I tried with a picture totally covered wich resulted a MRT and PET of 48.3 C and 33.7C respectively. When I repeated the procedure without the fisheye the results were 46.3 C and 32.9 C for MRT and PET respectively.
Should not it be less temperature under a tree shade?
Also I´d like to know if it could be useful insert the surface temperature obtained from a Landsat image.
Thanks for help me, I don´t know what could vbe the situation.
Indeed, I tried with the option "reduce G by obstacles" check and uncheck using a SVF of 0.027 and 1 and there were not any difference between them
The results for midday were:
SVF 0.027 SVF 1 PET: 34.7 PET 32.3 MRT 50.2 MRT 43.8 Same values for check and uncheck.
MRT and PET are still less in free enviroments unlike covered enviroments were mentioned parameters are higher. My question about Landsat was just to use the surface temperature given by a pixel (the most aproximated to the experimental zone) Maybe If I insert more parameters the approach to PET could be closer?
what are your other input parameters and values? E.g. air temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity? Did you input global radiation or did you set cloud cover? Please try with empty fields for Surface temperature, Global radiation and Mean radiant temperature to make sure they are actually calculated and not taken from a pre-setting. To make sure I get you right: You are using a fisheye image together with obstacles data? Could you finally enable all possible output and calculate for a data table? Then post one line together with the header here in the forum?
I just set temperature, relative humidity, wind speed. Cloud cover is 0 octas while global radiation, surface temperature and Tmrt are not set (empty).
Indeed, I´m using a fisheye picture of a tree canopy. there are not obstacles The last part you ask me is to insert the results?
day of year 136 time 12:32 Ta °C 28.0 VP hPa 26.4 v m/s 2.7 C octas 0.0 Tmrt °C 49.4 height m 1.7 weight kg 70.0 age a 30 sex m cloth. clo 0.90 activ. W 80.0 Tc °C 37.1 Tsk °C 35.3 WL g/h 198.0 SWt 0.3 H W 161.7 Rnb W -7.6 C W -6.8 Evpd W -18.0 Esw W -111.3 PET °C 33.0 mPET_Tc °C 37.2 mPET_Tsk_m °C 33.6 mPET_Tsk1 °C 33.7 mPET_Tsk2 °C 33.6 mPET_Tsk4 °C 9999.0 mPET_Tsk5 °C 9999.0 mPET_Tcl °C 33.5 mPET_skin_wet - 0.5 mPET_sweating_rate g/h 37.4 mPET_Act W 145.5 mPET_R W 150.5 mPET_C W -158.7 mPET_L W -37.9 mPET_Ere W -11.0 mPET_R+C W -22.2 mPET_S W 88.5 mPET °C 32.4
Additionally, I tried the simulation with the same parameters using SOLWEIG1D, the resultas given were very similar to the results given by rayman when I use a SVF of 0.027, but in when I used the SVF of 1, the results were very different:
RAYMAN PRO SVF 0.027 PET 33 SVF 1 PET 30.6 MRT 42.6
SOLWEIG1D SVF 0.027 PET 33.19 MRT 49.38 SVF 1 PET 40.23 MRT 66.84
It makes me think that there is something about the SVF
please, still post the whole line of output here in the forum! You can remove everything about mPET and the person data, as the error is already present in Tmrt. But we need to know the results for Gact, Dact, Sact, A and E (maybe also Ts) to get an insight of what happened here.
Can you also post your fisheye image together with the trees (the final merged fisheye RayMan calculates with)?
And can you check if the location in the small SVF case is shaded (also in the model)?
RayMan Forum
Thema drucken
11.05.2018 00:40
Antworten
