rring to the above image)
Area
effective
effective
Second
Elastic
Elastic
Plastic
Radius
Second
Elastic
Plastic
Radius
of
Vy shear
Vz shear
Moment
Modulus
Modulus
Modulus
of
Moment
Modulus
Modulus
of
Section
Area
Area
of Area
upper
lower
Gyration
of Area
Gyration
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
A
Ay
Az
Iy
Wy
Wy
Wply
i_y
Iz
Wz
Wplz
i_z
cm2
cm2
cm2
cm4
cm3
cm3
cm3
cm
cm4
cm3
cm3
cm
I have a very similar table which I could import to the Karamba table. But I have i_v or i_u values as well as radius of inertia for instance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
dimensjon
Masse
Areal
akse
Ix
Wpx
ix
akse
Iy
Wpy
iy
akse
Iv
Wpv
iv
Width
Thickness
Radius R
[kg/m]
[mm2]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
L 20x3
0.89
113
x-x
4,000
290
5.9
y-y
4,000
290
5.9
v-v
1,700
200
3.9
20
3
4
L 20x4
1.15
146
x-x
5,000
360
5.8
y-y
5,000
360
5.8
v-v
2,200
240
3.8
20
4
4
L 25x3
1.12
143
x-x
8,200
460
7.6
y-y
8,200
460
7.6
v-v
3,400
330
4.9
25
3
4
L 25x4
1.46
186
x-x
10,300
590
7.4
y-y
10,300
590
7.4
v-v
4,300
400
4.8
25
4
4
L 30x3
1.37
175
x-x
14,600
680
9.1
y-y
14,600
680
9.1
v-v
6,100
510
5.9
30
3
5
L 30x4
1.79
228
x-x
18,400
870
9.0
y-y
18,400
870
9.0
v-v
7,700
620
5.8
30
4
5
L 36x3
1.66
211
x-x
25,800
990
11.1
y-y
25,800
990
11.1
v-v
10,700
760
7.1
36
3
5
L 36x4
2.16
276
x-x
32,900
1,280
10.9
y-y
32,900
1,280
10.9
v-v
13,700
930
7.0
36
4
5
L 36x5
2.65
338
x-x
39,500
1,560
10.8
y-y
39,500
1,560
10.8
v-v
16,500
1,090
7.0
36
5
5
I have diagonals (bracings) which can buckle in these "non-regular" directions too, and they do. If I could add those values then in the Karamba model I could assign specific buckling scenarios..... I can see another challenge which will be at the ModifyElement component, I will not be able to choose these buckling lengths, in these directions.
Do you think this functionality can be added within short, or should I try to find another way to model these members?
Br, Balazs
…
- nickname is rather the best approach - and not on active group, but that's irrelevant anyway).
Step back (assuming that you are talking about the "Tens_from_random_blah_blah" definition):
1. Engineering is the art of demystifying (or we are promising that anyway, he he). This means that you start defining (better: outlining) some topology for things based on some "generic" rules (like the ones applied for the masts,cables,cones etc etc). These things are kept in some kind of structure (Lists, DataTrees etc). Things are few in 99.99999% of cases (i.e. : even the biggest membrane "module" has, say, 20-50 masts per "module").
2. Then ... handling things "individually" (mostly modifying) becomes the most critical part. See this (an x "possible" solution by combining a myriad of "options" : a no cones membrane solution, in plain English):
3. But the above is impossible (for more than obvious reasons). You should deploy masts in some high/low sequence in order to achieve some meaningful convex/concave formation that could work.
4. This "works" : 5. This doesn't:
6. This works partially (the formation at the back is "flat" == undo able):
7. This is utterly kitsch (and faulty as the case6 - the back portion):
So it's quite obvious that without a (quite complex) capability to individually control things (in this occasion : mast heights) the whole definition is a waste of computer time. Additionally the more the solution is "demystified" (some curve is defined, some random points are created, some masts are in place, some cables appear etc etc) the more additional constrains are required in order to "narrow" the possibilities (In plain English : sliders should control other sliders as regards their min/max values, true/false, you/me etc etc).
Remember that we are talking about ONE (mast height) out of a myriad things that you should control "manually" (it's utterly pointless to mastermind some kind of "generic" rules - or use naive attractors etc etc) .You'll see the difference when I'll completely reform the definition by adding individual control upon anything.
PS: what about the blocks? (the real life stuff that actually make any solution possible). Can you imagine a 2nd set of "restrictions" imposed by "a child to his parent"? (Assembly/Component modeling , that is).
more soon
…
uick answers. Below you will find some suggestions, but don't think of them as rules and especially don't think of them as guarantees.
1. Choose a descriptive title for your post
Don't call your question "Help!" or "I have a problem" or "Deadline tonight!", but actually describe the problem you are having.
2. Be succinct but clear in your wording
People need to know some details about your problem in order to understand what sort of answers would satisfy you, but nobody cares about how angry your boss or how bad your teacher or how tight your deadline is. Talk about the problem and only the problem. If you don't speak English well, you should probably post in your native language as well as providing a Google Translation of your question.
3. Attach minimal versions of all the relevant files
If you have a GH/GHX file you have a question about, attach it to the post. Don't expect that people will recreate a file based on a screen-shot because that's a lot of pointless work. It's also a good idea to remove everything non-essential from a GH file. You can use the 'Internalise Data' menu option to cut everything to the left of a parameter:
If you're importing curves or Breps or meshes from Rhino, you can also internalise them so you won't have to post a 3DM file as well as a GH file. If you do attach large files, consider zipping them first. Do not use RAR, Ning doesn't handle it.
It is especially a good idea to post files that don't require any non-standard components if at all possible. Not everyone has Kangaroo or Hoopsnake or Geco installed so if your file relies on those components, it might not open correctly elsewhere.
4. Include a detailed image of the GH file if it makes sense
If your question is about a specific (group of) components, consider adding a screenshot of the file in the text of the post. You can use the Ctrl+Shift+Q feature in Grasshopper to quickly create nice screenshots with focus rectangles such as this:
5. Include links to online resources if possible
If you have a question about Schwarz Minimal surfaces, please link to a website which talks about these.
6. Create new topics rather than continuing old ones
It's usually better to start a fresh question, even if there's already a discussion that kinda sorta tangentially touches upon the same issue. Please link to that discussion, but start anew.
7. This is not a 'do my work for me' group
Many of us like to help, but it's good to see effort on our part being matched by effort on your part. Questions in the form of 'I need to do X but cannot be bothered to try and learn the software' will (and should) go unanswered.
7b. Similarly, questions in the form of 'How do I quickly recreate this facade that took a team of skilled professionals four months to figure out?' have a very low success rate.
--
David Rutten
Lead Grasshopper Development
Robert McNeel & Associates…
Added by David Rutten at 12:58pm on October 1, 2013
ated in all editions of Architektura Parametryczna Workshops!Architektura Parametryczna Workshops Optimization Warsaw 2016 FAQWHEN?21-22nd May 2016 (Saturday-Sunday)HOW LONG DO THE WORKHSOPS LAST?The workshops last in total 16 hours.Saturday 10AM -7PM (with lunch break), Sunday 10AM -7PM (with lunch break)WHAT WILL I LEARN?On Saturday the optimization processes with solar, views and structural analysis will be explored. We will be discovering optimal solutions with the help of plug-ins such as Galapagos, Silvereye, Octopus, Karamba and Ladybug. In the Sunday morning we will learn how to present the results of the optimization: creating catalogues of solutions and printing the optimization graphs. In the afternoon participants will have time for the development of the personal project. HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?The workshops cost 600 PLN (or 160€) for Early Bird payments and 700 PLN (or 190€) for the regular payments. The 3-person group - 1500 PLN (or 440€ )EARLY BIRD?For those who are certain that they will attend the workshops, we have a special Early Bird offer till 30th of April 2016.HOW CAN I SIGN UP?Send an email to info@architekturaparametryczna.pl with the title: “OPTI WAW 16”.HOW MANY PLACES ARE AVAILABLE?We have only 11 places!WORKSHOPS: Level: intermediate – advancePerquisites: the basic knowledge of Rhino and Grasshopper3D. Plug-ins: Silvereye, Octopus, Ladybug, Karamba. Weaverbird. Python GHThe main aim of the 16-hour workshops is to give the participants the understanding of how the optimization process can be used in practice and how it can help in solving everyday design problems. The practical exercise will be supported with the short lectures explaining the theoretical background of the optimization algorithms. The general program of the Optimization Warsaw 2016 Workshops*:1. Optimization of the facade geometry with solar analysis.2. Optimization of the roof structures with Karamba.3. Finding the optimal configuration of the space frame structures with Karamba.4. Discovering the best location or/and geometry of the building in accordance to the best views from the plot.5. Presentation of the discovered solutions. *Some of the exercises might be changed.…
y interesting and smart way to construct surface. I tried some experiments out using a similar idea - take a developable surface which has a series of holes cut through it now offset that surface and unroll both of them, once both have been cut out insert a dowel into the holes (the dowel represents the offset distance). In the end the shape is recreated via tension and in that way there are some similarities. With your concept the thing I have trouble figuring out is how do you cut the variable angle kerfs. Are you using a 5-axis swarf cut, a cnc panel saw - how do you control this? It would be great to have a set of constraints which limit the number of possible angled cuts - these limits would equal the number of v-groove bits you have in the cnc - and then you could just cut the lines with the programmed tool which matches the given angle. Or maybe I am completely wrong, now I think I am wrong, about the execution and you are only changing the gap between each kerf and the angle of the side wall stays constant.
Anyway to answer your question catia can analyze the characteristics of a piece of formed material (this analysis is usually applied to sheet metal and to design forming tools)it's just a matter or defining the material to match that which you are using. Another possibility although not as numerically clear is using a simulation tool like Maya cloth or Virtools. I know this maybe less likely but you can define all sorts of materials in Maya and then simulate their behavior under numerous forces and constraints. I think it would work it's just how do you extrapolate the values Maya needs and then correlate them back into the cloth parameters. Once it yields the final formed mesh then further analysis could be performed in cosmos, ansys, or catia.
I have one other suggestion. In solidworks if you perform a lofted bend on a sheet metal part and then generate a flat pattern it creates a large set of bend lines representing how to perform the bending of an unusual shape using a metal brake. It seems like those bend lines could be machined with you technique to create lofted forms instead of extrusions.
What materials seem to work best so far, have you only been using wood (the purple stuff is probably not wood)?
If you are ever in Los Angeles I have a shop with a 3 axis and 5 axis router, a large vacuum bag, and all the other things to experiment on this and would be open to this.…
Amuse yourself by trying to figure what kind of series logic could deploy (or not) these room unit combos across the blue space grid shown.
2. Let's assume that surgery etc etc departments are sited in some ground floor and their requirement for rooms is variable ... meaning that some kind of heuristic GH approach must be applied here (for instance : fill the first level with rooms required by all departments with min distance from a given core and if more are required go to next floor etc etc).
The real room unit cluster looks like that (all units are prefab)
3. Voids in the whole cluster deployment (avoid Soviet type of bloc aesthetics) mean that culling could be challenge here (we need ...er..."visual" culling , so to speak)
4. After finishing some solution create custom preview(s) in order to visualize what dept owns what rooms.
5. If in trouble with Architectural things > relax > be cool > open 3d PDF > be a great Architect in just 10 easy steps.
PS: of course I know GH clusters...but as they are they violate my rule N1: never walk the walk if no return is possible, he he. But assuming that David could resolve the return issue (sure he can) this is NOT the answer for my "proposal" for multiple Canvas - again like multiple Views in any CAD stuff these days. Just imagine clusters with some serious hierarchy depth > where am I ? what input comes from what output?
I'll be back with a chaotic case (Series in complete anarchy) in order to demonstrate the critical necessity for a visual Tree Manager/Viewer (a visual thing within the GH visual thing). For manager read : decomposer, composer, visual identifier (per data item/branch) tree re-mapper, anything actually.
more soon (and a in depth analysis about what a Tree Manager/Viewer should do - in an ideal world, that is)
Cheers, Peter
…
which needs to go in the first line only.
Each value K is one element of the knot vector
XYZ is an individual control point. Each point gets its own line/string in the output list
R is the weight of the XYZ point defined in the same line
I can get all these data into separate lists easily enough using the buttons etc. But getting them into the proper order and moving stepwise down the data to generate the desired output string list is eluding me so far.
My thought is to make an array of columns.
Column one is a list of knot values.
Column two is a list of X values.
Column 3 = list of Y values
Column 4=z values
Column 5 is weight values
etc
The idea would be to read the first value in each list into a list of five elements, then make a string out of it. The second value of each column into a separate string on the next line, then the third value from each column into the third string in the output list and so on.The last few values in the output list will contain knot vector elements only, as there are more of these than there are control points. Some of these curves are very long, with many control points, like hundreds and hundreds.
It seems I should be able to pull the lists of interest and combine them into a tree somehow; so far all I have been able to manage is to get them into a single list by starting with control points, then weaving each list of interest successively into the growing list. I'm thinking I need to get the list for each parameter into an individual branch, then read a path across the branches at each index value. But I am missing something about the terminology. I have watched a few videos and it makes sense when people are pulling nested geometry out of models, but this is a little different. More of a data management issue. I'm sure if I wrestle with it I will get it, but it may not be pretty. Any pointers appreciated. A couple of approaches are attached. Not sure whether to loop a list subset through the data or do something else. Thanks,
Karl in LA…
e in Euclidean space then the distance metric can be discontinuous:
Discontinuous means that a tiny change in input may result in a large change in output. Observe the image above, we start measuring euclidean distances from point A. At first the process appears to be continuous. We measure at distance b and we get point B. We increase the distance slightly to c and we get point C, which is very close to point B. We increase the distance slightly again to d, but now suddenly we're in a completely different location. This jumping behaviour can mean that certain questions (such as: "how do I divide this curve into 4 points, all equally far apart?") do not have an answer. It could be possible for 3 and 5, but not 4.
Another problem is that there may be multiple solutions. In the image above the point D isn't the only point that is d units away from A and coincident with the curve. There may be any number of those points depending on the shape of the curve, the location of A and the value of d. And of course once you have two (or more) solutions, you can have two (or more) answers. Then each of those solutions may yet again have more than one outcome for the next point in the chain and before you know it the question you asked has 35295 different answers and good luck trying to find one you like.
Now of course sometimes it is possible to answer your question unambiguously. I made a solution that uses Galapagos. It's pretty slow, and it'll get slower the more segments you want:
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:26am on September 9, 2013
r planet Utopia?
2. In what sort of animal these "shaders" are to be used? Meaning that designing a "Viz" control for 2345,67 mini-membranes is one thing and doing it for your house is a totally different challenge. In plain English: it's more than possible to hit the Wall if lot's and lot's of items are invited to the party (you bring the girls and I'll provide the Vodka).
3. Do you like the idea of completely separating (on a spatial basis) input/viz control (what is on display and on what level of "detail") from the core logic (i.e. components). Pros: obvious, Cons: obvious.
4. Is this def planned as a "constant" evolution thing? Meaning that using, say, the mapper isn't the best idea if your input goes from {a;b;c} to {a;b;c;d;g;...;z}.
5. Have you any - even academic - plans (see 1) to walk the walk up to the end?. Meaning talking to Birdair/Taiyo Kogyo etc etc ( http://www.birdair.br.com/ ). If yes be prepared because these fellas work a bit differently as regards potential collaboration and feedback at design phase.
BTW: the thing that would change the world as you know it:
http://www.birdair.br.com/tensileArchitecture/tensotherm.aspx
best, Peter
…
ts (other than Kangaroo - if required). Anyway notify if you want some taste of them (but they are a bit "chaotic" : too many parameters etc etc ...). Warning: Almost all are written with MCAD apps in mind: GH is used SOLELY as a graphical editor/topology solver and just makes the simplest instance definitions possible in order to send them (via STEP) to some MCAD (Frank G uses CATIA/Digital Project as you may probably know, CATIA is my favorite toy as well) for actually designing the components and composing the whole.
2. "Equality" in modules (panels/glass/lexan) it's not an issue (other than aesthetics). I mean cost wise since modules are prepared via CNC these days. I wouldn't suggest to waste your time with "equality" puzzles and completely ignoring the big picture (real-life) that is FAR and AWAY from aesthetics. I mean: assume that I of someone else or Daniel can "equalize" things (up to a point): Is this sufficient for designing a similar real-life solution? In plain English: don't get occupied by the tree and ignore the forest.
3. As regards the frame in most of cases some MERO type of modular system is used: either a "flat" dome-like arrangement or a classic spaceframe or a hybrid system [push: tubes, pull: cables]. Hybrids are the most WOW (and costly) for obvious reasons. When properly done (and combined with a planar glazing system) THIS is the star of the show.
4. As regards the skin we use either "hinged" custom stuctural/semi structural aluminum extrusions (they can adapt to different dihedrals up to a point) or classic custom planar SS16L systems that also can adapt to dihedrals. A custom planar glazing solution is hideously expensive, mind (say: 1K Euros per m2).
5. Smart Glass tech (changes light transmission properties under the application of voltage) is gradually penetrating the market especially in future bespoke designs.
So in a nutshell: these are "pro" territory - if I may use the term, thus I don't expect to find ANY similar "turn-key" solution in the very same sense that you can't find a tensile membrane turn-key solution.
Meaning that practices that can do it ... er ... they keep the cookies for themselves. …