Fig 1.
Summary of Penumbra model solar energy tracking.
Penumbra's approach to shade modeling for both object and topographic shadowing. A representative set of solar angles are presented, where the cell shade level corresponds to the arrow associated with that cell. Landscape and objects the arrow intercepts dictates the shadow effect upon the cell. Equation numbers correspond to equations described under the Processing Steps.
Fig 2.
Spatially tracking of solar ray for the x and y, and x and z dimensions.
Penumbra's solar ray approach to shade modeling for both object and topographic shadowing. Equation numbers correspond to equations described under Processing Steps.
Table 1.
List of Penumbra inputs, parameters, and outputs.
Fig 3.
Solar angles and the walking algorithm.
Solar azimuth (α) and altitude (γ) are calculated to control the direction the walking algorithm traverses the landscape. The walking algorithm azimuth rise (Y) and run (X) conversions with example sun positions.
Table 2.
Azimuth and altitude angles conformed to a Cartesian coordinate system.
Fig 4.
Moose Mountain open-site and forest-site.
Sites are part of the Oregon Crest-to-Coast Environmental Monitoring transect (O’CCMoN) dataset. Figure is the gridded 3D representation of the site generated from LiDAR data.
Fig 5.
Falls Creek open-site and forest-site.
Sites are part of the Oregon Crest-to-Coast Environmental Monitoring transect (O’CCMoN) dataset. Figure is the gridded 3D representation of the site generated from LiDAR data.
Table 3.
Moose Mountain parameters, initial results, and calibrated results.
Fig 6.
Moose Mountain open-site versus forested-site.
These plotted data represent simulated versus observed PAR (μmoles/m2/s) for the O’CCMoN Moose Mountain open-site and forested-site. Note the magnitude of solar energy difference between the open versus forested environment.
Fig 7.
Moose Mountain open and forest-sites simulation still-frame.
Still-frame from S1 Video of July 06th, 2008 at 2:30pm. All shade reductions are scaled from 1.0 to 0.0, where 1.0 is no reduction and 0.0 is full reduction. Sub frames: (A) net solar energy as PAR (μmoles/m2/s), (B) Total shade reduction (0.0–1.0), (C) Object shade reduction (0.0–1.0), (D) Topographic shade reduction (0.0–1.0). For all (0.0–1.0) shade reductions 1.0 is no reduction and 0.0 is full reduction. See S1 Video for full animation of this simulation.
Table 4.
Falls Creek parameters, initial results, and calibrated results.
Fig 8.
Falls Creek open-site versus forested-site.
These plotted data represent simulated versus observed PAR (μmoles/m2/s) for the O’CCMoN Falls Creek open-site and Forested-site. Note the magnitude of solar energy difference between the open versus forested environment.
Fig 9.
Falls Creek open and forest-sites simulation still-frame.
Still-frame from S2 Video of July 06th, 2008 at 2:30pm. All shade reductions are scaled from 1.0 to 0.0, where 1.0 is no reduction and 0.0 is full reduction. Sub frames: (A) net solar energy as PAR (μmoles/m2/s), (B) Total shade reduction (0.0–1.0), (C) Object shade reduction (0.0–1.0), (D) Topographic shade reduction (0.0–1.0). For all (0.0–1.0) shade reductions 1.0 is no reduction and 0.0 is full reduction. See S2 Video for full animation of this simulation.