nd linear/planar tectonics. Within this new field of investigation, the Stuttgart VS will be researching into novel techniques of material mixtures and grading, associative design and double curvature surface generation.
For the second cycle of this exploration we will be based at the Institute for Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK) at the University of Stuttgart. Drawing from the Institute’s long history of experimentation and research on tensile structures instigated by Frei Otto in the 1960s and conducted at present by Werner Sobek, this year we will be focusing on the design and fabrication of materially graded membranes, as well as the application of UHPC and FGC on fabric formworks. The workflow followed will be divided into two stages:
1. Computing Membranes: Computational form finding methods will be taught by professional engineers and architects from ILEK and str.ucture GmbH. The aim will be to utilise the latest software technologies to form find membranes for textile structures, or fabric formworks for complex concrete structures. The results will be evaluated against criteria such as internal air pressure, as well as asymmetric and wind loading. The outcome of this research will inform the material grading procedures (i.e. changing the stiffness, thickness or porosity of the membranes themselves, or the consistency of the concrete poured into the formworks) that will follow in stage two.
2. Fabricated Grading: The digitally computed membranes or formworks will eventually be fabricated physically, utilising the workshop and robotic fabrication facilities at ILEK. The objective will be to rethink conventional research on tensile and concrete structures as isotropic constructs, by customising attributes such as materiality, reinforcement, rigidity, translucency, patterning, and porosity among others. The final, graded prototypes will be made up of mixtures of materials, all accurately engineered to respond to variable environmental, structural and aesthetic criteria, in essence forming multi-material structures that have finally caught up with the latest material developments.
Prominent Features of the workshop/ skills developed:
Teaching team consisting of AA diploma tutors and ILEK and str.ucture GmbH engineers.
Access to the Institute of Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK), the Materials Testing Institute and Concrete Spraying Robotic facilities at the University of Stuttgart, as well as to the office of str.ucture GmbH Structural Design Engineering.
Computational skills tuition on Grasshopper, Rhino Membrane, and Karamba.
Lectures series by leading academics and practitioners in architecture and engineering.
Fabrication of functionally graded membrane and/or concrete structures.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Rhino (SR7 or later) and Grasshopper.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a student fee of £595 and a young professional fee of £895 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee.
The deadline for applications is 10 July 2017.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/stuttgart?name=stuttgart
For inquiries, please contact:
mixedmatters@aaschool.ac.uk…
se enseñan los principios de modelado básico y orgánico en Rhinoceros. En Grasshopper se estudian los principios de Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $5,000.00
Pagos diferidos $5,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
De lunes a viernes de 10 am a 18 pm
Del 23 al 27 de julio de 2012
DURACION: 40 HORAS
SESIONES: 5 DE 8 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
Incluye material para corte digital.…
ky.exe did not accept -p parameter and made empty sky.cal file.
----
Edit: solved run problem, Bee did not download OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf
Get it here: https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/issues/119
Now get empty HDR:
C:\ladybug\prox\imageBasedSimulation>rpict -i -t 10 -vtv -vp 245.129 -226.458 20 0.405 -vd -0.549 0.656 -0.518 -vu -0.332 0.397 0.855 -vh 42.862 -vv 26.991 -v l 0 -vs 0 -vl 0 -x 800 -y 600 -af prox_RAD_Perspective.amb -ps 8 -pt 0.15 -pj 0.6 -dj 0 -ds 0.5 -dt 0.5 -dc 0.25 -dr 0 -dp 64 -st 0.85 -ab 2 -ad 1024 -as 175 -ar 150 -aa 0.200 -lr 4 -lw 0.050 -av 0 0 0 prox_RAD.oct 1>prox_RAD_Perspectiv e.unf rpict: 0 rays, 0.00% after 0.0000 hours rpict: skybright`c__ladybug_skylib_cumulativeSkies_SINGAPORE_SGP_SINGAPORE_SGP_1 : undefined variable rpict: 1020 rays, 4.91% after 0.0000 hours
----
Hi friends,
trying to get a cumulative sky image metric to run and encountered an issue with the image-based metrics component. It throws:
Runtime error (KeyNotFoundException): honeybee_materialLib Traceback: line 768, in main, "<string>" line 1442, in script
I guess this is some sort of setup issue on my end, or I messed up the definition? Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
Max
…
Grasshopper. So, I once made an attempt to bind ms sqlServer in order to get frozen definitions at some states, to avoid managing baked objects in Rhino and also be able to retain whole results without using the GH state manager that rebuilds everything.
But at that time GH's VB.Net component didn't properly read referenced dlls and I forgot it since then.
At first, I was surprised by Slingshot's extensive interface : I was still having in mind my own old project, a tool that would have acted at the Rhino's geometry object level, and auto creating the needed tables.
The bd would have consisted of a main table, owning the objects ID and name, and related tables containing the necessary information relative to the main objects.
For example, a Brep is made of so and so underlying objects, passed to respective tables, according to GH objects definition layout (just the way they are written in the xml schema).
Then, on a db, query an object by name, and retrieve the whole object or underlying objects (e.g. at the bounding curves level, or points level for a Brep).
With Slingshot, I made a few attempts to cheat GH with BLOB data fields, but no way to get a whole object. It seems that GH simply provides an object.toString ... and GH is definitely not conceived to produce persistence outside of Rhino. If I have some spare time, I will try to extract
About points and colors, I am now simply using a single field with CHAR(asLargeAsNeeded...), as GH parses String to every Point (or Vector or Color) entry of any component.
I do so because it need less to display on the canvas...
Whatever I wrote before, I really like your conception, as opened to relational interactions between ...whatever you need or dream of !
One last thing : GH can't open the definition file "Genome_DB_Template.gh" that I've downloaded from your site : http://slingshot-dev.wikidot.com/database-genome. I was expecting to learn a lot from your very smart stuff ! (I am running GH 08.00.13 and Slingshot 0.7.2.0)
Slingshot is running great, opened to any use...Thanks again.
Best,
Stan
…
ysim.ning.com/
When you run the simualtion you will notice on the batch terminal that Daysim is also being called, so you may want to consider how Daysim uses Radiance files & data.
Regarding your current problem, I think you stumbled onto something weird and interesting.
Interior and exterior readings appear to differ by 40 in the best case scenarios. Even setting the transmittance to 1 yields similar results. I tried changing from cummulative sky to climate sky and got similar values. Changing the test points did nothing either.
I think, (yet I'm too lazy to prove this) that the difference in values stems from diffuse radiation over the sky dome.
If you delete everything except the glass you'll notice that interior values are like 80-90% of the exterior values (this seems like the expected behaviour with a transmittance of 1). So, if we consider that a vertical window, part of an opaque box, is receiving radiation from 25% of a sphere, as you start to inset the interior test points the radiation they receive will be a fraction of the 25%.
Let me try to explain this better...The exterior surface receives radiation from a section of a sphere calculated by 180degrees on the xy plane (let’s call this angle theta) and by 90degrees (let’s call this angle phi) in azimuthal elevation. If you integrate this over spherical coordinates (theta from 0 to pi; phi from 0 to pi/2) you will find that it comes to a quarter of a sphere. By comparison, the interior surface will not integrate theta from 0 to 180degrees,nor phi from 0 to 90degrees, instead it will be the subtended angle from the exterior surface as a function of their separation; the farther in you go the smaller the view of the outside.
If my hypothesis is correct there shouldn't be that much difference since the separation is only 10cms...the subtended angle would be like 170 instead of 180 for theta and 85 instead of 90 for phi...overall if you integrate both spherical areas there should only by a difference of 10%.
In conclusion, I believe the unexpected behaviour stems from the previous subtended angle thing. If direct radiation was the only factor the difference would be the aforementioned 10%, which suggests that an additional source of energy is also affected by this. Perhaps indirect and diffuse radiation from other areas of the sky dome.
I’m definitely intrigued on why this is happening. Please post if you figure it out.
Regards,
Mauricio
…
rld.wolfram.com/EnnepersMinimalSurface.html
when i type the equations for z,y,z it says a syntax error so i obviously do not understand how to construct an expression. (screen capture attached)
Any help/explanation of using this function would be greatly appreciated
thanks so much
Capture.JPG…
r "virtual partitions" as follows:
What I mean "air walls" here, is derived from the description of the E+ documentation with the header of "Air wall, Open air connection between zones". (Page 17, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/tips_and_tricks_using_energyplus.pdf)
As I understand, the term "air wall" used in E+ here refers to a description of something like "boundary condition" between adjacent interzone heat transfer surfaces, but not a kind of "construction or material" (like air space resistance or air gaps within a wall/double glazing window).
The main purpose of introducing the "air wall", is to simulate or approximate the airflow/convection/natural ventilation effect between multiple thermal zones which are connected by a large opening.
In my previous tests, using HBzones and GB, I managed to create the gbXML file which can be successfully imported to DB (without assigning any constructions within HB). And the adjacency condition can be recognized automatically by DB, even when I did not use the "Solve adjacencies" component in HB - shared surfaces between multiple thermal zones are recognized automatically by BD as "internal - partition"(which are standard partitions, but not virtual partitions).
In order to create/approximate "virtual partition", I need to manually draw a "hole" in the standard partition surface (fig.1&2). Again, the reason why we want to use "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") is that it allows airflow between multiple thermal zones which are connected by large openings and we could get different temperature of the each subdivided thermal zone which compose a large thermal zone.
My question is, if there is a possible way to simulate/approximate this kind of "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") in HBzones or in GB? If so, I would like to test if DB recognizes it or not. Actually, we expect that there is no need to involve any manual operations (like drawing a "hole" in the standard partition surface) in DB, due to an automatic optimization loop.
Thank you!
Best,
Ding
fig.1
fig.2
…
ting at multiple geometries in the same location. I simply sorted the list of values and used the Delete Consecutive component. This potentially rearranges the order of values but I don't think that matters in your case. I also threw in an Int component which actually seems to make a difference (try sidestepping it and you will see!).
2-I flattened the output of the mesh component before sending it to union. This ensures that the original mesh is booleaned once with all the components rather than individually with each of the 86 components.
Is this what the result should look like?
One suggestion for future postings: when referencing geometry in rhino, it often helps if you attach your rhino file as well so people don't have to guess where you are starting from.
If you have further questions, just ask ;-)
cbass…