Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Data Source Sensitivity in Solar Radiation Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) for Five Different Regions of Brazil Cover

Data Source Sensitivity in Solar Radiation Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) for Five Different Regions of Brazil

Open Access
|Apr 2024

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

The five locations where the TMY’s were generated.

Table 1

Weighting factors scheme used for calculating TMY and TMY3.

SCHEMETmaxTminT¯RHmaxRHminRH¯WmaxW¯GHIDNI
TMY1/241/242/241/241/242/242/242/2412/24
TMY31/201/202/201/201/202/201/201/205/205/20
Table 2

Benchmark of the Brazil-SR model.

REGIONRRELATIVE BIASRRMSE1
North0.810.60%9.7%
Northeast0.870.20%8.3%
Central-West0.860.50%8.3%
Southeast0.910.10%8.4%
Table 3

The generated TMYs for different data sources, with the final FS statistic values for the TMY CDF compared to the long-term average CDF.

MONTHYEAR
TMYOBSTMYMODTMY3MODTMY3REA
January2009200920092009
February2011201220112012
March2013201320132009
April2008200720072017
May2017201420142006
June2011201520152017
July2013201220122007
August2015201320132013
September2014201420122012
October2016201620162016
November2014201720172016
December2017201020102006
FS0.00650.00730.00940.0066
Figure 2

Comparison of the long-term average CDF and TMY CDFs for observed and modelled GHI.

Table 4

The generated TMYs for different data sources, with the final FS statistic values for the TMY CDF compared to the long-term average CDF.

MONTHYEAR
TMYOBSTMYMODTMY3MODTMY3REA
January2013200920112016
February2010200820082016
March2010201720142009
April2011201020102017
May2010201320122013
June2017201520152015
July2011201120112005
August2011201320132013
September2013201320132013
October2008201120162011
November2012201220122017
December2006200520122012
FS0.01340.00740.00620.0090
Figure 3

Comparison of the long-term average CDF and TMY CDFs for observed and modelled GHI.

Table 5

The generated TMYs for different data sources, with the final FS statistic values for the TMY CDF compared to the long-term average CDF.

MONTHYEAR
TMYOBSTMYMODTMY3MODTMY3REA
January2007200620062006
February2013201320132016
March2014201420142014
April2011201420142014
May2015201120112013
June2010201020102017
July2016201320132010
August2008201420142006
September2012201220152013
October2016201620162017
November2013201120052013
December2016201620162006
FS0.01060.00490.00570.0047
Figure 4

Comparison of the long-term average CDF and TMY CDFs for observed and modelled GHI.

Table 6

The generated TMYs for different data sources, with the final FS statistic values for the TMY CDF compared to the long-term average CDF.

MONTHYEAR
TMYOBSTMYMODTMY3MODTMY3REA
January2010200720072017
February2009201220122012
March2011201120112015
April2011201120072013
May2012200720072011
June2017201520152013
July2011201120112011
August2005201120132016
September2008200820082012
October2014201620162014
November2013200620062006
December2014201020142014
FS0.00760.00940.00920.0107
Figure 5

Comparison of the long-term average CDF and TMY CDFs for observed and modelled GHI.

Table 7

The generated TMYs for different data sources for Caicó, with the final FS statistic values for the TMY CDF compared to the long-term average CDF.

MONTHYEAR
TMYOBSTMYMODTMY3MODTMY3REA
January2009200820092009
February2017200820172012
March2007201520152014
April2007200720072007
May2007201320132017
June2010201020102010
July2010201420102010
August2010201020102014
September2013201020102015
October2013201420142014
November2008200820122016
December2011200720072012
FS0.00850.00600.00690.0107
Figure 6

Comparison of the long-term average CDF and TMY CDFs for observed and modelled GHI.

Table 8

Number of TMMs in agreement between TMYobs and TMYmod/TMY3mod/TMY3rea for each station.

STATIONTMMs IN AGREEMENTFS (75% QUARTILE)
Brasilia (A001)50.0078
Pres. Prudente (A707)30.0101
Sta Maria (A803)70.0069
Palmas (A009)60.0097
Caicó (A316)70.0091
Table 9

Weighting schemes used for calculating the TMY (in parts out of 24).

SCHEMET:RH:W:GHITMAXTMINTRHMAXRHMINRHWMAXWGHI
A4:4:4:121121122212
B2:2:2:181/21/211/21/211118
C0:0:0:240000000024
D6:6:6:63/23/233/23/23336
E0:8:8:8000224448
F8:0:8:8224000448
G8:8:0:8224224008
H8:8:8:0224224440
Table 10

TMMs for Different Weighting Schemes, with TMMs different from the mode in italics.

MONTHTMY FOR DIFFERENT WEIGHTING SCHEMES
ABCDEFGHTMM (MODE)
January200920092017200920082009200920092009
February201120112009201120092009201120112011
March201320132013201320132012201320132013
April200820082014200820122014200820082008
May201720172017201720172017201720172017
June201120112015201120112011201120112011
July201320132013201320132013201320132013
August201520152015201520152015201520152015
September201420142014201420142014201220122014
October201620162016201620132016201620162016
November201420142014201720082017201420172014
December201720172006201720172017201720172017
Number different from mode00515412
Table 11

The months with the 3 lowest weighted sums of the FS statistic (×10–3), using weighting scheme C.

YEARJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDEC
2005
20063.914.23
20073.574.62
20083.892.77
20094.524.044.083.54
20105.303.835.245.32
20114.272.913.82
20124.313.092.684.14
20134.042.585.62
20143.524.312.643.23
20154.092.412.18
20165.473.18
20173.913.604.24
Figure 7

Comparison of the TMY CDFs for Global Horizontal Radiation for different weighting schemes at the A001 station.

Language: English
Page range: 29 - 41
Submitted on: Nov 1, 2023
Accepted on: Mar 19, 2024
Published on: Apr 9, 2024
Published by: Stockholm University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2024 Anna Tippett, André Rodrigues Gonçalves, Enio Bueno Pereira, Fernando Ramos Martins, Gilberto Fisch, Rodrigo Santos Costa, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.