A Rational Procedure for Predicting

The Long-Term Average Performance of Flat-Plate Solar-Energy Collectors

With Design Data for the U. S., Its Outlying Possessions and Canada* Benjamin Y. H. Liu
Assistant Professor

and

R i c h a r d C. Jordan
Professor and Head

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

HE flat-plate collector is the simplest and one of the most effective means of collecting solar energy for use in systems that require thermal energy at comparatively low temperatures. Flat-plate collectors have been used successfully for many years in the southern United States and elsewhere as water heaters, and potentially can be used for space heating, drying, refrigeration, power generation and similar purposes. The majority of these potential applications of solar energy have not been fully evaluated, but experiments ~-7 in solar space heating conducted during the past two decades have shown that space heating with solar energy is entirely feasible. It is now recognized that with the rapid depletion of fossil fuels, solar energy will be increasingly utilized. In comparison with collectors of the concentrating type, such as those used in high-temperature solarfurnace applications, flat-plate collectors offer these advantages: (1) no complicated mechanisms for following the apparent diural motion of the sun are needed for their operation, (2) construction is simple and cost relatively low, and (3) diffuse as well as direct solar radiation is utilized. This last advantage is especially important in view of the fact that, of the total solar radiation received on the surface of the earth (46 percent of the extraterrestrial radiationS), approximately 40 percent (18 percent of the extraterrestrial radiation 9) is diffuse radiation.

Basic to the design of any solar-energy utilization system in which fiat-plate collectors are used is the long-term average performance of these collectors. The long-term average performance, instead of the instantaneous rate of energy collection, is needed since the latter is extremely variable due to differences in cloudiness; Since sufficient heat storage is usually provided, the average energy collection is also the useful energy collection. Methods for predicting the long-term average collector performance have been described by Hottel, Woertz, and Whillier. 1, H, ,~ To apply these methods, it is necessary to have a detailed record of the radiation and temperature data of the locality of the collector. The fact that a large volume of meteorological radiation and temperature data must be analyzed has made the prediction of collector performance an extremely tedious and time-consunfing task. It is therefore desirable to study the available radiation and temperature data and to correlate and present these in such a form that further detailed analysis of these data becomes unnecessary in the prediction of collector performance. This objective is here achieved through the development of a set of "generalized utilizability curves" by means of which the performance of a collector of any angle of tilt at any locality can be predicted when the following two parameters are known: (1) the monthly-average daily total radiation on a horizontal D.C.
* This p a p e r is in p a r t the result of researches sponsored by a g r a n t from the N a t i o n a l Science F o u n d a t i o n , Washington,

M a n u s c r i p t received August 1, 1962. Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963

53

surface and (2) the monthly-average day-time ambient temperature. A table giving these parameters for each of the twelve months at 80 localities is presented in the Appendix. The table is for localities in the U. S., its outlying possessions and Canada, and is compiled from data published by the weather bureaus of the two countries.
2.8

the entire blackened plate for the removal of the absorbed solar energy. It will be assumed that: (1) no concentrators are used in conjunction with the collector, and (2) the collector is tilted toward the equator at a fixed angle from the horizontal surface during any month, but the angle of tilt can be different during different months.

2.4
to
<~ :. ZO

<1[~ ,e" ,2

OA

I00

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

I000

DAILY TOTAL RADIATION ON A HORIZONTAL SURFACE, B T U / D A Y - F T z

FIG. 1 - - V a r i a t i o n of r~diation conversion factors w i t h solar i n t e n s i t y .

Solar collectors are generally tilted toward the equator to improve their performance during winter. However, solar radiation data are commonly available for horizontal surfaces only. Hence a radiation-conversion factor must be considered in predicting collector performance. This radiation-conversion factor is a function of, among other variables, the intensity of radiation as shown in Fig. 1 which is derived from experimental data of Blue Hill, Massachusetts. This fact has been neglected in the previous investigations,10. ,i. 1~ but is taken into consideration in developing the "generalized utilizability curves".
The Basic Performance Equation

Under steady-state conditions, the rate of useful energy collection is the difference between the rate at which solar energy is absorbed by the blackened plate and the rate at which energy is lost due to the difference in temperature of the blackened plate and the ambient air. It can be shown '3 that the useful energy collection rate per square foot of collector area is
q = FR[ITt (7"~a) - U(tl --

to)]
(C)

(1)

(A)

(B)

~.Ass ~

e~cK GAUZE7

Various designs of fiat-plate collectors are shown in Fig. 2. Principally, they are composed of a blackened plate for absorbing solar energy, one or more transparent cover plates, insulation for reducing the heat loss through the back, supporting members and provision for circulating liquid through tubes in good thermal contact with the blackened plate or air over
54

BLACK (o) BLACK PLATE7 WATER L// WATER~ (E) BLACK PLATE 7 (F) BLACK PLATE 7

WATER~/

FIG. 2--Solar collector design.

Solar Energy

The heat removal efficiency, F R , is independent of the radiation intensity and the temperature to the extent that these factors do not affect the heat-transfer coefficients. When water is used for the removal of the absorbed solar energy, FR is of the order of 0.9. And when air is used, it is more nearly 0.8. The collection of useful energy at a temperature higher than the ambient temperature is possible only during those hours when the intensity of radiation incident upon the collector surface is higher than the critical intensity,
I~ = U(t~ to)/(-~)

FR (7-~)~?T~O

(5)

where i r t is the long-term average hourly radiation incident upon the collector surface and the symbol, ~, stands for the quantity,
= (Un)~[(X~Jlr~)(L/ir~)] +

(6)

(2)

which is also the intensity of radiation at which the useful energy collection rate is zero. In terms of the critical intensity, q = FR (r~)(Irt -- I~) (3) Hence to prevent the fluid for energy-transportation from losing useful energy to the ambient air, the pump or blower for circulating the fluid through a collector should be so controlled that it is stopped when the intensity of radiation falls below the critical value. The fact that only hourly radiation data, and not true instantaneous intensities of radiation, are available for predicting collector performance requires that Eq. 3 be given a slightly different interpretation. Two interpretations are possible. If the hourly radiation data are considered as the hourly summation of the radiation, then q must also be considered as the hourly summation of useful energy collection. If the hourly radiation is interpreted as the hourly average radiation intensity, q should also be interpreted as the hourlyaverage rate of useful energy collection. The prediction of the long-term average performance of a collector requires, in principle, the hour-to-hour evaluation of Eq. 3 b y means of the hourly radiation and temperature data of a number of years sufficient to obtain a good statistical average. Since the process is extremely tedious, a simpler procedure, first introduced by Hottel and Whillier, 1~ will be used. According to this procedure one mouth is taken as a period during which the ambient air temperature and the position of the sun in the sky during a given hour of the day do not vary excessively so that both ( ~ ) and I~ can be assumed to remain constant during the same hour throughout the month. The long-term average hourly energy collection, ~, for a particular hour of day in a given month can then be obtained by means of the following summation, = F, (r--~)(1/n))--] (ITt -- I~) + (4)

Hottel and Whillier suggested that ~ be named "utilizability", which they defined in terms of radiation on a horizontal surface. But the concept of utilizability is quite general and is applicable to a collector surface of any orientation. The more general definition of the utilizability given by Eq. 6 is used in the present study. The meaning of the utilizability, which can also be considered as the dimensionless efficiency factor, ~ / i T t F R (r-~), is clear from Eq. 5. It is the fraction of the incident radiation that can be collected or "utilized" by an idealized collector. The collector is idealized in the sense that it has a perfect heat-removal circuit of 100 percent efficiency (FR = 1), a perfectly black absorbing plate and a set of cover plates that are perfectly transparent ((va) = 1). The fact that even such an idealized collector cannot "utilize" all of the radiation incident upon its surface is not surprising, however, since the fraction, (1 - ), that is not utilized either arrives at the collector surface with insufficient intensity for collection or is lost to the ambient due to the inability of the cover plates and back insulation to prevent such a heat loss. If the heat loss could be prevented, the utilizability would ahvays be equal to one. Equation 5 shows that to calculate the long-term average performance of a collector it is necessary to determine four factors of which two, e.g. F , and (ra), are primarily physical characteristics of the collector and two, e.g. _Trt and ~, are characteristics of the solar weather. Since Fa is independent of the incidence angle of the sun, only the remaining three factors need be determined for each hour so that the long-term average daily useful energy collection, Q, can be determined. Methods for evaluating FR and (~-~a) have been adequately treated elsewhere. 1-~4 The determination of the average hourly radiation and the utilizability for collectors at various angles of tilt from solar incidence data on a horizontal surface will be considered in detail in the following sections.
L o n g - T e r m Average H o u r l y T o t a l R a d i a t i o n o n a Tilted Surface
1--Theoretical Consideration--The determination of the long-term average hourly total radiation incident upon a tilted surface, i r t , requires a knowledge of the corresponding direct and diffuse (or total and diffuse) radiation on a horizontal surface and the reflectance of the ground for solar radiation. Because published radiation data generally consist of daily sums only, it is necessary to determine the hourly radiation from the daily radiation.

where n is the total number of hours of data used. The plus sign outside the parenthesis indicates that only positive values should be used in the summation. Equation 4 can also be written more compactly as follows,
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963

55

NOMENCLATURE
D a n d / ) = daily and monthly average daily diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface, B t u / day-ft ~ percent possible sunshine, dimensionless Ds f = fractional time t h a t radiation is less than or equal to a certain value f~= value of f at the critical intensity of radiation FR= heat removal efficiency, dimensionless H and H = daily and monthly average daily total radiation on a horizontal surface, B t u / d a y - f t 2 1 t o = extraterrestrial daily radiation on a horizontal surface, B t n / d a y - f t 2 critical intensity of radiation, B t u / h r - f t ~ ]c long-term average hourly diffuse radiation Idh on a horizontal surface, B t u / h r - f t ~ radiation at normal incidence outside the Ion atmosphere of the earth, B t u / h r - f t 2 long-term average hourly total radiation on ITh a horizontal surface, B t u / h r - f t 2 instantaneous intensity of total radiation ITt on a tilted surface or the hourly total radiation on a tilted surface, B t u / h r - f t ~ long-term average hourly total radiation iTt on a tilted surface, B t u / h r - f t ~ H / H o , dimensionless Kr= f I / H o , dimensionless KT= latitude, degrees L= q = instantaneous rate of useful energy collection, B t u / h r - f t 2 ~ = long-term average hourly useful energy collection, B t u / h r - f t 2 O= long-term average daily useful energy collection, B t u / d a y - f t 2
rd = rv = R=

I-I'q

"r

z ~
c c

=.

"

,o ,, ,2 ,3 ,4 .OURS FROM SUNR,SE TO SUNSET

,5

,6

~o

SUNSET HOUR ANGLE,

-/~

9b

DEGREES

,65

tlo

FIG. 3 - - R e l a t i o n s h i p between daily radiation and hourly radiation on a horizontal surface.

i.~/D

conversion factor for long-term average hourly total radiation, dimensionless RD = eonversion factor for daily direct radiation, dimensionless t e m p e r a t u r e of fluid entering collector, deg F to = ambient temperature, deg F U = heat loss coefficient, Btu/hr-ft2-F angle of tilt of collector from horizontal, degrees tan-~(cos 0t/cos 0h), degrees solar declination, degrees incidence angle on horizontal surface, deg. Oh incidenee angle on a tilted surface, degrees reflectance of ground for solar radiation, p dimensionless ( ~ ) = overall t r a n s m i s s i v i t y - a b s o r p t i v i t y product = fraction of the total radiation arriving at the outer glass plate absorbed by the blackened plate of collector, dimensionless product of the effective glass transmissivity and the absorptivity of the blackened plate for direct solar radiation, dimensionless. utilizability, dimensionless sunset hour angle, radian o~ s / sunset hour angle on the tilted collector ojs surface, radian

The relationships between the hourly radiation and the daily radiation on a horizontal surface are shown in Fig. 3. 9 The relationships for total radiation are derived from data of 14 widely separated localities and represent the actual experimental points to accuracies better than =t=5 percent for all hours within =i=3 hours from solar noon. The relationships for diffuse radiation are computed from theoretical equations and are found to agree closely with the experimental data of Blue Hill, Massachusetts, and Helsingfors, Finland, for all hours of the day. The sunset hour angle, x~, the independent variable in Fig. 3, is given by the equation,
cos ~ = - t a n L tan ~ (7)

Since diffuse radiation data are extremely sparse, it is also necessary to estimate the diffuse radiation from the measured total radiation. Table 19 gives the ratio of the long-term monthly average daily diffuse radiation to the long-term monthly average daily total radiation on a horizontal surface as a function of the cloudiness index, /~T. /~r is the ratio of the long-term monthly average daily total radiation incident upon a horizontal surface to that incident upon a horizontal surface outside the atmosphere of the earth and therefore represents the fraction of the extraterrestrial radiation transmitted through the atmosphere. A large value of A'T indicates a clear atmosphere of low turbidity and cloudiness and a sm~ll value o f / ~ r indicates an atmosSolar Energy

56

TABLE 1--The Ratio of the Long-Term Monthly Average I)ailv Diffuse Radiation on a Horizontal Surface, D, to the Long-Term Monthly Average ])ally Total Radiation, /4, on a Horizontal Surface
K T = -[l/Ho
O.3 [
I

TABLE 2--Fractional Time, c, When Snow is More Than One Inch Thick, and the Estimated Ground Reflectance, o, for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, September, 1952 to August, 1956
I

Month 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.75

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May-Oct. [ Nov.

Dec.

D/H

0.596 ! 0.457
i

O. 376

0. 290 0.213

0.167

O.40
i

0.07 0.24

0 0.02 0.20 0.20 ] 0.21 I 0.30

phere of high turbidity and cloudiness. With only a few exceptions, the value o f / ( r is within the range from 0.3 to 0.75 (see Appendix). The daily solar radiation incident upon a horizontal sm'face outside the atmosphere of the earth, H o , is a function of the latitude and solar declination and is given by the equation,
Ho = (24/~r)Io,(eos L cos ~ sin o~ + o~sin L sin ~)

(8)

The above relationships permit the hourly total and hourly diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface to be determined from the daily total radiation on a horizontal surface. To obtain the direct and diffuse (sky) radiation received by a tilted surface, the corresponding radiation on a horizontal surface should be multiplied respectively b y the appropriate conversion factors. The conversion factor for direct radiation is cos 0t/cos 0h, where cos oh = cos L cos ~ cos o~ + sin L sin ~ (9) and for a surface tilted ~ degrees from the horizontal surface toward the equator, cos ot = cos (L - /~) cos~tcos o~ q- sin (L -- fl) sin ~ (10) The conversion factor for diffuse (sky) radiation is (1 q- cos/~) for a sky of uniform intensity. Furthermore, a tilted surface also receives solar radiation reflected from the ground. For a ground of infinite horizontal extent whose surface reflects solar radiation diffusely, the intensity of the ground-reflected solar radiation on a tilted surface is equal to a fraction, (1 - cos fl)p, of the intensity of the total radiation on the horizontal surface, where p is the reflectance of the ground for solar radiation. Adding these three components of solar radiation received by a tilted surface, we have, it, = (cos 0gcos oh)(irh - i~h) + (1 + cos ~)i~h -t- (1 -- cos ~)PiTh (11)

on a horizontal surface, the experimental radiation data for Blue Hill, Massachusetts, obtained during the period from September, 1952 to August, 1956 are used. Since the reflectance of the ground is needed in the computation and is unknown, it must be estimated independently. A value of 0.2 is assumed for all months during which the ground is free of snow. For the sixmonth period from November to April when snow covers the ground part of the time, the average reflectance of the ground for each month is computed from the following equation, p = 0.2 (1 - c) -k 0.7 c (14)

Making use of the definitions of ra and r r , the conversion factor for the long-term average hourly total radiation is,
k = lrt/irh
= (COS Or/COS Oh)[1 --

(rd/rT)(D/H)]

q-(1 q- COSl3)(rd/rT)(D/fI) q-- (1 -- COSfl)p

(12)

Finally, the hourly total radiation incident upon the tilted surface is given by
irt = RrTH 2 - - C o m p a r i s o n of R e s u l t s - - T o

where c is the fractional time during the month when snow of more than one inch thickness is present. This is equivalent to assuming that the reflectance is 0.2 when the ground is covered with less than one inch of snow or no snow and is 0.7 when snow is more than one inch thick. The factor, c, can be determined from weather bureau records. Its value, together with the computed value of p, for each month during the four year period is given in Table 2 for Blue Hill. The hourly total radiatiml are computed by means of the above method for a south-facing vertical surface and an east or west-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill for the three hours nearest solar noon. The results, together with the measured radiation, are given in Tables 3 and 4. The measured radiation given in the tables are obtained by combining data for hours symmetrical with respect to solar noon. Thus for the southfacing vertical surface, the data for the hours 11-12 A.M. and 12-1 P.M. are combined. Similarly, the data for the hour 11-12 A.M. oU the east-facing vertical surface are combined with the data for the hour 12-1 P.M. on the west-facing vertical surface. This is necessary because the ratios, r r and r~, were also obtained by combining data for symmetrical hour pairs and any asymmetry in the distribution of the hourly radiation cannot be accounted for by the use of these ratios. Also given in the tables are the hourly total radiation on the vertical surfaces computed by means of Eq. 14 and an empirical equation for the conversion factor given by Brooks, n R = tan[~(3-yD -k 17) q- ~D,] where ~/D = tan-1 (COSOt/COS Oh) D~ = percent possible sunshine, a value reported by the weather bureau. Since the empirical constants 57 (15)

(13)

test the accuracy of the above method of computing the hourly total radiation on a tilted surface from the daily total radiation
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1968

TABLE 3 - - C o m p a r i s o n of C o m p u t e d a n d M e a s u r e d H o u r l y T o t a l R a d i a t i o n on a Vertical Surface F a c i n g S o u t h at Blue H i l l - - B a s e d U p o n D a t a of September, 1952 to A u g u s t , 1956

Hourly Total Radiation, I T t , on a Vertical Surface Facing South, langley/hour* Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Month H, langley/ day
Ds %

11-12 or 12-1 Pres. method Brooks method Measured Pres. method

10-11 or 1-2 Brooks method Pres. method

9-10 or 2-3 Brooks method Measured

Measured

Jan.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Sum

134 206 293 367 465 529 510 433 356 238 157 126

43 48 49 44 52 60 60 59 63 54 47 49

36.9 41.4 41.6 33.8 31.2 30.2 31.0 34.0 39.8 38.2 36.2 38.6 433 1.00

37.1 42.1 40.6 32.5 30.0 29.6 31.0 35.1 43.7 42.3 39.1 39.8 436 1.01

40.6 43.4 38.0 31.1 28.0 27.6 28.7 30.9 40.3 41.4 40.8 40.9
432

33.4 37.2 37.2 30.5 28.0 27.0 28.0 30.6 35.7 34.3 32.9 34.6 389 0.99

33.0 37.6 36.7 29.2 26.6 26.1 27.6 31.3 39.3 38.1 35.8 35.4 397 1.01

36.1 38.8 35.4 28.5 24.7 24.7 26.2 28.8 36.3 37.5 37.5 37.8 392 --

25.9 30.3 30.5 24.7 23.3 21.9 22.5 25.0 29.3 27.9 26.2 26.3 314 1.00

26.2 31.2 30.3 23.4 21.2 20.5 21.5 25.3 32.3 31.7 28.8 27.2 320 1.01

27.5 31.0 28.0 23.0 19.4 19.3 21.3 23.7 29.6 31.4 30.4 29.4 315 --

Ratio, Computed/Measured * 1 l a n g l e y = 3.687 B t u / f t %

in Brook's equation are those for a vertical surface, they should not be used for surfaces tilted at angles other than 90 degrees from the horizontal surface without further testing. The percent possible sunshine, D~, in the equation of Brooks is included to account for the variation of the conversion factor with the variation of the cloudiness of the weather. It serves the same purpose as the i n d e x / ~ r , which is the parameter used in Table 1 for estimating the ratio of daily diffuse to daily total radiation on a horizontal surface. A comparison between the computed and measured
2.5

hourly total radiation in Tables 3 and 4 shows that the overall accuracies of the two methods are good and are comparable, while based upon a comparison of the individual items of the computed and measured hourly radiation, the results obtained by means of Brooks' equation are slightly more accurate--the mean percent deviations of the computed radiation from the measured radiation are 7.6 percent for the present method and 6.3 percent for the method based upon Brooks' equation. This is to be expected, since Brooks' equation is primarily based upon the data of Blue Hill and is applicable to vertical surfaces only, while the present

2.0 O8 ~) L5

~ 0.6
In" ~0 ~ r,-x.. 'g,,CRITICAL RAD.

0.5

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 FRACTIONAL TIME, f, DURING WHICH RADIATION < I l t

FIG. 4--a and b--Radiation distribution and uti]izability

c u r v e s for h o u r l y r a d i a t i o n on a s o u t h - f a c i n g vertical surface at Blue ]=Jill. 58

0.4

0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO,X c= IT'~t

Solar Energy

TABLE 4--Comparison of Computed and Measured Hourly Total Radiation on an East-Facing (morning) or West-Facing (afternoon) Vertical Surface at Blue Hill--Based upon Data of September, 1952 to August 1956
Hourly Total Radiation, I T t , Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Month Pres. method 11-12 or 12-1 Brooks method Measured on a Vertical Surface Facing East (morning hour) or Facing West (afternoon hour), langley/hour*

I
I Pres. method

10-11 or 1-2 Brooks method Measured Pres. method

9-10 or 2-3 Brooks method Measured

Jan.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Sum Ratio, Comp./Meas. * 1 langley = 3.687 Btu/ft ~.

13.6 17.0 20.6 19.5 20.5 21.6 21.3 20.2 18.9 15.3 12.3 12.1 213 1.10

9.0 11.7 12.7 13.9 16.6 18.8 18.4 17.4 17.2 13.1 1O.1 9.5
--~8 ----

12.2 14.6 15.7 16.7 19.2 21.0 20.7 18.6 17.1 14.3 11.9 11.1 193

18.9 23.s
27.8 26.9 28.5 30.1 30.1 28.6 27.6 22.5 18.6 18.3 302 O.98

I I

17.8 21.9 24.8 24.4 27.4 30.2 30.2 28.8 29.1 23.5 19.6 18.8 297 0.97

19.0 23.4 26.6 26.6 28.9 31.8 31.6 29.1 27.8 23.8 19.6 18.4 307

20.8 27.3 32.0 31.2 34.4 36.9 36.3 34.5 33.5 26.8 21. 20.2

21.5 27.5 32.1 31.7 36.0 39.3 38.8 37.6 37.5 30.2 24.5 22.1 369

22.0 28.6 33.1 34.0 35.6 40.2 41.0 38.4 36.6 31.9 23.9 22.1 387

-2/;
0.92

method makes comparatively little direct use of the data of Blue Hill and its application is not restricted to
vertical surfaces.

Statistical D i s t r i b u t i o n Utilizability

o f Solar Radiation and

Detailed records of hourly radiation oa the collector surface are needed for the exact evaluation of the utilizability defined in Eq. 6. When such records are available, such as for the south-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill, a cumulative statistical distribution curve can be plotted as in Fig. 43 in which the shaded area, given by the integral,

l [(Irt/ir,) -- (L/iT,)] df

(16)

is the utilizability, 4. In obtaining the distribution

curve of Fig. 43, four years' data have been used and data for the morning and afternoon hours are symmetrical with respect to solar noon have been combined. The effect of varying the temperature of the entering fluid or the rmmber of collector cover plates is to vary the critical hourly radiation, I~, and consequently the ordinate of the horizontal line in Fig. 4a. The corresponding variation of the utilizability can be seen from Fig. 4b in which the utilizability is shown as a function of the critical intensity ratio,
Xc = Ic/iTt

(17)

The straight line in Fig. 4b, the limiting curve of identical days, is that for a locality where the weather remains the same from day to day. The large difference between the actual ~b-curve and the straight line, especially at high critical intensity ratios, shows that it is
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963

inadequate, in predicting collector performance, to assume that the radiation intensity at a given hour of the day is equal to the long-term average and that there is no variation from this average from day to day. The effect of a number of variables on the forms of the distribution and Q-curves will first be investigated in the following sections and a set of generalized Q-curves will then be developed that can be used to predict the performance of collectors of different angles of tilt and at different localities. 1--Distribution and Q-Curves Based on H o u r l y and Daily D a t a - - T h e variation of the distribution curves and the Q-curves from hour to hour is given in Figs. 53 and 5b where the curves for each of the three hours from solar noon are derived from the J a n u a r y data for the south-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill. Also shown in the figures are the distribution and Q-curves derived from the daily radiation data for the same vertical surface and locality. These curves illustrate an important statistical characteristic of solar radiation, first pointed out by Hottel and Whillier, which is quite general and not restricted to the specific data used in constructing these curves. They show that the hour-tohour variation of the distribution curves and the Q-curves for the same month and locality is not large and that the curves based upon hourly radiation data are not substantially different from the corresponding curves based upon the daily data. Because the difference between the values of 4) obtained from the daily Q-curve and the hourly Q-curves is small in the range of critical intensity ratios of interest in practical collector operation, the former can be used as an approximation to the latter in calculating collector performance. (The 59

2.8

2.4

2.0

_~z-

1.6

1.2

0.8

E)
n~

0.4

FIG. 5 a - - H o u r l y and daily radiation distribution curves for a south-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill.

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 FRACTIONAL TIME, f , DURING WHICH RADIATION ~ ITt or H t 1.0

0.8

O.6
I-_J b,I _J

0.4

0.2

FIG. 5 b - - H o u r l y and daily utilizability curves for a south-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill. 60

(34

O~

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

CRITICAL "INTENSITY RATIO, XC= I

I.

or H, H

Solar Energy

1.0

\
\

I1t11111111

Q8

),
\\\

BLUE HILL OBSERVATORY SOUTH FACING VERTICAL SURFACE JANUARY

0.6
-e-

\
\

I E
; ~ v ~ , --I/~--

- ~ - t - - ~-,

>:
I-,._/

(H: II0 BTU/DAY-FT 2)

0.4

i'%,,

N
._1 I.--

0.2 IDENTICAL DAYS~ ~,~,.

0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO, Xc 2D

2.4 2.8

FIG. 6 - - V a r i a t i o n of t h e utilizability curve for a south-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill from t h e period 1952-56 to 1957-59. 1.0

\
k ~.

IIII1111
SCHENECTADY, NY HORIZONTAL SURFACE NOVEMBER

QB

06

>:
I-_1

\,\x\

<I N _I l--

04

\ \/(

,.--1951-1953( B=476 BTUIDAY-FT=.) ~ . ,i/_1954_1958 (R=413 BTU/DAY-FT ~)

~
L--

\
oz

\,
\\ \\

~--

LIMITINGCURVE[~ '

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO, Xc FIG. 7 - - V a r i a t i o n of t h e u t i l i z a b i l i t y curve for a horizontal surface at S c h e n e c t a d y from t h e period 1951-53 to 1954-58.

somewhat larger difference between the daily C-curve and that for the hours 9-10 and 2-3 is of less significance because of the relatively small amount of energy collected during these hours in comparison with that collected during the other hours which are nearer to solar noon.) This approximation is also necessary in most cases, since the radiation data published by the
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963

U. S. Weather Bureau are daily values only and the hourly radiation data are not readily available. In the subsequent development all the distribution and C-curves presented will be based upon daily radiation data only. 2--Variation of C-Curve from One Period to Another-Four years' data were used in constructing the C-curves
61

1.0

Q8

)_- 0.6
b-

o-

"3
N
I--

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.4 0,8 1.2 1.6 CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO, Xc 2.0 2.4 2_8

FIG. 8 - - C o m p a r i s o n of t h e u t i l i z a b i l i t y curve for a s o u t h facing vertical surface c o n s t r u c t e d from e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a

with t h a t calculated from t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a for a horiz o n t a l surface.

of Figs. 4 and 5. I t is evident that to obtain a better statistical average data of a larger number of years could be used. The question then arises as to how m a n y years' data are adequate. No unique answer can be found for this question since it depends upon the degree of accuracy of the Q-curves
TABLE 5 - - T h e R a t i o of t h e D a i l y Diffuse R a d i a t i o n on a H o r i z o n t a l Surface, D, to t h e D a i l y 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, H
KT = H/Ho

are used to predict the long-term average performance of a collector. Similar curves for localities with clearer weather would show a much smaller variation. For most localities, especially those of interest to solar energy utilization, sufficiently accurate ~b-curves can be obtained from data of five years.

3--oh-Curves for Horizontal and Tilted Smfaces--The

effect of varying the orientation of the surface oil which solar radiation is measured on the form of the Q-curve is apparent by comparing the two solid curves in Fig. 8 which are constructed from the J a n u a r y data on a horizontal surface and a south-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill. Since the difference between Q-curves is large, the q~-curve for a horizontal surface cannot, in general, be used directly to predict the performance of tilted collectors. To construct the distribution and ~b-curves for a tilted surface from radiation data oil a horizontal surface it is Imcessary to convert each item of the horizontal data to the tilted surface. This can be accomplished by multiplying each item of the horizontal data by an appropriate conversion factor. The conversion factor is for the daily total radiation and is the weighted average of the conversion factors for the daily direct, diffuse and ground reflected r a d i a t i o n - - a v e r a g e d according to the relative proportions of the daily direct, diffuse, and total radiation. This conversion factor is given by, I5 R = [1 - (D/H)]RD + (1 + cos~)(D/H) + (1 -- cos f~)p (18)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.5 ] 0.7

0.75

D/H

required as well as on the particular type of weather of a locality. Nevertheless, the variation of the Q-curve from one period to another for the same m o n t h and the same locality can be seen b y examining Figs. 6 and 7. The large difference between the two curves in each graph shows t h a t for the two cases under consideration, it is inadequate to construct Q-curves from data of three to five years. D a t a of a larger number of years should be used. This is not true in general, however, since the Q-curves shown are those of localities with very cloudy weather and consequently the weather is more variable. The large difference is also approximately the m a x i m u m to be expected for a n y locality. These examples are selected to emphasize the fact t h a t substantial error can and does arise when data of a finite number of years
62

Solar Energy

DAILY RADIATION , El. RATIO: AVE.DAILYRADIATION R

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0 O 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

FRACTION TIME,f, DURING WHICH RADIATION~-H

FIG. 9 a - - C o m p a r i s o n of radiation distribution curves Schenectady, S, Ste. Marie, and A n n e t t e . ( K T = 0.3) 1.0

of

0.8

0.6

>:
-J O.4 rr~ __N J

0.2

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO, Xc

FIG. 9 b - - C o m p a r i s o n of utilizability curves of the same localities of Fig. 9a. (lr~T = 0.3)
ol. 7, N o . 2, 1963

63

!t--

I=^Tin, DAILY RADIATION H " . . . . AVE. DAILY RADIATION ' I~

1.0

2.0

Z
1.6 - -

HKt;#~NT[~~~AL SURFACE
. . . .

A L B U O U E R O U E , N.M.JULY, 1954-1958 ( -- 2 5 9 0 BTU/DAY-FT z, K1- = 0.703)

08 I
\\
i
' /,~ -;,-;'": O.6 i

Ii

------ WAKE ISLAND, P A . , DEC., 1 9 5 4 - 1 9 5 8 (R = 1630 BTU/DAY-F'F =, K.r= 0.698)

= 12 ---1 ...... LAS VEGAS, NEV. , JULY, 1 9 5 4 - 1 9 5 8 ( FI= 2 5 7 0 BTU/DAY-FT z, R.r = 0~698.~) , . ~
..-

>."
0.4
N

O8 O8

/ :
r

.J
h-

IkJ

!!
vEgAs iX
1.6

*(
0
0

i, !
. !

!
o
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

LIMITING C U R V E ~.~,..__~.~/'~ L B U Q U R Q E i 'DENTICAL DAYS ---~R).'. T_ ~- . .WAKE ISLAND / . -__I_ "]

, I l l l l l
0 Q4 0.8 1.2 CRITICAL ITENSlTY RATIO, X c

FRACTIONAL TIME, f, DURING WHICH RADIATION ~ H

FIG. 10a--Comparison of the radiation distribution curves of Albuquerque, Wake Island, and Los Vegas. (KT = 0.7) where RD, the conversion factor for daily direct radiation, can be computed from the following two equations:

:FIG. 10b--Comparison of utilizability curves of the same locations as Fig. 10a. (Kr = 0.7) the reason the two b-curves in Fig. 8 are different. Had the conversion factor been independent of atmospheric cloudiness, ~b-curves for a tilted surface and a horizontal surface would then be identical. The dotted curve in Fig. 8 for the south-facing vertical surface at Blue Hill is obtained by first converting the horizontal data with the conversion factor given by Eq. 18 and then constructing the C-curve with the converted data. The ground reflectance used is that given in Table 2. The small difference between the b-curves based upon the computed and measured radiation on the south-facing vertical surface shows that for the present purpose, the method used for converting the daily radiation from a horizontal surface to a tilted surface is adequate. Similar curves for other months have also beett constructed and compared in the same way and the results are substantially the same as those shown in Fig. 8. These results, therefore, are not presented here.

RD RD

- -

cos (L - 3) sin w, - ~, cos o~/ when ~ < w,~' cos n sin ~, -- w, cos ~ cos (L --/~) sin ~,' -- ~,' cos w~' when w~' < ~, cos n sin w~-- wscos ~

(19)

and w/, the sunset hour angle for the tilted surface, is given by the expression, cos ~ ' = - t a n (L - /~)tan ~ (20)

These expressions for RD are exact during the time of equinox but have been found to give satisfactory results when used for other times of the year. I t should be noted, however, that they are applicable to surfaces tilted toward the equator only. The ratio of the daily diffuse radiation to the daily total radiation on a horizontal surface, D/H, in Eq. 18 varies from a maximum of 1.0 for a completely overcast day when the radiation received is all diffuse radiation, to a minimum of approximately 0.16 for a clear day. Betwemx these extremes, the ratio varies with the degree of atmospheric cloudiness. This variation is shown in Table 5, 9 which is derived from the data of Blue Hill but is believed to be applicable also to other localities. Since the ratio, D/H, varies greatly from day to day due to changing atmospheric cloudiness, a large day-today variation of the conversion factor, R, for a surface of a fixed angle of tilt is also expected. This is indeed 64

4--Generalized Distribution Curves for a Horizontal Surface--When the distribution curves for horizontal
surfaces at a large number of localities are constructed and compared according to the value of the i n d e x , / ~ r , a correlation between the form of the distribution curve and the index becomes apparent. Two sets of curves, for /~r = 0.3 and 0.7, are presented in Figs. 9a and 10a for illustration. The large differences between the curves with different values of the index and the similarity between the curves with the same value of the index should be noted. The only parameter used in the

Solar Energy

above correlation is /7/r. The effects of solar declination and latitude of the locality is small and has been neglected in this correlation. The C-curves corresponding to the distribution curves of Figs. 9a and 10a are shown in Figs. 9b and 10b. These ~-curves, of course, are useful only in predicting the performance of horizontal collectors. A set of five "generalized distribution curves", shown in Fig. l l , for a horizontal swface and for /~'T = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7 has been obtained from radiation data of 27 localities. Each curve is obtained by cornbitting six distribution curves (of six different localities) with the same value of the index, /7/r, except that for / ~ = 0.3, which, due to the lack of data, is the comt)ined curve of three localities. 5--Generalized )-Cur~'es--The "generalized 0-curves" constructed from the generalized distribution curves of Fig. l l and the conversion factor for daily radiation given by Eq. 18 are given i~) Figs. 12a-e. These curves are obtained by assuming the cos ~ = 0.683 (average of cos 30 and cos 60 ) and p = 0.2. Since the form of the ~b-curves changes very slightly when other values of cos ~ and p are used in Eq. 18, these curves are also applicable with very little error" to surfaces of other angles of tilt and to localities where the ground refiectance for solar radiation is different from the assumed value of 0.2. This does not mean, however, that the form of the ~b-curve is not affected by tilting the surface, since the value of R o , the conversion factor for daily direct radiation, is dependent upon the angle of tilt and can be a very sensitive function of the angle of tilt. It is interesting to note that as the value of / ( r increases, all ~b-curves approach the straight line, the limiting curve of identical days. W h e n / ~ r = 0.7, all curves are nearly identical. This is because that at a locality with such a high value o f / ~ r , the weather is nearly clear from day to day and that during any mouth there is almost no day-to-day variation of solar incidence on any surface of any orientation. When the generalized O-curves are used ill calculating collector performance the error will, in general, be small except for localities with extremely cloudy weather where K r is small. This can be seen by examining the C-curves of Figs. 9b and 10b. In any case, the error due to the use of these generalized C-curves is expected to be no greater than, or at most of magnitude comparable to, that due to the use of data of a limited number (three to five) of years, as a comparison of Figs. 6 and 7 with Figs. 9b and 10b will show. The generalized C-curves together with the table in the Appendix provide the complete weather information needed for determining the long-term average performance of fiat-plate collectors of any angle of tilt at all the localities in the table of the Appendix. The usual tedious process of data analysis is thus elimilmted. It
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963

#
Z8

RATIO= AVE. DAILY RADIATION R

?_4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

o o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 FRACTIONAL TIME,f, DURING WHICH RADIATION _< H I.o

FIG. ll--The generalized radiation distribution curves for a horizontal surface. should be noted that these procedures are also directly applicable to collectors with selective-absorbing surfaces 16 (high absorptivity for solar radiation and low absorptivity or emissivity for long-wave thermal radiation), since this type of collectors differs from the conventional type with nollselective absorbing surfaces only in the respect of a different (lower) heat loss coefficient, U, and a different (lower) absorptivity for solar radiation. P e r f o r m a n c e o f Collectors The performance of collectors at four latitudes, 20, 30, 40 and 50 deg N, during two months, January and July, is calculated by means of the above method and the results are shown in Figs. 13a-b. The collectors are covered with two panes of glass of good quality. The angles of tilt of the collectors from the horizontal are 15 deg greater than the corresponding latitudes for optinmm winter performance. Consequently, the collector surfaces are all parallel. The necessary steps for calculating each of the curves are shown in Table 6. For this example the collector is on 40 deg N latitude and at a locality where /~r = 0.5 during January. It is 65

1.0

0.8

O.6
.~.-J en

'~ O.4 N

0.2

O 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2_0 2.4 2.8 3.2 CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO, X c FIG. ] 2 a - - T h e generalized u t i l i z a b i ] i t y curves for a horizontal surface and surfaees t i l t e d t o w a r d the equator. ( K T = 0.3) 1.0

0.8

0.6

>_.J <

._,1

O.4

7-

0.2

0 O 0.4 0.8 1.2 CRIT;CAL 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 INTENSITY RATIO, Xc
= 0.4)

FIG. 12b--The generalized utilizability curves for a horizontal surface and surfaces tilted toward the equator. (KT t i l t e d a t a n angle of fl = 40 + 15 = 55 deg f r o m t h e h o r i z o n t a l surface a n d is c o v e r e d w i t h two p a n e s of glass of good q u a l i t y , b u t t h e glass p a n e s are n o t surface t r e a t e d for low reflectivity. F u r t h e r it is a s s u m e d t h a t : C o l l e c t o r h e a t loss coefficient, U = 0.7 B t u / h r - W deg F , ( ~ ) for t o t a l r a d i a t i o n = 0.98 (1 - - D ) 66

(1 -- S)(r~a) where (1 -- D) = d i r t f a c t o r = 0.99, (1 -- S) = s h a d i n g factor, n (tea) = p r o d u c t of effective t r a n s m i s s i v i t y a n d a b s o r p t i v i t y for d i r e c t r a d i a t i o n y a n d reflectance of g r o u n d for solar r a d i a t i o n , p = 0.4. F i g u r e 13, c a l c u l a t e d for collectors w i t h two p a n e s of glass, c a n also be used 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

Solar Energy

1.0

Q8

Q6

I,.,.J t'n

-i W-

Q4

0.2

0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 5.2_ CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO, X c

FIG. 12c--The generalized utilizability curves for a horizontal surface and surfaces tilted toward the equator. (KT = 0.5)
1.0

0.8

.$ Q6

>_J

N_ O.4
._1 I,-

Q2

0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 o 0.4 O.S 1.2 1.6 CRITICAL INTENSITY RATIO, Xe

FIG. 12 d and e--The generalized utilizability curves for a horizontal surface and surfaces tilted toward the equator. (KT = 0.6 and 0.7) p e r f o r m a n c e of collectors w i t h o t h e r n u m b e r s of glass panes. T h i s call be done b y first m u l t i p l y i n g t h e a c t u a l t e m p e r a t u r e difference, (h -- to), b y t h e ratio, Ca = [U(rea)']/[U'(reoO] , a n d t h e n m u l t i p l y i n g t h e v a l u e of Q / F , in Fig. 13 c o r r e s p o n d i n g to this " e q u i v a l e n t t e m p e r a t u r e difference" b y t h e ratio, c2 = (rea)/(rea)'. Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963 T h e u n p r i m e d q u a n t i t i e s are those of t h e collector whose p e r f o r m a n c e is being d e t e r m i n e d a n d t h e p r i m e d q u a n t i t i e s are those of a collector w i t h two p a n e s of glass. T h e t r a n s m i s s i v i t y - a b s o r p t i v i t y p r o d u c t s , (r~a) a n d ( r ~ ) ' , are to be e v a l u a t e d a t t h e m i d p o i n t of t h e h o u r 10 11 or 1-2 (incidence angle = 22.2 deg for 67

1800

~k<
1500 1400

JANoAR

L-~= -15

',.

-~.

\.~%*~
\

~'x.'.x,\

",x

x~.

1
",'K-" --

I
I

"\~x-'~.l

N,.-'-N.'\,~ ,3, ~ - -

i i

~
:

J :

i
:

b.F'\
900 800

"kL'-'L P--:,.

500

400.
_ _

~ - ~ . . ( ~ ~ ~

,~.< - ~ ~

.~-.-~.--:-~i~-'--+.~-"----~.. '~..~-..L~ ~-::Z-~ ~-.~--...-"~,-~ .<.., ~

50

I00

150 tt -to ~ F

200

250

FI(;. 1 3 a - - P e r f o r m a n c e of a c o l l e c t o r w i t h t w o p a n e s of g l a s s in J a n u ' ~ r y . (L = l'~titude, ~ = a n g l e of tilt f r o m t h e h o r i z o n t a l )

J a n u a r y and 42.4 deg for July). This procedure follows from the assumption t h a t the ratio of the values of -/F Q/ R of two collectors, one with two panes of glass and the other a different number of glass panes, is the same as the ratio of the values of #t/FR of the same two collectors for the hour 10-11 or 1-2, when both collectors are operated at the same critical intensity ratio during the hour 10-11 or 1 2. This assumption has been found to give results within 4 percent of those obtained b y the detailed and step by step calculation even for a collector with as m a n y as ten panes of glass. Typical values of Cl and c2 for collectors with one, two, and three panes of glass are given in Table 7. To illustrate the use of Fig. 13 in calculating collector performance consider the following example.
E x a m p l e : C a l c u l a t e t h e J a n u a r y p e r f o r m a n c e of collectors w i t h one, two, a n d t h r e e p a n e s of g l a s s at F r e s n o , C a l i f o r n i a , B l u e Hill, M a s s a c h u s e t t s , a n d W i n n i p e g , C a n a d a . T h e collect o r s are t i l t e d a t a n g l e s w h i c h a r e 15 deg g r e a t e r t h a n t h e corres p o n d i n g l a t i t u d e s . T h e e n e r g y - t r a n s p o r t fluid e n t e r s t h e coll e c t o r s at a t e m p e r a t u r e of 110 d e g F. S o l u t i o n :

For Fresno, CaIO'ornia--From t h e t a b l e in t h e A p p e n d i x , L = 3646 ' N, /T = 0.462, to = 47 deg F. T h e r e f o r e , t h e coll e c t o r is t i l t e d at a n a n g l e of 1 5 ~ 6 4 6 ' = 51o46 ' f r o m tile horiz o n t a l s u r f a e e . T h e t e m p e r a t u r e difference, t, - l0 , = 110 47 = 63 deg F. F r o m Fig. 12a, Q/FR = 722 B t u p e r d a y - s q ft for t h e colleetor w i t h two g l a s s p a n e s . T o d e t e r m i n e t h e p e r f o r m a n e e of t h e collector w h e n one p a n e of glass is u s e d , t h e t e m p e r a t u r e differenee of 63 deg F is m u l t i p l i e d b y t h e e o n s t a n t , e~ = 1.570, to o b t a i n t h e e q u i v , d e n t t e m p e r a t u r e differenee of 99 (leg F. T h e v a l u e of O/Fa in Fig. 12a c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a t e m p e r a t u r e difference of 99 deg F is 414 B t u / d a y sq ft. T h u s for t h e o n e - p a n e collector, Q/F~ = (414) (c2) = (414) X (1.090) = 451 B t u / d a y - s q ft 2. S i m i l a r l y for a colleetor w i t h t h r e e p a n e s of glass, O/FR = 565 B t u / d a y - s q ft. T a b l e 8 s u m m a r i z e s t h e p e r f o r m a n e e of e o l l e e t o r s a t t h e s e three loealities.
CONCLUSIONS

The above method of anMysis has reduced the meteorological data necessary for the determination of collector performance to a minimum, e.g. to the monthly average daily total radiation on a horizontal surface
Solar Energy

6S

[
1400 1300

dULY

i
"
"

:
!
! i

i
I

I
i
i

!
~I ~

!
!
~ ~

I
I

J
~
i

V",."4~%.N \"+, \.K--'2K-,.

i !

i- +VT! !
I i i ~ ~ l i ' ] ~ i !

''

-6'

"N"~Q

'

50

100 t i - tO , * F

150

200

250

FIG. 1 3 b - - P e r f o r m a n c e of a collector w i t h t w o p a n e s of glass in J u l y . (L = l a t i t u d e , fl = angle of tilt f r o m t h e h o r i z o n t a l ) TABLE 6 - - S a m p l e Collector P e r f o r m a n c e C a l c u l a t i o n 1. w~ = 71.3 (Eq. 7). H o u r s b e t w e e n s u n r i s e a n d s u n s e t = (71.3)(2)/15 = 9.5 h o u r s 2. Ho = 1364 B t u / d a y - f t 2, (Eq. 8) 3. ffI = ff~THo = 682 B t u / d a y - f t ~ 4. D / f [ = 0.376 (Table 1) 5. RD = 2.49 (Eq. 19) Hour of Day

Ht or Q/FR,
11-12 12-1 6. cos Oh (Eq. 9) 7. cos Ot (Eq. 10) 8. r r , (Fig. 3) 9. ra, (Fig. 3) 10. 11. 12. 13. /~, (Eq. 12) 0.477 0.986 0.172 0.160 1.711 201 9.6 0.819 0.990 0.787 10 1l 1-2 0.429 0.926 0.149 0.144 1.751 178 22.2 0.810 0.980 0.770 9 10 23 0.335 0.808 0.109 0.113 1.862 140 36.1 0.788 0.964 0.737 8-9 3-4 0.203 0.642 0.059 0.069 2.201 89 50.1 0.728 0.939 0.663 7-8 45 0.042 0.438 0.011 0.014 5.891 44 64.0 0.550 0.891 0.475 1304 Btu/day-ft~

I v t , B t u / h r - f t ~ (Eq. 13)
0t , degrees (Tea), (Ref. 12)

14. (1 -- S), (Ref. 11) 15. (Ta), (see a s s u m p t i o n s ) (tl -- to) = 0F 16. 17. 18. 19. [ e , B t u / h r - f t ~ (Eq. 2) X~, (Eq. 17) ~, (Fig. 12e) ?I/FR , B t u / h r -ft2 (Eq. 5) (tl -- to) = 50F 16. 17. 18. 19. I~ Xc q~

0 0 1.0 158

0 0 1.0 137

0 0 1.0 103.5

0 0 1.0 58.7

0 0 1.0 21.0

956

?l/Fn
(tz - to) = lO0F, etc.

44.5 0. 222 0.800 126.4

45.5 0. 256 0. 765 104.8

47.5 0. 339 0. 700 72.5

52.8 0. 594 0. 500 29.4

73.7 1.67 0.02 0.4

667

Vol. 7, No. 2, 1968

69

TABLE 7--Values of c~ and c2 for Different Thickness of Glass

J a n . I6 J u l y 16

Glass panes

U (Btu/ hr-ft2-F) (at 22.2 ) C1 C2

1.2 0.7 0.5

0.883 11.570 0.810 1.000 0.746 0.776

1.090 1.000 O.920

1.561 1.000 0.776

1.098 1.000 0.918

four years. Localities with less than three years' data are not included in the table. 2--KT is the ratio, ft/Ho , where Ho , the extraterrestrial daily radiation on a horizontal surface is computed from Eq. 8 using a solar constant of 442 Btu/hr-ft ~ and a solar declination on the 16th day of the nmnth, except February when the declination of February 15 is used. Solar declinations are taken from Solar Ephermeris for the year 1954. 3 The day-time ambient temperature, to, is computed from the following equation by Hottel, n to = 0.3 tmax -~ 0.7 tm..... deg F where t.... = average daily maximum temperature, deg F and tm~, = average daily mean temperature, deg F. tm~ and troop, are long-term (primarily 1921-1950) average values taken from the following sources: (1) "Local Climatalogical Data", Weather Bureau, U. S. Department of Commerce, (2) "Climatic Summary of the United States--Supplement for 1931 through 1952", Weather Bureau, U. S. Department of Con> merce, and (3) "Canada Year Book, 1960", Canada Year Book Section, Information Service Division, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canada. Where temperature data are unavailable for a station (indicated by an asterisk *), the data given are computed from those of a nearby station.

TABLE 8--Performance of Collectors in January at Fresno, California, Blue Hill, Massachusetts, and Winnipeg, Canada. Fluid enters the collectors at 110 deg F.
O_/FR, B t u / d a y - f t 2
Angle of T i l t

K~

to, F 1
pane

2
panes

3
panes

Fresno, Calif. Blue Hill, Mass. Winnipeg, Can.

3646' 5146 ' 0.462 47 4213 ' 5713' 0. 445 28 4954' 64054' 0. 601 3

451 299 418

551 409 580

563 440 624

a n d the m o n t h l y average d a y - t i m e a m b i e n t t e m p e r a ture. T o g e t h e r with the table i n the appendix, the generalized u t i l i z a b i l i t y curves provide the complete i n f o r m a t i o n needed for p r e d i c t i n g the l o n g - t e r m average p e r f o r m a n c e of fiat-plate collectors. These d a t a c a n be used w i t h a n y flat-plate collector, i n c l u d i n g the collector with selective-absorbing surface, p r o v i d e d no special c o n c e n t r a t i n g devices are used. T h e results of calculation shown i n Fig. 13 shows t h a t the p e r f o r m a n c e of collectors which are similarly o r i e n t a t e d with respect to the s u n (same L - 0 is p r i m a r i l y d e t e r m i n e d b y the two variables, K r a n d (t~ - to), a n d to m u c h lesser e x t e n t s b y the l a t i t u d e of the locality. I n d e e d the v a r i a t i o n of the local climate a n d the v a l u e of K r is so large from one locality to a n o t h e r t h a t l a t i t u d e is a r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t factor to consider in solar-collector application. Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume t h a t a locality i n the lower l a t i t u d e is necessarily more favorable to solar collector o p e r a t i o n t h a n a locality in the higher l a t i t u d e . This is also a p p a r e n t b y referring to T a b l e 8 which shows t h a t despite the low d a y - t i m e t e m p e r a t u r e a n d the high l a t i t u d e of W i n n i p e g , collectors with two or three panes of glass are capable to collect more energy in J a n u a r y a t W i n n i p e g t h a n ~t either Blue Hill or Fresno.

REFERENCES
1 Hesselachwerdt. A. J. Jr., "Performance of the M.I.T. Solar House", Space Heating with Solar Energy, Proceeding of a Course-Symposium Held at M.I.T., pp. 99-106, (1950) 2 LSf, G. O. G., "Solar House Heating--A Panel", Proceedings, World Symposium on Applied Solar Energy, pp. 131145, (1955) 3 Telkes, M., "Performance of the Solar-Heated House at Dover, Mass.", Space Heating with Solar Energy, Proceedings of a Course-Symposium Held at M.I.T., pp. 97-98 (195o) 4 Bliss, R. W. Jr., "Solar House Heating--A Panel", Proceeding s, World Symposium on Applied Solar Energy, pp. 151158, (1955) 5 Bridges, F. H., Paxton, D. D. and Haines, R. W., "Performance of a Solar-Heated Office Building," A S H A E Transaction, 64: 83-96, (1958) 6 Thomason, H. E., "Solar Space Heating and Air Conditioning the Thomason Home", Solar Energy, IV(4) : 11-19, (Oct., 1960) 7 Harper, E. Y., "Solar House Tests to Compare Heating Costs", The Sun at Work, III(3): 3-4, 8, (Sept., 1958) 8 Fritz, S., "Transmission of Solar Energy through the Earth's Clear and Cloudy Atmosphere", Transaction of the Conference on the Use of Solar Energy, The Scientific Basis, I, (pp. 17-36, 1955) 9 Liu, B. Y. H. and Jordan, R. C., "The Interrelationship and Characteristic Distribution of Direct, Diffuse and Total Solar Radiation", Solar Energy, IV(3): 1-19 (July, 1960) 10 Hottel, H. C. and Woertz, B. B., "The Performance of Flat-Plate Solar Heat Collectors", A S M E Transaction, 64: 91-104, (1942) 11 Hottel, H. C., "Performance of Flat-Plate Solar Energy Collectors", Space Heating with Solar Energy, Proceeding of a Course-Symposium Held at M.I.T., pp. 58-71 (1950) 12 Hottel, H. C. and Whillier, A., "Evaluation of Flat-Plate Solar Collector Performance", Transaction of the Conference on the Use of Solar Energy: The Scientific Basis, II, Part 1, Section A, pp. 74-104, (1955) 13 Whillier, A., "Solar Energy Collection and Its Utilization for House Heating", D.Sc. Thesis in Mechanical Engineering, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass., (May, 1953) 14 Bliss, R. W. Jr., "The Derivation of Several 'Plate-Efficiency Factors' Useful in the Design of Flat-Plate Solar Heat Collectors", Solar Energy, III(4), 55-64 (Dec., 1959) 15 Liu, B. Y. H. and Jordan, R. C., "Daily Insolation on Surfaces Tilted toward the Equator", A S H R A E Journal 3(10): 53-59 (Oct., 1961) 16 Tabor, H., "Selective Radiation", Transaction of the Conference on the Use of Solar Energy: The Scientific Basis, 3, Part I, Section A, pp. 24-33, (1955)
Solar Energy

APPENDIX R a d i a t i o n a n d O t h e r D a t a for 80 S e l e c t e d C i t i e s of the United States and Canada

1--Values of H, the average daily total radiation on a horizontal surface, are in units of Btu/day-ft 2. They are derived primarily from data for the period, 1950-1960, published by the U. S. Weather Bureau in "Climatalogical Data, National Summary". At least five years' data are used in the average except those values in the parenthesis, which are averages of three or 70

Radiation

a n d O t h e r D a t a f o r 80 L o c a t i o n s

in the United

States

and Canada

( / t = M o n t h l y average daily t o t a l r a d i a t i o n on a horizontal surface, B t u / d a y - f t 2 ; / ~ t = t h e f r a c t i o n of t h e extra t e r r e s t r i a l ra(liation t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h the a t m o s p h e r e ; to = a m b i e n t t e m p e r a t u r e , deg F.)

Jan

Feb 1453.! 0.691 43.3 428.4 0.415 37.5

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

'

Oct

Nov

Dec 1051.6 ] 0.704 39.4 I 152 ] 0. 361 37.4 982.3 0.543 58.5 295.2 0. 332 43.9 751.6 0. 474 47.7

Albuquerque, N . M . Lat. 3503'N. El. 5314 ft A n n e t t e Is., Alaska Lat. 5502'N. El. 110 ft Apalachicola, Florida Lat. 2945 , N. El. 35 ft Astoria, Oregon Lat. 4612 ' N. El. 8 ft A t l a n t a , Georgia Lat. 3339 ' N. El. 976 ft Barrow, Alaska Lat. 7120 ' N. El. 22 ft Bismarck, N. D. Lat. 4647'N. El. 1660 ft Blue Hill, Mass. Lat. 42013 , N. El. 629 ft Boise, I d a h o Lat. 43034 , N. El. 2844 ft Boston, Mass. Lat. 4222 ~ N. El. 29 ft. Brownsville, Texas Lat. 2555 ' N. El. 20 ft Caribou, M a i n e Lat. 4652 ' N. El. 628 ft Charleston, S. C. Lat. 32054 ' N. El. 46 ft Cleveland, Ohio Lat. 41024 , N. El. 805 ft. Columbia, Mo. Lat. 3 8 5 8 ' N . El. 785 ft Columbus, Ohio Lat. 4000 , N. El. 833 ft Davis, Calif. Lat. 3833 ' N. El. 51 ft Dodge City, K a n . Lat. 37046 ' N. El. 2592 ft E a s t Lansing, M i c h i g a n Lat. 42044 ' N. El. 856 ft

/4 /t to /t ~'~ /4 i /~ to

1150.9 0.704 37.3 236.2 0.427 35.8 1107 0.577 57.3

1925.4 2343.5] 2560.9] 2757.5 2561.2 2387.81 2120.3] 1639.8 0.719 0 . 7 2 2 1 0 . 7 1 3 0.737 0.695 0.708 0 . 7 2 8 1 0 . 7 1 1 0.684 50.1 59.6 i 69.4 [ 79.1 82.8 80.6 73.6 62.1 47.8 883.4 0.492 39.7 1357.2 1634.7 1638.7 1632.1 1269 4' 962 ] 454 6 0.507 0.484 0.441 0.454 0.427 0.449 ~ 0.~47 44.4 51.0 56.2 58.6 59.8 54.8 i 48.2 220.3 0.304 41.9

1378.2 1654.2 2040.9 2268.6 2195.9 1978.6 1912.9 1703.3 1544.61 1243.2 0 584]0.576 0.612 0.630 0.594 0.542 0.558 0 . 5 5 9 ] 0 . 6 0 8 ] 0 . 5 7 4 59.0 ,! 62.9 69.5 76.4 81.8 83.1 ~ 83.1 80.6 73.2 / 6 3 . 7 607

q
Kt B /t [to /t !to B /t to /~ Kt to H Kt to H Kt to H

338.4
0.330 41.3 848 0.493 47.2 13.3 --13.2 587.4 0.594 12.4 555.3 0.445 28.3 518.8 0.446 29.5 505.5 0.410 31.4 1105.9 0.517 63.3 497 0.504 11.5 946.1 0.541 53.6 466.8 0.361 30.8 651.3 0.458 32.5 486.3 0.356 32.1 599.2 0.416 47.6 953.1 0.639 33.8 425.8 0.35 26.0 i

0.397 ]0.454 447 46.9

iloo8.5

1401.5 1838.7 1753.5 2007.7 i 1721 11322.5 780.4 i 4 1 3 . 6

0.471 513

0.524 55o

0.466 593

0.551 ]0.538 ]0.526 626 636 622

0.435 10.336 5 5 7 ]48.5

1080.1 1426 91 1807 0.496 ! 0.522 I 0.551 49.6 ] 5 5 . 9 65.0

2018.1 2102.6 2002.9 1898.11 1519.2 1290.8 i 997.8 0.561 0.564 0.545 ] 0.559 I 0.515 0 . 5 4 3 ] 0.510 73.2 80.9 82.4 81.6 I 77.4 66.5 54.8 2055.3 1602.2] 953.5 0.533 0 . 4 4 8 ] 0 . 3 7 7 35.4 41.6 40.0 428.4 0.315 31.7 152.4122.9 0.35 ] - 18.6 2.6 1018.1] 600.4 0.58410.510 49.6 31.4 941 ]592.2 0.472]0.406 54.1 43.3

143.21713.3 1491.5 1883 0.776]0.773 0.726 0.553 --15.9 --12.7 2.1 20.5

-8.6 464.2 0. 547 18.4 482.3 0. 436 31.5 456.8 0. 442 33.1 442.8 0. 400 34.9 982.3 0. 488 65.2 398.9 0. 470 16.8 952 0. 586 54.0 427.3 0.371 32.8 590.4 0.457 35.8 430.2 0.351 34.0 550.5 0. 421 48.7 873.8 0. 652 36.8 379.7 0. 349 29.0 71

934.3 ] 1328.4 1668.2 2056.1 2173.8 2305.5] 1929.1 1441.: 0.628]0.605 0.565 0.588 0.579 0 . 6 3 4 ] 0 . 6 0 6 0.581 15.9 29.7 46.6 58.6 67.9 76.1 I 73.5 61.6 797 0.458 28.3 884.9 0.533 36.5 1143.9 1438 0.477 0.464 36.9 46.9 1776.4 1943.9 1881.5 1622.1 1314 0.501 0.516 0.513 I 0.495 0.492 58.5 67.2 72.3 70.6 64.2

1280.4 1814.4 2189.3 2376.7 2500.31 2149.4 1717.7 1128.4] 678.6 0.548 0.594 0.619 0.631 0.684 I 0.660 0.656 0 . 5 8 8 1 0 . 4 9 4 45.0 53.5 62.1 69.3 79.6 77.2 66.7 56.3 42.3 1769 0.499 60.4 1864 0.495 69.8 1860.51 1570.1 1267.5 8 9 6 . 7 ] 6 3 5 . 8 0.507] 0.480 0.477 0 . 4 5 3 ] 0 . 3 7 2 74.5 73.8 66.8 57.4 46.6 1774.9 1536.51 1104.8 0.566 0.570 I 0.468 84.1 78.9 170.7

738 1067.1 1355 0.42640.445 0.438 31.4 39.9 49.5 1262.: 0.500 66.7 861.6 0.579 12.8 11523 0.521 55.2 681.9 0.383 30.9 0.492 36.5 1505.9 1714 0.505 0.509 70.7 76.2

Kt
I to B /~t to H Kt to H Kt to H

2092.2 2288.5 2345 I 2124 0.584 0.627 0.650 I 0.617 81.4 85.1 86.5 86.9

1360.1 1495.9 1779.7 1779 71 0.619 0.507 0.509 0.473 24.4 37.3 51.8 61.6 1352.4 1918.8 2063.41 2113.3! 0.491 0.584 0 . 5 7 4 1 0 . 5 6 7 60.6 67.8 74.8 80.9 1207 0.497 39.4 0.520 45.9 1443.9 1928.41 2102.61 0.464 0-543 I 0"559 i 50.2 62.4 72 7 i 0.514 57.7 2129.1 . ~ " i 0.566] 75.9

1675.6 1254.6 793 1415.5 0.527 0.506 0 . 4 5 5 1 0 . 3 5 2 65.0 56.2 44.7 i 31.3 1933.6 1557.2 1332.1i 1073.8 0.569 0.525 0.554 0.539 82.3 79.1 69.8 59.8 1840.6 1410.3 997 0.559 0.524 0.491 75.1 68.5 57.4 0.588 79.4 0.606 71.9 0.562 61.4 526.6 0.351 44.0 0.510 46.1 479 0.302 44.5

Kt
to /) /~t to /t /t to /~r /~t to /t

746.5 1112.5 1480.8 1839.1 (2111) 2041.3] 1572.7 1189.3 919.5 0.401 0.447 0.470 0.515 (0.561) 0.555 0.475 0.433 0_441 33.7 ] 4 2 . 7 53.5 64.4 74.2 78 75.9 70.1 58 945 i 1504! 0.490 ] 0.591 52.1 56.8

1959 2368.6 2619.2 2565.6 2287.8 1856.8 1288.5 795.6 0.617 ] 0.662 0.697 0.697 0.687 0.664 0.598 0_477 63.1 69.6 75.7 81 79.4 76.7 67.8 57 1065.3

1186.3] 1565.7 1975.6! 2126.5 2459.8 2400.7 2210.7 1841.7 1421

o.598 i38.7
739.1 0.431 26.4

o.6060618]059410 465 57.7 667

1086 0.456 35.7

65572

o.652 838

o.6630.654 824 737

o.65o 61.7

o.625 465
473.1 0.333 40.0

Kt
to

1249.81 1732.81 1914 11884.5 1627.7 1303.3 891.5 0.406 0.489 0 . 5 0 8 1 0 . 5 1 4 0.498 0.493 0.456 48.4 59.8 70.3 174.5 72.4 65.0 53.5

Vol. 7, No. 2, 1963

i
E a s t Wareham, Mass. Lat. 4146 ' N. El. 18 ft E d m o n t o n , Alberta Lat. 5335 ' N. El. 2219 ft E1 Paso, Texas Lat. 3148 ' N. El. 3916 ft Ely, N e v a d a Lat. 3917'N. El. 6262 ft Fairbanks, Alaska Lat. 64049 ' N. El. 436 ft F o r t Worth, Texas Lat. 32050 ' N. El. 544 ft. Fresno, Calif. Lat. 36046 ' N. El. 331 ft. Gainesville, Fla. Lat. 29039 , N. El. 165 ft Glasgow, M o n t . Lat. 4813'N. El. 2277 ft Grand Junction, Colorado Lat. 39007 , N. El. 4849 ft Grand Lake, Colo. Lat. 4015 ' N. El. 8389 ft Great Falls, M o n t . Lat. 4729 ' N. El. 3664 ft Greensboro, N. C. Lat. 3605 , N. El. 891 ft Griffin, Georgia Lat. 33015 , N. El. 980 ft H a t t e r a s , N. C. Lat. 3513'N. El. 7 ft Indianapolis, Ind. Lat. 3944 , N. El. 793 ft Inyokern, Calif. Lat. 35039 , N. El. 2440 ft Ithaca, N. Y. Lat. 42027 ' N. El. 950 ft Lake Charles, La. Lat. 3013 , N. El. 12 ft Lander, Wyo. Lat. 4248 , N. El. 5370 ft
/~t

Jan
504.4 0.398 32.2 331.7 0.529 10.4 1247.6 0.686 47.1

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

' _ _ Dec __

762.4 0.431 31.6

1132.1 1392.611704.8 1958.311873.8[ 1607.4! 1363.81 9 9 6 . 7 [ 6 3 6 . 2 0.469 0 . 4 4 9 ] 0 . 4 8 0 0.52010.5110.489 0.50810.49610.431 39.0 48.3 58.9 67.5 74.1 72.8 (35.9 [56 146 1113.: 704.4 I 413.6 0.5060.50410.510 54.2 44.1 26.7
1324.7

521 0.461 34.8 245 0.492 14.0 1051.6 0.626 48.5 814.8 0.64 31.1 20.3 0.458 --6.6 913.6 0.563 50.8 616.6 0.44 48.9 919.5 0. 508 62.4 428.4 0.548 18.6 793.4 0.621 31.4 660.5 0. 542 22.6 420.7 0.518 29.1 690.8 0.479 43.2 781.5 0.487 49.4 798.1 0.535 51.3 491.1 0.391 33.4 1094.4 0.742 48.9 370.8 0.337 29.6 875.6 0.494 56.9 694.8 0.643 23.8

~t
to

652.4 ! 1165.3 1541.71 1900.4 1914.4] 1964.9 1528 0.585 0.624 0 . 5 6 4 1 0 . 5 5 8 0.514[ 0.549 0.506 14 26.3 42.9 55.4 61.3 66.6 63.2 1612.9 2048.7 2 4 4 7.2 ~2673 0.714 0.730 0 . 7 4 1 0 . 7 4 3 53.1 58.7 67.3 75.7 1255 0.660 32.1 1749.8 2103.32322.1 0.692 0.664 0.649 39.5 48.3 57.0 2731 I 2391.1 0.733 t 0.652 84.2 84.9 2649 0.704 65.4 2417 0.656 74.5

H
to

2350.5 2o77 0.669 0.693 83.4 78.5 2307.7 1935 0.695 0.696 63.7 72.3

69.0 1473 0.691 52.1 323.6 0.416 29.6

0.647 56.0 1078.6 0.658 39.9 104.1 0.47 5.5 1147.6 0.576 58.8

i 871.6 tK0 I 0"618 t 27.3 /t /~t to H t to Kt /4 Rt to /t Kt B /t to /t /t to B /(~ to H t to /t /~t to /t /~t to /t R~ to 66 0.639 -7.0 936.2 0.530 48.1 712.9 0.462 47.3 1036.9 0.535 62.1 572.7 0.621 13.3 848 0.597 26.9 735 0.541 18.5 524 0.552 25.4 743.9 0.469 42.0 889.6 0.513 48.9 891.9 0.546 49.9 526.2 0.380 31.3

283.4 860.5 0.556 0.674 0.3 ! 13.0

1481.2 1806.2 1970.1 1702.9 1247.6 699.6 0.529 0.485 0.463 0.419 0.6476.546 32.2 50.5 62.4 63.8 58.3 47.1

1198.5' 1597.8 1829.12105.1 0.5410.577 0.556 0.585 52.3 59.8 68.8 !75.9

2437.6 i 2293.3 2 2 1 6 . 6 1 8 8 0 . 8 1 4 7 6 0.653 0.634 0.612 0.65410.624 88.6 81.3 71.5 84.0 87.7

1116.6 1652.8 2049.412409.2 2641.71 2512.2 2300.7 i 1897.811415.5 906.6 0.551 o.632io.638lo.672 I 0703 i 0.682 0.686 [0.665 ]0.635 0.512 80.7 ~ 87.5 84.9 78.6 68.7 57.3 53.9 59.1 ~ 65.6 i 73.5

1324.7 0.56 63.1 67.5 965.7 0.678 17.3

0.568[0.587 ~ 72.8
311 i478 !59.3

87

1960.911895.6 1873.8 1615.1 1312.2 1169.7 0.53 0.519 0.547 0.529 0.515 0.537 84.1 82 75.7 67.2 83.4 83.8 1531 0.629 61.2 997 574.9 0.593 I 0.516 49.2 31.0

1437.61 1741.3[ 2127.3 2 2 6 1 6 2 4 1 4 . 7 1 9 8 4 . ~ 0.69: 0.666 0.630 0.672!0.59710.611 67.3 76 73.2

1210.7 1622.9 i 2002.2 2300.3 2 6 4 5 4 2 5 1 7 . 7 2 1 5 7 . 2 0.70 0.690 0.65 0.633 0.643 1 0 . 6 3 2 ! 0 . 6 4 3 44.6 55.8 :!663 75.7 82.5 79.6 35.0 1135.4 1579.31 1876.7 i 1974.9 2 3 6 9 7 2 1 0 3 . 3 1 7 0 8 . ~ 0.615 0.637 : 0 . 5 9 7 1 0 . 5 5 3 0.63 0.572 0.516 23.1 28.5 39.1 !48.7 56.6 62.8 (31.5 869.4 0.596 27.6 1369.7 i' 1 6 2 1 . 4 1 9 7 0 . 8 2 1 7 9 . 3 35.60"63110"551 5i 0.565 0.580 5 7 . 1 47.7 64.3 2383 0.656 73.8

1957.5 1394.81 969.7 0.705 0 . 6 5 4 1 0 . 5 9 71.4 58.3 42.0 1715.8 1212.2 775.6 0.626 0.583 0.494 45.2 30.3 55.5 575.3 0.503 38.0

1986.3 1536.5984.9 0.627 0.626 0.574 71.3 60.6 51.4

1031.7 1323"21i~!! i~!i~ 52111'4 83 0.563 0.499 0.499 i 44.2 51.7 i 78.0 1135.8 1450.91923.6 0.517 0.528 0.586 51.0 59.1 66.7 1184.1 1590.42128 0.563 0.593 0.655 49.5 54.7 ! 6 1 . 5
i

2033.9 1810.3 1 5 1 7 . 3 1 2 0 2 . 6 9 0 8 . 1 0.552 0.538 0.527 ~ 0.531 0.501 73.962.7 51.5 80.2 78.9 2064.9 1961.2 1 6 0 5 . 9 1 3 5 2 . 4 1 0 7 3 . 8 0.562 0.578 0.543 0.565 0.545 78.4 68 57.3 83.0 82.2 2334.3 2085.~ 1758.31 1337.6 1053.5 0.634 0.619 0 . 6 0 5 1 0 . 5 8 0.566 76.7 67.9 59.1 80.0 79.8 2039.5 1832.1 0.554 0.552 77.4 79.6 0.520 59.3 0.413 44.2

2163.1 0.601 74.6

2176 0.583 81.2

2376.4 2438 0.661 0.652 77.2 69.9 2042 0.543 74.8

797.4 0.424 33.9

1184.1 i 1481.2 1828 0.511 0.47210.47 43.0 !54.1 64.9

/ t !1148.7 R~ 0.716 l0 47.3 H

1554.2 2136.9i 2594.8 2925.4 3108.81 2908.8 2759.4 0.745 0.815 0.830 ! 0.790 0.820 84.9 59.1 80.7 i 87.5 53.9 73.5

83i d 6

g4i 42 0 . 7 9 5 0 .1370.1 1819.21 7 4 3

78.6 68.7 57.3 466.4 0.324 41.5

Kt
to H Kt to H Kt to

434.3 0.351 27.2 899.2 0.473 55.3 786.3 0.65 20.2

755 0.435 26.5

1074.9 1322.91 1779.3 ~645 0.428 [ 0.502 48.4 59.6

i !i8
2492.22438.4 0.6620.665 65.4 74.6

1736.9 1320.3918.4 0.530 0.497 0.465 71.9 64.2 53.6 1910.31678.2 0.558]0.553 85.0 81.5

1145.7 1487.4', 1801.81 2080.4 2213.31968.6 0.492 0.521 0.542 0.578 0.597 0.538 83.4 84.8 58.7 63.5 70.9 77.4 1146.1 1638 0.672 0.691 34.7 26.3 1988.5 2114 0.647 0.597 45.5 56.0

1505.51122.1 0.597 0.524 73.8 62.6

~!~960.6471712"9 1301.8837.3 0.666 0.589 72.5 61.4 48.3 33.4

72

Solar Energy

'

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Las Vegas, N e v . L a t . 3605 ' N . El. 2162 f t L e m o n t , Illinois Lat. 41040 , N. El. 5 9 5 f t Lat.Lexington'3802 'Ky'N. H . 979 ft Lincoln, N e b . Lat. 4051 ' N . El. 1189 ft L i t t l e R o e k , Ark. Lat. 3444 ' N. El. 265 ft. Los Angeles, Calif. (WBAS) Lat. 33056 , N. El. 99 Los Angeles, Calif. (WBO) Lat. 3403 ' N. M a d i s o n . Wis. L a t . 43008 , N. El. 866 ft M a t a n u s k a , Alaska L a t . 61030 ' N . El. 180 ft I,at. 4223 , N. El. 1329 ft Mi'~mi, F l o r i d a Lat. 2547 ' N. El. 9 ft Midl'md, Texas L,tt. 3156 , N. El. 2854 ft Nashville, Tenn. L,~t. 36007 , N. El. 605 ft New1)ort , R. I. Lat. 4129 ' N. El. 60 ft New York, N. Y. Lat. 40046 , N. El. 52 ft Oak R i d g e , T e n n . Lat. 3601 ' N. El. 905 ft Oklahoma City, Oklahoma L a t . 35024 , N. El. 1304 ft Ottawa, Ontario Lat. 4 5 2 0 ' N . El. 339 ft P h o e n i x , Ariz. Lat. 33026 , N. El. 1112 ft Portland, Maine L a t . 43039 ' N . El. 63 ft

/q /~t to /t

2799 2 2524 I 2342 I 2062 I 1602.6 1190 0.746 I 0.685 I 0.697 I 0.716 ] 0.704 0.657 88.2 ! 95.0 92.9 85.4 ! 71.7 57.8 (590) (0.464) 28.9
i

964.2 0.668 50.2 (531) (0.467 30.6 681.5 0.513 38.5 643.2 0.545 31.8 701.1 0.463 46.7 901.1 0.566 58.7 877.8 0.566 60.2 495.9 0. 467 25.4 56.4 0.364 13.9 346.5 0. 313 40.5 1183.4 0. 588 72.6 1023.2 0.611 49.1 614.4 0.426 44.3 527.7 0.460 34.4 476 0. 403 37.7 (310 0.422 42.5 897.4 0.608 43.1 408.5 0.436 19.6 1040.9 0.652 56.7 507.7 0.491 28.0

Kt
, to

879 0.496 30.3

__ -, 38.8

1255.7 1481.5 1866 0.520 0.477 0.525 39.5 49.7 59.2 --47.4

2041.T,i 1990.8i 1836.9 1469.4 1015.5 (639) 0.542 i 0.542 0.559 0.547 0.506 (0.433) i 70.8 ! 75.6 74.3 67.2 i 57.6 43.0 -2246.51 . 6 1 9 1775.6 1315.8 0 . 6 1 0 1 0 2064.9 0.631 0.604 -79.8 78.2 72.8 61.2 47.6 1215.8 773.4 0.596 0.508 59.9 43.2 1282.6 913.6 0.552 0.484 67.9 ! 5 4 . 7

/~r/~t ! /) to ! 36.5 i /~t to H

,

1834.7 2171.2 0.575 0.606 76.2 57.8 (}7.5

712.5 0.542 27.8 704.4 0.424 44.6 930.6 0.547 56.2 911 8 ~J.5.~8 57.9 564.6 0.49 21.8 119.2 0.513 13.9 0.353 3,(].4 1292.2 0.604 71.6

] 955.7 ] 1299.61 1587.81 1856.1 2040.61 2011.41 1902.6 1543 ] 0.528 ] 0.532 [ 0..507 ] 0.522 0.542 ] 0.547 ] 0.577 0.56~ 32.1 ! 42.4 55.8 I 65.8 76.0 82.(3 80.2 71.5 974.2 1335.8 1669.4 1960.11 2091.5] 2081.21 1938.7 1640 0.458 I 0.49(3 I 0.513 I 0.545 I 0.559 I 0.566 0.574 0.5(3 48.5 ] 56.0 ] (35.8 73.1 7(}.7 85.1 84.6 78.3

~ /t /~t t0 H /(, to

1284.1 1729.5:1948 219(3.7 2272.3] 2413.6] 2155.3 1898.1 1372.7 i 1082.3 0.596 0.635 i 0.5951 (].61(] ! 0 608 0.657 I 0.635 0.641 0.574 I 0.551 5(3.9 59.2 ] 61.4 64.2 66.7 ] 69.6 70.2 69.1 66.1 ()2.6 1223 (] 1640 9 ~ 1866 8 2061 2: !2428.4] 2198.9 1891.5 1362.31 1053.1 0.51~S 0.6&10.57i10.57,~i 0.605 066 I o.648 0.643 0.578 I 0.548 2259 59.2 (31.8 64.3 67.(3 70.7 75.8 76.1 74.2 69.6 I 65.4 812.2 0.478 24.6 345 0.503 21.0 0.4(34 45.4 1554.(! 0.(316 72.0 1232.1 i 1455.3] 1745.41 2031.7] 2046.5] 1740.21 1443. /] 993 0.522 I 0.474 0.493 0.540 ] 0.559 ] 0.5:34 ] 0.549 0.510 35.3 149.0 161.0 17o.9 ! 7 6 . 8 74.4 65.6 53.7 -27.4 0.527 50.8 1327.6 1(328.4 1727.6 1526.91 1169 I 737.3 0.545 0.494 0 . 4 6 6 0.434 ] 0.419 ] 0.401 , 38.6 50.3 57.6 60.1 ] 58.1 50.2 0.584 5(}.3 0.625 63.1 0.648 69.4 0.710 7(3.9 373.8 0.390 37.7 1043.7 0.526 58.7 555.7 0.396 37.8 142.8 0.372 22.9 558.7 0.384 47.1

It
/~t &, /7 /~ to /-it t0

It
K~ t0 /)
Kt

.(') 0.628 1 1 1 1 8 (39.6 I 1828.8! 2020.6 2068.(] 1991.5 1992.6 . . 1646.8 0.612 0.(300 0.578 0.545 ~ 0.552 0.54!) I 0.525 73.8 77.0 79.9 82.9 84.1 84.5 i 83.3 2317.71 2301.8 2193 0. (322 0.628 0.643 83.9 85.7 85.0
i

143(3.5 1321 0. 534 0. 559 80.2 75.6

to

10(3(3.4 1345.7 1784.81 2036.1 2301.1 0. 587 0.596 0. 638 1 0.617 0.(3;39 47.9 52.8 60.0 68.8 77.2 589.7 0.37;3 42.6 565.7 0.438 29.5 539.5 0.40(] 35.0 (}04 0.382 41.9 938 0.580 40.1 539.1 0.499 14.6 1126.6 0.65 54.2 565.7 0.482 23.7 907 0.440 45.1 856.4 0.482 32.0 790.8 0.435 34.9 895.9 0.435 44.2 1246.8 1(}(32.3 1997 0.472 0.514 0.55(3 52.9 63.0 71.4 1231.7 1484.8 1849 0.507 0.477 0. 520 39.6 48.2 58.6

1921.8 1470.8 1244.3 0. 642 0.600 0.609 78.9 70.3 56.6

t0

0565 201:].2 832

67.0 I 73.2

2149.4 2079.7

18(32.7! 1600.7 1223.(3 823.2 0.554 O. 556 0.540 0.454 81.9 76.6 (35.4 52.3 1687.1 1411.4 1035.4 656.1 0.513 0.524 0.512 0.44 72.3 5(3.2 46.5 6(3.7
i

J~t

1942.: 0 53(3 0.529

to

B
to

1189.4 142(3.2 1738.4 1994.1 1938.7 1605.91 1349.4 977.8 0.480 0.455 0.488 0.53 ~ 0. 528 0.486 0.500 0.475 43.1 52.3 63.3 72.2 7(}. 9 75.3 69.5 59.3 1241.71 1689.6 1942.8 2066.4i 1972.3 1795.6 1559.8 1194.1 0.471 0.524 0 . 5 4 1 1 0 . 5 5 1 0.536 0.534 0.542 0.527 51.7 61.4 69.8 177.8 80.2 78.8 74.5 (32.7
i

598.1 0. 397 48.3 796.3 0.438 50.4 1085.6 0.588 52.2 458.7 0.359 35 1290 0.657 63.6 591.5 0.431 40.3

H
/~t

t0

H
to

/?,

1192.6 1534.3 1849.4 i 2005.11 2355 0.571 0.57(3 0.570 I 0.558 I 0.629 45.0 53.2 63.6 71.2 I 80.(3 852.4 0.540 15.6 1250.5 1506.61 1857.2:2084.5 0.554 0.502 0.529 i 0.554 27.7 43.3 57.5 67.5

2273.8 0.618 85.5

2211 0.656 85.4

1819.2 1409.( 0.628 0.614 77.4 66.5

f/

2
/~t

to

2045.4 1752.4 1326.6 826.9 0.560 0.546 0.521 0.450 71.9 69.8 61.5 48.9 i ! 1514.7! 1967.1 2388.2! 2709.6 2781.5 2450.5 2299.6 2131.3 1688.9 0.691~ 0.71(3 0.728 0.753 0.745 0.667 0.677 I 0.722 0.708 58.8 6 4 . 7 72.2 80.8 89.2 94.6 92.5 [ 87.4 75.8 874.5 i 1329.5 1528 4' 1923 21 2017.3 2095.6 1799.2' 1428.8 1035 0.524 0.569 0.50010.54410.536 0.572 0.554 0.546 0.539 24.5 34.4 44.8 5 5 . 4 ! 65.1 71.1 69.7 61.9 51.8
i

R,
to

Vol. 7, No. 2, I963

73

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec 590.4 0.588 29.2 979.7 0.626 57.2 463.1 0.504 18.3 552.8 0.467 34.0 954.6 0.528 56.5 943.9 0.627 56.1 359.8 0.408 21.9 533.9 0.447 37.7 356.8 0.331 28.0 239.5 0.292 44.4 218.1 0.269 41.5 522.5 0.416 39.3 279 0.345 30.5 443.9 0.376 32.6 783 0.544 43.9 1119.5 0.589 65.5 352.8 0.346 30.2 1132.1 0.679 56.1 551.3 0.467 37.7 594.1 0.460 40.2 345 0.503 10.1

R a p i d City, S. D. Lat. 4409 ' N. El. 3218 ft Riverside, Calif. Lat. 3357 ' N. El. 1020 ft Saint Cloud, Minn. Lat. 45035 ' N. El. 1034 ft Salt Lake City, U t a h Lat. 40046 , N. El. 4227 ft San Antonio, Tex. Lat. 2932 ' N. El. 794 ft Santa Maria, Calif. Lat. 3454 , N. El. 238 ft Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Lat. 4628 ' N. El. 724 ft Sayville, N. Y. Lat. 4030 ' N. El. 20 ft Schenectady, N. Y. Lat. 4250 ' N. El. 217 ft Seattle, Wash. Lat. 4727'N. El. 386 ft Seattle, Wash. Lat. 4736 ' N. El. 14 ft Seabrook, N. J. Lat. 3930'N. El. 100 ft Spokane, Wash. Lat. 4740'N. El. 1968 State College, Pa. Lat. 40048 , N. El. 1175 ft Stillwater, Okla. Lat. 36009 , N. El. 910 ft Tampa, Fla. Lat. 2755 ' N. El. 11 ft Toronto, Ontario Lat. 4341'N. El. 379 ft Tucson, Arizona Lat. 3207 ' N. El. 2556 ft Upton, N. Y. Lat. 4052'N. El. 75 ft

Ht to
/7 to

687.8 0.601 24.7 999.6 0.589 55.3 632.8 0.595 13.6 622.1 0.468 29.4 1045 0.541 53.7 983.8 0.595 54.1

1032.51 1503.7 I 1807 0.627 0.649 0.59 27.4 34.7 48.2 1335 0.617 57.0 976.7 0.629 16.9 986 0.909 36.2 1750.5 1943 0.643 I 0.59 60.6 65.0 1383 0.614 29.8 1598 0.53 46.2

2028 I 2193.71 2235.8 2019.9 1 6 2 8 0.574 I 0.58310.612 0.622 0.628 58.3 67.3 76.3 75.0 64.7

1179.3 763.1 0.624 0.566 52.9 38.7

2282.~ 2492.61 2443.5 2263.8 1955.3 1509.6 1169 0.635 0 . 6 6 7 1 0 . 6 6 5 0.668 0.665 0.639 0.606 69.4 74.0 81.0 81.0 78.5 71.0 63.1 1859.4 2003.31 2087.81 1828.4] 1369.4 890.4 0.530 0.533 [ 0 . 5 7 3 ] 0 . 5 7 0 1 0 . 5 3 9 0.490 58.8 68.5 174.4 71.9 62.5 50.2
i
-

/7 R~
to

545.4 0.435 32.1

/7 K~
to

1301.1 1813.3 0.529 0.578 44.4 53.9

-81~

-79~

63~

71~ 814.8

i 1689.3 1250.: 0.621 0.610 168.7 57.0

42.5 1104.4 0.507 63.3

/7 K~
to

1299.2 1560.1 1664.6 2024.7 0.550 0.542 0.500 0.563 58.4 65.0 72.2 79.2 1296.3 1805.! 0.613 0.671 55.3 57.6 843.9 0.560 16.2 936.2 0.511 34.9 753.5 0.441 24.6 520.6 0.355 45.0 471.6 0.324 42.9 854.2 0.453 37.6 837.6 0.579 31.7 749.1 0.413 31.4 2067.9 2375. 0.636 0.661 61.2 59.5

0.220
85.0

o.647Io.6371o.6o3]o.584
87.4 87.8 I 82.6 74.7

2364.2] 2185.2] 1844.61 1487.4

2599.6 2540.6 2293.3 1965.7 / 1566.4 1169 0.695 0.690 0.678 0 . 6 7 4 1 0 . 6 7 6 0.624 63.5 65.3 65.7 65.9 64.1 60.8 809.2 0.457 46.8 392.2 0.323 33.4

1336.~ 1559.4 1962.3 2064.2 2149.4 1767.9 1 2 0 7 0.606 0.526 0.560 0.549 0.590 0.554 0.481 52.1 25.6 39.5 61.6 67.3 66.0 57.9

1259.~ 1560.5 1857.2 2123.2 2040.9i 1734.7 1446.8 i 1087.4 697.8 0.510 0.498 0.522 0.564 0.555 0.525 0.53010.527 0.450 43.1 52.3 63.3 72.2 76.9 75.3 69.5 i 59.3 48.3 1026.( 0.433 34.9 992.2 0.456 48.9 917.3 0.423 46.9 1272.3 1553.1 1687.8 1662.3 1494.8 1124 7 820.6 0.413 0.438 0.448 0.454 0.458 0 . 4 2 6 1 0 . 4 2 0 61.7 70.8 76.9 73.7 64.6 53.1 48.3 1507 0.510 54.1 1881.5 1909.9 2110.7 0.538 0.508 0.581 59.8 64.4 68.4 1688.5 1211.81 702.2 0.533 0.49210.407 67.9 63.3 56.3 1129.11 638 0.459 I 0.372 61.6 I 54.0
I

436.2 0.309 40.1 386.3 0.336 48.4 325.5 0.284 45.7

1375.6 1664.9'i 1 7 2 4 0.468 0.477 0.459 51.9 58.1 62.8

1805.1 1 6 1 7 0.498 0.511 67.2 66.7

1195A 1518.8 1800/ 0.476 0.481 0.504 43.9 54.7 64.9 1200 0.556 4O.5 1764.6 2104.4 0.602 0.603 49.2 57.9
i

1964.6 1949.8 1 7 1 5 0.522 0.530 0.517 74.1 79.8 77.7

1445.71 1071.9 721.8 0.524 0.508 0.449 69.7 61.2 48.5 844.6 0.494 51.5 486.3 0.428 37.4 580.1 0.379 43.2 991.5 0.548 52.6

2226.5 2479.7 2076 1511 0.593 0.684 0.656 i 0.616 64.6 73.4 71.7 i 62.7

1106.{ 1399.2 1754.61 2027.6 1968.2 1 6 9 0 1336.1 1 0 1 7 0.451 0.448 0.493 I 0.539 ~ 0.536 0 . 5 1 2 1 0 . 4 9 2 0.496 63.4 71.8 75.8 73.4 66.1 55.6 39.8 51.3

1081.5 1463.8[ 1702.6 1879.3 2235.8 2224.3 2039.: I 1724.3 1 3 1 4 0.527 0.555 I 0.528 0.523 0.596 0.604 0.607[ 0.599 0.581 71.6 81.1 85.9 85.9 77.5 67.6 45.6 53.8 I 64.2 1461.2 1771.9 i 2016.2 2228 0.600 0 6061 0.602 0.620 74.3 65.7 68.8 79.4 674.5 0.406 26.0

2146.5 1991.9 1845.~ I 1687.8 1493.3 1328.4 0.583 0.548 0 . 5 3 7 1 0 . 5 4 6 0.572 0.590 83.0 84.0 84.4 182.9 77.2 69.6
I

1088.9 1388.2 1785.2 1941.; 0.467 I 0.455 0_506 0.516 68.4 34.2 46.3 58 2434.7 0.738 -I 69.7 78.0 1280 0.52: 43.1 1255 0.491 48.1 1354 0.66 21.3

1968.6 1622.51 1284.1 835 0.539 0 . 5 0 0 1 0 . 4 9 3 0.438 73.8 71.8 64.3 52.6

458.3 0.336 40.9

/7 K~
to

1453. 0.646

57.3
872.7 0.483 34.9 901.5 0.470 39.6 835.4 0.636 7.1

2601.~ 2292.2 2179.7 2122.5 1640.9 1322.1 0.698 0.625 0.6401 0.710 0.672 0.650 87.0 90.1 87.4 84.0 73.9 62.5 2044.6 1789.~ 1472.7 1102.6 686.7 0.557 0.542 0.542 0.538 0.448 76.9 75.3 69.5 59.3 48.3

1609.9 1891.5 2 1 5 9 0.514 0.532 0.574 63.3 72.2 52.3

Washington, D. C. (WBCO) /7 K~ Lat. 3851 ' N. El. 64 ft to Winnipeg. Man. Lat. 4954 ' N. El. 786 ft

1600.4 1846.8 2080.81 1929.9 17122 1446.1 1083.4 763.5 0.504 0.516 0.553 / 0.524 0.516 0.520 0.506 0.464 67.7 76.2 79.9 77.9 ! 72.2 60.9 50.2 57.5 1641.3 1904.4 1962 ] 2123.6 1761.2 1190.4 767.5 0.574 0.550 0.524 0.587 0.567 0.504 0.482 40.9 71.9 69.4 58.6 55.9 65.3 45.6 444.6 0.436 25.2

K~

74

Solar Energy