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.…
s and robotic fabrication technologies in constructing them. It features a range of work from well known progressive practices, such as Zaha Hadid Architects, Greg Lynn Form, UN Studio, Contemporary Architectural Practice and Evan Douglis Studio, together with emerging experimental practices, such SPAN, Biothing, Kokkugia, Rubedo and Synthesis, along with some talented emerging Chinese architects, such as Archi-Union Studio and HHD_Fun, and student work from leading schools of architecture, including AA, Harvard GSD, MIT, RMIT, UPenn, Columbia GSAPP, DIA, USC, CAFA and Tongji. The exhibition also includes work from the AAC DigitalFUTURE collaborative workshop between Tongji University and USC. The exhibition is curated by Neil Leach (USC) and Philip Yuan (Tongji), and designed by Kris Mun (USC). It is open weekdays until 15 September. Image: 'Digital Merzbau, designed by SCUT students, Lin Rungu and Zhang Mei, tutored by Neil Leach (USC).''
…
on Air.
Curated by Gil Akos, Evan Greenberg, and Ronnie Parsons, these lectures aim to interrogate three main lines of inquiry--material systems, natural systems, and machanic systems. Each esteemed presenter will discuss how designers can approach problems through the lens of Embedded Intelligence in practice, research, and academia. There will be an in-person audience at the Architectural Association in London and a recording of the series will be available on-demand through the AA's online lecture video catalog.
The first lecture, Biological Intelligence, will take place on February 3 and will feature The Living's David Benjamin. Winner of the MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program, Benjamin has created paradigm-shifting projects such as Living Light, an interactive canopy in Seoul that reacts to air quality, and Amphibious Architecture, a project which expresses pollution levels in the Hudson River.
Future lectures will be given by Michael Winestock of the Architectural Association and Skylar Tibbits of the Self-Assembly Lab at MIT.
…
ing to download your examples but it sends me to the code instead ( I only able to download the rhino files but not the gh) , I just installed the plug in and have been playing with vortex component but not enough control yet, I would like to have water velocity continuity along the river and generate vortex when the field find and obstacle such a pier attach to the river bank.
1.-I am thinking on having 2 lines ( river banks) as input and generator the vector field
2.-Different curves ( polygons) along the river attach to the river bank that create the vortex ( this ones could also be define by the centre of the actual pier as point with certain radius of action.
3.-And finally the z value of the vortex should decrease along the z axis ( surface water vortex bigger,) as tornado
I would like to be able to set points and create or modify the vector field positioning this vortex that its position also should be related with its strength ( as closer to river bank as bigger the force of rotation)
I would appreciate if you can address me to some tutorials related or suggest the workflow
many thanks! …
nually.
Now when I see how short and easy are the codes I want to propose you a wish list of "AA SED programme" so that later students would be able to use your honeybee tool more intensively.
First of all, I want to clarify, what are the pressures when we specify the infiltration. That was still unclear for me as a beginner. Is it m3/m2s at 50Pa or at actual Pascal? If it is at actual Pascal, does that mean we should specify the concext somehow by the input of coefficients or by the actual bRep context or input it from some CFD? What do we do? What do you typically do?
Secondly, I found an idf example which works with material substitution in energy plus example folders. I think this is something what Chris was trying to propose. The code seems short. Can we expect that this feature of material replacement according to the schedule would appear later?
Other passive elements like trombe wall for instance would be appreciated as well.
I see you are now focused more on high/light tech tools, but don't forget about low tech vernacular strategies.
Many thanks again.
…
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.…
ino Mc Neel, autore di "Architettura Parametrica - Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper. I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali. Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni. Argomenti trattati: - Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow - Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici - Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler - Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale. INFO E PRENOTAZIONI: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?p=2888…