index
The instantaneous clearness index is defined as follows (Liu and
Jordan, 1960):
G
kt = ,
Gext (1)
where G and Gext are the horizontal solar irradiance measured at ground
level and estimated at extraterrestrial level, respectively. Gext can be
written as function of the solar elevation angle h: Gext = GSC ε sin h , were
GSC = 1366.1 W m−2 (Gueymard 2004) is the solar constant and ε is the
eccentricity correction factor that can be calculated with Spencer’s
equation (Spencer 1971).
2.2. Sunshine number
For an observer placed on the Earth’s surface, the sunshine number
SSN (t ) is defined as a time dependent random binary variable, as
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616

follows (Badescu and Paulescu 2011): Table 1

Summary statistics of two clearness index datasets, built with data from August
0 if the sun is covered by clouds at time t
SSN (t ) = ⎧ . and December 2010, respectively.
⎨
⎩1 otherwise (2)
Date Mean Standard Median 25% 75% percentile
Series of SSN values are derived from the series of measured solar deviation percentile
irradiance values by using the World Meteorological Organization
08/2010 0.575 0.107 0.601 0.510 0.653
sunshine criterion (WMO 2008): “the Sun is shining” at time t if direct 12/2010 0.548 0.155 0.534 0.408 0.662
solar irradiance exceeds 120 W m−2. In our notation:
G (t ) − Gd (t )
⎧1 if > 120 W m−2 In this case the standard deviation reads:
SSN (t ) = sin h ,
⎨0 otherwise (3)
⎩ N N 2
1 ⎛ ⎞
where G (t ) and Gd (t ) denote the global and diffuse solar irradiance at σ (dkt ) =
N
∑ |dkt , i |2 −⎜∑ |dkt , i | ⎟
time t, and h is the solar elevation angle. i=0 ⎝ i=0 ⎠ (7)
Raw data, measured in a period of 31 days, from 1 to 31 August N represents the number of data measured in the considered time
2010, were used to conduct this study. Fig. A1 from Appendix A illus- interval.
trates visually the temporal variability of solar irradiance in these Unlike the increments defined in terms of clear-sky index, the in-
31 days. A total number of 96 279 instantaneous recordings were post- crements defined in terms of clearness index may be influenced by the
processed for obtaining the instantaneous values of clearness index and seasonality of the atmospheric transmittance. In order to evaluate this
sunshine number. A larger dataset containing 309,718 lines, built by effect, we compared two clearness index datasets, one recorded in
post-processing 708,480 raw data measured in March, July, September August 2010 and the other in December 2010. The two data sets were
and December 2010, was used to test the main conclusions. All the built only with data measured in sunny conditions (SSN = 1). Note that
measurements associated with h < 5° have been removed from the without clouds on the Sun direction, clearness index is a measure of the
database. There are two reasons for this: (i) the pyranometer’s accuracy atmospheric transmittance. Table 1 presents a summary statistic for the
around sunrise and sunset is questionable and (ii) sin h tends towards two datasets, emphasizing no significant differences between them.
zero for small values of h and, consequently, the measurement errors Therefore, the atmospheric transmittance may add only a small un-
can be amplified above the threshold in Eq. (3), yielding a positive certainty when the increments are evaluated on basis of clearness
SSN (t ) , regardless of the values of G (t ) and Gd (t ) . Raw data and post- index. Beyond this empirical evaluation, we would like to stress that the
processed data used in this study, along with other meteorological increments defined in terms of clearness index (thus influenced by the
parameters, are available online at http://solar.physics.uvt.ro/srms/ atmospheric transmittance) capture naturally the change in solar irra-
index.php?target=download. diance: when a cloud covers/uncovers the Sun, the change in solar ir-
radiance is more intense in the summer with the Sun closer to zenith
3. Quantifiers for the solar irradiance variability than in the winter with the Sun closer to horizon.

Six quantifiers for solar irradiance are defined in this section:

standard deviation of the increments, stability index, number of fronts,
integrated complementary cumulative distribution function, sunshine
stability number and fractal dimension. These quantifiers are very dif-
ferent in nature and each of them captures a distinct facet of the solar
irradiance variability.
3.1. Standard deviation of increments
The most popular quantifier for characterizing the solar irradiance
variability is the standard deviation of the increments (Lave et al.
2013). An increment is defined as the value of the difference between
subsequent measurements:
dktc = kcs, i + 1−kcs, i
Eq. (4) written in terms of clear-sky index, since the analysis is often
performed on a time series of the clear-sky index (Lauret et al. 2016).
The clear-sky index is defined as:
G
kcs = , index, defined as the percentage of cumulated increments over an in-
Gcs
where Gcs represents the global horizontal irradiance estimated under
clear-sky at the same moment of time when G was measured. Gcs is
usually calculated using a clear-sky solar irradiance model, which
naturally introduces additional uncertainty (see e.g Badescu et al. 2013
for a discussion on the performance of the clear-sky solar irradiance
models).
In this study instead of the clear-sky index we use the clearness
index aiming to avoid the uncertainty introduced by the clear-sky
model. The increments dkt are defined similarly to Eq. (4):
dki = kt , i + 1−kt , i
3.2. Stability index
In the simplest way, the variability in a clearness index time series
can be quantified in terms of the cumulated increments in absolute value
over a larger time interval than the sampling interval of the measure-
ments:
N
dkΔt = ∑ |dkt,i|.
i=1 (8)
A time interval characterized by the increment |dkt , i| is considered
unstable if the increment is larger than a threshold value kc , i.e.
|dkt , i | > kc . Following the analysis of Tomson and Tamm (2006), which
established a threshold for the increments in solar irradiance time
(4) series, we take this value to be kc = 0.025. This threshold can be ex-
tended easily to cumulated increments by multiplying it with the
number of increments within Δ t , kc,Δt = N ·kc .
For quantifying the degree of instability of the solar irradiance
pattern on a given day, we introduced a new quantifier, the stability
(5) terval Δ t , which are unstable in a given day (Lucaciu et al. 2017):
SI = N (dkΔt > kc,Δt ) N . (9)
As an example, Fig. 1 illustrates the quantities defined by Eqs. (1),
(6) and (8), necessary for computing the stability index for
Δ t = 10 min , using the measurements from day 08/20/2018. Out of a
total of 3069 increments, 923 are unstable, while the stability index is
SI = 31.5%.
3.3. Number of fronts
(6)
Tomson (2010) argues that considering only the largest increments

608
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu
Fig. 1. (a) Time series of the clearness index measured on day 08/20/2010 (Eq.
(5)); (b) Time series of the increments of the clearness index (Eq. (6)); (c) The
cumulated increments over a time interval of Δ t = 10 min (Eq. (8)). The sta-
bility index represents the percent of cumulated increments above the critical
value marked with the dashed line.
is not sufficient for characterizing the variability at low frequency in a
solar irradiance time series. The author suggests to use the number of
fronts instead of the percentage of the unstable increments. A front is
defined as a series of positive increments with at least one of them being
larger than a given threshold. This definition counts the increasing
fronts only. The total number of fronts in a given period is denoted by
Fr. We set the threshold value at kc = 0.15. The increments above the
threshold are highly unstable. With the choice of this threshold, only
the fronts containing extreme jumps in the solar irradiance are isolated.
In this study, unlike Tomson (2010) we evaluated the number of fronts
of the clearness index instead of global solar irradiance.
Fig. 2 illustrates the above definition of fronts using a sample of data
recorded on day 08/20/2010. The number of fronts during the entire
day is Fr = 38.
3.4. Integrated complementary cumulative distribution function
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the cumulated in-
crements gives an overall picture of the solar irradiance variability.
Fig. 3a shows the CDF for Δt = 10 min using data from the same day
08/20/2010. One can easily read-off the percentage of stable incre-
ments as the value of CDF at dkΔt = kc,Δt , which in this case is 68.4%. The
complementary CDF gives the percentage of increments which are
above a given value. Integrating this quantity, we obtained a new
quantifier for the variability of the solar irradiance variability. This is
the integrated complementary cumulative distribution function ICCDF,
with the shorthand notation I, expressed as follows:
I= ∫ (1−CDF ) d (dkΔt ) (10)
where the integration is taken over all available values of the cumulated
increments. This represents the shaded area in Fig. 3b. For day 08/20/
2010, we have I = 0.76, as Fig. 3b shows.
609
Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616
Fig. 2. Illustration of two positive fronts in terms of (a) clearness index (b)
increments of clearness index. The two instances show different types of fronts:
in the left side the highly-unstable increment is located at the end of the front
while on the right side the highly-unstable increment is located in the middle of
the front.
3.5. Sunshine stability number
A quantifier for the variability in the solar irradiance variability
based on the number of changes that SSN (see Section 2.2) exhibits
during a time interval Δt has been defined by Paulescu and Badescu
(2011). This is the sunshine stability number SSSN, which is defined as
a random binary variable:
1 if SSN (t ) > SSN (t −1)
SSSNΔt (t ) = ⎧ .
⎨
⎩ 0 otherwise (11)
A few comments about the definition of Eq. (11) are useful. SSN
defined by Eq. (2) is a binary variable, with its values equal to zero
when the Sun is covered by clouds, and one when the Sun shines in the
sky. Thus, SSSN defined by Eq. (11) indicates only the Sun’s appearance
in the sky while the entire sky may or may not be clear of clouds. The
sum of SSSNΔt (t ) counts the number of times the Sun appears in the sky
during Δt. The average value of SSSN during Δt is denoted by SSSN . It
ranges between zero (when the values of SSN(t) are all 0 or 1, respec-
tively, for all time moments t during Δt ) and 1/2 (when the in-
stantaneous values of SSN change every two consecutive moments
during Δt ). The solar radiative regime is fully stable in the first case and
fully unstable in the last case. Since SSSN is a measure of the frequency
of the Sun occurrence in the sky, it quantifies straightforwardly the
solar irradiance variability. Of course, SSSN may be defined equiva-
lently for counting the Sun’s disappearance from the sky.
Fig. 4 illustrates how SSSN operates. Data from the same day 08/20/
2010 are used. Broken clouds were recorded in the first half of the day
while the sky was clear in the second half of the day. The number of
changes of SSN during the first half of the day is 43 indicating a high
variability of the solar radiative regime while the number of changes of
SSN during the second half was 4 indicating a stable regime. For the
whole day, SSSN is equal to 0.0153.
3.6. Fractal dimension
The fractal dimension D of an object depends on how much surface
area (or volume) the object “fills” (Dubuc et al. 1989). A fractal di-
mension D(Δt) may be assigned to a solar irradiance G(t) time series
during a time interval Δt. Because the time series represents a discrete
set, the fractal dimension will be a fractional number between 1 and 2.
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616

Fig. 3. (a) The cumulative distribution function of the increments and (b) the complementary cumulative distribution function of the cumulated increments
(Δt = 10 min ). Data from day 08/20/2010 are considered.

In this study we calculated D(Δt) using the method proposed in

Harrouni (2008), where the curve described by G(t) is covered by
rectangles (Fig. 5). For N different time moments tj separated by the
same interval, the area S(Δτ, Δt) of this coverage is given by:
N −1
S (Δτ , Δt ) = ∑ |G (t + Δτ )−G (t )| Δτ
t=0 (12)

The fractal dimension D(Δt) represents the slope of the following

straight line:

S (Δτ , Δt ) ⎞ 1
ln ⎛ = D (Δt ) ln ⎛ ⎞ + C , Δτ → 0.
⎝ Δτ 2 ⎠ ⎝ Δτ ⎠ (13)

Usage of Eq. (13) requires choosing different values of Δτ and

computation of the associated surface area S(Δτ, Δt).
Fig. 6 illustrates the computation of the fractal dimension for the
day 20. We plot the left and right-hand side of Eq. (13) for different
time intervals Δτ, ranging from the instantaneous time step to the half
of the day. A line was fitted on the resulting scatter plot, using the

Fig. 4. (a) Global solar irradiance (b) Sunshine number and (c) Sunshine sta-
bility number during the day 09/20/2010.

Fig. 5. Covering the global solar irradiance signal with rectangles.

Fig. 6. Illustration of the fractal dimension evaluation for the day 08/20/2010.
Δ t is expressed in quanta of 15 s.

610
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu
smallest squares method. The fractal dimension D results as the slope of
this line. Note that as we increase the measuring frequency, the fractal
dimension converges to one, which is the correct dimension for a line.
This can be seen already for sub-minute intervals (last four dots in
Fig. 6), which suggests that the fractal dimension is not efficient for
capturing high frequency fluctuations in solar irradiance time series.
4. A new multi-parameter ranking procedure for classifying days
4.1. Standardizing the quantifiers
The quantifiers defined in Section 3 are of different magnitudes. In
order to compare the quantifiers, we have to bring them to the same
scale. This is typically done by standardizing the distributions resulting
from applying the quantifiers on a dataset. The procedure consists of
subtracting the mean from the values of the quantifiers and dividing the
result by the standard deviation. For a generic quantifier A, the stan-
dardizing procedure runs as follows (see e.g. Montgomery and Runger
2011): (1) Computing the mean value of the quantifier
N the solar radiative regime, which are clearly visible in Fig. 8:
1
〈A〉 = N
∑ Aj ≡ μ . In our case N signifies the number of days (N = 31
j=1
for August); (2) Computing the standard deviation σ = 〈A2 〉−μ2 where
N
1 ∼
〈A2 〉 = N ∑ Aj2 and (3) Standardizing the quantifier A = (A−μ) σ .
j=1
It is worth noting that the standardization process is not fully effi-
cient when the initial distribution is not a normal one. Among the six
quantifiers, only the fractal dimension is characterized by a symmetric
distribution while the others are characterized by skewed distributions.
A Box-Cox transformation could be used to bring the data closer to a
normal distribution (see e.g. Osborne, 2010). Nevertheless, as we will
see further, the distribution of the standardized quantifiers is close
enough to the normal one. Thus, the normalized quantifiers provide a
reasonable framework for classifying days.
4.2. The day degree of instability
In this section, we propose a multi-parameter ranking procedure for
classifying days according to the stability of the solar radiative regime.
This procedure classifies the days into three categories: stable, inter-
mediate and highly-unstable. The intermediate category includes days
characterized by different degree of instability. Differently, the days
from the last category are characterized by a high degree of instability
only. In order to clearly differentiate the two categories and to avoid
any confusion we have named the last category “highly-unstable” and
not simply “unstable”, as intuition would suggest. In the following the
new procedure is introduced and illustrated using the entire dataset
from August 2010.
Fig. 7 shows in the same plot all six quantifiers in a standardized
form. The threshold values below/above which a standardized quanti-
fier classifies a day as stable/highly-unstable were established empiri-
cally at Q− = −0.675/Q+ = +0.675 i.e. ∓ 67.5% of one standard devia-
tion. This way, roughly 25% of days are classified as being highly-
unstable, 25% are classified as stable, while 50% of days are designated
as having intermediate variability. The same classification can be ob-
tained if the stability index thresholds in non-standardized form are set
to SI = 0.05 and SI = 0.15, respectively, meaning that stable days are
those which have unstable increments below 5%, while highly-unstable
days are those which have unstable increments more than 15%.
Visual inspection of Fig. 7 shows that the stable and highly-unstable
days are classified as such by most quantifiers. Some days are classified
in different categories by different quantifiers. For example, the day 4 is
categorized as highly-unstable by four quantifiers (I, SI, D(G) and SSSN )
and of intermediate variability by two (σ (dk ) , Fr). The multi-parameter
ranking procedure proposed in this work postulates a day as being
certainly in the stable or highly-unstable category if it is classified as
611
Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616
such by at least 4 of the 6 indicators. Otherwise, the day is classified as
intermediate. Table 2 shows the classification of the days of August
2010 according to the proposed multi-parameter ranking procedure
against the classification made by the individual quantifiers.
A stable day may would be either sunny or overcast. The solar ir-
radiance pattern in these days varies smoothly (smoother in the sunny
days) but at different magnitudes (Fig. 8). A question arising at this
point is whether the quantifiers make distinction between these two
very different states of the sky? The answer is in Table 3, where the
values of the quantifiers are listed for the four days whose solar irra-
diance patterns are plotted in Fig. 8. It can be seen that there are no
significant differences between the values taken by a quantifier in a
sunny day and in an overcast day.
4.3. Quantifying the types of solar radiation variability
Fig. 9 shows a sample of six days from our dataset presented in
Appendix A, that illustrate different aspects of the solar irradiance
variability. There are three distinct types of variability experienced by
• Intermittency. The state of the sky is rapidly alternating between
two distinct regimes: the Sun is shining and the Sun is covered by
clouds. Generally, the intermittency is caused by scattered opaque
clouds (day 9 in Fig. 9).
• Fluctuations. The state of the sky changes at high frequency but
solar irradiance does not increase/decrease so steeply like in the
intermittency class. It is produced by broken clouds which, are
somewhat translucent. Fluctuations are often accompanied by cloud
reflections (see e.g, Inman et al. 2016) (day 28 in Fig. 9).
• Spikes. The state of the sky is generally overcast with occasional
broken clouds producing low frequency but high amplitude varia-
tions in the solar irradiance at ground level (day 25 in Fig. 9).
Generally, a day experiences both stable and unstable periods.
During an unstable period, the solar irradiance pattern is a result of a
combination of the three types of variations (intermittency, fluctuations
and spikes). For example, day 1 starts with a relatively stable overcast
sky, then it passes through a highly fluctuating state, then it returns to a
stable overcast state, ending in a mostly stable clear-sky state. A dif-
ferent example is day 13, which starts with a stable period in the
morning, followed by a period with fluctuations, a stable interval with
mild variations, a mostly overcast period with spikes, an intermediate
mixed variability period and ends with a stable interval. This illustrates
that in order to accurately characterize the solar irradiance pattern
during a day, a quantifier must be sensitive to all types of variability. In
the following, the sensitivity of the six quantifiers considered in this
study is assessed.
Firstly, it is useful to compare the values of the quantifiers on day 9
(intermittency type) and on day 28 (fluctuations type). Table 2 shows
that the day 9 is classified by σ(dk) and Fr as highly unstable and as
intermediate by SSSN and SI. The day 28 is classified as highly unstable
by all four quantifiers. Note, however, the large difference in the values
of SSSN and SI for day 28 in comparison with those on day 9, while
σ(dk) and Fr take roughly the same values for both days, as it can be
seen in Fig. 7. This demonstrates that σ(dk) and Fr are suitable quan-
tifiers for characterizing days with high-frequency variability and often
small amplitude fluctuations, while SSSN and SI capture very well the
intermittency type of variability with lower frequency variability and
large amplitude fluctuations.
There are also specific days when one of the quantifiers takes sig-
nificantly higher values than all others. An example is day 25, which is
characterized by low frequency, slowly growing and high amplitude
variations (spikes). The SSSN classifies this day as highly unstable,
while the other quantifiers as intermediate. The fractal dimension
seems completely inadequate for characterizing the high-frequency
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616

Fig. 7. Classification of days by the six normalized quantifiers. The threshold values for a stable (Q− ) and a highly-unstable (Q+ ) day are indicated with dashed lines.
Data from August 2010 are used.

Table 2
Classification of the days of August 2010 into stable (green), intermediate (yellow) and highly unstable (red) by the individual quantifiers and
the multi-parameter ranking procedure (MR).

fluctuations, in turn capturing low-frequency variations (on the time-

scale of hours, i.e. alternations between clear and overcast sky), as is the
case of days 13 and 18 (Fig. 9).
Schroedter-Homscheidt et al. (2018) showed that, at hourly time
scale, some quantifiers present similar behavior in pairs or groups. In
order to assess the relative behavior of our six quantifiers at daily time
scale, we computed the correlation matrix of the quantifiers values,
obtained from the entire dataset. The results are listed in Table 4. It can
be observed that the fractal dimension does not have a significant
correlation with any of the other quantifiers. The SSSN and SI show a
large cross-correlation. Similarly, σ(dk) and Fr show also a large cross-
correlation. The new quantifier I shows a strong correlation (over 0.9,
see Table 4) with all the above quantifiers (SSSN, SI, σ(dk) and Fr). Out
of all quantifiers, the newly introduced quantifier I presents the most
reliable behavior, classifying all highly unstable and stable days prop-
erly, in the same way as the more complex multi-parameter procedure
proposed in this work.
The above conclusions are confirmed by analyzing the days classi-
Fig. 8. Global solar irradiance in two sunny days (07/02 and 07/16) and two
overcast days (03/11 and 03/23) in 2010.
fication in other four months of 2010: March, July, September and
December. The classification tables (similar to Table 2) for all

Table 3
Values of the quantifiers in two sunny days and two overcast days.
Date State-of-the-sky I Fr SI σ(dk) D(G) SSSN

03/11/2010 Overcast −0.952 −0.571 −1.005 −1.191 −1.297 −1.081

03/23/2010 Overcast −0.900 −0.571 −0.949 −1.067 −1.436 −0.890
07/02/2010 Sunny −0.871 −0.499 −0.976 −0.837 −2.013 −0.735
07/16/2010 Sunny −0.833 −0.499 −0.915 −0.810 −1.034 −0.930

612
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616

Fig. 9. Days from August 2010 illustrating different types of variability of global solar irradiance. The days 9, 25 and 28 are characterized by well-defined types of
variability while the days 1, 13 and 18 are characterized by a mix of the three types of variability, described in Section 4.3.

Table 4 standard deviation of increments σ(dk), the number of fronts Fr, the
Correlation matrix of the six quantifiers. integrated complementary cumulative distribution function of the in-
I SSSN SI σ(dk) Fr D(G) crements I, the sunshine stability number SSSN and the fractal dimen-
sion D(G). I is a new quantifier developed in this study. Generally, the
I 1 0.931 0.971 0.966 0.935 0.795 results showed that the SSSN and SI are suitable in capturing the high-
SSSN 0.931 1 0.957 0.870 0.798 0.763 frequency fluctuations, while σ(dk) and Fr are suitable in capturing the
SI 0.971 0.957 1 0.918 0.838 0.823
σ(dk) 0.966 0.870 0.918 1 0.941 0.855
intermittent type of variability. Only the new quantifier I proves its
Fr 0.935 0.798 0.838 0.941 1 0.667 ability of capturing the different facets of the solar irradiance varia-
D(G) 0.795 0.763 0.823 0.855 0.667 1 bility. Since the individual quantifiers express the same level of varia-
bility at different magnitudes, a normalizing procedure of the quanti-
fiers values (inspired from the standardization of the normal
Table 5 distribution) was applied. This was a key task in comparing the output
Percentage of similarity between each individual quantifier and the proposed of the six quantifiers, which opens a way toward a unique standard in
procedure in classifying the test days.
the evaluation of the solar irradiance variability. A new multi-para-
Quantifier I Fr SI σ(dk) D(G) SSSN meter ranking procedure for classifying days according to the solar ir-
radiance variability was introduced. The procedure postulates a day as
Similarity percentage 91.5% 66.1% 83.0% 86.4% 75.4% 78.8%
being certainly in a given category of the solar the irradiance variability
pattern (stable or highly-unstable) if it is classified as such by at least
quantifiers and the proposed procedure are presented in Appendix B. four of the six quantifiers. Out of the six quantifiers, only the newly
Table 5 summarizes the percentage of similarity between each in- introduced quantifier I presented a reliable behavior, classifying all
dividual quantifier and the proposed procedure in classifying the test highly-unstable and stable days correctly according to the procedure
days. It can be seen that the new quantifier I reaches the greatest per- proposed in this work.
centage of similarity, confirming its high ability in classifying the days
according to the solar irradiance variability pattern.
Acknowledgments
5. Conclusions
The authors thank the reviewers for useful comments and sugges-
This study focused on the ability of different quantifiers to capture tions. This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National
the peculiarities of the solar irradiance variability. Six quantifiers, very Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS/CCCDI –
different in their nature, were analyzed: the stability index SI, the UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P2-2.1-PED-2016-0592.

613
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616

Appendix A. Variation of solar irradiance in every day of August 2010

See Fig. A1.

Fig. A1. Variation of the global solar irradiance for all days of August 2010 recorded at the Solar Platform of the West University of Timisoara, Romania.

614
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu
Appendix B. Classification tables
See Table B1.
Table B1
Classification of the days from four months of 2010 into stable (green), intermediate (yellow) and highly unstable (red) by the individual
quantifiers and the multi-parameter ranking procedure (MR). White square indicates no recorded data.
References
Badescu, V., Paulescu, M., 2011. Statistical properties of the sunshine number illustrated
with measurements from Timisoara (Romania). Atmos. Res. 101, 194–204.
Badescu, V., Gueymard, C.A., Cheval, S., Oprea, C., Baciu, M., Dumitrescu, A., Iacobescu,
F., Milos, I., Bada, C., 2013. Accuracy analysis for fifty-four clear-sky solar radiation
models using routine hourly global irradiance measurements in Romania. Renew.
Energy 55, 85–103.
Cebecauer, T., Suri, M., 2015. Typical Meteorological Year data: SolarGIS approach.
Energy Proc. 69, 1958–1969.
Dubuc, B., Quiniou, J.F., Roques-Carmes, C., Tricot, C., Zucker, S.W., 1989. Evaluating
the fractal dimension of profiles. Phys. Rev. A 39, 1500–1512.
Gueymard, C.A., 2004. The sun’s total and spectral irradiance for solar energy applica-
tions and solar radiations models. Sol. Energy 76, 423–453.
Harrouni, S., 2008. Fractal classification of typical meteorological days from global solar
irradiance: Application to five sites of different climates. In: Badescu, V. (Ed.),
Modeling Solar Radiation at the Earth Surface. Springer, Berlin, pp. 29–54.
Inman, R.H., Chu, Y., Coimbra, C.F.M., 2016. Cloud enhancement of global horizontal
irradiance in California and Hawaii. Sol. Energy 130, 128–138.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., Rubel, F., 2006. World Map of the Köppen-
Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15, 259–263.
Lauret, P., Perez, R., Aguiar, L.M., Tapaches, E., Diagne, H.M., David, M., 2016.
Characterization of the intraday variability regime of solar irradiation of climatically
distinct locations. Sol. Energy 125, 99–110.
Lave, M., Kleissl, J., Stein, J., 2013. Quantifying and simulating solar-plant variability
using irradiance data. In: Kleissl, J. (Ed.), Solar energy forecasting and resources
assessment. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 149–169.
Lave, M., Reno, M.J., Broderick, R.J., 2015. Characterizing local high-frequency solar
variability and its impact to distribution studies. Sol. Energy 118, 327–337.
Liu, B.Y., Jordan, R.C., 1960. The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of di-
rect, diffuse and total solar radiation. Sol. Energy 4, 1–19.
Lohmann, G.M., 2018. Irradiance variability quantification and small-scale averaging in
space and time: a short review. Preprints 2018060308. https://doi.org/10.20944/
615
Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616
preprints201806.0308.v1.
Lucaciu, S., Blaga, R., Stefu, N., Paulescu, M., 2017. Quantification of the solar radiative
regime variability based on the clearness index. Ann. West Univ. Timisoara – Phys. 59
(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1515/awutp-2016-0003.
Maafi, A., Harrouni, S., 2003. Preliminary results of the fractal classification of daily solar
irradiances. Sol. Energy 75, 53–61.
Mills, A., Ahlstrom, M., Brower, M., Ellis, A., George, R., Hoff, T., Kroposki, B., Lenox, C.,
Miller, N., Milligan, M., Stein, J., Wan, Y.-h., 2011. Dark shadows. understanding
variability and uncertainty of photovoltaics for integration with the electric power
system. IEEE Power Energy M 9, 33–41.
Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C., 2011. Applied statistics and probability for engineers.
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 501–502.
Osborne, J.W., 2010. Improving your data transformations: Applying the Box-Cox
transformation. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 15/Nr. 12. Available
online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=12 (Accessed in May 2018).
Paulescu, M., Badescu, V., 2011. New approach to measure the stability of the solar ra-
diative regime. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 103, 459–470.
Paulescu, M., Mares, O., Paulescu, E., Stefu, N., Pacurar, A., Calinoiu, D., Gravila, P., Pop,
N., Boata, R., 2014. Nowcasting solar irradiance using the sunshine number. Energ.
Conv. Manage. 79, 690–697.
Paulescu, E., Blaga, R., 2016. Regression models for hourly diffuse solar radiation. Sol.
Energy 125, 111–124.
Paulescu, E., Blaga, R., 2018. A simple and accurate empirical model for estimating dif-
fuse fraction at 1-minute resolution, submitted to Sol. Energy.
Peled, A., Appelbaum, J., 2013. Evaluation of solar radiation properties by statistical tools
and wavelet analysis. Renew. Energy 59, 30–38.
Perez, R., Kivalov, S., Schlemmer, J., Hemker Jr., K., Hoff, T., 2011. Parameterization of
site-specific short-term irradiance variability. Sol. Energy 85, 1343–1353.
Perez, R., David, M., Hoff, T.E., Jamaly, M., Kivalov, S., Kleissl, J., Lauret, P., Perez, M.,
2016. Spatial and temporal variability of solar energy. Foundations and Trends®.
Renew. Energy 1 (1), 1–44.
Polo, J., Zarzalejo, L.F., Marchante, R., Navarro, A.A., 2011. A simple approach to the
synthetic generation of solar irradiance time series with high temporal resolution.
Sol. Energy 85, 1164–1170.
R. Blaga, M. Paulescu
Schroedter-Homscheidt, M., Kosmale, M., Jung, S., Kleissl, J., 2018. Classifying ground-
measured 1 minute temporal variability within hourly intervals for direct normal
irradiances. PrePub. Meteorologische Zeitschrift. https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/
2018/0875.
Solar Platform, 2017. Solar Platform of the West University of Timisoara. http://solar.
physics.uvt.ro/srms. (Accessed on April 2018).
Soubdhan, T., Emilion, R., Calif, R., 2009. Classification of daily solar radiation dis-
tributions using a mixture of Dirichlet distributions. Sol. Energy 83, 1056–1063.
Spencer, J.W., 1971. Fourier series representation of the position of the Sun. Search 2,
172–175.
616
Solar Energy 174 (2018) 606–616
Tomson, T., 2010. Fast dynamic processes of solar radiation. Sol. Energy 84, 18–323.
Tomson, T., Tamm, G., 2006. Short-term variability of solar radiation. Sol. Energy 80,
600–606.
Tomson, T., Russak, V., Kallis, A., 2008. Dynamic behavior of solar radiation. In: Badescu,
V. (Ed.), Modeling Solar Radiation at the Earth Surface. Springer, Berlin, pp.
257–281.
WMO, 2008. Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation, WMO-
No.8/2008. http://www.wmo.int/ (Accessed in April 2018).
Woyte, A., Belmans, R., Nijs, J., 2007. Fluctuations in instantaneous clearness index:
Analysis and statistics. Sol. Energy 81, 195–206.