A Simple Formula for Estimating the
Optimum Tilt Angles of Photovoltaic Panels
Stephanie White Quinn and Brad Lehman *
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA USA
quinn.st@husky.neu.edu
Abstract— This paper presents a new approach to computing
the optimal tilt angle for photovoltaic (PV) panels. The influence
of cloudy conditions on the tilt angle is explored. It is
demonstrated that more energy can be extracted from the PV
system in cloudy conditions when the tilt angle of the panel is
decreased compared to when the panel is aimed to be facing
directly normal to the sun. Validation for fixed tilt, south-facing
panels and for 2-axis tracking panels is presented by numerical
simulations.
I. INTRODUCTION
In a south-facing photovoltaic (PV) installation with fixed
tilt, a common recommendation is that the panels be installed
at a tilt angle equal to the site’s latitude, φ, to achieve near
maximum yearly energy harvesting [1]. However, recent
research suggests that latitude tilt angles are not optimal in
many geographic locations; rather, the tilt angle depends both
on the location’s latitude and weather conditions. For
example, in studies for 217 locations in the United States [2],
for Hong Kong [3] and for 152 locations in China [4], it is
shown that the optimal tilt angle varies from 14o less than
latitude to 4o greater than latitude. Furthermore, it has been
suggested that a nearly horizontal tilt on cloudy days is
advantageous in a 2-axis tracking system because 50% more
solar irradiation could be captured by the tracker [5].
There have been several approaches used to calculate the
fixed optimal tilt of a PV panel that extracts maximum energy
of the PV systems. Weather and solar radiation data is often
measured and then used with solar irradiation models to
predict monthly, seasonal, or yearly optimal tilt angles [2-4,
6]. When hourly data is utilized [2], advanced software and
data manipulation must be used to compute annual energy
yields for every possible tilt angle. Calculations are
performed for each hour of an entire year and then summed to
find the maximum annual solar irradiation. An alternative
approach is to curve fit solar irradiation data [6, 7] to predict
the fixed optimal tilt. Another approach is to use irradiance
data from satellites, and then apply an unconstrained nonlinear
optimization program to find the optimum tilt and azimuth
angles of the panel [8]. A disadvantage of most of these
approaches is that they rely on significant, site-specific data
*The author gratefully acknowledges support by the National Science
Foundation under grant 0901439.
978-1-4673-4916-1/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
analysis and processing in order to calculate the true optimal
tilt.
If a 2-axis tracking system is utilized, then either azimuth-
elevation or tilt-roll tracking is used to aim the panel directly
at the sun at all times [9, 10]. There are two dominant
algorithms to achieve the tracking. In the first, off-line
calculations and table look-ups are able to calculate the
position of the sun at any instant of time and any day of the
year. From these calculations, the PV array is aimed to point
directly at the sun in an open-loop fashion. In the second
approach, sensors, such as charge coupled devices (CCD) or
photodiodes, may be added to actively sense the position of
the sun to generate a feedback signal to aim the panels toward
the sun. This has the advantage of not continuously calibrating
the tracker to assure the alignment is correct, but at the
expense of increased complexity.
The purpose of this research is to introduce simpler, yet
precise, methods to calculate optimal tilt angles for both fixed
tilt PV systems and 2-dimensional tracking systems. The
interesting aspect of our approaches is that they consider the
effect of clearness index (cloud cover) on the optimal tilt angle
estimation. This leads to the surprising result that sometimes it
is best not to aim the PV panels directly at the sun. Instead, to
capture more diffuse and reflected irradiance, the optimal tilt
angle might be adjusted lower than assumed. Specifically, the
research contributions of this paper include:
• A simple formula for estimating the optimal tilt angle
of a PV panel for any surface orientation at any time
of day and on any day of the year is derived. This
simple formula is a function of latitude, declination
angle, hour angle, surface azimuth angle, ground
reflectance, transmittance-absorptance products of
the diffuse and reflected radiation streams, and
clearness index. This new tractable optimal tilt
formula can either be used for real time tracking of
PV panels in changing weather conditions or in a
hybrid open-loop/closed-loop tracking system. It
should be noted that 2-dimensional commercial
trackers would not take into consideration the cloud
cover, and therefore, they would aim the PV panel
directly normal to the sun. This may be optimal for
 solar concentrators, but for solar PV systems on Ib = hourly beam irradiation on a horizontal surface, which
cloudy days, more energy can be extracted using our is calculated as Ib = I – Id (4)
proposed tilt angle formula.
(τα)b = transmittance-absorptance product of the beam
• A family of formulas is derived to estimate optimal radiation stream with a value of less than 1
tilt angles for the PV panel that can be used for 1-
dimensional adjustment of the panel’s tilt angle or for (τα)d = transmittance-absorptance product of the diffuse
calculation of a fixed PV’s optimal tilt angle. The radiation stream with a value of less than 1
formulas are useful in various applications, e.g., (τα)r = transmittance-absorptance product of the reflected
remote applications in developing countries where radiation stream with a value of less than 1
the tilt angle of a south-facing panel is often adjusted
about once per month. Similarly, the fixed tilt M = air mass modifier
formula may aid in initial installation or roof θ = angle of incidence of beam radiation on a surface, and
architecture design for the PV installation.
cos θ = b1 cos β + b2 sin β + b3 cos β + b4 sin β + b5 sin β
• As specific examples to demonstrate the validity of
the formula, we use Typical Meteorological Year (5)
(TMY3) weather collections [11] that are made
available by NREL for various geographic locations where the coefficients b1, b2, b3, b4, and b5 are defined as:
to show increased incident radiation when compared b1 = sin δ sin φ (6a)
to conventional latitude tilt angle approaches.
b2 = - sin δ cos φ cos γ (6b)
The improvement in energy yield using the proposed tilt
angle and tracking approaches are more noticeable in cloudier b3 = cos δ cos φ cos ω (6c)
locations. In sunnier locations, our proposed tracking and tilt
b4 = cos δ sin φ cos γ cos ω (6d)
angle formula approximate the conventional tilt angle formula
[2-10]. b5 = cos δ sin γ sin ω (6e)
II. DERIVATION OF THE FORMULA θZ = zenith angle of the sun, and
A. Mathematical Derivation cos θZ = cos δ cos φ cos ω + sin δ sin φ = b3 + b1 (7)
We will briefly summarize the derivation of the formula
for estimating the optimal tilt angle. Symbols are defined in Substituting (2) through (7) into (1) results in the
the “Nomenclature” section at the end of this paper. The following expression:
amount of solar radiation on a tilted surface IT is the sum of
the beam radiation Ib,T, diffuse radiation Id,T, and reflected I ,
radiation Ir,T, where the unit for all radiation is Wh/m2. The M 1 g
Liu and Jordan isotropic sky model can be modified to take
into account incident radiation, air mass, and incidence angle g g
in order to find the solar radiation IPV absorbed on the cell
surface of a photovoltaic (PV) panel [12]. (8)
IT,PV = M{(τα)b Ib,T + (τα)d Id,T + (τα)r Ir,T } Taking the derivative of (8) with respect to β, setting it
= M{(τα)b Ib Rb + (τα)d Id (1 + cos β)/2 + equal to zero, and then completing several algebraic steps
leads to the following expression for the optimal tilt angle,
(τα)r I ρg (1 - cos β)/2 } (1) βopt:
where tan β
β = tilt angle of panel sin cos cos cos sin cos cos cos sin sin
ρg = ground reflectance sin sin cos cos cos

Rb = ratio of beam radiation on a tilted plane to that on a 1

horizontal plane, and Rb = cos θ/cos θZ (2)
T g
1
Id = I x g(kT) is the hourly diffuse irradiation where g(kT) T

is defined by correlations proposed by Erbs, Orgill and (9)

Hollands, Lam and Li, and others [13-18].
I = irradiation on a horizontal surface
kT = hourly clearness index and is defined as the ratio of
the hourly irradiation on a horizontal surface to the hourly
extraterrestrial radiation, kT = I / Io (3)
The optimal tilt angle, βopt, of the PV panel calculated in
(9) is a function of the latitude, ground reflectance, declination
angle, hour angle, surface azimuth angle, the correlation g(kT)
and the transmittance-absorptance products of the diffuse and
reflected radiation streams. This formula can be used in real-
time tracking applications to adjust the PV panel’s tilt angle in
response to changing weather conditions. Such a control
system could be used in solar farms with a sensor on the panel
for detecting local weather conditions or a wireless sensor
connected to a nearby weather station. The contribution of (9)
over conventional tracking formulas [9, 10] is that (9) depends
on clearness index (cloud cover), kT = I / Io. In sunny
conditions, g(kT) is smaller and the term in the second
bracketed term in the right hand side of (9) is approximately
unity. In this case, (9) reduces to a conventional tracker
formula [9, 10]. On the other hand, for cloudy days g(kT) ≈
0.4 and this term in (9) cannot be ignored when computing
optimal tilt.
B. Two-axis tracking PV panel
For a 2-dimensional tracker, the surface azimuth angle γ
equals the solar azimuth angle. We assume that this
relationship holds when adjusting the tilt angle using (9)
because we are tracking the sun from east to west and we are
only changing the tilt angle of the PV panel. For a south-
facing PV panel, the surface azimuth angle is zero so we can
modify (9) to obtain (12) in Table 1.
C. Fixed tilt PV panel
It is possible to simplify (9) for fixed tilt installations. For
example, if we assume no azimuth tracking, it is commonly
taken that the optimal tilt should be taken at solar noon when
ω = 0. This is particularly accurate for south-facing
installations. This leads to (10) in Table 1, which is used to
calculate the panel’s tilt angle β. This tilt angle might be
adjusted approximately once a month or once a day, given
either historical predictions of averaged clearness indexes, kT
or g(kT), or even solar irradiance forecasts for the next day.
In a similar manner, we can use the traditional
approximation that the earth’s declination angle, δ, varies
throughout the year from -23.5 degrees to +23.5 degrees, and
has an average yearly value of δ = 0. Therefore, a reasonable
annual estimate for (9) might be obtained by considering δ =
0. When this is done, (9) simplifies to (11) in Table 1.
These formulas can be used to calculate the optimal tilt
angle, βopt, for fixed tilt installations and are useful at the time

TABLE 1. THE S-FORMULA FAMILY.

Name & Use Formula Eqn.

sin cos cos γ cos sin cos γ cos cos sin γ sin
tan β
sin sin cos cos cos
“Parent S Formula”

1
(9)
2-axis tracking
T g
1
T

1-axis adjustment of tilt 1

angle β, perhaps once a tan β , cos γ tan φ δ (10)
T
week or month. Average 1
T
kT is utilized.

1
Fixed tilt, tan β , cos γ tan φ (11)
T
no tracking. 1
T

,
tan β ,

1-axis adjustment of tilt

sin cos cos sin cos 1 (12)
angle β every hour,
south-facing panel sin sin cos cos cos 1
T g
T
of initial construction of the PV installation. The estimated
optimal tilt angle, βopt, for fixed tilt installations only depends
on the ground reflectance, latitude, surface azimuth angle,
clearness index, and the transmittance-absorptance products
of the diffuse and reflected radiation streams. If an average
annual clearness index is utilized (perhaps taken from public
data such as TMY3 [11]), then all the parameters are constant
valued and readily available before the PV installation. The
accuracy of the estimates is discussed in Section III.
III. VALIDATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
A. Method
The Hay, Davies, Klucher, and Reindl (HDKR)
anisotropic sky model [12] was used to calculate the total
radiation incident on the panel. The annual incident radiation
and the optimal tilt angles were calculated for different
geographic locations using solar radiation data from the
Typical Meteorological Year (TMY3) database that is
averaged real data over a 15-year period for over 300
geographic locations. The data provides hourly values for
beam irradiance, horizontal irradiance, horizontal diffuse
irradiance and clearness index. Using MATLab, for any
geographic location with irradiance data, it is possible to solve
for the optimal tilt angle via numerical estimation techniques.
First, the tilt angle is varied in one-degree increments from 0
to 90 degrees for each hour from sunrise to sunset on every
day of the year to find the optimal angle at which the greatest
incident radiation occurred. Once the optimal tilt angle is
obtained for each hour of the day and each day of the year,
then the total irradiation is obtained by summing the optimal
irradiation values. The angle corresponding to the greatest
annual irradiation value was termed the optimal tilt angle. This
optimal tilt angle could then be compared in Tables 2 and 3 to
the estimation formula derived in this paper.
To validate the approaches in this paper, we first
considered the fixed tilt, south-facing panel. We used the
following correlation for g(kT) [15]
0.977 0.15
g 1.237 1.361 0.15 0.7
0.273 0.7
(13)
and used the average annual insolation clearness index for kT
and a value of 0.2 for ρg . Values of 1 were assumed for the
transmittance-absorptance products (τα)d and (τα)r.
B. Fixed-tilt, south-facing PV panel
Table 2 presents the mean annual irradiation for a south-
facing PV panel for three cases — latitude tilt, optimal tilt
angle, and estimated tilt angle predicted by (11). As
previously explained, the general guideline in the PV industry
is that latitude tilt gives best annual energy yield. In general,
this turns out to be a reasonable assumption, but in cloudy
locations, such as Olympia with annual clearness index of
0.45 [19], a noticeable increase in the solar radiation absorbed
by the PV system can be achieved by reducing the tilt.
Notice that for sunny locations, such as Las Vegas with an
annual clearness index of 0.62 [19], the adjustment of tilt
angle from latitude tilt is small and has almost negligible
increase in energy yield. Thus, for cloudy locations, near
maximum yearly energy harvesting may be captured by
installing a panel at a tilt angle of 12 to 16 degrees less than
the location’s latitude, and this optimal tilt angle may be
predicted by using the simple formula shown in (11).
C. Two-axis tracking PV panel
For a 2-axis tracking PV panel, the panel is normally
oriented so that the angle of incidence is minimized (cos θ =
1). A panel using the azimuth-elevation tracking method
follows the sun’s path east to west (γ = γS), and the panel’s tilt
angle is set equal to the zenith angle (β = θZ). Depending on
the location, the yield is about 20% to 40% more than for a
fixed south-facing panel.
To optimize the solar radiation absorbed by the 2-axis
tracking PV panel under various cloudiness conditions, we
propose a modified 2-axis tracking method. The panel tracks
the sun’s path east to west as in the azimuth-elevation
tracking method. However, under cloudy conditions, the tilt
angle is adjusted to an optimum angle in order to achieve
higher energy yields. We used the same numerical estimation
technique that was described earlier in this paper for the
south-facing fixed panel. It was found that under cloudier
conditions, greater incident radiation is obtained when the
panel’s tilt angle is adjusted to a shallower angle.
The optimal tilt angle can be predicted by (9) for
adjusting the panel each hour. As in the azimuth-elevation 2-
axis tracking method, the panel’s azimuth angle is following
the sun’s path east to west. The hourly clearness index for kT
was calculated using the TMY3 data for global horizontal
irradiance and extraterrestrial irradiance in (3). We assumed
a value of 0.2 for ρg and a value of 1 for the transmittance-
absorptance products (τα)d and (τα)r.
Table 3 presents the mean annual irradiation for all three
cases — a conventional 2-axis tracking panel using azimuth-
elevation tracking, an optimized 2-axis tracking panel using
the proposed azimuth-modified elevation tracking method,
and a 2-axis tracking panel that is adjusted using the
estimated tilt angle predicted by (9). In comparing the results
for the optimized 2-axis tracking panel and the conventional
2-axis tracking panel, we found that the annual irradiation
increased by greater than 2.5% for cloudier locations. In
particular, for Quillayute, WA the increase in annual
irradiation was 3.48% over the conventional 2-axis tracking
method. This is due to the fact that on cloudy days, the total
irradiation is composed primarily of diffuse irradiation and
the beam irradiation component is very small. A 2-axis
tracking panel could capture more total irradiation by
adjusting the conventional tilt angle to a shallower angle.
Even sunnier locations such as Key West, FL and Las Vegas,
NV saw small increases in yearly yield by using the modified
tracking method.
Fig. 1 compares the amount of hourly diffuse radiation
absorbed by a PV panel when using the conventional 2-axis
tracking method and when using the proposed method that
TABLE 2. ANNUAL SOLAR RADIATION ABSORBED ON THE CELL SURFACE FOR A SOUTH-FACING PANEL
AT FIXED TILT FOR 21 U.S. LOCATIONS.

Panel fixed at Panel fixed at Panel fixed at

Latitude Tilt Optimal Tilt Estimated Optimal Tilt Angle (11)
Increase in
Annual
Increase in Absorbed
Annual Radiation
Absorbed at
LOCATION Radiation Estimated
at Optimal Optimal
Tilt Tilt Angle Tilt Angle
Angle, Annual Optimal Annual vs. Estimated Annual vs.
Latitude Absorbed Tilt Absorbed Latitude Optimal Absorbed Latitude
(N) Radiation Angle Radiation Tilt Tilt Angle Radiation Tilt
(deg) (kWh/m2) (deg) (kWh/m2) % (deg) (kWh/m2) %

TMY3 DATA
Olympia, WA 46.97 1279.27 31 1313.13 2.65% 34.38 1311.44 2.52%
Erie, PA 42.08 1431.15 27 1466.55 2.47% 30.58 1464.22 2.31%
Traverse City, MI 44.73 1423.71 30 1457.55 2.38% 33.56 1455.17 2.21%
Youngstown, OH 41.25 1406.39 27 1434.61 2.01% 29.26 1433.95 1.96%
Eugene, OR 44.05 1479.74 31 1507.53 1.88% 32.93 1506.77 1.83%
Quillayute, WA 47.93 1227.21 35 1249.33 1.80% 36.57 1248.88 1.77%
Syracuse, NY 43.12 1485.57 31 1509.96 1.64% 30.89 1509.97 1.64%
Medford, OR 42.19 1763.54 31 1788.50 1.42% 35.69 1784.23 1.17%
Burlington, VT 44.47 1483.86 33 1504.82 1.41% 32.71 1504.80 1.41%
Zanesville, OH 39.95 1328.85 29 1346.15 1.30% 28.73 1346.17 1.30%
Detroit, MI 42.22 1522.66 31 1541.58 1.24% 30.70 1541.54 1.24%
International Falls,MN 48.57 1466.89 38 1484.73 1.22% 38.38 1484.71 1.21%
Elkins, WV 38.88 1471.17 29 1484.61 0.91% 27.82 1484.28 0.89%
Bakersfield, CA 35.43 2062.39 28 2077.90 0.75% 31.54 2073.93 0.56%
Sioux City, IA 42.38 1740.79 35 1752.15 0.65% 33.06 1751.62 0.62%
Boston, MA 42.37 1617.46 36 1625.55 0.50% 31.98 1623.28 0.36%
Knoxville, TN 35.82 1710.45 29 1718.65 0.48% 24.75 1715.16 0.28%
Bluefield, WV 37.27 1539.25 32 1544.27 0.33% 26.47 1540.01 0.05%
Asheville, NC 35.43 1775.38 32 1777.87 0.14% 26.45 1772.04 -0.19%
Las Vegas, NV 36.08 2323.74 33 2327.06 0.14% 32.16 2327.00 0.14%
Key West, FL 24.55 2007.72 23 2008.29 0.03% 21.26 2007.66 0.00%
TABLE 3. ANNUAL SOLAR RADIATION ABSORBED ON THE CELL SURFACE FOR A 2-AXIS TRACKING PV
PANEL FOR 21 U.S. LOCATIONS. PANEL’S ORIENTATION IS CHANGED EVERY DAYLIGHT HOUR.

Conventional 2-axis Panel adjusted at Estimated

tracking Optimized 2-axis tracking Optimal Tilt Angle (9)

Increase in
Increase in Annual
LOCATION Annual Absorbed
Absorbed Radiation at
Radiation at Estimated
Annual Annual Optimal Tilt Annual Optimal Tilt
Latitude Absorbed Absorbed Angle vs. Absorbed Angle vs.
(N) Radiation Radiation Latitude Tilt Radiation Latitude Tilt

(deg) (kWh/m2) (kWh/m2) % (kWh/m2) %

TMY3 DATA
Olympia, WA 46.967 1660.11 1709.40 2.97% 1688.97 1.74%
Erie, PA 42.083 1827.34 1879.51 2.85% 1855.78 1.56%
Traverse City, MI 44.733 1850.05 1901.37 2.77% 1873.20 1.25%
Youngstown, OH 41.250 1778.94 1830.98 2.93% 1809.02 1.69%
Eugene, OR 44.050 1979.07 2021.32 2.14% 2000.70 1.09%
Quillayute, WA 47.933 1553.73 1607.83 3.48% 1585.00 2.01%
Syracuse, NY 43.117 1929.70 1978.78 2.54% 1953.89 1.25%
Medford, OR 42.190 2419.20 2459.36 1.66% 2439.36 0.83%
Burlington, VT 44.467 1925.41 1974.93 2.57% 1949.15 1.23%
Zanesville, OH 39.950 1662.44 1705.02 2.56% 1695.44 1.98%
Detroit, MI 42.217 1953.82 1990.51 1.88% 1974.94 1.08%
International Falls,MN 48.567 1951.73 2005.51 2.76% 1975.09 1.20%
Elkins, WV 38.883 1805.94 1856.35 2.79% 1835.66 1.65%
Bakersfield, CA 35.433 2818.00 2837.89 0.71% 2825.86 0.28%
Sioux City, IA 42.383 2322.68 2361.35 1.66% 2338.12 0.66%
Boston, MA 42.367 2059.91 2098.36 1.87% 2081.48 1.05%
Knoxville, TN 35.817 2194.10 2230.61 1.66% 2213.57 0.89%
Bluefield, WV 37.270 1992.05 2033.30 2.07% 2020.28 1.42%
Asheville, NC 35.433 2274.87 2310.01 1.55% 2291.03 0.71%
Las Vegas, NV 36.083 3255.49 3284.18 0.88% 3258.44 0.09%
Key West, FL 24.550 2591.54 2606.06 0.56% 2590.94 -0.02%
 Figure 1. Comparision of diffuse irradiance absorbed by a PV array in Las Vegas, NV on January 7th and 8th.
Figure 2. Comparision of the tilt angles of the conventional 2-axis tracking PV panel and the optimized PV array for Las Vegas, NV on January 7th and 8th.
has been optimized for cloudy conditions using (9). January
7th is a sunny day with an average hourly kT of about 0.7. On
this day, the beam radiation is the major component of total
irradiation at the PV panel. The optimized 2-axis tracker and
the conventional 2-axis tracker capture the same amount of
irradiation. The next day, January 8th , is a cloudy day with
a low averaged hourly clearness index (0.3). Fig. 1 indicates
that the proposed optimized tracking method receives more
diffuse radiation than does the conventional 2-axis tracker. In
this case, the diffuse irradiation is the major component of the
total irradiation, and the total irradiation absorbed by the
optimized 2-axis tracking panel is greater than that absorbed
by the conventional 2-axis tracking panel.
Fig. 2 compares the tilt angles for both conventional 2-
axis tracking and the proposed 2-axis tracking using (9). On
January 7th, the tilt angles for both cases are very similar with
tilt angles greater than 60 degrees throughout the day.
However, on the next day the skies are cloudy and the
proposed 2-axis tracking panel’s tilt varies between 12 and 40
degrees throughout the day. By decreasing the tilt of the PV
panel, more total solar radiation is absorbed.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The influence of cloudy conditions on the tilt angle of a
PV panel has been explored. It is demonstrated that more
energy can be extracted from the PV system in cloudy
conditions when the tilt angle of the panel is decreased.
• For a south-facing fixed PV panel, simulations
indicate that, for some geographic locations, the
annual incident radiation increases to greater than
2% for cloudy locations when our formula estimates
that the optimal tilt angle should be 14 degrees less
than latitude. Increases in incident radiation in the
range of 1.22% to 1.88% resulted for panels when
the formula suggests that optimal tilt angles should
be about 10 to 12 degrees less than latitude.
• For a 2-axis tracking system, there was an increase
in annual incident radiation for all locations when
 the tilt angle was adjusted in response to cloud
conditions. This increase ranged from 0.56% to
3.48%.
A family of simplified formulas has been derived for
estimating the optimal tilt angles for the PV panel. These
angles can be used for 1-dimensional adjustment of the
panel’s tilt angle or for calculation of a fixed PV’s optimal tilt
angle.
• For a south-facing fixed PV panel, the estimated
yearly optimal angles (11) were within 0 to 5
degrees of the actual optimal tilt angles found by
numerically calculating the irradiances as the angles
were varied in one degree increments. The annual
incident radiation using (11) closely approximated
the optimal values calculated numerically.
• For a 2-axis tracking system, the annual incident
radiation increased when adjusting the tilt angles
each hour using the estimated angles given by (9)
instead of the conventional 2-axis tracking’s
elevation angles.
The benefits of using these simplified formulas are that
the tilt angles can be calculated based on historically known
quantities, and there will be increased PV harvesting energy
yield due to higher PV energy output in cloudy conditions.
NOMENCLATURE
I Irradiation on a horizontal surface (Wh/m2)
Ib Beam irradiation on a horizontal surface (Wh/m2)
Ib,T Beam irradiation on a tilted surface (Wh/m2))
Id Diffuse irradiation on a horizontal surface (Wh/m2)
Id,T Diffuse irradiation on a tilted surface (Wh/m2)
Io Extraterrestrial irradiation on a horizontal surface for
an hour period (Wh/m2)
Ir,T Reflected irradiation on a tilted surface (Wh/m2)
IT Irradiation on a tilted surface (Wh/m2)
IT,PV Irradiation absorbed on the cell surface of a tilted PV
panel (Wh/m2)
kT Hourly clearness index
PV Photovoltaic
Rb Ratio of beam radiation on a tilted plane to that on a
horizontal plane
Greek Letters
β Slope or tilt angle of the collector with respect to the
horizontal (degrees)
γ Surface azimuth angle (degrees)
γS Solar azimuth angle (degrees)
δ Earth declination angle (degrees)
θ Angle of incidence (degrees)
θZ Zenith angle (degrees)
ρg Ground reflectance
(τα)b Transmittance-absorptance product of the beam
radiation stream
(τα)d Transmittance-absorptance product of the diffuse
radiation stream
(τα)r Transmittance-absorptance product of the reflected
radiation stream
φ Latitude (degrees)
ω Hour angle (degrees)
.
REFERENCES
[1] W. Marion and S. Wilcox, Solar radiation data manual for flat-plate and
concentrating collectors [electronic resource] / William Marion and
Stephen Wilcox: Golden, Colo. : National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, [1994], 1994.
[2] W. D. Lubitz, "Effect of manual tilt adjustments on incident irradiance
on fixed and tracking solar panels," Applied Energy, vol. 88, pp. 1710-
1719, 2011.
[3] H. Yang and L. Lu, "The Optimum Tilt Angles and Orientations of PV
Claddings for Building-Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) Applications,"
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, vol. 129, pp. 253-255, 2007.
[4] R. Tang and T. Wu, "Optimal tilt-angles for solar collectors used in
China," Applied Energy, vol. 79, pp. 239-248, 2004.
[5] N. A. Kelly and T. L. Gibson, "Improved photovoltaic energy output
for cloudy conditions with a solar tracking system," Solar Energy, vol.
83, pp. 2092-2102, 2009.
[6] M. Benghanem, "Optimization of tilt angle for solar panel: Case study
for Madinah, Saudi Arabia," Applied Energy, vol. 88, pp. 1427-1433,
2011.
[7] M. J. Ahmad and G. N. Tiwari, "Optimization of Tilt Angle for Solar
Collector to Receive Maximum Radiation," Open Renewable Energy
Journal, vol. 2, pp. 19-24, 2009.
[8] M. Lave and J. Kleissl, “Optimum fixed orientations and benefits of
tracking for capturing solar radiation in the continental United States,”
Renewable Energy, vol. 36, pp. 1145-1152, 2011.
[9] K. K. Chong and C. W. Wong, "General formula for on-axis sun-
tracking system and its application in improving tracking accuracy of
solar collector," Solar Energy, vol. 83, pp. 298-305, 2009.
[10] C.-Y. Lee, P.-C. Chou, C.-M. Chiang, and C.-F. Lin, "Sun Tracking
Systems: A Review," Sensors, vol. 9, pp. 3875-3890, 2009.
[11] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2012, March 17). National
Solar Radiation Data Base: 1991-2005 Update: Typical
Meteorological Year 3 [Online]. Available:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-
2005/tmy3/by_state_and_city.html
[12] J. A. Duffie and W. A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal
Processes, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
[13] D. G. Erbs, S. A. Klein, and J. A. Duffie, "Estimation of the diffuse
radiation fraction for hourly, daily and monthly-average global
radiation," Solar Energy, vol. 28, pp. 293-302, 1982.
[14] J. F. Orgill and K. G. T. Hollands, "Correlation equation for hourly
diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface," vol. 19, ed, 1977, pp. 357-
359.
[15] J. C. Lam and D. H. W. Li, "Correlation between global solar radiation
and its direct and diffuse components," Building and Environment, vol.
31, pp. 527-536, 1996.
[16] J. D. Mondol, Y. G. Yohanis, and B. Norton, Solar radiation modelling
for the simulation of photovoltaic systems.
[17] A. Skartveit and J. A. Olseth, "A model for the diffuse fraction of
hourly global radiation," Solar Energy, vol. 38, pp. 271-274.
[18] A. de Miguel, J. Bilbao, R. Aguiar, H. Kambezidis, and E. Negro,
"Diffuse solar irradiation model evaluation in the North Mediterranean
Belt area," Solar Energy, vol. 70, pp. 143-153.
[19] Atmospheric Science Data Center. (2012, March 24). NASA Surface
Meteorology and Solar Energy [Online]. Available:
http://power.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/solar/grid