I created a Grasshopper script that generates a beam structure based on a given surface. First, a grid of guide lines is generated and projected onto the surface form; then, using Python code, I found the intersection points and drew straight segments between them, and finally swept profiles along those segments. At the moment, the resulting structure of swept sections contains collisions. What can be done to eliminate them?
This is a design question really. There’s no automatic “cleanup” for arbitrary angled beams all colliding at a point. You either need a source geometry that encourages tidy intersections, or a “node” part that can adapt to the beams coming in. Both options will involve shortening the beams to pull them out of collision so you could start there…
I had open BREPs and converted them into closed BREPs. I tried applying a Solid Difference—it does work, but it simply cuts one beam out of the other. Do you perhaps have any ideas on how to trim them more intelligently? (because that kind of trimming is not at all what I need)
I need a straight cut.
Then create straight geometry at the intersections to cut with. If you use the sides of the pink part to define a box then use the box to cut the purple part.
Your GH file keeps crashing Rhino so I can’t do anything with it.
Unfortunately, I’m not quite sure what you mean.
(I’ve removed the extra parts from my GH file; hopefully it won’t crashing anymore.)
script_clear.gh (30.4 KB)
This is not how this kind of geometry is structurally solved in architecture. There are reasons why things like Mero space frames or structurally panelled shell structures were invented. Assuming that your intersections were formulated planar so that you could executed them with I-Beams, they would be solved by running one beam through the intersection and docking the side beams to that main member via angle steels. To allow the side members’ webbing to connect to the webbing of the through-member, the flanges of the side beams would be cut away. Or differing dimensions of beams would be used.
Point is: back to the drawing board with this. Your architect needs to get in communication with the structural engineer for a viable solution.
