Benchmarking irradiation models for photovoltaic applications: A comparative analysis of radiance-based tools

• Radiance-based ray tracing tools are compared for bifacial photovoltaic applications. • Annual modeled front + rear irradiance within 1.3 % of measured for all models. • Ray tracing model architecture choice can boost speed while maintaining high accuracy. • Ray tracing stochasticity varies among tools and should be accounted for. This study compared the accuracy, efficiency, and capabilities of three ray tracing tools—bifacial_radiance, ClimateStudio, and Honeybee Radiance—in modeling irradiance for photovoltaic (PV) systems. Despite similar performance in modeling hourly irradiance and monthly and annual cumulative irradiation levels, the tools exhibited differences in functionalities and computational efficiency. All models estimated cumulative annual front irradiation within 1.3% of measured values, with bifacial_radiance showing the largest error. For rear side irradiance, bifacial_radiance, ClimateStudio, and Honeybee Radiance underestimated irradiance by 2.82%, 5.40% and 8.74%, respectively. bifacial_radiance showed the highest model stochasticity in cumulative simulations due to its reliance on a single cumulative sky model. In contrast, ClimateStudio and Honeybee Radiance employ matrix-based approaches with hourly resolution within the period, averaging out stochasticity and making them more dependable for precise cumulative irradiation values. These matrix-based methods also significantly enhanced time-series analysis efficiency by modeling yearly irradiance with hourly resolution faster than bifacial_radiance analyzes a single point-in-time, while maintaining similar hourly error and bias levels. However, bifacial_radiance exhibited lower model stochasticity in hourly simulations. Enabled by the efficient simulation capabilities of ClimateStudio and Honeybee Radiance, a method for improving rear side irradiance modeling was tested. By combining simulations with different ground albedo values, this approach significantly reduced error and bias in rear side irradiance modeling. Ultimately, the choice of tool depends on study requirements, with bifacial_radiance being advantageous for hourly and sub-hourly resolution in short-term analyzes, while ClimateStudio and Honeybee Radiance are better suited for cumulative and extended time-series analyzes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Solar Energy
Published
2025-05-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2025.113566
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Photovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.91

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmarking irradiation models for photovoltaic applications: A comparative analysis of radiance-based tools

Heine Nygard Riise, Erik Stensrud Marstein, Magnus Moe Nygård, Marie Syre Wiig et al.
8 citations
Solar Energy
Photovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
2.91
article

Benchmarking irradiation models for photovoltaic applications: A comparative analysis of radiance-based tools

Heine Nygard Riise, Erik Stensrud Marstein, Magnus Moe Nygård, Marie Syre Wiig, Erlend Hustad Honningdalsnes
article en
8 citations

Abstract

• Radiance-based ray tracing tools are compared for bifacial photovoltaic applications. • Annual modeled front + rear irradiance within 1.3 % of measured for all models. • Ray tracing model architecture choice can boost speed while maintaining high accuracy. • Ray tracing stochasticity varies among tools and should be accounted for. This study compared the accuracy, efficiency, and capabilities of three ray tracing tools—bifacial_radiance, ClimateStudio, and Honeybee Radiance—in modeling irradiance for photovoltaic (PV) systems. Despite similar performance in modeling hourly irradiance and monthly and annual cumulative irradiation levels, the tools exhibited differences in functionalities and computational efficiency. All models estimated cumulative annual front irradiation within 1.3% of measured values, with bifacial_radiance showing the largest error. For rear side irradiance, bifacial_radiance, ClimateStudio, and Honeybee Radiance underestimated irradiance by 2.82%, 5.40% and 8.74%, respectively. bifacial_radiance showed the highest model stochasticity in cumulative simulations due to its reliance on a single cumulative sky model. In contrast, ClimateStudio and Honeybee Radiance employ matrix-based approaches with hourly resolution within the period, averaging out stochasticity and making them more dependable for precise cumulative irradiation values. These matrix-based methods also significantly enhanced time-series analysis efficiency by modeling yearly irradiance with hourly resolution faster than bifacial_radiance analyzes a single point-in-time, while maintaining similar hourly error and bias levels. However, bifacial_radiance exhibited lower model stochasticity in hourly simulations. Enabled by the efficient simulation capabilities of ClimateStudio and Honeybee Radiance, a method for improving rear side irradiance modeling was tested. By combining simulations with different ground albedo values, this approach significantly reduced error and bias in rear side irradiance modeling. Ultimately, the choice of tool depends on study requirements, with bifacial_radiance being advantageous for hourly and sub-hourly resolution in short-term analyzes, while ClimateStudio and Honeybee Radiance are better suited for cumulative and extended time-series analyzes.

Solar EnergyVol. 296
University Graduate Center (NO), University of Oslo (NO), Institute for Energy Technology (NO)
Norges Forskningsråd
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Photovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
2.91
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.