Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Karina Price

912448 Junhan Foong + Studio 13

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)

CNC techniques in relation to parametric modelling The three main techniques of fabrication are additive, where material is added to create a design (3D printing), subtractive, where material is carved out to produce a form (CNC), and formative, where a mould is created and the filled in with material, then cast out or where material is moulded to a particular shape using heat or steam. CNC, in particular, allows machines to be programmed by computers to complete tasks; in the fabrication process, this equals greatly increased control, precision and detail when creating constructible parts. Kolervic argues that parametric modelling allows for complex geometries, such as irregular forms and complicated curves, to be produced in a highly efficient and detailed manner, often resulting in a reduced cost through the deliberate choosing of geometries based on cost. Parametric modelling is particularly useful in easily determining the location of each component to allow for simplistic assembly of parts and the fixing of forms in place.

2

Week Three

Surface Creation

To make the variations of panels, a 150 x 150 x 150 cube was created to contain two surfaces, pictured at the top left. The cube was deconstructed into lines which could be alternated between, and points placed at 7 points along the line so the two surfaces could be morphed into different shapes. The bottom left script was used twice, one for each surface, and allowed full control on where the lines of the cube were, how many points there were, and which corner of the surface was lofted to each point. The result meant that varying surfaces could be created easily, and different surfaces could be placed together to see which ones matched. Keeping track of which points along the sliders were used, seen in the four right most pictures, so that surfaces that looked good could be returned to if they were the best.

3

Week Four Panels & Waffle

I chose to vary the panelling of my surface between 2D and 3D panels, to emphasise the continuity between the two surfaces. The 3D panels have been placed in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;valleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;; of the surface; where the surface is at its lowest point, the reflects in 2D on the opposing surface. All the panels are made up of two asymmetrical sections, one made of two open truncated pyramid, another with two closed pyramid, and the other a 2D representation of the two.

4

The waffle structure, based on the two panels to the left, shows a variation of angles and curves, with some points almost meeting and others being stretched almost 150 mm apart. These curved forms add visual interest, however, to accommodate them, changes had to be made to the original script on Grasshopper. These were ensuring all edges lined up and were facing the correct direction to complete later commands, such as offsetting and the splitting of the middle intersection so the waffle could be constructed..

Week Four

Laser Cutting

Edges of one panel could be placed atop another to reduce the amount of lines the laser had to go over.

I exploded the text and reduced its size to reduce the time the laser would spend on cutting them.

600.00

The process was quite simple once a few key aspects were considered and followed to create a successful laser cut file. The panels, which were imported from working Rhino files, were nestled together as close as possible without touching. I connected as many panels as possible, however some edges were curved, and thus could not be cut together. Text was placed on the ‘etch’ layer, shown in red so they were not cut. The command ‘sel duplicate’ was also useful, along with the ‘make 2d’ command, to reduce and eliminate any unnecessary lines. However, I have learned that alternating between etching some lines and cutting others is a better method than using tape after the laser cut has been completed, as the tape can rip the material and ruin the quality of the model.

900.00

5

Week Five

While a number of itterations and attractors were experimented with, the curve and point attractors (top right) were deemed to be the best method of creating itterations as they could be easily controlled and offered varied results, as opposed to the random or plane attractors (top left). The script (bottom) was left largely unchanged, although some changes were required to accommodate for the addition of extra attractors or geometries other than a sphere.

6

Week Five

Isometric

To complete the matrix for the 3D structure, a number of itterations, geometries and different attractors were trialled to see how they could work with the context of the 1503 box. Only three of the resulting clustered geometries were deemed suitable for further exploration. While the elongated spheres was a valid choice, the intricacies of the octahedron and tetrahedron offered much more to the model. Both were subjected to the boolean difference command multiple times, each highlighting another section of the model . In the end, the octahedron was chosen for its complexity, and the geometry was also used to complete the boolean difference command, creating multiple facets and intriguing permeability. This additionally created a sense of continuity and emphasise the design intention; to create a porous structure, through which open space is created and light is allowed to permeate through the solid no mater its orientation The faceted geometries of the structure reflect the light and contain the shadows, creating a dynamic form which encourages further exploration the light is also affected by the varying hole sizes within the structure, which creates a sense of mystery, encouraging exploration of the multiple faces of the geometric form.

7

Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.2

1.1 {207,452,0} *

*{143,389,0}

*{23,617,0}

{203,575.0} *

{87,691,0} *

1.3 *{21,0,150}

{226,771,0} *

{85,0,150}*

*{112,845,0}

Key

1.4 * {45,893,0}

{150,0,150} *

{0,0,0}

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

{154,274,0} * *{84,0,0}

{Index Selection}

*{85,0,0}

*{128,0,0}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.2

2.3

* {107,0,0} {Index Selection}

*{70,64,230}

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point

2.1

*{31,144,231}

2.4

{71,29,132} *

{156,29,132}*

Paneling

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Index Selection}

{Attractor Point Location}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

+

Task 01 Matrix The final panels chosen to be developed and laser cut were a mixture of the results of the matrix. The panel applied to trial number one was used in the final model however the matrix displays that its is only developable and feasible to make when applied to the right panelling grid; one that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t curve too much. Likewise, trial four was also used in the final model, however it was more successful than the first trial as the surface was less manipulated and morphed in itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s curvature, resulting in a developable surface. The third option displays a combination of panels applied to the same surface, a method that was applied in the final model, albeit with a mixture of three dimensional and two dimensional models.

8

Week Six

Grid Manipulation

1.2

1.1

1.3

1.4

{322,186,0} *

Key {0,0,0}

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

*{112,180,0}

*{205,21,0} {210,220,0} *

*{79,214,0}

{Point Attractors}

Geometry Centre Points & Attraction

2.1

{Random Attractors}

*{215,265,0}

2.2

{Point Attractors}

{Curve Attractors}

2.3

2.4

{112,180,0} *

*{83,141,0}

{322,186,0} *

*{112,180,0}

*{205,21,0} {210,220,0} *

*{88,260,46}

*{79,214,0}

Geometry Transformation

{Curve Attractors}

{Random Attractiors}

{Point Attractors}

3.1

3.2

3.3

*{15,68,3}

{Random Attractiors}

*{83,141,0}

3.4

The number and types of attractors trialled is illustrated in the matrix to display the lengths to which different effects could be created in grasshopper. Some iterations used a combination of attractors, in addition to the varied scaling of geometries to create interaction between varying sizes of geometries. Itteration number 4 was chosen was due to the complex geometry modelled and the effect of the attractor, which resulted in a clustered form that intersected with each other, which would create a porus and complex structure after the boolean difference command.

9

Week Six

Final Isometric Views

10

Appendix

Process

For one of the itterations, I attempted to create my own geometry in the shape of a torus. My attempt created a circle at the centre point of the manipulated grid, then formed a pipe around the circle , leaving a hole in the middle. While this did work, and enabled me to manipulate the scale and attraction, the end result when baked from grasshopper to Rhino was over 200 individual surfaces, rather than grouped poly surfaces that came from the ‘lunchbox’ geometries. As a consequence, the boolean difference command took much longer to complete than usual, as it and to process many more geometries. In the end, the boolean difference didn’t complete its operation and therefore the geometry wasn’t a valid option for the final structure

When the surfaces from the workshop were replaced with my surfaces, the script required changing to accommodate the orientation and curves. One result was that the where the endpoints were connected by lines, the lines did not match up. Later in the script, the extrusion of these curves resulted in a tangled geometry. The script had to be revised and the wires rearranged to prevent this.

11

Appendix Process

While the ivory card panels were time consuming to complete, due to their repetitive nature, they were not difficult to assemble once one or two had been completed. The waffle, however, was difficult to assemble due to its shape. If one of the sides had been flat, rather than curved, then perhaps the waffle could rest on its side while the other side was completed. In my case, the waffle had to be held aloft as it was assembled, and thus many pieces didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t stay in their correct positions, making the process more time consuming.

A challenge was presented when it came to assembling the individual panels., due to their small size. Later, instead of bulldog clips, it was found that small pegs worked better to hold the paper together until the glue dried. This process was especially time consuming as not all of the panels unrolled in a row of five; rather, the groups of twos and threes took longer to complete.

One aspect of the laser cutting that could be improved upon was the use of tape to hold the panels onto the mountboard and ivory card until assembly. The tape was difficult to remove and, despite much care taken in the process, some areas of the panels ripped, resulting in a lower quality model in the end. Next time, I will use etch lines on some of the panelsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; edges instead of cut lines to hold the panels to the material without tape.

12

Appendix

Process

The above Makerbot file was discarded for a number of reasons; the file was unsuitable to print. The recommended size of the structure is to be 1/8 - 1/4 of the initial 150 x 150 x 150 box. However, not enough of the structure had been subtracted away from this boolean iteration, and the result was a longer print time, and more material usage. The structure also had a long, thin cantilever to the right which would be harder to print and require more support.

Despite attempts to perfect the 3D print of my structure the first time, the attempt failed. This was due to the settings within Makerbot not being able to support the model, in addition to the models orientation. The angle at which the support material for the structure is printed was at 68 degrees, rather than the optimal 30 degrees. This resulted in the printer not having a base to print on, and thus creating loose strands rather than solid elements. The structure also didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have any infill, resulting in a weaker model. The orientation of the model could also have been better , and a better flat side of the structure chosen to allow for less support material needed, and less materials and time fro the model to be made.

13

Karina Price Module 02 Journal, 2018

DD M2 Journal
DD M2 Journal