Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 MacLaren Caithness (831404) Junhan Foong + Studio 4


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 techniques outlined by Kolerevis are generative/additive procedures, subtractive procedures and transformative procedures. The additive process involves adding mass layer by layer to create a structure i.e. 3D printing. It is achieved through breaking down a three-dimensional structure into two-dimensional sections which are then stacked on top of each other. In subtractive frabrication, electrical, chemical or mechanical methods are used to reduce the mass of a given structure i.e. a laser or high-pressured water jet passsing through a block of wood. Transformative procedures invovle subjecting a material to mechanical forces, restricting forms, heat or steam to essentially deform the structure to a new desired form.CNC fabrication allows for the creation of extremely intricate iterations when used in conjunction with parametric modelling while bypassing the representational process (drawings).

2


Week Three

Surface Creation

The process of scripting the surfaces and panels invovled a high degree of intricacy. Being an iterative process, the use of Grasshopper greatly increased the rate at which designs could be created. Furthermore, to find a matching pair of surfaces proved to be challenging as there was no way of testing whether the panels would be able to attach correctly or whether the structure would be able to stand.

3


Week Four Panels & Waffle

The panelling pattern chosen essentially involved two layers combined into one panelling unit. The superstructure consists of extruded triangular prisms while the substructure was simply a perforated rectangle.

4

The twist in the waffle structure due to the surfaces provided a point of interest in the design with the far side of the structure here appearing to be tiered like a series of stairs.


Week Four

Laser Cutting

The laser cutter template defines the physical boundaries in which the structure can exist. It provides a realistic confines for the design and adds monetary value to otherwise digital designs through physical fabrication. Nesting the structure allowed for the design to be organised for physical assembly.

5


Week Five

Scripting the boolean form proved to be difficult in finding a omplex, yet resolved design. The onrnerstone of the design was a series of rotated small iterations of octahedrons. Through setting up the script to rotate the individual units between 1 and 180 degrees a pseudo-natural variation was achieved.

6


Week Five

Isometric

This isometric shows the final 3D Boolean model as a section cut. The choice of shape was an effort to create a cavernous quality in the space. This iteration allowed for holes between sections of the design so as to connect several faces of the overall shape. As a cause of this, the overall design has a degree of permeability despite its jagged and harsh nature, thus proving to be a dichotomy.

7


Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.1

1.2

1.3

{0,0,150}

{0,0,150}

Key

1.4 {60,0,150}

{0,0,0}

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

{0,150,150}

Grid Points

{0,150,150}

{150,150,150}

{0,0,0}

{0,45,0}

{0,90,0} {150,150,105}

{0,150,0}

{0,150,0}

{150,150,0}

{150,0,0}

{150,0,0}

{150,150,0}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point or Line

2.1

2.2

{2,150,150}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.3

2.4

{2,150,150}

{26,64,120}

{128,48,150}

{0,168,48}

{150,168,48}

Paneling

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Task 01 Matrix The iterations for Task 1 centred around attempting to create the most interesting pair of surfaces while keeping the design viable. Despite these efforts, the physical model proved to be somewhat unachievable as a cause of the panelling units needing to be unrolled individually and not being able to fit on the underside of one of the surfaces.

8


Week Six Task 02

Sphere Distribution

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

{0,0,0}

{150,150,150}

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

{1, 160, 158}

Grid Points

{1, 172, 154

{150, 0, 150}

{196, 178, 0} {172, -14, 75}

{150, 0, 0}

{0, 0, 0} {Attractor Point Locations}

Sphere Distribution

{35,101,150}

{-105, -60, 55} {Attractor Point Locations}

2.1

{Attractor Point Location}

2.2

{Attractor Point Locations}

2.3

2.4

{150,150,150}

{150,150,150}

{0,150,150}

{137,10,146}

{150,0,150} {16,74,150}

{150,150, 0}

{0,0,150}

{150,0,0}

{39,123,0}

Sphere Transformation

{Attractor Curve Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

{Consistent Scaling}

{Random Scaling}

{IMorph}

{Random Rotation}

Task 02 Matrix The choice of iteration for Task 2 was focussed on the rotation of the octahedrons. Through minute changes to the rotation and pushing past the boundaries of the 150mm3 box, an interesting design was achieved.

9


Week Six

Final Isometric Views

10


Appendix

Process

Fig.1. Initial surface iterations. Attempting to get the maximum amount of fold in a surface without deforming it beyond panelling capabilities.

Fig.2. The panelling process stemming from chosen surfaces. Due to the nature of the module, there were a plethora of potential designs even from one surface type.

11


Appendix Process

Fig.3. Various sections of the Boolean process from the overarching cube to the specific shape of an individual unit.

12

Fig.4. The process from Grasshopper coded shapes to the final crystalline structure.


Appendix

Process

13


Module Two Journal  
Module Two Journal  
Advertisement