Energy Vol. 20. No. 7, pp. 657467.

1995
Pergamon Coovrieht 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in &eat Britain. All rights reserved
036G5442195 $9.50 + 0.00

DIFFUSE RADIATION MODELS AND MONTHLY-AVERAGE,

DAILY, DIFFUSE DATA FOR A WIDE LATITUDE RANGE

K. K. GOPINATHAN? and ALFONSO SOLER

Departamento de Fisica e Instalaciones, Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura, Avda Juan Herrera,
28040 Madrid, Spain

(Received 6 June 1994; received for publication 10 January 1995)

Abstract-Several years of measured data on global and diffuse radiation and sunshine duration
for 40 widely spread locations in the latitude range 36” S to 60” N are used to develop and test
models for estimating monthly-mean, daily, diffuse radiation on horizontal surfaces. Applicability
of the clearness-index (K) and sunshine fraction (S/So) models for diffuse estimation and the
effect of combining several variables into a single multilinear equation are tested. Correlations
connecting the diffuse to global fraction (HdIH) with K and S/So predict Hd values more accu-
rately than their separate use. Among clearness-index and sunshine-fraction models, S/So models
are found to have better accuracy if correlations are developed for wide latitude ranges. By includ-
ing a term for declinations in the correlation, the accuracy of the estimated data can be marginally
improved. The addition of latitude to the equation does not help to improve the accuracy further.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important requirements in the design of solar energy-conversion equipment is infor-
mation on solar radiation and its components at a given location. Interest in solar energy as an alternate
energy source has increased the demand for solar-radiation and climatological information for use in
system design and performance evaluation, The most important radiation parameters used in solar
energy techniques are global, diffuse, and direct radiation and, for most applications, global radiation
on horizontal and tilted surfaces is needed. The diffuse radiation has special areas of applications and
a data base of systematically-measured diffuse radiation, given on a daily or hourly basis, is a require-
ment in most solar energy studies. Since the measurement of diffuse data is relatively more tedious
and expensive, it is carried out at relatively few stations and must often be estimated from theoretical
or empirical correlations. A host of correlations is available in the literature for estimating monthly-
mean, daily, diffuse radiation on horizontal surfaces. All of these correlations fall into two major categ-
ories, depending on whether the dependent variable used in the estimation correlation is the cleamess-
index (K = H/Ho) or the sunshine-fraction (S/So), where H is the monthly-mean, daily, global radiation
on a horizontal surface; the monthly-mean daily extraterrestrial radiation is Ho, the monthly-average
daily sunshine duration S, and the monthly-mean daily maximum possible number of sunshine hours
is So. The models proposed by Page,’ Liu and Jordan, 2 Collares-Pereira and RabL3 etc. fall under the
K group whereas the techniques of Iqbal,4 Hay,’ etc. fall among the S/So type.
It is well established that HdIH or Hd/Ho fractions have linear dependence on both K and S/So and
any correlation connecting HdIH or Hd/Ho with one of these parameters would be able to evaluate
Hd for any location. The dependence can be expressed either in the form of a first-order equation, as
suggested by Page,’ Iqbal,4 etc., or by higher-order polynomial equations as given by Liu and Jordan,’
Collares-Pereira,3 Hay’ etc. It is also possible to express HdIH as a function of both K and S/So together
and thus obtain a multiple linear correlation. It has been reported 6.7 that by combining the two variables,
one can improve the accuracy of the estimated data, in agreement with experimental results analysed
by Soler.8 for the dependence of the daily sunshine fraction on HdIH vs K correlation. While the
improvement in the estimated data from this technique is substantial for some regions,6.7 the difference
is less significant in some other cases9 and the concept of combining the variables within a single
equation needs more investigation to prove its world-wide applicability. A recent studyI at European

tpermanent address: Department of Physics, National University of Lesotho, Roma, Lesotho, Southern Africa.
657
658 K. K. Copinathan and Alfonso Soler

locations, of using values of Hd calculated with the C.E.C. solar radiation model, has shown that by
adding a term on declination, one can improve the accuracy of the estimated Hd values. However, this
observation has not yet been tested with experimental data.
The main task in using all of the identified techniques lies in choosing the right type of correlation
for a particular location or region of interest. Some investigators’ ‘.‘* have reported K equations as most
accurate for some locations, whereas othersI have found the S/So type of correlations more useful.
The correlations of Page’ and Liu and Jordan’ are extensively used but some investigators employed
them without properly assessing the suitability of the equations to their regions of interest. Moreover,
the correlation constants of these equations are site- or region dependent,‘0*‘4 and the use of constants
derived for any particular region to locations in distant regions is somewhat questionable. If measured
data are available for many locations in a region, one of the possible ways to overcome this difficulty
is to calculate Hd from various parameters and then obtain the best correlation. However, this is not
always possible as measured data are not available for many regions, especially in the developing world,
and one is then forced to make a random selection. A more detailed and comprehensive examination
of all of these diffuse models is found to be necessary to test which of the parameters K and S/So
gives better results for estimating Hd values. The main purpose of this paper is to test the applicability
of basic K and S/So correlations worldwide and to recommend the most acceptable parameters for Hd
estimations. We also investigate the effect of combining K and S/So and determine whether such
multiple linear equations are valid for wide latitude ranges and also for any single station. We investigate
and find the optimum number of variables that is to be included in the correlation to obtain the best
estimation results and then test the effect of declinations and latitudes in this connection.
Most of the correlations now available are based on experimental data from relatively few locations
and no previous effort has been published to prepare a correlation from data for a large number of
stations worldwide. Page’s’ correlation was developed from data on 10 stations and the Liu and Jordan’
equation is based on one location. The Collares-Pereira and Rab13 equation was obtained from U.S.
data, while Iqba14used data from 3 Canadian locations to develop his model. Gopinathan’s model6 was
first developed from 3 Indian stations and then from data on 5 Spanish locations for applications in
Spain.’ In the present study, a more detailed and extensive procedure is followed in developing the
models by employing experimental data for 40 stations from Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America.
These equations and procedures are expected to have universal application.

COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES

Experimental data on H, Hd, and S reported in the literature 15-*’for 40 locations in the range 36” S
to 60” N have been used in linear and multiply-linear regression analysis to obtain the regression coef-
ficients A,B,C,D,E of the following equations:

HdIH=A,+A,K, (1)
HdIH = B. + Bl S/So, (2)
HdIH = Co + C,K + C, S/So, (3)
HdIH = Do + D,K + D2 S/So + D3 cos 6, (4)
HdIH=Eo+ElK+E2S/So+E,cos6+E4cos~, (5)

where 6 is the mean declination value corresponding to each month of the year and 4 is the latitude
of the stations in degrees. The monthly-mean, daily extraterrestrial radiation Ho, the monthly-mean,
daily maximum possible number of sunshine hours So and the declination values are all calculated by
using standard procedures.28

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The 40 locations selected to develop the models are given in Table 1, along with their latitudes and
elevations. The latitudes of the stations vary from 35.98” S for Port Elizabeth to 60.13” N for Lerwick.
 Global and diffuse radiation 659

Table I. Latitudes and elevations of the 40 locations used.

No. Station Latitude Elevation

Degrees metres

1 Port Elizabeth -35.98 61

2 Cape Town -33.90 17
3 Durban -29.83 5
4 Maseru -29.19 1571
5 Bloemfonteiu -29.12 1422
6 Alexander Bay -28.57 12
7 Pretoria -25.75 1369
8 Windhoek -22.57 1217
9 Bulawayo -20.15 1343
10 Mauri -19.98 945
11 Harare -17.83 1471
12 Madras 13.08 16
13 Poona 18.53 559
14 Calcutta 22.50 6
15 Bahrain 27.00
16 Delhi 28.67 216
17 Huntsville 34.58 190
18 Malaga 36.67 7
19 Murcia 38.00 69
20 Palermo 38.12 55
21 Lisboa 38.72 77
22 Caceres 39.47 405
23 Palma De Mallorca 39.55 10
24 Coimbra 40.20 141
25 Madrid 40.40 667
26 Port0 41.13 96
27 Logrono 42.47 373
28 Macerata 43.20 338
29 Oviedo 43.50 348
30 Genova 44.42 55
31 Montreal 45.50 133
32 Jersey 49.22 83
33 Uccle 50.80 105
34 Kew 51.47 5
35 London 51.52 77
36 Aberporth 52.13 133
37 Cambridge 52.27 23
38 Aldergrove 54.65 68
39 Eskdalemuir 55.32 242
40 Lerwick 60.13 82

Each of these stations is first treated separately and the A,B,C constants are obtained for all 40 stations
by using Eqs. (l-3). The regression coefficients, the correlation coefficients (r) and the standard error
estimates (S.E.) for 1.5 of the 40 locations are given in Table 2. An analysis is then made of the
combined data on HdIH, KT, S/So, cos 6, and cos C#Ifor 40 stations (40 x 12 = 480 sets of values) to
 660 K. K. Gopinathan and Alfonso Soler

Table 2. The regression parameters, standard errors (S.E.) and correlation coefficients (r) from models I to
30 for 15 locations.
I
Station Model Correlation S.E r
I
Port Elizabe 1 = 0.8396 - 0.8756 K 0.03500 0.5405
2 = 0.6624 - 0.5338 S/So 0.03210 3.6363
3 Hd/H = 1.1755-0.8637 K -0.5286 S/So 0.02440 0.8302

Mauu 1 H&H = 1.1893 -1.4946 K 0.04087 3.9127

2 Hd5-I = 0.7333 - 0.5982 S/So 0.02856 I.9584
3 HUH = 0.2909 + 1.3619 K - 1.1082 S/S 0.02529 0.9708

Harare 1 Hd/H = 1.2515 -1.4889 K 0.01979 0.9834

2 H&H = 0.7556 - 0.6826 S/So 0.03117 0.9582
3 H&H = 1.6612-2.8164 K+ 0.6332 S/So 0.01571 0.9906

Madras 1 Hd/H = 1.2317- 1.4066 K 0.04025 0.9265

2 HcVH = 0.7986 - 0.5898 S/So 0.04606 0.9026
3 HUH = 1.1109 - 0.8628 K- 0.3012 S/So 0.02702 3.9709

Calcutta 1 Hd/H = 1.3369 -1.6020 K 0.03917 I.9591

2 H&H = 0.8613 - 0.6664 S/So 0.03 167 !.9734
3 H&H = 1.0569 -0.6222 K -0.4261 S/So 0.02802 I.9814

Bahrain 1 Hd/H = 1.4640 -1.9623 K 0.01382 0.9482

2 HdIH = 0.5889 - 0.4104 S/So 0.02122 6.8731
3 HdIH = 1.4334 -1.8884 K-O.01836 S/So 0.01455 0.9483

Huntsville 1 H&H = 0.7251- 0.7214 K 0.02865 I.7797

2 H&H = 0.5657 - 0.3135 S/So 0.03887 1.5272
3 H&H = 0.7818 - 0.6266 K- 0.1661 S/So 0.02746 I.8222

Malaga H&H = 0.5113 - 0.3254 K 0.03850 0.4473

Hd/H = 0.5570 - 0.3651 S/So 0.02688 0.7807
HdiH = 0.4655 -0.3843 K- 0.5648 S/So 0.02457 0.8405

Macerata H&H = 0.9621-0.9566 K 0.03375 I.9148

H&H = 0.6857 - 0.6113 S/So 0.03621 I.9012
Hd/H = 0.8665-0.5863 K- 0.2602 S/So cr.03312 1.9266

Oviedo Hd/H = 0.9024 - 0.8576 K 0.02695 D.5861

Hd!H = 0.8249 - 0.7569 S/So 0.02106 I.7741
Hd/H = 0.9350 -0.3783 K - 0.6280 S/So 0.02078 0.8054

continued opposite

obtain the constants of Eqs. (l-5). The regression coefficients r and standard errors of estimates from
the five models are

HdIH = 0.91138 - 0.96225 K, r = 0.83361, S.E. = 0.08068; (6)

HdIH = 0.79819 - 0.69930 S/So, r = 0.92637, S.E. = 0.05501; (7)
HdIH = 0.87813 - 0.33280 K - 0.53039 S/So, r = 0.94404, S.E. = 0.04823; (8)
 Global and diffuse radiation 661

Table 2-continued

Geneva 1 Hd/H = 0.6939 - 0.693 1 K 0.02127 1.9166

2 Hd/H = 0.5960 - 0.4362 S/So 0.03729 I.7131
3 Hd/H = 0.6907 -0.8360 K + 0.1364 s/So 0.02141 I.9242

Montreal 1 Hd/H = 0.7986 - 0.6843 K 0.04921 1.6262

2 Hd/H = 0.7406 -0.5580 S/So 0.02553 I.9145
3 Hd/H = 0.7345 +0.0219 K- 0.5665 S/So 0.02690 I.9147

Jefsey 1 I-Id/H= 0.9739 - 1.0104 K 0.01745 D.9813

2 Id&I = 0.8268 - 0.7055 S/So 0.01620 0.9839
3 Id/H = 0.8799 -0.3566 K - 0.4593 s/So 0.01651 3.9849

Uccle 1 Id/H = 0.8973 - 0.8273 K 0.01608 0.8924

2 id/H = 0.5054 - 0.3803 s/So 0.00947 0.9640
3 Id/H =0.4451+ 0.1219 K- 0.4291 S/So 0.00984 0.9650

KeW 1 W/H = 0.9328 - 0.9151 K 0.01690 0.9623

2 Id/H = 0.8001 - 0.5910 S/So 0.01921 0.95 10
3 Id/H = 1.1034 -2.1193 K + 0.7894 S/So 0.01651 0.9677

HdIH = 1.01833 - 033029 K - 0.53 110 S/So - 0.14696 cos 6, r = 0.94448,

S.E. = 0.04810; (9)

HdIH = 1.01267 - 0.33058 K - 0.53656 S/So - 0.14698 COSS+ 0.011427 cos C#J

r = 0.94450, S.E. = 0.04814 . (10)

Applicability of Eqs. (6-10) [or of models l-5, with Eq. (6) for model 1, Eq. (7) for model 2, etc.]
for predicting the Hd values is tested by calculating the monthly-mean, daily, diffuse radiation for each
month for all the 40 stations and then comparing these with experimental data. The accuracy of the
predicted data is tested by estimating the mean bias (MBE) and root-mean-square (RMSE) errors for
each of the stations with standard techniques. 29 The MBE and RMSE values in MJ-me2 are given in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
A study of the results in Table 2 shows that with Eqs. (1) and (2), the K correlations give better
results in terms of higher correlation coefficients and lower standard-error values for 7 stations, whereas
the S/So equations give improved performance for the remaining 8 stations. The differences between
the correlation coefficients from the two equations are quite significant for stations such as Port Eliza-
beth, Bahrain, Huntsville, Malaga, Oviedo, Genova, Montreal, Uccle, etc. Though the results for only
15 stations are included in Table 2, the regression analysis was carried out for all 40 stations. The
general performance is as follows: the K equations give better results in terms of r and S.E. for 19
locations and the S/So equations show better performance for the remaining 21 stations. None of the
two alternatives is thus universally acceptable as the best for all locations and one should not blindly
choose any of the two correlations for estimation purposes without properly assessing the merit of the
type of correlation to be used for the region. A study of the results in Table 2 indicates that model 3
improves the correlation coefficient and reduces the standard-error values for all 15 stations in the table.
The improvement is quite significant for some stations such as Port Elizabeth, Maun, Madras, Hunts-
ville, Malaga, Oviedo, etc. Moreover, model 3 improves the correlation coefficient and standard-error
values for all 40 stations to some degree. Because the accuracy of the estimated data is determined by
the coefficient of correlation and also the standard error of estimate, it is quite evident that correlations
of the type given in Eq. (8) are most accurate and consistent for estimating monthly- mean, daily,
diffuse radiation for any location, irrespective of climatic conditions. Thus, by combining the two
variables, one can considerably improve the accuracy of the estimated data. The technique is therefore
of universal applicability.
A comparative study of Eqs. (6-10) indicates that the correlation coefficient improves progressively
662 K. K. Gopinathan and Alfonso Soler

Table 3. Mean bias errors (MBE) in MJ-m-‘-day-’ from 5 models for 40 locations.
--
Station Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Number

1 0.2022 0.5535 0.3299 0.3325 0.3311

2 0.2242 0.6507 0.3069 0.3118 0.3087
3 0.6309 1.0130 0.9248 0.9252 0.9453
4 0.3678 0.0990 0.0539 0.0509 0.0482
5 0.6707 0.2184 0.0453 0.0499 0.0469
6 -0.0467 1.0293 0.3737 0.3285 0.3572
7 0.7587 -0.0484 -0.0011 -0.0010 -0.0007
8 0.5402 -0.0221 -0.2528 -0.2463 -0.2416
9 -0.2323 -0.3184 -0.0608 -0.0580 -0.0338
10 0.8870 -0.2566 -0.1534 -0.1524 -0.1368
11 -0.2432 0.2617 -0.0768 -0.0075 -0.0046
12 -1.2820 -1.3490 -1.4550 -1.4569 -1.4209
13 -1.1070 -1.0980 -1.2940 -1.2940 -1.2690
14 -1.4609 -1.4869 -1.5199 -1.5220 -1.4950
15 1.2569 -0.4879 -0.2479 -0.2459 -0.2469
16 5.9249 -0.9305 1.3001 1.2819 1.2949
17 1.0500 -0.1612 0.1687 0.1687 0.1699
18 0.4320 0.3246 0.2497 0.2540 0.2501
19 -0.1979 -0.1215 -0.2421 -0.2386 -0.2440
20 0.7065 0.3926 0.4411 0.4446 0.4418
21 0.7083 0.1327 0.1917 0.1949. 0.1845
22 0.4802 0.1985 0.1669 0.1704 0.1596
23 0.2487 0.2582 0.1930 0.1966 0.1907
24 0.1800 0.2143 0.1606 0.1628 0.1572
25 0.0578 0.6410 0.3500 0.3555 0.3454
26 -0.808 1 -0.6835 -0.7820 -0.773 1 -0.7816
27 -0.6442 -0.8327 -0.7600 -0.7585 -0.7652
28 -0.7790 1.1620 0.5209 0.5282 0.5205
29 -0.4450 -0.0440 -0.0218 -0.0229 -0.0170
30 1.0549 0.7549 0.8813 0.8819 0.8748
31 -0.0537 -0.1399 -0.0523 -0.05 13 -0.0579
32 -0.4809 -0.3121 -0.2879 -0.2859 -0.2956
33 -0.6989 1.5730 0.8963 0.9030 0.8949
34 -0.3942 -0.4253 -0.2955 -0.2943 -0.3014
35 -0.2261 -0.3871 -0.2142 -0.213 1 -0.2196
36 -0.6848 -0.2139 -0.2382 -0.2363 -0.2448
37 -0.7129 -0.4532 -0.4039 -0.4021 -0.4089
38 -0.7252 -0.3394 -0.3207 -0.3212 -0.3299
39 -0.4845 -0.1556 -0.1077 -0.1067 -0.1137
40 -0.6185 -0.0878 -0.1066 -0.1042 -0.1163

MEAN 0.7177 0.4958 0.4112 0.4083 0.4067

as one moves from Eq. (6) to Eq. (8) and then remains constant without much further improvement.
This result is evident even for the standard errors. The worst of all results is given by the K correlation
of Eq. (6) for which the correlation coefficient is only 0.83, whereas all other equations have values
above 0.92, with models 3, 4, and 5 being better than model 2. This result shows again that better
correlations can be obtained by combining more variables in multiple linear correlations and also that
K equations of the type given by Page’ are not best for estimating diffuse radiation data. It should be
 Global and diffuse radiation 663

Table 4. Root-mean-square errors (RMSE) in MJ-m-‘-day-’ from 5 models for 40 locations.

Station Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Number

1 0.5602 0.9104 0.6315 0.6028 0.6025

2 0.4044 0.7666 0.3974 0.4134 0.4094
3 0.7234 1.0868 0.9829 0.9717 0.9927
4 0.3794 0.2164 0.1643 0.1885 0.1922
5 0.6864 0.4299 0.3120 0.2816 0.2862
6 0.5100 1.2701 0.6403 0.6722 0.6294
7 0.8252 0.3111 0.2481 0.2052 0.2114
8 0.5932 0.8272 0.7226 0.7660 0.7737
9 0.6056 0.4555 0.3176 0.3652 0.3700
10 1.2431 0.6447 0.5990 0.6038 0.6046
11 0.8546 0.6497 0.5400 0.5791 0.5773
12 1.5893 1.4934 1.5241 1.5152 1.483 1
13 2.2492 1.4732 1.6502 1.6391 1.6092
14 1.8390 1.6070 1.6273 1.6304 1.6050
15 1.3871 0.7924 0.5168 0.5135 0.5207
16 6.49 14 1.3536 1.8411 1.7830 1.7871
17 1.2732 0.6147 0.4583 0.4763 0.4783
18 0.6593 0.6205 0.6134 0.5824 0.5873
19 0.5279 0.623 1 0.6890 0.6561 0.6641
20 1.0924 0.6409 0.6402 0.6513 0.6491
21 0.9055 0.2119 0.2305 0.2604 0.2486
22 0.6026 0.2878 0.2602 0.2619 0.2599
23 0.5065 0.5745 0.4438 0.4504 0.4468
24 0.5029 0.3081 0.2740 0.3059 0.3006
25 0.2693 0.8439 0.4846 0.5114 0.5049
26 0.9100 0.7917 0.9071 0.8970 0.9082
27 1.0613 1.2670 1.2133 1.1872 1.1972
28 0.9078 1.3801 0.7526 0.7521 0.7477
29 0.5721 0.2204 0.2090 0.2133 0.2126
30 1.1261 0.8876 0.9757 0.9626 0.9558
31 0.4185 0.4224 0.3582 0.3380 0.3418
32 0.5937 0.4286 0.4209 0.4083 0.4205
33 0.8281 1.7942 1.0091 1.0286 1.0184
34 0.5292 0.5905 0.4628 0.4443 0.4534
35 0.3449 0.5304 0.3397 0.3481 0.3560
36 0.7991 0.2682 0.3033 0.2955 0.3048
37 0.8938 0.623 1 0.5827 0.5611 0.5704
38 0.9269 0.4682 0.4580 0.4535 0.4638
39 0.6332 0.2580 0.2241 0.2122 0.2203
40 0.8104 0.1959 0.2132 0.2048 0.2124

Mean 0.9659 0.7280 0.6309 0.6297 0.6299

remembered that Page’s is the only correlation developed from data for wide latitude ranges, although
he used only 10 stations in developing his model.
Additional parameters such as declination and latitude do not seem to help much in improving the
accuracy of the estimated data, although use of the declination improves the accuracy marginally. This
664 K. K. Gopinathan and Alfonso Soler

finding is in contrast to the observation that the declination may play a role in improving the accuracy
of estimation. It should be noted that neither the declination nor the latitude reduce the accuracy of the
estimation equations and Eqs. (9) and (10) are not inferior to Eq. (8). As declination and latitude are
both constants for a given month and location, there is no harm in including these parameters in the
estimation correlations to achieve marginal improvements in accuracy.
The preceding observations are supplemented and confirmed by results in Tables 3 and 4, which
yield values for the mean MBE and RMSE by dividing the sum of the MBE and RMSE from all
stations by the total number of stations while ignoring the signs for the mean MBE. The mean MBE
and RMSE values decrease as one moves from Eq. (6) onwards. The lowest value is obtained from
Eq. (10). However, the differences between Eqs. (8), (9) and (10) are almost negligible. The K equation
shows poor performance compared to other correlations. Since lower RMSE indicate more accurate
estimation, the best estimates are obtained from Eqs. (8), (9), and (10). Equation (7) comes next and
Eq. (6) is the worst. Because the MBE from all of the models are positive in some cases and negative
in others, none of the correlations over- or under-estimate the Hd values consistently.
An attempt was made to finalize the ranking of the models relating to the MBE and RMSE values
obtained for each of the stations, the first ranking model being the one giving the lowest MBE or
RMSE and so on. For each MBE or RMSE, a weighting of 5 was assigned to the model with the best
performance, 4 to the second best and so on, as proposed by Davies et al.‘* Table 5 shows the rankings
of the five models in terms of the MBE obtained from the 40 locations. Table 6 presents the ranking
in terms of the RMSE for all models. A comparative study of results in Table 6 leads to the following
conclusions. Equations (8), (9), and (10) are very close to each other in terms of RMSE ranking and
together yield 422 points of a total of 600; they perform better for about 70% of the stations. Equation
(7) has 96 RMSE points and gives better results for about 16% of the stations; Eq. (6) is superior for
13% of the stations. These results clearly demonstrate that the idea of combining variables in multiple
linear correlations is a useful concept for all stations around the world, irrespective of whether the
correlations are developed for a single isolated station or for a group of stations in a region. Of the
models 1 and 3, the latter shows better performance for 32 stations; of models 2 and 3, model 3 gives
better results for 30 stations in terms of RMSE values. Model 4 is better than 3 for 22 stations; for
the remaining 18 stations there is no improvement in estimation accuracy from the use of the declination
effect. The MBE rankings presented in Table 5 support the specified observations. We conclude that
by combining K and S/So in a single correlation, the accuracy of the estimated data can be considerably
improved for most of the locations. Use of the declination can marginally improve the values further,
but no additional improvement is observed when the latitude is also included in the estimation equation,
In view of these observations, model 3 is preferred as it is the simplest and is easy to employ.
An attempt has been made to test the applicability of model 3 at locations other than those employed
in developing the correlations given in Eqs. (6-10). Hd values were calculated for two new locations,
Konitsa and Keetmanhoop, one in the Northern Hemisphere and the other in the South. The estimated
and the measured values are compared in Figs. 1 and 2. Excellent agreement between the estimated

10 7

2111111111111 -1 I I I I I I I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month Month

Fig. 1. Experimental (W) and estimated Fig. 2. Experimental (W) and estimated
(Model 3) values (A) of Hd in Mj-m-* for (Model 3) values (A) of Hd in Mj-m-’ for
Konitsa for a 12-month period. Keetmanhoop for a 12-month period.
 Global and diffuse radiation 665

Table 5. Ranking of the 5 models in terms of mean bias error (MBE)

station lode1 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

NlUJk

1 5 1 4 2 3
2 5 1 4 2 3
3 5 1 4 3 2
4 1 2 3 4 5
5 1 2 5 3 4
6 5 1 2 4 3
7 1 2 3 4 5
8 1 5 2 3 4
9 2 1 3 4 5
10 1 2 3 4 5
11 2 1 3 4 5
12 5 4 2 1 3
13 4 5 1 2 3
14 5 4 2 1 3
15 1 2 3 5 4
16 1 5 2 4 3
17 1 5 4 3 2
18 1 2 5 3 4
19 4 5 2 3 1
20 1 5 4 2 3
21 1 5 3 2 4
22 1 2 4 3 5
23 2 1 4 3 5
24 2 1 4 3 5
25 5 1 4 2 3
26 1 5 2 4 3
27 5 1 3 4 2
28 2 1 4 3 5
29 1 2 4 3 5
30. 1 5 4 3 2
31 3 1 4 5 2
32 1 2 4 5 3
33 5 1 3 2 4
34 2 1 4 5 3
35 2 1 4 5 3
36 1 5 3 4 2
37 1 2 4 5 3
38 1 2 5 4 3
39 1 2 4 5 3
40 1 5 3 4 2

Total points 91 102 135 135 137

and experimental’5*30 data indicates the wide applicability of the new equation. The MBE and RMSE
values for Konitsa (4 = 40.03’N) are -0.2272 and 0.3052; for Keetmanhoop, ( C#J = 27”s) the values
are -0.0285 and 0.4850, respectively.
666 K. K. Gopinathan and Alfonso Soler

Table 6. Ranking of the 5 models in terms of root mean square error (RMSE).

Station Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Number

1 5 1 2 3 4
2 4 1 5 2 3
3 5 1 3 4 2
4 1 2 5 4 3
5 1 2 3 5 4
6 5 1 3 2 4
7 1 2 3 5 4
8 5 1 4 3 2
9 1 2 5 4 3
10 1 2 5 4 3
11 1 2 5 3 4
12 1 4 2 3 5
13 1 5 2 3 4
14 1 4 3 2 5
15 1 2 4 5 3
16 1 5 2 4 3
17 1 2 5 4 3
18 1 2 3 5 4
19. 5 4 1 3 2
20 1 4 5 2 3
21 1 5 4 2 3
22 1 2 4 3 5
23 2 1 5 3 4
24 1 2 5 3 4
25 5 1 4 2 3
26 1 5 3 4 2
27 5 1 2 4 3
28 2 1 3 4 5
29 1 2 5 3 4
30 1 5 2 3 4
31 2 1 3 5 4
32 1 I 2 3 5 4
33 5 1 4 2 3
34 2 1 3 5 4
35 4 1 5 3 2
36 1 5 3 4 2
37 1 2 3 5 4
38 1 2 4 5 3
39 1 2 3 5 4
40 1 5 2 4 3

Total points 82 96 140 144 138

CONCLUSIONS

(i) Of the clearness-index and sunshine correlations, the use of S/So is more accurate than that of
K, especially when the correlations are developed for wide latitude ranges with climatic diversity. (ii)
The accuracy can be considerably improved by combining the K and S/So variables into a single,
multiple, linear correlation. An equation of the following form is recommended for estimating monthly-
mean, daily, diffuse radiation for any location in the world in the latitude range 36”s to 60’N:
HdIH = 0.87813 - 0.33280 K - 0.53039 S/So. Use of the two parameters together can give the best
 Global and diffuse radiation 667

results and there is no need to have additional variables in the estimation equations. The preceding
equation may be used to calculate Hd values for any location with an accuracy of about IO%, although
better results can be obtained by using regional regression parameters. (iii) The estimation accuracy
can be marginally improved by including declination values in the estimation correlation. The decli-
nation equation may have the form HdIH = 1.01833 - 0.33029 K - 0.53110 S/So - 0.14696 cos 6. (iv)
The latitude of the stations, when used as an additional parameter, plays no significant role in improving
the accuracy of the estimation equations.

Acknowledgemenr-The authors are grateful to the Direction General de Investigation Cientifica y Tecnica (DGICYT) for finan-
cial support for K. K. Gopinathan during his sabbatical leave.

REFERENCES

I. J. K. Page, “The Estimation of Monthly Mean Values of Daily Total Short Wave Radiation on Vertical and
Inclined Surfaces from Sunshine Records and for Latitudes 40“ N-40” S,” Proc. U.N. Conf on New Sources
of Energy, Paper S 98, Vol. 4, 378-390 (1961).
2. B. Y. H. Liu and R. C. Jordan, Sol. Energy 4, 1 ( 1960).
3. M. Collares-Pereira and A. Rabl, Sol. Energy 22, 155 ( 1979).
4. M. Iqbal, Sol. Energy 23, 169 (1979).
5. J. E. Hay, Atmosphere 14, 278 (1976).
6. K. K. Gopinathan, Sol. Energy 41, 379 (1988).
7. K. K. Gopinathan and A. Soler, Int. J. Sol. Energy 14, 217 (1994).
8. A. Soler. Sol. Energy 44, 179 (1990).
9. K. K. Gopinathan, Sol. Energy 40, 369 (1988).
10. A. Soler and P. Oteiza, “A Search for the Best Relation to be Used to Estimate Monthly Mean Daily Diffuse
Solar Radiation on a Horizontal Surface for Europe”, presented at the Third World Renewable Energy Con-
gress, Reading, U.K. ( 1994).
1 I. C. C. Y. Ma and M. Iqbal, Sol. Energy 33, 143 ( 1984).
12. J. A. Davies, D. C. McKay, G. Luciani, and M. Abdel-Wahab, “Validation of Models for Estimating Solar
Radiation on Horizontal surfaces,” International Energy Agency Report Vol. 1 ( 1988).
13. K. K. Gopinathan, Sol. Energy 49, 9 ( 1992).
14. A. Soler, Sol. Energy 44, 297 (1990).
15. D. N. B. Chinnery, “Solar water heating in South Africa,” C.S.I.R. Research Report, 248, p. 2, Pretoria ( 197 1).
16. K. K. Gopinathan, Sol. Wind Technol. 5, 103 (1988).
17. K. K. Gopinathan, Sol. Energy 45, 19 ( 1990).
18. M. Iqbal, Sol. Energy 22, 81 (1979).
19. S. Barbaro, G. Cannata, S. Coppolino, C. Leone, and E. Sinagra, Sol. Energy 26, 429 (1981).
20. G. Lewis, Sol. Energy 38, 55 (1987).
21. W. E. Alnaser, Energy-The International Journal 14, 409 (1989).
22. Anna Mani, Handbook of Solar Radiation data for India, Allied Publishers, New Delhi ( 1961).
23. G. Lewis, Sol. Energy 31, 125 (1983).
24. M. J. Carvalho, “Elemontos sobre radiacao solar em Portugal; relacoes entre medias da radiacao global, radia-
cao difusa e insolacao,” I Congreso Iberico de Energia Solar ISES (Spanish section) 41-52, Madrid (1982).
25. K. K. Gopinathan and A. Soler, Energy-The International Journal 18, 665 (1993).
26. “Solar Radiation Data for the United Kingdom”, published by the Meteorological Office, Met. 0.912, Berk-
shire, U.K. (1980).
27. R. Dogniaux, “Eclairement Energetique Solaire Direct Diffus Et Global Des Surfaces Orientees Et Inclinees”,
Institut Royal Meteorologique de Belgique, I Partie, Brussels (1984).
28. J. A. Duffie and W. A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, Wiley, New York, NY ( 1980).
29. K. K. Gopinathan, Sol. Energy 41, 499 ( 1988).
30. M. Santamouris and B. D. Katsoulis, Sol. Wind Technol. 6, 79 ( 1989).