Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Briean Ranchhod (913645) Dan + Studio # 7


Week Three

Reading: Kolerevic B. 2003. Architecture in the Digital Age

Kolerevic described three fundamental type of fabrication techniques in the reading. Outline the three techniques and discuss the potential of Computer Numeric Controlled fabrication with parametric modelling. (150 words max)

The three techniques used for fabrication include additive, subtractive and formative. With each being carefully used for their differing technical abilities. Subtractive fabrication follows the process of an existing mass that is mechanically milled or reduced according to set constraints in the XYZ axis. This technique is the reverse of Additive fabrication which builds it’s mass via placing down a series of two dimensional layers on top of another. Formative fabrication utilises a pre existing volume as it’s base to which heat, steam or other mechanical forces are applied to reshape or mould into the desired form. The combination of such techniques and parametric modelling holds great potential for the fabrication of complex interesting forms at great speed and precision. The utilisation of parametricism enhances the ability to design quickly and effectively, and now in conjunction with CNC modelling, there can be direct transfer of information into complex physical structures.

2


Week Three

Surface Creation

Above: Grasshopper script Right: Grasshopper outcome and surface iterations Learning a new software program proved to be a steep learning curve but a fruitful one. The complexities of Rhino have been somewhat simplified with the ability to script and iterate with Grasshopper. The initial challenge was understanding the way data flows and is structured. Comprehending the specific parameters that Grasshopper required to perform outcomes was also difficult due to the number of ‘inputs’ and whether flattening or grafting had to occur. In iterating my surface, the challenge was finding two faces that had a relationship to each other but required completely different parameters.

3


Week Four Panels & Waffle

Having previously completed FoDR, there was a sense of familiarity when approaching the panelling phase of Task 1. Although the outcome was different, the process was similar but utilised the simplification tool of Grasshopper. I chose to remove a drastic difference from my two surfaces in order for their slight variations to be contrasted more greatly. The two surfaces have the same Mesh but they have been rotated. I chose to do this to bring attention to the directionality of light and shadows that occurs due to this minute change. One surface you can look through however the other appears unbroken until you up into it’s voids. This could have the potential to be utilised for different times of day with a varied sun path, capturing the desired amount of light or creating shadows.

4

The waffle structure was directly linked back to my initial iterated surface and then formed the basis of my structure. The waffle was a challenge to create on Grasshopper as my design ventured passed that of the Workshops and required me to understand the axis at play more in depth. As it was triangular rather than rectilinear, it required changing slight areas of the script. I chose a triangular surface to build open because I was interested in the way the two surfaces interacted with each other and created a void. Instead of having both enter and exit points through the waffle, I valued the way the space was channelled and directional. As well, the triangle reflected the pyramid based panels on the surface envelope.


Week Four

Laser Cutting

The Laser cutting file was quite easy to create once Grasshopper had the correct script to place and label the correct waffle pieces etc. Again, the knowledge of unrolling gained in FoDR made this process a lot less daunting. The actual foldability of such small tabs and structural integrity of the waffle to actually stand was always questionable but all part of the learning process. Making larger tabs would have greatly improved the assemblage of my model as well as unrolling one of the surfaces in columns rather than rows. Regardless, the laser cutting process was very efficient and enabled for precision where I lacked in FoDR panelling.

5


Week Five

Following from Task 1, the Grasshopper script that formed the Booleaned structure seemed easier and more understood. One of the processes that occurs is the addition of point attractors that causes a manipulation in the 4x4 grid. The small movement of the point had a large effect on the outcome of where the chosen geometry was placed. I chose to use spheres over other geometry for their balance of composition and ability to remain spherical in shape no matter where they were sliced or Booleaned. As well, with their symmetrical shape, they gave order to a seemingly disorder grid arrangement.

6


Week Five

Isometric

My final isometric was chosen after a process of many iterations and interesting discoveries. I chose this form for the complete variation it possessed in terms of spherical size but also the different levels of interaction the geometry has with one another. At points it is clear to see a complete circle is still intact but in other areas, the spheres have been Booleaned and interact differently often creating new shapes and spaces. The process in getting to this form involved a discovery of my own finding when I started randomly culling spheres, this resulted in a more varied composition, with more space to see the spheres as whole, rather than overlapped. In order to get to this size I cut the original cube in half, and then slightly more than half again. The 3D printing process was also something I learnt a lot in, especially regards to the support angles as I found mine were placed too high at the beginning and resulted in a failed print.

The spatial qualities of the structure vary at different angles and entry points. There is fine balance of solids and voids as the intersecting spheres break the heaviness by allowing for permeability. There is an interest in the way light can be forced through the varied holes, defining the space below and creating thresholds. As well, natural cantilevers have formed with a broken sphere. This also defines the thresholds of interior space and exterior space that gesture of the possible public and private interaction. The inner void is sheltered but remains permeable with the many openings and soft borders formed by circular boundaries rather that rigid corners. Although only spheres were used to boolean out from the cube, new geometry is formed on the edges were overlap occurred. The circles also promote a sense of circulation as they frame views of interest and intrigue that invite people in a through them.

7


Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

{0,0,0}

(0, 0,150)

Attractor / Control Points (X,Y,Z) Grid Points

(150, 150, 150) (150, 150,150)

(150, 0, 150)

(150, 0, 150)

(0, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 0) (150, 150, 0)

(150, 30, 0)

(0, 150,150)

(150, 150, 0)

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

(57, 60, 52)

(7, 5, 52)

(-46, 214, -135)

(57, 117, 150)

Paneling

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Index Selection}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Task 01 Matrix My process of development followed with interest regarding a triangle and what qualities of space are found with a triangular void. My surfaces always touched and from here I explored the level of internal void that occurred. With a triangular space, there is a welcoming sense of opening at the widest point and as it narrows, the space becomes more defined. Alike, this correlates to the public and private relationship that occurs as the further into the structure you enter, the more private and intimate the space becomes. I chose to develop the first one as it held the most practicality of space as well as a large enough inner void that would not deter entry. My panels were to mimic and reflect this triangular space but to also allow an infiltration of light. I chose to explore the different ways to allow an opening, either cutting the top of making incisions on the faces. Having a cut on the side gave the ability to see more of the interior rather than just small slice and with this, I chose to develop it onto both surfaces. Having the same panel but different angles meant that there was more of an emphasis of the way light infiltrated in and through it. It allowed for a clearer sense of what the attractor points were doing as well as the panel shapes began consistent. The similarities between the two panels means there can be a clearer understanding and further comparison of the way the grid attractors effect the shapes and arrangement.

8


Week Six Task 02

Grid Manipulation

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Key Attractor / Control Points (X,Y,Z)

{0,0,0}

Cull Points

Spehe Distribuition Cull Point Manipulation

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

{Variation Scaling}

{Variation Scaling}

{Random Scaling}

{Random Scaling}

3.1

3.2 3.3

3.4

{True/False Variation

{True/False Variation

{True/False Variation

{True/False Variation

Task 02 Matrix My development of Task 2 was somewhat random but in it’s randomness I found patterns and chose to harness the variations that came about. The grid manipulation that occurred was in regards to the movement of point attractors. I experimented with changing the inputs and outputs to differing points, thoroughly distorting the grid which also ended up in spheres no longer fitting in the cube. This later developed into culling the spheres. The use of spheres as geometry was for their infinite symmetry and ability to remain circular regardless of any cut point. Regardless of the randomness that occurred, they remained somewhat ordered and balanced due to their proportioned nature. As well, when culling, I found there was interest in the way different size circle holes were formed and there relationship with the surrounding shapes, either intersecting or creating new shapes.

9


Week Six

Final Isometric Views

10


Appendix

Process

Above: Grasshopper script for panel iteration Left: generated surface and possible panel development in Rhino using Grasshopper The main script design for the surface panel iteration in Grasshopper. This required an exploration in the offset grid associative to change the way panels responded to the attractor point.

11


Appendix Process

The final surface render in Rhino showing the way light interacts with the openings. The variation between the two surfaces is highlighted with the shadows and angle of viewing as one you can look through, whereas the other, you look upwards into.


Appendix Process

Left: Grasshopper script for grid Task 2 The main iteration that occurred was in regards to this area of the script. As pictured, I would cross the paths of the points to create further differences in the design of the grid. As well, changing the level of point attraction caused drastic differences in the grid that would later hold my generated spheres.

13


Appendix

Process

Above: Grasshopper script for Task 2 on Cull pattern Right: protoypes of booleaned geometry ANother iteration that occurred was utilising the cull pattern command on Grasshopper. This would remove the presence of varied spheres according to a True/False pattern. I experimented with different ways to cut my model, at different angles and how that effected the overall shape.

14

M2journal  
M2journal  
Advertisement