I just want to calculate the solar radiation in different orientation for a surface(1m*1m) so as to understand what is the amount of radiation per square meter in Shiraz (Iran) by using ladybug radiation analysis.
The result of radiation is totally different with some papers which have calculated.
Is there anybody to tell me what is wrong?
Thanksradiation 1400.gh (415.5 KB)
how recent are the papers, and how is the radiation presented in them timestep wise?
they have published during 4 years , the radiation results presented in these papers are based on kwh/m2 and the result also have radiation = 0 in some different angle…
@SaeranVasanthakumar hello Saeran
You have no idea whats the problem?
@mostapha hello, you have an idea about it ? thanks
Your analysis looks fine to me if your goal is to get a rough idea of the cumulative (total) radiation falling per orientation of a vertical surface on a cube (although I didn’t run the simulation, I don’t have legacy LB on my computer).
You won’t get 0 kWh/m2 along any orientation because you are modeling diffuse solar radiation, which is solar radiation scattered by the atmosphere, and thus doesn’t really change with changes in surface orientation. If you set the
removeDiffuse_ input to True on your
Ladybug_selectSkyMtx you’ll get 0 kWh/m2 values in places. You can plug the
cumulativeSkyMtx output into Ladybug’s
Sky Dome component to visualize the sky by total, direct or diffuse components to get a better intuition for this.
It’s hard to know why your results don’t match other papers without knowing what kind of simulation (or empirical analysis?) those papers are doing. I agree with @TrevorFedyna’s question about time. What is the time period over which they measured the radiation, and are they presenting average or total results? It would be easier just to share your papers.