UDI results

Hi all

I got the results of daylight simulation in the room in lux. the results(in 3 different times of the year) are between 100-3000 lux, with some parts near window, approximately in range of 20000-40000 lux but know I have problem in analysing the annual results. I checked it in lux and DF, but the UDI results seemed different.

In the range between 500-2500 lux, the UDI is 0.0 for each point in the room. and 98% is more than range(more than 30000). but its not normal.

could someone help me?

thank you in advance.

Attachments:

001.gh, 889 KB
IRN_Shiraz.408480_ITMY.epw, 1.6 MB

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari on December 26, 2015 at 9:22am

Hi Masoumeh,

Are you changing the north direction for annual analysis? There was a bug that the results would be only for the first time which is fixed now. Have you updated your component?

Mostapha

Permalink Reply by masoumehta on December 26, 2015 at 9:39am

Hi mostafa,

I changed the direction by rotating in rhino modelling at first.

I'm working with HB 0.0.60 now. I will check the new version. I'll tell you about it.

thank you.

-masoumeh

Permalink Reply by masoumehta on December 28, 2015 at 9:30am

Dear mostafa,

I updated HB today, only "generate test points component" in my file is updated to 01-DEC, and others are still for 07-NOV. but the UDI result is the same as before.

thank you

-masoumeh

Attachments:

11.jpg, 86 KB

Permalink Reply by masoumehta on January 1, 2016 at 1:20pm

Hello all again,

is there anyway that I can solve this problem with UDI?

-masoumeh

Permalink Reply by Chris Mackey on January 2, 2016 at 6:31pm

Masoumehta,

Your errors were due mostly to your materials, which had properties like 0.01 reflectance. Properties like this do not occur in nature unless we are talking about a black hole or something that theoretically approaches a black body. Once you boost up this reflectance to reasonable values (like 0.25) or take default materials, you start getting simulations that make sense (see attached file).

Mostapha, should we put in a warning if a user inputs a reflectance below 0.1? It seems to not only be incorrect from a physical properties standpoint but it also seems to make DAYSIM go crazy and completely discount the dark surface from the simulation (causing some big disagreements between illuminance studies from Radiance and an annual simulation with DAYSIM with the same HBObjects).

-Chris

Attachments: