Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2019 Dike Wang
(988029) Samuel Lalo + 17
READING QUESTION Critical Reading: Kolerevic B. 2003. Architecture in the Digital Age
Kolerevic described three fundamental types 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)
They are Two dimensional fabrication, Subtractice fabrication, Additive fabrication. The two diemensional fabrication can deal with the two dimensional parametric models, because the cutting tool has only two axis motion,(some has three aixs and are able to cut more complex shape) Their potential is cut very hard materials precisely. Subtractive fabrcation is using the milling machine rolling in high speed to subtract material little by little. By this method they used to produce something modular. It also has a high accuracy too. Additive Fabrication has range of different methods and range of materials. SLA Stereolithography use liquid polymer, can produce products either soft or hard; SLS Selctive Laser Sintering is a method using laser to harden metal powder layer by layer, which can produce more details and no need of support; 3DP 3D printing give good extent of details and relatively more convenient. And the additive fabrication itself is very convenient to build some prototype models, sometimes build components direct in use, the potential is this can really bring the digital grade model into the real world.
2
SURFACE MAIN SCRIPT 150X150X150 STUDY AREA
SURFACE 1 WITHIN BONDING BOX
ROTATION
The diagram shows a general structure of grasshop-
OFFSET GRIDS (DETAILS IN MATRIXS DIAGRAM)
SURFACE 2 USING PARAMETER ABOVE
BREP OUTCOME
2D MORPH PANELS
3
per used for task part A’s surfaces and panels. More detailed informations and iteration will be shown by matrix diagram in following pages.
3D MORPH PANELS
WAFFLE MAIN SCRIPT NORMAL OFFSET FINS
This diagram shows the waffle structure, because the surfaces are too curvy to apply coutour lines , some special components need to be branch out and loft in another way.
GRID POINTS FROM SURFACE
REESTABLISH GRID LINES AS WAFFLE
SPECIAL CURVY COMPONENTS
4
SURFACE ITERATIONS design thinking and outcome
The Iiteration process can be shown by the pictures. The first iteration is some random outcome based on the script of workshop1, then I start to get interested with the surface on the left (Iteration 1 left). The curvy variation is something I want to go for, then in the Iteration 2, you can see small adjustment is happening ,to get an more ideal surface(Iteration 2 left), and explore how the two surfaces can connect each other (Iteration 2 Right) Iteration 1
Iteration 2 In the Iteration 3 is where I start to plan use two similar surface and emphasis a strong trendancy in my model. Firstly the left part of Iteration 3 is what I got, and I use the parameter to get the similar surface. The Iteration 4 is simply rotation without parapmeter’s control. By doing this is because the centre of gravity in Iteration 3 is kind of unbalance, and gravity itself is a reason, too,
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
5
SURFACE & WAFFLR OUTCOME Isometric View
The Panelling is as exactly Paul said “50 by 50“ ratio of 2d and 3d panels, but it was not the intention. The intention was creating a 3D panel
This unusual waffle is created for reasons. First one is my surface is quite too curvy to use the “contour“ command, some small and uncontinuous componets are created. Also the assignment asked to, avoiding waffles to be seen from outside, therefore I was wondering using gridlines to loft the waffle, which can perfectly suit the holes of panels.
of triagulations that have holes, which can be see through, and show the 2D panels. The key idea is, because of variation of the surface, the holes of 3D panel are changing, and the 2D pattern you can see is changing as well.
6
SURFACE & WAFFLE FABRICATION Laser Cutting
Quite a lot of work, and there are two important things I learnt from this thing. Firstly is the laser cut template, they only follow the colour of lines, even the lines are put in the correct layer. (By correct this you need to check all components’ colour are ‘by layer‘) Then, there is a very convenient function in lunch box called “unroll brep“, by using this you can unroll panels from grasshopper. But tabs still need to be done in rhino.
7
MATRIX DIAGRAM In series of left to right Loft
(0,0,150)
(-150,-150,150)
(0,-150,150)
(-150,150,120)
(0,-30,150)
(0,0,150)
(0,150,150)
(-150,-150,120)
(0,0,45) (0,0,0)
(150,0,0)
(-150,-150,0) (-120,-150,0) (-150,150,0)
(0,0,0)
(0,0,0)
(-150,0,0)
Offset grids & Attractors
(-30,-30,75)
(-64,-30,85)
(-150,-150,75)
(0,30,45) (-60,-150,0)
Panelling
The matrix diagram show the design process of part A panels, the waffle structure is designed to support panels only, which isn’t necessary be here.
First surface is a random test and developed to the final because I like the curvy characterstic, after series of attractors correspond with the development of pattern shape, the final outcome without overlap can represent
8
the variation properly.
FINAL MODEL
Photography of Model
9
Scale study, as a pavillion.The half-enclosed space can be a place for people to gather, light through the panelcan provide some effect, and most importantly the space between two surface , now filled by waffle was intended to be a gap lead to the sunrise, which give this ritual or other meanings.
10
SOLID AND VOID main script
This diagram shows the waffle structure, because the surfaces are too curvy to apply coutour lines , some special components need to be branch out and loft in another way.
11
SOLID AND VOID Surface Creation
In the series from left to right. The first capture is an outcome from workshop 3, the quality I love is that every elevation of this one can show how the edges of circle meet each other. And next two are boolean intersections with the special spiral pattern. Both of these two have special quality of threshold, the second one can be seen as a pavillion, the scale and area of two different floating levels can provide a sense of sheltering. But eventially I choose the third because the more efficient use of space, also which can really represent the spiral pattern with intentions.
12
SOLID AND VOID Isometric view
Initially the choose of pattern bother me a lot, I tried rectangular shapes, cylinders and other. All outcomes from study area seems a random outcome without any characteristic you can expect. But after Samuel’s explaination I tried to use another way to control my outcome. For instance if I want a rectangle, I can use another container with my rectangle hollowed, then the intersection between study boundary and whole bonding box can left a solid rectangle, where the container overlapped with each other can be variable makes each outcome differently The special quality that I concern with my outcome is the quality of spiral can bring me and the special cantilever caused by the sphere “container”. The gradient change caused the very facinating mass varation. Very thick at the bottom, thin in the middle, and suddenly thick again at top, top and bottom interlock each other create a fullfilled space too.
13
Cut Pattern
Pattern Distribution
Boolean Intersection
Iteration Outcome
Initially the pattern I tried was the sweep1 spiral shape which caused strange outcome untill I realize may use a container to boolean difference with spiral, then the boolean intersection afterwards can produce the spiral I want. Sweep2 makes spiral shape clean. attractor of grids provide variation. Then the boolean intersection is
14
trying to find a spiral with special quality.
SOLID AND VOID
Photography of Model
It was lucky to have this boolean intersection,some of chracteristics are what I expected, and some are not. For the major spirial shape is in my control, and the cropping by 50*50 box create another effect, there is a contradiction between rectagular boundary and circular space. Roof and wall are the same thing, is what the spiral created, the quality of varied mass is beautiful too. Some coincidence like the thin cantilever of right hand side was not expected, but magically connects the whole structure, as the magic of parametric deisgn!
15
Scale study, three people’s space, as a small pavillion.
16
Appendix
Process
An early propose of combination of 2D and 3D pattern. Using cull pattern to create an irregular pattern and then I find this combination isn’t parametric enough, either aesthetic enough. An idea of using a complete 2D and 3D pattern reminds me the case of Glasgow school of Art, 1897. Which has juxtaposition and sequence of room bring a rich and different qualities of light. In my case the 2D pattern under 3D pattern can be seen by the holes on 3D module, due to the gradient different of surface itself, the 2D pattern you can see from outside can be constent changing.
I really appreciate that my waffle can connect each other. Because I didn’t follow the instruction from workshop2 which the contour line could not work on my own curvy surface. Instead of offset fins in x or y axis, my waffle offest in z-axis from grid lines. While using grid lines as fins, I was also expecting the panel on waffle can cover waffle from outside as well, because the grid of waffle is also the grid of panels. And actually it was not as perfect as I thought when panels attched, but which should be better than using contours.
17
Laser cut is convenient , but the cut burns materials and left with bronwn colour. I used white paint to paint them as natural as possible. BTW eckerslay’s paint is so expensive, I bought my paint from gamesworkshop, which is a toy store using 6 bucks only.
Model making, it is quite inefficient to print 100 modules and glue them one by one like me. If I could do it again, for the 2D panel I can unroll five of them in a roll, 3D panels, maybe two together, but complexity don’t allow that for some time, and my way is a not smart but working way.
18
1
2
3
4
The design iteration is showed in the matrix diagram and I decided to put my own explaination into the appendix. In the sequence from left to right. First one is an application of workshop 2, use a simple pyramid shape to apply on my own surface. The result is apparently less interesting but I think it has potential. So in the 2nd one I use “Solidpton� to make 3D pattern adjustable, and there is the exaggerated panels, the characteristic of trendancy, like a process of punching, from saving strength to the direction of punch out. But overlapping is a promblem, even attractor point cannot save it. Then in the 3rd iteration adjusting the 3D pattern into a less exaggerated way and using attractor curve to avoid overlapping. But you can see the result of 3rd is sort of not continuing and 4th iteration is how exactly I want . The gap between surface, the gradient change of model can suit the surface perfectly.
19
The makerbot ui and interation list.
20
21