ly one (Cost of the structural material in my case) and penalize the individuals that not satisfy the structural verification by multipliyng the cost for that iteration for a factor 10. This seem to work really good, infact I obtained a convergence of the results in a specific area and number of beams.
Now, I've to modify something because the thickness of the insole, tend to minimum of the range (only because it's the most expensive material in my case), despite the validation of structural verification that is satisfied with the maximum height of the beams.
I'm expecting a insole thickness about 20-30 cm and beams height less that the maximum. I increase the range of the thickness insole to a minimum of 20 cm, but I hope the solution tend to a larger value.
Do you have some suggestion in this case?
Your post was really helpful, thank you so much again for the perfect explanation!
Leonardo…
aph relaxation in 3D and more). There is much more already in our GitHub repos and more to be added. For getting an idea of our future direction check this lecture out. For getting a better understanding of graphs and graph theory watch this lecture and this lecture on a gamified spatial configuration process. Stay tuned for more and do not hesitate to post Python questions in the meantime.
ps. If you are having installation problems, please check the remedy suggested below:
Comment by Iman Sheikhansari on August 26, 2019 at 8:33amDelete Comment
HiIf you are encountering a problem with rhino 6 versions don't worryFollow these steps.1. Download SYNTACTIC from https://sites.google.com/site/pirouznourian/syntactic-design2. Install it and go to the installation folder, Drag & drop SYNTACTIC(green one) over your grasshopper canvas.3. Close your rhino and reopen it. 4. Type GrasshopperDeveloperSettings5. Tick the Memory load *.GHA assemblies using COFF byte arrays option6. Run grasshopper and enjoy plugin
…
ssibili e facili da usare. Il corso parte dalle basi della programmazione di arduino fino ad arrivare all’interazione tra un oggetto fisico ed un imput informativo. tutor: Gianpiero Picerno Ceraso
Programma: I giorno Introduzione al Phisical Computing, input digitali e analogici, le basi del linguaggio di programmazione, esempi applicativi; led, pulsanti, fotorestistenze, servo motore, sensore di temperatura, di flessione, sensori di movimento, potenziometri.
II giorno Arduino ethernet, uso di un relè per carichi elevati, accelerometro, introduzione a Processing, interazione di Arduino e Processing, Introduzione a Grassoppher e Firefly e interazione con Arduino.
orario corso: 10:00 – 13:00 e 14:00 – 17:00 (pausa pranzo 13:00 – 14:00) costo: 150€ + IVA deadline: 13 marzo numero minimo di partecipanti: 3
Per iscrizioni scrivi a info@medaarch.com specificando nome, cognome, mail, recapito telefonico e il nome del corso al quali sei interessato. In seguito all’invio del modulo di pre-iscrizione, i partecipanti riceveranno una mail contenente tutte le specifiche di pagamento.
Per seguire il cluster su Arduino è necessario installare il software Arduino 1.0.5 al seguente linkhttp://arduino.cc/en/Main/Software#.Ux3hQj95MYE facendo attenzione a scaricare quello relativo al proprio sistema operativo, Windows 32 o 64 e Mac OS.
Software necessari solo per una parte del corso: Processing 2.1.1 https://processing.org/download/?processing
Rhino 5 http://www.rhino3d.com/it/download Grasshopper for Rhino5http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/download-1Firefly http://fireflyexperiments.com/
Il cluster rientra in un fitto calendario di attività formative organizzate dalla Medaarch per lanno 2013-2014.…
Series“, è il corso più seguito in Italia sulla modellazione parametrica, giunto al nono anno consecutivo di attivazione. Plug it fornirà ai partecipanti un’effettiva padronanza delle più avanzate tecniche di modellazione digitale, approfondendo le metodologie della modellazione algoritmica e parametrica nel campo dell’architettura e del design del prodotto. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti dei settori della progettazione architettonica, design, moda e gioielleria, con esperienza minima nel disegno CAD bidimensionale (acquisita su qualsiasi piattaforma software) e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche frontali ed esercitazioni guidate.
_
FORM FINDING STRATEGIES | Livello Intermedio | Analisi ambientale ed ottimizzazione della forma
Form Finding Strategies è il secondo step del percorso formativo in tre fasi “AAD Workshop Series“. Il workshop intende esplorare le possibilità di generazione di forme efficienti in relazione ad influenze esterne ed alle caratteristiche intrinseche della materia stessa. Analisi ambientale (input solari, termici ed acustici) ed analisi/ottimizzazione strutturale FEM saranno le principali metodologie utilizzate per raggiungere gli obiettivi di ricerca della forma. Saranno introdotti numerosi plug-ins tra cui: Weaverbird, Kangaroo, Geco/Ecotect, Ladybug, Millipede. Il corso si rivolge a studenti e professionisti con conoscenza base di Rhino e Grasshopper.
_
PERSPECTIVES | Livello Avanzato | Python coding e modellazione algoritmica avanzata
Il nuovo corso Perspectives proposto per la prima volta nel 2019 (ed ultimo step del percorso formativo in tre fasi “AAD Workshop Series) introdurrà gli studenti alla programmazione Python ed alla sua integrazione con Grasshopper. Verranno inoltre esplorate tecniche avanzate di generazione formale basate su iterazioni. Tra i principali plugins utilizzati: GhPython, Anemone, Hoopsnake, Plankton, MeshMachine, Pufferfish. Pensato come workshop innovativo sulle prospettive e sfide future del design computazionale, è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza in modellazione algoritmica con Grasshopper.
INFO ED ISCRIZIONI
…
use I don't agree with the practice of using site EUI as a metric to evaluate the thermodynamic performance, environmental impact, or monetary value of a building. I disagree with this practice for the same reason that there are no "totalThermalLoad" and "thermalLoadBalance" for simulations run with full HVAC. I can summarize these reasons in the following way:
When we run a simulation with ideal air loads, the heating/cooling values we get are THERMAL ENERGY that is directly added to or removed from the zone. In this way, we can draw a rough parallel between these two types of energy since they are are generally of a similar type and quality. As such, I am ok with adding them together to get total thermal load or subtracting them to get a sense of thermal load balance.
However, when we run a simulation will full HVAC, the heating/cooling values that we get are usually HEATING FUEL ENERGY and ELECTRICITY respectively. Fuel energy and electricity are fundamentally two different types and qualities of energy. To cite the second law of thermodynamics, the exergy (or the capacity to do work) of electricity is much greater than that of fuel. This is evident in the fact that, to produce a given unit of electricity, I often have to burn at least 3 units of fuel energy (though this can be much more for inefficient plants). With each step in a power plant - making steam, turning a turbine, turning a generator - there are significant energy losses. This difference in exergy is also evident in the fact that there are so many more things that I can do directly with a unit of electricity than I can do with the same unit of fuel energy. I can use electricity to directly refrigerate, produce light energy or power a motor just as easily as I can use to to cook, produce hot water, or heat a space. While I can cook, make hot water, or heat a space directly with fuel energy, refrigeration and lighting are much more difficult. For this reason, I do not feel comfortable adding electricity and fuel together either in the totalThermalLoad output or in a site EUI metric.
Still, the use of site EUI has become so ingrained in the industry that I have to acknowledge it and at least show users how it's calculated. In my view, it's an ad-hoc metric that was invented to deal with previously limited amount of information on energy sources.
Instead of using site EUI, I would recommend using the following metrics depending on what you are trying to evaluate:
Utility Cost / Square Meter - to measure the monetary value of a building to an owner or user
Kg CO2 / Square Meter - to measure the environmental and climatic impact of a building
Emergy / Square Meter - to measure the overall thermodynamic performance of a building
The first two are actually fairly easy to calculate these days just by researching your site's utility rates or grid energy mixture and multiplying the building electricity or fuel by their respective rates. I will add in some capabilities to Honeybee soon to make it even easier for you to get these values from your EPW file and databases of utility rates/grid mixture. Emergy is much harder to calculate as you have to trace all your energy sources all of the way back to the sun but there are a number of experts at work to make this calculation possible (probably in the next few years, we may have much easier ways to calculate it).
Hope this helps explain the current setup.
-Chris…
eventually found out about genetic algorithms on which I found extensive researches, projects,... ! I looked into it and ended up on a few papers which I believe are the jumpstart for my master thesis.
"Galapagos; on the logic and limitations of generic solvers" by David RuttenArticle in Architectural Design 83(2) March 2013
"Black-box optimisation methods for architectural design" by Thomas Wortmann and Giacomo NanniciniConference Paper: CAADRIA 2016, At Melbourne, AU, Volume: 177-186
So I started looking into alternatives to genetic algorithms in architectural design.So far, I've ended up on :
Thomas Wortmann's work with the surrogate(or model) based optimization approach!You can check out the tool he developped for GH (Opossum):http://www.food4rhino.com/app/opossum-optimization-solver-surrogate-models
Judyta Cichocka's work, specially with the Swarm approachYou can check out the tool she developped for GH (Silvereye):http://www.food4rhino.com/app/silvereye-pso-based-solver
And that's it !!! I've been researching through article references (mainly on "researchgate") but I'm now stuck in a loop of references I already visited!That probably means the litterature on the subject is not (yet) extended but I might probably be missing something.The keywords make it difficult to search : "optimisation", "algorithms", "architecture", send me most of the time to computational engineering and deep mathematics papers I unfortunately do not have the background knowledge to comprehend ! So there it is ! If you have any clue of where (or how ! ) I should be looking, please tell me :)I know Mr Rutten is pretty active on the forum so hopefully... (fingers crossed :p) !Also if you have any good tips for getting into algorithms in general (you think could help), I'd be glad to hear(read) it ! A book, tutorials maybe ?!So, autors, architects, projects books, articles, conferences I should go to,specialized architecture offices/studios (I'm also looking for an internship so ...).If you know about a more appropriate forum please let me know !If you want to get deeper into this, you can contact me at :
e1635331@student.tuwien.ac.at
tdissaux@student.ulg.ac.be
My master thesis is due for may 2018 but I have a paper to write for January 2018 in order to be elligible for a PHD program afterwards.What I mean by that is that if you read this message in 6 month, I'll still be open to discussion !
I am right now an erasmus student at TUWien (Vienna) but my main university is The university of Liège in Belgium.I can handle French, English, Italian litterature and eventually Dutch if really you think it's worth it ! I have access to most online libraries via my university's portals so access shouldn't be an issue !I'm very excited to hear from you I wish you all a great day,Cheers,Thomas
…
gap as for a 20 meter gap, it's not a good argument.
I fully concede that not every single thing may be backed up by logic. There are simply too many design decisions to make and not enough time to make them rigorously. And I do believe there is place for human intuition and art in architecture, but I also think that artistic (or intuitive, or emotional) considerations should clearly be labelled as such.
When Le Corbusier designed the urban layout of the city of Chandigarh he used his intuition to distribute the buildings and clusters. His intuition however was grounded in European climes and it failed him in India. On hot days it becomes almost impossible to walk the distance between them. Would Chandigarh have been a better place if the maximum distance was defined by the largest walkable distance on the hottest day of the year instead of the unjustifiable intuition of the designer? I suspect it would.
Furthermore, I believe that architects - student and professionals alike - regularly make formal decisions according to their aesthetic judgement. To suggest that students aren't qualified to make a design decision during their studies because they think it's formally successful seems exceedingly stingy;
There are plenty of rational decisions which are made by tacit processes. People can become very good at mimicking rational behaviour using intuition. And -as I said- if you are an architect with a distinguished career; if you've already proven yourself to be capable of good design then there comes a point where your intuitions can be trusted (to an extend).
But students whose every design has always been virtual, who have not been able to evaluate their decisions by a follow-up study, I don't see how anybody can trust their instincts. Instincts aren't just sitting in someone's brain, they are cultivated by relentless exercise and trial-and-error. Until you actually build something there is no error, only trial, and virtual trial at that.
I find architects' attempts to justify what are obviously decisions based on formal taste using other means often taking the same form of obfuscation that makes architects appear to be intellectual charlatans to specialists in other fields.
I fully agree here. If there are non-communicable aspects to a design, just say that. There's no shame in it as long as you're honest about it and have considered -however briefly- the consequences in case you're wrong.
I'm by no means advocating that all architects must master every detail in their work. Rather, that architects have at least a generalist's working knowledge of materials and construction systems. Floors don't levitate, and windows require depth; rules of thumb count as vital knowledge.
I think we're on the same page here. If you want to make a physical building, then there's more to it than pure design. Engineering comes into play. I don't mean to imply that engineering doesn't require creativity or even artistic intellect, but it is a different kind of problem-solving.
I fully agree with your fourth point. I just wasn't sure what performance-driven meant.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:19pm on August 14, 2013
si à faire le tri avec Grasshopper et l'outil Points in Brep, comme je pensais. Je suis passé d'environ 400 000 points à uniquement 20 000 points autour de mes 3 rails. C'est très efficace (mais un peu dangereux avec tous ces points).
J'ai interdit au composant CircleFit de faire un cercle, s'il n'y a pas au moins 5 points présents sur la section. Car lorsqu'il y a seulement 3 ou 4 points, il suffit qu'il y en ait un pour que le cercle soit faux, alors qu'au delà, le cercle a plus de chance d'être "bon".
J'ai également créé des "Pipe" (créés à partir de portions de l'axe) au lieu des "Box » de sélection des points pour éviter de sélection trop de points que ne serait pas des points du rail.
J'ai ensuite créé des « panel » pour la moyenne des distances en X et en Y et la moyenne des distances centre à centre.
Tout cela fonctionne bien avec un axe et un tuyau. Mais maintenant j'essaie d'appliquer ça à plusieurs rails en même temps. Je crois avoir compris qu'il faut créer des « path » dans l'imput manager, et faire correspondre le « path » de l'axe et celui du Tuyau.
Dans mon exemple j’ai mis 3 courbes et 21 sections. Au moment où j'utilise les boîtes pour créer les portions des axes, il crée 63 « sous-path » de 1 courbe alors qu'il faudrait qu'il crée 3 "paths" de 21 courbes, enfin si j'ai bien compris.
Car une fois qu’il a créé les points à l’intérieur des « Pipe », il doit les projeter sur les plans correspondant. Et c’est là que le problème se voit. Il ne fait pas correspondre les points à projeter et les plans.
Je vous envoie la version à une courbe et un tuyau (c’est la v5 avec un fichier rhino ou la courbe d'axe est "bakée" pour pouvoir faire un zoom sur la zone plus rapidement) et je vous envoie également, celle avec 3 courbes et 3 tuyaux. Sachant qu’il faudra également attribuer un rayon pour un des tuyaux et un autre rayon pour les deux autres.
Tout ça est bien compliqué, j’espère que je ne vous embête pas trop.
Merci d’avance.…
onsider:
Identify the aspect of calculations that consumes the most amount of time and resources: Based on what I have understood till now about the parametric workflow within the Grasshopper environment I don’t think it is Rhino/Grasshopper that consumes the maximum amount of time/resources (unless you are handling complex geometry and using native rendering). So, if you could identify the part of your iterations that consumes the maximum amount of resources we can look into parallelizing/optimizing that. It could be something like (RhinoModelling-15%, E+-40%,Radiance-45%)… If there is no way to keep track of that right now in Grasshopper, let me know, I might be able to write a custom script that records the timestamp for each part of the calculation.
Parallelizing Grasshopper: I have no idea of how to do this so I think the best resource/forum would the Grasshopper/Honeybee discussion board. I think at the very least, to make Grasshopper run on remote computers, you’d have to install Rhino/Grasshopper on those computers as well.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance: Based on what I understand from reading Mostapha’s source code and also talking to him on this issue, Honeybee typically creates batch files ie radiance or e+ instructions which are then used to run EnergyPlus and Radiance. Radiance runs can be parallelized to a great extent, however, owing to the modular nature of how calculations are setup for grid point calculations , image rendering and some of the new matrix based calculations, there is no single answer to parallelizing Radiance calculations. One can look into optimizing a certain type of calculation and then code instructions for implementing those. E+, which I have only been using for the past month or so, doesn’t seem to have a native way of setting up parallel runs. One can, however, set up multiple separate runs of E+ and direct them to separate processors. I think there was some discussion E+ in the Honeybee forum so you might get a better answer from there on this issue.
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations: One way of implementing the kind of parallelizing that you are referring to, ie. utilizing unused desktops is to cluster computers. Penn State has a dedicated, text-only, Linux-based cluster system which I have been tinkering with for the past year or so. A single node of this cluster has 60 parallel cores and close to 300GB or RAM. Each node, in turn, was created by linking a bunch of computers together. Implementing such a cluster would require an active participation from IT systems admins in your firm. Another option is to use Accelerad for Radiance which parallelizes Radiance . Radiance doesn’t have a limitation regarding the number of cores you could use. I think the 8 processors that you mentioned is more a function of the currently available desktop computer configurations than Radiance’s ability to handle more processors(i7 for example, has 8 processors). In the past, I have run parallel renderings with up to 20 processors. Radiance code is optimized to run on Linux systems so the performance on Windows systems is likely to be somewhat slower.
Finally, unless there is a pre-existing platform to handle such parallel processing, some scripting effort would be required to direct calculation files outwards into different systems/processors and then fetch and consolidate results from those calculations into a single location and then visualize those results on an interface like Mostapha’s Design Explorer.
Sarith…