All Discussions Tagged 'karamba' - Grasshopper2024-03-29T07:52:07Zhttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba3d/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=karamba&feed=yes&xn_auth=noBending of columnstag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2021-05-02:2985220:Topic:21880722021-05-02T07:45:29.744ZJanhttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/Jan570
<p>Hey,<br/> I want to simulate bending very thin straight columns under the weight of a slab(like in the image). What am I doing wrong? It just pushes the columns down.</p>
<p>Hey,<br/> I want to simulate bending very thin straight columns under the weight of a slab(like in the image). What am I doing wrong? It just pushes the columns down.</p> Karamba Cross Section Optimization with multiple different Beam Idstag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2019-08-17:2985220:Topic:20043932019-08-17T22:07:46.071ZAdolpho Meirelleshttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/AdolphoMeirelles
<p>Hello,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm using Karamba for my master thesis project and I've been struggling with one thing: I've separated each kind of beam element with different elemIds in 4 groups (beams, pillars, bracing1, bracing2), and each of this groups should follow a different kind of Cross Section family (HEM for pillars, IPE for beams, RHS for bracing).</p>
<p>Is it possible to run the Optimize Cross Section component for all of them at once, considering all the different cross sections lists…</p>
<p>Hello,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm using Karamba for my master thesis project and I've been struggling with one thing: I've separated each kind of beam element with different elemIds in 4 groups (beams, pillars, bracing1, bracing2), and each of this groups should follow a different kind of Cross Section family (HEM for pillars, IPE for beams, RHS for bracing).</p>
<p>Is it possible to run the Optimize Cross Section component for all of them at once, considering all the different cross sections lists and all the elements from all the ElemIds?</p>
<p>I tried connecting the ElemID names as a grafted list and also the CrosSec lists for each "family" (HEA, IPE, RHS, RHS again) as data trees with 4 branches but it doesn't work. It looks like the component optimizes each ElemID without taking into account the optimization/changes of the others.</p>
<p>How can I make it work?</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3432004159?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3432004159?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p> Combining Loadstag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2019-07-29:2985220:Topic:20003952019-07-29T11:23:41.247ZApfelbaumhttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/Apfelbaum
<p>I have propably an easy question. I have 2 loads. Gravity and a uniform load on the elements. When I now analyze the modell, I get 2 normal forces for each beam. Why its separating the load cases? I want that the loads are combined in one case.<br/>Thanks for your help!</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>I have propably an easy question. I have 2 loads. Gravity and a uniform load on the elements. When I now analyze the modell, I get 2 normal forces for each beam. Why its separating the load cases? I want that the loads are combined in one case.<br/>Thanks for your help!</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Python 'Line-Line Intersection' Utility methodtag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2019-06-26:2985220:Topic:19951022019-06-26T11:41:41.818ZMac Groshttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/MacGros
<p>Hey Karembers,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm looking for the <a href="https://rhino.github.io/components/karamba/lineLineIntersectionkaramba.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">'Line-Line Intersection'</a> method, which should be in the Utilities namespace (I'm looking in the Karamba 1.1.0 Hacker's edition .chm) but can't manage to find the reference :/</p>
<p>Any clue ?</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p></p>
<p>PS :I'll call it in Cython, hope that my free license takes that up</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Hey Karembers,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm looking for the <a href="https://rhino.github.io/components/karamba/lineLineIntersectionkaramba.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">'Line-Line Intersection'</a> method, which should be in the Utilities namespace (I'm looking in the Karamba 1.1.0 Hacker's edition .chm) but can't manage to find the reference :/</p>
<p>Any clue ?</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p></p>
<p>PS :I'll call it in Cython, hope that my free license takes that up</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Uniform line load on curved beamtag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2019-01-04:2985220:Topic:19542742019-01-04T20:45:46.640ZSimone Rutiglianohttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/SimoneRutigliano
<p>Hi,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm trying to model on Karamba 3D the tension acting on a general curve due to prestress forces.</p>
<p></p>
<p>My first approach was to subdivide the curve and then define the forces acting perpendicularly to the curve (one vector force for each point of subdivision). This approach it's not reliable because doesn't give acceptable values in terms of Shear and Bending Moment acting on the curve, even with high subdivision value for the curve (indeed the model seems to be…</p>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm trying to model on Karamba 3D the tension acting on a general curve due to prestress forces.</p>
<p></p>
<p>My first approach was to subdivide the curve and then define the forces acting perpendicularly to the curve (one vector force for each point of subdivision). This approach it's not reliable because doesn't give acceptable values in terms of Shear and Bending Moment acting on the curve, even with high subdivision value for the curve (indeed the model seems to be not really responsive to the number of subdivision for the curve).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Theoretically the tension acting on a curved line could be modeled as a continous load acting perpendicularly to the curve.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So I would like to know if there is some method in order to have a uniform line load acting perpendicularly to a curved element.</p>
<p>I could be interested in some algorithm, strategy, additional component or I would like to know if it could be possible modify the source code of some Karamba component.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you in advance for your help</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Question about the mesh load.tag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2018-12-12:2985220:Topic:19499132018-12-12T16:21:52.982ZLinhttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/Lin712
<p>Dear all, </p>
<p></p>
<p>I am new to Karamba and is currently working on facade analysis. I have some issue with the application of mesh loading and find that the Karamba's result is not consistent with result from SpaceGass, a structural analysis software. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Attached is a simple case I calculated, with a geometry of 10ft by 10 ft square, fixed on four end points. The mesh load applied is vertical to the surface and set as 0.07 kft. The cross section used is W5X16.</p>
<p>The…</p>
<p>Dear all, </p>
<p></p>
<p>I am new to Karamba and is currently working on facade analysis. I have some issue with the application of mesh loading and find that the Karamba's result is not consistent with result from SpaceGass, a structural analysis software. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Attached is a simple case I calculated, with a geometry of 10ft by 10 ft square, fixed on four end points. The mesh load applied is vertical to the surface and set as 0.07 kft. The cross section used is W5X16.</p>
<p>The following plot is the moment diagram from both Karamba and SpaceGass. The maximum moment from SpaceGass is about 1.9kft at the corner and the Karamba's result is 1.46kft, about 25% smaller.</p>
<p>I also tried line load for such structure and the line load condition matches well. The only disagreement is within the surface mesh load. I looked into the Karamba manual and went through the related posts in the forum, but did not find much useful information. </p>
<p>The karamba scripts are also attached for reference. Can someone provide any ideas? Anything would be appreciated. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/338781078?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/338781078?profile=original" class="align-center"/></a><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/338789567?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/338789567?profile=original" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/338807702?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/338807702?profile=original" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p></p> On Creating a Script for Tapered Beam Analysistag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2018-07-29:2985220:Topic:19233602018-07-29T16:55:14.272ZNimish Prabhukhanolkarhttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/NimishPrabhukhanolkar
<p>I want to analyze a tapered beam in Karamba- say an I-beam with variable depth. I believe there is no other way than to discretize it in N parts, where N is user-specified. And model each as a beam of constant depth.</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, the cross-sections component does not do this automatically - if i give it a list of N beam elements and N depths - it does not create N elements with corresponding depths of the array. </p>
<p></p>
<p>So i believe the way out is via a script-component…</p>
<p>I want to analyze a tapered beam in Karamba- say an I-beam with variable depth. I believe there is no other way than to discretize it in N parts, where N is user-specified. And model each as a beam of constant depth.</p>
<p></p>
<p>However, the cross-sections component does not do this automatically - if i give it a list of N beam elements and N depths - it does not create N elements with corresponding depths of the array. </p>
<p></p>
<p>So i believe the way out is via a script-component with the following pseudocode:</p>
<p>INPUT1 - list of N elements Elem[] by reference</p>
<p>INPUT2 - list of N depths Depth[]</p>
<p>INPUT3 - rest of cross-section inputs tf tw and b</p>
<p>Script Algorithm - </p>
<p>for i from 1 to N </p>
<p> cross-section A = new cross-section(b, Depth[i],tf,tw)</p>
<p> Elem[i].assigncrossection ( A ) </p>
<p> end for</p>
<p> Can anyone point me to the actual syntax of the key steps here inside the for loop? Am new to grasshopper scripting. C# would be my language of choice. Am not finding much help on scripting and coding in Karamba.</p>
<p></p> shell thickness variation through millipede and structural analysistag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2018-07-26:2985220:Topic:19229432018-07-26T13:55:23.815ZContestableshttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/MarinellaContestabile
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>My aim is to get a thickness variation depending on the kind of loads in order to have an efficient structural performance. I tried to run a topological optimization and starting from the results given I analyzed the structure through Karamba. </p>
<p>I'm not sure if it is a correct process for my purpose so if I could receive any suggestions/corrections of my process it would be very appreciated.</p>
<p>Moreover, if there are any ways to get this kind of process I would be happy…</p>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>My aim is to get a thickness variation depending on the kind of loads in order to have an efficient structural performance. I tried to run a topological optimization and starting from the results given I analyzed the structure through Karamba. </p>
<p>I'm not sure if it is a correct process for my purpose so if I could receive any suggestions/corrections of my process it would be very appreciated.</p>
<p>Moreover, if there are any ways to get this kind of process I would be happy to know it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks a lot,</p>
<p>Marinella</p>
<p></p> von Mises stress deviation in shellstag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2018-06-27:2985220:Topic:19167122018-06-27T07:03:48.755ZReesehttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/ReeseGreenlee
<p>For verification purposes in designing a large concrete dome I've compared the von Mises stress between the Karamba Utilization component (multiply the output by the yield stress) and the ShellVecResults component (principle plane stress equation). I believe in both cases the results are calculated from the principle stresses at the element centroid. Is this correct for the Utilization component?</p>
<p></p>
<p>For a simply supported beam shell the results match, but for a parabolic dome the…</p>
<p>For verification purposes in designing a large concrete dome I've compared the von Mises stress between the Karamba Utilization component (multiply the output by the yield stress) and the ShellVecResults component (principle plane stress equation). I believe in both cases the results are calculated from the principle stresses at the element centroid. Is this correct for the Utilization component?</p>
<p></p>
<p>For a simply supported beam shell the results match, but for a parabolic dome the values are significantly different. Using a concrete material did not give clear results so an isotropic material was used (a36 steel) with the linear solver. See attached images for results comparison.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If both results are derived from the principle stresses at the centroid of an element why does the von Mises stress differ between the components in the dome geometry case?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p></p>
<p>- I've checked karamba's solution for the dome principle stresses against the analytical solution and this matches. </p>
<p>- From the many other discussions regarding shell results I understand that the ShellView visualization and ShellVecResults component can deviate due to interpolation of results at the centroid to the element nodes. I'd be interested to know more about how that weighting occurs but this is not the case described above.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655080687?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="550" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655080687?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="550" class="align-full" style="padding: 10px;"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655080939?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="550" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655080939?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="550" class="align-full" style="padding: 10px;"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655081328?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="550" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655081328?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="550" class="align-full" style="padding: 10px;"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655081443?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="550" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2655081443?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="550" class="align-full" style="padding: 10px;"/></a></p> Unused Cross Section - Assemble Model Componenttag:www.grasshopper3d.com,2018-04-30:2985220:Topic:19066192018-04-30T10:25:40.673ZNathan Stuckeyhttps://www.grasshopper3d.com/profile/NathanStuckey
<p>Hi there,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm currently encountering a small issue with the Assemble Model component...<br></br> I have connected two cross section components to the 'CroSec' input node and have flattened it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The 'Elem' input node recieves a data tree in the format:</p>
<p></p>
<p>4640 values inherited from 1 source...</p>
<h4>{0} N=8</h4>
<h4>{1} N=8</h4>
<h4>{2} N=8</h4>
<p>...</p>
<h4>{165} N=4</h4>
<p></p>
<p>If I flatten the 'Elem' input node, all is well…</p>
<p>Hi there,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm currently encountering a small issue with the Assemble Model component...<br/> I have connected two cross section components to the 'CroSec' input node and have flattened it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The 'Elem' input node recieves a data tree in the format:</p>
<p></p>
<p>4640 values inherited from 1 source...</p>
<h4>{0} N=8</h4>
<h4>{1} N=8</h4>
<h4>{2} N=8</h4>
<p>...</p>
<h4>{165} N=4</h4>
<p></p>
<p>If I flatten the 'Elem' input node, all is well <span style="text-decoration: underline;">BUT</span> It is <em><strong>essential</strong></em> that I keep the data structure unflattened for when I subsequently disassemble the model to retrieve line lengths. (I assemble and dissassemble because I need the lengths of all lines remaining <em><strong>after</strong></em> Karamba has removed excessively small elements).</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'd like to give an I profile to my beams and a tubular profile to my columns.</p>
<p>I've checked and double checked that all Beam ID's have indeed been attributed one or the other.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Strangely, if I use only the tubular cross-section for both columns and beams, no problem, the components behave. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Solution should be quite straight-forward...am I perhaps flattening something that I shouldn't?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Would anyone have any tips for me to try out? Any feedback is greatly appreciated!</p>
<p></p>
<p>Nathan</p>
<p></p>
<p>ps: I am uploading the files but it's huge so will take a while! I have attached some screenshots below in the meantime.</p>
<p></p>
<p>UPDATE: Files: <a href="https://we.tl/y3ZzD7lS1x">https://we.tl/y3ZzD7lS1x</a></p>