Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Jack Le Riche 837173 Han Li / Studio 16


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 fundamental fabrication types are additive, subtractive, and formative. Additive fabrication involves the gradual forming of an object by adding material in a layer-by-layer fashion. Conversely, subtractive fabrication removes material; the object emerges via electrical, chemical or mechanical processes. Formative fabrication utilises mechanical forces, heat, or restricting forms to reshape or warp material. As with all modes of digital fabrication, CNC – the output of parametric modelling – holds the potential to produce more complex geometries. Such geometries are described precisely as NURBS surfaces, and therefore are computationally possible; this, in turn, enables construction. Furthermore, by collapsing the distances between conception, design and construction, digital fabrication enables the architect to become more directly involved in fabrication process, as they create the very information that is translated to fabrication equipment. The architect is also able to maintain careful control over the budget by precisely controlling the geometry. In this way, despite the increased complexity of geometry, both time and cost remain within reasonable parameters.

2


Week Three

Surface Creation

While adjusting the script I found that more dynamic surfaces could be generated at the minimum and maximum ends of the number sliders. Using this rule, the surfaces begun to take on curves that would create ‘interior’ arched volumes, rather than spaces just defined by parallel walls. This idea was implemented in the final surface, however the complexity of the curves were toned down to accommodate for constructability of the waffle structure and paneled surface.

3


Week Four Panels & Waffle

The design of the panels are meant to contrast each other in how they use light. Openings in the panels on the left are orientated up to act as skylights, creating directional light. While uniform perforations in the panels on the right allow a consistent, diffused source of light into the structure.

The waffle structure twists and tapers to a point, closing at one end of the structure and leaving a narrow opening towards the top. The opening directs a view to the top of the structure, rather than through it. Thus, limiting the amount of light that enters the space, allowing the structure and panels to be the primary directors of light into the space.

4


Week Four

Laser Cutting

While there were problems unrolling the faces of the panels, that resulted in having to manually join and nest most of the faces, using the laser cutter dramatically reduced the the time spent constructing the model in comparison to the workflow for M3 in FoDR. To prevent having to tape the boards some of the cut lines were changed to etch lines, this eliminated the risk of damaging the surface when removing the tape, resulting in a cleaner model. One disadvantage when using the laser cutter are burn marks along the edges of the faces. However, in this instance the burn marks don’t detract from the design intent of the model.

5


Week Five

1

2

3

4

Modification of the script to allow custom breps to be used for the boolean difference.

While adjusting the script I found that some geometries, such as spheres (2), cubes (1) and custom (3) shapes responded better to attractor inputs that affected the grid, while octahedrons (4) and tetrahedrons (4) produced dense, complex, symmetrical geometries when the attractor inputs were turned off. Inputting two geometries, rather than just one also increased the complexity of the boolean; the combination of the tetrahedron and the octahedron enabled a complex but unified from because of their similar geometries (4). While attractor inputs affecting the grid were not utilised for iteration 4, they were used to determine scaling, which nested smaller geometries inside larger ones.

6


Week Five

Isometric

Iternation 4 was chosen because of its dense, complex form while maintaing a sense of transparancy and unifromity in its composition. The from also lends itsself well to 3D printing as most of the vertices are joined and the structure is quite hollow overall. The highly symmetrical, artificial form of the object creates a clear, defined edge to each of the faces. Additionally it enables a modularity that allows for the object to be stacked and repeated behind the facade. Futhermore, small openings throughout create an open form, enabling views to the centre of the object.

7


Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

{0,0,0}

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

{30,150,450}

{120,150,450}

{120,150,450}

{0,150,450}

Grid Points / Surface 1

{30,0,450}

Grid Points / Surface 2

{120,0,420} {0,0,390}

{0,150,300}

{120,150,300}

{0,150,300}

{0,150,300} {0,0,300}

{0,0,300}

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.1

2.2

{120,0,300}

{30,0,300}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.3 {189,482,201}

{0,0,300}

2.4 {175,632,168}

{189,482,201} {219,482,112}

{188,482,54} {61,632,30}

{189,482,201}

{151,437,0}

Paneling

{Attractor Point}

{Attractor Point}

{Attractor Point}

{Attractor Point}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Task 01 Matrix •

Matrix 1 focuses on exploring various openings in one of the ends of the structure, keeping the right loft constant throughout the iterations. Iteration 1.4 was chosen because it creates directional light due to its closed bottom and open top. It also allows for the structure to enable circulation within rather than through it.

Matrix 2 explores using two attractor points, each affecting one of the surfaces. Various strengths of attraction were tested, matrix 2.3 being the highest. Matrix 2.4 was chosen as only a slight attraction index was desired for surface 1, allowing for a more consistent spread of light into the structure. Whereas on surface 2, the focus of the attraction point was expressing the twisting form of the loft through the panels by choosing a more dramatic, directional attraction index.

Matrix 3 primarily explores pyramids as they are able to easily create depth in the paneling. Pyramids also allow for perforations to be placed on faces at many different angles, creating complex lighting conditions in the interior. Matrix 3.4 was chosen as the panels created a contrast between diffused and directional light and allowed for dramatic changes in lighting conditions throughout the day.

8


Week Six Task 02

Lofts

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

{0,0,0}

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

{36,42,91} {-30,-13,43}

{172,68,43}

{33,68,-40}

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point

{No Attractor}

{Attractor Point}

2.1

2.2

{302,-75,89}

{Curve Attractor}

{Curve Attractor}

2.3

2.4

{302,-75,89}

{302,-75,89}

Paneling

{No Attractor}

{Attractor Point}

3.1

3.2

{Uniform Scale}

{Attractor Scale}

{302,-75,89}

{-88,212,443}

{301,-75,89}

{Curve Attractor}

{Random Attractor}

3.3

3.4

{Random Scale}

{93,213,89}

{Attractor Scale}

Task 02 Matrix •

Matrix 1 contrasts various attractor indexes on the grid, when using these indices it is clear that they distort the centroids where they geometries form. As the preferred outcome was for a symmetrical boolean matrix 1.1 was chosen.

Matrix 2 further explored attractor indexes, this time through geometry distribution. Again, as the intention was to develop a symmetrical structure matrix 2.1 was chosen. However, attractor indices that dispersed the points more evenly, such as the random attractor (2.4) were further explored in the scaling indices.

Matrix 3 uses the tetrahedron and the octahedron, looking at various scaling methods. Matrix 3.2 was chosen as the two attractor points were positioned parallel to each other, allowing for the scale of the two geometries to be contrasted, creating the nested form seen in the final boolean of the object.

9


Week Six

Final Isometric Views

10


Appendix

Process

Above is a plan view of the lofted surfaces, as mentioned in the matrix, I focused on the min and max values of the indices. This is evident in the surfaces generated above through the tight bends and curves. Though this process generated interesting surfaces, many of them couldn’t be used for the final model as the waffle structure was hard to generate using surfaces that were not parallel.

11


Appendix Process

This panel was largely used to experiment with point attractors, the height of the pyramids allowed for a surface with a lot of depth and emphasised the effect of the point attractor.

12


Appendix

Process

First iteration of surface and panels, this design was not further developed because of constructability issues that occurred when making the waffle structure as the surfaces are not parallel. The sloping surfaces also create constructability issues as 3D panels would hit the ground, preventing the model from standing level.

13


Appendix Process

Second iteration of surface and panels, the surfaces were modified to allow for the waffle to be constructed and the height of the 3D panels (right image) were reduced to increase the stability of the model. However, while the waffle was generated I wasn’t sure whether it was still constructable. Despite this the panels on the left began to explore the idea of directional light that is seen in the final model.

14


Appendix

Process

1

2

3

4

These panels explored the idea of diffused light by introducing small perforations. Initially design 2 was chosen, however when a test panel was printed out I was concerned the folds were too small to be constructed. The surface was then simplified, resulting in iteration 4 being used for the final design.

Two unrolled panels

15


Appendix Process

The first boolean iterations involved experimenting with different geometries, combining geometries, adjusting attractor indices etc. From here, general rules could be applied to begin iterating on desired outcomes, such as symmetry.

16


Appendix

Process

To further understand how the geometries were interacting with each other I decided to subtract the 150x150 bounding box when instead of the geometries when running the boolean difference.

17


Appendix Process

The third set of booleans used custom geometries, through these geometries I focused on developing complexity within the object rather than on the outside. Though they produced interesting internal volumes this approach was not further developed because when the cube was split for 3D printing the volumes became highly irregular and perforated, making it hard to understand the design intent.

18


Appendix

Process

For the fourth set of booleans I went back to using the provided geometries in the lunchbox plug-in. I found that by using two similar geometries and placing two scaling points parallel to each other produced the complex interior and uniform exterior that I was looking for in the third set of booleans.

19


Appendix Process

Above is an alternative spit of the boolean before 3D printing. I decided not to print this iteration because it does not communicate the design intent of complexity behind a unified facade as well as the final model.

20


Appendix

Process

One constructability issue I did not foresee was additional tabs had to be applied on one of the surfaces, however this did not affect the quality of the model.

21


Appendix Process

Diffused panel surface

22


Appendix

Process

Diffused panel surface

23


Directional panel surface

24


Boolean object, front and side view

25


Boolean object, back and side view

26


Boolean object, emphasising light and shadows

27

DD: Module 2 Journal  
DD: Module 2 Journal  
Advertisement