,with OpenfoamV1612+ in Windows 10 64bit.The blockmesh worked good.And the snappyhexmesh crashed in the process.My computer memory is not enough? Or some settings wrong?Could you help me solve this question?/---------------------------------------------------------------------------| ========= | || \ / F ield | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox || \ / O peration | Version: v1612+ || \ / A nd | Web: www.OpenFOAM.com || \/ M anipulation | |*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/Build : v1612+Exec : snappyHexMeshDate : Aug 27 2017Time : 09:39:54Host : "default"PID : 13443Case : /home/ofuser/workingDir/butterfly/outdoor_airflownProcs : 1sigFpe : Enabling floating point exception trapping (FOAM_SIGFPE).fileModificationChecking : Monitoring run-time modified files using timeStampMaster (fileModificationSkew 10)allowSystemOperations : Allowing user-supplied system call operations
// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //Create time
Create mesh for time = 0
Read mesh in = 2.14 s
Overall mesh bounding box : (-241.5472 -241.4418 0) (496.4376 536.2438 144.8633)Relative tolerance : 1e-06Absolute matching distance : 0.001081851
Reading refinement surfaces.Read refinement surfaces in = 0.01 s
Reading refinement shells.Refinement level 3 for all cells inside around_buildings_area.stlRead refinement shells in = 0 s
Setting refinement level of surface to be consistent with shells.For geometry outdoor_airflow.stl detected 0 uncached triangles out of 120Checked shell refinement in = 0 s
Reading features.Read features in = 0 s
Determining initial surface intersections
Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1684728Number of edges to retest : 1684728Number of intersected edges : 5583Calculated surface intersections in = 1.68 s
Initial mesh : cells:554112 faces:1684728 points:576779Cells per refinement level:0 554112
Adding patches for surface regions
Patch Type Region
outdoor_airflow:
6 wall buildings
Added patches in = 0.03 s
Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1684728Number of edges to retest : 0Number of intersected edges : 5583Selecting decompositionMethod none
Refinement phase
Found point (127.4452 147.401 72.43167) in cell 402042 on processor 0
Surface refinement iteration 0
Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 8820 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 3.87 sSelected for refinement : 8820 cells (out of 554112)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 1883850Number of edges to retest : 250376Number of intersected edges : 21198Refined mesh in = 1.77 sAfter refinement surface refinement iteration 0 : cells:615852 faces:1883850 points:652499Cells per refinement level:0 5452921 70560
Surface refinement iteration 1
Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 38502 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 0.04 sSelected for refinement : 40392 cells (out of 615852)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 2787132Number of edges to retest : 1118049Number of intersected edges : 85655Refined mesh in = 3.17 sAfter refinement surface refinement iteration 1 : cells:898596 faces:2787132 points:990317Cells per refinement level:0 5432351 486812 306680
Surface refinement iteration 2
Marked for refinement due to surface intersection : 159213 cells.Determined cells to refine in = 0.1 sSelected for refinement : 168471 cells (out of 898596)Edge intersection testing:Number of edges : 6576117Number of edges to retest : 4737635Rhino Model and GH files is in t'he zip file.Please help me solve this question!~~…
tura digital en corte Láser, corte CNC, impresión 3d, y modelado paramétrico.
Este tercer taller enseña los fundamentos del modelado paramétrico y algunas bases de manufactura digital.
PERFIL DEL ALUMNO QUE INGRESA:
Diseñador, Arquitecto, Artista con conocimientos de Rhinoceros interesados en comenza a modelar paramétrico con Grasshopper para fabricación digital básica.
PERFIL DEL ALUMNO QUE EGRESA:
El alumno terminará con los conocimientos y criterios para el desarrollo de piezas o proyectos utilizando fabricación digital, mejorando y agilizando los flujos de trabajo, así como los criterios fundamentales del Modelado Paramétrico -Generativo.
Taller de modelado paramétrico con Grasshopper
Interfase
Manejo de Datos
Data Volátil
Data Persistente
Rangos y dominios
Atractores
Listas y Cull
Modelado por Layer Object
Análisis Básicos
Conexión de Curvas
Superficies
Análisis de Superficies
Panelización Básica
Relaciones con Excel
Modelado generativo
Fechas: del 8 de Febrero al 1º de Marzo
Días: Sábado
Horarios: de 10 am a 3 pm
Sesiones: 4 de 5hrs
Duración: 20 horas
Precio: $3,000.00…
w how. Thanks for that. Now I do have some questions.
1. I am using the area weight tool. I am first calculating the volume of the form. I then multiply that value by it's density. So for concrete I am using 2400 kg/m^3 x volume. I then divided that number by the area of the membrane that is supporting the mass. This gives me my area weight. It seems to be working well but I want to verify that this is the correct workflow. I also want to verify that gravity would be turned off since I am thinking it is already calculated within the weight component.
2. I am finding that the new triangular element tool works much better than trying to use EA/L as input for the springs from mesh. Even when I set the timestep, subiteration, and drag I still have issues with getting very stiff materials to work. On the new finite elements tool I wanted to verify that E was in pascals. I also wanted to ask if I use imperial units can psi be entered. Now from what I am seeing the materials are deforming more than expected and to get less deformation and stretch in the mesh area I am finding the E value needs to be increased more than the true material values. Often I am raising E by a multiple of 10 or 100.
I am going to describe my problem and I will gladly share the definition if you'd prefer looking it over but basically I have an inflated membrane at a certain pressure made of a particular material. I then have a certain volume of concrete on top of the inflated membrane. My goal is to review the displacements as the concrete is applied over the membrane and find the proper pressures to apply to keep it free from deformation. I am including a picture from a project that we used kangaroo on and attempted to deal with such issues. It was a class sponsored by Cloud9 architecture held at Art Center College of Design where I was one of the instructors. Hopefully this illustrates the problem. To summarize any example file that shows the best way to implement real material properties and unit based forces would be a helpful reference and would be greatly appreciated.
…
stributes structural supports for a uniformly loaded domain using e.g. the internal energy of the loaded domain as fitness. Here the uniformly loaded domain is represented by the trimmed surface. My genomes are the support positions (green crosses), which are restricted to a set of predefined grid points. I’m currently using an (i,j)-coordinate indexing for these grid points (illustrated in the viewport just below) as opposed to a sequential , “one-dimensional” numbering (illustrated in the viewport further down).
(i,j)-indexing systemAltenative, sequential indexing system
The support positions are computed by two gene pools; one governing the i-index, Gene List {i}, and one governing the j-index, Gene List {j}, of each support. The value of slider 0 in Gene List {i} is paired with the value of slider 0 in Gene List {j} etc. and the amount of sliders corresponds to the amount of supports. The screen shot below depicts the slider constellation corresponding to the support distribution depicted above. Unfortunately the j-index represented in the sliders needs remapping as the number of j-indices vary for each i-index (horizontal row of grid points). With the current setup I have 12^6 x 9^6 = 1,6 x 10^12 different genomes. If I were to use the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering, I would only use one gene pool with sliders ranging from 0 to 76 meaning that remapping could be avoided and thereby having only 76^6 = 1,9 x 10^11 different genomes.
So, my current genome setup causes a bunch of issues related to the Evolutionary Solver: Remapping Changing one of the j-index sliders, will not necessarily change the related support position but it will still facilitate another genome to be calculated by the solver. (This problem could be eliminated by using the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering)
Switching slider values around If the values of e.g. slider 0 were to be switched around with the values of slider 5, this again would yield a new genome but an identical solution. (This problem cannot be eliminated by using the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering)
Coincident support positions Two or more supports may be located in the same position. (This problem cannot be eliminated by using the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering)
I find it impossible to imagine the fictive “fitness landscape” of this problem and not only because of the multidimensional genome characteristic but just as much because of these listed, intertwined peculiarities. I’ve tried running the Simulated Annealing Solver as well, but my experience is that the Evolutionary Solver yields better results. To my awareness, the solver uses some kind of topographical proximity searcher. This is why, I think that the solving process itself benefits more from analysing the (i,j)-index system, in which neighbouring grid points hold more uniform topographical information than the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering, which might have big ID-numbering gaps between neighbours. Have I understood this correctly?
Cheers…
ack to .ghx?
This is in relation to a discussion I've been having with David Rutten & Scott Davidson about GH consuming memory in a relatively large GH definition (~. I think what I've learned from this is that one should limit the size of the GH file, or put some incremental stops in the definition to limit the length of calculations that it runs at once. Is this a valid conclusion?
The GH file we're talking about is 7Mb & the Rhino file is about 120Mb, but when working w/ the GH def. I try to only keep about 2 curves turned on.
Here's a summary of the discussion:
Hi Mike,thanks for sending it over. I've been fiddling with the file for about 10 minutes and it climbed from 1.7 GB to 1.9GB, but then I've been switching previews on which means more meshes get calculated so you'd expect a higher memory consumption. It is possible we're leaking memory, but if you're working for hours on end, memory fragmentation might also explain part of the increase. Basically, memory gets fragmented just like disks get fragmented after prolonged use, difference is that memory cannot be defragmented unless you restart the application and allow it to start with a clean slate. I'll try and find any leaks we may have missed in the past.Goodwill,David
──────────── David Rutten
On 09/03/2011 06:19, Mike Calvino wrote:
Thanks very much David for the quick response. I've attached the files zipped. I can't figure out what's doing it. After working in the file for awhile, the memory usage in the Windows Task Manager climbs . . . it's gotten to 1.57+Gb before I exited GH & Rhino5Wip & let it dissipate, then restart & work for awhile before it does it again. It probably takes like 4 or 5 hours before it gets that high. That's the highest it's gotten, & that only happened while I was working in a Rhino file that had all of the elements baked into it - turned off at least, but it still climbed to 1.57+Gb. It seems to climbs when you work in the file & move around in both the GH def. & the Rhino file. Like turn on a few of the Extr components at the right end of the "StandareRibExtuder" groups, you can watch the MemUsage go up, but when you turn them off, it does not go down. - goes up fast at this point. Maybe I need to figure out how to do the definition with fewer components, I'm sure that's part of it, but I must confess, I think I'm still early on in the learning curve.I really hope that this is not operator error on my part & I do apologize up front if it is. I have done a disk cleanup, I have tried excluding .3dm & .ghx files from my NOD32 antivirus, no change. I hope you can find something.Let me know if you have any trouble with the files.See if you find anything & please let me know . . . thanks!Cheers! --Mike CalvinoCalvino Architecture Studio, inc.www.calvinodesign.com
…
large scale prototyping techniques. The programme continues to build on its expertise on complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. Autumn DLAB brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others.
The research generated at Autumn DLAB has been published in international media – ArchDaily, Archinect, Bustler – and peer-reviewed conference papers, including SimAUD (Simulation in Architecture and Urban Design), eCAADe (Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe).
Autumn DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation and prototype making. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by the use of robotic fabrication techniques, with the aim of integrating of form-finding, material computation, and structural performance.
The programme is structured in two stages:
PART 1 – participants are introduced to core concepts of material processes, computational methods and digital fabrication techniques. Basic and advanced tutorials on computational design and analysis tools are provided. The programme performs as a team-based workshop promoting collaboration, research and ‘learning-by-experimentation’.
PART 2 – participants propose design interventions based on the skills and knowledge gained during phase 1 and supported by scaled study models and prototypes. The fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques will then unify the design goals of the programme.
Applications
1) A limited number of 10 places are available. To apply, please send a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.2) PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE. Please send a letter of intent and a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.3) As this programme has a limited number of places it requires a selection process, if you are offered a place on programme, the Visiting School Office will inform you of how you can complete the registration process.
The deadline for applications is 13 AUGUST 2021.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 6. No prior knowledge of software tools is required for eligibility.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £975 per participant, which includes a £60 Digital Membership fee.Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools.
…
rrect, the heat balance of a zone is always 0 = Qcool/heat + Qinf + Qvent + Qtrans + Qinternalgains + Qsol. These parameters also correspond with the readEPresult element. However, if i sum up these values there is a slight deviation.
The deviation is greater during daytimes and in winter, suggesting it has something to do with the heating values.
Attached you'll find an image of the energy plus outputs that I use and the resulting -.CSV file that I constructed. In this you'll see that the balance does not add up.
Am i missing some energy flows?
Thanks for the help.
Hour[H]
Qbal{kWh]
Qint[kWh]
Qsol[kWh]
Qinf[kWh]
Qvent[kWh]
Qtrans[kWh]
Tair[°C]
Tdrybulb[°C]
DIFFERENCE
1
3,039357
0,137702
0
-0,253218
-0,321929
-2,000028
20
5,1
0,601884
2
3,107099
0,125462
0
-0,247457
-0,315484
-1,881276
20
4,6
0,788344
3
3,181073
0,119342
0
-0,261765
-0,334485
-2,473788
20
4,3
0,230377
…
A repository of generic or complex examples.
Example 01: Attractor Values
ND_001_AttractorValues.gh
Example 02: Curve Values
ND_002_CurveValues.gh
Example 03: Point Attractor
ND_003_PointAttract
diseño paramétrico con Grasshopper: días 16, 17 y 18 de noviembre. Curso de iniciación a Grasshopper. Para seguirlo no se requieren conocimientos previos específicos. El objetivo de este curso es tomar contacto con Grasshopper, entender cómo funciona y empezar a fabricar y editar geometría con él. Más información y programa detallado del curso. - MÓDULO II: curso de diseño discriminativo con Grasshopper y análisis ambiental con Ecotect: días 23, 24 y 25 de noviembre. Se tratarán componentes avanzados de geometría y gestión de datos, así como soluciones evolutivas de optimización del diseño con Galapagos, y conexión con Ecotect. Más información y programa detallado del curso. - MÓDULO III: curso de diseño iterativo: scripting con Grasshopper en C#: días 30 de noviembre, 1 y 2 de diciembre. Curso de "scripting" con Grasshopper y Processing, donde se tratará de modelado recursivo con C# y RhinoCommon en Grasshopper. Formadores Los cursos están conducidos por Authorized Rhino Trainers: puedes comprobar nuestros tres años de experiencia, más de 30 cursos de Grasshopper y 300 alumnos en nuestra página web. Material El material de los cursos ha sido elaborado íntegra y exclusivamente por nosotros para estos cursos: - Manual de ejercicios de Grasshopper nivel I - Manual de ejercicios de Grasshopper nivel II - Manual de ejercicios de scripting en Grasshopper con C# Formato Cursos intensivos con duración de 18 horas con el siguiente horario: - Viernes: 17-21h - Sábado:10-14h, 16-20h - Domingo: 11-14 h, 16-19h Grupos El número de asistentes está limitado a un máximo de 10 personas para garantizar la calidad de la enseñanza y a un mínimo de 4 personas.…
Added by Miguel Vidal at 8:40am on August 30, 2012