n due at the end of march. i am hoping to see if i can do this as a sort of "HIVE MIND" experiment with one or two or more posters to the forum. i have uploaded two files to http://www.formpig.com/nine_bar-FAR and I have the following goals:
1. To "kinematically iterate" various formal building envelopes based upon a 50' x 100' lot that "conform" to the nine bar linkage geometry.
2. This lot would have "setbacks" consisting of two 5' side setbacks, a 10' rear yard setback and a 25' front yard setback. max height on the structure is 32' and the allowable overhangs into the setbacks are 2'. I would like to find a way to use the "nine bar geometry" to construct a series of iterations for "floors", "walls" and "ceilings", which would then be tied to a volumetric (cubic volume), or a total square footage (perhaps based upon two horizontal section cuts) which was based upon a given number that I will provide per local building code.
3. Laid on top of this we would also have "mcmansion ordinance" requirements based upon the pdf enclosed. i expect to have this "tent restriction" data in digital form to upload to ftp shortly.
It would be up to you individually or collectively to determine how best to position this "in the real world" based upon the lot, setbacks, zoning requirements etc. For instance, perhaps the nine bar configuration has its vertices coplanar with the 50' x 100' x 32' envelope restrictions and then the chosen volume is "trimmed' by the setback requirements. Or perhaps the nine-bar configuration is generated completely within the setbacks, or perhaps it is generated 2' outside of the setbacks so as to take advantage of the 2' overhang allowance on the setbacks, etc.
*
Given an opportunity to develop the work in a second phase we would have an opportunity to tie this into various efficiencies such as Bill of Materials (wall floor and ceiling square foot calculations), envelope to volume calculations, solar panel efficiencies (solar orientation and envelope geometry) etc, etc (love to get suggestions for this).
*
I've become /really/ convinced that this would be a /really/ interesting entry based upon my just finishing up Kas Oosterhuis' Towards a New Kind of Building: A Designer's Guide for Non-Standard Architecture". In an ideal world I was hoping that it would be possible to hash this out discussion-wise and then literally passing it around on the list after someone eventually made the first move by tossing out a rough ghx script. My expectation would be to finalize it rapidly in the next two weeks. Something of a contemporary version of a design charette.
However, I realize this may not be workable so if you have experience in this arena and particularly if you think this is a brief that is straighforward enough to be almost literally implemented in Grasshopper, please contact me for any wage and/or contract fee requirements.
I'm getting a bit of a late jump on this but my hope is that with the right participant(s) that I can thrash it together quick enough for the first round.
info@formpig.com…
e Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts, a four day Workshop 14-17 July, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 18 July, followed by a Symposium 19 July. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona, sg2011 Copenhagen, sg2012 Troy, and sg2013 London.
sg2014: Hong Kong
Image: Cities without Ground - Adam Frampton, Jonathan D Solomon and Clara Wong
URBAN COMPACTION
Large cities thrive on density and diversity. But beyond the energy and pollution advantages of the elevator over the automobile, complex issues are at play in concentrating population and built infrastructure in contemporary high-rise cities. How do you meet the challenges of system design for high quality compact urban environments?
Designing for high and increasing density in cities is a complex and wicked problem that calls for innovative approaches to modelling in diverse areas of the city’s dynamics.
sg2014 Challenge: Urban Compaction
WORKSHOP
The SG Workshop is a unique creative cauldron attracting attendees from across the world of academia, professional practice as well as many of the brightest students. The Workshop is open to 100 applicants who come together for four intensive days of design and collaboration.
The annual Workshop is organised around Clusters. Clusters are hubs of expertise comprising of people, knowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for Workshop participants working together, within a common framework.
We now have an open call to submit proposals for Workshop Clusters
call for clusters
CONFERENCE
Talkshop Conference Day One
After four intense days of innovative work, the first day of the conference, the Talkshop, offers an opportunity for critical reflection on what has been accomplished in the Workshop. Talkshop will be an opportunity to open debates, pose questions, challenge orthodoxies, and propose new ideas.
Talkshop will feature informal and open discussions between Cluster participants, leading practitioners and emerging talents in digital design, offering inside perspectives on how the landscape of computational design is reshaping built form.
Symposium Conference Day Two
The second day of the conference, the Symposium, will feature invited keynote speakers showcasing major projects and research from around the globe that mark out the territory of the year's Challenge. The Symposium is a unique opportunity to hear insights into the challenges ahead for the discipline.
Interwoven throughout the day will be reports and highlights from each Workshop Cluster, giving an opportunity to view work created during the previous four days of intensive collaboration, design and development.
More information about the conference, including speakers, to be posted soon.
www.Smartgeometry.org…
Added by Shane Burger at 10:51am on February 3, 2014
can toggle these modes from either the Canvas Toolbar, the Remote Control Panel or via shortcuts Ctrl+1,2 or 3
These are pretty self explanatory so I will keep it brief:
No Preview will completely switch off the preview of the Grasshopper Objects in the Rhino Viewports.
Wireframe Preview similar to Disable Meshing will disable any render meshes but keep any curves or Edges visible.
Shaded Preview will shade the preview...
There are two more Icons in this section of the Display Menu:
Selected Only Preview
Preview Settings
Also available on the Canvas Toolbar.
Selected Only Preview is a useful feature for following what your definition is doing at stages along the process without having to switch all previews off and manually turning individual ones back on as you go.
Without Selected Only Preview Toggled
With Selected Only Preview Toggled:
Preview Settings is the area within Grasshopper where you can modify the colours - including transparency - Grasshopper uses to display objects in the Rhino Viewport.
The first thing you should do before altering any settings is to Drag the Default Colours onto the green plus sign to add them to the Presets. This will enable you to restore them easily.
For future reference the default settings are:
Normal = Hue: 0º, Sat: 100, Val: 59, A:100
Selected = Hue: 120º, Sat: 100, Val: 59, A:100
Apart from accounting for taste this feature is particularly useful for anyone that is colour blind[2]:
The way to restore a colour from the preset list is to drag it from the right hand panel to either the Normal or Selected option on the Left
[2] There is a very interesting discourse topic on the McNeel Forums about Red/Green Colour Blindness.
work carried out by Jørgen Holo
…
rder to deal with the contents of the MERO structure (like glass, panels, polycarbonate). That is what the C# does already.
3. Vectors (a la "Umbrella" sticks) in order to place correctly your MERO nodes (the "hexagon" brackets - so to speak). That is what the big C# (the one that I've send to you some time ago) does already.
4. Calculations (lengths, angles) for each node against the other related nodes and the points derived from dividing the MERO square "tubes". For a given node these points are variable (from 2 [when in the "bounds" of mesh] to 6 ["typical" middle point, so to speak].
5. Demo block instances in order to see first hand what GH can actually do (that's WOW stuff: you slide a slider and "several" real-life components are placed in 3d space in real-time, he he).
6. Node connectivity data for the obvious (assembling the MERO on site).
7. Some assembly "simulation" capability (we do this today and this tomorrow ...)
So forget the single carrot (plenty carrots for you soon) for a while and answer to the most critical question: Based on what you've displayed to me (Skype) what is your policy against the MERO node itself?
I mean: we don't deal with a classic MERO ball type here (meaning variable drilling axis per ball). Meaning that the "hexagon" bracket (if I may use the term) IS VARIABLE. Meaning: you need a "module" that can being adapted against "every" possible (logical) angle value? (and compose the bracket?) Or you gonna fabricate the "brackets" on a per node basis?
And what if we had a planar glazing system? (same principle, more expensive, 100 times more WOW).
BTW: The best man in the world to do "similar things" with "hinged" custom aluminum systems (like doing the blue facade that you've displayed to me with some semi structural/structural system) he's a very close friend of mine. He's based in Dubai UAE.…
ts (NOT meshes) using my (still WIP) BallPivot thingy (still highly temperamental despite wast quantities of Vodka consumed - in the Name Of Science, what else?):
Watch this Forum for the forthcoming mother of all threads : Get Points > Do Something.
On the other hand (real-life):
1. A truss without connectivity is nothing.
2. A truss without clash defection is nothing.
3. A truss without instance definition(s) is more than nothing.
4. A truss without (rather very complex that one, mind) roof/envelope stuff is nothing + pointless.
5. Mesh from points without a 1000% working ball pivot thingy is like 3rd marriage.
And as you'll discover this Monday ... well ... "some" things would be MIA from the definition.
Other than that:
For Chap, David, Angel and anyone else interested on these freaky things (get points do something, that is).
Do you people think that this (mode: dense [yellow stuff] ) has any meaning?
VS that (mode: hex):
I mean for the truss itself not the roofing paraphernalia. Notice that in this handsome hex mode we've already achieved max rigidity since we deal with tetrahedral stuff.
PS: My aunt Drusilla finds the dense mode ... utterly pointless (and a bit disgusting).
That's friends is the 1M question.
…
ly the operative temperature, to, as an input) you can consider ta, tmr and the air velocity (v).
If there are all the data (ta, tmr and v) you can consider this equation.
If there are not the v values you can approximate to with this equation.
In the psychrometric chart component you can modify the “mollierHX” input and transform it from a Boolean input value to a numerical input and name it, for example, “chart type”: you can set 0 for the classic chart, 1 for the mollier HX plot, 2 for a (to,x) chart and 3 for a (t, RH) plot.
In a (to,x) chart, if the ta or the tmr increases (or both), the to moves to right, so if there is a RH of 100% the red point moves as for the case 1. If ta or tmr (or both) decreases the red point moves to the left (case 2).
…
sion app (Modo, Z Brush etc) in order to get "as equal" as possible mesh faces.
For instance ... see a W depth truss (tri mesh > meaning that the "out" grid is hexagons) out from a Kangaroo "inflated" mesh:
2. A space frame is NOT a collection of abstract lines ... meaning that clash members detection (via trigonometry and NOT by checking boolean intersections) is far more important than the "concept" it self. If "live" alterations are required for addressing local clash issues ... well ... that's 100% impossible with native components.
See a typical clash detection capability:
3. A truss without proper connectivity Data Trees means nothing in real-life (vertices to edges, vertex to vertex, edges to vertices).
4. Each "standard" truss member (say: sleeves, cones and the likes) should be an instance definition placed in space according appropriate orienting planes. That way you may be able to handle thousands of components that in real-life participate in any truss of a certain size.
All the above are far easier to do with code (V4 is impossible with components).…
w how. Thanks for that. Now I do have some questions.
1. I am using the area weight tool. I am first calculating the volume of the form. I then multiply that value by it's density. So for concrete I am using 2400 kg/m^3 x volume. I then divided that number by the area of the membrane that is supporting the mass. This gives me my area weight. It seems to be working well but I want to verify that this is the correct workflow. I also want to verify that gravity would be turned off since I am thinking it is already calculated within the weight component.
2. I am finding that the new triangular element tool works much better than trying to use EA/L as input for the springs from mesh. Even when I set the timestep, subiteration, and drag I still have issues with getting very stiff materials to work. On the new finite elements tool I wanted to verify that E was in pascals. I also wanted to ask if I use imperial units can psi be entered. Now from what I am seeing the materials are deforming more than expected and to get less deformation and stretch in the mesh area I am finding the E value needs to be increased more than the true material values. Often I am raising E by a multiple of 10 or 100.
I am going to describe my problem and I will gladly share the definition if you'd prefer looking it over but basically I have an inflated membrane at a certain pressure made of a particular material. I then have a certain volume of concrete on top of the inflated membrane. My goal is to review the displacements as the concrete is applied over the membrane and find the proper pressures to apply to keep it free from deformation. I am including a picture from a project that we used kangaroo on and attempted to deal with such issues. It was a class sponsored by Cloud9 architecture held at Art Center College of Design where I was one of the instructors. Hopefully this illustrates the problem. To summarize any example file that shows the best way to implement real material properties and unit based forces would be a helpful reference and would be greatly appreciated.
…
Karamba.
I am using your plug-in for normal forces evaluation in the transvere wires and spreaders of a sailboat. Mast is solved in another way, so I am not taking forces from Karamba in that case.
Basing on the forces value an adequate wire size (diameter) is choosen. Then masses of wires are being calculated. Loads (forces) on longitudinal wires are calculated without Karamba. The problem is when choosing transverse wires’ mass minimization as a criteria, the Octopus doesn’t get any results - is changing the sliders (genes) too fast for Karamba to calculate the forces (so Octopus gets only nulls):
When minimization of a e.g. longitudinal wires’ mass (calculated without Karamba) is taken as a criteria Octopus works fine.
Which suggests that the problem is in interaction of two plug-ins.
Any ideas how to avoid that problem?
Thanks,
M.
Below some screenshots of definition part with Karamba:
1675×807 200 K
image.png1680×789 398 KB
Despite the ‘orange warning’ the values are correct (double checked with other software).However I don't know why does it say that there is a part that can move freely without deformation,as the model looks like this:
image.png1239×343 55.5 KB
…
. From the Thermal Comfort Indices component, Comfort Index 11 (TCI-11):MRT = f(Ta, Tground, Rprim, e)
with:- Ta = DryBulbTemperature coming from ImportEPW component- Tground = f(Ta, N) where N comes from totalSkyCover input. Tground influences the long-wave radiation emitted by the ground in the MRT calculation.- Rprim defined as solar radiation absorbed by nude man = f(Kglob, hS1, ac)- ac is the clothingAlbedo in % (bodyCharacteristics input)- I can't find any definition in the code of Kglob and hS1. Could you tell me please what are those values referencered to? --> probably the globalHorizontalRadiation but how?- e = vapour pressure calculated from Ta and Relative Humidity input
Do you agree that in this case the MRT does not depend on these inputs: location, meanRadiantTemperature, dewPointTemperature and wind speed?It does not depend neither on the other bodyCharacteristics like bodyPosture, age, sex, met, activityDuration...?
MRT calculated by the TCI-11 method is the mean radiant temperature of a vector pointing vertically with a sky view factor of 100%?For ParisOrly epw,
2. From the SolarAdjustedTemperature component (that seems to be more used for the UTCI calculation examples on Hydra compared to TCI-11).
In contrast to the TCI-11, this component distinguishes diffuse and direct radiation and contextualizes the calculation thanks to _ContextShading input, right? It can also be applied to a mannequin thanks to the CumSkyMatrix and thus evaluate the dishomogeneity of radiation exposure.This component seems not to consider the influence of vapour pressure on the result --> is it then more precise to put the MRT output (from the TCI) as an input of meanRadTemperature for SolarAdjustedTemperature?The default groundReflectivity is set to 0.25 --> is GroundReflectivity taken into account in the Tground or MRT calculation in the TCI component? If yes, what is the hypothesised groundReflectivity?The default clothing albedo of 37% (TCI-11 bodyCharacteristics) corresponds to Clothing Absorptivity of 63%?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is not supplied, I get 9 results for the mannequin --> where are those points/results coming from?
If the CumSkyMatrix input is supplied,I suppose the calculation of the 482 results correspond to a calculation method similar to the radiation analysis component that is averaged over the analysis period. Right?But I don't understand why the mannequin is composed of 481 faces and meshFaceResult gives 482 results.
Finally, what is the link between the MESH results, the solarAdjustedMRT and the Effective Radiant field ? Is there a paper to have a detailed explanation of the method?
3. Here are some results for the ParisOrly energyplus weather data. You can find here attached the grasshopper definition.There is no shading in this simulation and the result coming from the ThermalComfort indices for MRT is very different compared to the solar adjusted MRT.Why such a big difference and which of the result should be plugged into the UTCI calculation component?
Results for ParisOrly.epwM,D,H:1,1,12
Ta : 6.5°Crh: 100%globalHorizontalRadiation: 54 Wh/m2totalSkyCover: 10MRT (TCI-11): 1.2°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = directNormalRadiation : 0 Wh/m2diffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.64°CMRTDelta: 4.14°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = TasolarAdjustedMRT: 10.47°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
_CumSkyMtxOrDirNormRad = CumulativeSkyMtxdiffuseHorizontalRad: 54 Wh/m2_meanRadTemp = MRT (TCI-11)solarAdjustedMRT: 5.17°CMRTDelta: 3.97°C
Thanks a lot for your helpRegards,
Aymeric
…