TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction
T2 - Application of Semi-Empirical Models Based on Satellite Images for Estimating Solar Irradiance in Korea (Appl. Sci., (2021), 11, (3445), 10.3390/app11083445)
AU - Garniwa, Pranda M.P.
AU - Ramadhan, Raden A.A.
AU - Lee, Hyun Jin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]. We have realized that some of the values in Tables 6 and 7 in the original paper are not correct. We considered different Linke turbidity models (TL), and mistakes that may have possibly occurred when we accidentally mixed up the turbidity input for global horizontal irradiance (GHI) models. Hence, Tables 6 and 7, and the relevant descriptions need to be changed. These corrections do not affect the scientific output and conclusions of the research. 1. Changes in Tables In the original paper, nine values of MBE, rMBE, and rRMSE in Tables 6 and 7 need to be corrected. Additional corrections were made in Table 7 for the consistent number of digits below the decimal point. (Table presented.) 2. Changes in Relevant Description Due to the changes in Tables 6 and 7, the relevant description in Section 4 should be corrected as follows: 1. Page 15, the statement in the original paper is “ ... In contrast, the Rigollier model exhibited the largest error, with an MBE reaching -36.84 W/m2 ... ”. To avoid ambiguity, Beyer will replace Rigollier, as the Beyer model indeed shows the largest MBE. Thus, the statement would be “ ... In contrast, the Beyer model exhibited the largest MBE, with the value reaching -36.84 W/m2 ... ”. 2. Page 15, the statement in the original paper is “ ... Meanwhile, the MBE and rMBE of the hybrid model were slightly larger than those of the Hammer model, with the differences 1.51 W/m2 and 1.78%, respectively ... ”. According to the correction in Table 6, the absolute differences in MBE and rMBE between hybrid and Hammer models are 7.15 W/m2 and 1.82%. Hence, the statement should be “ ... Meanwhile, the MBE and rMBE of the hybrid model were slightly larger than those of the Hammer model, with the absolute differences 7.15 W/m2 and 1.82%, respectively ... ”. 3. Page 15, the sentence in the original paper is “ ... The rMBE of the hybrid model is fairly constant regardless of kT under the maximum value of 3.7%.”. The authors unintentionally placed 3.7% to be the maximum rMBE of the hybrid model. Therefore, the authors would like to correct the statement to be “ ... The rMBE of the hybrid model is fairly constant regardless of kT under the maximum absolute value of 3.35% ... ”.
AB - The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]. We have realized that some of the values in Tables 6 and 7 in the original paper are not correct. We considered different Linke turbidity models (TL), and mistakes that may have possibly occurred when we accidentally mixed up the turbidity input for global horizontal irradiance (GHI) models. Hence, Tables 6 and 7, and the relevant descriptions need to be changed. These corrections do not affect the scientific output and conclusions of the research. 1. Changes in Tables In the original paper, nine values of MBE, rMBE, and rRMSE in Tables 6 and 7 need to be corrected. Additional corrections were made in Table 7 for the consistent number of digits below the decimal point. (Table presented.) 2. Changes in Relevant Description Due to the changes in Tables 6 and 7, the relevant description in Section 4 should be corrected as follows: 1. Page 15, the statement in the original paper is “ ... In contrast, the Rigollier model exhibited the largest error, with an MBE reaching -36.84 W/m2 ... ”. To avoid ambiguity, Beyer will replace Rigollier, as the Beyer model indeed shows the largest MBE. Thus, the statement would be “ ... In contrast, the Beyer model exhibited the largest MBE, with the value reaching -36.84 W/m2 ... ”. 2. Page 15, the statement in the original paper is “ ... Meanwhile, the MBE and rMBE of the hybrid model were slightly larger than those of the Hammer model, with the differences 1.51 W/m2 and 1.78%, respectively ... ”. According to the correction in Table 6, the absolute differences in MBE and rMBE between hybrid and Hammer models are 7.15 W/m2 and 1.82%. Hence, the statement should be “ ... Meanwhile, the MBE and rMBE of the hybrid model were slightly larger than those of the Hammer model, with the absolute differences 7.15 W/m2 and 1.82%, respectively ... ”. 3. Page 15, the sentence in the original paper is “ ... The rMBE of the hybrid model is fairly constant regardless of kT under the maximum value of 3.7%.”. The authors unintentionally placed 3.7% to be the maximum rMBE of the hybrid model. Therefore, the authors would like to correct the statement to be “ ... The rMBE of the hybrid model is fairly constant regardless of kT under the maximum absolute value of 3.35% ... ”.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137359150&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/app12167984
DO - 10.3390/app12167984
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:85137359150
SN - 2076-3417
VL - 12
JO - Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
JF - Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
IS - 16
M1 - 7984
ER -