Solar Energy, Vol. 23, pp.

301-307
Pergamon Press Ltd., 1979. Printed in Great Britain

CALCULATION OF MONTHLY MEAN SOLAR RADIATION

FOR HORIZONTAL A N D INCLINED SURFACES

JOHN E. HAY
Department of Geography, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

(Received 15 December 1978; revision accepted 4 June 1979)

Abstract--The use of daily rather than hourly time intervals in the calculation of the monthly mean values of solar
radiation for both horizontal and inclined surfaces has for long been a desirable objective due to a reduction in the
required computational effort and more general availability of daily data. This paper presents a method for such
calculations, with bright sunshine hours and surface albedo being the only required input data. The incorporation of
the effects of multiple reflection between the ground and atmosphere results in relationships used to calculate the
diffuse and total solar radiation for a horizontal surface which are largely independent of season and location.
The present paper shows that, despite the use of a daily time interval, the solar radiation incident on both
horizontal and south-facing surfaces may be calculated with an accuracy generally associated with instrumental
measurements. This result is achieved without the necessity of arbitrarily varying the empirical coefficients to
account for variations in climatological conditions at the stations being studied.

1. INTRODUCTION empirical relationships and have commensurate small

The increasing demand for information on the availabil-
ity of solar radiation for use as a supplement to the more
conventional and non-renewable sources of energy has
highlighted the inadequacy of the current observational
networks[l]. This inadequacy occurs in three basic
ways: limited spatial coverage; limited length of record;
and predominance of data for horizontal surfaces while
inclined surface data are more appropriate to solar
energy evaluations.
Numerous attempts to supplement the observational
data base with calculated values have been made. The
proposed numerical models range from those with a
strong theoretical basis and large data and computational
requirements (e.g. [2--4]) to those which rely on simple
demands for data and computer times (e.g. [5, 6]).
Two problems have plagued those concerned with the
development of the simple empirical models: the first is
that the empirical coefficients commonly show substantial
temporal and spatial variations [7-8]. An example of the
problem is illustrated in Fig. 1 which shows the classical
relationship between fractional possible bright sunshine
(n/N) and the "apparent" atmospheric transmissivity
(KJ,/Ko). A difficulty thus arises when assigning
coefficients to specific locations and for selected periods
of time. The second problem is associated with the time
scale of the calculations which transform the solar radi-
ation data for a horizontal surface to an inclined surface.
Gamier and Ohmura [9] have noted that a time interval of

0.7

0.6 ~,:." ~,J 8° o

0 o
0.5

• ~p, -
o 0.4
• 0 • •~O
-+
v A Nanaimo
0.3 A~ © Vancouver
o Summerland
0 Suffield
0.2 • Sandspit
• Edmonton
• Beaverlodge
• Fort Smith
0.1 ® Whitehorse

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 05 06 07 08 0.9 1.0

n/N

Fig. 1. Relationship between fractional possible sunshine (n/N) and "apparent" atmosphere transmissivity (K,[ /Ko)
for 9 western Canadian locations. Radiation data from [25, 26, 30], sunshine data from [ 15] and surface albedo data from
[4Zl.
301
302 J.E. HAY

an hour or less is is required and as a result considerable Table 1. Locationof stations

effort has been required to develop empirical techniques
for dividing daily data into a series of hourly values [10]. Latitude Longitude Elevation
Station (N) (W) (m)
The hourly time scale leads to an undesirable increase in
the required computational effort.
This paper presents a technique for calculating mon- Nanaimo, B.C. 49 13 123 57 32
thly means of solar radiation for both horizontal and Vancouver, B.C. 49 16 123 15 87
Summerland, B.C. 49 34 119 39 454
south-facing surfaces. The time scale used is daily totals Suflield, Alta. 50 16 111 11 775
and the regression relationship which allowed the Sandspit, B.C. 53 15 131 49 8
horizontal surface radiation to be calculated using bright Edmonton, Alta. 53 19 113 35 719
sunshine and surface albedo data showed no significant Beaverlodge, Alta. 55 12 119 24 732
variation between stations or seasons despite the use of Fort Smith, N.W.T. 60 01 ! 11 58 203
Whitehorse,Y.T. 60 43 135 04 698
data from maritime and continental mid-latitude and
sub-arctic locations. The technique presented here can
therefore be used to establish the long-term solar energy
climatology (for both horizontal and south-facing in- Table 2. Correlation and regression statistics for relationships
clined surfaces) over a large geographical area with a between fractional possible sunshine and atmospheric trans-
missivity
wide range of climatic conditions.
Independent variable nlN n/N'
2. CALCULATING MONTHLY MEAN SOLAR RADIATION Dependent variable K J,IKo K J, 'lKo
FOR A HORIZONTAL SURFACE Intercept 0.280 0.157
The greater spatial coverage and longer period of Slope 0.493 0.557
Coefficient of determination 0.6775 0.905
record for bright sunshine observations in comparison to Standard error of residuals 0.047 0.024
solar radiation measurements has encouraged the
development of empirical relationships between these
two variables (e.g. [5,6, 11]). The analyses presented atmosphere being augmented by multiple reflection be-
here use monthly mean data for 9 stations located in tween the earth's surface and the atmosphere, a process
western Canada (see Table 1). The climatic conditions which is enhanced under conditions of high surface
occurring at these stations are mid-latitude maritime and albedo. Hay[12] calculated an approximate value for the
continental and sub-arctic. The correlation and regres- multiple reflection from:
sion statistics for the relationship between fractional
possible sunshine (n/N) and the "apparent" atmospheric KS - K J , ' = K , L =[13on/N+(1-n/N)=cl (1)
transmissivity (K J,/Ko) are given in Table 2. The origin
of a large portion of the scatter shown in Fig. 1 is due to where ~ c and/3o were assigned values of 0.60 and 0.25
the fact that for interior and high latitude stations in the respectively.
winter and spring months anomalously high values of In the present study fractional sunshine rather than
transmissivity (K J,/Ko) occur for given values of frac- cloud amounts have been used in (1), thereby limiting the
tional possible bright sunshine (n/N). This effect may be data requirement for the solar radiation parameterization
attributed to the solar radiation transmitted by the to bright sunshine hours and surface albedo. The latter

0.7

0.6 3
5 4

0.5 2 6
1 7
8

Q 0.4 12 11 10

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 03 0.4 0.5 06 0.7 • 0 8 0.9

n/N

Fig. 2. As for Fig. 1, but for Whitehorse, Y.T.

 Calculation of monthly mean solar radiation for horizontal and inclined surfaces 303

variable is also required for the slope radiation cal- Table 3. Monthly declinations used in study
culations. The use of sunshine rather than cloud data in
(1) is supported by the work of Hoyt[13]. He showed Month Declination (degrees)
that, when using long term averages, sunshine data gave January - 20.9
an estimate of cloud cover which was more compatible February - 12.9
with satellite and aircraft observations than did the value March - 2.0
reported by a ground-based observer. Biases similar to April 9.6
May 18.7
those reported by Hoyt were found in an analysis (not June 23.0
shown) of sunshine and cloud data from Vancouver, July 21.2
Sandspit, Penticon, Whitehorse and Fort Smith. August 13.8
Another, but less significant source of scatter in Fig. 1 September 2.9
is related to the performance characteristics of the October - 8.7
November - 18.,t
Campbell-Stokes bright sunshine recorder which fails to December - 23.0
respond to bright sunshine until the sun is some 5° above
the horizon[14]. Thus the possible duration of bright
sunshine was calculated for the solar zenith angle -< 85°
using the following equation: values calculated with the more elaborate numerical
models [2--4].
(cos 85 - sin 4) sin ( ) With a value of 1353 W m -2 for the solar constant, the
N' = arc cos \ cos 4' cos ~" extraterrestrial solar radiation (Ko) with units of
7.5 (2) MJ m -2 day -t may be calculated from (Sellers[16]):

Appropriately weighted monthly mean values of the / \d 2

Ko = 37.210~) ( H sin ~b sin ~"+cos ~bcos ~"sinH)
declination (sr) are given in Table 3.
The correlation between the atmospheric trans- (3)
missivity (K J, '/Ko) and fractional possible bright sun-
shine (n/N') is shown in Fig. 3 and quantified in Table 2. and
The first ratio was calculated using eqns (1) and (3) while
the second ratio used observed sunshine data[15] and cos H = - tan ~btan f. (4)
eqn (2). There is a substantial reduction in the scatter in
comparison to the classical relationship (Fig. 1), the two Thus, from eqn (1) and the appropriate regression
modifications removing most of the spatial and temporal coefficients in Table 2
variability in the relationship. The standard error of the
residuals (0.0242) implies that for the average values at K ~ =/(o[0.1572 + 0.5566(n/N')]/[1
Vancouver of 10.69, 11.98 and 24.91MJm-2day - ' for - a(O.25n/N' + 0.60(1 - nlN'))] (5)
K ~ ', K J, and Ko respectively, the error in estimating
K $ is -+ 5%. This is an accuracy similar to that attri- can be used to obtain the estimate of the solar radiation
buted to direct measurement[28] and monthly mean given only bright sunshine and surface albedo data.

0.7

0.6
O
Aoq O
0.5

•zx
0.4
Z

0.3 o ~db® A Nanaimo

© Vancouver
o Summerland
0 Suffield
0.2 • Sandspit
• Edmonton
• Beaverlodge
• Fort Smith
0.1 ® Whitehorse

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

n/N'

Fig. 3. As for Fig. 1, but fractional bright sunshine defined as (n/N') and atmospheric transmissivity defined as
(K~ "/Ko).
304
3. CALCULATIONS OF MONTHLY MEAN SOLAR RADIATION
FOR SOUTH-FACING INCLINED SURFACES
Kondratyev[39], Hay[40] and others have provided
the basic equations for the calculation of radiation in-
cident on an inclined surface given the energy incident
on a horizontal surface. These equations require the
determination of the amounts of direct and diffuse radia-
tion contained in the total shortwave radiation incident
on a horizontal surface. In the present study the ap-
proach described by Hay[12] has been used to calculate
these two quantities since it accommodates the problems
in the Liu and Jordan approach[10] as documented by
numerous authors[17-23]. The relevant equations[12, 24]
are;
D ~, = D ], '+ K ~ a[O.25n/N'+ 0.60(1 - n/N')]
and
D ~ ' = K $ '[0.9702 + 1.6688(K ~, '/Ko)- 21.303(K ~, '/Ko) 2
+ 51.288(K ~ 'lKo) 3- 50.081(K ~ 'lKo)"
+ 17.551(K ~ '/Ko)S].
The values for K $, K ~' and Ko are obtained from eqns
(5), (1) and (3) respectively. The direct shortwave radia-
tion incident on an inclined surface may be calculated
using:
S ~s = S f cos//cos z
where
cosi=coss+cosz+sinssinzcos(a-b)
and
sin 4~cos z - sin ~"
cos a = cos ~bsin z
Normally these equations are applied to instantaneous
values or data averaged over periods of an hour or less.
However, the following discussion will show that it is
possible to define an appropriate weighted average of the
solar zenith angle (~) which represents mean daily con-
ditions for a given month. The solar zenith angle z' at the
time of sunset for the south-facing slope is given by
sin s sin ~"
cos z' = ./ sin s sin &)"
cos~coss+ cos
If cosz'-<0, the time of sunset (and hence the day
length) is the same for the inclined and horizontal sur-
faces. For such situations the half day length Ha is given
by:
cos H~ = - tan 4, tan sr (cos z' -<0). (12)
For the situations where the slope day length is less than
that for a horizontal surface Hs is defined by:
= where the optical air mass is calculated using
cos Hs cos z ' - sin ~bsin r (cos z' > 0).
cos 4' cos ~"
J. E. HAY
The mean daily solar zenith angle (~) may then be
calculated using the following equation:
cos ~ = KdL (14)
where Hs replaces H in eqn (3) to obtain Ks.
Based on a solar constant of 4.87 MJ m -2 hr -~ and the
fact that the half day length (Hs) increases by 7.5° for
every hourly increment in day length
h = 4.87(arc cos Hs)/7.5. (15)
For each month the calculated value of ~? (= z) may be
used along with eqns (8)-(10) to determine the ratio
between the direct radiation incident on the inclined and
(6) horizontal surfaces. Figure 4 shows that the use of eqns
(8)--(15) with mean daily data results in calculated values
of the direct radiation on an inclined south-facing surface
which are in close agreement with values calculated with
mean hourly data [25, 26]. Data generated using an hourly
time interval have been successfully verified with
(7) observed values [27].
The tendency for the mean daily data to apparently
overestimate the direct radiation on a south facing sur-
face may result from the poorer definition of day length
when using hourly data. In that case the commonly
adopted approach[25] is to assign the time of sunrise
(sunset) to the half hour centered on the first (last) hour
of recorded radiation. With the daily data the time of
(8)
sunrise (sunset) is more precisely defined and will give a
day length which will often be longer than that defined
(9) using the hourly data. This, along with the larger values
of S ~, dS ~, which occur in the winter may result in the
apparent over-estimation of the direct radiation with the
(10) use of mean daily rather than mean hourly data. Despite
these differences it is apparent that values calculated by
the hourly and daily time intervals show close agreement
between themselves and with observed data, the
differences generally being less than the -+5 per cent error
commonly associated with measurement error[28].
In the calculation of the diffuse radiation incident on
the inclined surface it has been common to assume that
the diffuse radiation is isotropicaily distributed over the
sky hemisphere (e.g. [9, 29-33]. However, Hay[33]
has shown that this assumption is inappropriate and as
(11) an alternative suggested that a portion of the diffuse
radiation from the sky hemisphere be treated as circum-
solar and a portion as isotropic. This treatment is similar
to that suggested by Robinson[M] and Revfeim[35]
except that in the present case the ratio of circumsolar to
isotropic diffuse (the anisotropy index, A) is not constant
but is allowed to vary. Hay[33] shows that the aniso-
tropy index may be considered equivalent to the atmos-
pheric transmissivity for direct radiation weighted by
cos i for the slope in question, i.e.
A = (S ~ ](cos d)) "m cos i (16)
(13) Kasten's[36] formula:
 Calculation of monthly mean solar radiation for horizontal and inclined surfaces 305

16

'> 14

E<
~Q 12

z--
o<
F- a 10

e,-~ 8

0 u-

w<

...i -a _~" O 30° South-facing

A-~ O 60 ° South-facing
z
0 2 ~ 90 ° South-facing

0 I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

MONTHLY MEAN SOLAR RADIATION (MJ m-2 day "1)

CALCULATED FROM MEAN HOURLY DATA

(a)

14

~ 12
E<

z _~ 10
O<
V_.c~
<z
-<

rrN
<O
~: 6
©a.
mD
z w
La< 4

_j-d
2:< 2
Z
O

0 I I i I I i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

MONTHLY MEAN SOLAR RADIATION (MJ m2 day 1)

CALCULATED FROM MEAN HOURLY DATA

(b)

Fig. 4. Comparison between monthly mean values of direct solar radiation on three south-facing surfaces at (a)
Vancouver, B.C. and (b) Whitehorse, Y.T. calculated using mean hourly (from [25, 26]) and mean daily horizontal
surface radiation data.

m = l/[cos z + 0.15(93.885 - z)-"253]. (17) D ~,, = D $ {(S ~/(cos z . I)"" cos i

+ [1 - ( S ~/(cos z • I)) '/m
Given that appropriate monthly mean values of z, L m, i × cos ~][1.0 + cos s]/2.0} (18)
and I can be determined, it is possible to estimate the
diffuse radiation incident on an inclined surface using with, following eqn (15):
daily rather than hourly (or shorter interval) data. The
relevant equation (Hay[25]; Hay[331) is: I = 4.87(arc cos H)/7.5. (19)

SE Vol. 23, No. 4--C

3116
,> 10
~>.
8 in the accuracy of the calculated values. Thus the total
Z-I
~,..~<
z horizontal or south-facing inclined surfaces may be cal-
6
<ua
m~
4
u.
VANCOUVER, B C
zt--
~5
2 _ ~i~-' O 60° South-facing
o .
90 v South-facing
z should be applicable to such surfaces.
0 I I I I
0
2 4 6 8
M O N T H L Y M E A N D I F F U S E R A D I A T I O N (MJ m -2 day -1)
CALCULATED FROM MEAN HOURLY DATA
Fig. 5. Comparison between monthly mean values of sky diffuse
solar radiation on the three south-facing surfaces at Vancouver,
B.C. calculated using mean hourly (from [25]) and mean daily
horizontal surface radiation data.
Figure 5 shows that again the differences between cal-
culated values based on mean daffy (from eqn 18) and
hourly data are less than the differences found in a
comparison of calculated and observed data[27].
For an inclined surface it is necessary to consider the
radiation reflected onto the surface by adjacent surfaces.
The standard treatment[37,39] is to assume that the
adjacent surfaces are Lambertian reflectors and then the
incident radiation resulting from this reflection is given
by:
R+, =0.5K~ a ( 1 - c o s s).
In this calculation the daily time interval might always
have been the most appropriate unless the investigators
accounted for the diurnal variation in the surface
albedo[38]. Such has not usually been the case when
long term radiation values have been required even
though mean hourly data have been used. Thus a small
improvement in the accuracy of the long term averages
might result from the use of the daily time interval.
The total solar radiation incident on the inclined sur-
face may be obtained by summing the component fluxes:
K~,=S~,+DJ,,+R~,
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Earlier limitations to the simple empirical relationships
which use sunshine data to calculate the solar radiation
incident on horizontal or inclined surfaces have been
reduced or eliminated. The spatial and temporal varia-
tions in the regression coefficients relating sunshine and
solar radiation have been lessened by the incorporation
of the effects of multiple reflection. The only additional
data necessary for this modification are surface albedos,
values which are in any case required in the calculations
of inclined surface irradiance.
J. E. HAY
This study has shown that the theoretical and empiri-
cal equations normally used on an hourly time scale may
be applied to daffy data without any significant reduction
solar radiation (and its components) incident on either
culated for daily time intervals with monthly mean sun-
shine and surface albedo as the only required climatolo-
gical input data. At present the calculations for inclined
surfaces are restricted to slopes which face south.
However, with an appropriate choice of equations which
.
accommodate the asymmetry of radiation input for other
slope orientations the general approach adopted here
10
Acknowledgements--This study was financed by funds from the
British Columbia Energy Commission. The assistance of Mr.
Stephen Lamble and the benefits of a high standard climatologi-
cal data base (administered by the Canadian Atmospheric
Environment Service) are both gratefully acknowledged. The
paper was written while the author was a Guggenheim Fellow and
spending his sabbatical leave as a Visiting Research Associate,
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, and as a Visiting
Research Scientist, Environmental Research Laboratories,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
Colorado.
NOMENCLATURE
a azimuth of sun, degrees
A anisotropy index, dimensionless
b azimuth of slope, degrees
c portion of the sky hemisphere covered by clouds, tenths
d instantaneous distance of earth from sun, km
d mean distance of earth from sun, km
D~ diffuse solar radiation incident on a horizontal surface,
MJ m-2 day- t
D ~, diffuse solar radiation from the sky hemisphere incident
(20) on an inclined surface, MJ m -2 day -j
D ~' diffuse solar radiation incident on a horizontal surface
before multiple reflection, MJ m -2 day -~
H half day length for a horizontal surface, degrees; radians
for first term in (3)
Hs half day length for an inclined south-facing surface,
degrees
i angle of incidence of sun's rays on slope, degrees
1 whole day normal incidence direct radiation at the top of
the atmosphere for half day length H, MJ m -2 day -t
/, whole day normal incidence direct radiation at the top of
the atmosphere for half day length Hs, MJ m-2 day -t
K~ total solar radiation incident on a horizontal surface,
MJ m-2 day-t
total solar radiation incident on an inclined surface,
MJ m -2 day -t
(21) K~' total solar radiation incident on a horizontal surface
before multiple reflection, MJ m -2 day -1
K, whole day total solar radiation incident on a horizontal
surface at the top of the atmosphere for half day length
Hs, MJ m-: day -t
Ko whole day total solar radiation incident on a horizontal
surface at the top of the atmosphere for half day length
H, MJ m -2 day-I
m optical air mass, dimensionless
n bright sunshine duration, hr
N theoretical day length, hr
N' day length for z -< 85°, hr
R J,, solar radiation reflected by adjacent surfaces onto an
inclined surface, MJ m -2 day t
s angle of slope, degrees
S ,[ direct solar radiation incident on a horizontal surface,
MJ m -2 day -I
 Calculation of monthly mean solar radiation for horizontal and inclined surfaces
S ~s direct solar radiation incident on an inclined surface,
MJ m -2 day-i
z solar zenith angle, degrees
z' solar zenith angle at sunrise/sunset for a south-facing
inclined surface, degrees
z7 mean solar zenith angle for half day length Hs, degrees
a albedo (reflectivity) of the surface, dimensionless
ac cloud base albedo (reflectivity), dimensionless
//o clear sky backscattering coefficient, dimensionless
r declination of the sun, degrees
& latitude, degrees
REFERENCES
1. J. E. Hay and P. W. Suckling, An assessment of the net-
works for measuring and modelling solar radiation in British
Columbia and adjacent areas of Western Canada. Can. Geo.
23 (1979).
2. J. A. Davies, W. Schertzer and M. Nunez, Estimating global
solar radiation. Boundary-Layer Meteor. 9, 33-52 (1975).
3. P. W. Suckling and J. E. Hay, A cloud layer-sunshine model
for estimating direct, diffuse and total solar radiation.
Atmosphere 15, 194-207 (1977).
4. M. A. Atwater and J. T. Ball, A numerical solar radiation
model based on standard meteorological observations. Solar
Energy 21(3), 163-170 (1978).
5. A. Angstrom, Solar and terrestrial radiation. Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc. 50, 121-126 (1924).
6. C. L. Mateer, A preliminary estimate of the average in-
solation in Canada. Can. J. Agric. Sci. 35, 579-594 (1955).
7. M. R. Rietveld, A new method for estimating the regression
coefficients in the formula relating solar radiation to sun-
shine. Agric. Meteor. 19, 243-252 0978).
8. H. L. Driedger and A. J. W. Catchpole, Estimation of solar
radiation receipt from sunshine duration at Winnipeg.
Meteor. Mug. 99, 285-291 (1970).
9. B. J. Garnier and A. Ohmura, The evaluation of surface
variations in solar radiation income. Solar Energy 13, 21-34
(1970).
10. B. Y. H. Liu and R. C. Jordan, The interrelationship and
characteristic distribution of direct, diffuse and total solar
radiation. Solar Energy 4, 1-19 (1960).
l l. D. Baker and D. Haines, Solar Radiation and Sunshine
Duration Relationship in the U.S.A., Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Minnesota (1969).
12. J. E. Hay, A revised method for determining the direct and
diffuse components of the total shortwave radiation.
Atmosphere 14, 278-287 (1976).
13. D. V. Hoyt, Percent of possible sunshine and total cloud
cover. Monthly Weather Rev. 105, 648--652 (1978).
14. C. F. Brooks and E. S. Brooks, Sunshine recorders: a com-
parative study of the burning glass and thermometric sys-
tems. J. Meteor. 4, 105-115 (1947).
15. B. J. Yorke and G. R. Kendall, Daily Bright Sunshine 1941-
1970. Atmospheric Environment Service, Toronto, CLI-6-72,
11 pp. (1972).
16. W. D. Sellers, Physical Climatology, 272 pp. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago (1965).
17. J. K. Page, The estimation of monthly mean values of daily
total shortwave radiation on vertical and inclined surfaces
from sunshine records for latitudes 40°N-40°S. Proc. U.N.
Conf. on New Sources of Energy, Paper No. 35/S/98, S
378-390 (1961).
18. N. K. O. Choudhury, The relationship between diffuse and
total radiation. Solar Energy 7, 44-72 (1963).
19. D. W. Ruth and R. E. Chant, The relationship of diffuse
radiation to total radiation in Canada. Solar Energy 18,
153-154 (1976).
20. S. E. Tuller, The relationship between diffuse, total and
307
extraterrestrial solar radiation. Solar Energy 18, 259-263
(1976).
21. J. F. Orgill and K. G. T. Hollands, Correlation equation for
hourly diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface. Solar Energy
19, 357-359 (1977).
22. M. Iqbal, Estimation of the monthly average of the diffuse
component of total insolation on a horizontal surface. Solar
Energy 20, 101-105 (1978).
23. M. Collares-Pereira and A. Rabl, The average distribution of
solar radiation-correlations between diffuse and hemispherical
and between daily and hourly insolation values. Solar Energy
22, 155-168 (1979).
24. J. E. Hay, Climatologically related problems in determining
the potential for solar energy utilization in Canada. Solar
Energy (Proceedings Unesco/WMO Symposium), Geneva,
August-September 1976. WMO No. 477, Geneva, 66-79,
(1977).
25. J. E. Hay, An Analysis of Solar Radiation Data for Selected
Locations in Canada. Climatological Studies No. 32.
Atmospheric Environment Service, Toronto, 158 pp. (1977)
(Also available in French).
26. J. E. Hay, An Analysis of Solar Radiation Data for British
Columbia. Resource Analysis Branch, Province of British
Columbia (in press).
27. J. E. Hay, Study of Shortwave Radiation on Non-horizontal
Surfaces. Final Rep., Contract Number OSB78 00053,
Atmospheric Environment Service, Downsview, Ontario, 140
pp.
28. J. R. Latimer, Radiation Measurement. Technical Manual
Series No. 2, International Field Year Great Lakes, In-
formation Canada, Ottawa, 53 pp. (1972).
29. K. Ya. Kondratyev and M. P. Manilova, The radiation
balance of slopes. Solar Energy 4, 14-19 (1960).
30. J. E. Hay, A Tabulation and Analysis of Solar Radiation Data
for Alberta. Information Series 79, Alberta Research Council
and Alberta Environment, Edmonton, 124 pp. (1977).
31. B. Y. H. Liu and R. C. Jordan, The long-term average
performance of flat-plate solar energy collectors. Solar
Energy 7, 53 (1963).
32. T. Kusuda and K. Ishii, Hourly solar radiation data for
vertical and horizontal surfaces on average days in the
United States and Canada. National Bureau of Standards
Building Science Series 96, Washington, D.C., 412 pp. (1977).
33. J. E. Hay, Measurement and modelling of shortwave radia-
tion on inclined surfaces. Preprint Volume, 3rd Conf.
Atmospheric Radiation, June 1978, Davis, American
Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass., pp. 150-153 (1978).
34. N. Robinson, Solar Radiation, 374 pp. Elsevier, New York
(1966).
35. K. J. A. Revfeim, A simple procedure for estimating global
daily radiation on any surface. J. Appl. Meteor. 17(8), 1126-
1131 (1978).
36. F. Kasten, A new table and approximation formula for the
relative optical air mass. Archly fur Meteorologie Geofys und
Bioklimatologie B14, 206-223 (1966).
37. G. W. Paltridge and C. M. R. Platt, Radiative process in
meteorology and climatology. In Developments in Atmos-
pheric Science, Vol. 5, 318 pp. Elsevier, New York (1976).
38. A. J. Arnfield, A note on the diurnal, latitudinal and seasonal
variation of the surface reflection coefficient. J. Appl.
Meteor. 14(8), 1603-1608 (1975).
39. K. Ya. Kondratyev, Radiation in the Atmosphere, 912 pp.
Academic Press, New York (1969).
40. J. E. Hay, Computational model for radiative fluxes. J.
Hydro. (N.Z.) 10, 36-48 (1971).
41. J. E. Hay, Aspects of the heat and moisture balance of
Canada. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of London,
London, 2 Vols., 322 pp. (1970).