Author Affiliations
1School of Opto-Electronic Engineering, Changchun University of Science and Technology, Changchun, Jilin 130022, China2Meteorological Observation Center of China Meteorological Administration, Beijing 100081, China3Key Laboratory of Opto-Electronic Measurement and Optical Information Transmission Technology, Ministry of Education, Changchun, Jilin 130022, China4Jilin Engineering Research Center of Photoelectronic Measurement & Control Instruments, Changchun, Jilin 130022, China;5Aerospace Newsky Technology Co. Ltd., Wuxi, Jiangsu 214127, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Typical structure of rotating pyroelectric sunshine duration recorder
Fig. 2. Structural diagram of bi-xenon lamp source integrating sphere calibration system of RPSDR
Fig. 3. General structure diagram of solar simulator
Fig. 4. Design curve of spectral transmittance of coating film
Fig. 5. Diagram of test points of irradiance uniformity on effective irradiation surface
Fig. 6. Irradiance distribution of uniformity test points
Fig. 7. Stability test for effective irradiation surface
Fig. 8. Variation curve of irradiance at threshold point within 1 h
Fig. 9. Threshold calibrating test
| Wave band /nm | Ratio of spectral irradiance toglobal irradiance in 400--1100 nm /% | Ratio of energy between uncorrectedxenon lamp and AM1.5 |
|---|
| Uncorrected xenon lamp | AM1.5 |
|---|
| 400--500 | 17.1996 | 18.5 | 0.9297 | | 500--600 | 13.5835 | 20.1 | 0.6758 | | 600--700 | 10.9131 | 18.3 | 0.5963 | | 700--800 | 10.3651 | 14.8 | 0.7003 | | 800--900 | 13.5626 | 12.2 | 1.1117 | | 900--1100 | 34.3761 | 16.1 | 2.1352 |
|
Table 1. Solar spectral energy distribution data of uncorrected xenon lamp and AM1.5 of class A
| Wave band /nm | Ratio of spectral irradiance toglobal irradiance in 400--1100 nm | Energy ratio ofcorrected xenonlamp to AM1.5 | Matchingcondition |
|---|
| Corrected xenon lamp | AM1.5 |
|---|
| 400--500 | 19.72 | 18.5 | 1.066 | Yes | | 500--600 | 18.69 | 20.1 | 0.930 | Yes | | 600--700 | 17.89 | 18.3 | 0.978 | Yes | | 700--800 | 16.31 | 14.8 | 1.102 | Yes | | 800--900 | 12.37 | 12.2 | 1.014 | Yes | | 900--1100 | 15.02 | 16.1 | 0.933 | Yes |
|
Table 2. Energy distributions of corrected xenon lamp spectrum and AM1.5 class A solar spectrum
| Serial number | Before calibration | After calibration |
|---|
| Standardthreshold | Uncalibratedthreshold | Deviation | Standardthreshold | Calibratedthreshold | Deviation |
|---|
| 1 | 121.8 | 129.9 | 8.1 | 121.3 | 121.6 | 0.3 | | 2 | 121.6 | 130.3 | 8.7 | 121.1 | 121.7 | 0.6 | | 3 | 122.1 | 130.3 | 8.2 | 121.1 | 121.6 | 0.5 | | 4 | 121.9 | 130.3 | 8.4 | 121.3 | 121.9 | 0.6 | | 5 | 121.4 | 130.5 | 9.1 | 120.9 | 121.4 | 0.5 | | 6 | 121.5 | 130.1 | 8.6 | 121.3 | 121.3 | 0.0 | | 7 | 121.7 | 130.5 | 8.8 | 121.6 | 121.5 | -0.1 | | 8 | 121.7 | 129.6 | 7.9 | 121.4 | 121.5 | 0.1 | | 9 | 121.9 | 130.0 | 8.1 | 121.4 | 121.8 | 0.4 | | 10 | 122.0 | 129.9 | 7.9 | 121.2 | 121.4 | 0.2 | | Mean | 121.8 | 130.1 | 8.3 | 121.3 | 121.6 | 0.3 | | Standard error | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of mean deviation and standard deviation of calibrated threshold and standard threshold before and after calibrationW·m-2
| Time | Threshold measured bystandard RPSDR | Threshold measured byuncalibrated RPSDR | Deviation |
|---|
| 2020-06-13T19:25:20 | 124.3 | 135.7 | 11.4 | | 2020-06-13T19:25:30 | 122.1 | 131.1 | 9.0 | | 2020-06-13T19:25:40 | 119.7 | 129.6 | 9.9 | | 2020-06-13T19:25:50 | 115.2 | 123.4 | 8.2 | | Mean | 120.3 | 129.2 | 9.6 | | Standard error | 4.4 | 6.5 | 1.6 | | Time | Threshold measured bystandard RPSDR | Threshold measured byuncalibrated RPSDR | Deviation | | 2020-06-14T06:13:10 | 116.4 | 126.3 | 9.9 | | 2020-06-14T06:13:20 | 119.6 | 130.4 | 10.8 | | 2020-06-14T06:13:30 | 123.9 | 134.1 | 10.2 | | Mean | 120.0 | 130.3 | 10.3 | | Standard error | 4.4 | 4.6 | 0.5 | | Time | Threshold measured bystandard RPSDR | Threshold measured byuncalibrated RPSDR | Deviation | | 2020-06-14T19:26:30 | 124.8 | 134.3 | 9.5 | | 2020-06-14T19:26:30 | 123.0 | 132.9 | 9.9 | | 2020-06-14T19:26:30 | 121.8 | 130.5 | 8.7 | | 2020-06-14T19:26:30 | 118.4 | 127.6 | 9.2 | | Mean | 122.0 | 131.3 | 9.3 | | Standard error | 3.1 | 3.3 | 0.6 | | Time | Threshold measured bystandard RPSDR | Threshold measured byuncalibrated RPSDR | Deviation | | 2020-06-15T11:05:50 | 123.5 | 134.1 | 10.6 | | 2020-06-15T11:06:00 | 124.9 | 135.8 | 10.9 | | 2020-06-15T11:06:10 | 120.7 | 129.9 | 9.2 | | 2020-06-15T11:06:20 | 119.0 | 127.3 | 8.3 | | 2020-06-15T11:06:30 | 116.3 | 125.4 | 9.1 | | Mean | 120.9 | 130.5 | 9.6 | | Standard error | 3.7 | 4.5 | 1.1 |
|
Table 4. Test data of threshold comparisonW·m-2
| Date | Sunshine duration measured bystandard pyrheliometer /h | Sunshine durationmeasured by RPSDR /h | Absoluteerror /h | Relativeerror /% |
|---|
| 2020-07-22 | 5.50 | 5.76 | 0.26 | 4.7 | | 2020-07-23 | 11.50 | 11.61 | 0.11 | 1.0 | | 2020-07-24 | 9.04 | 9.08 | 0.04 | 0.4 | | 2020-07-25 | 2.79 | 2.98 | 0.19 | 6.8 |
|
Table 5. Comparison of test data of sunshine duration
