The Interrelationship and Characteristic Distribution

of Direct, Diffuse and Total Solar Radiation*

By Benjamin Y. H. Liu$ and Richard C. Jordan~

Based upon the data now available, this paper I~h = intensity of diffuse radiation on a
presents relationships permitting the determina- horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
tion on a horizontal surface of the instantaneous ]ah = long term average of the hourly diffuse
i n t e n s i t y o f d i f f u s e r a d i a t i o n o n clear d a y s , t h e radiation received on a horizontal sur-
l o n g t e r m a v e r a g e h o u r l y a n d d a i l y s u m s o f diffuse face = long term hourly average of
radiation, and the daily sums of diffuse radiation the intensity of diffuse radiation on a
for v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s o f d a y s o f differing d e g r e e s horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
o f c l o u d i n e s s . F o r t h e s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , it is lob = intensity of solar radiation incident
necessary to have, either from actual measure- upon a horizontal surface outside the
m e n t s or e s t i m a t e s , a k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t o t a l atmosphere of the earth, B t u / h r - s q ft
(direct p l u s diffuse) r a d i a t i o n o n a h o r i z o n t a l Io,~ = intensity of solar radiation at normal
s u r f a c e - - i t s m e a s u r e m e n t is n o w r e g u l a r l y m a d e incidence outside the atmosphere of
at 98 l o c a l i t i e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d C a n a d a . the earth = r I . , , B t u / h r - s q ft
For localities where only an estimate of the long I~ = solar c o n s t a n t = 442 B t u / h r - s q ft =
t e r m a v e r a g e t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is a v a i l a b l e , r e l a t i o n - 2 ly/min
s h i p s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s p a p e r c a n be u t i l i z e d t o I rh = intensity of total (direct plus diffuse)
determine the statistical distribution of the daily radiation incident upon a horizontal
t o t a l r a d i a t i o n at t h e s e l o c a l i t i e s . surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
= long term average of the hourly total
NOMENCLATURE
radiation received on a horizontal sur-
D and/) = daily and m o n t h l y average daily dif- face = long term hourly average of
fuse radiation received on a horizontal the intensity of total radiation on a
surface, B t u / d a y - s q ft horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft
f = fractional time during which the daily Kd a n d / ~ ' , = D / H o and f ) / H o , dimensionless
total radiation received on a horizontal K~ = ( H -- D ) / H , , , dimensionless
surface is less t h a n or equal to a cer- K r a n d / ~ ' r = H / H o and f i l / H o , dimensionless
tain value, dimensionless L = l'aitude, degrees
H and 17 = daily and m o n t h l y average daily total m = air mass = cscc~ except at low altitude,
(direct plus diffuse) radiation received
dimensionless
on a horizontal surface, B t u / d a y - s q ft
= ratio of solar radiation intensity at
Ho = extraterrestrial daily insolation re-
normal incidence outside the atmos-
ceived on a horizontal surface, B t u /
phere of the earth to solar constant,
day-sq ft
I~., = intensity of direct radiation incident dimensionless
upon a horizontal surface, B t u / h r - s q ft r~ = I,+h/D = ratio of hourly to daily dif-
ID,~ = intensity of direct, radiation at normal fuse radiation, dimensionless
incidence, B t u / h r - s q ft rr = ratio of hourly to daily total radiation,
dimensionless
* This paper is in part the result of researches sponsored bv
a grant from the National Science Foundation, Washingtmi, a = solar altitude angle, degrees
1). C. Portions of the material presented in this paper are = solar declination, degrees
drawn from the thesis of Benjamin Y. H. Liu prepared in ~i
partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of 1)octor rD = I v . / I o , , = l v h / I o , = transmission co-
of Philosophy.
? Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineer- efficient for direct solar radiation, di-
ing, University of Minnesota. mensionless
:~ Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical En-
gineering, University of Minnesota. 7"d = l,~h/l,,~ = transmission coefficient for
 TABLE 1.--Solar Declination, ~, and the ratio, r, of Solar Radiation Intensity at Normal Incidence Outside Earth's Atmosphere to
Solar Constant

Day of Month

Month 8 15 22

January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --23°04 ' 1.0335 --22°21 ' 1.0325 --21°16 ' 1.0315 --19o51 ' 1.0300
February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --17o19 ' 1.0288 -- 15o14' 1.0263 -- 12o56' 1.0235 --10028 ' 1.0207
March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --7053 ' 1.0173 --5Oll ' 1.0140 --2026 , 1.0103 0o20 ' 1.0057
April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4o15 ' 1.0009 6055' 0.9963 9030 ' 0.9913 11°56 ' 0.9875
May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14°51 ' 0.9841 16053 ' 0.9792 18°41 ' 0.9757 20°14 ' 0.9727
June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21°57 ' 0,9714 22°47 ' 0.9692 23°17 ' 0.9680 23o27 ' 0.9670
July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23010 ' 0,9666 22034 ' 0.9670 21%9' 0.9680 20026 ' 0.9692
August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18013 ' 0.9709 16°22 ' 0.9727 14°18 ' 0,9757 12°03 ' 0.9785
September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8034 ' 0.9828 5°59 ' 0.9862 3020 ' 0.9898 0o37 ' 0.9945
October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --2054 , 0.9995 -5036 ' 1.0042 _8o14 , 1.0087 --10047 ' 1.0133
November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 14Oll , 1.0164 --16021 , 1.0207 --18°18 ' 1.0238 --19058 , 1.0267
December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -21°41 ' 1.0288 -22°39 ' 1.0305 --23°14 ' 1.0318 --23027 ' 1.0327

diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l sur- r e c e n t v a l u e of 2.00 l y / m i n , * or 442 B t u / h r - s q ft, given

face, dimensionless
rr = I rh/Io~,, = t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficient for
t o t a l r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l surface,
dimensionless
¢0 = h o u r angle, degrees
¢0~ = s u n s e t h o u r angle, r a d i a n s
INTRODUCTION
T h e increase in r e c e n t y e a r s of t h e p r o b l e m s w i t h
w h i c h solar r a d i a t i o n is i n v o l v e d has m a d e solar r a d i a -
t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n f r e q u e n t l y n e e d e d b y w o r k e r s in
m a n y fields. A l t h o u g h solar r a d i a t i o n d a t a are now
a v a i l a b l e for m a n y localities, difficulties are s o m e t i m e s
e n c o u n t e r e d in utilizing these d a t a since t h e y consist
p r i m a r i l y of t o t a l ( d i r e c t plus diffuse) r a d i a t i o n o n l y
a n d a k n o w l e d g e of t h e diffuse c o m p o n e n t is often re-
quired. Since t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o m p u t a t i o n of diffuse
r a d i a t i o n is e x t r e m e l y difficult if n o t i m p o s s i b l e a t t h e
p r e s e n t t i m e , a n a t t e m p t is m a d e in t h i s s t u d y to in-
vestigate, from the limited data now available, the
r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n diffuse a n d t o t a l r a d i a t i o n in
o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y be utilized for t h e e s t i m a t i o n of
diffuse r a d i a t i o n for localities w h e r e o n l y t h e t o t a l
r a d i a t i o n is k n o w n . T h i s was first a t t e m p t e d b y P a r -
melee ~ for cloudless d a y s only, b u t no extension was
m a d e to c l o u d y d a y s .
I n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n it h a s also b e e n f o u n d n e c e s s a r y
b y J o h n s o n , 2 in t e r m s of t h e S m i t h s o n i a n P y r h e l i o m e t r i c
Scale of 1932t shall be a d o p t e d . T h e solar c o n s t a n t is
t h e r a t e at, w h i c h solar e n e r g y is i m p i n g i n g u p o n a
u n i t surface, n o r m a l to s u n ' s r a y s , in free space, a t t h e
e a r t h ' s m e a n d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e sun. It, is in general
s l i g h t l y different f r o m t h e solar r a d i a t i o n a t n o r m a l
incidence a t t h e o u t e r l i m i t of t h e a t m o s p h e r e d u e to
t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e e a r t h a n d t h e
sun. (See T a b l e 1.)
Relationships Between the Intensities of Direct
and Diffuse Radiation on Clear Days
As solar r a d i a t i o n p e n e t r a t e s t h e a t m o s p h e r e it is
d e p l e t e d b y a b s o r p t i o n a n d s c a t t e r i n g . N o t all of t h e
s c a t t e r e d r a d i a t i o n is lost, since p a r t of it e v e n t u a l l y
a r r i v e s a t t h e surface of t h e e a r t h in t h e f o r m of dif-
fuse r a d i a t i o n . T h e t e r m , diffuse r a d i a t i o n , is used here
in t h e c u s t o m a r y w a y to d e n o t e t h i s s h o r t w a v e l e n g t h
r a d i a t i o n coming f r o m all p a r t s of t h e sky. I t should
be d i s t i n g u i s h e d clearly f r o m t h e a t m o s p h e r i c t h e r m a l
r a d i a t i o n which, a l t h o u g h also diffuse in n a t u r e , is of
m u c h longer w a v e l e n g t h s .
T o f a c i l i t a t e t h e discussion, t h e following d i m e n s i o n -
less t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficients shall b e defined:
rD = t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficient for d i r e c t solar r a d i a t i o n
= I•,,/Io+ = I.h/Ioh

to s t u d y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o t a l r a d i a - rd = t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficient for diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a

tion. T h e results o b t a i n e d serve to i n d i c a t e t h e t y p e s
of p a r a m e t e r s to be used in t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of o t h e r
s t a t i s t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of solar r a d i a t i o n should t h e
need for t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s arise. T h e p r e s e n t s t u d y
is r e s t r i c t e d to r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l surface only.
Solar Constant
Since a definite v a l u e for t h e solar c o n s t a n t m u s t be
used c o n s i s t e n t l y t h r o u g h o u t this s t u d y , t h e m o s t
h o r i z o n t a l surface = I a h / I o h
T h e s e t r a n s m i s s i o n coefficients a r e f u n c t i o n s of t h e
solar a l t i t u d e , a t m o s p h e r i c w a t e r v a p o r c o n t e n t , d u s t
c o n t e n t , o z o n e c o n t e n t , a n d a n y o t h e r r a d i a t i o n de-
* 1.0 langley/rain = 1,0 gm cal/min-sq cm ~ 3.687 Btu/min-
sq ft -- 69.7 milliwatts/sq cm.
t The 1932 Pyrheliometric Scale of the Smithsonian In-
stitution is 2.5% below the scale of 1913, 1.0% above the Ang-
strom scale and 0.5% below the recently proposed International
Pyrheliometric Scale.a
pleting factors. However, in a nonindustrial locality
where the atmosphere is relatively clean and the ef-
fect of dust small, the daily variation of these trans-
mission coefficients for the sun at a fixed altitude, is
primarily due to the variation of the atmospheric water
vapor. Thus as the atmospheric water vapor content
varies from d a y to day causing both rD and r~ to vary,
a functional relationship between ro and r,~ is generated.
The four upper curves of Fig. 1 show the theoretical
relationships between ro ~nd rj for a cloudless and dust
free atmosphere for four air masses, l, 2, 3 and 4 cor-
responding to solar altitude angles of 90, 30, 19.5 and
14.5 respectively. These relationships can be derived
readily from the transmission coefficients computed by
Kimball when the assumption is made that the diffuse
radiation received on a horizontal surface is half of the
solar radiation scattered by the atmospheric constitu-
ents. 4 However, due to the fact that Kimball's compu-
tations are based upon a zero air mass solar spectrum
low in the ultraviolet, the theoretical values of rD and
r,t in Fig. I have been reduced by 3 %. Since these theo-
retical relationships have been derived without con-
sidering the effect of dust and are based upon an as-
sumption which is known to be only approximately
correct, they should not be expected to represent the
correct relationships between r . and rd under actual
cloudless sky conditions and are derived here to serve
merely as guides in the search of experimental relation-
ships.
0.20
z
0
0
The experimental points of Fig. 1 are derived from
the measurements made at H u m p Mountain, N o r t h
Carolina, by Moore and Abbot 5 whose data appear to
be the best available. In computing the experimental
transmission coefficients, however, the direct and dif-
fuse radiation intensities from the original data have
been reduced by 2.5 % in order that the radiation in-
tensities be expressed in the 1932 Smithsonian Pyrhelio-
metric scale upon which the presently adopted solar
constant of 2.00 ly/min is based.
The fact that both the theoretical curves and experi-
mental points of Fig. 1 show that the values of Td cor-
responding to a fixed value of ro depend only very
moderately upon the air mass indicates that, for the
degree of accuracy here sought, a relationship which is
independent of the air mass is adequate. The following
equation of a straight line, obtained b y the method of
least squares, best fits the experimental points:
ra = 0.2710 -- 0.2939ro [1]
A total of 149 points representing the data of 28 clear
days were used in obtaining this equation. The prob-
able error computed by the equation,
A[//
Probable error - 0.6745 'l/ n ~
~12
is 0.0052, where ~ is the difference between the experi-
mental value of r,~ and the value of rj given by the
straight line at the same value of r . , and n the total
number of points used.

n,," ,.= 0.16

W I--(
(/3 ',

I.L .

t:3 ',' 0.12

r~

0.08
,-2~-
it. TM
~ O
O N

12)
7 "I" 0 . 0 4
O

~z
IE o
7 0
ne 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0,56 0,60 0,64 0.68 0.72 0.76
~- TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR DIRECT RADIATION, 'I"D= I o n / / I o n = I D h / I o h
I:]~;. l--Theoretical and experimental relations between the intensities of direct and diffuse radiation oil -~ horizontal surface for a
cloudless atmosphere at 4800 ft elevation.
 z 0.20
0
I-.
<{

[ "L" = 0 . 2 7 1 0 - 0.2939 "CO

r~ ~ 0.16
/
{f) "o
::3 • / 0 n
LL
h II"O 0
/ o

0/
¢

n- ,,i O J2 o o
.I
~ ,,,,,~ ) n
O0 - ~ 0 u 0 (

i, o ~ ;e R e) 9

Z
hi (~ L °'!o ."
~ j 0.08 I•{

Oo
~'~ N • EXPERIMENTAL DATA OF BLUE HILL, MASS. ) • " ~ . ~ "~ L

LATITUDE 4 2 ° 1 3 ' N , ELEVATION 6 2 9 FT •

g ~ 0.04
-- -r • m41.5
or) o m >1.5
CO ,,~
~Z
CO 0 ] 1 I)I
Z
n,"
i i II}
F-
0.52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.80
TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR DIRECT RADIATION, '~O = Ion/Ion = Ioh/lob
Fx(~. 2 - - C o m p a r i s o n of the empirical relation between the intensities of direct a n d diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a horizontal surface derived
from the d a t a for H u m p M o u n t a i n , N. C., with the d a t a for Blue Hill, Mass.

z 0.20
0
I-
.=
II
EXPERIMENTAL DATA OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.
II II II
LATITUDE 4 4 ° 5 8 ' N , ELEVATION 8 9 2 FT
Q: ~ 0J6
P Y R H E L I O METER
(/1 "~
:3 H DIFFUSE DIRECT NORMAL
• E P P L E Y NO. 1979 EPPLEY NO. :5365
o E P P L E Y NO. 5195 EPPLEY NO. 3 3 6 5
.. ~ o.~2
OC.) I
zm /
/ •0 ~i=
o
~ =
IM
- J 0,08 /
u. I -
~ Z / "L"d = 0 . 2 7 1 0 - 0 . 2 9 5 9 "Z"D
~O v
ON

~o.o4
CO
~EZ
(nO
z
<[ 0
0.4 4 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.76
I-
TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR DIRECT R A D I A T I O N , " ~ D = I D n / I o n =IDh/Ioh
FI(~. 3 - - C o m p a r i s o n of the empirical relation between the intensities of direct a n d diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a horizontal surface derived
from the data for H u m p M o u n t a i n , N. C., w i t h the data for Minneapolis, Minn.

4
 The reasons that the observed diffuse radiation values
are lower than the theoretical values computed for a
dust free atmosphere, under the assumption that half
of the scattered radiation reaches the earth's surface,
are not immediately apparent. Since the theoretical
relationships do not take into consideration the effects
of dust and since an atmosphere is never completely
dust free, the observed diffuse radiation intensities
would be expected to be higher than those predicted if
the usual assumption is made that dust particles scat-
ter but do not absorb radiation. 4,6 The effect of terrain
reflection which was not considered in obtaining the
theoretical relationships would also tend to increase the
diffuse radiation, since the radiation thus reflected is in
turn scattered by the atmospheric constituents and a
fraction of this scattered radiation again arrives at the
earth's surface. Furthermore, the assumption that half
of the scattered radiation reaches the earth's surface is
true for pure Rayleigh scattering by air molecules only.
The more intensely forward scattered components
usually associated with watex vapor scattering prob-
ably should increase the observed diffuse radiation in-
tensity to values even greater than those predicted.
Therefore, it appears that in travelling toward the
earth's surface a substantial fraction of the scattered
radiation must have been absorbed by the atmospheric
water vapor or other absorbing media in the atmos-
phere. Nevertheless, this factor alone does not seem to
have an effect of sufficient magnitude to account for the
differences between the theoretical and experimental
diffuse radiation intensities, as shown in Fig. 1. How-
ever, regardless of the reasons for this difference,
Equation [1] provides a means for estimating the in-
tensity of diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface
under a cloudless atmosphere when the intensity of
direct radiation at normal incidence is known. Since
the intensity of total radiation on a horizontal surface
is/he sum of the intensities of direct and diffuse radia-
tion on a horizontal surface, the followin~ relation be-
tween r~ and r r can be readily derived from Equation
[1]
r~ = 0.3840 -- 0.4160rT [2]
where rr is the ratio of the intensity of total radiation
on a horizontal surface to the intensity of radiation
incident upon a horizontal surface on top of the at-
mosphere.
To test whether Equation [1] also represents the
correct relationship between the intensities of direct
and diffuse radiation at localities other than Hump
Mountain, it has been compared with the data of
Hand 7 for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, and measurements
made by the authors at the University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. These are shown in Figs. 2
and 3. Even though the data for Blue Hill show con-
siderable scattering and the diffuse radiation measure-
ments are higher than those for Hump Mountain, the
agreement is still quite satisfactory. The agreement of
Equation [1] with the experimental data for Minne-
apolis is extremely good and the small differences are
entirely within the experimental uncertainties of the
diffuse radiation measurements by the Eppley pyrheli-
ometers. (Examination of Fig. 3 shows that diffuse
radiation measured by two different Eppley pyrheli-
ometers differ by about 10 %.) Therefore, it is felt that
Equation [1] and hence Equation [2] are of general
validity and should be applicable to many localities
where the albedo (reflectivity) of the surrounding ter-
rain and the atmospheric contamination by dust are
not greatly different from those at Hump Mountain,
Blue Hill, and Minneapolis.
Relationship Between Daily Diffuse and Daily
Total Radiation on Cloudy Days
Due to the extremely variable cloudiness the inten-
sities of direct and diffuse radiation under sky condi-
tions not. completely cloudless will also be highly
variable and their values at any one instant are im-
possible to predict. Therefore, any attempt to establish
a relationship between diffuse radiation and total radia-
tion during cloudy days must involve statistical aver-
ages which can be obtained from experimental data
covering a sufficiently long period of time.
If one month is taken as a period during which the
solar declination does not vary excessively, and conse-
quently the daily solar radiation incident upon a hori-
zontal surface outside the atmosphere at a locality
also remains fairly constant, then during a month the
day to day variation of the daily total and daily diffuse
radiation received on a horizontal surface at a locality
is prim,~rily due to the variation of cloudiness, and to
much lesser extents, the variation of the atmospheric
water vapor, dust, and ozone contents. Since the
amount of total radiation received on a horizontal
surface during a day is an indication of the degree of
atmospheric cloudiness whose variability is largely re-
sponsible for the observed diffuse radiation variations
from day to day, it is expected that, when suitable
statistical averages are taken, a relationship will exist
between the daily total and daily diffuse radiation for
each month at a given locality.
Fig. 4 shows such relationships derived from the ten
year (1947-1956) data for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, s
for the three months, December, March and June. The
value of the daily diffuse radiation, D, at each point in
Fig. 4 is the average of the daily diffuse radiation re-
ceived on days with daily total radiation equal to H.
However, due to the fact that the number of days with
exactly equal values of daily total radiation is extremely
small even within the same month, the value of H at
 280
LO
0
<
u_
n,, 240
D
ch

_J
"~
I-
200
t
O>-
N ,:I

o 0c 160
-r I..l.J
fit.

Z )-
o 12o
z Z

~ 8O

D 40

-
< 0
0 I00 200 500 400 500 600 T00
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE, LANGLEY
Fro. 4 - - T h e relation between the daily t o t a l r a d i a t i o n a n d daily diffuse r a d i a t i o n on a horizontal surface for December, M a r c h
and June at Blue Hill, Mass.
each point in Fig. 4 is actually the average of the daily
total radiation for days whose .daily total radiation fall
within a small interval of values (the size of the inter-
val is indicated by the difference in the values of H of
the neighboring points in Fig. 4). Since ten year data
for each month are used and approximately ten points
are obtained for each month, each point in Fig. 5 repre-
sents approximately the average of thirty days.
The results of Fig. 5 show that a fairly smooth rela-
tionship exists between the daily diffuse and daily total
radiation for each of the three months. Furthermore,
the similarities between the forms of the three curves
indicate the possibility of obtaining a unique repre-
sentation of these relations through normalizing the
coordinates. T h a t this indeed is the case can be seen
by referring to Fig. 5 showing the relationship between
the daily diffuse and daily total radiation for the entire
twelve months in the normalized coordinates K~ and
K r where
Ka = D/Ho [3]
K r = H/Ho [41
BOO 900
PER DAY
and Ho, the extraterrestrial daily insolation received
on a horizontal surface, is computed from the following
equation
H0 = __24rLc(cos L cos ~ sin ~ + ~, sin L sin ~) [5]
with the use of the mean solar declination for each
month. The sunset hour angle, ~0,, i.e. the hour angle
at which the sun sets in the west, in Equation [5] can
be determined as follows:
cos ~, = --tan L tan ~ [6]
The solar declination for the selected days of each
month and the ratio, r, of the intensity of radiation at
normal incidence outside the atmosphere to the solar
constant are given in Table 1. A graphical representa-
tion of Equation [6] is shown in Fig. 6 with Ho plotted
against the latitude and with the month as a parameter.
Despite a more than threefold increase in the value
of Ho from December to June at the latitude (42°13'N)
of Blue Hill, as an examination of Fig. 6 will show, the
results of Fig. 5 show that a fairly definite relationship
exists between the two dimensionless quantities Kd and
K r . It is of'l interest to note that on days which are
relatively cloud free ( K r = 0.75) the diffuse radiation
received on a horizontal surface is approximately 12 %
(Kd = 0.12) of the solar radiation outside the atmos-
phere. On certain partly cloudy days (KT = 0.40),
however, the diffuse radiation is over twice the clear
day value and reaches as much as 25 % of the extra-
terrestrial insolation. With increasing cloudiness, as Kr
approaches zero, K~ also approaches zero as would be
expected.
The curves of Fig. 5 thus offer an interesting possi-
bility for a method of estimating, to an average ac-
curacy of approximately ± 5 %, the daily diffuse radia-
tion at localities where measurements of daily total
radiation are made, provided, of course, that the rela-
tionships of Fig. 5 also hold for other localities. Since
additional data is sparse, it has not been possible to
extend the studies to other locations. However, it will
be shown in subsequent developments that the results
derived assuming the validity of these results continue
to compare favorably with all available experimental
evidence.
,.1:,: o
II
"0
v
0
I-
n,,"
0 0.1 0.2 0,3 0.4
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE
RATIO KT = "~":
EXTRATERRESTRIAL DAILY INSOLATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE
FIG. 5--The relation between the daily total radiation and daily diffuseradiation on a horizontal surface.
A special comment is needed for the few points with
KT > 0.75 as they appear to deviate from the general
trend of the other points. It should be recalled that in
Equations [3] and [4], Ho was computed using the
average solar declination for each month. Thus the
values of K r (or K~) for each point in Fig. 5 truly
represent the fraction of the extraterrestrial daily
insolation transmitted through the atmosphere as total
radiation (or as diffuse radiation), and thus accurately
provide an indication of the degree of cloudiness, only
if the value of Ho so computed is the true average of
the extraterrestrial insolation for the days whose data
are used in obtaining each point. Since the extrater-
restrial daily insolation does vary to some extent during
a month, this then requires that the days whose data
are used to obtain a point distribute themselves sym-
metrically with respect to the middle of the month.
In analyzing the data for Blue Hill it was found that
this requirement is nearly obeyed for all points with
K r < 0.75 but not for the few points with K r > 0.75.
In fact the large values of K r for these points are
direct consequences for the fact that the values of Ho
used are smaller than the true average. A much better
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
 4800-

4400- 120(

Z
4000-
0
IOOC
I--
'<w" 3600-
_1
(n 32oo-
CI
o 80C
oJI 2 8 0 0 - (Z:
I- LU
--..j u. (2.
¢: 2 4 0 0 - >-
uJ
-5 Q. ~j 60C
D 2000 (.9
~N
m
Z
t-
I- in
J
tn2: 1600
u.i G G400
n-- I "I-
uJ z 1200-
1--
40

l-
800- 200
X
hl
400-

O_ 0
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
NORTH LATITUDE, L, DEGREES
FIG. 6 - - E x t r a t e r r e s t r i a l daily insolation received on a horizontal surface.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ho DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE
RAT I0 KT=
6
m
EXTRATERRESTRIAL DAILY INSOLATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE

¢r

FIc. 7 - - T h e ratio of t h e daily diffuse r a d i a t i o n to t h e daily total r a d i a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of t h e cloudiness index KT.

 LI.

CO
_1

II

Ld..J

,~1--
0 0.1 0.3 0.20.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
RATIO KD= H-D= DAILY DIRECT RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE
HO EXTRATERRESTRIAL DAILY INSOLATION ON h HORIZONTAL SURFACE
I!
FIG. 8--Comparison of the relations between the daily direct radiation and the daily diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface on
clear and cloudy days.
result would have been obtained had the "correct" and represents the fraction of the extraterrestrial
average Ho been employed. This was not done in order daily insolation transmitted through the atmosphere as
that Ho for each month might have a definite value. To direct radiation. Since Kd and KD are respectively the
overcome this difficulty it is recommended that when weighed averages of ~d and To, and since on clear days
KT > 0.75 the average ratio 0.16 of D / H for these the relation between r~ and rz) is linear, when Kd and
points be used. Kz) are substituted for rd and ~-, in Equation [1], an
The ratio D / H is shown as a function of K r in trig. equation is obtained which represents the relationship
7. Since the diffuse and total radiation should be equal between the daily direct and diffuse radiation received
for completely overcast days, the ratio D / H should oil a horizontal surface on clear days. Thus, on clear
approach the limit one when KT approaches zero. An days,
inconsistency in the data is seen for the points with Kd = 0.2710 -- 0.2939Kt~ [8]
values of K r near zero. The solid curve is so drawn that
which is also plotted in Fig. 8.
the ratio D / H is brought to unity when KT equals zero,
The effects of clouds on diffuse radiation is clearly
and it is recommended that this curve be used for
seen from Fig. 8 which shows that the value of Ku on
practical application.
cloudy days is higher than the corresponding value of
C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e C l e a r a n d C l o u d y Day R e l a - Kd on clear days at the same values of K o . The higher
t i o n s h i p s B e t w e e n t h e Daily D i r e c t a n d D i f f u s e diffuse radiation on cloudy days is obviously due to the
Radiation additional scattering effects of clouds.
A comparison between the clear and cloudy day dif- Statistical Distribution of the Daily Total Radia-
fuse radiation is shown in Fig. 8 where Kd of Fig. 5 is tion on a Horizontal Surface
plotted against KD with In the majority of cases it is more important to have
K~) = ( H -- D ) / H , , = KT - gd [7] a knowledge of the monthly average of the daily dif-
 I!

I!

"4

O
v

a: 0 0.'2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH
DALLY TOTAL RADIATION ~< H
FIG. 9--Monthly Kr curves for/~T = 0.3.

fuse radiation, /5. However, in order to compute /3,
with the use of the relationship of Fig. 7, the statistical
distribution of the daily total radiation must be known.
For reasons to be discussed it has been suspected
that a correlation possibly exists among the statistical
distribution curves of different localities. To test
whether this indeed is the case, statistical distribution
curves of daily total radiation for widely separated
localities have been constructed and compared. Typi-
cal examples of these comparisons are shown in Figs. 9,
10 and II.
Each of the curves of Fig. 9, 10 and 11 have been
constructed using five year (primarily 1954-1958)
data of daily total radiation from the Weather Bureau
publication, Climatological Data, National Summary,
and the curves have been so arranged that the values
o f / ~ r for curves on the same graph are approximately
equal where

10
 fir = I:I/Ho
and /I, the monthly average of the daily total radia-
tion for the particular month at the particular locality
under consideration, and Ho, the extraterrestrial daily
insolation, have been obtained from Fig. 6. The sta-
tistical distribution curves so obtained will be termed
the "monthly K r curves" since they represent the
statistical distribution of the quantity K r and are
constructed on a monthly basis.
[9] A comparison of the different curves in the same
figure shows that although the curves are not identical,
the differences among them are not large and may be
neglected for many practical purposes. The fact that
such widely separated localities as Schenectady, New
York, and Annette, Alaska, in Fig. 9 and localities with
as much difference in elevation as Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and Wake Island in Fig. 11 should have almost
identical monthly K r curves indicates that such a

i!
b-
hg
O
n

¢r

FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH

DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ~ H
I~IG. 1 0 - - M o n t h l y KT ('IlFVeS f o r A T = 0 . 5 .

ll
 O
1- I
II

o
t-
rr ~0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ~ H
FIG. ll--Monthly K r curves for/~T = 0.7.

correlation between the forms of the monthly K T curves
and the values of /~ r need not be restricted to these
localities. Thus if a set of monthly K r curves corre-
sponding to different mean values of /~r is obtained,
they m a y be used as a close approximation to the
actual monthly K r curves and can be utilized to de-
termine the statistical distribution of the daily total
radiation when the monthly average daily total radia-
tion is known. A set of such "generalized monthly KT
curves" corresponding to /~T of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and
0.7 has been obtained from the monthly K r curves
constructed with the data of the localities shown in
Table 2. These generalized curves are shown in Fig.
12 and Table 3.
Relationship Between Monthly Average Daily
Total and Monthly Average Daily Diffuse Radi-
ation
T h e generalized monthly K r curves of the preceding
section m a y be used in conjunction with the curve in
Fig. 7 to compute the monthly average of the daily
diffuse radiation as follows.

12
 TABLE 2 . - - S t a t i o n s S e l e c t e d for t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e G e n e r a l i z e d M o n t h l y KT C u r v e s

Latitude Elevation // KT Period of Data

Station (North) (ft.) Month (lg/day)

Annette, Alaska ....................... 55o02 ' 110 Nov. 199 •307 1954-1958
S c h e n e c t a d y , N. Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42050 ' 217 Nov. 380 .295 1954-1958
S. Ste. M a r i e , M i c h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46o28 ' 721 Nov. 326 .304 1954-1958

Boston, Mass .......................... 42o22 ' 15 Dec. 298 •399 1955-1958

Cleveland, O ........................... 41030 ' 787 Dec. 310 .400 1955--1958
Indianapolis, Ind ...................... 39o44 ' 793 Nov. 434 .401 1954-1958
Oak Ridge, Tenn ....................... 36o01 ' 905 Jan. 429 •399 1952, '54, '55, '57
'58
Put-in-Bay, O ........................ 41o39 ' 575 NOV. 404 .396 1950-1953
State-College, Pa ..................... 40o48 ' 1175 Jan. 357 .406 1954-1958

Atlanta, Ga ........................... 33o39 ' 975 Jan. 468 • 498 1954-1958

Blue Hill, Mass ....................... 42o13 ' 629 July 994 .500 1954-1958
N e w p o r t , R. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41029 ' 60 Sept. 730 .500 1954-1958
Ottawa, Ont .......................... 45020 ' Apr. 815 •498 1954-1958
San Antonio, Tex ..................... 29°32 ' 792 Apr. 902 •499 1954-1958
Seattle, Wash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47036 ' 14 Aug. 858 .502 1951, '52, '54, '55,
'58

Apalachicola, Fla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29o44' 13 Mar. 778 .6OO 1952, 1955-1958

B i s m a r c k , N. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46046 ' 1650 Aug. 862 •599 1954-1958
Cleveland, O .......................... 41o30 ' 787 May 963 •597 1951, 1955-1958
G r a n d Lake, Colo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40o15 ' 8389 Apr. 850 •598 1950-1953, 1957
Midland, Tex ......................... 32o01 ' 2854 Oct. 661 .601 1954-1958
R a p i d C i t y , S. D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44o09 ' 3165 Apr. 825 .600 1954-1958

A l b u q u e r q u e , N. M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35003 ' 5310 July 997 • 703 1954-1958

G r a n d J u n c t i o n , Colo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39006 ' 4849 June 1019 .699 1954, '55, '57, '58
Las Vegas, N e v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36o04 ' 2162 July 998 • 698 1954-1958
Riverside, Calif ....................... 33o58 ' 1050 Sept. 797 .700 1954-1958
Santa Maria, Calif .................... i 34o56 ' 238 July 997 • 700 1954-1958
W a k e I s l a n d s P.A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19o18 ' 11 Dec. 635 • 698 1954-1958

I f f=l ff=lH
TABLE 3 - - T h e G e n e r a l i z e d M o n t h l y K r C u r v e s
f,T = fI/Ho = ~ f=o Hdf= f=o df
Value of f for KT = f=l
[lOl
KT
.3 .5 •6 .7
=
ff
~0
KT, df

.09O .000
However, since the ratio of D/H is a unique function of
.04 073 •015
.08 162 .070 .008 .000 KT as shown in Fig. 7, when/~a is defined as
.12 245 .129 .o451 •021 .007
.16 299 • 190 •082 •039 .007 Kd = ]D/Ho [11]
.20 395 •249 .121 •053 .007
• 24 496 •298 / .160 ' •076 .007 it is seen that
.28 513 .346 194
• • 101 •013
.32
.36
.40
579
628
• 687
.379
•438
.493
• 234
• 277
•323
.126
.152
.191
.013
.027
.034
ff~= f/=x D d f =
f=o H0
f f=IDKrdf
f=0
[12]
.44 748 .545 •358 .235 .047
.48 • 793 .601 •400 .269 .054 Equation [12] states that when the ordinate, K T , of
.52 •824 • 654 .460 .310 .081
• 56 • 861 .719 .509 .360 .128 a monthly K r curve is multiplied by the ratio D/H from
.li0 9O4 .760 .614 .410 .161 Fig. 7, the area under the curve so obtained is numeri-
• 1)4 936 •827 • 703 .467 .228
• 68 953 .888 • 792 .538 .295 cally equal to the value of/~d • The value o f / ) can then
.72 967 • 931 •873 .648 .517 be obtained easily by multiplying /~a by the extra-
.76 979 .967 .945 .758 .678
.80 986 .981 .980 .884 .859 terrestrial daily insolation Ho from Fig. 6.
.84 993 .997 •993 .945 .940 When the coordinates K r of the generalized monthly
• 88 995 .999 1.000 .985 .980
.92 998 •999 .996 1.000 K r curves of Fig. 12 are multiplied by the ratio D/H
.96 1.000 .999 from Fig. 7, the curves of Fig. 13 are obtained. The
1.00 1.000
areas under these curves, according to Equation [12],
are numerically equal to the values of/~'a • A graphical
It should be observed that the area under any integration produces the result shown in Table 4.
monthly K r curve is numerically the same as the value The value of hTd corresponding to hT~ = 0.75 in
of /~T, since from the definitions of /~r and "f" in Table 4 is taken from Fig. 5, since a locality w i t h / ~ =
Figs. 9, 10, l l or 12, 0.75 should have almost constant clear weather from

13
day to day and therefore Kd and K T should remain
almost constant from day to day and be respectively
equal to/~d a n d / ~ r •
It should be noticed that the results of Table 4, in
which /~d is a single valued function of -Kr, can be
obtained only when a correlation between the monthly
K r curves a n d / ~ r such as those shown in Figs. 9, 10
and 11 exists. Indeed this was the reason which ini-
tially led the authors to suspect such a correlation,
since the relationship between Kd and K r of Fig. 5,
derived from the data of Blue Hill, strongly suggests
the existence of a similar unique relationship between
/~d a n d / ~ r .
In examining Table 4, it should be noted that a
locality may be considered to be extremely cloudy, if
on a monthly average basis, the daily extraterrestrial
solar radiation transmitted through the atmosphere is
only 30% (/~r = 0.30). However, a locality may be
considered to be very sunny i f / ~ r = 0.70. The results
of Table 4 show that irrespective of the markedly dif-

- r : I :O

g
b--
0¢ v0 0.2 O.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH
DAILY TOTAL RADIATION -~ H
FIG. 12--The generalized monthly Kv curves.

14
 b-
v

t:~-r
II

I!

v
0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH DALLY TOTAL RADIATION 4~ H
FIG. 13--Curves for the determination of ](,t.

TAm.E 4--The Relation Between the Monthly Average ])ally
Total and the Monthly Average Daily Diffuse
Radiation
/~T 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 (0.75)
/~ 0.179, 0.183 0.188 0.174 0.149 (0.125)
ferent atmospheric conditions associated with the
different values of / ~ r , on a monthly average basis,
the fractions of the extraterrestrial daily insolation
transmitted through the atmosphere as diffuse radia-
tion, i.e. the values of Kd, show only a very moderate
variation--from a minimum of 0.125 to a maximum of
0.188. Furthermore an analysis of the data of daily
total radiation published by the U. S. Weather Bureau
shows that for a great majority (over 70%) of locali-
ties and months, the values o f / ~ r lie in the range of
0.3 to 0.6. Thus one should expect, from the results of
Table 4 alone, that for many localities Kd is within the
range from 0.174 to 0.188. From the limited diffuse
radiation data available, the twelve months average of
/~d is 0.178 at Blue Hill, Massachusetts, (10 year
average); s 0.185 at Nice, France, (3 year average);9
0.189 at Helsingfors, Finland, (4 year average);10 and
0.205 at London, England, (5 year average). H A fur-
ther examination of the data of London shows that the
reason that the experimental values of /~e are higher
than those predicted is due, at least in part, to the fact
that a "shading ring" correction of 1% to 0% had
been added to the measured diffuse radiation. The
agreement would have been entirely satisfactory if this
correction had not been applied to the measured dif-
fuse radiation as with the data of the other localities.
The r a t i o / ) / / 7 plotted as a function of £ ' r is shown
in Fig. 14. The experimental ratio for each month and
for each of the four localities are also shown o~l the
same graph for comparison.
Relationship Between Hourly and Daily Diffuse
Radiation
A knowledge of the average intensity of diffuse
radiation at different times of the day is needed in
many problems dealing with solar radiation. Since
solar radiation data are not presented for intervals
shorter than one hour, the nearest approach to the
true average intensity at an instant obtainable from
the solar radiation data commonly available is the
hourly average intensity. Again it must be emphasized
that extremely variable cloudiness precludes the possi-

15
 I, ll'=
II

II

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0
I..-
RATIO KT='-'~o= MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY TOTAL RADIATION
EXTRATERRESTRIAL DALLY INSOLATION

FIG. 14--The ratio of the monthly average daily diffuse radiation to the monthly average d:~ily total radiation as a
function of the cloudiness index K T.

bility of obtaining a true instantaneous radiation in- Therefore

tensity during cloudy days except from direct experi-
mentation.
By Equation [11]
D = ff~Ho
If the assumption is made t h a t the same fraction,
lid, also represents the ratio of the average intensity
of diffuse radiation to the extraterrestrial radiation
intensity, i.e.
id~ = f ~ I o h
where _Tdj,is the average intensity of diffuse radiation
received on a horizontal surface, then the ratio rd of
the average intensity of diffuse radiation to the daily
diffuse radiation is
rd = T-dh/D = Io,,/Ho
The correctness of this assumption can be tested only
when the ratio computed by means of Equation [15] is
compared with the ratio derived from the experimental
data.
An expression for Ho is given in Equation [5], and the
instantaneous radiation intensity can be shown to be
Ioh= rI~c(cosLcos~cos~ ~- s i n L s i n S )
~r cos L cos/I cos ~ -t- sin L sin
rd = [17]
24 cos L cos ~ sin ~8 q- o~ sin L sin
When the sunset hour angle, o~,, of Equation [6], is
[13] substituted into Equation [17], the expression is ob-
tained,*
C O S ¢0 - - C O S COs
r~ - [18]
24 sin o~ -- ~ cps ~
Using the ten year data for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, s
[14]
and the four year data for Helsingfors, Finland, ~2 the
experimental ratio of the monthly average hourly to
daily diffuse radiation for the hours: 11:00-12:00 a.m.
and 12:00-1:00 p.m., 10:00-11:00 a.m. and 1:00-2:00
p.m., etc., are plotted as shown in Fig. 15 against the
[15] sunset hour angle ~s computed b y means of Equation
[6] with the use of the mean solar declination for each
month. The data for the morning and afternoon hours
symmetrical with respect to solar noon have been
combined in obtaining these ratios. If these average
* An equation which is slightly different, but practically
the same as Equation [18] was first derived by Whillier in his
investigation of the relation between the hourly and daily
total radiation on a horizontal surface to be discussed in the
[16] following section.

16
hourly diffuse radiation are considered as the average
intensities of diffuse radiation at the mid-point of
these hours, a comparison with the theoretical ratio rd
of Equation [18] can be made. The ratio r~ computed
by means of Equation [18] using the hour angle at ½,
1½, 2~, etc., hours from solar noon is shown plotted in
Fig. 15 as the solid curves.
The excellent agreement between the experimental
ratios and those computed by means of Equation [18]
substantiates the assumption made in Equation [14].
Thus both Equation [14] and Fig. 15 may be utilized
for the determination of the average intensity of dif-
fuse radiation when the value of /(d, which can be
determined from Table 3 and Fig. 14, is known.
Relationship Between the Hourly and Daily Total
Radiation
If the subscript "d" for diffuse radiation in Equa-
tions [13] and [141 is replaced by the subscript, " T " for
total radiation, an expression which is identical to r~

0.2("

0.11

0.1(

z Iz
_o 0.1'

,, O.lt

°'°'

O.Oq
0
n..
0,0,

0.0:

L
8 9 I0 II 12 15 14 15 16
HOURS FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET
I I I
6O 75 9'0 i
105 120
SUNSET HOUR ANGLE, ~ S ' DEGREES
FIG. 15--Theoretical and experimental ratio of the hourly diffuse radiation to the daily diffuse radiation.

17
 C.__

5~
I~n,-

>

~- C
o_
(l:
C

8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16
HOURS FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET
I I I t
60 75 90 105
SUNSET HOUR ANGLE,u) S , DEGREES
FIG. 16--Experimental ratio of the hourly total radiation to the daily total radiation.

of Equation [18], is obtained for r r , the ratio of the
average intensity of total radiation incident upon a
horizontal surface to the daily total radiation received
on the horizontal surface. I t was shown by Whillier L~
and Hottel and Whillier ~4 that the experimentally de-
termined ratios r r are different from those computed
b y means of Equation [18]. However, it was also shown
t h a t when the experimental ratios r r derived from the
d a t a of widely separated localities are plotted against
the sunset hour angle, a mean curve for each hour is
obtained such t h a t the deviation of a n y individual
point from the mean curve is no more than =t=5% for
all hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. sun time.
The experimental curves in Fig. 16 in the range of 9
to 15 hours from sunrise to sunset are those presented
by Hottel and Whillier) 4 T h e extension beyond this
range has been made with data from Winnipeg, Can-
ada. 1~
The following two examples illustrate some of the
possible applications of the relations derived in the
preceding sections.
Example 1: Estimate the intensities of diffuse and

18
 t o t a l r a d i a t i o n on a h o r i z o n t a l surface a t 12:00 noon
on J u n e 23 a t a l o c a l i t y on 36°N l a t i t u d e . T h e d i r e c t
r a d i a t i o n i n t e n s i t y , I ~ , , , a t n o r m a l incidence, a c c o r d -
ing to T h r e l k e l d a n d J o r d a n , ~6 is 280 B t u / h r - s q ft for
the a s s u m e d basic a t m o s p h e r e . T h e solar a l t i t u d e is
77.5 ° .
Solution: F r o m T a b l e l , on J u n e 23, r -- 0.9670.
Therefore, Ion = r l ~ = ( 0 . 9 6 7 0 ) ( 4 4 2 ) = 428 B t u / h r -
sq ft a n d rD = ID,/lo,, = 280/442 = 0.655. B y m e a n s
of E q u a t i o n [1], Td = 0.2710 -- (0.2939)(0.655) =
0.079. T h u s Iah = r~Io~ = (0.079) ( 4 2 8 ) ( s i n 77.5 °) =
33 B t u / h r - s q ft a n d Irl, = i,~, + Id~ = ( 2 8 0 ) ( s i n
77.5 °) + 33 = 307 B t u / h r - s q ft.
H a d t h e i n t e n s i t y of t o t a l r a d i a t i o n of 307 B t u / h r - s q
ft been given, Iah a n d I , , , can be c o m p u t e d as follows:
Since r r = Irh/Iot, = 3 0 7 / ( 4 2 8 ) ( s i n 77.5 °) = 0.734,
a n d b y m e a n s of E q u a t i o n [2] r~ = 0.3840 -- (0.4160)
(0.734) = 0.079, I a h = ~',doh = 33 B t u / h r - s q ft as
before. T h e r e f o r e , ID,, -- (I~h, -- I d h ) / s i n a = (307 --
3 3 ) / s i n 77.5 ° = 280 B t u / h r - s q ft.
E x a m p l e 2: T h e five y e a r (1954-1958) a v e r a g e of
the d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n , / t , on a h o r i z o n t a l surface for
J a n u a r y in I n d i a n a p o l i s , i n d i a n a , ( L a t . 39°44'), is
553 B t u / d a y - s q ft a c c o r d i n g to d a t a p u b l i s h e d b y t h e
U. S. W e a t h e r B u r e a u in C l i m a t o l o g i c a l D a t a , N a -
t i o n a l S u m m a r y . T h e a v e r a g e of t h e d a i l y diffuse r a d i a -
tion a n d t h e a v e r a g e i n t e n s i t i e s of t o t a l a n d diffuse
radiation during the hour l l :00-12:00 and 12:00-1:00
are to be e s t i m a t e d .
Solution: B y m e a n s of Fig. 6 or E q u a t i o n [5] Ho =
1370 B t u / d a y - s q ft. T h e r e f o r e / ~ r = t t / H o = 5 5 3 /
1370 = 0.403, a n d b y m e a n s of Fig. 1 4 , / ) / / t = 0.454.
Hence 1)= (D/H)(f-t) = (0.454)(533) = 242
B t u / d a y - s q ft.
Since t h e s u n s e t h o u r angle, o~, is given b y E q u a -
tion [6], a n d on J a n u a r y 16, the d e c l i n a t i o n is - 2 1 °,
cos ~.~ = - ( t a n 3 9 ° 4 4 ' ) ( - t a n 2 l ° ) = 0.323, ~o~ =
71 ° (or x~ 7~ × 2 = 9.45 hours b e t w e e n sunrise a n d sun-
s e t ) . F r o m Figs. 16 a n d 15, r r = 0.172 a n d ra = 0.161.
Therefore, t h e a v e r a g e i n t e n s i t i e s of t o t a l a n d diffuse
r a d i a t i o n d u r i n g t h e hours 1 1 : 0 0 - 1 2 : 0 0 a n d 1 2 : 0 0 -
l : 0 0 are r e s p e c t i v e l y , irp~ = r r H = ( 0 . 1 7 2 ) ( 5 5 3 ) =
95 B t u / h r - s q ft a n d 1,,, = ref) = ( 0 . 1 6 1 ) ( 2 4 2 ) = 39
B t u / h r - s q ft.
Using t h e generalized m o n t h l y K r curves of Fig. 12
or T a b l e 3, it is possible to d e t e r m i n e a p p r o x i m a t e l y ,
from t h e given v a l u e of H , t h e f r a c t i o n a l t i m e s d u r i n g
which t h e d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is less t h a n or equal to
c e r t a i n values. F o r e x a m p l e , a c c o r d i n g to T a b l e 3 or
Fig. 12, w h e n K r = 0.20, f = 0.249. T h u s for 25 % of
t h e t i m e (or 7½ d a y s d u r i n g t h e m o n t h ) , t h e d a i l y
t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is less t h a n or equal to K T H o = (0.20)
(1370) = 274 B t u / d a y - s ( l ft d u r i n g J a n u a r y in I n -
19
d i a n a p o l i s . S i m i l a r l y for 76 % of t h e t i m e (or 23 d a y s
in t h e m o n t h ) t h e d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is less t h a n or
equal to ( 0 . 6 0 ) ( 1 3 7 0 ) = 820 B t u / d a y - s q ft. T h e
a c t u a l a v e r a g e (1954-1958) n u m b e r of d a y s in J a n u -
a r y w i t h r a d i a t i o n below t h e a b o v e v a l u e s are re-
s p e c t i v e l y 6½ a n d 23 d a y s in I n d i a n a p o l i s .
T h e generalized m o n t h l y K T curves can also be
utilized to d e t e r m i n e a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e s t a t i s t i c a l
d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n for localities
where o n l y a n e s t i m a t e of t h e m o n t h l y a v e r a g e of t h e
d a i l y t o t a l r a d i a t i o n is k n o w n ~7 since t h e o n l y i n f o r m a -
tion n e e d e d is the v a l u e of H.
REFERENCES
1. Parmelee, (L V., "Irradiation of Vertical and Horizontal
Surfaces by Diffuse Solar Radiation from Cloudless Skies,"
A S H V E Transaction 60: 341-358, 1954.
2. Johnson, F. S., "The Solar Constant," Journal of Meteor-
ology, 11: 431-439, December, 1954.
3. Drummond, A. J. and Greer, H. W. : "Fundamental Pyrhe-
liometry," The Sun at Work 3(2) : 3-5, 11, June, 1958.
4. Klein, W. H., "Calculation of Solar Radiation and the
Solar Heat Load on Man," Journal of Meteorology, 5:
119-129, August, 1948.
5. Moore, A. F. and Abbot, L. H., "The Brightness of the
Sky," Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, 71(4): 1-36,
February. 1920.
6. Fritz, S., "Solar Radiation During Cloudless Days,"
Heating and Ventilating, 46: 69-74, January, 1949.
7. Hand, I. F., "Methods of Calculating Solar Radiation
Values at Blue Hill Observatory, Milton, Massachusetts,"
Monthly Weathev Review, 82: 43-49, February, 1954.
8. Diffuse and total radiation data for Blue Hill, Massachu-
setts, were obtained from Mr. C. V. Cuniff, U. S. Weather
Bureau, Blue Hill Observatory, Milton, Massachusetts.
For instrumentation and methods of measurement see:
Hand, I. F. and Wollaston, F. A., "Measurements of
Diffuse Solar Radiation at Blue Hill Observatory," Techni-
cal Paper No. 18, U. S. l)epartment of Commerce, Weather
Bureau, Washington, I). C., May, 1952.
9. Gorcynski, W., "Enregistrements due Rayonnement
Solaire au Moyan des Solarigraphy et des Pyrhelio-
graphes," Nice. O~ce Meteorologique, Annalcs, Tome !1:
117-165, 1933.
10. Imnelund, H., "Contribution to the Knowledge of Solar
Radiation in Finland," Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten,
Helsingfors, Commentationes Physico-Mathematicae, 7(11):
1-58, February, 1934.
l l . Blackwell, M. J., "Five Years Continuous Recording of
Total :tnd Diffuse Radiation at Kew Observatory," Paper
of the Meteorological Research Committee (London), No.
895, 1954.
12. Lunehmd, H., "Records of Solar Radiation in Helsing-
fors," Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten, Helsingfors, Com,-
mentationes Physico-Mathematicae 7(1) : 1-28, 1933.
13. Whillier, A., "The l)etermination of Hourly Values of
Total Solar Radiation from Daily Summations," Archly
fl~r Meteorologie, Geophysik i~nd Bioklimatologie, Vienna,
Series B., 7: 197-244, 1956.
14. Hottel, H. C. and Whillier, A., "Evahmtion of Flat-Plate
Solar Collector Performance," Transaction of the Con-
ference on the (:se of Solar Energy: The Scientific Basis,
Vol. II, Part I, Section A, pp. 74-104, 1955.
15. Data of total radiation for Winnipeg, Canada, are obtained
from Mr. ]). M. Robertson, Regional Meteorologist,
District Aviation Forecast Office, Winnipeg, Canada.
16. Threlkeld, J. L. and Jordan, R. C., "Direct Solar Radiation
Available on Clear Days," Heating, Piping and Air Con-
ditioning, 29:(12): 135-145, l)ecember, 1957.
17. Fritz, S. and MacDonald, T. H., "Average Solar Radiation
in the United States," Heating and Ventilating, 46(7): 61-
64, July, 1949.