CO2 flux bug the rest parameters

[Empanag]

Describe the bug I was trying to work using CO2 module so i can produce CO2 fluxes but when i use the code 15/25/35/45 for "emissionsmethod" i get nan values for the some parameters. Also i think CO2 is not correctly calculated

To Reproduce

final_setupCO2.zip

Expected behavior i was expecting to see the same that i see without using the module for the common parameters as T2 or Qe and some maps that should follow the traffic profile because its the main parameter that affects the CO2 flux in herakleion

Screenshots in the first image you can see the estimated values in the tile no 1858 of the grid. As you can see some parameters estimated as nan in the second screenshot you can see the area with nan in T2 product and CO2 products.

Version and platform (please complete the following information):

• SUEWS version: 2020a /supy == 2023.7.3.dev0 / 2022.4.7 / 2022.3.17
• OS: Windows / python 3.10.7 /

[sunt05]

thanks for reporting the issue - could you please also provide the QF value?

[Empanag]

Same as others

[sunt05]

Thanks - I might come back to SUEWS modelling after my teaching early next week. However, before my investigation, as SUEWS could produce sensible QF values in some grids, I guess there are some issues with the surface properties - so I suggest you may compare the grids with and without sensible QF values to see if any fixes could be done on your end.

[Empanag]

How can i do this ?

Thanks - I might come back to SUEWS modelling after my teaching early next week. However, before my investigation, as SUEWS could produce sensible QF values in some grids, I guess there are some issues with the surface properties - so I suggest you may compare the grids with and without sensible QF values to see if any fixes could be done on your end.

how can i do this?

[Empanag]

Now that i'm looking my data, i'm not sure also that traffic data are forced the right way. I m trying to import from excel traffic profiles for each pixel. I use the dataframe 8976 x 48 , 8976 are the number of pixels and 48 are the hours for WD and WE, I saw in the results some different than expected results. Some areas with low or none traffic shows very high CO2 Emissions from traffic. So could we have a Telco this week, except friday, so we can discuss the problems and i can show you some results.

[sunt05]

Sorry I'm fully booked these before the New Year break.

However, if you could tell me the grid numbers in the siteselect file where this issue occurs, that would be great.

[Empanag]

Sorry I'm fully booked these before the New Year break.

However, if you could tell me the grid numbers in the siteselect file where this issue occurs, that would be great.

You can check 4533 number , I see a peak in this area for 12 o'clock (13-7-2022)

i attach the excel with the traffic data profiles for each pixel.

trafficprofiles4.xlsx

[sunt05]

Please confirm the issue - is it high QH or non-numeric values of some variables? Is grid 4533 the one with non-numeric values in its output?

[sunt05]

Hi @Empanag , I looked into the issue and found out that it was caused by the building energy calculation - population density is used some division and would lead to nan when zero. For now, please make sure all population density are larger than zero - you may specify a close-to-zero value to those supposed to be zero.

This issue will be fixed in a future release.

[Empanag]

Please confirm the issue - is it high QH or non-numeric values of some variables? Is grid 4533 the one with non-numeric values in its output?

Sorry for the delayed answer.

The values are higher than expected, if you open the data you can see very low traffic there but the CO2 flux is very high. I will work with Qf for the other staff and come back probably next week cause i m a little bit busy.