he potential of BF to assess such cases. In your search, try and be specific on what you want, cause validation can focus on codes (i.e software environments like OF and Fluent), solvers (e.g. RNG vs kEpsilon vs kOmega, etc.), meshers, and so many more. Additionally, I'm sure there's a lot of CFD studies of Atrium spaces.
Myself, I haven't been involved in any validation studies as I have always used CFD on the practical side of things. Therefore, I always trusted OF since it has been heavily validated over the years.
The beauty of BF, or at least its end goal, is that you can easily test design alternatives directly from a friendlier and possibly better-known environment of Rhino3D.
I would suggest therefore to just try things out. Design your geometry, in this case the atrium, in Rhino. Decide which are the parameters that you wish to investigate and incorporate those to a GH definition that produces different design alternatives for the range of those parameters (i.e. your parametric model). Then run the cases through BF. There's a couple of examples that come with BF and a few others users are providing either here or on github.
I'm afraid trial and error is painful with CFD but it's the best way forward. Also, I suggest you bookmark cfd-online.com and skim through everything in there. Most if not all of what we are discussing has been discussed there.
Good luck!
Kind regards,
Theodore.
…
angles in radians, so you want to convert 90 degrees to radians (the opposite). To do that use Rad(A).
(If you are so mixed up, why don't you try both functions by trial and error and see what happens?)
When using the ° symbol, you have to write some number or variable preceding it. So in your case you want to write A°.…
Added by Vicente Soler at 8:39am on November 22, 2009
ways between 0 and 2.
What you see on Waldram graph is a curve label not an ordinate !
I did multiply by 45 but it was just to fit an Image I put on a Rhino file. …