[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[TRNSYS-users] Type 34 - Wrong calculation of beam fraction ?
Hello TRNSYS users,
using Type 34 (overhang and wingwall shading) with long extensions I ran into strange results.
>>> The scenario: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
- Receiver: H = 1m / W = 1m / receiver azimuth = 0 (south)
- Overhang: depth s = 1m / gap d = 0 / extension left e1 = 2m / extension right e2 = 2m
- Wingwalls: none
>>> Expected results for beam fraction: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The output beam fraction should be only dependent on receiver an overhang geometry, so the results should look like:
- sunrise: starting close to 1, continuously falling
- noon: lowest beam fraction (max. beam shading)
- sunset: continuously rising, ending close to 1
>>> Results from Type 34 for some test data <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
|row |hour |zenith |azimuth |beam fraction
1 6 87,5 -93,5 0,000
2 7 85,2 -88,3 0,791
3 8 76,2 -76,2 0,366
4 9 67,6 -63,2 0,086
5 10 60,0 -48,8 0,124
6 11 54,1 -32,4 0,142
7 12 50,5 -13,9 0,149
8 13 49,8 5,6 0,151
9 14 52,2 24,7 0,146
10 15 57,2 42,0 0,134
11 16 64,2 57,2 0,106
12 17 72,4 70,7 0,164
13 18 81,3 83,1 0,615
14 19 87,5 91,1 0,000
>>> Conclusion: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Have a look at row 4 and row 5: Type 34 calculates a rising (!) beam fraction even though the turning points for zenith and azimuth are not reached yet.
Furthermore the beam fraction rises aftwerwards (less shading) until 1 p.m. This is even more disturbing as shading should increase with falling zenith angles.
Can someone confirm this or knows what is wrong here?
Greetings from Berlin
BLS Energieplan GmbH
i. A. Marko Brandes
Elsenstraße 106
D-12435 Berlin
Tel.: +49 30 53 32 81-0
Fax: +49 30 53 32 81-40
____________________________________________________
BLS Energieplan GmbH
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin
Geschäftsführer: Christoph Lange, Wolfgang Sturm
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB-Nr. 32021