SAND2014-16367J

Evaluation of Global Horizontal Irradiance to Plane

of Array Irradiance Models at Locations across the
United States
Matthew Lave, Member, IEEE, William Hayes, Andrew Pohl, and Clifford W. Hansen

1 Abstract—We report an evaluation of the accuracy of combi-

2 nations of models that estimate plane-of-array (POA) irradiance
3 from measured global horizontal irradiance (GHI). This estima-
4 tion involves two steps: (1) decomposition of GHI into direct and
5 diffuse horizontal components; and (2) transposition of direct
6 and diffuse horizontal irradiance to POA irradiance. Measured
7 GHI and coincident measured POA irradiance from a variety of
8 climates within the United States were used to evaluate combina-
9 tions of decomposition and transposition models. A few locations
10 also had diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI) measurements,
11 allowing for decoupled analysis of either the decomposition or the
12 transposition models alone. Results suggest that decomposition
13 models had mean bias differences (modeled versus measured)
14 that vary with climate. Transposition model mean bias differences
15 depended more on the model than the location. When only GHI
16 measurements were available and combinations of decomposition
17 and transposition models were considered, the smallest mean bias
18 differences were typically found for combinations which included
19 the Hay/Davies transposition model. Fig. 1. Annual differences in POA irradiance and AC energy between the
Perez and Hay/Davies transposition models as implemented in PVsyst.

20 I. I NTRODUCTION
There are numerous previous works evaluating either de- 39

21

22

23
M ODELS which estimate plane-of-array (POA) irradi-
ance from measured global horizontal irradiance (GHI)
are critical to PV performance analysis because often only
composition models (e.g., [4], [5]), transposition models (e.g.,
[6], [7], [8]), or combinations of both (e.g., [9]). However,
most of these evaluations compare models with data at a
40

41

42

24 GHI measurements are available whereas the PV modules single location (Ineichen [4] is a notable exception as 22 43

25 being analyzed are tilted to maximize annual insolation. Mod- locations across the world were used to test decomposition 44

26 eling POA irradiance from GHI involves two steps: (1) the models), and most do not go beyond simple annual metrics 45

27 decomposition of GHI into its direct and diffuse components, such as root mean squared difference (RMSD) or mean bias 46

28 usually expressed as diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI) and difference (MBD). Here, we evaluate the performance of 47

29 direct normal irradiance (DNI), and (2) the transposition of decomposition models and transposition models separately, 48

30 these components to POA of the modules. No combination as well as combinations of decomposition with transposition 49

31 of decomposition and transposition models is widely accepted models, at a variety of locations across the United States. Our 50

32 as a standard for converting GHI to POA; various pairs of work builds upon previous studies because we analyze each 51

33 decomposition plus transposition models are in use. This lack model’s performance over many different test climates and we 52

34 of consistency leads to different predictions of POA irradiance, examine model performance in greater detail; for example, we 53

35 even when using the same input GHI. For example, Fig. 1 consider decomposition model errors as a function of clearness 54

36 shows that performance estimated using the program PVsyst index, the relationship between the bias in model combinations 55

37 [1] can vary by over 1% simply by changing the transposition and the biases in the separate decomposition and transposition 56

38 model from Hay/Davies [2] to Perez [3]. models, and the potential for redundant sensors to reduce the 57

effect of sensor bias on the analysis. 58

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and
operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed
Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear II. M ODELS 59
Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
M.Lave is with the Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, 94550, Figure 2 shows how the transposition model, or the combi- 60

USA (e-mail: mlave@sandia.gov). nation of a decomposition and a transposition model, are used 61
W. Hayes is with First Solar, San Francisco, CA, 94105, USA. to estimate POA irradiance from available measurements. We 62
A. Pohl and C. Hansen are with Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,
NM, 87185, USA. discuss the specific models we considered in our analysis in 63

the following subsections. 64

 2

Fig. 2. Flowchart showing how to model POA irradiance from measured GHI.

65 A. Decomposition Models though some models produce DNI instead. Because DHI and 89

66 We consider the decomposition models listed in Table I. All DNI are related by: 90

67 models are empirical, in that their equations are not formally GHI − DHI
DN I = , (1)
68 derived from physical laws but rather involve coefficients that sin(SunEl)
69 were estimated from a fixed set of measured data at one or
all decomposition models effectively produce estimates of both 91
70 a handful of locations. We refer the reader to the references
DHI and DNI. 92
71 in Table I for detailed model descriptions. Note that Reindl
72 [10] proposes three different models of increasing complexity
73 (termed here Reindl 1, Reindl 2, and Reindl 3) depending on B. Transposition Models 93

74 the available input data. Additionally, the performance of the Table II lists the transposition models we evaluate. The 94
75 Reindl models during times of high clearness index may be models determine total POA irradiance by estimating the 95
76 improved by adjusting the bound between two of the clearness direct, ground reflected diffuse, and sky diffuse components 96
77 index intervals [11]. The Reindl models with this adjusted on the plane of array: 97
78 interval are referred to as the Reindl adjusted models. Specifi-
79 cally, in the Reindl adjusted models, the intervals in equations P OA = P OAdir + P OAdif f,ref l + P OAdif f,sky . (2)
80 2b, 3b, and 4b in [10] are changed to 0.3 < kt < 0.83 and the
81 intervals in equations 2c, 3c, and 4c are changed to 0.83 < kt .
TABLE II
T RANSPOSITION MODELS .
TABLE I
D ECOMPOSITION MODELS . Model Input variables
Isotropic [18] Surf T ilt, DHI
Model Input variables Abbreviation Sandia (King) [19] Surf T ilt, DHI, GHI, SunEl
Orgill and Surf T ilt, Surf Az, DHI, DN I,
Kt, GHI OH Hay/Davies [2]
Hollands [12] HExtra, SunEl, SunAz
Erbs [13] Kt, GHI Er Surf T ilt, Surf Az, DHI, DN I,
Boland [14] Kt, GHI Bo Perez [3]
HExtra, SunEl, SunAz, AM
Reindl 1 [10] Kt, GHI R1
Reindl 1 adj Kt, GHI R1a
DISC [15] Kt, GHI, SunEl DIS
The direct irradiance incident on the POA, P OAdir , can be 98

DIRINT [16] Kt, GHI, SunEl DIR calculated directly from DNI through geometric relations: 99

Reindl 2 [10] Kt, GHI, SunEl R2

Reindl 2 adj Kt, GHI, SunEl R2a P OAdir = DN I × cos(AOI) (3)
Reindl 3 [10] Kt, GHI, SunEl, AmbT , RH R3
Reindl 3 adj Kt, GHI, SunEl, AmbT , RH R3a where AOI is the angle of incidence of the sun beam on the 100
Posadillo [17] Kt, GHI, SunEl, M F Po POA surface. 101

The ground reflected diffuse irradiance is typically estimated 102

82 All decomposition models use at least the clearness index as a simple function of GHI, ground albedo (ρ), and the surface 103
83 Kt and GHI as inputs. Many models also account for the tilt from horizontal (β): 104
84 solar elevation angle SunEl. The Reindl 3 models use the
ambient temperature AmbT and the relative humidity RH, 1 − cos(β)
85
P OAdif f,ref l = GHI × ρ × (4)
86 while the Posadillo model uses a modulating function M F 2
87 based on the 5-minute variability in GHI. All transposition models we consider, except for the Sandia 105

88 The explicit output of most decomposition models is DHI, model, use Eqn. 4, and we assume ρ = 0.2 for all. The 106
 3

107 Sandia transposition model uses an albedo equation that was were collected at due south azimuth, which is consistent with 148

108 empirically fit to data from Albuquerque, NM. the majority of installed solar PV modules, but limits this 149

109 The transposition models vary in their estimation of the analysis to south-oriented fixed tilt systems. Stations 10 and 150

110 sky diffuse irradiance on the POA, P OAdif f,sky . The models 12 are at high altitude. 151

111 range from the simple assumption that diffuse POA irradiance The stations equipped with DHI measurements (Stations 152

112 depends only on the amount of sky ‘seen’ by the surface (e.g., 3, 4, 10, 11, 12) allowed for analysis of the decomposition 153

113 the isotropic and Sandia models) to complicated empirical models separately. The stations with both DHI and POA 154

114 relationships with multiple look-up tables (e.g., the Perez measurements (Stations 3, 4, 10, 12) allowed for separate 155

115 model). analysis of the transposition models. 156

116 III. DATA D ESCRIPTION

IV. A NALYSIS 157
117 Details about the data at each location are shown in
118 Table III, and the station locations are mapped in Fig. 3. Three distinct analyses were undertaken: (A) decomposition 158

119 Data for stations 1-6 was contributed by First Solar, Inc., models alone using measured GHI as input and compared to 159

120 and GHI and POA measurements were taken using Kipp & measured DHI, (B) transposition models alone using measured 160

121 Zonen CMP 11 secondary standard pyranometers. Stations DHI as input and compared to measured POA, and (C) 161

122 3 and 4 also included DHI measurements using Irradiance, combinations of decomposition and transposition models using 162

123 Inc. Rotating Shadowband Radiometers which rely on Licor measured GHI as input and compared to measured POA. In 163

124 first class pyranometers. Data for Station 9 was contributed this last case, DHI estimated from the decomposition models 164

125 by Southern Company, and Licor first class pyranometers was input to the transposition models. 165

126 were used to measure GHI and POA irradiance. (Note that We first summarize all measured data to hourly averages 166
127 station numbering is not sequential due to the removal of because the considered models were designed to predict hourly 167
128 two stations which did not have sufficient periods of record.) values of their output quantities. Since errors in measurements 168
129 Station 10 is located in Golden, CO at NREL’s Solar Radiation may contribute to model errors in our analysis, we use the 169
130 Research Laboratory [20]; the Global CM22 measurement term differences rather than errors when comparing modeled 170
131 from a secondary standard Kipp & Zonen CM22 was used to measured data. Measurement bias errors are difficult to 171
132 for GHI, the Diffuse CM22 measurement also from a CM22 distinguish from model bias errors, and may influence our 172
133 was used for DHI, and the Global 40-South PSP measurement analysis. We attempt to minimize the effect of measurement 173
134 from a first class Eppley Precision Spectral Pyranometer (PSP) bias on our conclusions by evaluating the performance of 174
135 was used for POA irradiance. Stations 11 (Livermore, CA) the combined models using colocated pairs of GHI and POA 175
136 and 12 (Albuquerque, NM) are operated by Sandia National sensors in section IV-C. 176
137 Laboratories. Station 11 uses Eppley PSPs for GHI and DHI Simple quality control metrics were applied to all data. All 177
138 measurements, but does not have a POA measurement. Station GHI, DHI, and POA values less than 0 Wm-2 or greater than 178
139 12 uses Eppley PSPs for both GHI and POA measurements. 2000 Wm-2 were removed from the analysis, since these values 179

were likely erroneous measurements. Additionally, any DHI 180

measurement that exceeded the concurrent GHI measurement 181

was set equal to the GHI measurement because it is not physi- 182

cally possible for DHI to exceed GHI. In these few situations, 183

DHI only slightly exceeded GHI – the difference was not 184

large enough to warrant rejecting the DHI measurement as 185

erroneous. At the few times when POA measurements were 186

excessively greater than GHI measurements (e.g., the POA 187

measurement indicated clear-sky while the GHI measurement 188

indicated overcast conditions), data were removed because the 189

values were likely a result of data collection errors. 190

Specific quality control was needed at some of the locations. 191

At one location, shading was observed that occluded the GHI 192

Fig. 3. Map of station locations. sensor but not the POA sensor; times at which this shading 193

occurred were eliminated from the analysis. At Stations 3 and 194

140 For all stations except Station 9, data were available for one 4, inconsistencies were found between the CMP11 measured 195

141 year or more. In these cases, we used only year-long periods GHI and the RSR/Licor measured GHI. We chose to use the 196

142 of data (e.g., 1-year, 2-years, etc.) even though longer periods CMP11 instrument because it is a higher standard (secondary 197

143 of record were available to ensure equal weighting of seasonal standard), however, DHI measurements were only available 198

144 effects. At Station 9, only 10 months of data were available. from the RSR/Licor. Thus, we computed the diffuse fraction 199

145 We choose to include Station 9 in our analysis, but caution ( DHI

GHIRSR ) using the RSR/Licor measurements, and then mul-
RSR
200

146 that winter effects may not be fully captured. All data were tiplied the CMP11-measured GHI by this diffuse fraction to 201

147 collected at a resolution of one minute. POA measurements obtain the DHI at Stations 3 and 4. 202
 4

TABLE III
DATA LOCATIONS AND CLIMATES .

Station Location Elevation [m] Climate Zone Measured Data Time Period SurfTilt SurfAz
1 Southeast CA 120 Arid Desert Hot (BWh) GHI, POA 1/2010 - 12/2012 25◦ 180◦
2 Northeast NM 100 Arid Steppe Cold (BSk) GHI, POA 1/2012 - 12/2012 25◦ 180◦
3 East MI 188 Snow; Fully humid; Warm summer (Dfb) GHI, DHI, POA 8/2012 - 7/2013 25◦ 180◦
4 East MI 181 Snow; Fully humid; Warm summer (Dfb) GHI, DHI, POA 8/2012 - 7/2013 25◦ 180◦
5 East MI 193 Snow; Fully humid; Warm summer (Dfb) GHI, POA 10/2010 - 9/2013 25◦ 180◦
6 Southern NV 572 Arid Desert Hot (BWh) GHI, POA 1/2011 - 12/2012 25◦ 180◦
9 Coastal MS 6 Warm temperate; Fully humid; Hot summer (Cfa) GHI, POA 2/2013 - 11/2013 15◦ 180◦
10 Central CO 1829 Arid Steppe Cold (BSk) GHI, DHI, POA 1/2013 -12/2013 40◦ 180◦
11 Central CA 200 Warm temperate; dry, hot summer (CSa) GHI, DHI 1/2013 -12/2013 N/A N/A
12 Central NM 1657 Arid Steppe Cold (BSk) GHI, DHI, POA 1/2011 12/2011 35◦ 180◦

203 A. Decomposition Models similarity of rRMSDs across locations and the variation of 221

204 Relative accuracy of the decomposition models (modeled rMBD by location is in agreement with the findings of [4]. 222

205 DHI compared to measured DHI) was evaluated for the 5 The rMBD differences by location were at least partly due to 223

206 stations with DHI measurements (Stations 3, 4, 10, 11, and climate differences: the biases were negative for the cloudier 224

207 12). Figure 4 shows the relative (% relative to GHI) Root eastern Michigan stations and were positive for the clearer 225

208 Mean Squared Difference (rRMSD) and the relative Mean Livermore and Albuquerque stations (again consistent with [4] 226

209 Bias Difference (rMBD) for each decomposition model and who generally found negative bias errors in DNI models at 227

210 each station. These metrics quantify the average (over time) clear locations). The simple decomposition models typically 228

211 differences between modeled and measured data: rRMSD under-predict DHI during cloudy periods and over-predict DHI 229

212 relates to the differences in hourly values and rMBD relates during clear periods. 230

213 to the annual difference. Fig. 5 shows the errors in the Erbs model plotted as a 231

function of the measured clearness index and diffuse fraction, 232

25
and the rMBD as a function of clearness index. During partly 233

cloudy periods, the Erbs model underestimates the DHI (dark 234
rRMSD [% of GHI]

20 colors in Fig. 5). The dominance of partly cloudy conditions 235

at Station 3 (i.e., points falling above the black dashed line in 236
15
Fig 5) causes a negative bias in the Erbs model. Conversely, 237

10
during clear periods the Erbs model overestimates DHI (light 238
East MI (Stn. 3)
East MI (Stn. 4)
colors in Fig. 5). At Station 11, the many clear periods 239

5 Cent. CO (Stn. 10) (i.e., the collection of points around measured clearness index 240
Cent. CA (Stn. 11)
Cent. NM (Stn. 12) Kt = 0.75, measured diffuse fraction DF = 0.1) lead to a 241
0 positive bias in the Erbs model. 242
OH Er Bo R1 R1a DIS DIR R2 R2a R3 R3a Po
Nearly identical biases were observed in all simple decom- 243

position models. The more complicated decomposition models 244

15
East MI (Stn. 3)
showed the same overall trends — underestimating DHI in 245

10
East MI (Stn. 4)
Cent. CO (Stn. 10)
cloudy locations and overestimating DHI in clear locations — 246
rMBD [% of GHI]

Cent. CA (Stn. 11)

Cent. NM (Stn. 12)
but bias analysis was more complicated due to the additional 247
5
input variables used by the models. 248

0 At all locations, the DIRINT model had the smallest rRMSD 249

and rMBD. However, the performance of the simple models 250

−5
was not significantly worse. Consequently, we focused our 251

−10 analysis of model combinations on those involving either the 252

−15
DIRINT model, because it shows the best performance, or the 253
OH Er Bo R1 R1a DIS DIR R2 R2a R3 R3a Po
Erbs model, because it is representative of the simple models 254

and is the default decomposition model in PVyst. 255

Fig. 4. Relative (to GHI) root mean squared (rRMSD) and mean bias (rMBD)
differences (modeled minus measured) for each of the 12 decomposition
models (x-axis) at each of the five stations with DHI measurements.
B. Transposition Models 256

Using measured DHI values at stations 3, 4, 10, and 12 257

214 Model performance is similar across all stations for the the relative accuracy of the different transposition models was 258

215 ‘simple’ decomposition models which only use Kt and GHI evaluated. Fig. 6 shows the rRMSDs and rMBDs. 259

216 as inputs (Orgill and Hollands, Erbs, Boland, Reindl 1, and With the exception of the Sandia model, the model biases 260

217 Reindl 1a): these models have between 11-17% rRMSD. The were relatively consistent across the different locations. The 261

218 rMBDs do not show this same consistency, as they range from isotropic model always produced the lowest POA estimates 262

219 -5% to +5% between stations, although at the same station since it does not add any enhanced diffuse irradiance in the 263

220 all simple models have similar performance. Both the relative circumsolar region. The albedo correction that the Sandia 264
 5

East MI (Stn. 4) Erbs − meas DHI [W m−2] Central CA (Stn. 11) Erbs − meas DHI [W m−2]
1 200 1 200
0.9 0.9
diffuse fraction (DF)

diffuse fraction (DF)

0.8 0.8
100 100
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0 0.5 0
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
Erbs: −100 Erbs: −100
0.2 0.2
rRMSD = 17.5% rRMSD = 10.7%
0.1 rMBD = −5.0% 0.1 rMBD = 3.8%
0 −200 0 −200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
rMBD [% of GHI]

rMBD [% of GHI]
2 2
0 0
−2 −2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
clearness index (kt) clearness index (kt)

Fig. 5. [Top plots] Hourly differences (colors) in Erbs modeled minus measured DHI, plotted as a function of measured clearness index (x-axis) and measured
diffuse fraction (y-axis). The black dashed line is the Erbs modeled diffuse fraction as a function of clearness index. [Bottom plots] Relative (to GHI) mean
bias differences plotted as a function of clearness index.

11
always estimated 1 to 2% more annual POA irradiance than 273

10 the Hay/Davies model, consistent with the analysis run in 274

rRMSD [% of POA]

9 PVsyst shown in Fig. 1. The Perez transposition model has the 275
8
7
smallest rRMSD at all locations, indicating it may be the best 276

6 model choice when measured DHI is available. However, the 277

5 Hay/Davies model results in only slightly increased rRMSD. 278

4
isotropic For combination models, we will focus on the Hay/Davies and 279
3 Sandia
2 Hay/Davies
Perez transposition models. 280

1 Perez
East MI (Stn. 3) East MI (Stn. 4) Cent CO (Stn. 10) Cent NM (Stn. 12)
C. Combined Models 281

We focused our analysis on model combinations which 282

5
isotropic
involved the two best performing decomposition (Erbs and 283
4
Sandia DIRINT) and transposition models (Hay/Davies and Perez), 284
rMBD [% of POA]

3
Hay/Davies resulting in four combined models. The rRMSDs and rMBDs 285
2 Perez
1 of these combined models are shown in Fig. 7. For compar- 286

0 ison, the transposition models run with measured DHI are 287
−1 included as dots in Fig 7. 288
−2
The same order of transposition model rMBD 289
−3
−4 (Perez > Hay/Davies) is observed. In the combined model 290

−5 case, however, all combinations tend to overestimate annual 291

East MI (Stn. 3) East MI (Stn. 4) Cent CO (Stn. 10) Cent NM (Stn. 12)
irradiance, meaning that combinations involving the Perez 292

transposition model are now even more positively biased 293

Fig. 6. Relative (to POA) root mean squared (RMSD) and mean bias (MBD) than noted in the transition model with measured DHI case. 294
differences modeled versus measured for each of the 4 transposition models
at each of the 4 stations with DHI and POA measurements.
The DIRINT plus Hay/Davies model combination typically 295

had the smallest rMBDs, though the Erbs plus Hay/Davies 296

combination had only slightly larger rMBDs. The rRMSDs 297

265 model applies to the isotropic model caused the Sandia model change more with changing station than with changing model. 298

266 to always have larger POA estimates than the isotropic model. Although the rMBDs are rather consistent across Stations 2-6 299

267 The Sandia model had the lowest rMBD at the Station 12, (∼1% for combinations involving Hay/Davies and ∼2% for 300

268 as expected due to the model being calibrated using data at combinations involving Perez), the rRMSDs vary widely 301

269 this location. rRMSDs were larger for the isotropic and Sandia across those locations (from <5% to over 10%). 302

270 models than for the Hay/Davies and Perez models. This initial analysis of the combined models inspired two 303

271 Both the Hay/Davies and Perez models produced rMBDs further investigations: (1) how the individual decomposition 304

272 that were smaller than 1.5% at all locations. The Perez model and transposition model biases related to the combined model 305
 6

13 POA estimates from the transposition models) in Fig. 8, and, 331

rRMSD [% of POA]
12 Erbs + Hay/Davies

11
Erbs + Perez indeed, for the most part this gradient was observed. However, 332
DIRINT + Hay/Davies
10 DIRINT + Perez
meas + Hay/Davies
some notable exceptions occur. Almost all model combinations 333
9
8
meas + Erbs involving the Perez transposition had positive biases, even 334

7 when the decomposition models had positive biases. The 335

6 isotropic model appears to be insensitive to small decomposi- 336
5
4 tion errors: model combinations including the isotropic model 337

3 and a decomposition model with rMBD between -2% to +4% 338

2
1 consistently had combined model rMBDs of 2.5% to 4%. 339

0 Deviations from the expected gradient (increasing combined 340

9)
1)

6)

0)

2)
3)

4)

5)
)
.2

.1

.1
.
n.

n.
n.

n.

n.
model bias with decreasing decomposition model bias and

tn
tn
t

tn

tn
St

St

St
341

(S
(S

(S
(S

(S

(S
I(

I(

I(

S
A

V
M

M
increasing transposition model bias) are likely due to hourly

M
C

N
N

tC

tN
st

st

st

342
h

al
th

Ea

Ea

Ea
ut

ut

st

en

en
or
So

So

oa
N

deviations in the decomposition or transposition models which

C
343
C
are not fully resolved with the rMBD metric. Due to the 344

5 complicated dependencies of each model, biases in the de- 345

composition models may be either minimized or amplified

rMBD [% of POA]

4 346
3
by the transposition models. Thus, biases in the individual 347
2
models may suggest but do not necessarily determine the 348
1
0
biases of the combined models. Based on the results shown in 349

−1 Erbs + Hay/Davies Figs. 7 and 8, combined models involving Hay/Davies appear 350
Erbs + Perez
−2 DIRINT + Hay/Davies
to have less bias than combined models involving Perez, even 351

−3 DIRINT + Perez though Hay/Davies and Perez had similar biases when using 352
meas + Hay/Davies
−4 meas + Erbs measured DHI. 353
−5
)
)

0)

2)
)

)
)

.9
.1

.6
3

5
.2

.1

.1

combined rMBD
n.

n.

n.

tn
tn

tn
tn

tn

tn
St

St

St

(S
(S

(S
(S

[% of POA]
transposition rMBD [% of POA]
(S

(S
I(

I(

I(

S
A

V
M

5 5
O

M
M
C

N
N

tC

N
st

st

st
h

al
th

Ea

Ea

Ea
ut

ut

t
st

isotropic
en

en
or
So

So

4 4
oa
N

C
C

Sandia
3 Hay/Davies 3
Fig. 7. Relative (to POA) root mean squared (rRMSD) and mean bias differ- 2 Perez 2
ences (rMBD) for combinations of decomposition and transposition models. 1 1
Also included (as dots) are the rRMSDs and rMBDs for the transposition 0 0
models with measured DHI. −1 −1
−2 −2
−3 −3
306 biases (2) how bias errors in measurements may be affecting −4 −4
307 our combined model analysis results. −5 −5
308 1) Relationship between Combined and Individual Model −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15
decompositon rMBD [% of GHI]
309 Biases: In the results shown in Fig. 7, the rMBDs at Stations
310 3 and 4 (cloudy locations) were more positive for the combined
Fig. 8. Scatter plot of combined model rMBD (colors) plotted against the
311 models than for the transposition models with measured DHI. decomposition model and transposition model rMBDs. All 12 decomposition
312 This is expected since both the Erbs and DIRINT models models and all 4 transposition models evaluated at Stations 3, 4, 10, and 12
313 underestimated DHI (Fig. 4), and when the decomposition are included in this plot.
314 models underestimate DHI, they inherently overestimate DNI
315 (since DNI and DHI are related by Eq. 1). A larger DNI 2) Influence of Measurement Biases on Combined Model 354

316 estimate then typically leads to a larger POA irradiance Findings: While it appears that model combinations involving 355

317 estimate since the POA is usually chosen to maximize direct Hay/Davies are less biased, our results could be influenced 356

318 (and hence annual) irradiance. by measurement biases (e.g., a positive sensor bias may 357

319 However, while both the Erbs and the DIRINT models had incorrectly make the models appear biased negative). We 358

320 positive errors at Station 12 (+2.4% and +1.5%, respectively), attempted to reduce the effect of sensor bias by looking at 359

321 suggesting a decrease in POA irradiance, the rMBD was multiple pairs of GHI and POA sensors at the same location. 360

322 practically unchanged for the combined models from the For example, there were 6 GHI and 6 POA sensors at Station 361

323 transposition model with measured case. The Erbs with Perez 5, so we evaluated the combined model biases using all 36 362

324 model actually leads to an increase in the POA irradiance. possible GHI-POA combinations. If all sensors considered had 363

325 Fig. 8 shows the relationship between decomposition model some measurement bias, but the mean of all measurement 364

326 bias, transposition model bias, and combined model bias by biases was close to zero, then this method will reduce the 365

327 plotting these rMBDs for all model combinations at Stations impact of measurement bias. 366

328 3, 4, 10, and 12. It is expected that POA biases will increase A box plot describing the distribution of rMBDs of the 367

329 moving to the left (decreasing DHI and hence increasing combined models using the 77 different GHI-POA pairs avail- 368

330 DNI estimates from decomposition models) and up (increasing able at Stations 1-6 is shown in Fig. 9. The widths of the 369
 7

3 effect of sensor error again suggested that combined models 407

2
involving the Hay/Davies model led to smaller bias. 408
rMBD [% of POA]

While this analysis has suggested that it may be best 409

1 to use the Hay/Davies model when using a decomposition 410

0 model to estimate diffuse irradiance, it also indicates that 411

both decomposition and transposition models could be im- 412

−1 proved. Decomposition models could be modified to remove 413

−2 the locational dependence, possibly by using the clear-sky 414

index which, as opposed to the clearness index, accounts for 415

−3 factors such as the atmospheric turbidity and station elevation. 416
s

z
s

ez
ie

re
ie

Further study of the circumsolar and other sky regions could

r
417
av

av

Pe

Pe
/D

/D

enhance the transposition model performance. Additionally,

+

+
418
ay

ay

bs

T
transposition models could be modified to be less sensitive to
IN
H

419
Er

IR
+

deviations in diffuse irradiance, such that they have smaller

s

D
420
b

IN
Er

biases when combined with decomposition models. Finally,

IR

421
D

transposition models were designed using fixed-tilt systems, 422

but could be optimized for single- or two-axis tracking systems 423

Fig. 9. Box plot of the combined model rMBD for 77 GHI-POA sensor pairs
located at Stations 1-6.
for broader application. 424

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 425
370 distributions are around 3%, which is consistent with expected
Thanks to William Hobbs at Southern Company for supply- 426
371 sensor uncertainties [21]. There may still be some biases that
ing the data from Station 9. 427
372 are the same among all GHI-POA sensor pairs, such as tilt-
373 angle response, that were still affecting this analysis, but these
374 are expected to be small (e.g., tilt angle response < 0.2% for R EFERENCES 428

375 CMP 11 [22]). Therefore, the median rMBD of all sensor pair [1] A. Mermoud, “PVsyst,” http://www.pvsyst.com/. 429

376 combinations was likely close to the true rMBD since sensor [2] J. Hay and J. Davies, “Calculations of the solar radiation incident on 430
an inclined surface,” in Proc. of First Canadian Solar Radiation Data 431
377 biases were mostly removed. Workshop, 59. Ministry of Supply and Services, Canada. 432
378 The median rMBD was 0.5% for Erbs with Hay/Davies, [3] R. Perez, R. Seals, P. Ineichen, R. Stewart, and D. Menicucci, “A 433

379 0.3% for DIRINT with Hay/Davies, 1.9% for Erbs with Perez, new simplified version of the perez diffuse irradiance model for tilted 434
surfaces,” Solar Energy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 221–231, 1987. 435
380 and 1.6% for DIRINT with Perez. Thus, when sensor error [4] P. Ineichen, “Comparison and validation of three global-to-beam 436
381 is minimized, the model combinations with the Hay/Davies irradiance models against ground measurements,” Solar Energy, 437

382 transposition model continue to appear to be the least biased. vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 501 – 512, 2008. [Online]. Available: 438
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X07002551 439
[5] C. Jacovides, F. Tymvios, V. Assimakopoulos, and N. Kaltsounides, 440
383 V. C ONCLUSION “Comparative study of various correlations in estimating hourly 441
diffuse fraction of global solar radiation,” Renewable Energy, 442
384 GHI to POA models were evaluated at a variety of locations vol. 31, no. 15, pp. 2492 – 2504, 2006. [Online]. Available: 443
385 across the United States. Decomposition models had different http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148105003538 444

386 biases based on location, consistent with previous findings [6] P. G. Loutzenhiser, H. Manz, C. Felsmann, P. A. Strachan, T. Frank, 445
and G. M. Maxwell, “Empirical validation of models to compute solar 446
387 [4]. This was caused by the models often underestimating irradiance on inclined surfaces for building energy simulation,” Solar 447
388 the diffuse irradiance at cloudy locations and overestimating Energy, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 254–267, 2007. 448

389 the diffuse at clear locations. Transposition model perfor- [7] D. Wlodarczyk and H. Nowak, “Statistical analysis of solar 449
radiation models onto inclined planes for climatic conditions 450
390 mance did not vary much by location; at all locations the of lower silesia in poland,” Archives of Civil and Mechanical 451
391 isotropic model produced the smallest POA estimate and Engineering, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 127 – 144, 2009. [Online]. Available: 452

392 the Perez model the largest. Based on root mean squared http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1644966512600648 453
[8] A. M. Noorian, I. Moradi, and G. A. Kamali, “Evaluation of 12 models 454
393 deviation, the Erbs and DIRINT decomposition models and the to estimate hourly diffuse irradiation on inclined surfaces,” Renewable 455
394 Hay/Davies and Perez transposition models were chosen as the Energy, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1406 – 1412, 2008. [Online]. Available: 456

395 best performing models and use for evaluation of combined http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148107002509 457
[9] C. A. Gueymard, “Direct and indirect uncertainties in the prediction 458
396 model performance. Little difference was observed in the of tilted irradiance for solar engineering applications,” Solar Energy, 459
397 combined models whether DIRINT or Erbs was used for the vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 432 – 444, 2009. [Online]. Available: 460

398 decomposition model, but a large difference was seen between http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X08002983 461
[10] D. T. Reindl, W. A. Beckman, and J. A. Duffie, “Diffuse fraction 462
399 the model combinations involving the Hay/Davies versus the correlations,” Solar Energy, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1990. 463
400 Perez transposition models. Model combinations involving the [11] W. Hayes, personal communication, 2014. 464

401 Hay/Davies transposition model appeared to have less bias [12] J. F. Orgill and K. G. T. Hollands, “Correlation equation for hourly 465
diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface,” Solar Energy, vol. 19, no. 4, 466
402 than combinations involving the Perez transposition model, pp. 357–359, 1977. 467
403 even though both Hay/Davies and Perez had similar bias [13] D. G. Erbs, S. A. Klein, and J. A. Duffie, “Estimation of the diffuse ra- 468

404 magnitudes when using measured diffuse irradiance. Further diation fraction for hourly, daily and monthly-average global radiation,” 469
Solar Energy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 293–302, 1982. 470
405 analysis testing the impact of decomposition and transposition [14] J. Boland, B. Ridley, and B. Brown, “Models of diffuse solar radiation,” 471
406 model bias on combined model bias and minimizing the Renewable Energy, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 575–584, 2008. 472
 8

473 [15] E. L. Maxwell, “A quasi-physical model for converting hourly global Matthew Lave received the Ph.D. degree in 495
474 horizontal to direct normal insolation,” Solar Energy Research Institute, aerospace engineering from the University of Cal- 496
475 Tech. Rep., 1987. ifornia, San Diego. 497
476 [16] R. Perez, “Dynamic global to direct conversion models,” ASHRAE He is a Senior Member of the Technical Staff 498
477 Transactions Research Series, pp. 154–168, 1992. at Sandia National Laboratories, working in the 499
478 [17] R. Posadillo and R. López Luque, “Hourly distributions of the diffuse Photovoltaic and Distributed Systems Integration 500
479 fraction of global solar irradiation in crdoba (spain),” Energy Conversion Department. His specialty areas are solar resource 501
480 and Management, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 223–231, 2009. assessment, PV performance monitoring, and grid 502
481 [18] B. Y. H. Liu and R. C. Jordan, “The interrelationship and characteristic integration of PV, especially related to large data 503
482 distribution of direct, diffuse and total solar radiation,” Solar Energy, set analysis. He currently develops and validates 504
483 vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–19, 1960. models of solar irradiance, spatial smoothing of solar 505
484 [19] D. King, “Simple sandia sky diffuse model.” [Online]. variability across large PV plants, and the impact of PV to the electric grid. 506
485 Available: http://pvpmc.org/modeling-steps/incident-irradiance/
486 plane-of-array-poa-irradiance/calculating-poa-irradiance/
487 poa-sky-diffuse/simple-sandia-sky-diffuse-model/
488 [20] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Measurement and instrumen-
489 tation data center.” [Online]. Available: http://www.nrel.gov/midc William Hayes received the M.S. degree in mechan- 507
490 [21] T. Stoffel, “A review of measured/modeled solar resource uncertainty,” ical engineering from the University of California, 508
491 in 2013 Sandia PV Performance Modeling Workshop, 2013. San Diego. 509
492 [22] Kipp & Zonen, “Instruction manual cmp series pyranometer,” He is a member of the Performance and Predic- 510
493 http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/72/Manual-Pyranometers-CMP- tion team at First Solar, Inc. His expertise lies in 511
494 series-English, 2014. modeling the thermal response of operational PV 512
modules in utility scale deployment. He currently 513
models and evaluates the performance of utility scale 514
PV system focusing on driving down the uncertainty 515
in PV system energy estimates. 516
517

Andrew Pohl received the B.S. degree in applied 518

mathematics from the University of New Mexico 519
and is currently pursuing the M.S. degree in statistics 520
also from the University of New Mexico. 521
He is a student intern at Sandia National Labora- 522
tories, working in the Photovoltaic and Distributed 523
System Integration Department. 524

525

Clifford W. Hansen received the Ph.D. degree in 526

mathematics from The George Washington Univer- 527
sity in Washington, D.C. 528
He is a Distinguished Member of the Technical 529
Staff at Sandia National Laboratories, working in the 530
Photovoltaics and Distributed Systems Integration 531
Department. His research focuses on methods for PV 532
system modeling, model calibration from component 533
characterization, and uncertainty in estimates of the 534
solar resource and PV system production. 535
536