Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Mario Yohanes Rinaldy (917889) Michael Mack + Studio 5
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)
There are three fundamental fabrication techniques as described by Kolarevic. First, 2D Fabrication, or also known as CNC cutting. The fabrication involves two dimensional cutting technology, such as plasma cutter, water jet, or laser cutting, in which the cut material was laid horizontally on the cutting bed corresponding to the cutting head. Second, subtractive fabrication. It involve the removal of a certain volume from a whole solid object volume using multi-axis milling. CNC milling was conducted using a specified program running a certain code. This process is usually done for making architectural models, although real world uses has started to emerge in panelling works, such as Gehryâ€™s Conde Nast cafetaria and Bernard Frankenâ€™s BMW Pavilion. Third, additive fabrication. This fabrication technique involve making the object layer by layer. Also known as layered manufacturing, a 3D object was sliced two-dimensionaly into layer which is then transferred to a manufacturing process where the object is assembled. An example for this would be common 3D Printing and printers using plastic powder and other various materials. Computer Numeric Controlled (CNC) fabrication have a great potential with parametric modelling, in which the fabrication process as well as the creation process will be greatly simplified with the use of machines. Complex geometries that would not have been able to be produced by hand can now be easily fabricated using methods such as laser cutting and 3D printing, reducing workload and increasing efficiency.
The scripting process on Grasshopper follows the formation of the surface directly as guided in the workshop. Modification and iterations happened only in the creativity area when changing the points of the surface in relation to the 150x150x150mm box. The 4 iterations of the surface shown on the right were trying to achieve a welcoming image, in which one side is larger and the other smaller, similar to a gate design. The curvature of the surf
(Attractor Point & Curve Location)
Week Four Panels & Waffle
The panelled surface shown above is the final iteration for the task ([1.2.R]3.4), in which each surface has a different type of panels. On the foreground surface, a single corner point pyramind affected by a point attractor aims to highlight the effects of the shadows in creating another pyramid shape. Similarly, the background surface uses double halved pyramids to abstract the curvature of the curved surface.
The waffle structure links both surfaces into one. Both surfaces conveys a welcoming imagery, such as a gate or entrance, in which the wider opening represents welcoming hands. The waffle also slightly overhangs due to the nature of the surface which causes fabrication issues later on.
The laser cutting process started with unrolling the surface. Due to the nature of the modules, panels, and surface, only a maximum of 2 panels can be unrolled at the same time without any overlapping. Tabs were also used to stick each panels, although it hinders the fabrication process later on. In regards to the waffle structure, it is mostly straightforward. Although an issue occured during fabrication in which one of the waffle part is slightly distorted thus making it larger. After further crosschecking without no results, it cannot be determined for the cause of this distortion. Each panels were arranged in the same manner as the surface rows for ease of fabrication, while the waffle were each labelled individually for each corresponding sides. Additionally, I used the dotted lines as cut method rather than etch to create a smoother folding edge.
The scripting process is straighforward as guided during the workshops. Variations from the direct script includes the use of point and curve attractors, in which in one instance they were used at the same time, which resulted in the final iteration of the boolean solid. Additionally, the formation of the geometrical shapes used for the boolean also add to the script. In this part of the assignment, I explored the possibilities in the shape created when booleaning two combined shape geometries with various attactors and placing.
Insert a brief description of your isometric here. Comment on the process of choosing which iteration to develop and 3D Print. What are some of the spacial qualities of your model? How does it address porosity and permeability? On the left is the sectioned boolean solid for this part of the assignment. The iteration used is the final one with the combination of the box shape and the dodecahedron, both with the use of point and curve attractors at the same time. The aim for this shape is the angularity and angles of the interior, which was inspired by Toyo Itoâ€™s Serpentine Pavilion, also dubbed as the liberation of the box. As the box is originally divided into sectional grids, it created individual spaces when booleaned with the combined shapes, highlighting the concept of private and public space. The interior sections have individual spaces which can be used privately for gathering of people, where in the next section is another gathering of people. Regarding the overall shape, it relates to the current proposed shape of a pavilion, a box shape. Although booleaned, it abstracted the shape of the original cube, but still remains flat and box shaped. Each of the openings have different shapes on each facade for light entry. Although from the outside it portrays flatness, the interior offers a unique geomtrical shapes indulging the people to a whole new enviroment.
Week Six Task 01
(90,150,0) (90,0,0) (150,0,0)
Panelling Grids & Attractor Point
(No Attractor Point)
(Attractor Point Location)
(Attractor Curve Location)
(Attractor Point & Curve Location)
Task 01 Matrix Creation of the surfaces to convey a welcoming shape started at the first row of iterations. After several modifications, the second shape (1.2) looks the best to convey the initiatives. The second row experimented with points and curve attractors from 1.2, in which in one instance both were used at the same time to create a unique surface for both sides ([1.2]2.4.A(i).B(i)). The surfaces were then rotated (hence 1.2.R) to make it stand vertically so that the waffle structure was able to support both sides. Panelling experimentation started at the third row with several pyramidical shapes to create a shadow shape effect. Initially, iteration [1.2.R]3.3 was going to be used for the final model. However, although it looks simple visually, the panels were overallping with each other. In the end, a combination of [1.2.R] 3.1 and [1.2.R] 3.2 applied with attractors were chosen to be the final model [1.2.R]3.4.
Week Six Task 02
Geometric Shapes Geometric Shapes Combination
(Point & Curve Attractor)
[1.2](2.2.1.A + 2.4)3.1
[1.2](2.2.1.A + 2.3)3.2
[1.2](2.3 + 2.4)3.3
[1.4.A.B].[1.2](2.3 + 2.4)3.4
Task 02 Matrix Being inspired by Toyo Itoâ€™s Serpentine Gallery angular shapes and geometries, the boolean solid grid placement was varied to create the best look as well as experimentation of the usage of points and curve attractors, and in one instance both of them at the same time. However, compared to other methods of iterations and modifications that were used for this assignment, I decided to experiment with the combination boolean of different shapes. Three general shapes, sphere, box, and dodecahedron were used in the combination process, each with a certain grid and attractors. In the end, it was a combination of dodecahedron and box that created the angular shapes that was aimed. The exterior facades remained flat although with openings of different shapes for each facade, and the interior have unique complex geometries which try to frame the concept of public vs private space. Due to the complexity of the geometries, the 3D printed model cannot be printed and is delayed for presentation day. An isometric view of the model is shown.
Final Isometric Views
Workspace and experimentations for Task 1 surfaces in Rhino showing the extent of the overall work area.
Workspace and experimentations for Task 2 booleand solid in Rhino alongside its respective Grasshopper script.
Various other panelling modules before the final ones were chosen. Many of the other iterations were not used as they are too simple, does not suit the surface, or too complex and not able to be unrolled.
Several final isometric of the boolean solid shown above. In the end, the most right isometric was chosen as it shows the inner shapes better than the rest. The final isometric shows the cube in its original orientation, while the 3d print model (centre) shows the sectioned shape at a tilted orientation. The final isometric one will be tilted to the right if the design was to be brought up to Module 3.
Lighting. The photos shown on the left are to highlight the effect of shadows from a certain origin of light towards the surface panels. In all of the panels, a secondary unique shape was created due to the effect of the lights. The single pyramids shape are abstracted by the light and the presence of shadows, creating a sort of trapezium shape, and in the photo shown, a 3D effect. The double pyramids, on the other hand, abstracted the original curved surface, as the original curved surface is now barely visible, as well as creating a secondary unique shape by the shadows. Only one side of the pyramids will have constant lighting from any angles.
< Fabrication process of the first surface (single pyramids) is shown on the left starting from the laser cutting process, waffle structure construction, panels assembly, and the finished appearance.
A photo shown of the model after complete fabrication of both sides.
Toyo Itoâ€™s Serpentine Pavilion was the inspiration behind Task 2.
Notes on Matrix Labeling reading:
Known Issues During the fabrication process, the most top waffle structure does not correspond towards the other structures. Further crosschecking of the files resulted in zero resolve as it was already all according to the overal model shape. This disturbed the second surface top section.
Other known fabrication issues include that the sizing are not corresponding to the waffle completely, which may be due to the human inaccuracy fabrication process during sticking.
[1.2](2.3 + 2.4) 3.3 how to read: [1.2]
= base origins, in this case grid iteration 1.2
(2.3 + 2.4)
=combination, shape 2.3 and 2.4
=third category, third iteration
-Letters (A,B,...) signifies the type of operation used. -Small roman numerals (i, ii, ...) following letters signifies the exploration of the operation.