Parametrica.Con grasshopper puoi gestire progetti complessi dal punto di vista della forma e dell'organizzazione con un solo strumento , dal design dell'oggetto , allo spazio dell'architetture , all'organizzazione urbanistica.Grasshopper è un software open source , in continuo aggiornamento da parte degli utenti , TRA POCO POTRESTI CONTRIBUIRE ANCHE TU AL SUO SVILUPPO !!!Sabato 11 MAGGIO 2013durata di 6 ore : dalle 10:00 alle 17:00presso : STUDIO REMODESIGN (via dei marsi n° 41)per prenotare chiama il numero : 3498381249oppure manda una mail all'indirizzo : contact@ivoambrosi.itvisita il sito: www.ivoambrosi.it…
hilst settings concern only the currently selected instance.
For instance assume that you are in the Bermuda Shorts business and you want various ideas concerning a new ad campaign:
Or assume that the 4 horsemen want from you to quickly present some concept proposals related with a terminal event that they have in mind:
…
i have to rely completely in passive means.
To speed things i'm calculating comfort for Extreme hot/cold week, thinking maybe on typical weeks instead.
The cool week is kind of "right", but the hot (extreme) is giving all night hours 100% comfort. Knowing the climate, there is no way this can be the case. Some of the settings with the european standards give sometimes the right tendency, but still, compared to ASHRAE's the average of % percentage is too high.
Also my assumptions for flexibility of use/clothing/etc is the maximal. I mean, no constrains on this respect ("let's be passive as much as we can").
So right now i have no specific questions, but rather your advice, if any: "What you would do ...?? (I don't like these kind of questions, sorry).
A request, yes, if it is possible to output the set temperature for each hour. For instance, when you give the degFromTargetMtx i'll like to know this target. This is for control, and i think this is important for better understanding this black box.
Any other insights you may have, just shoot.
Not related to the discussion, but if you happened to check the model, we are simulating 2 apartments in the building. The northern one is only one thermal zone. The southern is divided in rooms. I wanted to see how much difference e get between both ways. And there is. No doubt the more detailed modeling looks more reliable. Also if you have some points here, shoot again.
BTW humidity, look at page 32-33 in the AC book. Nicol is clear on the "real" influence of the humidity, arguing it is mostly psychological than real.
Thanks again, and to you too Mauricio.
-A.…
till quite rough.
I went through your attached log but it seems to be a successful run, perhaps the error log wasn't attached. In any case, I believe we have identified this issue. The goal of the update fvSchemes component was to apply schemes to finalized meshes in an automatic way. While this is useful for new users it is also a dangerous thing to do in CFD studies.
The component works by relating mesh quality to the mesh non-orthogonality, which the checkMesh component reports. While non-orthogonality is one of the important criteria of mesh quality it does present difficulties on some kind of meshes, especially like the simple cases that BF has been meshing so far.
The example case of simple box buildings in a wind tunnel above for instance will appear as a good quality case for even the lowest of cell-count meshes, simply because it is an orthogonal geometry. That means that checkMesh will probably report low values (imagine an empty blockMesh of 10m blocks has a non-orthogonality of 0) which in turn means that higher order schemes might be paired with actually low quality meshes. This I believe is causing problems.
I posted a possible solution to this here https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Butterfly/issues/57. The idea is that Buttefly provides additional options to the users, enabling them to choose between first-order (faster, more robust, but lower quality schemes) and second-order (slower, less robust, but more accurate) schemes depending on mesh quality, stage of assessment, etc. In cases like the above mesh quality a first-order scheme might provide a better option. To test this I am attaching an fvSchemes file you can use by replacing yours in the /system folder of the case.
As a note however, I would like to stress there is so much that a tool like Butterfly can provide in this area. Meshing is a quite complicated and demanding part of the process, involving a lot of trial and error. Sometimes the problem is just the mesh and not the solution options (GIGO stands true in CFD as well). It does however get easier with experience. The safe advice is the simplest one: when changing solution options doesn't help, refine mesh and run again.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
Refinement component at first, possibly using MeshMachine instead which is slow but actually gives many fewer triangles and adaptive meshing for tight curves too. Neither are easy to adjust on a deadline!
Then you have to sneak up on workable settings, using only a few lines, or Grasshopper will freeze perhaps indefinitely for 200 lines with extreme settings, especially the CS (Cube Size) setting that can blow up into a huge number if your scale is big.
Cocoon gives lots of nearly flat split quad faces so I quadrangulated those for fun:
Or MeshMachine can refine the mesh to make it efficient:
Whereas the Cocoon Refine component will merely return an equally fine mesh with more equilateral triangles but no serious remeshing to rid so many tiny triangles where they are not needed? Actually, it does seem to remesh also:
David said he used some of Daniel's MeshMachine code in there.…
ra' nella finestra di Grasshopper, in alto, insieme agli altri set di componenti come 'Params', 'Maths', ecc.
Si tratta di un esperimento per cercare di ampliare in qualche modo l'ambito di utilizzo di Grasshopper.
Come sappiamo Grasshopper e' nato per consentire l'utilizzo parametrico di Rhino. Le definizioni di Grasshopper permettono di registrare i passi necessari per costruire gli oggetti, nonche' di variare i dati utilizzati dalla definizione, ad esempio oggetti geometrici, lunghezze, angoli, ecc.
Quando modifichiamo i valori utilizzati dalla definizione Grasshopper automaticamente ricalcola il tutto e ci mostra la preview del risultato.
A questo punto, se il risultato e' soddisfacente, possiamo dire a Grasshopper di inserire gli oggetti in questione nel documento di Rhino, cosicche' li vedremo apparire nelle viste come veri e proprii oggetti Rhino.
Questo modo di lavorare ha avuto un grande successo tra gli utilizzatoti di Rhino, rendendo molto piu' agevole la costruzione di oggetti nel caso in cui sia necessario procedere per tentativi, verificando il risultato prima di stabilire la forma finale da ottenere.
Il successo di Grasshopper pero' ha anche mostrato quanto sia comodo poter definire graficamente le procedure di costruzione, e in generale poter utilizzare Rhino tramite i componenti, ad esempio gli slider, che tutti noi, suppongo, vorremmo avere a disposizione anche quando usiamo Rhino nel modo classico tramite pulsanti e comandi.
Quindi col passare del tempo sono apparsi sempre piu' Add-on per Grasshopper che permettono di eseguire operazioni particolari o anche di utilizzare Grasshopper in ambiti diversi dal concetto originale di 'History programmabile'. Accodandosi a questa tendenza, edoc prova a costruire dei componenti che permettano di operare direttamente sugli oggetti Rhino, cioe' curve, superfici, layer ecc. appartenenti al documento Rhino su cui stiamo lavorando. L'idea e' permettere di utilizzare la comoda interfaccia utente di Grasshopper anche per operazioni che solitamente sono eseguite in modo tradizionale con pulsanti e comandi, o anche tramite script.
Come gia' detto, e' un esperimento. I componenti nascono, muoioni e cambiano molto spesso, nel tentativo di capire cosa puo' essere utile e cosa puo' fuzionare o meno.
Segnalazioni di bug, suggerimenti, considerazioni ecc. sono benvenuti.
se qualche anima pia volesse tradurre questa presentazione gli faremo un monumento equestre!
grazie e scusate
gg
…
Introduction to Grasshopper Videos by David Rutten.
Wondering how to get started with Grasshopper? Look no further. Spend an some time with the creator of Grasshopper, David Rutten, to learn the
nza dal centro delle facce ad un punto fisso per determinare quant'è il valore dell'offset per quella faccia.
Prova questa soluzione per ora:
- abilita il componente disattivato all'inizio;
- il componente curve offset non funziona bene, domani vedo se riesco a crearne uno migliore;
- inforna (bake) la brep risultante e convertila in mesh da rhino;
- per dargli spessore, fai l'offset solido della mesh in rhino per l'ultima fase, funziona meglio.
I've used the distance from the center of the faces to a fixed point to determine the value of the offset.
Try like this:
- enable the first component disabled;
- offset curve don't work perfectly, I'll try to fix it maybe...
- bake the brep and convert it into mesh in rhino;
- for the thickness, do a solid offset of the mesh in rhino for last phase, it just works better.…
n account of the position of the sun and weather cannot be expressed in terms of a single set of luminous intensity values (which is what IES files do).
With regards to your example files, I agree with Chris. The primary reason for the low illuminance levels is that the light bounces are getting lost in the tube. Have you checked with the manufacturer/distributor if the location of the IES file should be inside the tube and not flush with the ceiling? Physically modelling such tubes in lighting software like Radiance (which is what HB uses) or AGI32 is a fairly expensive proposition. This is one of the reasons why manufacturers provide photometric data for such devices (however simplistic that data might be).
The candelamultiplier increases or decreases the luminous intensity values. So it will have a direct impact on the calculation. The primary reason for having that input was to enable users to do some testing with different lamp types and environmental factors such as dirt depreciation. You need not change them for your simulation. Assuming that the IES file is inside the tube, in order to make this calculation work inside HB you'd have to crank up the calculation settings to a very high level (start with -ab 10 -ad 4096).
Finally, due to shortcomings in the annual simulation software (Daysim), IES files will not work directly work with annual calculations. However, there is a fairly easy workaround for that issue. In case you are planning to run annual calculations with IES files, please let us know here.
Sarith…