By definition, integration is the sum of 1/RA of adjacent axial lines.
RA values of the axial lines are:
Line index - value
0 - 2/3
1 - 2/3
2 - 1/3
3 - 1/3
4 - 2/3
5 - 2/3
6 - 4/15
The integration of line#2 is
1/(2/3) + 1/(2/3) + 1/(4/15) = 6.75
The integration of line#6 is
1/(1/3) + 1/(1/3) = 6
The results may look somewhat counterintuitive, but as long as the definition we are using is correct, line #2 should have a higher integration than line #6.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2009-07-01
Isn't integration = 1/RRA?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi. I was using Axial analysis feature, and I found major error on integration property.
Just look at this:
[URL=http://img524.imageshack.us/i/20090616115744.png/][IMG]http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8987/20090616115744.th.png[/IMG][/URL]
I think 6 shound have higher integration, but 2 and 3 are higher on integration while 6's RRA is lower than any other. confused...
So tell me please. is it just my mistake or major bug?
Our programmer sent me the following explanation:
By definition, integration is the sum of 1/RA of adjacent axial lines.
RA values of the axial lines are:
Line index - value
0 - 2/3
1 - 2/3
2 - 1/3
3 - 1/3
4 - 2/3
5 - 2/3
6 - 4/15
The integration of line#2 is
1/(2/3) + 1/(2/3) + 1/(4/15) = 6.75
The integration of line#6 is
1/(1/3) + 1/(1/3) = 6
The results may look somewhat counterintuitive, but as long as the definition we are using is correct, line #2 should have a higher integration than line #6.
Isn't integration = 1/RRA?