ing ways to leverage simulation results from ladybug and inform design of building envelops with benefits that can be modeled. Given 20 percent of the cost of a project typically goes to the facades, and maybe a half of that goes to the openings, there is a good enough reason to question how to materialize that 10 percent, which can result in 10-30 percent difference in total energy comsumption.
I think ideally radiation analysis, natural ventilation and daylight analysis on floors should all inform opening sizes and placements, as well as the building sections at large. However natural ventilation seems to be the most complicated one because it couples airflow and thermo dynamics. I have a definition setup so that I can batch simulations for radiation analysis and daylight analysis, but natural ventilation is the missing link. So for what I am doing now I will select a handful of design that seem to work the best based on the two available analysis and convert all the geometry into CAD files so that I can run them in an evaluation copy of autodesk simulation CFD. So for now I can do this in 2 stages.
But for the future, given the possibility of actually have that as a part of grasshopper feature, which would be lovely, I want to understand the science behind it and share some links.
(http://www.wbdg.org/resources/naturalventilation.php) In this link the author outlines quite a few general principles and variables to consider for natural ventilated buildings.
For example, how stack effect works.
Qstack = Cd*A*[2gh(Ti-To)/Ti]^1/2, where
Qstack = volume of ventilation rate (m³/s)Cd = 0.65, a discharge coefficient.A = free area of inlet opening (m²), which equals area of outlet opening.g =9.8 (m/s²). the acceleration due to gravityh = vertical distance between inlet and outlet midpoints (m)Ti = average temperature of indoor air (K), note that 27°C = 300 K.To = average temperature of outdoor air (K)
The thing about natural ventilation is that not only the sizes and positioning of openings of the facade facing predominant wind matter, but also the openings on the other side matter. The vertical distance between the inlets and outlets also need to be taken into account. The author suggests that naturally ventilated buildings should be no wider than 45 feet.
and in this pdf presentation it discusses CFD for natural ventilation and illustrates why it is not easy
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic882838.files/L17.6205Airflow-Modeling_Ibarra.pdf
and in this pdf briefly outlines the approach taken by designbuilder
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic472869.files/DesignBuilder%20Simulation%20Training_HSD.pdf
Lastly a wide spectrum of environmental analysis works by e3lab
http://www.e3lab.org/research
http://www.e3lab.org/green-buildings
If I make progress on a way to tie the three analysis together (radiation, daylight and natural ventilation), I wont forget to post it on this thread.
Thanks.…
nergy plus silulation and this is the error text:
Current document units is in MetersConversion to Meters will be applied = 1.000Duplicate surface name! Name is changed to: Pelle_Sopra_DupDuplicate surface name! Name is changed to: Pelle_Nord_Dup[1 of 8] Writing simulation parameters...[2 of 8] No context surfaces...[3 of 8] Writing geometry...[4 of 8] Writing Electric Load Center - Generator specifications ...[5 of 8] Writing materials and constructions...[6 of 8] Writing schedules...[7 of 8] Writing loads and ideal air system...[8 of 8] Writing outputs......... idf file is successfully written to : C:\Users\Personal\Desktop\TESI\x006\THOR001\EnergyPlus\THOR001.idf
Analysis is running!...C:\Users\Personal\Desktop\TESI\x006\THOR001\EnergyPlus\eplusout.csv......
Done! Read below for errors and warnings:
Program Version,EnergyPlus, Version 8.3.0-6d97d074ea, YMD=2016.01.05 20:08,IDD_Version 8.3.0
************* 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 8.3.0"
** ~~~ ** Version in IDF="8.3.0" not the same as expected="8.3"
** ~~~ ** 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 0.30sec
thanks for any help
Lhor…
os3D + Grasshopper3D + Maya + Advanced Plugins & Demo Toolkits]
// Level
Basic, Intermediate & Advanced
(Previous parametric design knowledge not obligatory - Studio is adaptive to basic & advanced users)
// Agenda
The workshop aims to provide a detailed insight to ‘parametric design’ and embedded logics behind it through a series of design explorations using Rhinoceros & Grasshopper platforms, along with understanding of data-driven design strategies. An insight to Computational Design and its subsets of Parametric Design, Algorithmic Design, Generative Design and Evolutionary Design will be provided through presentations, technical sessions & studio work. Studio work will be focusing on modulation of geometry and iterative form using Parametric Design methods that will lead to explorations of spatial geometries that can be articulated as architectural constructs or abstract artistic interventions. There will be a demonstration of Fluid Form Modelling using Autodesk Maya on Day03.
The 1st batch of workshop in London took place in January 2020 with an exploratory learning output for ~20+ participants that travelled from different parts of the world to be a part of 3-day workshop titled Parametric Modulations. V2.0 is the evolved workshop with new toolkit add-ons for the 2nd batch and demonstrative tools & examples for future use of participants to get a deeper understanding of Computational & Parametric Design.
// Methodology
The 3-day studio / workshop shall focus on inculcating the following aspects as a part of curriculum:
Computational Design Techniques & Parametric Design
Data, Mathematics & Geometry
Geometry Rationalization
Iterative Form Development
Digital simulation of forces
Environmental Analysis (Tool-kits & Example files for future use)
Collaborative Design Exercises to understand application of the learnt tools
Documentation and Presentation
Hands-on Demonstration of Maya (Polygonal Mesh Modelling)
The workshop is suitable for beginners, intermediate as well as advanced users of these tools and very helpful for anyone planning to start their Masters in UK as this 3-day workshop would serve as a bootcamp to kick-start anyone's journey in Computational Design.
…
dello spazio. In dipendenza dal proprio modo di interazione ambientale, gli edifici possono essere distrubuiti e/o aggregati in modalità appropriate in modo da accumulare o disperdere gli effetti della loro interazione e il proprio impatto sull'evoluzione delle relazioni future. A livelli più bassi si può, ad esempio, considerare la distribuzione di componenti o caratteristiche lungo un involucro.
Approcci basati su unità funzionali operano una proliferazione basata sulla ripetizione indifferenziata e insensibile all'ambiente, risultando in una discretizzazione di matrice convenzionale e nella separazione tra edifici, edifici e contesto o spazi interni ed esterni; un diverso tipo di approccio, basato sulla condizione (termine usato nella sua doppia accezione di indicatore dinamico della tendenza di sviluppo dell'ecosistema e in quella causale – if a then b), introduce una forma di proliferazione che sfida e scioglie la dicotomia artificiale: molte piante crescono ovunque le condizioni portino ad esse beneficio, senza riguardo per limiti codificati nello spazio in cui si sviluppano. Le implicazioni sulla negoziazione dello spazio e sulla definizione di soglia sono notevoli; il sistema produce un campo armonicamente articolato e differenziato di fenotipi a partire dal genotipo attraverso un processo di "estetica delle forze" guidata attraverso lo strumento digitale.
A livello urbano questo può tradursi nella proliferazione di infrastrutture o di spazi che mettono in discussione la concezione statica di "confine" e "unità" in favore di modelli in grado di generare una gamma più estesa di inflessioni tra livelli di complessità e indirizzarli per abilitare e rendere accessibili potenzialità d'uso a loro volta articolate e complesse.
Il tema sarà dipanato attraverso le giornate del workshop sviluppando aspetti teorici e tecnici dell'approccio parametrico generativo, con particolare attenzione a strategie di design urbano basate su caratteristiche endogene (vincoli interni del sistema) ed esogene (fattori ambientali) allo scopo di stimolare l'esplorazione di soluzioni sistemiche innovative.
Il numero dei partecipanti è stabilito tra le 15 e le 20 persone per offrire un tutoraggio proficuo ed una effettiva esperienza di learning ad ogni iscritto.
[.] Temi
. teoria
. condizione, genotipo/fenotipi, transizione, mappatura, eleganza, sensibilità, spazio
. tecnica
. dati:gestione, manipolazione, visualizzazione
. generazione di geometria da dati
. logiche parametriche applicate al design
. genotipo/fenotipi
. attrattori, mappers, drivers e tecniche di modulazione
[.] Dettagli
Istruttori: Alessio Erioli + Andrea Graziano + Davide Del Giudice – Co-de-iT (GH & design tutors).
Si richiede esperienza di base nella modellazione in Rhino (equivalente a Rhino training Level 1, il Level 2 è gradito – la documentazione per il training è disponibile gratuitamente all'indirizzo: http://download.rhino3d.com/download.asp?id=Rhino4Training&language=it).
Luogo :
presso NETFORM – via Alessandro Cialdi 7, Roma
Orario :
9.00-18.00.
info:
info@a-m-u-r-i.it
Phone:
+39 338 4201162
iscrizioni:
http://www.cesarch.it/…
rested in specializing in the field of Computational design.
The workshop will help understand how Grasshopper facilitates during the design process allowing one to Generate, Automate and Manipulate data.
To Register:
http://goo.gl/forms/gvUTyZihVK
Workshop Structure:
Day 01: 16 August 2018
Introduction to Computational Processes in Architecture
Understanding Grasshopper and its relation to Rhino3D
Working with fields and Grids (Supplementary readings for Architectural theory)
Spatial Concepts using Data
Day 02: 17 August 2018
Understanding Data in Grasshopper - LISTS
Managing Data in Grasshopper (Supplementary reading)
Experimentation on Massing and Architectural Forms
Day 03: 18 August 2018
Understanding Data in Grasshopper – Trees
Surface Logics (Supplementary reading)
Design Exercise and Prototyping
Day 04: 20 August 2018
Architectural Skins
Day 05: 21 August 2018
MasterClass Project
Introduction to various types of Digital Fabrications
Prototyping of works during the Workshops
Basic knowledge of Rhino 5 is required to be able to take this training.
CERTIFICATION: All participants will receive a Workshop certificate from Authorized Rhino Trainer.
3D Printing: Prototyping of works during the Workshops
Workshop Tutor:
Kavitha M, an Architect and Computational Designer, 3D Printing Specialist is also the co-founder of INTO Design Research, will head the Computational Process in Architecture using Grasshopper workshop. Graduated from Stadelschule Architecture class with Masters in Advanced Architecture Design, has been researching on teaching methodologies on digital tools and their influence on Design thinking.…
I thought the easiest way (and really tight deadline now) was c4d mesh deformer because it lets one choose a cage object, so I modeled this "rig", essentially a mesh of 20 carefuly measured points to see how exact the real thing is to the 3d model. My plan is to deform the entire mesh from source (3d model) to target (meaured low resolution mesh = "rig" )
(above two images : C4D test... work with a spheric cage - but not with a mesh I modelled in rhino)
C4D Mesh Deformer doesn't work with the cage geometry like this because I think the cage geometry actually need to be larger and be more like a cage, but of course I can't measure Imaginary cage off this thing :)
So I am asking for a suggestion for any quick tool like mesh deform in c4d, or how one might go about it with grasshopper...
I am attaching the file - for example you can see the magenta colored points and lines show the measured deflection of the structure, from teal-colored points and lines.
The requirement is that the individual surfaces need to export as individual objects in the end.
I am attaching the rhino file here.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8u1qSty0juhVmtCYnEtdFktME0
The exported object files of the individual surfaces need to be within 3mm off from the actual thing for this installation to work.. looking to how surface morph grasshopper component work at the moment.
Best,
Youngjae
Thanks!
Youngjae…
NONE, in SIZING:PARAMETERS". I'm not sure of where to start in troubleshooting this. I've attached the file.
Thank you,
See the errors and warnings below:
{0;0;0}
0. Current document units is in Meters
1. Conversion to Meters will be applied = 1.000
2. [1 of 8] Writing simulation parameters...
3. [2 of 8] Writing context surfaces...
4. [2 of 8] Writing context surfaces...
5. [3 of 8] Writing geometry...
6. [4 of 8] Writing Electric Load Center - Generator specifications ...
7. [5 of 8] Writing materials and constructions...
8. [6 of 8] Writing schedules...
9. [7 of 8] Writing loads and ideal air system...
10. [8 of 8] Writing outputs...
11. ...
... idf file is successfully written to : R:\Green\SuRG\Building_Performance_Analysis\2016_analysis_studies\Energy_Analysis_Comparison\Honeybee_+_Ladybug\tutorial01\EnergyPlus\tutorial01.idf
12.
13. Analysis is running!...
14. ...
...
Done! Read below for errors and warnings:
15.
16. Program Version,EnergyPlus, Version 8.5.0-c87e61b44b, YMD=2016.10.31 11:39,IDD_Version 8.5.0
17.
18. ************* IDF Context for following error/warning message:
19.
20. ************* Note -- lines truncated at 300 characters, if necessary...
21.
22. ************* 24 Sizing:Parameters,
23.
24. ************* Only last 1 lines before error line shown.....
25.
26. ************* 25 None, !- Heating Sizing Factor
27.
28. ** Severe ** IP: IDF line~25 Invalid Number in Numeric Field#1 (Heating Sizing Factor), value=NONE, in SIZING:PARAMETERS
29.
30. ** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details.
31.
32. ** ~~~ ** Possible Invalid Numerics or other problems
33.
34. ** Fatal ** IP: Errors occurred on processing IDF file. Preceding condition(s) cause termination.
35.
36. ...Summary of Errors that led to program termination:
37.
38. ..... Reference severe error count=1
39.
40. ..... Last severe error=IP: IDF line~
, value=NONE, in SIZING:PARAMETERS
41.
42. ************* Warning: Node connection errors not checked - most system input has not been read (see previous warning).
43.
44. ************* Fatal error -- final processing. Program exited before simulations began. See previous error messages.
45.
46. ************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
47.
48. ************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
49.
50. ************* EnergyPlus Terminated--Fatal Error Detected. 1 Warning; 1 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 00min 9.34sec
51.…
it seems that was this. Now all is working fine !
Glad that it worked! But I am still a bit worried. Gismo components only modify the gdal-data/osmconf.ini file and no other MapWinGIS file. So your MapWinGIS installation files should not be compromised. The fact that you did not get the "COM CLSID" error message when running the "Gismo Gismo" component suggests that MapWinGIS has been properly installed. So I wonder if the cause for the permanent "invalid shapes" warning has again something with the fact that your system is again not allowing the MapWinGIS to properly edit the osmconf.ini. Maybe this problem will appear again, and again, and reinstallation of MapWinGIS every time can be somewhat bothersome.
- About the terrain generation, is it possible to have the texture from google or other provider mapped onto the terrain surface from gismo component ? (Same as using the ladybug terrain generator in fact). I try to used the image extracted by ladybug component and then applied it to the gismo terrain but the texture is rotated by 90°.
The issue with the rotation can be solved by swapping/reversing the U,V directions of the terrain surface. A slightly more important issue is that terrain surface generated with Gismo "Terrain Generator" component might have a bit smaller radius than what the radius_ input required. This stems from the fact that the terrain data first needs to be downloaded in geographic coordinate system, and then projected. Some projecting issues may occur at the very edges of the projected terrain, so I had to slightly cut out the very edges of the terrain which results in the actual terrain diameters being slightly shorted in both directions. This means that if you apply the same satellite image from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component to Gismo "Terrain Generator" component the results may not be the same.I attached below a python component which tries to solve this issue by extending the edges of Gismo "Terrain Generator" terrain, and then cutting them with the cuboid of the exact dimensions as the radius_ input. Have in mind that this extension of the original terrain at its edges is not a correct representation of the actual terrain in that location. But rather just an extension of the isoparameteric curve of the terrain surface. So basically: some 0 to 10% (0 to 10 percent of the width and length) of the terrain around all four edges is not the actual terrain for that location, but rather just its extension.The python component is located at the very right of the definition attached below.
Also, if you would like to use the satellite images from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component along with "OSM shapes", sometimes you may find slight differences in position of the shapes. This is due to openstreetmap data not being based on Google Maps (that's what Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component is using), but rather on Bing, MapQuest and a few others.
- About the requiredKeys_ input of OSM shapes, I understand what you mean and your advice, but in most cases I use it, the component was working fine even without input. I think it's better to extract all tags, values and keys of the selected area, instead of searching for specific ones as I try to find all data related to what I want after, isn't it ? To check what keys are present on the area also.
Ineed, you are correct.I though you were trying to only create a terrain, 3d buildings and maybe find some school or similar 3d building, for these two locations. The recommendation I mentioned previously is due to shapefiles having a limit (2044) to how many keys it can contain. This requires further testing of some big cities locations with maybe larger radii, which I haven't performed due to my poor PC configuration. But in theory, I imagine that it may happen that a downloaded .osm file may have more than 2044 keys. In that case shapefile will only record 2044 of them, and disregard the others. That was my point.But again 2044 is a lot of keys, and I haven't been checking much this in practice. For example, when I set the radius_ to 1000 meters, and use your "3 Rue de Bretonvilliers Paris" location I get around 350 something keys, which is way below the 2044.Another reason why one should use the requiredKeys_ input is to make the Gismo OSM components run quicker: for example, the upper mentioned 350 something keys will result in 350 values for each branch of the "OSM shapes" component's "values" output.Which means if you have 10 000 shapes, the "OSM shapes" component will have 10 000 branches with 350 items on each branch (values). This can make all Gismo OSM components very heavy, and significantly elongate the calculation process.With requiredKeys_ input you may end up with only a couple of tens of items per each branch.Sorry for the long reply.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 8:57am on June 11, 2017