ALISTICO. Ciascun modulo si svolgerà nell’arco di due giornate e si potrà scegliere se partecipare ad entrambi i moduli o altrimenti solo all’uno o all’altro.
In questo corso si insegneranno nuove tecniche di modellazione parametrica attraverso l'utilizzo di Grasshopper, rivoluzionaria plug-in di Rhinoceros. Grasshopper permette di esprimere al massimo le qualità e le potenzialità della modellazione Nurbs, abbandonando in parte l'interfaccia classica di Rhinoceros. Quest'ultimo infatti viene sostituito da un menù a tendine nel quale vengono collezionati nodi utili alla composizione di algoritmi risolutivi.
La plug-in Grasshopper, dimostra come il linguaggio del computer stia diventando un reale strumento progettuale.GRASSHOPPER-BASE - 8 oreil giorno 09/05/2013 dalle 10.00 alle 19.00
Nella prima parte del corso si insegneranno i metodi di esplicitazione degli algoritmi, applicati ad esercizi base utili alla comprensione del software. In queste ore si illustreranno, attraverso fasi operative, i seguenti argomenti:
Suddivisione degli algoritmi in parametri e componenti;
Tipologie di dati compatibili con Grasshopper e loro combinazione creando definizioni minime;
Funzioni matematiche e logiche
Data flow, liste e filtri di esclusione.
Costruzione di curve e superfici e loro trasformazione.
Scadenza preiscrizione per Grasshopper - BASE : 06/05GRASSHOPPER-SPECIALISTICO - 8 oreil giorno 10/05/2013 dalle 10.00 alle 19.00
Nella seconda parte del corso lo strumento viene specializzato affrontando editing e trasformazioni complesse sulle superfici:
Elaborazione delle superficie di suddivisione;
Tassellazione spaziale di superfici a doppia curvatura;
Gestione di parametri variabili per la progettazione di definizioni finalizzate al controllo del movimento;
Ideazione di algoritmi per il passaggio dal modello digitale al modello reale attraverso la tecnica dello sliceing.
Scadenza preiscrizione per Grasshopper - SPECIALISTICO : 07/05
Destinatari
Il corso è rivolto a tutti gli studenti universitari e professionisti che hanno una buona conoscenza delle tecniche di modellazione NURBS.
Prerequisiti
I partecipanti dovranno venire al corso muniti di proprio laptop e con software Rhinoceros perfettamente funzionanti.Alla fine del corso, verrà rilasciato l’attestato di partecipazione ad un corso di Rhinoceros qualificato certificato dalla casa sviluppatrice McNeel, valido anche per la richiesta di crediti formativi universitari.
Docente del corso
Il corso sarà tenuto da un docente qualificato, esperto in disegno e rappresentazione dell' architettura e del design:
Michele Calvano| _architetto, dottore di ricerca in rappresentazione architettonica specializzato nella modellazione matematica (Nurbs) e modellazione parametrica.
Docente ART (Autorized Rhino Trainer) - [vedi CV]
…
2013 | mayo 30, 31 y 1 de junio. 15 Hrs.
Horario: 18:00 – 22.00 Jueves, Viernes y Sábado de 8:00 a 16:00 Hrs. Instructor_ Arch. David Hernández Melgarejo.
http://bioarchitecturestudio.wordpress.com
Objetivos:
El curso está dirigido a cada diseñador, ingeniero o arquitecto que quiere obtener una sólida base en modelado generativo y paramétrico dentro del flujo de trabajo en Rhinoceros.
En el curso se explorarán y construirán estructuras en el espacio paramétrico, incorporando entidades geométricas (Curvas, Superficies, Puntos, etc…) y usando patrones algorítmicos.
Cada paso será soportado con ejercicios que gradualmente incrementarán su complejidad.
El alumno aprenderá cómo trabajar con asociación geométrica y parámetros. Para perfeccionar asociación geométrica – asociación entre partes, asociación dinámica – las formas geométricas son generadas al seguir la conexión lógica entre la parte geométrica y su restricción, dimensión paramétrica y él proceso dinámico del diseño: en pocas palabras estimulamos el pensamiento relacional.
Resultados:
Los participantes con éste entrenamiento obtendrán las siguientes fundamentos.
· Construir, modificar, depurar y correr aplicaciones de Grasshopper.
· Comprender el editor gráfico algorítmico y sus patrones usando grupos y cables conectores.
· Trabajar con dimensiones dinámicas, parámetros y listas.
· Generar aplicaciones orientadas a la documentación del diseño y la fabricación.
Palabras clave:
Diseño Computacional, Scripting, Rhinoceros 5.0 + Grasshopper, Parametrización, Análisis, Fabricación Digital.
Para mayor información:
MArch. Kathrin Schröter. E-mail: kschroter@itesm.mx
Dirección de Arquitectura. Oficinas de Aulas 1, segundo piso.…
e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."
Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."
Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. Visual Programming.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. Context sensitivity.
"There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?
I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.
You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. Components.
"Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."
I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"
It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
6. Integration.
"Why isn't it just live geometry?"
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry.
"Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."
That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).
On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. Documentation.
Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.
Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 2D-ness.
"I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"
I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…
ed to do:
FOA_Bundle_Tower.pdf
The tower height is a variable
The degrees of symmetry in plan is variable from 2 to 10 (2 bundles up to 10 bundles; the actual project has 4 bundles made from 8 individual towers or tubes).
The overall radius or diameter of the circle on which each tower is located is a variable
The tower should match the overall topology of the Bundle Tower: each tube should alternate between touching its neighboring tube on the left and right twice.
The number of floors is a variable
Overall tower height: 500m- Floor to floor height: 4.5m (I recommend that you increase this to 10m while testing)- Each tube's plan roughly has an area of 1000m2
this is what i have got so far:
foa tower.ghx
I just need guidance because i am soo lost. thank you
…
nts for Ladybug too. They are based on PVWatts v1 online calculator, supporting crystalline silicon fixed tilt photovoltaics.
You can download them from here, or use the Update Ladbybug component instead. If you take the first option, after downloading check if .ghuser files are blocked (right click -> "Properties" and select "Unblock").
You can download the example files from here.
Video tutorials will follow in the coming period.
In the very essence these components help you answer the question: "How much energy can my roof, building facade, solar parking... generate if I would populate them with PV panels"?
They allow definition of different types of losses (snow, age, shading...) which may affect your PV system:
And can find its optimal tilt and orientation:
Or analyse its performance, energy value, consumption, emissions...
By Djordje Spasic and Jason Sensibaugh, with invaluable support of Dr. Frank Vignola, Dr. Jason M. Keith, Paul Gilman, Chris Mackey, Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Niraj Palsule, Joseph Cunningham and Christopher Weiss.
Thank you for reading, and hope you will enjoy using the components!
EDIT: From march 27 2017, Ladybug Photovoltaics components support thin-film modules as well.
References:
1) System losses:
PVWatts v5 Manual, Dobos, NREL, 2014
2) Sun postion equations by Michalsky (1988):
SAM Photovoltaic Model Technical Reference, Gilman, NREL, 2014
edited by Jason Sensibaugh
3) Angle of incidence for fixed arrays:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
4) Plane-of-Array diffuse irradiance by Perez 1990 algorithm:
PVPMC Sandia National Laboratories
SAM Photovoltaic Model Technical Reference, Gilman, NREL, 2014
5) Sandia PV Array Performance Module Cover:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
6) Sandia Thermal Model, Module Temperature and Cell Temperature Models:
Photovoltaic Array Performance Model, King, Boys, Kratochvill, Sandia National Laboratories, 2004
7) CEC Module Model: Maximum power voltage and Maximum power current from:
Exact analytical solutions of the parameters of real solar cells using Lambert W-function, Jain, Kapoor, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, V81 2004, P269–277
8) PVFORM version 3.3 adapted Module and Inverter Models:
PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference, Dobos, NREL, 2013
9) Sunpath diagram shading:
Using sun path charts to estimate the effects of shading on PV arrays, Frank Vignola, University of Oregon, 2004
Instruction manual for the Solar Pathfinder, Solar Pathfinder TM, 2008
10) Tilt and orientation factor:
Application for Purchased Systems Oregon Department of Energy
solmetric.com
11) Photovoltaics performance metrics:
Solar PV system performance assessment guideline, Honda, Lechner, Raju, Tolich, Mokri, San Jose state university, 2012
CACHE Modules on Energy in the Curriculum Solar Energy, Keith, Palsule, Mississippi State University
Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0, Hammond, Jones, SERT University of Bath, 2011
The Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) of Photovoltaics: Methodology and Comparisons with Fossil Fuel Life Cycles, Raugei, Fullana-i-Palmer, Fthenakis, Elsevier Vol 45, Jun 2012
12) Calculating albedo: Metenorm 6 Handbook part II: Theory, Meteotest 2007
13) Magnetic declination:
Geomag 0.9.2015, Christopher Weiss…
hit Commit.
I'm wondering how hard it would be to have an edit box which shows the
number the user could click inside of then type in a new number, then
hit enter. :)
2) How would I go about using one line from a table and assign each
field to a variable? Then, move a slider or something and use the values
from the next row?
background: I'm recreating elbows, Tees, and other fittings using
paramatric scripts, then baking and exporting them. Here's one source
table, http://www.wardfittings.com/Assets/PDFs/0902CatalogColorOld.pdf
page 5, the uniform elbows.
Current Setup: the attached ghx file. Create a point at 0,5,0 in a blank
document with units set to inches, then assign that point to the top
left 'Center Pnt' in the ghx file.
Current workflow:
a) Modify variables A, B, H, and Nominal Dia to match one line from the
table in the linked PDF file, page 5, table of regular elbows.
b) Select the 'Nodes' and 'Surfaces' with a drag box
c) Click 'Bake'
d) Switch to Rhino window, do the 'sellast' command.
e) Drag baked objects along Y axis so the center point is at 0,0,0
f) Run 'Join'
g) Run 'Cap'
h) set the 'node' points to a layer called 'nodes'
i) set the surface to a layer called 'fit-3d'.
j) select the surfaces and nodes
k) export selected
This elbow that I'm doing only has 12 rows, so doing it the above method
doesn't take THAT long. I'm also going to be doing a couple with larger
tables like the Tee on page 8, and in other spec files. As you can
imagine, entering in EACH value into a slider is a bit tedious.
I'd love to take the pdf table, run it through an OCR program to convert
to excel, modify the headers so the ghx script knows what they are, then
paste it into grasshopper, or save it and have grasshopper read it, and
I be able to move a slider or something to to select one line at a time.
Has anyone done something similar? ie: assigned one row in a table to a
predefined set of variables, each variable coming from one field in the row?
Thanks for taking the time to read this message. :)
I'm making a rhino script to do steps d-k, so that part will be much faster.
-Suthern…
l coarse mesh
Subdividing this mesh into strips of thin quads
Relaxing/Planarizing this mesh
Splitting and Unrolling
In this post I deal with the first 2 of these stages.
You can download the example definition here:
developable_strips_tutorial.gh
Drawing the initial mesh
To begin with we need a simple quad mesh. This can be modelled manually in Rhino, and only needs to use enough quads to give the topology and very rough form. No need to worry too much about the exact geometry or dimensions at this point, as we will refine and alter it as we go.
One very important thing that we do need to bear in mind though is that all internal vertices must have even valence (I covered this a bit in the earlier post here).
So for example, this is bad:
(because the highlighted vertex is surrounded by 5 faces)
While this is good (and can still be relaxed to the same shape):
(the top and bottom vertices have valence 8, and the vertices between the arms have valence 4)
With a little practice it should be possible to convert any mesh into one that meets this condition.
The reasons why we need this condition should become more clear in the later steps.
First subdivision
This is where we choose how many strips we want our final model to have, by applying a few rounds of subdivision using the Refine component (you could also use Weaverbird here):
Sorting the face directions
While quad meshes do not carry the same information about u/v directions as a NURBS surface, the individual faces do have a sort of direction given by their vertex ordering. However, these face directions are usually not consistently arranged, especially after subdivision.
The Kangaroo MeshDirection component attempts* to orient all the faces in a mesh so that they match with their neighbours.
For example, before sorting, if we draw a line from the midpoint of the first edge of each face to the midpt of its opposite edge, we might get something like this:
Whereas after sorting, we should get something like this:
*note that I say it attempts to orient the faces consistently. In some cases no valid solution exists, for instance if 3 or 5 faces meet around a vertex, hence the requirement mentioned at the start for even valence vertices.
Directional Subdivision
Now that we have consistent face directions across the mesh, we can apply further subdivision, but this time in one direction only. So we go from roughly square quads to thin rectangles. The idea is that as we apply higher levels of this directional subdivision, the final relaxed result goes towards something semi-discrete. A NURBS surface is fully continuous, and a mesh is fully discrete (made up of separate facets), while this strip model will be smooth in one direction and faceted in the other.
Go to part 2 for the next step of the process
…
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
…
Grasshopper contains a VB.net and C# component. These components
allow you to run your own custom code within Grasshopper.
Understanding how to make even simple code components can be very
useful in G