connected hyperspace where architecture can be fluid, flexible and vivid, yet the aspect of materiality requires more attention.
Action-designed structures begin to move beyond the utopian proposals of the 20th century’s manifestos and hold a place in the world of realized designs. The AA Athens Visiting School aims to bring users closer to the built environment while revisiting habits of designing, building and experiencing space through materiality. Understanding materiality and form as a ‘unified whole’, the programme integrates manufacturing techniques through the experimentation fabrication of prototypes at a 1:1 scale.
Prominent Features of the workshop/ skills developed
Participants become part of an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
The toolset of the Athens VS includes but is not limited to Processing and Grasshopper for Rhinoceros, as well as design analysis software.
Participants gain hands-on experience on digital fabrication.
Design seminars and a series of lectures support the key objectives of the programme, disseminating fundamental computational techniques, relevant critical thinking, theoretical understanding and professional awareness.
Applications
1) You can make an application by completing the online application found under ‘Links and Downloads’ on the AA Visiting School page. If you are not able to make an online application, email visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk for instructions to pay by bank transfer. 2) Once you complete the online application and make a full payment, you are registered to the programme. A CV or a portfolio is NOT required.
The deadline for applications is 28 June.
Location AKTO College – Athens Campus 11Α Evelpidon Street (Pedion Areos) Athens, 113 62, Greece
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £695 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee. Fees do not include flights or accommodation, but accommodation options can be advised.
Eligibility The workshop is open to current Undergrad and Graduate architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 5.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/athens
http://ai.aaschool.ac.uk/athens/
For inquiries, please contact:
alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk…
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
Hi,
I have a similar problem, I tried the solution with Rhino 4sr9 and Rhino 5 (64bit), with the first works fine but the second doesn't work and gives me an errorThanks in advance for your reply
ns, which have a certain distance from the edge of the flat. I have a circuit, but the problem is the missing plane there and also some body. I need help relatively quickly. to the system: I work with Rhino 5 and Grasshopper version 28/09/2012, build 0.9.0014 here schematically the black bar should be flat and gray, the body thereon
…
would require to use archsim in grasshopper but it seems to be giving me a ton of errors. Some negligible but others are quite adamant.
Anyone know how to use archsim and is willing to help out? I've attached the 3dm and gh, I've been pulling my hair out for the past three days figuring everything out!
SCHOOLS.3dm
SCHOOLS.gh
If need be, I'll gladly talk to anyone who can help me with my current predicament. This is the error i get on one of the buildings
1. Program Version,EnergyPlus, Version 8.2.0-0ba4142206, YMD=2015.10.25 21:32,IDD_Version 8.2.0
** Warning ** CheckUsedConstructions: There are 1 nominally unused constructions in input. ** ~~~ ** Each Unused construction is shown. ************* Construction=DEFAULTCONSTRUCTION_FLIPPED ** Warning ** GetPurchasedAir: ZoneHVAC:IdealLoadsAirSystem="UNNAMEDZONE_0 IDEAL LOADS AIR missing data ** ~~~ ** UNNAMEDZONE_0_OUTDOORINLET does not appear in an OutdoorAir:NodeList or as an OutdoorAir:Node. ** ~~~ ** Adding OutdoorAir:Node=UNNAMEDZONE_0_OUTDOORINLET ************* Testing Individual Branch Integrity ************* All Branches passed integrity testing ************* Testing Individual Supply Air Path Integrity ************* All Supply Air Paths passed integrity testing ************* Testing Individual Return Air Path Integrity ************* All Return Air Paths passed integrity testing ************* No node connection errors were found. ************* Beginning Simulation ************* Simulation Error Summary ************* ** Warning ** The following schedule names are "Unused Schedules". These schedules are in the idf ** ~~~ ** file but are never obtained by the simulation and therefore are NOT used. ************* Schedule:Year or Schedule:Compact or Schedule:File or Schedule:Constant=OFF ** Warning ** The following week schedule names are "Unused Schedules". These schedules are in the idf ** ~~~ ** file but are never obtained by the simulation and therefore are NOT used. ************* Schedule:Week:Daily or Schedule:Week:Compact=OFF_wk_ ** Warning ** The following day schedule names are "Unused Schedules". These schedules are in the idf ** ~~~ ** file but are never obtained by the simulation and therefore are NOT used. ************* Schedule:Day:Hourly or Schedule:Day:Interval or Schedule:Day:List=OFF_dy_ ************* ************* ===== Final Error Summary ===== ************* The following error categories occurred. Consider correcting or noting. ************* Nominally Unused Constructions ************* ..The nominally unused constructions warning is provided to alert you to potential conditions that can cause ************* ..extra time during simulation. Each construction is calculated by the algorithm indicated in the HeatBalanceAlgorithm ************* ..object. You may remove the constructions indicated (when you use the DisplayExtraWarnings option). ************* ************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors. ************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors. ************* EnergyPlus Completed Successfully-- 5 Warning; 0 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 00min 5.00sec
Let me know if you can help!
Kind regards,
Kevin…
would require to use archsim in grasshopper but it seems to be giving me a ton of errors. Some negligible but others are quite adamant.
Anyone know how to use archsim and is willing to help out? I've attached the 3dm and gh, I've been pulling my hair out for the past three days figuring everything out!
SCHOOLS.3dm
SCHOOLS.gh
If need be, I'll gladly talk to anyone who can help me with my current predicament. This is the error i get on one of the buildings
1. Program Version,EnergyPlus, Version 8.2.0-0ba4142206, YMD=2015.10.25 21:32,IDD_Version 8.2.0
** Warning ** CheckUsedConstructions: There are 1 nominally unused constructions in input.** ~~~ ** Each Unused construction is shown.************* Construction=DEFAULTCONSTRUCTION_FLIPPED** Warning ** GetPurchasedAir: ZoneHVAC:IdealLoadsAirSystem="UNNAMEDZONE_0 IDEAL LOADS AIR missing data** ~~~ ** UNNAMEDZONE_0_OUTDOORINLET does not appear in an OutdoorAir:NodeList or as an OutdoorAir:Node.** ~~~ ** Adding OutdoorAir:Node=UNNAMEDZONE_0_OUTDOORINLET************* Testing Individual Branch Integrity************* All Branches passed integrity testing************* Testing Individual Supply Air Path Integrity************* All Supply Air Paths passed integrity testing************* Testing Individual Return Air Path Integrity************* All Return Air Paths passed integrity testing************* No node connection errors were found.************* Beginning Simulation************* Simulation Error Summary *************** Warning ** The following schedule names are "Unused Schedules". These schedules are in the idf** ~~~ ** file but are never obtained by the simulation and therefore are NOT used.************* Schedule:Year or Schedule:Compact or Schedule:File or Schedule:Constant=OFF** Warning ** The following week schedule names are "Unused Schedules". These schedules are in the idf** ~~~ ** file but are never obtained by the simulation and therefore are NOT used.************* Schedule:Week:Daily or Schedule:Week:Compact=OFF_wk_** Warning ** The following day schedule names are "Unused Schedules". These schedules are in the idf** ~~~ ** file but are never obtained by the simulation and therefore are NOT used.************* Schedule:Day:Hourly or Schedule:Day:Interval or Schedule:Day:List=OFF_dy_************************** ===== Final Error Summary =====************* The following error categories occurred. Consider correcting or noting.************* Nominally Unused Constructions************* ..The nominally unused constructions warning is provided to alert you to potential conditions that can cause************* ..extra time during simulation. Each construction is calculated by the algorithm indicated in the HeatBalanceAlgorithm************* ..object. You may remove the constructions indicated (when you use the DisplayExtraWarnings option).************************** EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.************* EnergyPlus Completed Successfully-- 5 Warning; 0 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 00min 5.00sec
Let me know if you can help!
Kind regards,
Kevin…
deform into rhombic dedocahedrons when they reach equilibrium.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicClosePacking.html
I was trying to model sphere lattice constrained within a boundary box. When inflated, they would not intersect with each other; they would stay in place; and would be malleable just enough to expand and fill in the gaps in between the spheres.
I started off with the help of this thread here(Thanks for those contributed!). As I understood, there was a bug in Kangaroo2. Solver can't handle more than one item plugged in. So I tried to understand David's Stasiuk's Script and adopted it with a few variations, please see gh file attached.
In the first 5 - I've used David Stasiuk's C# component-variable pressure (posted on June 9, 2015 at 12:25am): 'No. 4.5' being the most successful simulation so far(inflation value is kept very low so that they would not intersect);
although I realised I made some math mistake in setting the close packing grid.(could be checked by plugging voronoi3D to see if the area of the rhombic faces are regular)
No. 6-7 I tried with Kangaroo2 components.
After consulting my tutor(Andrei Jipa)'s help, I realised the following changes could be made:
- The definition posted by David on June 8, 2015 at 4:47pm with constant pressure would've worked better.
- Icosahedrons with WbCatmull(Quad divisions) would result in more even load distribution. With wbloop, vertices more concentrated at poles.
- Load in dir Z could be omitted. Andrei has suggested to use lengths(line) in Kangaroo 2 as 'pressure' instead. And I am trying to improve the grid; and maybe try with David's constant pressure definition. I will keep you guys posted of the progress!
I am new to the parametric world, comments/advice very much appreciated! :) Zhini
…
ing results and I think it is based on the assumption of small displacements. That’s why I want to try with LaDeform.
But doing this I met some problems. I tried to experiment it on the small examples that are provided with Karamba:
1.LaDeform in load-controlled behavior
I know Karamba has mainly been created make form-finding and not properly precise calculations, but I’d like to evaluate deformations of my structure under certain loads (load-controlled). It is said to let it in Default value for MaxDisp (-1).
[Rhino view for deflection of the rope]
In this example derived from a Karamba example (Large_Deformation_Rope.gh), the programs shows different ways to get approximately equal max deflection. But, getting into it, I realized Load Multiplier for gravity is different from one model to another (-3.237 for Analyze TH1 and -134 for LaDeform). So what is the interest of the example if the quite similar shape of deflections are not got under the same loadings? (quite different loadings indeed)
Doesn’t it show on the contrary that LaDeform algorithm does not work properly, if you need to change the load multiplier?
The Grasshopper file is shown below.
2.MaxDisp
When I use the model is “max disp”, I command the deformation, but how can I get the value of the virtual force exerted (which I don’t know because it is now imposed)? What is its link with the imposed deflection?
Otherwise I can’t figure how to use it with displacement-controlled loading
3.Iterative process
As it seems impossible to use LaDeform process, I tried to test it by iterations, as you recommend it on the forum, saying that it is equivalent to an iterative Analyze Th1 process.
I tried to reproduce this loading but the result is not very enthusiastic as you can see. The Rhino file shows the progressive loading, with the corresponding Grasshopper files, where I
- disassemble the model,
- get the previous deformed model
- put in another part of the load,
- re-assemble and then calculate it on the previous deformed shape.
Do you have any idea why the answer is not the same ? (LaDeform seem to give like 5 times less for the same loadings) (and even controlling it by displacements the shapes do not fit the principle of the algorithm would let think)
[RhinView for Iterative process]
First step by analyze Th1, and result by LaDeform
4.Analyze Th1 after LaDeform?
Some tutorials of Karamba show that an analysis with Analyze Th1 is sometimes made immediately after a calculation in large deformations. What is its reason? It seems to sometimes change considerably the result. What is the sense of such an operation? Would it mean that LaDeform is not trustworthy?
ð My question is then: is there a way to make the use of LaDeform for other purposes than form-finding affordable and coherent? If I mistake using it, where?
Thank you very much for your help,
…
chitects, Asymptote Architecture, Mario Bellini Architects and others to design the paneling systems.
Get a quick introduction to Rhino and Grasshopper.
Learn how to digitally reconstruction data from 3D scanners and even from regular photographs.
Experience how to print 3D models using state of the art machines.
Grant the opportunity to perform basic energy and performance analysis of your designs.
All this will be provided in a comprehensive 5 days workshop to be taught by international experts in the field as well as local researchers.
Organized by AUC American University in Cairo and GMVS Geometric Modeling and Visulization Center
…
Added by Zaghloul4d at 6:48pm on December 22, 2010