ow the steps of the successful run when step 1.2 is bypassed (note that the and OpenFOAM session is open in the background while running the Butterfly demo file):
1. create wind tunnel, and use different parameters of (4,4) for _globalRefLevel_ as suggested by Theodoro in this post
2. run blockMesh:
3. run snappyHexMesh:
4. run checkMesh:
5. connect the case from checkMesh to simpleFOAM and run the simulation:
6. the simulation converged at 1865 iteration, but the results visualization part has some problem:
7. so I revised this part according to suggestions from Hagit:
8. and the results can be visualized for P and U values:
The GH file used for the successful run shown above is attached here.
Now, the following is the error I got when the case from the update fvScheme component is used for simpleFOAM simulation:
the warning message on the simpleFOAM component is:
1. Solution exception: --> OpenFOAM command Failed!#0 Foam::error::printStack(Foam::Ostream&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #1 Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #2 ? in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #3 double Foam::sumProd<double>(Foam::UList<double> const&, Foam::UList<double> const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #4 Foam::PCG::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #5 Foam::GAMGSolver::solveCoarsestLevel(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #6 Foam::GAMGSolver::Vcycle(Foam::PtrList<Foam::lduMatrix::smoother> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #7 Foam::GAMGSolver::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #8 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solveSegregated(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libfiniteVolume.so" #9 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #10 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve() in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #11 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #12 __libc_start_main in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #13 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam"
The error message from the readMe! output node is attached below as a text file.
Hope you can kindly advise what the important steps or parameters I might have missed here. I assume it might be related to OpenFOAM rather than with the Butterfly workflow...
Thank you very much!
- Ji
…
le I´m running into now.
I´m trying to make a patern for a screen printed window. The window measures 4,5 x 1,2 meter and had a cirle every 0.5cm, that is 216.000 different circles, generated in GH by Image Sampler.
If I save the rhino file its about 289Mb, which seems a bit large to me, since it only contains those 216.000 circles, and no other geometry. I tried rebuilding but the individual circles are already the most efficient they can be, that is point count 8, degree 2.
If trying to export this file to AutoCAD, while exporting the file crashes. So do any of you guys know how I can either make the GH-file, the Rhino-file or the exporting proces more efficient?
Thanks a lot,
Emiel
p.s. I´ve added the GH-file for reference…
Added by Emiel Tijhuis at 7:38am on October 20, 2011
d with the surfaces in the connected HBZones."
* in addition, the surface results could be red by the " Surface data based on type" but could not by the " detailed one". and it showed this Msg "1. Solution exception:'Brep' object has no attribute 'upper'"
* compared to the earlier model, I noticed that the new simulation results have changed a bit, the zones tend to be more "sensitive to sun" as if it have a lower thermal capacity/ less thermal mass, meanwhile the cooling load is reduced!
* although I was able to collect the CSV files form the Run E+ component, the IDF file was showing this error "1. Solution exception:'NoneType' object is unsubscriptable" I thought the IDF file is kind of a early check up for the geometry before running the simulation, as in Chris tutorial (Chris tutorial no 7)
sorry for the very long Msg, I hope I find a way to deeply understand these results. …
on and off with scripting a 'marching tetrahedra' approach for a while, but never got around to finishing it. I can't see myself having the time to finish this off myself at any point over the next month, but maybe some sort of open collaboration is possible. I don't know exactly how this might work, but it could be interesting to try. Anyway, I'll post some of my ideas on this here in case anyone is interested in taking it further.
The best intro to this I know is Paul Bourke's page
My personal preference is for marching tetrahedra over marching cubes because it avoids an awkward ambiguous case and just seems generally much simpler with only 8 possibilities for the way the surface can pass through 1 cell instead of 256.
Using midpoints of edges gives a very chunky looking result, whereas linear interpolation should be good enough for most purposes and is pretty straightforward to do.
For anything other than the coarsest mesh, I think checking for intersections in every single sub-cube would be really slow, so I guess one should use an octree approach to narrow it down.
Anyway, just my 2c…
tant (if you don't change them manually).
First thing you should clarify is, what features of the sound you want to visualize/use. Like Level(Volume), Frequency content, whatever... The raw input data as it comes form the soundcard is giant blob of mostly noise. To smoothen it, usually means filtering out high frequency compnents. Typically this also results in slower samplerates.
GH isn't meant to be a real-time audio processor. It's single threaded, so GH uses only one of my availabe 8 cores. Most of GH's data management would be avoided in an audio environment. Moving data from one component to the next will take some time. This is why I suggested to do all the data manipulation within a single script component. Like Andy already said, for one second of mono sound, the capture component will return 22k samples(points). (Which already is half the data rate of CD Audio.) So basically everything you do with sound in GH is likely to freeze your PC.
On my PC, making a point for each sample in 1 second of captured sound and interpolating a curve though them already takes about 0.6 seconds. No smoothing, no nothing... no chance for real time.…
ve an adequately low value for vibration. Script all runs fine and matches expected results for a few test cases. Phew. Note that in excel form this calculation runs over 6000 cells of look up's and arrays, it's not a trivial calc that can practically be rearranged to make it work back from an acceptable value.
But in my results I have 99 sets of vibration-acceptable outcomes, which I'd now like to examine to see which one uses the least material in its particular combination of beam thicknesses, slab thicknesses and other stuff to find the overall most efficient system. The plan at the moment is to copy the solver Record over into Excel, extract the %'s for the different variables and post-process the info to sort the acceptable outcomes by weight.
It feels like there must be a better way that avoids taking the data out and having a gap in the parametric thinking. Is there a way to ask Galapagos to give me all (or at least, loads of) combinations for which R < 8 and then test those for the minimum weight? Can I automatically take the winning results from fitness test 1 out into an array of data that feeds into a second fitness test in the same grasshopper space? …
haven't tried too hard to break this, and I'm just getting into Python coding. Please let me know how and when it fails. In the off-chance it does something cool for you, please let me know.
…
e mesh together and filling holes manually as the automatic meshrepair command didn't want to work for me.
The goal is to make the model into a Brep so I can cut waffle slices using this definitionhttp://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/a-solid-waffle-for-laser?id=2985220%3ATopic%3A57179&page=8#commentsMy problem is I have never done this before converting to surface from a mesh is proving to be quite difficult with such a detailed mesh (I have even reduced the mesh from the original) Is anyone able to give me some guidance to where to start. I have been searching for a solution for almost a week now. With a lot of trial and error I still have got nowhere. Most commands chew up too much memory or hang till I force kill the task. I have tried some Tsplines and Rhinosurf workflows with no luck, the online documentation that I have come across for these methods dont seem to go into enough detail for what I am looking for. The link to my model is here if someone could please have a quick look and give me some pointers.https://drive.google.com/a/monkers.com.au/file/d/0BzZQQ1vMJcL1R0Ntd2d4ZEsySGs/edit?usp=sharingThanks for your time.cheers.…
ture which is combined with some columns. The columns are arranged in a straight grid structure. I’m not able to get a smooth transition between structural curves as you can see in the image.
Problem 1: I was able to make the columns out of 4 curves, I need this to be 8.
Problem 2: I want to be able to manipulate the column posiotions by XYZ.
Problem 3: The curves (these two curves should be a dome like structure) from two columns aren’t conecting smoothly as you can see in the green ellipse in the image below.
After I created the column curves ( blue circle) in grasshopper (file: 'Surface+Columns' and 'columns2') I made solid columns out of it and tryed to join them smoothly with the surface to project a grid structure on it (in rhino).
Unfortunatly I went wrong and the problem is which you can see in the red ellipse:
The column pipes aren’t on the same level like the grid structure of the surface. Somethimes they are on, sometimes under the surface.
Could somebody help me please, That would be absolutly great!! :)
In the file 'Surface' you'll find the Surface with the current column possition.
Here you find a few reference pictures, but actually it should look like on the rendering below - just properly :)
reference1.jpg
reference2.jpg
reference3.jpg
…
hole new realm?
This Parametric Design Webinar will provide you with the necessary knowledge and ability to use Grasshopper, a free visual programming plugin in Rhinoceros.
FULL BEGINNER TO ADVANCED - 4 Days / 8 hours in total
Start 12.11.2022
Live Webinar Time: 10:00 - 12:00 CET
TIME ZONE: CET
WEBINAR Language: ENGLISH
CERTIFICATE: Participants will be given a certificate of participation at the end of the WEBINAR
WEBINAR LINK: WEBINAR invitation link will be sent to all participants after registration via private Email
Kindly reserve your Tickets here:
https://billetto.eu/e/parametric-design-live-webinar-beginner-to-advanced-Tickets-738970…