Page 1

DIGITAL DESIGN SEMESTER ONE MODULE TWO

GEORGIA GRIFFITHS, 837010 MICHAEL MACK, STUDIO FIVE


WEEK THREE: reading

Kolerevic, B. 2003. ‘Architecture in the Digital Age’ Kolerevic described three fundamental types of fabrication techniques in the readings. Outline the three techniques and discuss the potential of Computer Numeric Controlled Fabrication with parametric modelling.

The three techniques examined by Kolerevic are two-dimensional, subtractive and additive fabrication. Twodimensional fabrication, for example laser cutting, is the most commonly used fabrication technique, involving a two-axis rotation about the cutter head. Subtractive fabrication on the other hand is the removal of material from a larger mass. Unlike two-dimensional fabrication, subtractive methods can work in a third dimension, giving depth to an object. Additive fabrication has the ability to work in the third dimension too, though rather than taking away from a material it involves the incremental forming of layers (3D printing), without the material waste of subtractive methods.

2

Each technique, which is a form of Computer Numeric Controlled Fabrication, relies on computer aided drawing programs to generate digital models (parametric modeling). The ability to take a digital model directly to production allows for the exploration of new complex geometries and test their constructibility and application within the real world.


WEEK THREE: surface creation

1

2

3

4

The following surfaces were created in Rhino, using the plug-in Grasshopper. This program allowed for quick design alterations with complete accuracy. To make the surface, a cube was de-constructed, its edges selected, then further segmented to create evenly spaced points. From here, four points were selected to loft together as a single surface (image left).

3


WEEK FOUR: panel variation

1

2

3

The process of creating the individual panels for each surface is demonstrated in the script shown in the left image. In a similar process to the beginning steps of making the surfaces, a simple geometry was created, de-constructed and each face panelled to give the resulting forms. Above is a selection of iterations tested.

4

4


WEEK FOUR: panels and waffle

The resulting waffle structure and panelled surfaces work together to create a harmonious design. The swooping motion of the waffle’s curves is incorporated into the design of the panels through the use of an attractor point. These curves were further exaggerated by the extension of the contours beyond the surface. This was achieved by using the extend curve command in Grasshopper, selecting points along those new curves and generating a line through those points. Similar perforations are seen on each surface, exposing the interior structure while also generating dynamic shadows and breaking down the boundary between interior and exterior.

Paneled surfaces

Waffle structure

5


WEEK FOUR: laser cutting

The following laser cutting file was generated using Rhino and arranged according to Fab Lab guidelines. Both being on separate layers the red lines represent etch lines and the black, cut lines. Folds on the panelled surfaces were created as dashed cut lines to allow greater flexibility in folding of the intricate designs, which is difficult due to the small dimensions.

6

Laser cutting enabled developed designs to become more complex and refined. The final outcome would not have been as cleanly if cutting manually. Lines on the panelled surfaces in some cases are no more than 2mm apart, the minimum distance achievable by the laser cutter.


WEEK FIVE: solid and void

The Grasshopper script shown below evolved from a basic grid manipulation script. Rather than alter the grid pattern the centroid of each object placed into those grids was shifted, creating greater variation in location of each geometry and a lessened chance of repeating moments within the structure. This concept was further exaggerated using the Random Values component in Grasshopper.

1

2

3

4

It was constantly shifting geometry up, down, left and right and trialling boolean difference to generate the desired outcome. A minor movement could create a new passage/ interesting moment. Stage one: grid generation

Stage two: individual geometry transformation

7


8


WEEK FIVE: isometric

This particular section of the final model was chosen as it demonstrates the desired outcomes for this task, exploring levels and light. The collision points between the horizontal and vertical shapes expose the interior of the volume, allowing for the illumination of the structure. The larger the boolean geometry, the greater the opening. Openings decrease in size throughout varying light infiltration, and at points larger openings frame those that are smaller. Cantilevered elements offset the heaviness of the form at one end.

9


WEEK SIX: task one

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

{0,0,0} {0,45,150}

{0,0,135}

{0,21,150}

{0,150,150}

{0,150,150}

{150,150,150}

{150,0,90}

{120,0,0}

{150,0,0}

{150,0,0}

{90,150,0}

{105,150,0}

{150,75,0}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

{140,234,129}

{-156,234,257}

{-173,464,336}

{-178,355,266}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

{Staggered Quad Panels}

{Quad Panels}

{Triangle Panels C}

{Quad Panels}

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

{45,0,150}

{150,150,0}

Paneling (Surface Two)

10

1.1 {0,0,150}

Attractor Point (Surface One)

There is a twisting motion occurring in the chosen surfaces and resulting waffle structure that was carried through to the panels. Using attractor points, it was possible to have the tip of each shape lead not only toward the attractor point but flow with the contour of the surface.

Lofts

Throughout the process of generating designs for task one it was important to ensure a coherent design was achieved. While the waffle and surfaces may be viewed as separate objects, they are not, and as such each detail considered, from the type of panels used, to the direction and angle that they faced.


11


WEEK SIX: task one­—model

12


WEEK SIX: task two

Subtractive Geometry

Finally vertical elements were added and the 27 horizontal, and 27 vertical shapes were multiplied to generate greater overlap.

Geometry Transformation

In addition, a simple square was transformed through lengthening, stretching and scaling to again alter and create greater range of moments.

Centroid Manipulation

The process of generating ideas began by altering the centroid locations for each shape, to stagger the geometry throughout the volume. It was important that existing centroids were not used as this would have created a uniform aesthetic within the final outcome.

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Key Centroid

{Location of Centroids for Geometry}

{Location of Centroids for Geometry}

{Location of Centroids for Geometry}

{Location of Centroids for Geometry}

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

{Original Form}

{Transformation of Shape}

{Transformation of Shape}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

{Horizontal Geometry only}

{Vertical and Horizontal Geometry}

{Geometry Count Doubled}

{Geometry Count Doubled}

{Varied Scales}

13


WEEK SIX: task two­—model

14


{-173,464,336}

{-178,355,266}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

{Staggered Quad Panels}

{Quad Panels}

{Triangle Panels C}

{Quad Panels}

Paneling (Surface Two)

Georgia Griffiths - 837010

The following two pages contain the final isometric drawings for task one and task two. They were created in Rhino, using Grasshopper before being exported to Adobe Illustrator for altering of line weights. Labels were added in Adobe InDesign. While these particular drawings are not to scale the final set were generated at 1:1.

Point (Surface One)

k 01

WEEK SIX: final isometrics

{140,234,129}

{-156,234,257}

Design Matrix 1:5

Open panels expose internal structures and generate dynamic shadows.

The waffle structure continues beyond the panelled surfaces to accentuate curves and create visual interest.

Perforations on the interior surfaces allow for the penetration of light. The panels appear to ‘close up’ the further away from the attractor point, controlling the amount of light entering.

Panels follow the contour of the surface reaching towards the attactor point, resulting in a sense of motion across the structure. The aperture of the panels increases as the surfaces diverges, breaking down the boundary between interior and exterior.

Exploded Axonometric 1:1 0

20

60mm

15


Subtractive Geometry

hs - 837010

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

{Horizontal Geometry only}

{Vertical and Horizontal Geometry}

{Geometry Count Doubled}

{Geometry Count Doubled}

Design Matrix 1:5

Where the subtractive geometry decreases in size, larger amounts of the surface remain and less light enters the structure.

Collision between vertical and horizontal geometry generates greater variation in surface levels and increases illumination of the interior spaces.

The overall heaviness of the form is offset by moments where cantilevered elements.

Window-like opening guide the eye through the structure highlighting the narrowing passages.

Axonometric 1:1 Solid boolean using 3.4 Subtractive Geometry iteration. 0

16

20

60mm

Digital Design—Module two  
Digital Design—Module two  
Advertisement