Validation of the model

#1

Hi everyone!
I took a look at the categories and I hope I have chosen the right one to post my question.
I’m a part of a group of Italian students; we’re writing our thesis to graduate using Honeybee and Ladybug for the first time. Our work consists in studying outdoor thermal comfort analysing the variation of the mean radiant temperature in an urban canyon model.
We created the script, but we’re not been able to validate our model so far; in fact, comparing the results of the Energy Plus simulations with the real mrt values measured we don’t obtain a good correspondance.
Since we could not measure MRT on our own, we considered a paper of a study carried out in Taiwan to obtain the data we needed (I’ll attach everything) and modified our model to compare the results (wind speed, window-to-wall-ratio, orientation…). Reading the paper, we chose the point A, because it’s the only one in a canyon; we looked at the corresponding diagrams in summer and winter and recreated them in excel.
We’ve been working on the validation of the model for almost a month, so we noticed that during winter, the results are good if we consider the buildings of the canyon as ‘additionalShading’ in the Indoor View Factor Calculator component, but they are incorrect during summer (anyway, we don’t know if using this option is right, since we added the same geometry as the context in the simulation);
We’re not able to understand the problem in the model, even if it is related to the option ‘additionalShading’ or not…maybe we’ve only been lucky obtaining the winter results and the real mistake is somewhere else.
Here, I attach the pdf of the paper we used, the excel file with the data took from the paper compared with the result of the energy simulation, the script and the weather file (we modified it with the real historical data of the analysed days).
I’m sorry for the length of the post but I tried to explain the problem in the best way possible… Can anyone help us, please?

Canyon_analysis.gh (906.7 KB)
MRT values.xlsx (34.7 KB)
paper.pdf (332.8 KB)
TWN_Taipei.466960_IWEC_modifiche2prova.epw (1.4 MB)

#2

Hi everyone, we solved the problems and validated the model. Anyway, I thank you all :blush:

1 Like
#3

I’m curious as to what the issue you were having was? Was it an assumption in Honeybee you had to change?

#4

We created the honeybee zones in a wrong way, so we started from the beginning and make everything again :sweat_smile: we analysed outdoor but the way we used was better for the indoor, so we changed the model completely following another logic

#5

Hi,
could you please tell me what is the validation.
how can i prove this.
i have this problem with my model but the pain is that i dont know how i can measure it .
thanks

#6

Hi,
You can validate your model comparing your results with measured values.