Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Evan Barwell

833817 Joel Collins + Studio 15


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)

Kolerevic describes three fundamental fabrication types as additive fabrication, subtractive fabrication and formative fabrication. Subtractive fabrication requires having a set volume and gradually taking away from that volume to create the model. The restrictions of this technique include being bound by the limits of the set volume as well as a greater waste output. Additive fabrication on the other hand is the process of adding the material, layer by layer, such as 3D printing. This mode of fabrication produces much less waste and isn’t bound by having a set volume of material, therefore more efficient. Computer numeric fabrication removes a lot of fabrication limitations as it involves sending the file directly to fabrication without the need for sketches or drawings. This creates a greater efficiency for prototyping as you can edit the parametric model directly.

2


Week Three Surface Creation

The first workshop focused on creating the script to create the iterations of the surfaces. The upper image shows the creation of the 150x150 box and then the lower image shows the creation of the lofts. By editing the number sliders in the lower image, you can control and set each point to create a doubly curved surface. I did this multiple times to create four sets of surfaces. These four sets of surfaces set the base for the matrixes in the pinup.

3


Here I am modifying the set surfaces created in the first workshop to create two patterns on the surface. I played around with different shapes and used Morph 3D to create the surfaces. I used the point attractors to create grid variation.

4


This is the grasshopper file for the next set of patterns. On this next surface I used a different shape to use as a pattern and attempted a different set of Point attractors in different places to create a different effect.

5


For this set of surfaces, I tried using Weaverbirds Picture frame tool to create more variation within the pattern. I used a curve attractor to create variation in the grid.

6


Here I decided to have one pattern 3D and one flat. I liked how weaverbird’s picture frame worked and continued that tool in this. For this set, I used two point attractors on one surface. This created a stretching like effect.

7


(45, 75, 167)

(28, 0, 179)

(45, 0, 92)

(-122, 38, 29)

(45, 150, 17)

(-122, 0, 29)

(-105, 150, 17)

(29, 0, 28)

This is the first set of surfaces created with the grasshopper parametric code. This version, the two surfaces mirror each other with one looming over the other. I didn’t use this set because it wouldn’t stay standing up and would fall over due to the fact one surface is much larger than the other. I did like the arching effect.

8

For this second set, I modified the grasshopper parametric code by making one point of one surface touch the other side of the surface. I didn’t use this set because the waffle structure would be too hard to create.


(5, 58, 177)

(130, 0, 156)

(65, -2, 177)

(130, 150, 156)

(5, 148, 27)

(5, -2, 27)

This set was my second preference for developing. I liked how they mirrored each other however they look very similar and I wanted more variation between the two surfaces.

(103, 60, 6)

(43, 150, 6)

I used this surface to develop. I liked how the top corners leaned into each other and mirrored each other, but unlike the previous set, they aren’t too similar.

9


This was my first attempt at creating a 3D surface and panels. I liked the pattern it created however there were a lot of tiny panels which would be too tricky to actually develop in real life.

For the second set, I reduced the number of panels in the shape and thought that the way they turned out was quite successful. However I didn’t like the look of the base shape.

10


On this third attempt I used Picture Frame from Weaverbird and found it very successful in the way it tuned out. I liked the little triangular windows it created. However I thought the base shape was too simple.

For this attempt I kept the weaverbird Picture frames for both 2D and 3D surfaces. For the 2D panels I used two attractor points on one surface which created a stretched out effect that I liked. For the 3D pattern, I opted out of using a grid manipulator and decided to make the 3D pattern the focus.

11


Week Four Panels & Waffle

I decided to keep the double point attractor surface for the 2D panel to create variation in surfaces. I also decided to keep the weaverbird picture frame effect. I liked how light could filter through the little windows, creating an emotive and forest canopy like effect. I was really interested in this iteration as it involves the integration of light and thresholds in a sense that through the light entering through each individual window, the inside vs outside threshold is blurred, creating a kind of in between space. I also chose this pattern because the way each intricate triangle interacts with those next to it, creates a little origami flower. These little intricacies create a beautiful overall pattern when combined into the surface. I would like to explore this further in the future.

12

For the waffle structure, I had difficulty with orienting the panels. I rotated them and found that seemed to create the correct structure. I had to change and re orient some of the planes in grasshopper, but overall satisfied with how it turned out. I wanted to create a structure that had four clearly defined edges. I chose to do this so that there would be no problem identifying each plane and so that it would have no problem standing up unassisted.


Week Four

Laser Cutting

This is the collection of nets for laser cutting. I used the etch layer in red to alter the surface to make it easier to fold as the panels are very small and intricate. The waffle structure was difficult to create as the orientation of the surfaces were incorrect and I had to keep rotating them to get the desired results. Using the laser cutting was beneficial as this particular model has very small panels and using the etch layer to carve them in meant that I didn’t have to fold each panel by hand which would be less precise and less efficient. Since I have never used the laser cutting before it was very insightful to learn the process of submitting a job. Particularly how to get etched lines in the paper. This was extremely useful when assembling the nets as they are extremely intricate.

13


Week Five

This is the grasshopper script for the creation of the Boolean Structures. This section shows the creation of the 150 x 150 box and the segmentation of those boxes.

14


This section shows the point grids and the different iterations of attractions I used to modify the grid. I used a selection of point attractors, curve attractors, and random attraction grids.

15


This section shows the sections of geometry and the scale of attraction. The geometry I used was weaverbirds mesh icosahedron. I played with a variety of shapes such as spheres, dodecahedrons and various weaverbird geometry decided that the mesh icosahedron created the most interesting definition.

16


(66, 292, 156)

(66, 292, 6)

Here is an example of a step by step process of the boolean shapes. I started by modifying the grind through a curve attractor placed adjacent to the cube. The mesh icosahedron was affected by the curve attractor. Then using boolean difference I subtracted the shapes from the cube. I was particularly interested in exploring the void vs solid relationship in this iteration. However I didn’t like how some of the icosahedrons were isolated and therefore did not make any indent within the cube. I would like to try to connect the shapes more in the future iterations.

17


In this iteration I wanted to experiment if weaverbird’s picture frame still worked. I kept the grid with no manipulation for simplicity and focus on seeing if the particular tool would work. I found that the boolean difference failed. This was because the holes I wanted to keep would not allow for the solid difference. The only way to get the boolean difference to work was to cap the holes, turning it into a regular icosahedron.

18


. (-204, 130, 81)

For this iteration I decided to see if I could incorporate weaverbird’s picture frame into the shape. I decided to use the central attractor point since it was very successful in the last pattern. However in this one I decided to modify the grasshopper script to make the shapes near the edges larger and the inside ones smaller. I thought by doing this it would create a more dramatic, gaping shapes that could be interesting to print, but the interesting parts of the shape like the jagged edges where the shapes connected and the surrounding holes were much too thin to print.

19


. (-204, 130, 81)

Using a point placed in the center of the cube, I modified the grid by using that as an attractor . I used the mesh isoheadron to create definition. The shape size was altered by the attractor. Then I baked them out and used boolean difference to subtract the mass from the cube. Here in this iteration I modified the script to make each icosahedron big enough so that they all touched in some way while still creating the size difference, In doing so, all the interconnected icosahedrons created this interesting dynamic movement through the void within the shape. These little interconnecting areas form corridors and allow for circulation within the larger form. I would like to explore this further by exploring the inside vs outside threshold in this dynamic of solid and void.

20


Week Five

Isometric

The final shape I 3D printed was a section from the middle of the cube. Using the mesh icosahedron as the base shape and a central point attractor to the shape, I created a set of icosahedrons that were smaller to the center of the shape and grew outwards. I liked this effect as it created a sense of manipulation and movement of the space, as it narrowed in and grew out again. I changed the sizes of the icosahedrons so that they all intersected, creating a maze of hollowed out definitions within the original cube. I chose to do this as I could imagine a sense of circulation though the cube and wanted to explore this. I was particularly interested in how light would be able to enter and reflect against the walls of the booleaned cube and the kind of atmosphere that would create if someone were able to walk around inside it. I chose a section from the middle and then cut parts off it using boolean split, until it was of a developable form; there were no extremely thin parts and was small enough to 3D print. The final form consists of the sections where five icosahedron were connected. Three main ones connected through a central linear axis and two others on either side of the most central shape. I cut around these corridors created by the shapes to create two open spaces and one closed central area with a hole on each face to look into. Carefully considered threshold in this situation and carefully created in between spaces and sheltered spaces. In doing so I was able to consider where was considered inside and what constituted outside.

21


Week Six Task 01

1.11

.2 (45, 75, 167)

1.31

.4

(5, 58, 177)

(28, 0, 179)

(130, 0, 156) (130, 150, 156)

(65, -2, 177)

(45, 0, 92)

(-122, 38, 29)

(45, 150, 17)

(-122, 0, 29)

(5, 148, 27)

(-105, 150, 17)

(29, 0, 28) Index Selection

2.12

(103, 60, 6)

(5, -2, 27)

Index Selection

.2

Index Selection

Index Selection

2.32

.4 (5, 58, 177)

(21, 193, 198)

(43, 150, 6)

(89, -20, 156)

(155, 0, 177)

(-10 ,63, 62) (155, 150, 27) (-95, -38, -8) Attractor Point Location

3.13

(124, 173, -2)

(5, -2, 27) Curve Attractor Location

Central Attractor Point Location

.2

3.33

Double Point Attractor Location

.4

Task 01 Matrix I created a variety of different iterations, experimenting with different uses of point attractors and weaverbird picture frames. I developed 3.4, using the double point attractor on the 2D surface which created a stretched out effect. I created a base shape for the 3D model which consisted of a variety of triangular prisms arranged in a square format. I decided to use weaverbirds picture frame as it plays with light and how it filters through the triangular windows and creates a more interesting pattern. I also chose this pattern because the triangular forms all interact to create little intricate origami flowers that really make the surface interesting.

22


Task 01 Isometric

Task 01 Photo of Model

23


Week Six Task 02

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

(99, 236, 156)

(74, 53, 156)

(66, 292, 156)

(121, 120, 116)

(121, 120, 139)

(99, 386, 6) (66, 292, 6)

. .

. . . . .. . .. .. . . .

(-286, -156, 6)

2.3

2.4

(-182, 363, 6) (-204, 130, 81) (-286, -156, 6)

.

. . .. .. . . . .. .

.

. . .

Random Point Attractor Decreased

Random Point Attractor Increased

Attraction Point in Center

Single Point Attractor in Corner

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Reverse Attraction to Centre

Weaverbird Picture Frame, Reverse Attraction to Center

Shape Scaled

.

. .

(-277, -263, 156)

Curve Attractor

. .

2.2 (-286, -156, 6)

Curve Attractor

.

2.1

(192, 97, 6)

.. .

Curve Attractor

. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . .

Curve Attractor

Weaverbird Picture Frame, Consistent Scaling

Task 02 Matrix I experimented with a variety of ideas here. I played with curve attractors and point attractors and how, when positioned differently, changed the composition of the shape. I found that when positioned directly in the center of the cube created a really interesting effect like the shapes were growing from the inside out. I ended up using this particular iteration because it created variation within the actual cube, creating corridors within the cube that grow in and out. This interested me because I wanted to explore how light would be able to enter and how the light entering from various points would change the atmosphere of the space, particularly how that would effect the interior vs exterior threshold.

24


Task 02 Isometric

25


Week Six

Final Isometric Views

26


Appendix

Process

This is the process of assembling the laser cut pieces.

The tape held together the bits that were falling out from the picture frame tool and although slightly tore some of the panels, were useful.

Assembling the waffle structure was a challenge as everything kept falling apart. I tried using masking tape as a temporary holding agent however it didn’t end up working as it was too tricky and impractical.

To solve this issue I used a glue gun and glued each segment together as I assembled it. This was very successful and created a very strong structure with minimal mess and glue marks.

27


Appendix Process

This section was the assembly of the 2D structure and the 3D structure.

First I took each net out from the tape and folded each section at the etched sections. After that I was able to fold the tabs and use the glue gun to securely join each piece together.

After each section was joined, I took the completed 2D panel and used the glue gun to stick it onto the already assembled waffle structure.

28


Appendix

Process

The 3D structure was much more difficult to assemble as there were many more pieces to fold and stick together.

However despite the time consuming and tricky exercise, once each segment was assembled and glued together, I glued the completed surface onto the waffle structure.

I found this more complex than the 3D structure as I had to glue the middle part down to the center because the shape dips in. I did this by gluing the tabs directly onto the waffle. It seemed to hold well.

29


This is the process of creating the final 3D shape for task 2.

I started off by using Boolean difference to get the holes within the 150 x 150 cube. Once this was done, I cut the shape roughly into thirds. I was conscious of creating the middle section with a thick base for printing.

After it was split into thirds, I got the middle section and used boolean split to create these diagonal edges, cutting off shape while preserving the inside spaces.

I did this again to narrow it down a little more to get closer to one eighth of the overall cube.


After this, I experimented with clipping planes to see where I could cut the model that would create the most interesting shape.

I decided on cutting the top diagonally. I did this using boolean split and using the gumball to create the angle I wanted.

I kept doing this at different angles until I was happy with the product and until it had a mass under 9hrs to print. The original shape I would have liked to print was over 9hrs, therefore I kept cutting until I was happy with the shape.

The last image is just how my section fits within the original cube,

31

Mod 2 journal  
Mod 2 journal  
Advertisement