4.7 Article

Combining point cloud and surface methods for modeling partial shading impacts of trees on urban solar irradiance

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 298, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113420

Keywords

Fusion model; Solar irradiance; Tree shading; Dynamic graph CNN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a novel method for comprehensive solar irradiance assessment that considers the dynamic partial shading impacts from trees. The method, which takes urban point clouds as input, shows significant reduction in simulation errors compared to alternative approaches, while limiting the required input data. The primary source of uncertainty stems from mismatches between tree morphology in the fusion model and reality.
Although trees and urban vegetation have a significant influence on solar irradiation in the built environment, their impact on daylight and energy consumption is often not considered in building performance and urban environment simulation studies. This paper presents a novel method for comprehensive solar irradiance assessment that considers the dynamic partial shading impacts from trees. The proposed method takes urban point clouds as input and consists of three subsequent steps: (a) DGCNN-based segmentation, (b) fusion model generation, (c) matrix-based irradiance calculation. The method is validated by comparing model outputs with field measurement data, and an inter-model comparison with eleven state-of-the-art tree shading modeling approaches. Analyses carried out on daily and long-term basis show that the proposed fusion model can significantly reduce simulation errors compared to alternative approaches, while limiting the required input data to a minimum. The primary source of uncertainty stems from mismatches between tree morphology in the fusion model and reality, attributable to phenological growth and seasonal variations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available