Page 1

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHBOOK CHRISTINA CARE CALGARO 638230, STUDIO 2


TASK 01

Simple consecutive forms using Rhino and Grasshopper


Further experiments with lofted form. Experiments with sine curves; attempt to loft sine curves according to some extra research I completed failed.

Consecutive lofted forms in Grasshopper

Attempt to create a lofted Sine curve.


TASK 02 Developable Strips

Problems with this task involved creating clear enough strips. The original attempt created odd overlapping partial strips, which Cam assisted with - I simply had to change the direction of the strip extrusion and move some curves. As can be seen above, some overlapping remains at the top, to illustrate this issue.


Developing Contours

Creating contours and intersection vertical pieces was simple enough, though I could not get the pieces to spread as described in the tutorials. Cam offered a different method for achieving this which was far simpler than the tutorial and was ultimately more successful.


TASK 02 Driftwood Task


Though my lofted form is not the most complex, this activity did eventually work, which is very satisfying for me given the lack of success with most other tasks. I would like to investigate more about creating interesting starting surfaces before exploring this technique further.


TASK 03 General Experiments {Points on a surface}

Further to the attempts to develop catenary curves across the surface, I also experimented with Facet and created some unusual shapes across the geometry.


TASK 03 Creating Cull Lists and Grid Patterns I experimented with metaball and tried to mix up the potential pattern making associated with this exercise. The cull lists were successful, however the metaball appeared odd; I think this was to do with the point placement but couldnt adjust it to appear better. If I were to repeat the exercise, I would need assistance to answer why the Pop2D didn’t work as a functioning point generator component, nor did a simpler array of points in a grid.


TASK 03 Creating arcs through points on a surface was fairly straightforward. However, attempting to experiment further with this, I ran into several roadblocks. I managed to experiment a little with catenary curves over the surface , but I had hoped to map some sort of pattern to the shape. Unfortunately all my efforts to map an extruded voronoi grid failed. The lines eventually were transferred but appeared just as a mess over the surface - the voronoi shapes were lost somehow. I would really like assistance to develop this towards what I was hoping to achieve.


TASK 03

In trying to map a voronoi to a surface, this was as far as the process got before I could no longer solve the problems. Instructions found in videos and the forums suggested simply using the Map to Surface component, which did not work. Another method suggested was to “make the voronoi intersect with the surface�. I could not find detailed instructions about this and was unable to successfully replicate the process by guessing.


TASK 04

1. CREATED RECURSIVE GEOMETRY USING A BOX BASE GEOMETRY

2. USING KANGAROO TOOL, CREATED POINTS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

3. EXPERIMENTING WITH KANGAROO POINTS AND ORIGINAL GEOMETRY POINTS TO CREATE NEW CONNECTIONS

4/5. RETURNING TO GEOMETRY BASE POINTS TO CREATE MESH, THEN RECURSIVE GEOMETRIES WITHIN ORIGINAL RECURISVE FRAMEWORK


6. BEGINNING TO TRY AND REARRANGE THESE POLYSURFACES USING KALEIDESCOPE AND ARRAY

7. DECISION TO RETURN TO “ATOMIC” LEVEL, INSTEAD OF OVERALL REARRANGEMENT - INTRODUCING COMPLEXITY TO RECURSIVE GEOMETRY FORMS

8. REINTRODUCTION OF PART OF THE ORIGINAL ALGORITHM WITHIN THE CREATED FORMS

9. GENERATING WIRES WITHIN THE FORMS

10. USE OF PIPE TO GENERATE SOFT “WOOL” FORMS RESPONDING TO THE CUBE-LIKE RECURSIVE DEFINITION


TASK 05 VOUSSOIR

CLOUD

-

IWAMOTO

SCOTT

We started by trying to consider biomimicry, but we really weren’t able to do much with this. We ended up with a pretty poor example of how to develop our work, so we decided to back track. By concentrating instead on exploring different topics of interest which relate to our case study, we developed iterations with each ‘species’ representing a point of interest taken from the case study definition.

1/2. Different Patterning: Using maybe a few other forms to generate nteresting surface pattern to work from? We might start with more platonic shapes, rather than voronoi.


4. Kangaroo: We can experiment with form generation with Kangaroo components.

3. Forces > Attraction? We might look into skewing patterns generated - applying attractor points.


ITERATIONS+


Collection of ideas an definitions mixed and experimented with to create iterations on the following pages.


CASE STUDY 0.1 ITERATIONS


CASE STUDY 0.1 ITERATIONS


CASE STUDY 0.2 REVERSE ENGINEERING

FIRST PSEUDO CODE:

1. Create curved lines. Loft together creating Brep. 2. Create a Bounding Box around the form, specifying corners (Box Corners) 3. Create some cutting lines along 2 axes, between box corner points. Divide the lines into points (these will form the boxes). Toggle the number of points to suit. 4. Create lists from the points, and series from the lists. Generate further points from the series. 5. Use these points generate small boxes between the points. Control these using a slider to toggle box sizes. 6. “Digging out�: Explode the original Brep. Create some surface points according to the points already generated. Sort these, list, and place these points inside the box already generated as a boundary. 7. Dispatch: create two lists, one dictating the inside and the other the outside of the shape. Decide which of these will be used to cut away non-intersecting boxes.

SECOND PSEUDO CODE:

Replace from step 6: 6B. Create surface points according to points already generated. Generate a Brep which will be placed along these points 7B. Mesh Brep first (for the sake of file size). Then apply this to the form.


We started by “digging out” the box covered form according to allocated surface points, but I changed this upon Cam’s suggestion to placing boxes on the surface points instead. This will allow us to experiment more with the definition and try to develop our own ideas further.


CASE STUDY 0.2 FURTHER EXPERIMENTS

Making the Boxel project was relatively straightforward, though we did change the logic with which we build our final outcome. However I felt that the look of this was quite cluttered and tried to cull some points and boxes. This was interesting to explore because we are likely to run into a similar issue as we start developing our design - we want to stack modules and perhaps rotate them, integrate wind generation, etc. So we require quite an adaptable definition which will allow us to play with surface qualities and introduce rotation parameters. This may result in a whole host of fabrication problems, including the potential for gaps/ the onnection relationship between modules, and may imply a very particular strength in materiality in order for the rotation to be successfully built. We will have to select final materials carefully, and work with the problem of distribution and gaps between modules. Experiments with Boxel helped to make this clear

FIRST PSEUDO CODE:

1. Create curved lines. Loft together creating Brep. 2. Create a Bounding Box around the form, specifying corners (Box Corners) 3. Create some cutting lines along 2 axes, between box corner points. Divide the lines into points (these will form the boxes). Toggle the number of points to suit. 4. Create lists from the points, and series from the lists. Generate further points from the series. 5. Use these points generate small boxes between the points. Control these using a slider to toggle box sizes. 6. “Digging out�: Explode the original Brep. Create some surface points according to the points already generated. Sort these, list, and place these points inside the box already generated as a boundary. 7. Dispatch: create two lists, one dictating the inside and the other the outside of the shape. Decide which of these will be used to cut away non-intersecting boxes.

SECOND PSEUDO CODE:

Replace from step 6: 6B. Create surface points according to points already generated. Generate a Brep which will be placed along these points 7B. Mesh Brep first (for the sake of file size). Then apply this to the form.


TASK 05 CONT’D

I downloaded and began experimenting with this hexagonal pattering definition, however it didn’t ultiamtely get included into the work we produced for presentation. However I enjoyed experimenting with the definition anyway, and considered using this for a patterning surface and adapting the interior sectioning from circles to another geometry. Above, I changed the thicknessess and seeding of the pattern to create a more structural outcome, with piping.


We also downloaded a weaverbird driven definition, which was ultiamtely adapted to be used as a module generator for our project. The outcomes of this experimentation will be shown in the next few pages.


TASK 05 CONT’D


I tried experimenting with the modules we produced on the Boxel surface and elsewhere. As can be seen, this creates quite an ugly, messy finish. It was ultiamtely scrapped altogether.


EXTRAS ON B.4 INITIAL SIMPLE ROTATION

MORE COMPLEX SEQUENTIAL ROTATION


ADDITIONAL OUTCOMES


EXTRA DEFINITIONS B.4


EXTRAS ON B.5

We did create some simple rolloed out forms of this particular module to test our ability to fabricate something quite curvy and what the outcomes would be. The unrolling process was quite simple, and the modules produced were quite nice, however the huge number of edge connection problems makes this module one we left behind for now.


FINAL DEFINITION - INTERIM


FINAL DEFINITION DEVELOPMENT

We began with a whole variety of approaches in order to develop a new form in time for final presentation. This led to us being lost and confused about why and how to even develop a form, given that all our suggestions to use “meaningful� site feature points were met with disinterest in terms of feedback - they created quite a mundane form which was not received well. An example is the image above, one of our many discarded attempts. I worked with Elk, Millipede, Karamba, and several other plugins in order to experiment with results, try to improve our definition and produce the images needed for our final presentation. These were met with varying levels of success.


Above: Our attempts to hone a module came from the realisation that the Boxel definition implied certain important things within the definition that could be expanded upon and focused in on. This led to a reassessment of our project and the decision to create a modular locking system which would address the ease of fabrication present in the Boxel precedent and the fact that we could use our technique to manipulate any form into a dynamic megastructure for physical realisation. Our module began as a semi-closed box but was ultimately opened up for less material use, greater lightness and therefore ease of manouverability. Post-presentation it was suggested that we structurally anayse some module types further and I proposed these altered module types for examination. Gayan was in charge of this task but encountered a red error in karamba which was followed up in emails to the creators of the plugin - they were unable to suggest a resolution to the problem and therefore the analysis was not able to be completed. I only discovered this had occured at the very last moments and attempted to repeat the exercise, however I encountered the same error.


FINSL DEFINITION DEVELOPMENT

Developing upon this logic from our reverse engineering task, we were able to push this definition to a more practical place, by utilising its implications for our final proposal. The final implications of this tessellating form would focus on a logical assembly system, which I subsequently developed by experimenting with potential positive and negative joinery pieces. Therefore the definition development was minimal beyond this point - the focus for me was more on how to translate this definition’s implications into reality. This could only be achieved by suggesting logical modules for assembly, and a system which would allow them to lock together securely. Thus the aforementione dmodules being developed and prototyped were the most significant aspect of Part C work.


FINAL DEFINITION

Our final definition utilised the Boxel technique we developed over a form generated using Kangaroo. The form is ultimately fairly randomised, though it responds to the points we associated as important in our site diagramming. By making sinuous shapes between these points, our final form was born. The technique however is the important part and focus of our proposal, therefore the form is secondary. The technique applied to the mega form allowed for a logical assembly system which I developed and designed. Given the detail in this process, this was my main focus in terms of the way work was allocated in the group. The definition was already developed and therefore our form was a matter of wrangling a huge file and creating a working final form. This technique could now be applied to a multitude of forms or future sites.


STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROBLEMS


As stated previous, we wanted to complete structural analysis using Karamba of our module type. Gayan was in charge of this task but encountered a red error in karamba which was followed up in emails to the creators of the plugin and which I subsequently also tried - they were unable to suggest a resolution to the problem other than re-attempting the task in Rhino 5 (Gayan was using 4) which I did. This threw up the same error, he says, as he received. Therefore the analysis was not able to be completed. I only discovered this had occured at the very last moments and attempted to repeat the exercise, though I would have liked to have been informed of it far sooner to attempt to find a solution with more time for success. This was very disappointing to me and once again I was unable to rely on the timing of problems as brought to my attention.

Algorithmic sketchbook  
Advertisement