d 'outletBoundary' components in which the 'temperatures_' represents?
The 2nd ques is more about thinking how to achieve more potentials by BF. I am doing a project that is trying to implement the construction method of 'DOUBLE-GLAZED' facade, which will conduct air flow inside a building and save more energy. Since I also use LB&HB for time-based analyses, so I`m wondering if BF could use time-based-srf-temperature to achieve a more dynamic simulation in a day, let`s say, a hot summer day, 10:00 to 16:00?
And the last what is the definition of these recipes(pic no.2)? what do they mean?
Thanks in advance for the helps!
Best wishes,
Lei…
omponent that increases in the x-axis (example below).
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 etc...B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 etc...C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 etc...D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 etc...
This is as far as I've gotten:
I have collected my points on the grid into a "List Length" component and input that into a "Series" which input into a "Function" with the expression Format("A{0}",x). The result labeling resembles the example below.
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 etc...
Any help is appreciated.
Thank you in advance.…
see, the results indicated in the error for pressure are, well I don't think I know the name for those numbers. But values of XE+118 mean the simulation was diverging. I would recommend you to update BF, if you haven't already, re-run the case and test after.
Also, you can post your mesh settings here. Most other times is mesh quality causing this.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
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.
…