{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027879677182685254, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005135730007336757, 'mean_word_length': 5.116591928251121, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Error assessment of grid-based diffuse solar radiation models

ABSTRACT Two grid-based diffuse solar radiation models, ESRI’s Solar Analyst (SA) and Kumar’s model (KM), were assessed using a data-independent approach where each model’s numerical results of clear sky diffuse radiation on V/U-shaped surfaces were compared with analytical results derived using each model’s assumptions. SA and KM consistently underestimate and overestimate, respectively, diffuse radiation at daily, seasonal, and annual scale relative to the analytical results based on each model’s parameterizations. Overall, SA performs better than KM in modeling diffuse radiation at most timescales. While SA and KM have similar error in calculating diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface, SA models sky view factor much better than KM, with mean absolute relative differences of 0.76% and 17.02%, respectively. KM has a large error in sky view factor as it does not consider the shading effect from surrounding terrain. Sky view factor error in SA is small and use of more zenith divisions can further reduce the error. Based on our previous study, model performance on clear sky global solar radiation was also evaluated. Overall, KM performs better than SA in global radiation as KM performs better than SA in modeling direct radiation which is the major component of global radiation.