mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…
s before here: http://spacesymmetrystructure.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/pseudo-physical-materials/)
If we want to design repetitive structures, we might want to be able to assign periodic boundary conditions to some structure to enforce translation symmetry. For instance, a long row of connected arches or vaults, which we want to be identical for ease of fabrication.
We could simulate this by adding many identical vaults in a row, and as we added more, the ones near the middle would get closer and closer to being identical. But they would never quite reach the point of being truly identical, even as we added hundreds of copies, and this would be very inefficient for large simulations:
One way around this is to take some points on one side of our structure, and lock them to some points on the other side of the structure using the new TranslationLock component:As far as the physics engine is concerned, each pair of points linked in this way is then actually just one point. It is as though the space itself has been wrapped around to join one side with the other.
Anyone who has played the game Portal will be familiar with a version of this concept (or for the older ones among you - asteroids).
Translation locks can be applied in any direction, and combined with any of the other forces. However, a few things to bear in mind:
-Be careful not to double up forces unintentionally. For instance, if you are adding a gravity load to the nodes of a catenary arch, and you want an equal load on every point, add only half the load to the locked particles, because when joined together these get combined (or equivalently you could add the full load to just one particle of the pair).
Similarly for springs - if you are smoothing a periodic tensile mesh using springs, be careful not to add the forces of the boundary springs twice.
-If you are using this for structural form-finding, remember that space we inhabit in the real world doesn't have these periodic boundary conditions (at least not on everyday scales!), so when you build it you will need to provide appropriate balancing forces at the ends.
-For forces which act on more than 2 particles, such as bending or Laplacian smoothing, you need to lock an appropriate number of particles on one side to those on the other side. Sometimes this may require adding 'ghost vertices'.
For example, here we model a periodic elastica curve:
This is achieved by applying a translation lock to the pairs shown by the red and blue arrows.
(note that the particle at the end of the blue arrow is 1 segment beyond the end of the curve)
One possible use of this tool would be the form-finding of periodic minimal surfaces (following the example of the great Surface Evolver by Ken Brakke). His site has many more great examples of these:
Generating these surfaces in a way that they remain minimal across the boundary would be very difficult without this periodic constraint.
Perhaps more interesting from a design perspective is the possibility to move beyond pure mathematical surfaces, and generate more free-form repeating units, but still preserving continuity across the boundaries, something like the work of Erwin Hauer:
…
GH, same as using sweep2 command in Rhino.
The one on the right is what I got so far (the output smooth our the kink of the original rails). Basically I am just following the methods provided by sdk sample: http://wiki.mcneel.com/developer/sdksamples/sweep2 .
The following is the function I copy and use directly from the SDK sample. By using this function, I can generate the sweep surface at right. But I want to have is the one in the middle with the kink edges. Can anyone show me how and where to modify he settings? I guess some sweep arguments need to be changed? I have try couples, such m_simplify, m_bSimpleSweep, m_bSameHeight, m_rebuild_count... but still cannot find a right combination for this function to output the sweep surface I want. Any suggestions or helps are very appreciated. Thanks for your help and time on this.
'Sweep2 function'----------------
Sub Sweep2( ByVal Rail1 As IOnCurve, _
ByVal Rail2 As IOnCurve, _
ByVal sCurves As List(Of IOnCurve), _
ByRef Sweep2_Breps As List(Of OnBrep))
'Define a new class that contains sweep2 arguments
Dim args As New MArgsRhinoSweep2
'Set the 2 rails
Dim Edge1 As New MRhinoPolyEdge
Dim Edge2 As New MRhinoPolyEdge
Edge1.Append(Rail1.DuplicateCurve())
Edge2.Append(Rail2.DuplicateCurve())
'Add rails to sweep arguments
args.m_rail_curves(0) = Edge1
args.m_rail_curves(1) = Edge2
args.m_bClosed = False
Dim section_curves As New List(Of OnCurve)
'Loop through sections to set parameters
For Each Section As IOnCurve In sCurves
Dim sCurve As OnCurve = Section.DuplicateCurve()
section_curves.Add(sCurve)
Dim t0 As Double = 0
If Not Edge1.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtStart(), t0) Then
If Not Edge1.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtEnd(), t0) Then
Dim s As Double = 0
sCurve.GetNormalizedArcLengthPoint(0.5, s)
Edge1.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAt(s), t0)
End If
End If
args.m_rail_params(0).Append(t0)
Dim t1 As Double = 0
If Not Edge2.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtStart(), t1) Then
If Not Edge2.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAtEnd(), t1) Then
Dim s As Double = 0
sCurve.GetNormalizedArcLengthPoint(0.5, s)
Edge2.GetClosestPoint(sCurve.PointAt(s), t1)
End If
End If
args.m_rail_params(1).Append(t1)
Next
'Set shapes
args.m_shape_curves = section_curves.ToArray
'Set the rest of parameters
args.m_simplify = 0
args.m_bSimpleSweep = False
args.m_bSameHeight = False
args.m_rebuild_count = -1 'Sample point count for rebuilding shapes
args.m_refit_tolerance = RMA.Rhino.RhUtil.RhinoApp.ActiveDoc.AbsoluteTolerance()
args.m_sweep_tolerance = RMA.Rhino.RhUtil.RhinoApp.ActiveDoc.AbsoluteTolerance()
args.m_angle_tolerance = RMA.Rhino.RhUtil.RhinoApp.ActiveDoc.AngleToleranceRadians()
Dim sBreps() As OnBrep = Nothing
If (RhUtil.RhinoSweep2(args, sBreps)) Then
For Each b As OnBrep In sBreps
Sweep2_Breps.Add(b)
Next
End If
Return
End Sub
…
into curves, and so I would like to use within Grasshopper.
I would really appreciate if anyone well versed in RhinoScript/VB.Net Syntax would be kind enough to help out.
Thank you for reading this.
' ConvertTextToGeometry.rvb -- September 2008
' If this code works, it was written by Dale Fugier.
' If not, I don't know who wrote it. ' Works with Rhino 4.0.
Option Explicit
Sub ConvertTextToGeometry
' Declare local variables
Dim obj_list, obj, saved_plane, cmd
Dim font, height, plane, style, text, bold, italic
' Select annotation objects
obj_list = Rhino.GetObjects("Select text to convert to geometry", 512, True, True)
If Not IsArray(obj_list) Then Exit Sub
' For speed, turn of screen redrawing
Call Rhino.EnableRedraw(False)
' Save the current construction plane
saved_plane = Rhino.ViewCPlane()
' Process each selected object
For Each obj In obj_list
' Weed out just the text objects
If Rhino.IsText(obj) Then
' Acquire the text parameters
font = "<single_stroke_font_name>"
height = Rhino.TextObjectHeight(obj)
plane = Rhino.TextObjectPlane(obj)
style = Rhino.TextObjectStyle(obj)
text = Rhino.TextObjectText(obj)
If (style And 1) Then
bold = "_Yes"
Else
bold = "_No"
End If
If (style And 2) Then
italic = "_Yes"
Else
italic = "_No"
End If
' Set the current construction plane
Call Rhino.ViewCPlane(, plane)
' Add a new text object (geometry)
cmd = "_-TextObject "
cmd = cmd & "_GroupOutput=_Yes "
cmd = cmd & "_FontName=" & font & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Italic=" & italic & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Bold=" & bold & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Height=" & CStr(height) & " "
cmd = cmd & "_Output=_Curves "
cmd = cmd & "_AllowOpenCurves=_Yes "
cmd = cmd & Chr(34) & text & Chr(34) & " "
cmd = cmd & "0"
Call Rhino.Command(cmd, 0)
' Delete the original object
Call Rhino.DeleteObject(obj)
End If
Next
' Restore the saved construction plane
Call Rhino.ViewCPlane(, saved_plane)
' Enable screen redrawing
Call Rhino.EnableRedraw(True)
End Sub
…
as one element.
Thank you
Comment by karamba on October 7, 2014 at 11:27pm
Hello Patricio, divide the beams in such a way that each boundary vertex of the shell becomes an endpoint of a beam segment.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 8, 2014 at 8:30amDelete Comment
Hi Clemens,
I did what you suggested but now assemble element doesn´t work properly. Could you please tell me how to fix it? Thanks in advance, Patricio
8-10-14losa%20cadena.gh
Comment by karamba on October 8, 2014 at 11:59am
Hi Patricio, if you flatten the 'Elem'-input at the 'Assemble'-component the definition works. The triangular shell elements have linear displacement interpolations whereas the beam deflections are exact. In order to get correct results you should refine the shell mesh.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 9, 2014 at 8:35amDelete Comment
Hello, succeeds in creating the mesh to the slab, and built the beam segment, but when I see the deformations are not expected because the beam is deformed as the slab.
Thanks for the help
PS: maybe I'm using the program for a type of structure that is not the most appropriate, as I saw in the examples of other structures. But this type of structure is that students taught
best regards
Patricio
9-10-14%20Example%201.gh
Comment by karamba on October 9, 2014 at 10:46am
You could use the 'Mesh Edges'-component to retrieve the naked edges and turn them into beams - see attached file:91014Example1_cp.gh
Best regards,
Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 15, 2014 at 3:41pmDelete Comment
Dear clemens
I was doing a rough estimate of the deformation, and I can not achieve the same result with Karamba. When I make a rough estimate of the result with Karamba beams and mine are very similar, I think the problem is when I connect the shell, because there are no similar results.
I sent the GH file, and an image of the calculation
The structure is concrete The result I get is 0.58cm
thank youPatricio
15-10-14%20Example.gh
Comment by karamba yesterday
Dear Patricio,
try to increase the number of shell elements. As mentioned in the manual they are linear elements. A mesh that is too coarse leads to a response which is stiffer than the real structure.
Best,
Clemens
…
u might already noticed.
Second great thing is that is quite fast, precise and versatile (for this kind of things); also is way OPEN (meaning you can attach and or interface it with almost anything you can imagine, meaning hardware, and other sw components, etc (like a CNC machine (additive manufacturing toys..) or any sw like C# component)) making a GREAT HUGE difference with almost any other CAD (and CAM sw i must say)
i made a simple fully functional CAM component - highly powerful ! - in a couple of days...
also tested an arduino interface (meaning control over almost any elctronic device out there)... in a matter of hours...
and saw and can easily think about lots and lots of extremely cool usages of this great tool in almost any area ...
So that's why i would suggest - and will do something about for - it (or similar tools) to be teached at first stages of education !
But power comes with responsability. and is far better exploited when your are smart ;)
I think people that uses GH will be n-times as good when they don`t forget manufacturing.
This includes teachers btw....
Interesting thing to account is that all things that GH is great at (a LOT) means reducing dramatically the time spent to model almost anything...
But usually the purpose (unless the objective is just learning or doing some kind of virtual art (both legal stuff btw...;) but guess it might not be your case now and after graduating..)) is to end up by actually building some real 3D stuff...
So what Joseph is poining is key...
If you have a good teacher.. i guess it should pay more and more attention not just at your gh skills but rather the way in which you use the power, versatility and extra time gh (and additive manufacturing tech) saves, to think about how to design the stuff focusing on the ultimately relevant stuff...
optimisation...
So..
I would say that any heat interchanger like the one involved in your thesis, has to deal with fluids.. have to account for some sort of life span (involving cheaper an ideally no maintenance needed along its life...), and of course also critical the costs of manufacturing.
so... be the best one...
use GH smartly ! ie...
account for different profile paths for oil and water.. they're different fluids meaning they have different specific heat, viscosity, blah... and so... they might not even traverse the interchanger at same flow ratio, etc.
So... maybe you want to start by reshaping the grid... (parametrically...!) so you can arbitrarily and dynamically modify and get to see interactively in your definition the areas ratio of sections so as to finaly get to set the "ideal" (meainng optimum) relative areas (sections) ratio of oil to water paths... (or whatever other fluids could be !), and the material also...
Secondly you might also consider that triangles might not be well suited for the conduit sections because are not the best shape to carry most fluids... (hoses are of circular sections...worst case are kinda rectangular with rounded corners..;) not only because the're easy to manufacture but also because they minimise (optimize) flowing energy losses AND are less prone to (ie salt or debree deposits in the interior) ). so think about rounded shapes, of if you want some regular polygons stuff but 5 or more faces...kinda circular...got it ?
I love bees by the way..
and if you happen to need more interchange area (obviously another (and probably the #1 key one) figure you should be displaying interactively in your definition ) you can always add some more extrusion length...
third... the twisting stuff is cool... (artistically ;)) but i 100% agree with Joseph is far likely to involve higer costs for manufacturing with no clear benefit on surface maximization... and most probably some other losses in added friction to the flow of fluids (meaning higher costs for pumping, etc...)...
fourth...
consider the area, (then the volume!) of the "building material"... you should optimise that too ! so this could be another one of your interactive displays...
in this case... you not only can see optimisation by reducing the amount of materials to build your interchanger...
but you can also notice that if the "building tech" involves the well and common additive manufacturing process of extrusion deposits... that surface area, and that extrusion length, meaning volume and cost of raw material, also mean TIME to manufacture... and i guess you teacher will find good for you to consider and mention that one too...
fifth...
finally (for now hehe), and globally most important in the short term :)
if the objective of yor teacher is for you just to learn GH and impress him and the rest of the world then, ok, do the twist the swirl and imagine all kind of sea star and or ondulated conduit sections (maybe some recursive forms (fractals...) like snowflakes... or any n-arms (mutant !) starfishes shapes) but make sure you first get to know and validate what it will be the objectives of your evaluator...
.. in the near end this is all about passing your thesis while learning GH while having fun.. isn't it ?
go for it and best of luck !
ps: for the mid and long term.. some day take a look at linear optimisaton if you already didn't.
i think GH is a great tool to try out some linear optimisation stuff directly linking geometry related figures (areas, volumes...) along with costs figures !...
I haven't seen anything like that yet (but since i'm only a few months old in gh, i think is likely to already be something or this stuff out there. )
If not... well you can always be the first !
(and this particular case of your thesis is a great example (few key variables) to try out "automatic optimisation")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_algorithm
that... by the way...has lots to do with spatial geometry...
…
lowing error:
Has anyone encountered this error before or know what I might have done incorrectly?
The error is thrown 6 times (once for every input and output param registered?), and then Grasshopper works normally. The plugin is shown as available in the toolbox, but can't be used without throwing the above error.
Any ideas on how to fix it?
At the moment my code is the following:
using System; using System.Drawing; using Grasshopper.Kernel; using Rhino.Geometry; namespace GridShellGrasshopperPlugin { public class GridShellComponent : GH_Component { public GridShellComponent() : base("Grid Shell", "gridShell", "Applies a grid shell to a surface", "Surface", "Util"){} protected override void SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess DA) { Surface refSurf = default(Surface); if(!DA.GetData(0, ref refSurf)) return; Point3d start = default(Point3d); if(!DA.GetData(1, ref start)) return; Point3d end = default(Point3d); if(!DA.GetData(2, ref end)) return; DA.SetData(0, null); DA.SetData(1, 33.0); DA.SetData(2, null); } protected override void RegisterOutputParams(GH_OutputParamManager pManager) { pManager.Register_LineParam("Curve On Surface", "GeoCurve", "Curve on surface between two points"); pManager.Register_DoubleParam("Line length", "length", "Length of line on surface"); pManager.Register_GenericParam("Intersection points", "points", "Points of intersection"); } protected override void RegisterInputParams(GH_InputParamManager pManager) { pManager.Register_SurfaceParam("Reference Surface", "refSurf", "Reference surface on which to form the grid shell", GH_ParamAccess.item); pManager.Register_PointParam("Start point", "startPoint", "Start point of the first line"); pManager.Register_PointParam("End point", "endPoint", "End point of the line"); } public override void CreateAttributes() { } public override Guid ComponentGuid { get { return new Guid("11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111"); } } protected override Bitmap Icon { get { return base.Icon; } } } }
I'm using Rhino 4.0 SR9, dated 9th March 2011, and Grasshopper 0.8.0013, dated 5th July 2011.…
n common tasks like updating GH definitions, viewing images on the GH canvass, and augmenting existing study-types. Most of the improvements to Honeybee have been in the making for a while and are just getting into the spotlight with this release. Notably, a number of improvements have been made to support large-scale full building energy models, including fixes to memory issues with large models, better components for splitting building masses into zones, and the ability to store HBZones in external files. Additionally, the THERM workflows have gotten a boost and these simulations can now be run directly from the Grasshopper canvass.
As always you can download the new release from Food4Rhino. Make sure to remove the older version of Ladybug and Honeybee before you do so and update your scripts. So, without further adieu, here is the list of the new capabilities added with this release:
LADYBUG
Better Method for Updating Old Grasshopper Files - As many of you have come to realize, Ladybug + Honeybee is updated on a fairly regular basis, with a stable release roughly every 6 months and a github version that never ceases to improve itself on a weekly basis. For this reason, we realize that updating old Grasshopper definitions to use recent components is a challenge for many of us. While we’ve had some methods for this in the past, there were always hiccups, particularly when it came to components that had new inputs/outputs since the previous version. Accordingly, Mostapha has added a new “Ladybug_Update File” component that will automatically update any Grasshopper Definition to be synchronized with the version of Ladybug+Honeybee that is currently in your toolbar (aka. the components in your userobjects folder). If there is a component that has new inputs/outputs since the time you built the definition, it will be automatically circled in red in your GH definition and a newer version of the component will be automatically added right next to this component:
While you still have to do some manual connecting of inputs to the newer component in this case, it should be much faster than our older methods and will hopefully help your old definitions survive long into the future!
EPWmap Now includes OneBuilding Files - Mostapha has added a number of new features to the EPWmap web interface that the “Download Ladybug” component connects to. Among the improvements are a color wheel that quickly shows you how hot, cold, and comfortable a given climate is and, perhaps more importantly, there is now support for EPW files sourced from OneBuilding. With the addition of many more weather files, you should now be able to use Ladybug with ease for more locations across the planet. We should also note that the “Open EPW and STAT” component that downloads/unzips files from a URL now supports OneBuilding URLs.
New Image Viewer Component - Mingbo Peng has graced Ladybug with a fantastic new “Image Viewer” component that takes a given image file on one’s machine and displays it on the Grasshopper canvas. It also enables one to pull color data off of the image with ease by simply clicking on the pixel of the image one is interested in. This new component is useful for a wide variety of cases, including the viewing of screenshots after they have been taken with the “Ladybug_Capture View” or “Ladybug_Render View” components. However, many of you will likely recognize it as most immediately useful in workflows involving image-based Honeybee Daylight (Radiance) simulations. This is particularly true as Migbo has built-in the capability to read many image file types, including PNG, JPEG, GIF, TIFF and the High Dynamic Range (.HDR) image files that Radiance Outputs:
The following video gives a quick overview of the Image Viewer’s capabilities:
The new component can be found under the Ladybug_Extra tab and I think I speak for us all in saying thank you Mingbo for this great component!
New Sun Shades Calculator Released Under WIP - After over a year of software development and nearly a career's worth of geometric math development, a joint effort between Abraham Yezioro and Antonello Di Nunzio has produced a new sun shade design component that can be described as nothing short of “magical.” Based on a similar principle to the current “Ladybug_Shading Designer,” the new component takes an input of sun vectors and produces shade geometries that can block the vectors. However, in comparison to the shading designer, the range of shade options that are available in this new component is truly staggering, ranging from classic overhangs, louvers and fins to pergolas and custom shade surfaces. Perhaps more importantly, the calculation methods used by this new component are faster and more reliable. It can currently can be found under the WIP section of Ladybug and it will continue to evolve in new versions of Ladybug.
Renewable Component Now Support Sandia and CEC Photovoltaics Modules - Polishing off his many contributions to the “Renewables” section of Ladybug, Djordje Spasic has added support for a couple more ways of defining Photovoltaic modules for renewables estimation. Specifically, the Ladybug WIP section now includes components to import modules defined with the California Energy Commission (CEC) and Sandia Labs.
HONEYBEE
Support for OpenStudio 2.x - A few months ago, the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) released a stable version of OpenStudio version 2, which included a number of improvements in stability and available features. This stable release of Honeybee is built to work with the new version of OpenStudio and, in the coming months, Honeybee will be adding a few more capabilities to its OpenStudio workflows to support v2.x’s new capabilities. Most notable among these will be support for OpenStudio measures. Measures are short scripts written in Ruby using OpenStudio’s SDK to quickly edit and change OpenStudio models. They are fundamental to visions of OpenStudio as a flexible energy modeling interface and to Honeybee’s goals of being a collaborative interface between the architectural and engineering industries. Stay tuned for the next release for many of these new capabilities!
Critical Memory Issue Fixed for Large Energy Models - A number of you wonderful members of our community have been aware of computer memory issues with large Honeybee models for some time (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). Namely, a model that is larger than 50 zones could quickly eat up 16 GBs of memory and change Honeybee from a fast-flying insect to something more reminiscent of a snail. We are happy to say that, after a much longer time than it should have taken us, we finally identified and fixed the issue. In this version of Honeybee, such large models can now be created using less than 2% of the memory and time previously. Thanks to all of you who made us aware of this and hopefully you will now reap the rewards of your struggle.
Split Building Mass Component Getting a Makeover - Many of you veteran Ladybug users will recognize Saeran Vasathakumar as one of the original contributors of Ladybug who added components for solar fans and envelopes years ago. Now he’s back with new components to split a building mass into zones that are truly revolutionary in their speed and methodology. Saeran has divided the new capabilities into two components (one for floor-by-floor subdivision and another for core-perimeter subdivision) and they both can be found under the WIP section of this release. In this WIP version, core-perimeter thermal zones can only be generated for all convex and very simple concave geometries. Most concave geometries and geometries with holes (or courtyards) in them will fail. However it can handle even very complex convex geometries with speed and ease. You can expect the component to start accommodating concave/courtyard geometries very soon.
Load / Dump HB Objects to File - Keeping in line with the support of large, full building energy models, this release includes full support for two components that can dump and load any HBObjects to a standalone file. All information about HBzones can go into this file including custom constructions, schedules, loads, natural ventilation, shading devices, etc. You can then send the resulting .HB file to someone else and they can load up the same exact zones in another definition. This also makes it possible to have one Grasshopper file for generating the zones and running the simulation and another GH definition to import results and color zones/surfaces with those results, make energy balance graphics, etc.
Write ViewFactorInfo to File - After many of you asked for it, the _viewFactorInfo that is output from the “Honeybee_View Factor” component can now be written out to an external file using the same Load / Dump HB Objects components cited above. For those of you who have worked with the comfort map workflows, you probably already know that calculating these view factors is one of the most time consuming portions of building a microclimate map. Having to re-run this calculation each time you want to open up the Grasshopper script is a nuisance and, thanks to this new capability, you should only have to run it once and then store your results in an external .HB file.
Transform Honeybee Components Modified for Large Model Creation - Many large buildings today are made up of copies of the same rooms repeated over and over again across multiple floors, or along a street, etc. Accordingly, one can imagine that the fastest way to create a full building energy model of such buildings is to simply move and copy the same zones several times. This is what a new set of edits to the Honeybee Transform components is aimed at supporting by allowing one to build a custom set of zones, translate them several times with a Honeybee_Transform component, then solve adjacencies on all zones to make a complete energy model.
Central Plants Available on HVAC Systems - While Honeybee has historically supported the assigning of separate HVAC systems to different groups of zones, each HVAC was always an entirely new system from the ground up. So a building with separate VAV systems for each floor would be modeled with a different chiller and boiler for each floor. While this can be the case sometimes, it is more common to have only one chiller and boiler per building but separate air systems for each floor. The new ‘centralPlant_’ options on the Honeybee coolingDetails and heatingDetails enable you to create this HVAC structure by making a single boiler and chiller for any HVAC systems that have this option toggled on. Furthermore, in the case of VRF systems, you can also centralize the ventilation system, using the grouping of zones around a given HVAC to assign which zone terminals are connected to a given heat pump.
More HVAC Templates Added - As the profession continues to push the industry standard towards lower-energy HVAC systems, Honeybee intends to keep up. In this release, we have included a few more templates for modeling advanced HVAC systems including Radiant Ceilings, Radiant Heated Floors + VAV Cooling, and Two Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) systems. Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems have also gotten a large boost as it is now possible to model these systems with more efficient water-source loops. The next release will include the ability to model central ground source systems that use hydronics for heating cooling delivery.
Run THERM Simulations Directly from Grasshopper - Anyone who has used the THERM workflow in the past likely realized that, while Honeybee can write the THERM file, you would still have to open model in THERM yourself and hit “simulate” to get results. Now that LBNL has started a transition to becoming more open, they have graciously allowed free access for everyone to run THERM from a command line. What this means for Honeybee is that you no longer need to open THERM at all in order to get results and you can now work entirely in Rhino/Grasshopper. This also opens up the possibility of long parametric runs with THERM models since you can now automatically run simulations and collect results as you animate sliders, use galapagos, etc. A special thanks is due to the LBNL team for exposing this feature, including Setphen Selkowitz, Christian Kohler, Charlie Curcija, Eleanor Lee, and Robin Mitchell.
All Options Exposed for THERM Boundary Conditions - To finish off the full implementation of THERM in Honeybee, a final component has been added called “Honeybee_Custom Radiant Environment.” This component completes the access to all boundary condition options that THERM offers, including separate radiant and air temperatures, different view factor models, and the specification of additional heat flux (which is typically used to account for solar radiation).
Improvements to Schedule-Generating Components - Many of you who have watched the Honeybee energy modeling video tutorials have likely gotten in the habit of using CSV schedules for everything. While this is definitely one valid way to work, it is not always the most efficient since simple schedules can be specified much more cleanly to EnergyPlus/OpenStudio and the use of CSVs can also make it difficult to share your energy models (since you have to send CSV files along with the schedules themselves). This release adds two new schedule components that should take care of a lot of cases where CSV schedules were unnecessary. The new “Constant Schedule” component allow you to quickly make a schedule that is set at a single value or a set of constantly repeating 24-hour values. The second component allows you to create “Seasonal Schedules” by connecting “week schedules” from the other schedule components along with analysis periods in which these seek schedules operate. Together, these will hopefully make our schedule-generating habit a bit better as a community.
Lastly, many of you may know Mingbo Peng as the current maintainer of the Design Explorer web interface and the Colibri components under TTToolbox. Both of these tools have been revolutionary in enabling “brute force” studies of design spaces (aka. Grasshopper scripts where one runs all combinations of a set of sliders). Now, Mingbo has graced Ladybug with the aforementioned image viewer component and it is with pride that we welcome Mingbo Peng to the development team!
As always let us know your comments and suggestions.Cheers!
The Ladybug Tools Development Team
…
the platform. Crv
Algorithm:
Bounding box on a mesh for extraction of Z dimensions.
Zmin
Zmax
Filtering curve (Closed and Planar Curve), extraction of the Z position of the curve
ZCurve
Crv(Base)
Plan(Base)
We deduce the difference between the position of the curve and the position of the mesh.
DeltaZ
From a slider (0 to 1) we remap value of a slider to the Delta Z. We get the height of the curve test.
ZCurve*
*(At position 0, the curve at the lower Z mesh. At position 1 is the highest of the Z mesh)
Move of the curve on Z.
Crv (Base)
Divide curve on a vertical plane.(RCE : Plane on Curve)
For a closed curve t parameter is 0. For a closed polyline t parameter is 0 and 1.
Cut & Fill Profile(RCE :Cut & Fill Profile)
We take as a parameter Cutt & Fill: Delta Z.
3D Modeling Cutt & Fill platform.
Bounding box of a main project.(RCE :Bounding box)
Creating base of a mesh in main project.
Boolean operation to the cut & fill platform.
Volume and display.
Optimization with Galapagos .
Galapagos Editor.
Verification
The base curve may be a polyigne or a NURBS curve to avoid a problem of computing a set of component may be added to the definition .
Example available in bottom of this post...
[EXEMPLE_Français] Optimisation Plateforme Déblais & Remblais avec Galapagos.
But:
Dans cet exemple nous allons voir comment utiliser RCE(RhinoCivil Engineering) dans une étude d'optimisation de déblais et de remblais sur une plateforme.
Données:
Maillage représentant le terrain. Mesh (A)
Courbe représentant la plateforme. Crv
Algorithme :
Boite de contour du maillage du terrain pour extraction des dimensions en Z de la boite.
Zmin
Zmax
Filtrage de la courbe (courbe plane et fermée), extraction de la position en Z de la courbe.
ZCurve
Crv(Base)
Plan(Base)
Nous en déduisons la différence entre la position de la courbe et la position du maillage.
DeltaZ
A partir d’un slider (0 à 1), nous remappons la valeur du slider d’un domaine 0 à 1 vers la domaine correspondant au Delta Z. Nous obtenons l’altitude de la courbe à tester.
ZCurve*
*(A la position 0 du slider la courbe est au plus bas du maillage du terrain et à la position 1 la courbe est au plus haut du maillage du terrain. L’optimum du déblais remblais doit probablement se trouver entre ces deux valeurs).
Déplacement de la courbe en Z.
Crv (Base)
Division de la courbe par un plan vertical.(RCE : Plan sur Courbe)
Pour une courbe fermée le paramètre t est 0, pour une polyligne fermée le paramètre t est 0 et 1.
Dessin de profils déblais et remblais.(RCE :Profil déblais & remblais simple)
Nous prenons comme paramètre de rattrapage en déblais et remblais Delta Z.
Modélisation de la plateforme en déblais et en remblais.
Création de la boite de contour du projet.(RCE :Boîte)
Création du socle du Terrain dans la zone du projet.
Opération booléenne pour la plateforme en déblais et en remblais.
Calcul de volume et affichage.
Optimisation avec Galapagos.
Galapagos Editeur.
Vérification
La courbe de base peut être une polyigne ou une courbe NURBS, pour éviter un problème de calcul un ensemble de composant peut être ajouté à la définition.
…