Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Michaela Prunotto 911080 Han Li - Studio 16


2


3


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 types of fabrication techniques are subtractive, additive and formative. Whereas subtractive fabrication involves the removal of material from solids (via electrical, chemical or mechanical means), additive fabrication layers material incrementally to build up a three-dimensional silhouette. Both of these fabrication techniques ‘slice’ the digital model into two-dimensional layers in order transfer information from digital to physical form. By contrast, formative fabrication utilises the application of mechanical forces, restricting forms, or heat to reshape material. With the transferral of parametric modelling to built manifestations – by means of CNC fabrication – comes the ability to not only produce more complex geometries, but also to entirely reconsider the binary modernist assumption of a separate skin and structure; digital fabrication enables the ‘absorption’ of structure by the skin. Whilst one may pre-empt increased budget as a result of this increased complexity, costs as a result of digital fabrication need not be prohibitive. Indeed, the digital age has catalysed a movement of mass customisation, in the face of the mass-production of Taylorism; variety no longer compromises the efficiency and economy of production.

4


Week Three

Surface Creation

Playing around with the surfaces was a very intuitive process. What ultimately informed my decision on which surfaces to develop were those which I was able to waffle. As seen in the appendix, I initially developed an inverted structure that wrapped around the outside of the surfaces. However, I felt these iterations lacked aesthetic flow, and also realised they would be impractical to construct. The final set of surfaces I eventually chose to develop (bottom right) was an amalgamation of two previously waffled surfaces, one rotated (see matrix).

5


Week Four Panels & Waffle

Waffle profile gradually morphs from a triangle into a rectangle. Towards the front, its base arcs upwards to form a cantilever; the ground plane is floating. In order to accomodate the twisting surface, the horizontal elements radiate out in curved, ripple like formations.

The left side of the structure appears to be disintegrating, or falling away; a notion reinforced by the deformed paneling grid and skeletal-like apertures. The right hand grid deformation is very subtle, thus emphasising its surface’s stability. Panelling logic is further explained in appendix.

Some vertical waffle elements had to be altered manually through Rhino, prior to lasercutting, in order to enable the waffle to stand.

6


Week Four

Laser Cutting

As seen here, I had two iterations of the waffle vertical elements cut; one set with angled bases, and one set with flat bases. This is because I wasn’t sure whether the model would stand if all the bases were angled (the angle is what produced the cantilevered ‘floating’ base). In my final model I used a combination of four flat elements, and six angled elements. This provided an appropriate balance between visual effect and structural stability. Unfortunately, when lasercutting, I made the mistake of not flipping half of the unrolled panels. This resulted in me folding and gluing the lasercut panels two nights before the assignment was due, realising that they were inverted, then having to re-do them all by hand. See appendix.

7


Week Five

As seen above, some of my script is disabled/reads an error message. This is not because it is dysfunctional, but because I opened it with an incompatible file for the screenshot. The two sets of script show my dual attempts to try and consolidate workshop content; each section is from a different workshop recording. As seen to the right, I tried to boolean a wide range of geometry. Ultimately, I settled on utilising a thick, tapered spiral, subtracting carefully selected spirals (far right, bottom). I chose this because it gave the least artificial effect. See matrix 2, box 3.4, for spiral form.

8


Week Five

Isometric

For this final iteration, I utilised a large tapered twist geometry, which ‘drilled’ through the cube to achieve organic effects of plasticity and malleability. When viewed from specific angles, openings that enable the viewer to see right through the structure are made apparent. Imagining this model at different scales - especially at a monumental, multi-level one - is intriguing; moments of delight in small openings and sweeping bends abound. Interestingly, the flat faces of the model’s exterior belie its chaotic interior, and may be extracted and read as planes of frontality.

9


Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4 {104, 0, 150}

{60, 0, 150}

{150, 0, 120}

{88, 0, 150}

{164, 87, 150}

{0,150,150}

{118,150, 0}

{60, 150, 0}

{0, 150, 0}

{60,150, 0}

{204, 150, 0}

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4 {63, 894, 155}

{-79, 1123, 50}

{-3013, 2853, 1283}

{470, 887, -453} {127, 1319, -3}

Paneling

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

3.1

3.2

3.3

Attractor Curve Locations

3.4

+

Task 01 Matrix As seen above, I have chosen to develop the far right version of each row. For the first row, This involved combining two surfaces - one from 1.2, the other from 1.3 - and them rotating them, to produce 1.4. Follwing this, I selected the iteration of curve attractors (2.4) that best emphasised the collapsing, disintegrating nature of the surface; it is although the panels are stretched down, pulled by gravity. Finally, as seen in row 3, I played with aperture size and panel height, ultimately combining four different aperture sizes at numerous heights (each panel height was individually adjusted) to produce a naturalistic, skin-like effect. The height of the panels was kept very low in order to emphasise the sweeping curve of the surface, and to ensure that it emerged from the ground effortlessly and gradually.

10


Week Six Task 02

Grid Manipulation

1.1

{292, 4, 123}

{385, 101, 146}

1.2

{292, 4, 123}

1.3

1.4

{252, -231, 0}

{21, 270, 215}

{-74, 195, 293}

Sphere distribution

{Point Attractors}

{Point Attractor}

2.1

2.2

{Curve Attractor}

{Curve Attractor}

2.3

2.4

{6, 163, 206}

{33, 180, 60}

{6, 209, 173}

New geometries/geometric manipulation

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Random Attractor}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Task 02 Matrix The development path followed for this matrix was 1.1, 2.1, 3.4. As can be seen, the grid manipulation and point distribution was kept relatively simple. Due to the inherent complexity underpinning the twist geometry, it was not further morphed or manipulated in any way. For the final boolean-section, in alignment with the spontaneous nature of generative processes, complexity was achieved by accident. The version of 3.4 would not boolean at once in its entirey due to the sheer amount of information processing required. As a result, I had to boolean each spiral one by one - as I did so, noticed some intriguing effects. The final version is 3.4, with selected spirals booleaned, as well as two section cuts.

11


Week Six

Final Isometric Views

The idea which emerged as underpinning and linking each of these objects is one founded on plasticity and malleability. In them, lies an attempt to defy the artificiality and stiltedness that seems to arise as a first impulse when utilising generative mediums. Both objects adopt the application of a twist; in the case of the left, twisted surfaces, and for the right, twisted geometry which drills through the cube. In both instances this provides a sense of dynamic movement. When imagined at larger scales, some interesting spatial opportunities, moments and effects emerge (see template annotation for further/specific discussion). 12


Appendix

Inverted Waffle

This is something I made in one of the very early weeks; notions of weightlessness, duality and interplay are transferrable to my final design.

Accidental inspiration for inverted waffle.

As seen above, I begain to develop the inverted waffle idea, using different surfaces and applying panels. I was dissatisfied with the aesthetic appearance of this outcome, and did not feel as though it pushed the generative medium enough, hence my subsequent departure from this concept.

Further exploration of inverted waffle, using surfaces that are warped to a greater extent, as well as attempting different rotations. 13


Appendix Panelling

I partially established my panelling concept early on, whilst working on the inverted waffle, as seen on the previous page. This involved experimenting with different aperture sizes, some very intricate, in areas leaving just 1-2mm thickness between folds. I also changed the height of the panels. In order to achieve the eventual outcome, I worked very closely between rhino and grasshopper, frequently baking and deleting iterations.

I enjoyed the sleek skin of the unpanelled mode (left). In order to replicate this as much as possible, I kept the panels at a very low height. As mentioned previously, my design intent for the panels was to exaggerate the dual effects of stability and disintegration of each surface. Logic for the disintegrated surface’s panelling can be seen above. 14


Appendix

Physical Model

Sheet 02 of waffle structure, combined with a friend’s work for economy onto a single template.

Unconventional method used to construct waffle cantilever - this was a challenging and finicky task.

This angle captures the ripple effect at a rather unflattering angle.

Lasercut panels, folded and glued.

15

Waffle displayed on A1-paper-stuck-on-wall photostage.

Lasercut (bottom) vs. hand made (top) panels. As explained on page 7, I made the mistake of not flipping my panels before having them cut, and so had to ‘quickly’ remake them by hand.


17

M2 Journal  
M2 Journal  
Advertisement