low cost fabrication techniques developed by RC6, a research laboratory based at UCL / The Bartlett School of Architecture. A part of Bartlett's BPro programme, RC6 traditionally engages in the development of design methodologies positioned at the overlap of digital and analogue computation, primarily investigating concepts which merge traditional, low-tech manufacturing processes and advanced technological concepts.Topic of this workshop - Composite Bodies - represents RC6’s ongoing research into hybridised material systems consisting of soft membrane materials and light-weight infill aggregates. In this particular case, from a material point of view, we will be looking into custom designed lycra pieces, filled with styrofoam beads and spheres and constrained with series of performative stitches. The resulting parts will be coated with latex and used to create series of interlocking components and surfaces.The workshop itself will consist of 2 stages. The first two days will be dedicated to intensive software training sessions. Students will be introduced to multiple digital platforms focusing on scripting in Processing and 3D modelling/sculpting in Maya/ZBrush. Aim is to enable students to understand algorithmic design processes and procedural modelling techniques and to help them to learn how to customize pre-made scripts and how to embed them in their individual workflows.The remaining five days will be dedicated to the fabrication of a spatial installation. Students will learn how to translate digital models into prototypical components and work alongside tutors to aggregate those into one large-scale architectural object which will be exhibited as part of SBODIO32 Exhibition for Milan Design Week 2017.Dates: March - April 2017 RC6 Program Director:DANIEL WIDRIGwith IGOR PANTICSTEFAN BASSINGSOOMEEN HAHMWorkshop Tutor:IGOR PANTICLead Designer at Zaha Hadid ArchitectsVisiting Lecturer at UCL Bartlett School of ArchitectureTeaching Assistants:Thomas Bagnoli, Evgenia Makroglou, Kalliopi Mouzaki, Darshan Singhaniaucl bartlett rc6 graduate studentsSoftwares: Maya, Rhino, Grasshopper, Processing*Previous knowledge of the softwares is not compulsory. Fabrication Tools: Lycra, Styrofoam beads, Latex, Sewing machines…
Added by Amrvitaloni at 9:38am on February 25, 2017
d the file seems to be running well now (see attached GH file). I question whether you need to include such detailed geometry to get an accurate result but the components can handle it if you are willing to wait a long time for the simulation to run (it took 21 minutes to run a single month on my fairly high-power machine).
For a single-zone model like this, you really do not need an airflow network and I would just use the simple bouyancy driven orifice equation available in the "Set EP Airflow" component. Generally, I prefer this simple method in these cases because it is much easier to understand what is going on and what the assumptions are. They also make clear that the major aspects of your "form" that will increase/decrease your airflow is the area of openings, the vertical height distance between the inlet and outlet, and the minimization of any screens or internal surfaces that can cause friction. So you don't really need to run a simulation to design a facade with good airflow. You just need it to make sure that it is working as you intend it.
I can confirm that assuming a double-skin facade as a single zone is a decent assumption in most cases. However, there are a few things that you have to fix in your model to make this assumption work. First, you need to use the glazing based on ratio component to assign glazing to your outdoor elements (I imagine that this complex facade is supposed to be glazed). You can see this in the attached file but you need to separate out your mullion surfaces first. Next, you need to get rid of all the lighting and internal heat gains of the zone. You can do this easily with the EP Plenum component in the file. Lastly, you really need to include the building zone behind the double-skin facade zone since there is probably going to be a lot of heat flow in that direction, especially if this occupied zone behind the facade is conditioned. This tutorial walks you through setting up a multi-zone model (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-SgW4uDtNSMLeiUmA8YXEHT_).
Finally, I would be wary of DesignBuilder's CFD engine. It is not validated and I don't think that I would really trust it with such complex geometry. Using something validated like OpenFOAM, Phoenics, Fluent, etc. would be much safer.
-Chris…
4.0 ************* IDF Context for following error/warning message: ************* Note -- lines truncated at 300 characters, if necessary... ************* 160 ScheduleTypeLimits, ************* indicated Name=ANY NUMBER ************* Only last 2 lines before error line shown..... ************* 161 ANY NUMBER, !- name ************* 162 ScheduleTypeLimits, !- ** Severe ** IP: IDF line~162 Invalid Number in Numeric Field#1 (Lower Limit Value), value=SCHEDULETYPELIMITS, in SCHEDULETYPELIMITS=ANY NUMBER ************* IDF Context for following error/warning message: ************* Note -- lines truncated at 300 characters, if necessary... ************* 258 ScheduleTypeLimits, ************* indicated Name=ANY NUMBER ************* Only last 2 lines before error line shown..... ************* 259 ANY NUMBER, !- name ************* 260 ScheduleTypeLimits, !- ** Severe ** IP: IDF line~260 Invalid Number in Numeric Field#1 (Lower Limit Value), value=SCHEDULETYPELIMITS, in SCHEDULETYPELIMITS=ANY NUMBER ** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details. ** Severe ** IP: Possible incorrect IDD File ** ~~~ ** IDD Version:"IDD_Version 8.4.0" ** ~~~ ** Version in IDF="8.4.0" not the same as expected="8.4" ** ~~~ ** Possible Invalid Numerics or other problems ** Fatal ** IP: Errors occurred on processing IDF file. Preceding condition(s) cause termination. ...Summary of Errors that led to program termination: ..... Reference severe error count=3 ..... Last severe error=IP: Possible incorrect IDD File ************* Warning: Node connection errors not checked - most system input has not been read (see previous warning). ************* Fatal error -- final processing. Program exited before simulations began. See previous error messages. ************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors. ************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors. ************* EnergyPlus Terminated--Fatal Error Detected. 1 Warning; 3 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 00min 0.48sec…
he Summer in the City program, part of the Portland School of Architecture and Allied Arts (an extension to University of Oregon).
Using both Grasshopper and the Firefly plug-in, this workshop will focus on the design of innovative facade prototypes that are configurable, sensate, and active. Students will become familiar with the terminology used in interactive facade design including an overview of hardware (ie.sensors, actuators, and programmable microcontrollers) as well as software interfaces terminology. We'll learn new prototyping techniques and develop digital and physical models which can respond to a plurality of environmental and user driven forces. This workshop will take a hands-on approach, and you will walk away with the ability to build your own custom electronic circuits (using the Arduino), as well as create interactive simulations and models.
This course will primarily focus on physical computing techniques. Unfortunately, given the time constraints of the workshop, I will not be able to provide an extensive overview of the Grasshopper interface (it is suggested that participants have some familiarity with the Rhino/Grasshopper environment). There are many great online resources to get you up to speed relatively quickly if you are new to this software. This is a good place to start.
The course will be held at the School of Architecture and Allied Arts in Portland, OR. The date/times of the workshop are as follows:
Friday July 19, 5:00-7:50 P.M.
Saturday July 20, 9:00 A.M.-3:50 P.M.
Sunday July 21, 1:00-3:50 P.M.
If you are a designer, architect, or anyone who is interested in learning about the digital tools and technology trends that are revolutionizing design today, this workshop is for you. Make sure to click here to find out more about registration and enrollment in this exciting new workshop.…
Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper.
.
I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali.
.
Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni.
. Argomenti trattati:
- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler
- Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC
.
Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale.
.
Ulteriori info e programma completo su: www.arturotedeschi.com e su www.samilolab.it…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
isms. Through simple mechanisms embedded within the material logic of natural systems, specific stimuli can activate a particular response. This response occurs in carnivorous plants such as the Venus fly-trap, which uses turgor pressure to trap small insects in order to feed, and worms, which by contracting differently oriented muscles, achieve movement. This ten-day intensive workshop, co-taught by the faculty of the Emergent Technologies and Design Programme at the AA and the faculty of Architecture and MEDIAlab at California College of the Arts, will explore active systems in nature, investigating biomimetic principles in order to analyze, design and fabricate prototypes that respond to electronic and environmental stimuli. Students will work in teams to research specific biological systems, extracting logics of organization, geometry, structure and mathematics. Advanced analysis, simulation, modeling and fabrication tools will be introduced in order to apply this information to the design of both passive and active responsive architectural systems. Investigation and application of robotics, sensors and actuators will be employed for the activation of the material system investigation through the construction of working responsive prototypes.
+ CONTENT TAGS: Biodynamic, Parametric, Scripted, Mimetic, Responsive, Interactive, Digitally Fabricated
+ SOFTWARE: Rhino, Grasshopper, Firefly, RhinoScript, Arduino, Processing
CORE FACULTY
Michael Weinstock (Academic Head, Director of Emergent Technologies Programme, AA London UK)
Christina Doumpioti, Evan Greenberg, Konstantinos Karatzas (Tutors, AA EmTech Programme, London UK)
Jason Kelly Johnson [Future Cities Lab], Andrew Kudless [Matsys] (CCA MediaLab Coordinators, SF CA)
ASSOCIATED FACULTY
George Jeronimidis (Director of Center for Biomimetics, University of Reading UK); Andrew Payne (LIFT Architects, Grasshopper Primer); Daniel Segraves (ASGG Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture); Ronnie Parsons + Gil Akos (Studio Mode, NY); Daniel Piker (Kangaroo Project Live Physics)
ENROLLMENT INFORMATION
http://sanfrancisco.aaschool.ac.uk; or visit the CCA MEDIAlab website: http://mlab.cca.edu
(Workshops are non-credit. Enrollment is processed by the AA. Workshop will run the full 10 days.)
CONTACT
visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk or mlab@cca.edu
DOWNLOADS
Application Form…