4.7 Article

On modeling global solar irradiation using air temperature for Alagoas State, Northeastern Brazil

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 71, Issue -, Pages 388-398

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.116

Keywords

Solar radiation; Empirical models; Bristow & Campbell; Hargreaves & Samani

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study assesses the performance of nine empirical models: the models of Bristow & Campbell and Hargreaves & Samani (together with their modified versions) in estimating the daily and monthly solar irradiation using just extraterrestrial solar irradiation and air temperature extremes (maximum and minimum) as input data. Two schemes to calculate the air temperature amplitudes (Delta T-1 and Delta T-2) were used. The data used in this study cover the period from 2007 to 2009 and were collected at eight solarimetric stations in Alagoas State (Northeastern Brazil); three are located in the interior, two in the hinterlands and three in the humid/coastal zones. Statistical parameters were used to evaluate the model performance. The estimates obtained with the Delta T-1 scheme are better than those using the Delta T-2 scheme for the interior (1.10%) and hinterlands (2.50%). The daily (0.160-0.201) and monthly (0.158-0.199) values of the coefficients of the original Hargreaves and Samani model did not show significant differences among them; this was not the case of Bristow and Campbell model. Have a special from the coastline (thermal amplitude, humidity and cloudiness) and altitude (bulk thermal capacity and optical depth of the atmosphere). On the daily basis, the original model of Hargreaves & Samani yields better estimates than those obtained with the Bristow & Campbell model: 2.30% (interior) and 5.20% (hinterlands). The latter had a better performance mainly for the sites along the humid/coastal zone (10.20%). (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available