Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Developing a spectroradiometer data uncertainty methodology

Josh Peterson a,⇑, Frank Vignola b, Aron Habte c, Manajit Sengupta c
a
Solar Radiation Monitoring Laboratory, Department of Physics, 1274 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1274, United States
b
University of Oregon, United States
c
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The proper calibration and measurement uncertainty of spectral data obtained from spectroradiometers
Received 18 January 2017 is essential in accurately quantifying the output of photovoltaic (PV) devices. PV cells and modules are
Received in revised form 22 March 2017 initially characterized using solar simulators but field performance is evaluated using natural sunlight.
Accepted 26 March 2017
Spectroradiometers are used to measure the spectrum of both these light sources in an effort to under-
Available online 11 April 2017
stand the spectral dependence of various PV output capabilities. These chains of characterization and
measurement are traceable to National Metrology Institutes such as National Institute of Standards
Keywords:
and Technology, and therefore there is a need for a comprehensive uncertainty methodology to deter-
Spectroradiometer
Uncertainty
mine the accuracy of spectroradiometer data. In this paper, the uncertainties associated with the respon-
Cosine response sivity of a spectroradiometer are examined using the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in
LI-COR 1800 Measurement (GUM) protocols. This is first done for a generic spectroradiometer, and then, to illustrate
the methodology, the calibration of a LI-COR 1800 spectroradiometer is performed. The reader should
be aware that the implementation of this methodology will be specific to the spectroradiometer being
analyzed and the experimental setup that is used. Depending of the characteristics of the spectrora-
diometer being evaluated additional sources of uncertainty may need to be included, but the general
GUM methodology is the same. Several sources of uncertainty are associated with the spectroradiometer
responsivity. Major sources of uncertainty associated with the LI-COR spectroradiometer are noise in the
signal at wavelengths less than 400 nm. At wavelengths more than 400 nm, the responsivity can vary
drastically, and it is dependent on the wavelength of light, the temperature dependence, the angle of inci-
dence, and the azimuthal orientation of the sensor to the light source. The expanded uncertainties in the
responsivity of the LI-COR spectroradiometer in the wavelength range of 400–1050 nm can range from 4%
to 14% at the 95% confidence level.
Ó 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction methodology (BIPM et al., 1995) is increasingly used for evalua-

The energy produced by a solar energy system is directly related
to the incident irradiance. Any uncertainty in the irradiance trans-
lates to uncertainty in the predicted system performance. There-
fore, uncertainties in the irradiance directly impact the system
design, performance estimates, and the financial risk associated
with system production. With larger solar electric systems being
deployed and costs becoming more competitive, considerable
effort is going into fully characterizing the solar resource and eval-
uating the accuracy and uncertainties in the solar measurements.
The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurements (GUM)
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jpeters4@uoregon.edu (J. Peterson).
tions of the uncertainty in solar irradiance measurements and
sensors. It also provides a consistent terminology for discussions
of uncertainties as well as a standardized method for uncertainty
analysis.
The performance of photovoltaic (PV) modules depends on both
the total incident solar radiation and the spectral distribution of
the incident radiation. Although current performance models use
air mass and other atmospheric parameters as a proxy for changes
in the spectral distributions, the need for more precise models has
resulted in the need to incorporate spectral data into PV system
performance analysis (Marion, 2012; Mavromatakis and Vignola,
2016). As with other solar irradiance measurements, knowledge
of the uncertainties of the spectral irradiance measurements is
important.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.03.075
0038-092X/Ó 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
Calibrations of spectral radiometers are extremely accurate
under laboratory conditions, where the light source is well cali-
brated, a constant temperature is maintained, and the incident
irradiance is perpendicular to the sensor. When the instruments
are used in the field to measure the spectral distribution of global
horizontal irradiance (GHI) or global tilted irradiance, the condi-
tions can be quite different from those in the laboratory under
which spectroradiometers are normally calibrated. These different
conditions lead to an uncertainty calculation that requires the
inclusion of other important information.
The motivation of this work is to outline a methodology to
determine the uncertainty of a spectroradiometer that is consistent
with the GUM model. This methodology is applicable to all spec-
troradiometers and is not specific to a particular instrument. More-
over the methodology aims at characterizing the uncertainties of a
spectroradiometer in the laboratory under conditions that resem-
ble those in the field. Specifically, tests on the deviation from the
true cosine response and the temperature sensitivity of the instru-
ment are added to the uncertainties typically considered when cal-
ibrating a spectroradiometer.
To illustrate how this study improves upon previous body of
knowledge, a brief review of some of the previous work is in order.
Several groups have performed intercomparison experiments
using a detector based calibration procedure to compare spectrora-
diometers. An intercomparison study by Habte et al. (2014) found
that over the wavelength range 400–1100 nm the differences
between ten different spectroradiometers were less than 10%. A
similar study performed by Martinez-Lozano et al. (2003) on the
visible portion of the spectrum found a 5% variation between
instruments. An intercomparison is an excellent way to compare
instruments however there are some difficulties associated with
this method.
d It is logistically challenging to gather and operate numerous
spectroradiometers simultaneously at one location.
d The angle of incidence between the instruments and the light
source cannot be controlled and is not well defined, as the dif-
fuse light is from all portions of the sky.
d The reasons for the variations between different instruments
are either unknown or difficult to determine from the data.
d In a particular instrument, the sources of the uncertainties are
not subdivided into itemized components making further inves-
tigation and reduction of the uncertainty difficult.
d A source of error that is common among all the instruments
involved in the intercomparison will not be observed and will
be neglected. This will result in an overly optimistic estimate
of the uncertainty.
Another common method to determine the uncertainty of an
instrument is to do a source based calibration. Yoon and Gibson
(2011) did an extensive study on the uncertainty of the calibration
process of the NIST lamps used in spectroradiometer calibrations.
In their study they determined the expanded uncertainty was less
than 1.2% for wavelengths between 350 and 1100 nm. However,
this uncertainty estimate does not include the Type A uncertainty
of the spectroradiometer and does not include any information
about the cosine response of the instrument as the measurements
are taken at an angle of incidence of zero degrees (Habte et al.,
2013; ASTM Standard G-138-12). Both of these sources of uncer-
tainty significantly increase the uncertainty of instrument under
realistic conditions. Other groups have performed the source based
uncertainty measurements of spectroradiometers equipped with
diffuser domes. These studies include information about the cosine
response of the instrument however they typically only go up to
angles of incidence of 10°. Eppeldauer et al. (2009) found that at
61
an angle of incidence of 4°, the cosine error was 0.2%. Spectrora-
diometers used in making global horizontal irradiance measure-
ments observe light from a significantly larger field of view and
require an uncertainty calculation which does likewise. In addition
not every instrument employed in the field is equipped with a dif-
fuser dome.
These examples demonstrate the need for a consistent method-
ology to accurately and consistently measure the uncertainty of
spectroradiometers. Applying the GUM method would accomplish
this. In many of these previous studies a modified version of the
GUM method is used, the methodology is obfuscated by details
pertaining to the experiment. In addition, most of the previous
studies have not included information pertaining to the cosine
response of the instrument and none have performed cosine
response measurements at large angles of incidence.
The paper is separated into four sections and three related
appendices. First an outline of the GUM method is given for a gen-
eric spectroradiometer. Then as an example, the GUM method is
applied to the calibration of a LI-COR 1800 spectroradiometer. A
discussion of the results and conclusions then follows. There are
three appendices which give supplemental details on the measure-
ment techniques used on the LI-COR 1800.
This paper is intended to provide guidance on how to preform
uncertainty estimation using the GUM method. The paper uses
two spectroradiometers and associated source of uncertainties as
an example. The sources of uncertainties described here are not
complete. It is up to the user to modify the methodology described
here to their specific application, based on measurement equation
and known sources of uncertainties.
2. Outline of the GUM method
The responsivity of a spectroradiometer is measured over a
range of angles of incidence with respect to the normal. The rela-
tive responsivity at each angle of incidence is determined with
respect to the responsivity of the instrument at an angle of 45°.
The expanded uncertainty of the instrument’s responsivity was
calculated over a range of angles from 30° to 60°. The uncertainty
calculation was performed using the GUM model described in
Habte et al. (2013), Reda et al. (2008), and Wilcox et al. (2002).
The GUM process can be summarized in seven main steps.
I. Determine the measurement equation for the quantity
under investigation. The measurement equation should
explicitly list all variables used in making the measurement.
II. Identify the sources of uncertainty associated with each
variable in the measurement equation. Some variables in
the measurement equation may have multiple sources of
uncertainty.
III. Compute the sensitivity coefficient (Cj) for each variable in
the measurement equation. The sensitivity coefficients are
computed by taking the partial derivative of the measure-
ment equation with respect to each variable in the measure-
ment equation. The sensitivity coefficients describe the
degree to which the measurement result will change if the
input quantity changes.
IV. For each variable in the measurement equation, calculate the
standard uncertainty (lower case u) using either statistical
methods (Type A uncertainty) or nonstatistical methods by
estimating the uncertainty using available knowledge (Type
B uncertainty). The computation of the Type A and Type B
uncertainties are described below. A variable may have sev-
eral sources of uncertainty, including mixtures of both Type
A and Type B uncertainties, that factor into the overall
62 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
uncertainty of that variable. For such situations, the stan-
dard uncertainty is computed using the root-sum-squared
method of the various sources.
V. The responsivity of the spectroradiometer may vary as the
angle of incidence changes. As such, this variation in respon-
sivity should be measured and included in the overall uncer-
tainty of the instrument.
VI. Calculate the combined standard uncertainty for the quan-
tity under investigation. This is done using the root-sum-
squared method for all standard uncertainties determined
in steps 4 multiplied by the corresponding sensitivity coeffi-
cients found in step 3. The combined standard uncertainty
should also include the variation in responsivity determined
in step 5, also added in quadrature.
VII. Calculate the expanded uncertainty by multiplying the com-
bined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor (k) deter-
mined for the desired level of confidence (usually 95%)
with a value that is typically derived from a student’s ‘‘t”
table. The responsivity of the device is recorded at an angle
of incidence of 45°. The expanded uncertainty of the instru-
ment is reported over a range of angles from 30° to 60°.
The standard uncertainties computed in step 4 are either one of
two types, Type A or Type B uncertainties.
Type A: Uncertainties pertain to statistical variations in the data
set due to random effects. These are the natural variations within a
data set that occur with repeated measurements. The uncertainty
is the standard deviation of the data set and is computed using
Eq. (1).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
2
i¼1 ðX i  XÞ
uA ¼ ð1Þ
n1
where uA is the Type A standard deviation, n is the number of data

is the
points in the sample, X i are the individual data points, and X
mean of the sample.
Type B: Uncertainties that pertain to estimates using available
information. These are the uncertainties in the device itself that
are not directly measured using statistical means and are obtained
from various sources including: manufacturer specifications, cali-
bration results, and experimental or professional judgment. These
uncertainties get divided by a factor that depends on the type of
distribution associated with the measurement. For a rectangular
distribution, such as is associated with the precision of the data
logger, the standard uncertainty is computed by dividing the
uncertainty by a square root of three. For a normal distribution,
the standard uncertainty is computed by dividing the uncertainty
by the coverage factor (k), typically k = 2 for a 95% confidence
interval. Other distributions exist and are discussed in the depth
in the GUM model.
uncertainty estimate
uB rectangular ¼ pffiffiffi ð2AÞ
3 called a Lambertian response. The deviation from the Lambertian
uncertainty estimate
uB normal ¼ ð2BÞ
k To determine the cosine response of the instrument, the angle
where uB is the Type B standard uncertainty and k is the coverage
factor.
2.1. Determining the measurement equation
Using the steps outlined above, the basic formula and proce-
dures are established for a generic spectroradiometer; however
the GUM methodology can be applied to other similar devices.
For a spectroradiometer, the measurement equation needed to
compute the irradiance is given by Eq. (3). This equation computes
the spectral irradiance from the measured millivolt signal detected
and the spectral responsivity of the device.
VðkÞ
IrrðkÞ ¼ ð3Þ
RðkÞ
In Eq. (3), Irr(k) is the spectral irradiance of the light source
(W/(m2 nm), V(k) is the electrical signal output by the spectrora-
diometer usually measured in mV, and R(k) is the responsivity
factor (mV/(W/m2 nm)). Each variable in Eq. (3) depends on the
wavelength, specified by subscript (k). In the forthcoming discus-
sion, the wavelength specifier (k) is omitted from the expressions
to make the equations easier to read. Readers should note that each
variable is wavelength dependent.
By rearranging Eq. (3) to solve for the responsivity in terms of
the voltage and the irradiance, the responsivity of the instrument
can be determined.
V
R¼ ð4Þ
Irr
Through the use of Eq. (4), the responsivity of the instrument
can be experimentally determined by measuring a light source of
known irradiance and recording the voltage. The light source could
be either the sun as with an intercomparison of instruments or a
reference lamp. If the light source is the sun, a second spectrora-
diometer is required to act as a reference instrument. If the light
source is a reference lamp, the irradiance of the lamp must be
known. The experimental setup used in this study will measure
the irradiance of a reference lamp.
For a source based calibration using a lamp, the spectrora-
diometer being calibrated is typically located a known distance
from the light source, and the sensor is placed such that the plane
of the sensor is perpendicular to the incident light. At this location,
the irradiance of the lamp is specified and follows the inverse
square law (Yoon et al., 2012). Under these conditions the corre-
sponding uncertainty can be determined. Depending on the cali-
bration setup and the service provider, the uncertainty of the
irradiance, may or may not include fluctuations associated with
variations in the distance between the instrument and the lamp.
For spectroradiometers calibrated at NIST and NREL among others,
the uncertainty of the lamp irradiance includes any variations in
the irradiance due to variations in distance (Yoon and Gibson,
2011; Habte et al., 2013). If the service provider does not include
the variation in distance in their uncertainty estimate, this should
be included additionally. The uncertainty of the lamp is discussed
in greater detail in the upcoming sections.
In this standard calibration practice, the angular uncertainty
has minimal effect because the sensitivity to a small misalignment
is near zero. However, when the spectroradiometer is used in the
field, the incident angle is rarely zero, and the light intensity is
ideally proportional to the cosine of the incident angle. This is
response is often called the cosine response or cosine error of
the instrument and will be referred to as such in this document.
between the instrument and the light source must be varied dur-
ing the calibration procedure. As the angle increases, the amount
of light incident on the detector decreases, and it is determined
according to Eq. (5):
Irr ¼ I CosðhÞ ð5Þ
where Irr is the irradiance of light reaching the detector at a partic-
ular angle and location, I is the irradiance of light incident on a per-
pendicular surface to the light source at the desired location, and h
 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
is the angle of incidence between the plane of the detector and the
incident light. Under these laboratory calibration conditions the
light is collimated and only from one direction. In Eq. (5), the units
of both the left and right sides are W/(m2 nm).
The experimental setup may require that the spectroradiometer
be moved back from the light source to be able to rotate the device
without hitting the light. In doing this, the irradiance should be
measured at the location where the experiment will take place.
The irradiance of the lamp at the reference location is measured
with a second, separate calibrated spectroradiometer.
Combining Eqs. (4) and (5) results in the measurement equation
used in the GUM model:
V Ch ¼
R¼
I CosðhÞ
This is the responsivity at a given incident angle and distance.
2.2. Sources of uncertainties
The sources of uncertainty are specific to the instrument in
question and the experimental conditions used. The uncertainties
associated with the measurement equation include any uncer-
tainty involved in the voltage, irradiance, or angle of incidence.
Each of these variables may depend on one or more parameters.
For example the uncertainty in voltage may be dependent on the
noise associated with the data logger and an uncertainty associated
with the temperature response of the instrument. In addition, if the
responsivity varies as a function of the angle of incidence, then that
to must be included as a source of uncertainty as described in step
5 of the GUM model. Table 1 lists a general overview of the uncer-
tainties that would likely be present in most calibrations. Table 2 at
the conclusion of Section 3.2 gives a detailed list of the specific
uncertainties associated with the calibration of the LI-COR 1800
spectroradiometer.
The uncertainty parameters listed in Table 1 correspond to
uncertainty values of an instrument for a single calibration. If mul-
tiple calibrations are taken over an extended period of time, the
instrument stability can be monitored and the change in respon-
sivity over time can be studied. With information on the change
in responsivity over time an additional uncertainty related to the
length of time from the previous calibration and the amount of
exposure should be included (BIPM et al., 1995; Wilcox et al.,
2002). The uncertainty model developed in this paper considers
the uncertainty in the responsivity due to a single calibration and
does not include any uncertainty that may be introduced due to
instrument degradation. If a long period of time has passed since
the instrument has been calibrated, the degradation of the instru-
ment should be considered. The degradation rate can be obtained
from the manufacturer specifications or from the measured
responsivity history of the instrument.
Table 1
List of expected sources of uncertainty of spectroradiometer measurement.
Uncertainty Brief description Associated
label with
uV Uncertainties in the voltage measurement of Voltage
the spectroradiometer
uI Uncertainties in the irradiance of the lamp Irradiance
used to calibrate the spectroradiometer
uh Uncertainties in the angle between the Angle (h)
spectroradiometer and the lamp
uangle Variations in the responsivity due to changes Responsivity
in the angle of incoming light
63
2.3. Determining the sensitivity coefficients
Using Eq. (6) as the measurement equation, the sensitivity fac-
tors are calculated by taking the partial derivative of the measure-
ment equation with respect to each variable.
dR 1 R
CV ¼ ¼ ¼ ð7AÞ
d V I CosðhÞ V
dR V R
CI ¼ ¼ ¼ ð7BÞ
d I I2 CosðhÞ I
d R V SinðhÞ
¼ ¼ R TanðhÞ ð7CÞ
ð6Þ dh I CosðhÞ2
The sensitivity coefficients in Eq. (7) are all linearly dependent
on the responsivity (R).
2.4. Determining the standard uncertainty
The next step in the GUM procedure (step 4) is to determine the
standard uncertainty of each variable in the measurement equa-
tion. The following notation is applicable for a generic GHI spectro-
radiometer. The numerical values of the standard uncertainties
will depend on the specifics of the measurements and the instru-
ment being used. The values for a LI-COR 1800 spectroradiometer
are listed in Table 2 and used in Section 3.3 when evaluating the
uncertainties of the LI-COR spectroradiometer.uv: The standard
uncertainty of the voltage coming from the spectroradiometer
when measuring the lamp is denoted as uV. This is the net variation
in the voltage at each wavelength that is recorded by the data log-
ger after all signal processing has occurred within the device. The
standard uncertainty of the voltage may be composed of both Type
A and Type B uncertainties. Also, each type of uncertainty may
have several components. For example, the Type B uncertainty of
the voltage depends on the uncertainty due to variations in the
temperature of the sensor and the uncertainties associated with
noise in the measurement electronics. Combining the Type A and
Type B uncertainties using the root-sum-squared method results
in the following standard uncertainties in the voltage:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X X ffi
uV ¼ ðu 2
VA Þ i
þ ðu 2
VB Þ j
i j
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ uVA1 þ uVA2 þ    þ u2VB1 þ u2VB2 þ   
2 2
ð8Þ
where both the Type A and Type B uncertainties are summed over
the various uncertainties associated with the voltage measurement.
In Eq. (8), this is denoted with the subscripts ‘‘i” and ‘‘j”. The Type B
standard uncertainties in Eq. (8) have all been divided by the appro-
priate divisor according to Eq. (2).
uI: The standard uncertainty of the irradiance in the lamp is
denoted as uI. This is the uncertainty in the irradiance of the lamp
when the spectroradiometer is perpendicular to the light source at
the reference distance from the light source. The spectral distribu-
tion and magnitude of the light is obtained by a calibration that
should be traceable to a National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology (NIST) reference. Sources of uncertainty to consider in the
lamp irradiance are the accuracy of the calibration of the lamp
and uncertainties associated with the placement of the spectrora-
diometer at the calibration distance. These various standard uncer-
tainties associated with the irradiance are also combined using the
root-sum-squared method.
uh: The standard uncertainty of the angle (h) when measuring
the lamp is denoted as uh. The uncertainty in the angle is deter-
mined by how accurately the angle of incidence can be measured
during the calibration process. This is not an uncertainty of how
64 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76

the responsivity varies with incident angle but merely how accu- individual trials for each azimuthal orientation at each angle of inci-
rately the incident angle can be measured. dence according to Eq. (6). All azimuthal angles measurements are
The three terms uV, uI, and uh are the standard uncertainties included in the R30–60 data set. The minimum and maximum
associated with their corresponding measurements. Each term responsivity in the range between 30° and 60° is determined and
may be composed of several subparts. The details of each uncer- subtracted from the average at 45°. In this way, the largest varia-
tainty are specific to the instrument in question and the technique tions one would expect in the responsivity are obtained. Assuming
used by the calibration service provider. These terms are a measure that the uncertainties are rectangular, the deviations are divided by
of how accurately the instrument can be measured for a particular a square root of three. Two uncertainties are associated with the
angle of incidence and azimuthal angle. angle: one corresponds to a maximum responsivity, and the other
corresponds to a minimum responsivity. These two uncertainties
do not necessarily have the same value.
2.5. Standard uncertainty in the responsivity due to variations in angle
A reference responsivity at an incident angle of 45° was chosen
as it is typically used for the calibration for a pyranometer. A differ-
Due to limitations in instrument design, optical systems such as
ent reference angle could be chosen to better represent the ‘‘typi-
spectroradiometers and pyranometers are prone to Lambertian
cal” incident angle on the pyranometer, but this typical angle will
cosine response errors (Myers, 1997). This deviation often varies
vary depending on location and time of year
with the angle of incidence and can also depend on the azimuthal
angle of the incident radiation (Cannon, 1986).
Under global horizontal irradiance field measurements, light is 2.6. Determining the combined standard uncertainty
incident on the spectroradiometer from all angles, both as direct
and diffuse light. The angle of incidence of direct light is well The combined standard uncertainties of the responsivity are
defined; however the angle of incidence of diffuse light is from computed using Eq. (10). The notation uangle is used to denote
all parts of the sky and is not well defined. Furthermore, without one of the angle uncertainties, either the plus or minus one (Eqs.
the use of two spectroradiometers (one global and one diffuse), (9A) and (9B)).
or other such means of separating the global irradiance into its qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
direct and diffuse components, the ratio of diffuse to direct light uR ¼ ðCV uV Þ2 þ ðCI uI Þ2 þ ðCh uh Þ2 þ ðuangle Þ2 ð10Þ
is not easily determined under all sky conditions. An integrating
sphere may reduce the uncertainty due to the cosine response of Substituting the sensitivity coefficients from Eq. (7) into Eq. (10)
the instrument; however integrating spheres have their own set results in:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of uncertainties ranging from spectral response to cosine response  2  2
(Eppeldauer et al., 2009; Hanssen, 2001). The discussion of inte- R R
uR ¼ uV þ uI þ ðR TanðhÞuh Þ2 þ ðuangle Þ2 ð11Þ
grating spheres and their uncertainty is outside the scope of this V I
study. The general form of the measurement equation (Eq. (6)) will
Pulling the responsivity, R, outside the square root and moving
be that of a spectroradiometer not using an integrating sphere.
it to the other side gives a ratio of the uncertainty in the responsiv-
The variations in the responsivity that occur due to deviations
ity relative to the responsivity. The negative signs inside the
in the cosine response of the instrument are often times neglected
squared terms have been ignored because these terms are squared.
in fieldwork, in that only a single responsivity is used for each rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
wavelength to describe all angles of incidence. Often times correc- u 2 u 2 u 2
V I angle
tions are not applied that would take into account the angle of
uR ¼R þ þ ðTanðhÞuh Þ2 þ ð12AÞ
V I R
incoming light. Therefore, if the angle of incidence during the mea-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
surement deviates from the calibration angle of incidence, then an uR u 2 u 2 u 2
V I angle
additional uncertainty due to these deviations should be included ¼ þ þ ðTanðhÞuh Þ2 þ ð12BÞ
R V I R
in the overall uncertainty in the responsivity. These deviations
should be over a range of angles of incidence and azimuthal angles.
2.7. Determining the expanded uncertainty
If the responsivity is determined at each angle of incidence and
azimuthal angle, then the uncertainty in the responsivity would
The expanded uncertainty of the responsivity (U95R) is calcu-
simply be the combination of uncertainties listed above (uv, uI,
lated by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a cov-
uh), and there would not be an angular uncertainty. If, on the other
erage factor (k):
hand, the responsivity is given only at a one particular angle of
incidence and azimuthal orientation (as is typically done in field- U95R ¼ k uR ð13AÞ
work), then the uncertainties listed above do not contain all the
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
necessary information, and the uncertainty in the responsivity u 2 u 2 u 2
V I angle
due to angular variations must be added. U95R ¼kR þ þ ðTanðhÞuh Þ2 þ ð13BÞ
V I R
uangle: The standard uncertainty in the responsivity due to vari-
ations in the incident and azimuthal orientation is denoted as uangle where k = 1.96 (assuming infinite degrees of freedom) for a 95%
and is calculated using Eqs. (9A) and (9B): confidence level.
Moving the responsivity, R, to the left side results in a ratio of
MaxðR30—60 Þ  R45 the expanded uncertainty of the responsivity relative to the value
uangleþ ¼ pffiffiffi ð9AÞ
3 of the responsivity:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
U95R u 2 u 2 u 2
V I angle
R45  MinðR30—60 Þ ¼k þ þ ðTanðhÞuh Þ2 þ ð14Þ
uangle ¼ pffiffiffi ð9BÞ R V I R
3
The expanded percent uncertainty of the responsivity (%U95R)
R45 is the average responsivity over all azimuthal rotations when is computed by multiplying Eq. (14) by 100:
the angle of incidence is 45°. R30–60 is a set of responsivity values for
U95R
each angle of incidence in the range between 30° and 60°. The val- %U95R ¼  100 ð15AÞ
ues of R30–60 are calculated by taking the average responsivity of the R

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 2 u 2
V I
%U95R ¼ 100k þ þ ðTanðhÞuh Þ2 þ
V I
The expanded percent uncertainty of the responsivity depends
on four terms, each of which is unitless. Each term in Eq. (15) is
for a given wavelength of light and a given intensity of light source.
Also, the uncertainty terms (uI, uV, uh, uangle) are all standard uncer-
tainty values.
The responsivity term, R, in the denominator of the fourth term
is the responsivity of the instrument at an angle of incidence of 45°.
The responsivity is wavelength dependent and may also have some
variations associated with the azimuthal angle. In Eq. (15B), the
responsivity in the denominator is computed by taking the average
responsivity over all azimuthal directions.
The first three terms in Eq. (15) are related to how well the light
source can be measured. The fourth term is related to how varia-
tions in the angle of incidence and azimuthal angle affect the
responsivity. As mentioned earlier, uangle± consists of two different
values that were derived from Eqs. (9A) and (9B). In the computa-
u
tion of the term, angle
R
, both the top and bottom terms are inversely
related to the irradiance according to Eq. (6). In this way, the irra-
diance of the lamp will cancel. The term is a ratio of the voltages
and angles. Any stable light source can be used to measure the
cosine response of the instrument. Moreover the light source only
needs to be stable to provide a reliable cosine response.
Under typical indoor calibration conditions, the spectrora-
diometer is calibrated perpendicular to the light source, and
h = 0. When this is the case, the uncertainty associated with the
angular measurements becomes negligible because Tan(0) = 0. In
addition, the cosine response of the instrument is ignored under
these experimental conditions, so uangle = 0. The first two terms
are independent of the angle, h, and remain unchanged with vari-
ations in the angle. As the angle increases, the angular terms
become increasingly important.
3. Example of GUM method application on a LI-COR 1800
spectroradiometer
The GUM uncertainty methodology discussed in Section 2 gives
an overview of the general methodology for a GHI spectroradiome-
ter. The calibration and uncertainty analysis of a LI-COR 1800 spec-
troradiometer (LI-COR Inc., 1989) is next examined to give a
practical demonstration of how the GUM methodology is used.
The LI-COR 1800 spectroradiometer has had widespread use in a
number of research areas and has been considered a standard in
spectral irradiance measurements. This model of spectrometer is
no longer manufactured due to changing availability of electronic
components over time. A basic description of the LI-COR 1800
spectroradiometer is given in Appendix A. The unit used in this
study was equipped with a Teflon diffuser dome and has been
modified with a thermoelectric temperature control unit mounted
to the photodiode.
In Section 3.1 a description of the measurement technique is
given along with a description of how the responsivity varies with
the angle of incidence (GUM model step 5). In Section 3.2 a detailed
description of the uncertainties of the spectroradiometer is given
(GUM model steps 2, 3, and 4). In Section 3.3 the expanded uncer-
tainty is computed (GUM model steps 6 and 7).
3.1. Measuring the responsivity at various angles of incidence
The LI-COR 1800 uses a silicon detector to measure the spectral
irradiance. The silicon detector’s responsivity changes with wave-
length, which requires the instrument to be calibrated against a
J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76 65
u 2 standard lamp with intensities known at specific wavelengths.
angle
Also, as with pyranometers, the spectroradiometer does not have
R
ð15BÞ a perfect Lambertian response; therefore, the changes in the
responsivity need to be measured at various angles of incoming
light as well. To measure the responsivity of the device and the
Lambertian response of the instrument, the device was placed in
front of a standard lamp, as shown in Fig. 1.
An alternative to the source based calibration setup shown in
Fig. 1 would be a detector based calibration which has two spectro-
radiometers simultaneously observing a single light source (Habte
et al., 2014; Martinez-Lozano et al., 2003), typically natural light.
While a detector based calibration could reduce certain errors it
would also create other challenges such as the cosine and temper-
ature response of the reference instrument must be well under-
stood, not being able to easily obtain all angles of incidence and
azimuthal angles in order to map the space, and for a global irradi-
ance measurement the light source will not have a well-defined
angle of incidence. While there are solutions to these problems
for the purposes of this study a source based calibration setup
was chosen in order to have control over the experimental
parameters.
From the experimental setup shown in Fig. 1, the responsivity
of the device at the various wavelengths and angles of incidence
was computed using Equation (6).
The reference lamp used to calibrate the spectroradiometer was
a LI-COR 1800-02 Optical Radiation Calibrator (LI-COR Inc, 1990).
This lamp uses a power-regulated heated quartz tungsten halogen
filament. The light source is totally enclosed by a light shroud with
a small aperture to allow light to pass through to the detector. The
actual filament is located 20.3 cm behind the aperture of the
shroud. The lamp used in this study was calibrated from 335 to
1060 nm through the use of an EKO MS-700 spectroradiometer.
The EKO spectroradiometer used to calibrate the lamp has its
own uncertainty which is incorporated into the uncertainty of
the lamp. The calibration procedure and uncertainty measurement
of the lamp is discussed in in Section 3.2 and in Appendix B.
The front surface of the spectroradiometer detector was placed
14.5 ± 0.2 cm away from the end of the calibrator aperture of the
reference lamp. This was done to allow the spectroradiometer to
rotate throughout the range of incident and azimuthal angles as
necessary. Even with the extra distance, some angles under certain
orientations were unattainable because the end of the spectrome-
ter hit the lamp enclosure at large angles. In moving the spectrora-
diometer back, the irradiance is decreased. The 14.5 cm distance
was selected to give the most angle of incidence measurements
while still maintaining the largest irradiance. The spectroradiome-
ter detector was positioned in the direct line of sight of the light
source through the aperture, and the distance between the detec-
tor and the aperture was kept constant with a fixed-length remov-
able spacer bar.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup for determining the responsivity of the
spectroradiometer.
66 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
To determine the cosine response of the spectroradiometer, the
spectroradiometer was rotated in front of the light source. The
angle of incidence, h, is the angle between the normal to the plane
of the detector and the angle of the incoming light. The angle of
incidence was varied in both the positive and negative directions
from h = 75° to +75°. The uncertainty in the angle of incidence
measurement is ±0.3°. Under this experimental configuration, the
cosine response of the instrument could be determined over a wide
range of incident angles.
In addition, the spectroradiometer was rotated so that the azi-
muthal angle of the incoming light was varied. A schematic of
how the azimuthal angle was varied is shown in Fig. 2. In this fig-
ure, two orientations of the device are shown; either Side A or Side
B of the device is resting on the tabletop. In each of these two ori-
entations, the angle of incidence was varied from 75° to +75°. In
this way, the light was incident on the detector from all four azi-
muthal directions. The four azimuthal directions are labeled (0,
90, 180, 270). An example light source is shown for Orientation
1, wherein side 270 is closer to the light source. For the other
angles of incidence, the light source is moved relative to the
spectroradiometer.
With the spectroradiometer in the experimental setup
described above, the voltage output by the spectroradiometer
was measured as a function of wavelength for a variety of inci-
dence and azimuthal angles. The average voltage of the four azi-
muthal directions was computed for every angle of incidence and
is shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, the voltage curves for different angles
of incidence have the same general shape because the filter wheel
of the spectroradiometer always occurs at the same wavelengths.
To better show the small voltages present in the range from 300
to 400 nm, a separate scale is used in the panel on the left.
In Fig. 3, representative error bars of one standard deviation are
shown at selected wavelengths. The size of the error bar was com-
puted by taking the standard deviation of all voltage measure-
ments at a particular angle of incidence, including various
azimuthal angle orientations. These variations in voltage con-
tribute the overall uncertainty of the responsivity and are a combi-
nation of noise in the device, variations in the lamp brightness,
variations in the placement of the spectroradiometer with respect
to the lamp, and variations associated with different azimuthal
angles. The different sources of uncertainty cannot be easily sepa-
rated into isolated components. It will be assumed that the terms
uV u
V
and angle
R
incorporate these uncertainties. If this uncertainty
Fig. 2. Schematic of the experimental setup used to measure the azimuthal dependence of the spectroradiometer.
were explicitly included in the calculation, as an additional term
in the uVV term, this uncertainty would be double counted.
Using the voltage values given in Fig. 3, the responsivity was
computed using Eq. (6). The responsivity of the instrument at a
variety of incident angles is shown in Fig. 4.
The curves in both Figs. 3 and 4 have the same general shape,
with large jumps in the data set. The drastic changes in voltage
are due to the preliminary filter wheel changing filters inside the
spectroradiometer. The different filters have different transparency
characteristics, so whenever the filter changes, there can be a sharp
change in the output voltage. It follows that because the responsiv-
ity is proportional to the voltage, if the voltage changes drastically,
then the responsivity will change as well. The change in filters often
causes the disjointed data points in the spectral responsivity file.
At wavelengths less than 400 nm, the responsivity has signifi-
cant amounts of noise in the voltage signal, resulting in significant
noise in the responsivity. The sensitivity to noise at short wave-
lengths is visible in the left panel of Fig. 4 and is documented in
other studies (Riordan et al., 1989). At wavelengths greater than
400 nm, the responsivity does not vary much for different incident
angles, except when the incident angle increases to 75° or more.
In the upcoming discussion on the uncertainty associated with
the responsivity of the spectroradiometer, the uncertainty in the
responsivity due to variations in the incident and azimuthal orien-
tation (uangle) will be used (step 5 of the GUM model). Depending
on the design and the materials used, an integrating sphere may
reduce the size of the deviation from true cosine response of the
instrument.
Fig. 4 corresponds to the average responsivity, with the results
from all azimuthal angles averaged. To understand the effects of
angle, the individual trials must be studied individually. Differ-
ences that exist in the responsivity between these individual trails
can offer some perspective on the effects of the uncertainty associ-
ated with the angle.
Using the voltage values corresponding to each angle of inci-
dence and azimuthal orientation, the responsivity was computed.
Fig. 5 shows the responsivity for each of these variations at four
discrete wavelengths. The average responsivity at an angle of inci-
dence of 45° is also shown for perspective. The different azimuthal
orientations are listed as separate data sets. A legend for the figure
is given in the 1000-nm plot. Note that the responsivity at 400 nm
is approximately an order of magnitude smaller than the respon-
sivity at higher wavelengths.
 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76 67

Fig. 3. Voltage output by the spectroradiometer compared to the angle of incidence. The voltage values shown here have been averaged throughout all azimuthal angle
measurements. Representative error bars of one standard deviation are shown. The error bars for the 0 and 15 degree angle of incidence are too small to be visible in the plot.

Fig. 4. Responsivity compared to wavelength for various angles of incidence. The responsivity is nearly constant as the angle is varied. Only when the angle of incidence is
increased to 75° is there a noticeable change in the responsivity compared to the other angles. A detailed view of the wavelengths from 300 to 400 nm is shown in the left
panel.

The error bars shown in Fig. 5 are the expanded uncertainty of
the responsivity excluding the angular terms (uangle±). The deriva-
tion of this uncertainty will be presented in Section 3.3. Significant
differences exist in the responsivity due to the angle of incidence
and the azimuthal variations. These differences are larger than
the uncertainties in the data due to non-angle of incidence effects.
Fig. 5 offers insight into how the responsivity changes when the
from h = 30° to 60° considering all azimuthal orientations. This is
done for every wavelength of light. An example will help illustrate
the point.
At 600 nm, the maximum responsivity is for an angle of inci-
dence of h = 60° when the instrument was in the azimuthal orien-
tation of 90°. Under these conditions, the responsivity of the
mV
instrument is 32,500 W=m 2 nm.

angle of incoming light is varied. When the angle of incidence is At 600 nm, the minimum responsivity is for an angle of inci-
smaller than 45°, it is generally observed that the responsivity is dence of h = 45° when the instrument was in the azimuthal orien-
greater than the average responsivity at 45°. When the angle of tation of 270°. Under these conditions the responsivity of the
incidence is 45°, the responsivity values are centered around the mV
instrument is 28,200 W=m 2 nm.
average responsivity, as would be expected. As the angle of inci-
The maximum and minimum responsivity values are subtracted
dence is increased to 75°, it is generally observed that the respon-
from the average responsivity at 45° (Eqs. (9A) and (9B)) to deter-
sivity decreases sharply, with a few exceptions. It has been
mine the standard uncertainty associated with the angular varia-
suggested that the cause of this drastic change is likely the shade
tions of the incoming light, uangle ±. This is a measure of how
ring surrounding the diffuser dome (Cannon, 1986).
much the responsivity varies over the angle of incidence range
Observing the variations that exist in the different azimuthal
from h = 30° to 60°, and it is similar to the methodology used for
angles, one gains perspective on how the responsivity can vary
the pyranometer calibration made using the Broadband Outdoor
depending on the orientation of the light. The solar zenith angle
Radiometer Calibration methods prior to the year 2015 (Wilcox
and solar azimuthal angle vary during the day and during the year.
et al., 2002).
Because the responsivity of the spectroradiometer varies with inci-
In Eqs. (12)–(15), when the uncertainty in the responsivity is
dent angle and orientation, it is important to characterize these
computed, the standard uncertainty, uangle±, is divided by the
variations and understand how the angles affect the accuracy of
responsivity at 45°. The standard uncertainty divided by the
the measurements.
average responsivity offers a convenient way to compare the size
In Eqs. (9A) and (9B), the uncertainty term, uangle±, is a measure
of the uncertainty to the responsivity. The ratio of the uncertainty
of how much the responsivity changes over the angle of incident
relative to the responsivity is shown in Fig. 6, with the maximum
range from h = 30° to 60°. This was done by taking the maximum
and minimum uncertainties shown separately.
(and minimum) responsivity over the angle of incidence range
68 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76

Fig. 5. Responsivity compared to angles of incidence. The different azimuthal orientations are shown explicitly. The legend in the 1000-nm plot shows the different azimuthal
orientations.

The ratio in the uncertainty is greatest at wavelengths less than
400 nm, shown explicitly in the panel on the left. In this wave-
length range, the magnitude of the responsivity is relatively small
while the change in responsivity is relatively large, resulting in a
large ratio. At wavelengths greater than 400 nm, the ratio of the
uncertainty drops to less than 10% for all wavelengths. In Sec-
tion 3.3, it will be shown that the variations in responsivity due
to variations in the angle are the largest source of uncertainty.
3.2. Uncertainties associated with the calibration technique of the LI-
COR 1800 spectroradiometer
With an understanding of the device and the measurement
technique used to calibrate the instrument, the possible sources
of uncertainty associated with the responsivity of the LI-COR
1800 will now be discussed. These uncertainties are the various
standard uncertainty ‘‘u” variables listed in Section 2. A discussion
of each uncertainty and how it was calculated is given below.
Table 2, at the conclusion of this section, lists the uncertainty val-
ues for each variable as well as the notation used to describe each
term. The uncertainties are separated into four terms following the
notation of Eq. (15).
The first term in Eq. (15) is uVV . The uncertainties associated with
the voltage measurement of the LICOR spectroradiometer are the
electronic noise in the signal (uv-Noise), the accuracy of the data log-
ger (uv-datalogger), and the effects of temperature of the spectrora-
diometer (uv-Temp).
uV-noise: The voltage signal recorded by the data logger will have
some natural variations. The uncertainty due to these variations is
referred to as ‘‘noise” and is a Type A uncertainty.
The noise in the signal can be determined by placing the device
in a totally dark environment and making a measurement. Ideally,
 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
Fig. 6. The standard uncertainty associated with angular variations of the incoming light. The standard uncertainty, uangle±, has been divided by the average responsivity at
45° for comparison purposes. The maximum and minimum have been computed separately.
if there was no noise, the voltage would be zero. The dark signal
was measured, and the voltage of the device was recorded. Fig. 7
shows the results of the scan. The dark voltage can be positive or
negative. There is not a significant change in the noise as a function
of wavelength.
Using the data presented in Fig. 7, the standard uncertainty of
the data is computed using Eq. (1).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
2
ðV i  VÞ
uVnoise ¼ i¼1
¼ 0:980 mV ð16Þ
n1
These results are consistent with the LI-COR user manual (LI-
COR Inc., 1989, pp. 7-3, 8-1), which states that the noise should
be less than 1 mV. Given that the voltage readings at wavelengths
greater than 400 nm are much greater than the noise (see Fig. 3),
the uncertainty due to noise is insignificant. Only at wavelengths
less than 400 nm, when the voltage becomes smaller, does the
noise become a significant source of uncertainty.
uV-Datalogger: The voltage readings produced by the LI-COR 1800
are measured in 1-mV increments. The voltage signal is measured
by the device and rounded to the nearest millivolt when the signal
is made digital. The voltage measurements could be off by as much
as ½ mV due to round-off errors of the data logger. This is a rect-
angular Type B distribution. The standard uncertainty due to
round-off errors in the data logger is given by Eq. (17):
1=2
uVDatalogger ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ 0:2887 mV ð17Þ
3
The manufacture does not give any information on the accuracy
of the voltmeter used as part of the spectroradiometer. It is assumed
that the voltmeter is able to read the millivolt signals to a great
Fig. 7. The dark signal voltage compared to wavelength. The detector was placed in
an entirely dark environment and voltage was recorded.
69
enough accuracy such that the inaccuracy of the voltmeter does
not contribute to the overall uncertainty of the responsivity. Only
the round-off errors of the voltmeter are assumed to contribute.
uV-Temp: The temperature of the spectroradiometer sensor
affects the voltage output by the sensor. The LI-COR 1800 spectro-
radiometer used in this study has been modified by adding a tem-
perature control unit to the instrument. The temperature control
unit maintains the temperature of the sensor to within ±0.1 °C.
Under both calibration conditions and during field measurements,
the temperature of the sensor is maintained at 18 °C.
To measure the effect of temperature on the instrument output,
the temperature of the sensor was varied while the device was
observing a LI-COR 1800-02 calibration lamp. The output voltage
from the device was recorded as a function of temperature. This
enabled an estimate of the uncertainty of the voltage output as a
function of temperature. The uncertainty associated with the tem-
perature is a Type B normal distribution. See Appendix C for a
detailed outline of this procedure.
The temperature of the spectroradiometer is assumed to be in
thermal equilibrium with the surrounding environment. For the
device used in this paper, which was equipped with a thermal con-
trol unit, the photodiode was maintained at a constant tempera-
ture. However for the device in question, the rest of the
instrument was not thermally controlled. The optical components
not thermally controlled will experience a larger range of tempera-
tures. For the purposes of this study, the additional uncertainty due
to fluctuations in temperature of the rest of the device is neglected.
Further studies are necessary to determine the uncertainty associ-
ated with a larger range of temperature on the rest of the optical
components. The methodology outlined at the end of Appendix C
would take into consideration theses larger temperature fluctua-
tions. This would need to be done in an environmental chamber
such that all optical components are in thermal equilibrium.
The ratio of the standard uncertainty in the voltage relative to
u 
the voltage VTemp
V
is shown in Fig. 8. The ratio of the uncertainty
is independent of the incident angle and the distance to the light
source because both the voltage and uncertainty in voltage change
at the same rate. As the angle of incidence increases, the voltage
decreases, and the uncertainty in the voltage decreases by the
same amount, resulting in the ratio remaining unchanged when
the angle of incidence is varied. Therefore, the ratio shown in
Fig. 8 applies to all orientations of the lamp and the sensor.
The uncertainty due to temperature uncertainties becomes
prevalent at wavelengths greater than 900 nm. At wavelengths
between 400 and 900 nm, the uncertainty due to temperature vari-
ations is negligible. At wavelengths less than 400 nm the noise in
the responsivity signal obscures any effects due to temperature.
If the spectroradiometer did not have a temperature control
unit, the instrument would experience a much larger fluctuation
70
Fig. 8. The ratio of the standard uncertainty in the voltage due to temperature variations compared to the voltage
with temperature and the uncertainties in voltage would be signif-
icantly larger. For such an instrument, the uncertainties due to
temperature variations become the predominate uncertainty in
the voltage for wavelengths greater than 900 nm. A brief descrip-
tion of an instrument undergoing larger temperature variations is
given at the conclusion of Appendix C.
Combining the three kinds of standard uncertainties that exist
for the voltage by using the root-sum-squared method results in
the standard uncertainty in the voltage:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uV ¼ ðuVNoise Þ2 þ ðuVDatalogger Þ2 þ ðuVTemp Þ2
Dividing both sides of Eq. (18) by the voltage results in the ratio of
the standard uncertainty in voltage relative to the voltage:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uV u 2 u 2 u 2
VNoise VDatalogger VTemp
¼ þ þ ð19Þ
V V V V
This ratio will be used to compute the uncertainty in the
responsivity using Eq. (15).
Fig. 9 shows the ratio of the standard uncertainty in the voltage
of the LI-COR spectroradiometer due to noise, round-off errors in
the data logger, and temperature uncertainties. The uncertainty
due to the noise in the signal is the significant source of uncer-
tainty. The uncertainty due to temperature variations is an order
of magnitude smaller than the noise.
Next, we turn our attention to the uncertainty in the irradiance
of the LI-COR lamp calibration system. The lamp was calibrated
using an EKO MS-700 spectroradiometer. A detailed description
of the lamp calibration process is given in Appendix B.
The uncertainty in the lamp is determined by three factors:
the uncertainty of the calibration of the EKO spectroradiometer
(uI-EKO Calibration), the noise in the EKO spectroradiometer signal
(uI-EKO Noise), and the uncertainty in the distance (uI-distance).
Fig. 9. The ratio of the standard uncertainty in the voltage due to variations in noise, round-off errors in the data logger, and temperature. The data shown here was for an
angle of incidence of 45°. The magnitude of the voltage varies with incident angle for a given irradiance intensity.
J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
uVTemp 
V
for a temperature change of 0.1 °C.
uI-EKO Calibration: The EKO spectroradiometer had recently been
calibrated at NREL against a NIST-certified lamp (Yoon and
Gibson, 2011). The standard calibration procedure of NREL reports
the expanded uncertainty of the instrument which has been con-
verted to a standard uncertainty. The ratio of the uncertainty in
the irradiance due to inaccuracies in the EKO calibration is shown
in Fig. 10. The uncertainty value reported in Fig. 10 is the standard
uncertainty of the calibration process.
uI-EKO Noise: To determine the noise in the lamp signal, the EKO
spectroradiometer was placed at 34.8 cm and allowed to record 12
ð18Þ values of the lamp during a 12-min time period. The standard devi-
ation of the irradiance of these measurements was recorded. Any
noise variations that are inherent in the EKO spectroradiometer
and also in the LI-COR lamp will be measured. The two effects can-
not be distinguished in this method. This is a Type A uncertainty;
thus, according to Equation (1), the standard uncertainty is the
standard deviation of the signal. The uncertainty due to the noise
in the signal is shown in Fig. 10. The noise is insignificant at all
wavelengths greater than 400 nm. At wavelengths less than
400 nm, the noise is the same order of magnitude as that of the
irradiance, and the uncertainty becomes large.
uI-distance: Both the EKO spectroradiometer (used to calibrate
the lamp) and the LI-COR spectroradiometer (the instrument in
question) were positioned at the same location from the lamp. In
the experiments conducted for these tests, the distance from the
sensor to the lamp filament had an uncertainty of ±0.2 cm. This
2 mm was a judgement call made by the experimenters based on
uncertainties on the size of the filament, challenges in placing
and measuring the spectroradiometer to the desired location, and
uncertainties in the curved diffuser dome of the LICOR spectrora-
diometer. The irradiance was measured at distances of 34.6 and
35.0 cm (2 mm on either side of 34.8). The irradiance at these
two locations was determined and the amount of change in the
 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76 71

Fig. 10. Ratio of the standard uncertainty in the LI-COR lamp relative to the irradiance of the lamp. The various sources of uncertainty are plotted for comparison purposes.

irradiance was determined for a 2-mm spread in the distance. The
standard uncertainty in the irradiance to variations in the distance
was assumed to be a normal distribution of Type B uncertainty. The
variations in the irradiance were divided by two to give the stan-
dard uncertainty according to Equation (2B). The ratio of the stan-
dard uncertainty due to distance is shown in Fig. 10.
The three components of the uncertainty in the irradiance are
combined using the root-sum-squared method. The ratio of the total
uncertainty in the irradiance of the lamp relative to the irradiance of
the lamp is shown in Fig. 10. The uncertainty is less than 1.1% for all
wavelengths greater than 400 nm. The major contributors to the
uncertainty in the irradiance are due to variations in the distance
of the sensor and the uncertainty in the calibration of the EKO.
Fig. 11. The overall uncertainty associated with the angle of incidence. At large
incident angles, the uncertainty increases significantly.
It should be mentioned that the EKO spectroradiometer also has
a temperature response: However since the instrument was at
room temperature when it was calibrated at NREL and during
the lamp calibration in this study the temperature response
of the instrument is included in the calibration uncertainty
uI-EKO Calibration. Had the two temperatures been outside the operat-
ing temperature of the instrument 25 ± 5 °C, the uncertainty due to
temperature response would need to be included as well.
uh: The uncertainty in the measurement of the angle of inci-
dence, h. Note that uh is the uncertainty associated with how accu-
rately the angle of incidence can be measured, and it is not the
same as the variation in the responsivity due to changes in the
angle. The digital angle finder used to measure the angle of inci-
dence had an uncertainty of ±0.3° (.005236 rad), which is assumed
to be the uncertainty in the angle between the spectroradiometer
and the light from the calibrator. Assuming that the distribution
of uncertainties is a normal distribution, the 0.3° uncertainty is
divided by a factor of two to give the standard uncertainty associ-
ated with the angle of incidence according to Eq. (2B):
0:005236 radians
uh ¼ ¼ 0:002618 ð20Þ
2
Multiplying the standard uncertainty by the tangent of theta
according to Eq. (15) results in the overall uncertainty due to the
angle of incidence. The uncertainty associated with the angle of
incidence is shown in Fig. 11. Under the experimental conditions
that were used, the uncertainty can become as great as 1% at 75°.
uangle: The uncertainty associated with the change in responsiv-
ity when the angle of incidence is changed was discussed in Sec-
tion 3.1. Fig. 6 shows the ratio of the uncertainty relative to the
responsivity.
A brief synopsis of the various uncertainties previously dis-
cussed is given in Table 2. This table is intended to clarify any con-

Table 2
List of uncertainty parameters. See Figs. 6, 9, 10, and 11 for the relative size of each uncertainty.

Uncertainty Brief description Type of Number of data points Type of distribution

label uncertainty (Type A Only) (Type B Only)
uV-noise Noise in the LI-COR spectroradiometer voltage Type A 800
uV-Data Logger Round-off error in the LI-COR spectroradiometer Type B Rectangular
uV-Temp Variations in the voltage of the spectroradiometer due to fluctuations in temperature
Type B Normal
uv-Total Total uncertainty in voltage
uI-EKO Calibration Uncertainty of the EKO calibration process Type B Standard
uncertainty
uI-EKO Noise Noise in the lamp and EKO spectroradiometer (inseparable) Type A 12
uI-EKO Distance Variations in the irradiance due to uncertainties in the distance Type B Normal
uI-Total Total uncertainty in irradiance
uh Uncertainty in angle measurement Type B Normal
uh Tan(h) Total uncertainty in responsivity due to inaccurate angle measurement
uangle Uncertainty in responsivity due to changes in the angle of incoming light Type B Normal
72 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76

fusion on the notation. The magnitudes of the uncertainty values
for each variable can vary drastically depending on several factors.
These factors include the wavelength of light, the angle of inci-
dence, and the azimuthal angle. See Figs. 6, 9, 10, and 11 for guides
to the relative size of each uncertainty.
The accuracy of the spectroradiometer data depends not only
on the specifications of the instrument but also on the calibration
procedure, measurement set up, and meteorological conditions.
Therefore, statements about the overall measurement uncertainty
can be made only on an individual basis, taking all relevant factors
into account. Other potential sources of error that are not quanti-
fied or included in this study include: wavelength offset, wave-
length bandwidth, nonlinearity factors, how the electrical signal
is handled by the electronics of the device, the impact of air tem-
perature, relative humidity and other atmospheric parameters,
temporal changes in the responsivity, and the effects of a non-
collimated light source. The reader should note that these sources
of uncertainty may need to be included depending on the experi-
mental setup.
3.3. Calculation of the expanded uncertainty
Combining the uncertainties of each type (voltage, irradiance,
measurement of angle, and variation of responsivity with angle)
using the root-sum-squared method according to Eq. (12B) results
in the ratio of the standard uncertainty in the responsivity relative
to the responsivity. In Fig. 12, the ratio of the uncertainty in the
responsivity relative to the value of the responsivity is shown
along with the four components of Equation (12B). The uncertainty
shown in Fig. 12 is the standard uncertainty of the responsivity;
the 95% uncertainty will be shown later.
Fig. 12 shows two different plots. The upper plot, titled uanlge(+),
shows the uncertainty that exists due to variations in the respon-
sivity that are greater than the responsivity at 45°. These were
derived from Equation (9A). The lower plot, titled uanlge(), shows
the uncertainty that exists due to variations in the responsivity
that are less than the responsivity at 45°. These were derived from
Eq. (9B).
In both plots, it is clear that the uncertainties, uangle±, are signif-
icantly larger than the rest of the uncertainties combined. This is
true for nearly all wavelengths. The uncertainties vary depending
on the wavelength of light being considered.
With an understanding of the various components associated
with the uncertainty of the responsivity, the expanded percent
uncertainty was computed according to Eq. (15). The expanded
uncertainty was computed for both the uangle+ and uangle- terms.
The expanded percent uncertainty in the responsivity for these dif-
ferent computations is shown in Fig. 13.
For comparison purposes, the expanded uncertainty was also
computed with the uangle± terms set to zero. By not including

Fig. 12. Ratio of the standard uncertainty in the responsivity compared to the responsivity. The various components of the uncertainty in the responsivity are separated to
show their relative magnitudes. The uncertainty associated with the angle (uanlge±) has been separated into two separate plots.

Fig. 13. Expanded percent uncertainty in the responsivity. The uncertainty associated with the angle (uanlge±) has two different values corresponding to the two curves, uR95%
(+) and uR95%(). For comparison purposes, the expanded percent uncertainty is shown if the angle terms are ignored.
 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
Fig. 14. The responsivity curve compared to wavelength. The error bars shown on
the curve correspond to the expanded uncertainty uangle± shown in Fig. 13.
uangle±, it is clear how influential the angular uncertainty is in the
overall uncertainty.
The uangle± is a measure of how much the responsivity changes
from the average responsivity at an angle of incidence of 45°. The
amount the responsivity varies was measured over a range of
angles of incidence from 30° to 60°. The responsivities can change
significantly at angles greater than 60°, whereas there is little
change in the range between 0° and 45°.
At wavelengths less than 400 nm, the expanded percent uncer-
tainty, including the deviation from true cosine response, has an
expanded uncertainty between 20% and 200%. At wavelengths
greater than 400 nm, there is a 5% and 20% expanded uncertainty.
If the responsivity was determined and applied for each angle of
incidence, the uncertainty would be significantly reduced at all
wavelengths. This is shown in Fig. 13 as the data set labeled ‘‘No
uangle uncertainty”.
The uncertainty estimates presented in Fig. 13 are consistent
with the uncertainty values from other studies (Habte et al.,
2014, 2013; LI-COR Inc., 1989; Myers, 1989). These studies include
both detector based calibrations and source based calibration tech-
niques. The LI-COR user manual states that the cosine response of
the instrument is ±8% (standard uncertainty). The user manual
does not give any information about the wavelength dependence
of the cosine response.
As is often the case when making field measurements, a single
responsivity is used regardless of the angle of incoming light. As is
standard practice for pyranometers, the responsivity of the LI-COR
1800 was measured at 45°. This was done using the data set shown
in Fig. 4. The expanded uncertainty is applied to the responsivity
and is presented in Fig. 14 as the error bars.
4. Results and conclusions
Accurate spectral irradiance measurements are important as
one tries to better understand and compare the performance of dif-
ferent PV technologies; therefore, quantifying uncertainties of
spectral irradiance measurements using a consistent methodology
is crucial. The GUM methodology has been used for estimating
uncertainties in GHI spectral irradiance measurements, and as a
specific example the uncertainties of a modified LI-COR 1800 spec-
troradiometer have been calculated. The GUM method provides
uncertainty analysis that ensures the estimated uncertainty for
data collected by the spectroradiometer can be compared based
on standardized methods of equations which supersedes the his-
torically commonly used method to estimate uncertainty using
concept of precision and bias. Further, the method assists to iden-
tity the different sources of uncertainties such as cosine and tem-
perature response errors independently which in turn will assist in
understanding and reducing the leading sources of uncertainty.
73
The uncertainties in the LI-COR spectroradiometer are similar to
uncertainties encountered in most spectroradiometers that mea-
sure the GHI spectrum. The leading sources of uncertainty in the
LI-COR spectroradiometer have been identified. First, there are
large uncertainties in wavelengths less than 400 nm that can be
attributed to the poor response of the spectroradiometer detector
to ultraviolet light. The second is the variation in the responsivity
when the incident angle of light is varied. Variations exist in both
the angle of incidence and the azimuthal angles. These deviations
from true cosine response can be associated with the optics of
the instrument. The uncertainty associated with the lamp used to
calibrate the device is the third leading source of uncertainty; how-
ever, this is significantly smaller than the other two previously
mentioned errors. The uncertainty due to temperature variations
in the sensor at near-infrared wavelengths (greater than 900 nm)
has been significantly reduced by using a water-cooled plate with
a thermoelectric controller that is placed behind the detector. This
maintains the detector at a near constant temperature.
A methodology to calibrate GHI spectroradiometers and to
quantify the uncertainty of these devices has been demonstrated.
The future studies listed below would improve upon this technique
to reduce several of the leading sources of uncertainties for the
spectroradiometer.
The diffuser dome of the spectroradiometer used in this study
deviates from the ideal cosine response curve in a predictable man-
ner, and these deviations are the largest source of uncertainty for
the spectroradiometer. Integrating spheres may reduce the size
of the uncertainty in the cosine response of the instrument. How-
ever all instruments, even those using an integrating sphere, will
exhibit a cosine response uncertainty. It should be possible to
determine a cosine response adjustment algorithm that would
apply a responsivity function that is dependent on the angle of
incidence of light. The cosine response adjustment would work
well to correct the spectral direct irradiance contribution, which
has a well-defined angle of incidence relative to the sensor. The dif-
fuse spectral irradiance comes from all portions of the sky and is
crudely the weighted average angle of 45°. A challenge with this
method is how to separate a singular global horizontal measure-
ment into its two constituents, direct horizontal and diffuse hori-
zontal. Under clear sky conditions this should be possible. Under
partly-cloudy conditions this becomes more challenging. One pos-
sible solution is to use two spectroradiometers, one direct normal
and one diffuse, to measure the two components.
The uncertainties in wavelengths less than 400 nm would be
significantly reduced, if the light source used had a brighter ultra-
violet spectrum or the diffuser dome was replaced with something
that had a better ultraviolet transmission. It may be necessary to
perform a calibration using two different light sources with two
different spectrums. One of these light sources should be a strong
emitter of ultraviolet light in the wavelength range from 300 to
400 nm. With this light source, the uncertainties associated with
the poor responsivity to ultraviolet should be reduced, which in
turn would reduce the uncertainty in the irradiance in the wave-
lengths as well. The responsivity of the instrument as a function
of wavelength would be the combination of the responsivity pro-
duced by the two lamps.
One of the largest sources of uncertainties associated with the
irradiance of the lamp was the location of the sensor relative to
the lamp. This uncertainty was present in both the calibration of
the lamp and also with the calibration of the LI-COR spectrora-
diometer. Care was taken to try to minimize this uncertainty, but
due to experimental limitations, the uncertainties associated with
distance cannot be further minimized. The uncertainties associated
with the distance are on the order of the curvature of the LI-COR
spectroradiometer diffuser dome. Without a more accurate way
to measure the location of the sensor, information about how the
74 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
azimuthal angle of the diffuser dome affects the responsivity of the
instrument cannot be determined. The uncertainty associated with
distance would be reduced if the distance between the lamp and
the spectroradiometer was increased. However, if this was done
a brighter light source would also have to be used.
When a spectroradiometer is used in the field to make global
horizontal spectral irradiance measurements, there may be some
additional uncertainties that need to be included in the final irradi-
ance uncertainty calculation. In addition to the uncertainties in the
responsivity discussed here, there may be uncertainties due to
degradation in the instrument, soiling of the detector surface and
cleaning, and physical uncertainties such as leveling and shading
to consider. To compute the uncertainty in the irradiance these
additional uncertainties should be included and the GUM model
should be applied to the measurement equation which computes
the irradiance. This is a process very similar to the one performed
here, simply with a different measurement equation.
As better estimates of the performance of photovoltaic modules
become more important, it will be necessary to understand the
spectral characteristics of the incident solar irradiance. Measuring
the spectral irradiance in the plane of array of a PV system has
large uncertainties because of the deviation from true cosine
response as well as the many other uncertainties associated with
spectral measurements. Models of the spectral distribution of inci-
dent solar radiation are only as good as the data that is used to val-
idate the models. Therefore it is very important to understand the
uncertainties associated with these of spectral measurements.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. The authors also thank Bonneville
Power Administration, Energy Trust of Oregon, Emerald People’s
Utility District, Portland General Electric, and Oregon BEST for their
support of the University of Oregon’s SRML activities.
Appendix A. Basic overview of the LI-COR 1800
spectroradiometer
It is useful to have a basic understanding of how the LI-COR
1800 operates to characterize the calibration and the uncertainty.
Fig. A1. Schematic of the LI-COR 1800 spectroradiometer (LI-COR Inc., 1989).
A schematic of the LI-COR 1800 spectroradiometer is shown in
Fig. A1.
Incident light first passes through a cosine receptor diffuser
dome made of Teflon. The cosine receptor used in this study was
not an integrating sphere. The light is redirected using a mirror
set at 45° to the top plane of the instrument. The spectroradiome-
ter then filters the incoming light using a preliminary color filter
wheel. This filter blocks unwanted colors from entering the detec-
tor. The filter wheel cycles through seven colors during the course
of a scan. The wavelengths of light passed by each filter are listed in
Table A1.
Next, the light is separated into a spectrum of colors using a
diffraction grating. During the course of a run, the diffraction grat-
ing is rotated so that the various colors are incident on the detec-
tor. Before the light reaches the detector, it must first pass through
an exit slit, ¼-mm wide, which produces a narrow beam of light for
the detector. The detector is a silicon photodiode, manufactured by
EG&G Optoelectronics Canada (model HUV-2000B).
As the diffraction grating moves, it sweeps different wave-
lengths across the slit. The slit width limits the wavelengths that
pass through and directly determines the spectral bandwidth that
reaches the detector. The measurements described in this paper
had a slit width of ¼ mm. This corresponds to a full width at half
maximum bandwidth of 4 nm. Thus, when the grating is set at
500 nm, the detector senses wavelengths from 498 to 502 nm.
Therefore, although the solar irradiance data recorded by the spec-
troradiometer is in 1-nm increments, these measurements include
a Gaussian distribution 4-nm wide. More information is available
in the LI-COR user manual (LI-COR Inc., 1989).
Each optical component of the spectroradiometer will have an
effect on the amount of light reaching the photodiode. These com-
Table A1
Wavelengths of light passed through the various filters on the LI-COR 1800
spectroradiometer.
Start wavelength (nm) End wavelength (nm)
Filter 1 300 348
Filter 2 349 418
Filter 3 419 558
Filter 4 559 678
Filter 5 679 775
Filter 6 776 938
Filter 7 939 1100
 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
ponents include the diffuser dome, mirror, filter wheel, diffraction
grating, entrance and exit slits. The efficiency of the photodiode at
converting light to an electrical signal will determine the voltage
that the photodiode produces. The optical properties of each com-
ponent will likely be dependent on the wavelength of light and
may have a temperature response as well. Other models of spectro-
radiometers or those operating with an integrating sphere would
have their own set of optical properties but the same principles
can be applied.
The responsivity of the device is the ratio of how much voltage
was produced by the diode at the end of the process to how much
light was incident on the diffuser dome at the start according to Eq.
(6). Changing the properties of a single optical component, for
example the reflectance of the mirror, will change the light making
it to the final sensor, and in turn how much voltage the diode pro-
duces. This will have the effect of changing the responsivity of the
instrument and is the underlying principle behind calibrations.
The set of optical components of a device are all internal to the
device and light will interact with the entire set of components
under both calibration conditions and during fieldwork. Since the
device is always used as a complete unit, details about the surface
aluminized mirror are not included.
Appendix B. Calibration procedure of the reference lamp
To calibrate the LI-COR 1800 spectroradiometer, first the irradi-
ance of the reference lamp had to be well understood. The refer-
ence lamp used to calibrate the spectroradiometer was a LI-COR
1800-02 Optical Radiation Calibrator. The lamp was calibrated
using an EKO MS-700 spectroradiometer, which had been recently
calibrated at NREL with traceability to the NIST standards. In this
way, the calibration of the LI-COR 1800 could be traced to a NIST
source. However, with each of these transitions comes an increase
in the uncertainty in the measurement.
The EKO MS-700 spectroradiometer measured the reference
lamp from 336 to 1060 nm. The lamp was measured such that
the angle of incidence was h = 0°.
When the LI-COR spectroradiometer was calibrated, it was posi-
tioned 34.8 cm from the filament of the lamp. The uncertainty in
this measurement was ±0.2 cm. Because the location of the LI-
COR sensor was not known to accuracies greater than 2 mm, the
changes in the irradiance of the lamp must be known throughout
this range. To determine the irradiance of the lamp compared to
the distance, the EKO spectroradiometer was placed at varying dis-
tances in front of the lamp, and several measurements were made
at each distance.
Fig. B1 shows the irradiance of the lamp at 600 nm throughout a
small range of distances centered on 34.8 cm. Similar plots can be
made for other wavelengths. Over the small range of distances
shown in Fig. B1, the r12 dependence of the irradiance is indistin-
0.07
0.069 EKO measurment
Irradiance (W/m2/nm)
0.068 Average Value
0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
34.0 34.2 34.4 34.6 34.8 35.0 35.2 35.4 35.6 35.8 36.0
Distance (cm)
Fig. B1. Irradiance of the lamp compared to distance from the filament. The
irradiance was measured at all wavelengths in the range of 336–1060 nm. The
irradiance value shown here is for 600 nm.
75
guishable from a linear fit. The line drawn in Fig. B1 is the best
fit through the data.
The average value of the data at 34.8 cm is shown along with
the error bars that exist. The horizontal error represents the 2-
mm uncertainty in the location of the LI-COR spectroradiometer.
The vertical error bars include uncertainties associated with the
calibration of the EKO spectroradiometer, the noise in the EKO
measurements, and the variation that exists in the irradiance
throughout the 2-mm change in distance. The details of these
uncertainties are beyond the scope of this paper. The vertical error
bars encompass the variations in the data throughout the 2-mm
spread in distance, as would be expected. The variation in the irra-
diance as a function of distance is in good agreement with the
expected r12 distance dependence of light. The uncertainty values
in the irradiance of the lamp are the vertical error bars shown in
Fig. B1. This procedure was done for all wavelengths.
Appendix C. Effect of temperature on spectroradiometer
measurements
The University of Oregon Solar Resource Monitoring Laboratory
added a temperature-control mechanism to the LI-COR 1800 spec-
troradiometer to minimize the effect of temperature variation on
the spectral measurements. This control also enables a detailed
analysis of the effect of temperature on the performance of the
spectroradiometer. The spectroradiometer was mounted to a LI-
COR 1800-02 calibrated lamp. The temperature of the spectrora-
diometer was varied using the same temperature control mecha-
nism that is used during normal operation. The temperature
control unit can be varied to attain a wide range of temperatures.
The temperature of the spectroradiometer was varied from 10° to
26 °C. The normal operating temperature of the instrument is
18 °C when making measurements in the field. The temperature
is controlled to accuracies of ±0.1 °C. The irradiance of the lamp
was assumed to be constant for the tests.
At each temperature setting, the voltage output by the spectro-
radiometer was recorded. The ratio in voltages between the volt-
age output by the device at T = 16 °C and T = 18 °C is shown in
Fig. C1. The ratios in the voltages of T = 20 °C and T = 18 °C are also
shown. The other temperature readings are not shown in this plot
because these three temperature readings were the closest to the
normal operating temperature of 18 °C when making the field
measurements.
At wavelengths less than 400 nm, the uncertainty in the calibra-
tion system produces large uncertainties that are not related to the
temperature of the device but instead are related to the low ultra-
violet intensity of the light source. Between 400 and 900 nm, the
temperature of the device does not significantly change the voltage
Fig. C1. The ratios of voltages at a variety of temperatures. The voltage at 16 °C (and
20 °C) is compared to the voltage at a temperature of 18 °C.
76 J. Peterson et al. / Solar Energy 149 (2017) 60–76
output by the sensor, and there is very little difference between the
readings made at T = 16 and 20 °C. At wavelengths greater than
900 nm, a 2 °C change in temperature can change the responsivity
by up to 2% or 3%. This is fairly typical of the behavior of photodi-
odes that are used in the measurements (Riordan et al., 1989), and
it demonstrates the importance of temperature control or adjust-
ment for spectral measurements in the range from 900 to 1100 nm.
To compute the uncertainty in the voltage due to a 0.1 °C tem-
perature change, first the absolute value of the difference in volt-
age between T = 16 and T = 20 °C was computed. This difference
in voltage was caused by a four-degree variation in temperature.
To compute the variation in the voltage due to a 0.1 °C change in
temperature, this difference must be multiplied by a scale factor
as shown in Eq. (C1). It is assumed that within this temperature
range, the voltage changes linearly with temperature:
0:1
uTemp ¼ ABSðVT16  VT20 Þ  ðC1Þ
4 one of the challenges would be how to maintain and accurately
The variations in temperature are assumed to be a Type B nor-
mal distribution. To compute the standard uncertainty in the volt-
age caused by variations in the temperature, the uncertainty is
divided by a factor of two, as shown in Eq. (C2). This is the standard
uncertainty reported in Section 3.2:
uTemp
uVtemp ¼ ðC2Þ
2 Spectroradiometer Using a Standard Source of Irradiance. ASTM International,
The standard percent uncertainty in the voltage is computed by
dividing by the voltage at 18 °C, Eq. (C3):
uVtemp
uTemp% ¼  100 ðC3Þ
VT18
The standard percent uncertainty in the voltage due to a 0.1 °C
uncertainty in the temperature is shown in Fig. C2. The uncertainty
results shown in Fig. C2 apply only to temperatures in the imme-
diate vicinity of 18 °C. If the device were to be used at a different
operating temperature, the uncertainty at that new temperature
would need to be recomputed. Only at wavelengths greater than
900 do the uncertainties in the voltage increase by an appreciable
amount. These results are in agreement with the results reported
in the LI-COR 1800 user manual (LI-COR Inc., 1989, pp. 2–4).
For spectroradiometers used in outdoor fieldwork that do not
have a temperature control unit there will be significantly larger
changes in temperature than the 0.1 °C used in this study. This will
cause significantly larger uncertainties in the measured irradiance.
For such instruments, a similar methodology can be used to calcu-
Fig. C2. Uncertainty in the voltage due to a 0.1 °C temperature variation in the
vicinity of 18 °C.
late the uncertainty in the voltage associated with the larger tem-
perature variations.
Using the same methodology as above, the temperature of the
LI-COR 1800 was varied from 10 to 26 °C and the voltage was com-
pared over this 16° temperature range using a modified version of
Eq. (C1). Over this temperature range, the voltage varies in a nearly
linear manner with temperature at every wavelength.
For outdoor field work, the instrument can experience ±25 °C
fluctuations in temperature over the course of the year. The larger
variation in temperature will produce standard uncertainties in
voltage of greater than 10% at wavelengths greater than 1050. This
will be a leading source of uncertainty at wavelengths greater than
1000 nm. Wavelengths less than 900 nm are not significantly
affected by the variation in temperature. These errors could be
reduced by measuring the temperature of the instrument and
applying a responsivity function that is temperature dependent.
If a spectroradiometer does not have a temperature control unit,
measure the temperature of the device. Measurements would need
to be done in an environmental chamber that has a variable tem-
perature control unit.
References
ASTM Standard G-138-12. Standard Test Method for Calibration of a
West Conshohocken, PA <www.astm.org>.
BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML, 1995. Evaluation of Measurement Data -
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. ISO TAG 4, Geneva
<http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.
pdf>.
Cannon, T.W., 1986. Spectral solar irradiance instrumentation and measurement
techniques. Solar Cells 18, 233–241.
Eppeldauer, G.P. et al., 2009. Radiometer standard for absolute responsivity
calibrations from 950nm to 1650nm with 0.05% (k = 2) uncertainty.
Metrologia 46 (2009), S139–S145.
Habte, A., Andreas, A., Reda, I., Campanelli, M., Stoffel, T., 2013. Uncertainty Analysis
of Spectral Irradiance Reference Standards Used for NREL Calibrations. NREL/TP-
5500-58617 (adapted with permission).
Habte, A. et al., 2014. Spectroradiometer Intercomparison and impact on
characterizing photovoltaic device performance. In: Conference Paper SOLAR
2014.
Hanssen, L., 2001. Integrating-sphere system and method for absolute
measurement of transmittance, reflectance, and absorbance of specular
samples. Appl. Opt. 40 (19), 3196–3204. 1 July 2001.
LI-COR Inc, 1990. LI-1800-02 Optical Radiation Calibrator Instruction Manual.
Lincoln, Nebraska <https://www.licor.com/documents/
zx7hyrmk072qqiye1pvl>.
LI-COR Inc., 1989. LI-1800 Portable Spectroradiometer Instruction Manual. LICOR
Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska.
Marion, B., 2012. Influence of atmospheric variations on photovoltaic performance
and modeling their effects for days with clear skies. In: 38th PVSC.
Martinez-Lozano, J.A. et al., 2003. Intercomparison of spectroradiometers for global
and direct solar irradiance in the visible range. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 20, 997–
1100.
Mavromatakis, F., Vignola, F., 2016. Spectral performance of PV modules of different
technologies. In: 11th International Conference on Deregulated Electricity
Market Issues in South Eastern Europe.
Myers, D.R., 1989. Estimates of uncertainty for measured spectra in the SERI
spectral solar radiation data base. Sol. Energy 43 (6), 347–353.
Myers, D., 1997. Radiometric Instrumentation and Measurements Guide for
Photovoltaic Performance Testing. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado. NREL/TP-560-21774 April 1997 <http://www.nrel.gov/docs/
legosti/old/21774.pdf>.
Reda, I., Myers, D., Stoffel, T., 2008. Uncertainty estimate for the outdoor calibration
of solar pyranometers: a metrologist perspective measure. NCSLI J. Measur. Sci.
3 (4), 60 (NREL Report No. JA-581-41370).
Riordan, C. et al., 1989. Spectral solar radiation data base at SERI. Sol. Energy 42 (1),
67–79.
Wilcox, S., Andreas, A., Reda, I., Myers, D., 2002. Improved methods for broadband
outdoor radiometer calibration (BORCAL). In: Proceedings of the ARM Science
Team Meeting, St. Petersburg, Florida, April 2002.
Yoon, H.W., Gibson, C.E., 2011. Spectral Irradiance Calibrations NIST Special
Publication 250-89. National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp. 18–22 <http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/upload/
sp250-89.pdf>.
Yoon, H.W. et al., 2012. The distance dependences and spatial uniformities of
spectral irradiance standard lamps. In: Earth Observing Systems XVII
(Conference 8510) SPIE Vol. 8510, 85100D.