Re: [GRASS-user] r.sun - beam irradiance issues in mountain area with a high relief energy
>later on I'll post a screenshot of the not patched r.sun in 8.2.1 here are *comparison side by side https://pasteboard.co/I3NLbdrhkhsg.png *patched minus non patched https://pasteboard.co/GZxvEUCPe2wM.png there are not much differences in steep south oriented mountain slopes, though in north oriented slopes. best helli ___ grass-user mailing list grass-user@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
Re: [GRASS-user] r.sun - beam irradiance issues in mountain area with a high relief energy
Hi Anna, >This could be potentially a problem described in >https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/2534. >Could you try to run this with the changes in the PR? I hopefully correctly applied this PR now here locally in my winGRASS. ;-) DEM: Airborne Laser Scan 1 x 1 m projection: 99 (MGI / Austria GK West) zone: 0 datum: hermannskogel ellipsoid: bessel north: 218281.5 south: 204874.5 west: 49389.5 east: 62610.5 nsres: 1 ewres: 1 rows: 13407 cols: 13221 cells: 177253947 *patched r.sun* r.sun elevation=laser_dgm@data aspect=laser_dgm_aspect@data slope=laser_dgm_slope@data horizon_basename=horangle horizon_step=30 beam_rad=beam_rad_166 day=166 Number of threads <1> Mode 2: integrated daily irradiation for a given day of the year Using Linke constant: 3.00 Using albedo constant: 0.20 Using slope map Using aspect map *elevation - computional region https://pasteboard.co/g82fQtvdcbeE.png *aspect - computional region https://pasteboard.co/jV36f8fb1xoY.png *beam irr 166 - computional region https://pasteboard.co/no7YUTqNtEPg.jpg *aspect zoom to the high altitudinal south oriented mountain face with a high slope gradient and high local geomorphological variability https://pasteboard.co/u10fbgnUU4nX.png *slope zoomed to the high altitudinal south oriented mountain face with a high slope gradient and high local geomorphological variability https://pasteboard.co/5FeilT6qRj7t.png *slope zoomed only 50-90 degrees on the high altitudinal south oriented mountain face with a high slope gradient and high local geomorphological variability https://pasteboard.co/ssmNEUWyagYe.png *beam irr 166 zoom on the high altitudinal south oriented mountain face with a high slope gradient and high local geomorphological variability https://pasteboard.co/PVSjFWy2qcOK.png later on I'll post a screenshot of the not patched r.sun in 8.2.1 best helli ___ grass-user mailing list grass-user@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
Re: [GRASS-user] r.sun - beam irradiance issues in mountain area with a high relief energy
Hi Anna, >This could be potentially a problem described in >https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/2534. yes, it seems to be similar. >Could you try to run this with the changes in the PR? no chance to test the PR at the moment. Best Helmut ___ grass-user mailing list grass-user@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
Re: [GRASS-user] r.sun - beam irradiance issues in mountain area with a high relief energy
This could be potentially a problem described in https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/2534. Could you try to run this with the changes in the PR? Anna On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:05 PM Helmut Kudrnovsky wrote: > hi, > > given a a mountain area with a high relief energy based upon an ALS DEM > with a 1x1m resolution > > and system: winGRASS GIS 8.2.1 > > g.region -p > projection: 99 (MGI / Austria Lambert) > zone: 0 > datum: hermannskogel > ellipsoid: bessel > north: 358599.5 > south: 345055.5 > west: 221323.5 > east: 236275.5 > nsres: 1 > ewres: 1 > rows: 13544 > cols: 14952 > cells: 202509888 > > DEM range of data: min = 1197.4 max = 3496.68 > > the horizon rasters are calculated by > > r.horizon elevation=als@data step=30 maxdistance=5000 output=horangle > > r.sun is calculated for 15 June > > r.sun elevation=als@data aspect=als_aspect@data slope=als_slope@data > horizon_basename=horangle horizon_step=30 beam_rad=beam_rad166 day=166 > nprocs=2 npartitions=2 > > see the result screenshot in https://pasteboard.co/YShtdFG8C7jk.png > > o the high peak has northern, eastern and southern oriented steep slopes > o the more red, the higher beam irradiance calculated by the r.sun command > above > o the southern oriented footslopes show a high beam irradiance (as > exptected) > o the southern oriented and very steep slopes around the peak show a > similar low beam irradiance as the northern slopes (not expected) > > I have issues to interpret the results, especially the last pattern: > > o Could be the lower beam irradiance in the very southern oriented slopes > nearby the peak due to the very steep slope? > o Do slopes with a high inclination (though southern oriented) reduce beam > irradiance in the implemented model? > > Kind regards > Helmut > ___ > grass-user mailing list > grass-user@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user > ___ grass-user mailing list grass-user@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
[GRASS-user] r.sun - beam irradiance issues in mountain area with a high relief energy
hi, given a a mountain area with a high relief energy based upon an ALS DEM with a 1x1m resolution and system: winGRASS GIS 8.2.1 g.region -p projection: 99 (MGI / Austria Lambert) zone: 0 datum: hermannskogel ellipsoid: bessel north: 358599.5 south: 345055.5 west: 221323.5 east: 236275.5 nsres: 1 ewres: 1 rows: 13544 cols: 14952 cells: 202509888 DEM range of data: min = 1197.4 max = 3496.68 the horizon rasters are calculated by r.horizon elevation=als@data step=30 maxdistance=5000 output=horangle r.sun is calculated for 15 June r.sun elevation=als@data aspect=als_aspect@data slope=als_slope@data horizon_basename=horangle horizon_step=30 beam_rad=beam_rad166 day=166 nprocs=2 npartitions=2 see the result screenshot in https://pasteboard.co/YShtdFG8C7jk.png o the high peak has northern, eastern and southern oriented steep slopes o the more red, the higher beam irradiance calculated by the r.sun command above o the southern oriented footslopes show a high beam irradiance (as exptected) o the southern oriented and very steep slopes around the peak show a similar low beam irradiance as the northern slopes (not expected) I have issues to interpret the results, especially the last pattern: o Could be the lower beam irradiance in the very southern oriented slopes nearby the peak due to the very steep slope? o Do slopes with a high inclination (though southern oriented) reduce beam irradiance in the implemented model? Kind regards Helmut ___ grass-user mailing list grass-user@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user