## 1 Introduction
An energy analysis of the influence of the movement limit on a solar tracker was presented in [15]. In this study, only one location was analysed, so a detailed comparison of the impact of the motion limit was not performed. On the other hand, there are a large number of studies that do not take into account the movement limit, including the following:  
1. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16] developed a generalised equation for horizontal single-axis trackers deployed on cross-slope terrain. By not taking into account the movement limit, the developed equation loses generality. 2. [PERSON] et al. [17] analysed the optimal tilt angle of horizontal single-axis trackers using a spatial projection model and a dynamic shadow evaluation method. This work could be completed by analysing the static mode, defined by a movement limit, and the backtracking mode. 3. [PERSON] et al. [18] optimised the design of \(PV\) power plants with horizontal single-trackers using a new evaluation metric. This new assessment metric is not fully defined as it does not consider the movement limit. 4. [PERSON] et al. [19] presented a model for a horizontal single-axis tracking bracket with an adjustable tilt angle to increase incident solar irradiance regardless of the maximum movement limit. 5. [PERSON] et al. [20] presented a new \(MPPT\) algorithm based on the energy valley optimiser to extract the maximum energy from solar power. This study did not take into account the movement limit and the backtracking mode. 6. [PERSON] et al. [21] presented an economic study of solar-tracking photovoltaic systems installed on the water surface. The calculation of the energy generated by the \(PV\) field did not take into account the limit of movement. It can be concluded that in the design of \(PV\) power plants, the works that take into account the limit of movement only consider a certain value without delving into the effect of this parameter on the incident solar irradiance on a \(PV\) field. It is also true that there are a large number of works that do not consider it. To analyse the influence of the movement limit on the incident solar irradiance on the \(PV\) field, a procedure consisting of the following steps was used: (i) the determination of the periods of operation of a horizontal single-axis tracking; (ii) the analytical determination of the annual, daily, and hourly incident solar irradiance on the photovoltaic field; (iii) the validation of the model; and (iv) the definition of the evaluation indicators. For the analysis of the influence of the movement limit on the incident solar irradiance on the \(PV\) field, the following three \(PV\) power plants have been selected from Table 1: (i) the Basir \(PV\) power plant, (ii) the Miraflores \(PV\) power plant, and (iii) the Canredondo \(PV\) power plant. The evaluation indicators that have been used to study the influence of the movement limit are the following: the annual energy loss, the daily energy loss, the beam component, and the diffuse component. A range of movement limits between \(\pm 50\) (\({}^{\circ}\)) and \(\pm 60\) (\({}^{\circ}\)) was investigated. Table 1 shows that most PV power plants use a movement limit of \(\pm 60\) (\({}^{\circ}\)). However, is this the optimal movement limit? In the development of this work it will be shown that this movement limit is not optimal in all locations under study. Determining the optimal movement limit is necessary to improve the performance of the PV power plant over its lifetime. To perform a detailed study on the influence of the movement limit on the incident solar irradiance in the \(PV\) field, it is necessary to obtain this incident solar irradiance at hourly and daily levels. This level of detail regarding solar irradiance is not available in commercial software (PVsyst 7.2, SolarFarmer 1.5, RETScreen 8.1, etc.). Therefore, it was necessary to implement a _Mathematica_ code to calculate the hourly and daily incident solar irradiance. The main contributions of this work are as follows:  
1.