Solar Energy 81 (2007) 692–695

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Short Note

Experimental testing of models for the estimation of hourly

solar radiation on vertical surfaces at Arcavacata di Rende
M. Cucumo, A. De Rosa, V. Ferraro, D. Kaliakatsos *, V. Marinelli
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Calabria, 87030 Arcavacata di Rende (CS), Italy

Received 14 June 2005; received in revised form 5 September 2006; accepted 6 September 2006
Available online 16 October 2006

Communicated by: Associate Editor Pierre Ineichen

Abstract

More than 55,000 data of hourly solar radiation on a horizontal surface and on vertical surfaces exposed to the south, west, north and
east, measured at Arcavacata di Rende (CS), were compared with hourly radiation data calculated by various calculation models.
Erbs, Reindl et al. and Skartveit et al. correlations for the split of hourly global radiation in the diffuse and beam components were
used together with the isotropic sky model and three anisotropic sky models.
The agreement between experimental and calculated data is generally good.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solar radiation; Tilted surfaces; Calculation models validation

1. Introduction et al. (1982), the correlations developed by Reindl et al.

The calculation of hourly solar radiation on tilted and
vertical surfaces with various orientations is of great
importance in many practical applications of solar energy,
such as the calculation of the energy use of buildings, pas-
sive heating of buildings, the evaluation of photovoltaic
plants and so on.
Usually hourly global radiation is measured on a hori-
zontal plane, and radiation on tilted or variably orientated
vertical surfaces is calculated by means of composition
models. Global radiation on a horizontal plane is decom-
posed, by correlations, into the diffuse and beam compo-
nent and starting from these data the global radiation on
the surfaces involved is reassembled as the sum of beam
and diffuse solar radiation and that reflected from the
ground and the surroundings (Cucumo et al., 1994).
Among the best-known split correlations are those of Erbs
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0984 494603; fax: +39 0984 494673.
E-mail address: dimitri@unical.it (D. Kaliakatsos).
(1990a), denominated, in this paper, in order of increasing
complexity, Reindl1, Reindl2, Reindl3 and the new Skart-
veit et al. (1998) correlation.
The most used model for the calculation of incident
solar radiation on a surface inclined and orientated in
any way is the isotropic model (Cucumo et al., 1994), which
assumes that the sky is an isotropic source of diffuse radi-
ation. In addition to the isotropic model, other models
have been developed called anisotropic models (Cucumo
et al., 1994), in which diffuse radiation is equal to the
sum of two or three parts: one part called circumsolar, con-
sisting of diffuse radiation scattered ahead along the solar
rays, concentrated in a cone around the sun and striking
the tilted surface with an angle of incidence equal to that
of the beam radiation; an isotropic part evenly emitted
from the rest of the sky, and a third part called the horizon
brightness, more pronounced on clear days, coming from a
thin strip of sky along the horizon.
Among the anisotropic models, in this brief note three
models have been considered: the Hay and Davis model
(Hay and Davies, 1980) in which horizon brightness is

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2006.09.002
 M. Cucumo et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 692–695 693

Nomenclature

Dh diffuse solar radiation on a horizontal plane q reflection coefficient of the ground (–)
(W/m2) e mean percentage deviation (%)
Bh beam solar radiation on a horizontal plane RMS root mean square percentage deviation (%)
(W/m2)

not considered and diffuse radiation on a horizontal plane
is the sum of the isotropic and circumsolar component; the
HDKR model (Reindl et al., 1990b), developed by Reindl,
extending that of Hay and Davies taking into account hori-
zon brightness on the basis of Klucher’s experimental
observations; and finally, the Perez et al. model (Perez
et al., 1986), which is based on a more detailed analysis
of the three components of diffuse radiation and which
appears to be the most complete since it considers eight
kinds of sky, ranging from completely clear to completely
covered.
2. Experimental testing of models
The above-mentioned calculation models were com-
pared with experimental data taken at the Variable Orien-
tation Testing Station at the University of Calabria, which
is equipped with five Kipp and Zonen pyranometers, one of
them placed on a horizontal plane and the other four
placed on the vertical surfaces orientated to the south, east,
west and north.
More than 11,000 hourly global radiation data for each
orientation taken to Arcavacata di Rende (CS) (latitude:
39°18 0 N, longitude: 16°15 0 E) were compared with the pre-
diction models.
First, the Erbs correlation was used for the division of
the hourly global radiation on a horizontal plane in the dif-
fuse Dh and beam Bh components and the 0.2 value sug-
gested by Liu and Jordan (Cucumo et al., 1994) for the
reflection coefficient q of the ground, the buildings and
the surroundings of the testing station was used.
Table 1 shows the mean percentage deviations e and the
root mean square percentage deviations RMS between the
hourly global radiation predictions on the variably orien-
tated vertical surfaces obtained with the four models and
the experimental values.
Examination of the results demonstrates that, for the
south direction, the best model is the isotropic, for east the
best model is Hay and Davies, for north the Perez and for
west the Hay and Davies. However, notable prediction dif-
ferences among the various models are not observed, with
the exception of north direction. Fig. 1a shows the best
model for each orientation.
Since an experimental study carried out by Ineichen
et al. in Geneva (Ineichen et al., 1987) pointed out the
dependence of q on various expositions, with measured

Table 1
Mean percentage deviations e and root mean square percentage deviations RMS with q = 0.2 and Erbs split correlation
South West North East emed RMSmed
e RMS e RMS e RMS e RMS
Isotropic 0.55 19.2 8.96 26.72 15.58 27.69 12.09 30.49 9.02 26.02
Hay and Davies 1.33 19.28 2.63 22.24 4.35 23.95 3.01 25.85 1.32 22.83
HDKR 2.80 19.66 3.82 24.03 4.13 26.11 9.43 29.14 5.04 24.73
Perez 5.21 19.43 5.98 21.26 4.73 19.45 9.58 26.02 6.37 21.54

Fig. 1. Best models for the four orientations.

694 M. Cucumo et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 692–695

Table 2
Mean percentage deviations e and root mean square percentage deviations RMS for q = 0.15 and Erbs split correlation
South West North East emed RMSmed
e RMS e RMS e RMS e RMS
Isotropic 5.72 18.83 0.22 22.40 4.44 22.03 4.11 25.78 0.76 22.26
Hay and Davies 6.50 20.27 11.37 25.39 15.6 29.20 4.97 26.62 9.61 25.37
HDKR 2.37 19.35 4.92 24.34 7.11 27.64 1.45 27.50 3.24 24.71
Perez 0.04 18.17 2.76 19.35 6.52 18.94 1.61 23.36 1.91 19.96

Table 3
Mean percentage deviations e and root mean square percentage deviations RMS for q = 0.15 and different split correlations
South West North East emed RMSmed
e RMS e RMS e RMS e RMS
Isotropic Erbs 5.72 18.83 0.22 22.40 4.34 22.03 4.11 25.78 0.74 22.26
Reindl1 5.19 18.64 1.81 22.76 6.61 21.86 5.16 26.02 2.10 22.32
Reindl2 4.89 18.70 4.09 24.36 10.50 24.77 7.42 27.46 4.28 23.82
Reindl3 5.18 19.00 4.59 24.75 9.74 26.00 6.21 26.13 3.84 23.97
Skartveit 7.90 18.57 0.21 22.38 5.25 23.29 2.63 26.66 0.05 22.73
Hay and Davies Erbs 6.50 20.27 11.37 25.39 15.60 29.20 4.97 26.62 9.61 25.37
Reindl1 5.96 19.71 10.51 23.65 14.60 26.57 4.48 25.14 8.89 23.77
Reindl2 5.83 19.78 8.88 23.10 11.74 25.59 2.79 24.76 7.31 23.31
Reindl3 6.03 20.21 8.30 23.16 12.19 26.64 3.73 24.80 7.56 23.70
Skartveit 8.08 20.23 10.17 25.39 14.03 28.55 4.61 25.74 9.22 24.98
HDKR Erbs 2.37 19.35 4.92 24.34 7.11 27.64 1.45 27.50 3.24 24.71
Reindl1 1.55 18.89 3.56 22.60 5.46 24.71 2.39 26.12 2.05 23.08
Reindl2 1.38 18.86 1.71 22.51 2.25 24.57 4.27 26.16 0.27 23.03
Reindl3 1.59 19.38 1.10 22.87 2.77 25.84 3.20 25.69 0.57 23.44
Skartveit 1.71 18.93 4.80 24.36 5.59 27.69 1.26 27.11 2.71 24.52
Perez Erbs 0.04 18.17 2.76 19.35 6.52 18.94 1.61 23.36 1.91 19.95
Reindl1 0.54 18.22 1.78 19.36 5.30 18.40 2.19 23.40 1.09 19.84
Reindl2 0.74 18.23 0.46 18.98 3.05 17.61 3.56 23.24 0.20 19.51
Reindl3 0.52 18.32 0.13 18.81 3.59 18.15 2.75 22.59 0.11 19.47
Skartveit 0.03 18.15 2.76 18.85 5.96 18.24 1.53 22.84 1.79 19.52

values of q close to 0.15, in an environmental context
apparently similar to that of the Testing Station of the Uni-
versity of Calabria is located, it was considered useful to
repeat the analysis with a value of q = 0.15. Table 2 shows
the mean percentage deviations and the root mean square
percentage deviations obtained with q = 0.15. For all ori-
entations, the best model appears to be that of Perez.
Since the use of q = 0.15 instead of q = 0.20 produces
a general improvement of predictions, for almost all mod-
els, the value of q = 0.15 has been chosen and then the
influence on e and RMS of the various split correlations
was explored. The results of the analysis are reported in
Table 3 and Fig. 1b shows the best model for each orien-
tation.
Examining Table 3 it can be noted that, for all direc-
tions, the Perez anisotropic model, independently of the
split correlations, gives the best results, especially for the
RMS. More precisely, for the south direction, the best
results are given by the Perez–Skartveit combination; for
the west direction by the Perez–Reindl3 combination; for
the north direction by the Perez–Reindl2 and for the direc-
tion east by the Perez–Skartveit combination. However, the
influence of the split correlations is not much important.
Fig. 1c summarizes these indications.
2.1. Conclusions
More than 55,000 hourly radiation data on vertical sur-
faces orientated to the south, west, north and east were
compared with various isotropic and anisotropic calcula-
tion models.
At first the Erbs correlation was used for the decompo-
sition of the global radiation on a horizontal plane in the
two diffuse and beam components and the conventional
value of the ground reflection coefficient at q = 0.2 was
assumed.
Analysis of the results revealed that there are no major
variations among the predictions of the various models.
The difference of the mean deviations being generally con-
tained within a 10% range (with exception of the north
direction for which the maximum difference is 20%). For
the south direction, the best model is the isotropic, for
the west that of Hay and Davies, for the north Perez and
for the east direction the Hay and Davies model.
 M. Cucumo et al. / Solar Energy 81 (2007) 692–695
Analysis of the results obtained for q = 0.15 showed
that, with this value, the Perez model is the best model
for all orientations.
The influence on the results of the use of the split corre-
lations was studied. For the values of e, maximum differ-
ences of 6% were observed for the north direction, while
for the other directions they were contained between 1%
and 4%.
In particular, for the south direction, the best results
were given by the Perez–Skartveit combination with e ¼
0:03% and RMS = 18.15%; for the west direction by
the Perez–Reindl3 combination with e ¼ 0:13% and
RMS = 18.81; for the north direction by the Perez–Reindl2
e ¼ 3:05% and RMS = 17.61%, for the direction east by the
Perez–Skartveit with e ¼ 1:53% and RMS = 22.84%.
In the conclusion, it can be outdrawn that with low pre-
cision input data, the importance of the model is not
important. In contrary, to obtain better transposition val-
ues, a more accurate model is necessary, and a precise input
like the albedo is essential.
695
References
Cucumo, M., Marinelli, V., Oliveti, G., 1994. Ingegneria Solare, Principi
ed Applicazioni, Pitagora Editrice, Bologna.
Erbs, D.G., Klein, S.A., Duffie, J.A., 1982. Estimation of the diffuse
radiation fraction for hourly, daily and monthly average global
radiation. Solar Energy 28, 293–302.
Hay, J.E., Davies, J.A., 1980. Calculation of Solar Radiation Incident on
an Inclined Surface. In: Proceedings of first canadian solar radiation
data workshop, Ministry of Supply and Service Canada, 59.
Ineichen, P., Perez, R., Seals, R., 1987. The importance of correct albedo
determination for adequately modelling energy received by tilted
surfaces. Solar Energy 39 (No. 4), 301–306.
Perez, R. et al., 1986. An anisotropic hourly diffuse radiation model for
sloping surfaces: description, performance, validation, site dependency
evaluation. Solar Energy 36, 481–575.
Reindl, D.T., Beckman, W.A., Duffie, J.A., 1990a. Diffuse fraction
correlations. Solar Energy 45, 1–7.
Reindl, D.T., Beckman, W.A., Duffie, J.A., 1990b. Evaluation of hourly
tilted surface radiation models. Solar Energy 45, 9–17.
Skartveit, A., Olseth, J.A., Tuft, M.E., 1998. An hourly diffuse fraction
model with correction for variability and surface albedo. Solar Energy
63, 173–183.