Optimum solar at-plate collector slope:

Case study for Helwan, Egypt

Hamdy K. Elminir
a,
*
, Ahmed E. Ghitas
a
, F. El-Hussainy
b
, R. Hamid
a
,
M.M. Beheary
b
, Khaled M. Abdel-Moneim
a
a
National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, Solar and Space Department,
Marsed Street, Helwan, 11421 Cairo, Egypt
b
Al-Azhar University, Faculty of Science, Nasr City, 11884 Cairo, Egypt
Received 10 July 2004; received in revised form 20 November 2004; accepted 27 May 2005
Available online 14 July 2005
Abstract
This article examines the theoretical aspects of choosing a tilt angle for the solar at-plate collectors used
in Egypt and make recommendations on how the collected energy can be increased by varying the tilt angle.
The rst objective in this investigation is to perform a statistical comparison of three specic anisotropic
models (TampsCoulson, Perez and Bugler) to recommend one that is general and is most accurate for esti-
mating the solar radiation arriving on an inclined surface. Then, the anisotropic model that provides the
most accurate estimation of the total solar radiation has been used to determine the optimum collector
slope based on the maximum solar energy availability. This result has been compared with the results pro-
vided by other models that use declination, daily clearness index and ground reectivity. The study revealed
that Perezs model shows the best overall calculated performance, followed by the TampsCoulson then
Bugler models.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anisotropic model; Optimum collector slope; Perez model; Bugler model; TampsCoulson model; Clearness
index; Declination
0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2005.05.015
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +20 2 5560645; fax: +20 2 5548020.
E-mail address: hamdy_elminir@hotmail.com (H.K. Elminir).
www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman
Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637
1. Introduction
The amount of solar energy incident on a solar collector in various time scales is a complex
function of many factors including the local radiation climatology, the orientation and tilt of
the exposed collector surface and the ground reection properties. In the case of limited site area
available for exposing the solar collector arrays, as well as in large scale industrial applications,
the economical shaping and exposure of collectors with respect to the available insolation and site
area may become a matter of primary importance. The amount of insolation may also be dimin-
ished due to shading of the collector surface by nearby objects or adjacent collectors arranged in
an array. The best way to collect maximum daily energy is to use solar tracking systems. The
choice to use a tracker hinges on a tradeo between the cost of the tracking system and the savings
provided by using fewer solar collectors to obtain a given amount of power. The trackers are
expensive, need energy for their operation and are not always applicable. Therefore, it is often
practicable to orient the solar collector at an optimum tilt angle and to correct the tilt from time
to time.
Over the last few years, many authors have presented models with which to predict solar radi-
ation on inclined surfaces. Some of these models apply to specic cases; some require special mea-
surements and some are limited in their scope. These models use the same method of calculating
beam and ground reected radiation on a tilted surface. The only dierence exists in the treatment
of the diuse radiation. The approximation commonly used for converting the diuse component
value for a horizontal surface to that for a tilted one is that sky radiation is isotropically distrib-
uted at all times [13]. However, theoretical as well as experimental results have shown that this
simplifying assumption is generally far from reality [4]. Thus, it appears that sky radiance should
Nomenclature
G
H
hourly global solar radiation incident on horizontal surface, W/m
2
G
T
hourly global solar radiation incident on inclined surface, W/m
2
I
BH
hourly beam radiation incident on horizontal surface, W/m
2
I
BT
hourly beam radiation incident on inclined surface, W/m
2
I
DH
hourly diuse radiation incident on horizontal surface, W/m
2
I
DT
hourly sky diuse radiation incident on inclined surface, W/m
2
I
GH
hourly ground reected radiation incident on horizontal surface, W/m
2
I
GT
hourly ground reected radiation incident on inclined surface, W/m
2
R
T
ratio of beam radiation on tilted surface to that on horizontal surface
h incidence angle, degrees
b surface slope, degrees
c surface azimuth angle, degrees
/ latitude angle, degrees
q ground albedo
x hour angle, degrees
d declination, degrees
H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637 625
be treated as anisotropic, particularly because of the strong forward scattering eect of aerosols
[58]. Reviews on transforming data recorded by horizontal pyranometers to data that would
have been received by tilted surfaces are given by Refs. [915]. From the previous reviews, one
concludes that there is a wide range of models recommended by dierent investigators for year
round application. This paper deals with the optimum slope and orientation of a surface receiving
solar radiation. A comparative study on several inclined models is presented, and the implication
for determination of the optimum tilt angle is discussed. We begin with measured hourly global
and diuse radiation received on a horizontal surface. These quantities are then transposed onto
an inclined plane by a mathematical procedure. The accuracies of the models are then compared
on the basis of statistical error tests, and the most accurate model is recommended. The optimum
tilt angle was computed by searching for the values for which the total radiation on the collector
surface is a maximum for a particular day or a specic period. The analyses are also extended to
predict the optimum tilt angle based on declination, daily clearness index and ground reectivity.
2. Measuring station and data corrections
The measuring station is located on the roof of the National Research Institute of Astronomy
and Geophysics (latitude 2952
0
N and longitude 3120
0
E) where it is located on a hilltop site
about 30 km south of Cairo in desert surroundings. All sensors are installed on the roof top in
a position relatively free from any external obstruction and readily accessible for inspection
and general cleaning. In this study, the broadband lter method was used to measure the quan-
tities of normal radiation at dierent bands. The lters used in this study are Schott lters (2 mm
thick) whose cuto wavelengths were determined using a spectrophotometer. These lters were
arranged on a rotatable disk and mounted on an Eppley normal incidence pyrheliometer. Their
main characteristics are given in Table 1.
Solar radiation on a horizontal plane was monitored with a high precision pyranometer that is
sensitive in the wavelength range from 300 to 3000 nm. The measurement of ground reected radi-
ation involves a pyranometer mounted horizontally and facing downwards at two meters from the
ground. The diuse radiation was measured by a pyranometer equipped with a special shading
device to exclude direct radiation from the sun. The shadow ring is painted black to minimize
the eect of multiple reections. Additional data recorded on a vertical surface facing south every
10 min during daylight from January to December 2003 in Colorado, USA, is used to reinforce
the results from the primary data set. All data sets were subjected to various quality control tests.
Three types of data checks were performed to identify missing data, data that clearly violates
Table 1
Filter characteristics
Old name Filter reference Interval bands (lm) Filter factor
OG1 OG530 0.5302.800 1.082
RG2 RG630 0.6302.800 1.068
RG8 RG695 0.6952.800 1.042
Clear GG14 0.2502.800 1.080
626 H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637
physical limits and extreme data. Hours when the data was known to be bad or missing were
omitted. Secondly, any hour with an observation that violated a physical limit or conservation
principle was eliminated from the data set, including: reported hours with a diuse fraction
greater than 1 or beam radiation exceeding the extraterrestrial beam radiation. To eliminate
the uncertainty associated with radiation measurements at large incidence angles, hours with a
zenith angle larger than 80 were eliminated. The nal data set was constructed from the measured
data that passed all of the quality control checks.
3. Estimation methodology
3.1. Estimation of beam radiation on an inclined surface
The models discussed here all share the same formulation for the beam and ground reected
components. For a surface oriented in any direction with respect to the meridian, the trigonomet-
ric relation for the incidence angle h has been given by Kondratyev [16] and in detail by Coari
[17]. This relation can be written in the following form:
cos h sin/cos b cos /sin b cos c sin d cos /cos b sin /sinb cos c cos d cos x
cos d sin b sinc sinx; 1
where the meanings of the dierent symbols are as given in the nomenclature. There are several
commonly occurring cases for which Eq. (1) is simplied. For a xed surface sloped toward the
south or north, that is, with a surface azimuth angle c of 0 or 180 (a very common situation for
xed at-plate collectors), the last term drops out.
cos h sin/cos b cos /sin b sin d cos /cos b sin/sin b cos d cos x
sin d sin / b cos d cos xcos/ b. 2
For horizontal surfaces, the angle of incidence, h, is the zenith angle of the sun, h
z
. Its value
must be between 0 and 90 when the sun is above the horizon. For this situation, b = 0 and
Eq. (2) becomes
cos h
z
cos /cos d cos x sin /sind. 3
The geometric factor, R
T
which is the ratio of the beam radiation on the tilted surface, I
BT
to
that on a horizontal surface at any time, can be calculated exactly by appropriate use of Eq. (1).
R
T

cos h
cos h
z

sind sin/ b cos d cos xcos/ b

cos /cos d cos x sin/sind
. 4
Therefore, the hourly beam radiation received on an inclined surface can be expressed as
I
BT
I
BH
R
T
G
H
I
DH
R
T
. 5
It should be noted that at the grazing angles (i.e., just at sunrise or at sunset), R
T
can change rap-
idly and may approach innity or zero because both the numerator and the denominator are small
numbers. This depends on the slope, latitude and date.
H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637 627
3.2. Estimation of ground reected radiation on an inclined surface
In this section, we are going to focus on ground reected radiation, which is also signicant and
which can sometimes reach values of the order of 100 W/m
2
for a vertical plane [1820]. Depend-
ing on the earths cover, the albedos for beam and diuse radiation, q
B
and q
D
, respectively, may
not be identical. The total radiation reected by the ground cover into an entire hemisphere can be
written as (I
BH
q
B
+ I
DH
q
D
). We address here two particular cases: (1) isotropic reection and
anisotropic reection.
Isotropic reection: Isotropic reection usually occurs when the ground cover is a perfectly
diuse reector, such as a concrete oor, and the horizon is unobstructed. Under the isotropic
condition, the fraction of solar radiation incident on the inclined surface is given by the above
quantity multiplied by the conguration factor from the ground to the inclined surface. Thus
I
GT

1
2
I
BH
q
B
I
DH
q
D
1 cos b. 6
When the reectances for beam and diuse radiation are identical, we can use a common
albedo, q. Under such a condition, Eq. (6) reduces to the following:
I
GT

1
2
q1 cos b G
H
. 7
Anisotropic reection: Other authors have proposed anisotropic ground reectance models
[21,22], but lack of experimental data has hampered their validation. Under an anisotropic con-
dition, Eq. (7) should be multiplied by the following factor 1 sin
2
h
z
=2
_
cos D j j , where D is
the azimuth of the tilted surface with respect to that of the sun. Consequently, with anisotropic
reection produced under clear skies, the ground reected radiation incident on an inclined sur-
face can be written as follows:
I
GT
1
2
q1 cos b G
H
1 sin
2
h
z
=2 cos D j j. 8
However, the matter is complicated if the reections are specular. To handle such a situation, re-
course has to be made to specialized literature such as Siegel and Howell [23]. Instead of the com-
plex rules and mathematical routines mentioned above, the ground reected radiation in the
present study is assumed to be isotropic.
3.3. Estimation of sky diuse radiation on an inclined surface
3.3.1. Description of the Tamps and Coulsons model
Diuse irradiance is dicult to determine accurately with the simple parameterization methods
that were used to calculate direct normal irradiance in the previous section, since its spatial dis-
tribution is generally unknown and time dependent. Three diuse subcomponents are used to
approximate the anisotropic behavior of diuse radiation. The rst is an isotropic part received
uniformly from the entire sky dome. The second is circumsolar diuse radiation resulting from
forward scattering of solar radiation and concentrated in the part of the sky around the sun.
The third, referred to as horizon brightening, is concentrated near the horizon and is most
628 H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637
pronounced in clear skies. Several models have been proposed to estimate the diuse radiation on
a tilted surface (not all of which account for these three diuse subcomponents). Tamps and
Coulson [6] developed a model from readings taken in clear skies. They introduced geometrical
terms into the isotropic model to take into account the brightening of the sky in the region of
the sun and at the horizon.
I
DT
I
DH

1 cos b
2
_ _
1 sin
3
b
2
_ _
1 cos
2
h sin
3
90 c. 9
From the previous equation, one concludes that Tamps and Coulson observed that the clear sky
condition can be depicted by modifying the basic isotropic formulation by two factors: the factor
1 cos
2
h sin
3
90 c to take into account the increased diuse radiation in the circumsolar
region and the factor 1 sin
3
b=2 to take into account the brightening of the sky near the hori-
zon. It should be pointed out that a weakness of this model is that for a horizontal collector, the
expression does not reduce to I
DH
.
3.3.2. Description of the Perezs model
Perezs model is composed of three distinct elements: (1) A geometrical representation of the
sky dome, (2) A parametric representation of the insolation conditions and (3) A statistical com-
ponent linking the two. The governing equation is
I
DT
I
DH
1 cos b
2
1 F
1
F
1
a
1
a
2
_ _
F
2
sinb
_ _
; 10
a
1
max0; cos h;
a
2
maxcos 85

; cos h
z
; 11
where a
1
, a
2
are the solid angles occupied by the circumsolar region, weighted by its average inci-
dence on the slope and the horizontal, respectively and F
1
, F
2
are the coecients of circumsolar
and horizon brightness, respectively (dimensionless).These multiplicative factors set the radiance
magnitude in the two anisotropic regions relative to that in the main portion of the dome. The
degree of anisotropy of the model is a function of only these two terms. The model can go from
an isotropic conguration (F
1
= F
2
= 1) to a conguration incorporating circumsolar and/or hori-
zon brightening.
F
1
max 0; F
11
F
12
D F
13
h
z
p
180
_ _ _ _ _ _
; 12
F
2
F
21
F
22
D F
23
h
z
p
180
_ _ _ _
; 13
D m
I
DH
I
on
; 14
where m is the air mass (dimensionless) and I
on
is the extraterrestrial irradiance at normal inci-
dence (W/m
2
). The required coecients, F
ij
are obtained from Perez et al. [15]. For a vertical sur-
face (b = 90), Eq. (10) becomes
I
T90
I
DH
1
2
1 F
1
F
1
a
1
a
2
_ _
F
2
_ _
. 15
H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637 629
3.3.3. Description of the Bugler model
The governing equation given by Bugler is
I
DT
0.5 I
DH

0.05 I
BN
b
cos h
z
_ _
1 cos b 0.05 I
BN
b cos h; 16
where I
BN
(b) is the beam irradiation normal to a plane of slope b and is easily calculated by Iqbal
[19] in W/m
2
.
4. Models evaluation
4.1. Methods of statistical comparison
To evaluate the accuracy of the estimated data from the three models described above, we used
three statistical indicators: normalized mean bias error, NMBE, normalized root mean square
error, NRMSE and correlation coecient, CC dened as
NRMSE
1
X
1
N

N
i1
Y
i
X
i

2
_ _1
2
; 17
where N is the number of data points, Y
i
is the predicted data point and X
i
is the observed data
point. An error of zero would indicate that all the output patterns computed by the model per-
fectly match the expected values.
NMBE
1
X
1
N

N
i1
Y
i
X
i

_ _
. 18
The NRMSE provides information on the short term performance of a model by allowing a
term by term comparison of the actual dierence between the estimated value and the measured
value. The NMBE provides information with respect to over or under estimation of the estimated
data. A positive value indicates an over estimation in the values, while a negative one indicates
under estimation, and a low NMBE value is desired. Finally, we used the CC factor to test the
linear relation between calculated and measured values.
CC

N
i1
Y
i
Y
_ _
X
i
X
_ _

N
i1
Y
i
Y
2
_ _

N
i1
X
i
X
2
_ _ _ _1
2
; 19
where Y is the predicted mean value and X is the measured mean value.
4.2. Results of models validation
The results for south facing surfaces are given in Tables 24. It is noted that the NRMSE for all
three models increase as the slope of the collector increases but remain in a domain of errors for
630 H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637
which these relations can be applied with good accuracy. Inspecting the results, it is apparent that
the models agree quite well with each other during the summer months. They deviate from each
other in the winter months when the eects of the dierence in the diuse radiation parameteri-
zation are at their maximum. The NRMSE results indicate that the Perez and Tamps anisotropic
models show similar performance on an overall basis, but Buglers model exhibits much larger
error. The NMBE results show that Perezs and Buglers models substantially under predict the
irradiance incident on an inclined surface, and the Tamps model considerably over predicts the
irradiance incident on an inclined surface on an overall basis. Our ndings conrm the observa-
tion that Perezs model describes the irradiance on inclined planes more accurately than Buglers
or Tampss models.
Table 2
Normalized root mean square errors for global radiation received on inclined surfaces
Perez models
[NRMSE, in (%)]
Bugler models
[NRMSE, in (%)]
Tamps and Coulsons
[NRMSE, in (%)]
0 40 90S 0 40 90S 0 40 90S
January 0.26 2.88 11.8 9.35 16.38 19.49 4.33 6.98 12.57
February 0.39 3.62 6.1 6.78 14.91 23.93 7.12 8.30 16.36
March 0.13 2.86 7.8 4.86 11.22 22.53 7.33 9.35 17.47
April 0.11 2.76 8.7 3.51 5.28 15.95 5.75 6.41 15.54
May 0.4 2.27 5.2 2.52 2.98 10.92 5.09 5.86 23.58
June 0.1 1.16 6.7 1.26 5.43 23.05 9.86 15.23 38.21
July 0.21 1.35 6.3 2.72 3.79 10.25 3.06 2.78 20.65
August 0.11 2.16 5.2 3.00 6.61 7.34 4.99 3.49 15.41
September 0.4 2.83 4.5 4.27 8.88 9.41 4.24 3.37 5.01
October 0.12 3.89 3.4 5.87 10.77 10.24 3.69 4.08 5.48
November 0.17 6.14 9.9 6.48 32.71 43.80 7.93 21.95 29.84
December 0.18 4.45 11.5 9.58 19.58 23.75 5.18 8.92 14.36
Table 3
Normalized mean bias errors for global radiation received on inclined surfaces
Perez models
[NMBE, in (%)]
Bugler models
[NMBE, in (%)]
Tamps and Coulsons
[NMBE, in (%)]
0 40 90S 0 40 90S 0 40 90S
January 0.20 3.23 7.19 8.03 14.72 16.51 3.61 0.36 6.41
February 0.22 3.15 1.49 5.44 13.05 18.17 6.24 2.66 5.33
March 0.12 2.19 1.47 3.75 8.68 14.21 5.94 2.53 3.17
April 0.10 2.07 0.46 3.08 3.40 7.12 4.71 4.20 3.47
May 0.22 0.47 2.45 1.97 1.76 0.28 4.64 4.77 17.48
June 0.09 0.58 5.78 0.69 3.28 2.85 8.35 12.94 21.94
July 0.13 0.62 4.06 2.53 3.00 1.36 2.62 1.33 11.27
August 0.11 1.40 3.06 2.52 5.35 3.66 4.35 1.18 9.69
September 0.19 2.68 3.25 3.86 8.40 8.76 3.71 1.22 0.75
October 0.12 2.79 2.28 5.24 9.94 9.11 3.19 1.38 1.83
November 0.17 2.22 7.07 5.06 18.68 32.85 6.60 0.05 18.61
December 0.16 2.67 7.07 7.46 16.63 19.60 4.66 2.10 5.14
H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637 631
5. Optimizing the tilt angle of solar collectors
5.1. Optimum tilt angle based on geometric factor
Many investigations have been conducted to determine, or at least estimate, the best tilt angle
for solar collectors. Some of these are, for example, / + 20 [24], / + (10 ! 30) [25] and / + 10
[26], whereas some researchers suggest two values for the tilt angle, one for summer and the other
for winter, such as / 20 [27] where / is the latitude, + for winter and for summer. In
the past few years, computer programs have been used, and the results have shown that the opti-
mum tilt angle is almost equal to the latitude [28]. It is clear from the previous review that there is
no denite value of the tilt angle that can be recommended.
In Section 4, some results concerning the accuracy of models to estimate irradiance on inclined
planes is tested by comparing the predictions to measurements of various tilt and azimuth angles.
Perezs model is found to perform signicantly better than the other two. The equations describing
the instantaneous total insolation on a tilted surface under the assumption of anisotropic distri-
bution of the sky diuse radiation was presented in the following form:
G
T
G
H
I
DH
R
T
I
DH

1 cos b
2
_ _
1 F
1
F
1
a
1
a
2
_ _
F
2
sin b
_ _

1
2
q 1 cos b G
H
. 20
After computing the total insolation on an inclined plane, it is useful to determine the eect of
slope, albedo and orientation by calculating the geometric factor, R
b
, where
R
b

Total radaiation on the tilted surface
Total radiation on a horizontal surface

G
T
G
H
. 21
Table 4
Correlation coecients values as a function tilt angles
Perez models
correlation coecient
Bugler models
correlation coecient
Tamps and Coulsons
correlation coecient
0 40 90S 0 40 90S 0 40 90S
January 0.999 0.983 0.983 0.9952 0.9968 0.9785 0.9966 0.9943 0.9813
February 0.998 0.991 0.995 0.9975 0.9973 0.9596 0.9952 0.9969 0.9698
March 1.000 0.995 0.987 0.9983 0.9882 0.9157 0.9927 0.9805 0.9199
April 1.000 0.994 0.973 0.9993 0.9942 0.8985 0.9950 0.9934 0.8846
May 0.997 0.953 0.991 0.9998 0.9989 0.9481 0.9984 0.9965 0.8848
June 1.000 0.985 0.996 0.9995 0.9923 0.7667 0.9921 0.9819 0.7611
July 0.998 0.917 0.969 0.9994 0.9973 0.8603 0.9971 0.9958 0.7067
August 1.000 0.950 0.994 0.9994 0.9969 0.9854 0.9968 0.9983 0.9271
September 0.997 0.995 0.990 0.9992 0.9960 0.9557 0.9950 0.9922 0.8950
October 1.000 0.997 0.998 0.9994 0.9995 0.9975 0.9987 0.9989 0.9969
November 1.000 0.986 0.988 0.9885 0.7180 0.7031 0.9845 0.8198 0.8208
December 1.000 0.997 0.988 0.9969 0.9943 0.9791 0.9985 0.9961 0.9842
632 H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637
We have calculated the geometric factor, R
b
, for south facing surfaces inclined at (5 ! 90)
from the horizontal position. All calculations are based on the anisotropic sky diuse radiation
model, and ground reection is assumed perfectly diuse. From Table 5, we observe that at high
tilt angles and during summer months, R
b
may be less than one. On the other hand, the monthly
average daily values of b
Opt
are predicted and listed in Table 6. The optimum tilt angle was found
by searching for values for which R
b
is a maximum for a specic period. Since changing the tilt
angle to its daily and monthly optimum values throughout the year does not seem to be practical,
Table 5
Monthly values of the geometric factor R
b
as a function tilt angle
Solar collectors tilt angles
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Panel A
January 1.0656 1.1412 1.2101 1.2716 1.3256 1.3714 1.4088 1.4374 1.4572
February 1.0505 1.1077 1.1583 1.2019 1.2383 1.2669 1.2879 1.3009 1.3058
March 1.0204 1.0440 1.0620 1.0744 1.0811 1.0819 1.0771 1.0663 1.0500
April 1.0045 1.0135 1.0169 1.0148 1.0070 0.9938 0.9751 0.9512 0.9222
May 0.9955 0.9931 0.9859 0.9731 0.9547 0.9309 0.9019 0.8678 0.8289
June 0.9928 0.9828 0.9674 0.9477 0.9223 0.8911 0.8546 0.8130 0.7665
July 0.9953 0.9885 0.9760 0.9595 0.9374 0.9099 0.8772 0.8395 0.7971
August 1.0067 1.0146 1.0166 1.0124 1.0018 0.9851 0.9622 0.9333 0.8987
September 1.0233 1.0467 1.0640 1.0751 1.0797 1.0782 1.0701 1.0558 1.0353
October 1.0470 1.1003 1.1466 1.1856 1.2172 1.2408 1.2566 1.2643 1.2636
November 1.0694 1.1421 1.2078 1.2663 1.3170 1.3596 1.3936 1.4190 1.4356
December 1.0828 1.1686 1.2476 1.3192 1.3827 1.4377 1.4837 1.5203 1.5475
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Panel B
January 1.4676 1.4693 1.4615 1.4446 1.4187 1.3840 1.3408 1.2894 1.2301
February 1.3029 1.2918 1.2727 1.2459 1.2114 1.1695 1.1207 1.0652 1.0033
March 1.0281 1.0008 0.9683 0.9309 0.8888 0.8425 0.7921 0.7383 0.6812
April 0.8883 0.8498 0.8072 0.7611 0.7114 0.6587 0.6033 0.5457 0.4868
May 0.7861 0.7406 0.6918 0.6397 0.5845 0.5269 0.4697 0.4124 0.3565
June 0.7177 0.6670 0.6125 0.5548 0.4942 0.4349 0.3766 0.3170 0.2659
July 0.7511 0.7026 0.6514 0.5969 0.5397 0.4815 0.4245 0.3673 0.3135
August 0.8588 0.8138 0.7644 0.7113 0.6547 0.5949 0.5319 0.4673 0.4023
September 1.0089 0.9765 0.9387 0.8955 0.8473 0.7947 0.7380 0.6777 0.6143
October 1.2550 1.2383 1.2135 1.1810 1.1410 1.0937 1.0396 0.9791 0.9126
November 1.4429 1.4413 1.4306 1.4108 1.3823 1.3450 1.2996 1.2460 1.1849
December 1.5648 1.5722 1.5696 1.5572 1.5347 1.5027 1.4612 1.4105 1.3510
Table 6
Predicted values of the optimum tilt angle for the Helwan site
January February March April May June July August September October November December
55 45 30 15 5 5 5 15 25 40 50 55
H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637 633
another possibility, such as changing the tilt angle once per season was considered. Using the pre-
dicted values given by Table 6 the optimum tilt of a at-plate collector for use during the winter
season is approximately 43.33 for the Helwan site. The optimum tilt of a at-plate collector used
during the summer months is 15 for the same site. Finally, the optimum tilt angle of a at-plate
collector used continuously throughout the year is 28.75 and oriented towards the south for the
Helwan site.
5.2. Optimum tilt angle based on clearness index
The clearness index, K
I
, dened as the ratio of earths surface global irradiance over the extra-
terrestrial global irradiance, was introduced as a norm to characterize the optimum tilt of south
facing collectors at a given point in time when only the global irradiance is known. According to
Elsayed [29], one can show that the optimum tilt angle depends on several parameters as indicated
below
b
Opt
f /; N; c; K
I
; q; 22
where N is the day that represents the month under consideration. The ground reectivity q is
about 0.2 for ground without snow and 0.7 for ground covered by snow as recommended by Duf-
e and Beckman [2]. The monthly average clearness index K
I
hardly ever falls outside the range
0.30.7 in most locations around the world. The following correlation is developed and found to
predict the values of b
Opt
with an accuracy of about 6 for / = 2040 and an accuracy of about
10 for / = 5060 [29].
b
Opt
6 4.8K
I
0.86K
0.27
I
/ 0.0021/
2

31K
0.37
I
0.094K
0.46
I
/ 0.000634K
1.7
I
/
2
cos
360
365
N 11.5
_ _
_ _
; 23
where N is the Julian day of the mean day of each month.
Using the previous formula, the predicted optimum tilt angle for each month at the Helwan site
was tabulated in Table 7. It is noted from Table 7 that the optimum tilt angle for the month of
March is approximately equal to the latitude angle, /. For this month, a solar collector tilted at an
angle equal to the latitude will receive solar radiation nearly normally. Similarly, the optimum
angle recorded for September is approximately equal to the latitude of the location. The yearly
optimum tilt angle is 26.7 for the Helwan site and oriented towards the south. These results seem
to agree quite well with the predicted values obtained from the previous section on a monthly and
yearly basis.
Table 7
Predicted values of the optimum tilt angle for the Helwan site
January February March April May June July August September October November December
N 17 47 75 105 135 162 198 228 258 288 318 344
K
I
0.47 0.45 0.55 0.58 0.57 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.52 0.48
b
Opt
50.9 41.1 29.5 15.1 3.8 1.4 1.3 11.2 25.2 39.9 50.0 53.8
634 H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637
5.3. Optimum tilt angle based on declination factor
Various equations listed in Tiris and Tiris [30] were tested here to recommend the one that is
most accurate for estimating the optimal collector slope for the Helwan site based on the declina-
tion factor.
b 33.24 1.31 d; 24
b 35.15 1.37 d 0.007 d
2
; 25
b 35.15 1.39 d 0.007 d
2
4.26 10
5
d
3
; 26
b 22.09 25.79K
1
1.49 d. 27
Table 8 shows the results for the above mentioned equations, and we can observe that the
agreement is good between the results obtained by Eqs. (24), (25) and (27) with respect to the pre-
vious results obtained in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. Also, it is noticeable that the optimum tilt angle for
June is negative; the negative sign determines the orientation of the solar collector, which means
that the solar collector is faced towards the north. A positive sign indicates that the solar collector
is directed toward the south.
6. Experimental verication
In this section, experimental verication was presented based on weekly measurements ob-
tained at a multi-position test facility [31]. The tests were started at noon time when the PV mod-
ule is vertical and facing north (i.e., the tilt angle is 90). The tests continue to the horizontal
mode and are completed to south facing with the tilt angle of +90. At every ve degrees variation
Table 9
Comparison between predicted and measured values of the optimum tilt angle
January February March April May June July August September October November December
R
b
55 45 30 15 5 5 5 15 25 40 50 55
K
I
50.9 41.1 29.5 15.1 3.8 1.4 1.3 11.2 25.2 39.9 50.0 53.8
Eq. (24) 60.5 50.3 35.9 20.7 8.7 3.04 5.38 15.1 12.7 44.4 57.1 63.3
Eq. (25) 60.6 51.7 37.8 21.4 7.05 0.2 2.84 14.8 30.7 46.2 57.8 62.9
Eq. (27) 65.4 32.4 38.7 22.5 8.61 3.14 6.24 17.4 33.0 50.6 63.1 68.5
Experiment 51 48 33 21 4 4 7 20 32 48 53 55
Table 8
Predicted values of the optimum tilt angle for the Helwan site
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Eq. (24) 60.5 50.3 35.9 20.7 8.7 3.04 5.38 15.1 12.7 44.4 57.1 63.3
Eq. (25) 60.6 51.7 37.8 21.4 7.05 0.2 2.84 14.8 30.7 46.2 57.8 62.9
Eq. (26) 61.0 51.9 37.9 21.2 6.68 0.6 2.42 14.5 30.7 46.4 58.1 63.4
Eq. (27) 65.4 32.4 38.7 22.5 8.61 3.14 6.24 17.4 33.0 50.6 63.1 68.5
H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637 635
in the tilt angle, the PV module parameters (i.e., current and voltage) were recorded. Using a com-
puter program for tting the data smoothly for each day of the measurements, the optimum tilt
angles are determined. Here, the optimum tilt angle is the angle at which the maximum average
output is obtained. Regarding the results obtained from Table 9, the experimental optimum tilt
angles seem to agree quite well with the predicted values obtained from the previous sections
except in the winter where the variation of diuse fraction is a maximum.
7. Conclusions
Irradiation data recorded on vertical surfaces facing south and at 40 every 10 min during the
daylight hours from January to December 2003 have been compared with the estimated solar
radiation from inclined surface models. The results show that Perezs model most accurately
reproduces the variation in irradiation on all vertical surfaces. Therefore, we used Perez model
to determine the best inclination for a south facing solar collector. The results of computations
show that the optimum tilt angles with respect to the maximum daily insolation amounts incident
on the collector surface exhibit a strong seasonal trend. During the winter months, the maximum
daily insolation is received on a south facing collector with tilt angles around 43.33, whereas dur-
ing the summer, the maximum daily insolation is incident on a nearly horizontal surface. The
maximum yearly solar radiation can be achieved using a tilt angle approximately equal to a sites
latitude. On a daily basis, the optimum tilt angles of south facing collectors may vary within rel-
atively wide limits. In conclusion, summarizing the previous considerations, the optimum tilt
angle of solar radiation collection systems located in Helwan follow the general rule applied by
many researchers that yearly optimum tilt is about (/ 15) where / is the latitude of the loca-
tion and where plus and minus signs are used in the winter and summer, respectively.
References
[1] Liu B, Jordan R. Daily insolation on surfaces tilted towards the equator. Trans ASHRAE 1962;67.
[2] Due J, Beckman W. Solar engineering of thermal processes. New York: Wiley; 1980.
[3] Gopinathan K. Solar radiation on inclined surfaces. Solar Energy 1990;45.
[4] Dave J. Validity of the isotropic distribution approximation in solar energy estimations. Solar Energy 1977;19.
[5] Bugler J. The determination of hourly insolation on a tilted plane using a diuse irradiance model based on hourly
measured global horizontal insolation. Solar Energy 1977;19.
[6] Tamps C, Coulson L. Solar radiation incident upon slopes of dierent orientation. Solar Energy 1977;19.
[7] Hay J. Calculation of monthly mean solar radiation for horizontal and tilted surfaces. Solar Energy 1979;23.
[8] Klucher M. Evaluation of models to predict insolation on tilted surfaces. Solar Energy 1979;23:1114.
[9] Page J. Prediction of solar radiation on tilted surfaces. In: Solar energy R&D in the European Community, Series
F. 1986;(3).
[10] Hay J, McKay D. Calculation of solar irradiances for inclined surfaces: verication of models use hourly and daily
data, IEA, Solar Heating and Cooling IEC Standards 891 and 1215, Bureau Central de la Commission
Electrotechnique Internationale, Geneve, 1988.
[11] Reindl D, Beckman A, Due A. Evaluation of hourly tilted surface radiation models. Solar Energy 1990;45.
[12] Perez R, Stewart R, Arbogast C, Seals J, Scott J. An anisotropic hourly diuse radiation model for sloping
surfaces: description, performance validation, site dependency evaluation. Solar Energy 1986;36.
636 H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637
[13] Perez R, Seals R, Ineichen P, Stewart R, Menicucci D. A new simplied version of the Perez diuse irradiance on
tilted surfaces. Solar Energy 1987;39.
[14] Perez R, Seals R, Stewart R. Modeling irradiance on tilted planes: a simpler version of the Perez model US wide
climate/environmental evaluation, Advances in Solar Energy Technology. In: Proc ISES Solar Word Congress,
Hamburg, FRG, vol. 4, 1987.
[15] Perez R, Ineichen P, Seals R, Michalsky J, Stewart R. Modeling daylight availability and irradiance components
from direct and global irradiance. Solar Energy 1990;44.
[16] Kondratyev Y. Radiation in the atmosphere. New York: Academic Press; 1969.
[17] Coari E. The sun and celestial vault, solar energy engineering. New York: Academic Press; 1977 [Chapter 2].
[18] Robinson N. Solar radiation. New York: Elsevier Publishing Company; 1966.
[19] Iqbal M. An introduction to solar radiation. Canada: Academic Press; 1983.
[20] Ineichen P, Perez R, Seals R. The importance of correct albedo determination for adequately modeling energy
received by tilted surfaces. Solar Energy 1987;39:221.
[21] Gardner C, Nadeau C. Estimating south slope irradiance in the Arctica comparison of experimental and
modeled values. Solar Energy 1988;41.
[22] Gueymard C. An anisotropic solar irradiance model for tilted surfaces and its comparison with selected engineering
algorithms. Solar Energy 1987;38.
[23] Siegel R, Howell J. Thermal radiation heat transfer. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1981.
[24] Hottel C. Performance of at-plate energy collectors. Space heating with solar energy. Proc course symp.
Cambridge: MIT Press; 1954.
[25] Lo f G, Tybout A. Cost of house heating with solar energy. Solar Energy 1973;14.
[26] Kern J, Harris I. On the optimum tilt of a solar collector. Solar Energy 1975;17.
[27] Yellott H. Utilization of sun and sky radiation for heating and cooling of buildings. ASHRAE J 1973;15.
[28] El-kassaby M. The optimum seasonal and yearly tilt angle for south-facing solar collectors. ISES Solar World
Congress, Hamburg, Germany, 1987.
[29] Elsayed M. Optimum orientation of absorber plates. Solar Energy 1989;42.
[30] Tiris M, Tiris C. Optimum collector slope and model evaluation: case study for Gebze, Turkey. Energy Conver
Manage 1997;39.
[31] Mosalam Shaltout M, Hassan A, Ghitas A. Optimum tilt of PV systems for electric power generation at Cairo. In:
11th E.C. PV Solar Energy Conference, 1216 October, Switzerland, 1992.
H.K. Elminir et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006) 624637 637