<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Leo, The results module gives the average across the timesteps of the simulation, so, for example, if you are doing 10 minute timesteps, then the value plotted for 1:05 is the average of the 1:00 and 1:10 values. This is because the energy balance is taking place across the timestep. It is possible, though not usual, to save only the "future" time row values in the results analysis, so that no averaging takes place. To do this, choose the "simulation toggles" in the simulation module, password is 101, and switch timestep averaging off. Regards Paul Bakker, L.G. (Leo) wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:8ACA38FA71F78D4E9AF9FF08380A444E01BA1226@MAIL04.tsn.tno.nl" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; "> <meta name="Generator" content="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12"> <title>RE: [esp-r] Climate smeared out</title>  Hi John, These are from one hour time step. I did however a 10 minute non hourly integrated time step simulation.. The output of the res module still averaged the results out in the same way over the hours with 10 minute interval. Could you please give me a pointer where to find the timing assumptions option in the solar radiation data. I would like to see if that will solve the problem without the temporal data route  Thanks in advance Leo Bakker PS: It is important to us since we control the shading in advance with an external program which uses non averaged climate data -----Original Message----- From: Jon Hand [<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jon@esru.strath.ac.uk">mailto:jon@esru.strath.ac.uk</a>] Sent: Wed 3/10/2010 12:57 PM To: Bakker, L.G. (Leo); <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:esp-r@lists.strath.ac.uk">esp-r@lists.strath.ac.uk</a> Subject: RE: [esp-r]  Climate smeared out There is an option in ESP-r to alter the timing assumptions in the solar radiation data. Look for the half-hour option.  That might alter the performance a few hours. And you can use sub-hourly climate data via the temporal data facility.  For example, if you had 15 minute data then the averaging would be over a different time-scale. And what happens if you do not ask for averaging of the simulation data and save data at higher frequencies? Please clarify whether the data below is from a simulation actually at one time step per hour saved at one time step per hour  OR is is 15 minute timesteps saved onced per hour? Regards, Jon Hand ________________________________________ From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:esp-r-bounces@lists.strath.ac.uk">esp-r-bounces@lists.strath.ac.uk</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:esp-r-bounces@lists.strath.ac.uk">esp-r-bounces@lists.strath.ac.uk</a>] On Behalf Of Bakker, L.G. (Leo) [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:leo.bakker@tno.nl">leo.bakker@tno.nl</a>] Sent: 10 March 2010 10:26 To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:esp-r@lists.strath.ac.uk">esp-r@lists.strath.ac.uk</a> Subject: [esp-r]  Climate smeared out Dear all, When I look at the climate data from the clm76 with the clm module I get: Hr    dr.n.dad  df.nrad  8    0.     0.  9    0.    31. 10  341.    67. 11  513.    75. 12  568.    77. 13  151.    83. 14   58.    67. 15    0.    28. 16    0.     0. when I look at the same data with the res module climate I get: # Timestep performance metrics. # Lib: blokje.res: Results for blokje # Period: Sun-01-Jan@00h30(1967) to Sun-31-Dec@23h30(1967) : sim@60m, output@60m Time  Directnorsolar(W/m^2) Diffusesolar(W/m^2) 06h30       0.00       0.00 07h30       0.00       7.75 08h30      85.25      32.25 09h30     298.75      60.00 10h30     483.75      73.50 11h30     450.00      78.00 12h30     232.00      77.50 13h30      66.75      61.25 14h30      14.50      30.75 15h30       0.00       7.00 16h30       0.00       0.00 It seems that the data is averaged over time for some reason. The problem I have with this is that I am studying the effects of controlled shading and averaging data over the hours seem to effect the results. There is for instance one particular day where only one hour has direct radiation of 100 W/m2 which is averaged around that hour (25 50 and 25 again). If this would be 600W/m2 and it would be averaged to 150, 300 and 150 W/m2 and the solar shading would be set to close above levels of 350W/m2 it would not be closed due to the averaging effects... This worries me. I have the following questions: Is it me doing something wrong? How can I stop this averaging? What are alternatives? Thanks in advance, Leo Bakker TNO Buildings and Construction research This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html">http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html</a> <pre>This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html">http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html</a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- *************************************************************** Dr P A Strachan email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paul@esru.strath.ac.uk">paul@esru.strath.ac.uk</a> ESRU, Dept. of Mechanical Eng. phone: +44 141 548 2041 University of Strathclyde fax: +44 141 552 5105 Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk">http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk</a> *************************************************************** </pre> </body> </html>