Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Sam Delamotte 835413 Chelle Yang // Studio 2
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 methods of fabrication outlined by Kolerevic are; formative fabrication, additive fabrication and subtractive fabrication. Each method demonstrates different limitations and possibilities. For example, subtractive fabrication includes methods such as laser cutting and CNC milling. These methods are labeled subtractive fabrication due to their behaviour of cutting away materials to create a form. In contrast, additive fabrication includes processes such as 3D Printing and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) which gradually add material to a surface, in levels, to produce the final form. The final method is that of formative fabrication. This method involves heating, bending, shrinking or otherwise morphing a volume to change its properties and form (for example heating and bending metal). Within the realm of CNC milling, physical building projects can reap the benefits of automated milling. This allows for fast and precise construction of elements such as concrete moulds etc. to assist in accelerated build times.
0, 150, 150
0, 150, 150 64, 150, 150
107, 0, 150
150, 150, 150
129, 0, 150
150, 150, 150 107, 0, 150 150, 0, 150
0, 100, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 150, 150, 150
150, 0, 0
107, 0, 150
64, 150, 150
86, 0, 150
89, 150, 150
107, 150, 150
107, 0, 150 150, 0, 150
43, 150, 150
0, 100, 0
0, 0, 0 150, 129, 0
0, 0, 0
150, 129, 0 129, 0, 0
0, 150, 0
The surface iterations shown were developed parametrically in a relatively logical way. This involves creating a cube of 150x150x150, deconstructing the form to identify eadges, and dividing these edge curves to identify individual points along the boundary of the cube. Using these deconstructed points, surfaces were generated by connecting these points via line and lofting the two. Iterations of the surface were then made, considering the way the space between may be operated. Some forms were avoided, such as surfaces that folded onto themselves in a radical way, and intersections. Both of these designs would limit the ability of panelling 3D modules.
Week Four Panels & Waffle
Due to the nature of the design, the final configuration of panels was a more structured process. The four variations either side were made individually, and panelled as a whole surface. They were then subtracted accordingly, with the next module panelled and repeated to reach the final stage.
The waffle structure was significantly more difficult to model due to the greater complexity of process. After multiple attempts, the final model is completely adequate.
The process of unrolling and nesting each part was a very tedious process. The 3D surface modules did not prove very easy at all, due to the small area of some faces paired with the concavity of the surface. When it came to unrolling the 3D modules, as can be seen they began to compress into very difficult/near impossible forms to build at this scale. For the waffle structure, using Grasshopper geometries unrolling and printing was extremely easy. Some very clear lessons for next time laser cutting include scale, size of tabs, angle of tabs and the size of scores. All of these factors have restricted the build of the model.
Generating the design for the second module was far more difficult. This process essentially included constructing a box at 150x150x50, cellulating the box into 9 sections, and manipulating forms within these cells. The manipulation of these forms was done through a combination of point attractors and curve attractors to modify the consutrction of the cells. This was then carried across and experimented within using whole forms within the cells. From here, a grid attraction method was decided and the interior cutters were supplemented into the design, These were then scaled using the grid attraction to replicate this design.
The isometric view was chosen due to both its aesthetic properties and potential as a pavilion. This portion of the model was situated on one of the corners where scaling attraction was high. As a result, the forms which have been generated are both at considerable scale and optimal positioning to create the necessary openings. The process of iteration became quite straightforward once a general concept was understood for the pavilion. This identification helped direct the set of iterations which would most likely create a good design (point attractors, scaling the cutters). Due to the nature of parametric modelling, many iterations can be made quickly or in real time to understand how the inputs are affecting the outputs. Within the model, the two main uses that are presented include exploration and resting. Due to the aesthetic value of the design, there is an inherent urge to explore and climb the pavilion. Further from this, the interior moments created by the multiple planes and tight edges of the cutters allows for moments of rest and separation.
Week Six Task 01
Task 01 Matrix With focus on the surfaces, the initial progression of these surfaces was a trial and error type effort. It was identified that the opening must be adequate size to allow comfortable exploration without resulting in an enormous monument. Due to this decision, further iterations were made considering the maximum interior space. Complex folds were also avoided as they would result in a limited panelling ability.
Week Six Task 02
Task 02 Matrix During the process of setting up grid attraction points, I diverted my attention to the cutting objects for the boolean. In these experiementations it was found that the ideal form was a Tetrahedron (LunchBox geometry) as it created uniform cut lines and intersections. For this reason, the grid attraction was limited substantially. If used with high magnitude, the shift in cells would diminish the quality of the interior space. Further from this, the segment used for the final model was chosen due to the direction of the cutters, providing this corner with the most logical and interesting design.
Final Isometric Views
This workflow shows the development and iteration of the surface patterns, demonstrating both the GH data structure, the boundary markets and resultant surfaces.
To achieve the desired design, it was established the best way to construct the model was to do so using a panel and subtract method. This included fully baking each module to the surface within the Morph3D Grasshopper geometry, and then subtracting the panels which were not required per layer. This was repeated 4 times for the final design.
Panelling the second surface proved far more difficult than the first due to its 2D nature. After a great deal of discussion it was identified that the best method would be to create a bounding box and panel the model much like the 3D side, then exploding and removing the bounding box. This leaves only the bottom surface.
All bounding boxes and panels
Surfaces hidden to allow for the subtraction of the bounding boxes Final surface