Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Shiho Margaret Takahashi 821698 Xiaoran Huang, Studio 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)

There are three types of milling. Axially constrained, surface constrained and volume constrained. Axially constrained milling has 1 axis of rotational motion and 2 axis of translational motion in the milling head. Surface constrained milling has 2 axis of rotational motion and the head is able to move along the x and y plane. Finally the volume constrained is a 2 dimensional milling however the head is capable of moving along the z axis. With these milling machines many things can be easily converted from digital to physical however there are a few limitations. Objects to be printed cannot have undercuts or features on the back side. To successfully print objects that fall under those two, it is necessary for support to be printed simultaneously so that the material will not collapse.

2


Week Three

Surface Creation

Image 1: surface script for Iteration 1

Image 2: Iteration 1

Image 3: Iteration 2

Image 4: Iteration 3

Image 5: Iteration 4

After determining the cube boundary on grasshopper, the cube was de-constructed into individual sides, which was then divided into sections. Two random points on random sides were selected to draw a line. This was then repeated and the two lines were lofted to create a surface. The boundary remained the same for each of the iterations however variables such as the selected sides, the number a single side was divided into, and the points that were selected were changed to create four separate iterations. The first iteration was chosen to develop further as there were interesting and dynamic curves in both surfaces. The second iteration was made of two very simple surfaces with little curvature. The third iteration had a small intersection which would have made the waffle difficult to develop and the fourth iteration had the two surface too close to one another making it difficult for an z-axis waffle to fit neatly.

3


Week Four Panels & Waffle

The 3D panel is made up of four different types of surfaces. The simple pyramid has the largest openings (top left) and gradually the pyramid splits into two and the openings become smaller as it reaches a clean split pyramid with no openings at all (bottom right). Simultaneously, the tip of the pyramid shifts from the top left to the centre of each individual square.

The waffle structure turned out quite clean and easy to construct. The top two layer of the z-axis fins follow a different path to the rest in response to the angle of the the top side of the 2D surface. Also, while the x-axis fins on the 3D surface intersects with all of the z-axis fins, not all of the x-axis fins on the 2D layer does the same. Again, this is because the 2D surface is on an angle when compared to the 3D surface.

The 2D panel is a single pattern repeated however the patten becomes narrower as it reaches the central diagonal axis of the surface and mirrored on the other side.

4


Week Four

Laser Cutting

The waffle laser cut file was created and sent off first. Here I learnt that the labeling of each part was unnecessary etching making the job longer and slightly more expensive. I also learnt for the first time that there will be quite significant burn marks on the under side so I need to flip my file for my panels before sending it off. I also decided to disregard all the etch marks for the folding lines and score myself. This made the job quicker, cheaper and the overall model to appear cleaner. I also learnt that the tape that holds down the pieces to the board can cause ripping on the surface of the card if not removed with care. For future jobs I will remember to leave some of the surrounding cut lines as etches so that my shapes will support itself on the board and taping would be unnecessary.

5


Week Five

Image 2: Iteration 1

Image 3: Iteration 2

Image 4: Iteration 3

Image 5: Iteration 4

Image 1: Scripts for geometry used in Iteration 1 to 4

Using the script from the workshop, the first iteration was created by adjusting some of the values. The second iteration was created by replaceing the spheres with dipyramids using a weaverbird command. Thought this shape was clean, when cutting sections of the cube, it was hard to find a complex and interesting section. To fix this problem I added another two weaverbird commands to create pyramids on each face of the dipyramid. This generated more complex sections and the different ways of sectioning the cube created completely different interior and exterior volumes (image 4 and 5).

6


Week Five

Isometric

After deciding on what geometry to use to boolean the cube, a few different iterations of how to section the cube were made (some of which can be seen on the previous page). After creating a few sections that appeared clean but complex, the thickness was inspected to determine the final form. The solid volume left behind can be interpreted as the interior space. The angled cut out on the sloped face can create interesting entry points for sunlight if constructed by transparent materials. Other reflective materials could also be considered to bounce off the light using the many angled faces on the inside. The three cut outs on the top face could be interpreted as a space such as an interior garden or something similar where people could reach out for fresh air or direct sunlight without officially leaving the structure. Also, an opening is created where the geometry intersects. This creates a continuity between the three open spaces. The interior space will have an interesting path of circulation as the spikes from the geometry create an interesting over hang from the ceiling. This may guide people to take paths that they would not if this structure was a simple cubic form.

7


Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

{0,0,0} {0,150,150}

{0,90,150}

{0,90,150} {0,45,150}

{0,75,150}

{50,0,150} {150,90,150}

{105,0,150}

{0,0,90} {150,150,100} {150,150,105} {150,0,150}

{0,105,0}

{150,0,90}

{150,150,0} {150,150,0}

{150,120,0}

{150,150,105}

{0,105,0}

{0,150,0}

{65,150,0} {0,0,0}

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

{0,40,150}

{90,0,0}

{150,0,90}

{150,60,0}

{150,60,0}

{150,0,0}

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

{-100,-148,157}

{77,166,157}

{80,-3,0}

Paneling

{Surface Grid of 1.1}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

+

Task 01 Matrix The first row of the matrix represents the different surface iterations that was investigated before moving on to creating the panels. The first surface (1.1) was chosen to continue with designing as it had enough complexity in its curvature unlike 1.2 but is still containing enough internal volume for the waffle to fit and for extra volume within the waffle unlike 1.3 and 1.4. The second row shows the investigations with attractor points. Though these resulted in some interesting distribution of surface areas, thy all seemed too extreme for panels to be applied to so 2.1 was developed further in row 3. The third row includes some of the panel iterations, both 2D and 3D. All of those panels and more were used and combined to create the final design.

8


Week Six Task 02

Grid Manipulation

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

Attractor / Control Points (X,Y,Z)

{0,0,0}

Attractor / Control Curves Grid Points {85,50,150}

{150,100,150}

{-16,7,45}

{150,150,50}

{161,7,10}

{150,0,0}

{150,0,0}

{150,0,0}

Geometry Distribution Geometry Tranformation

{Curve Attractor}

{Curve Attractor}

{Curve Attractor}

{Curve Attractor}

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

{Volume Gravitational Centre}

{Sphere}

{Dipyramid}

{Dipyramid + Pyramid}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

{186,173,0}

{186,173,0}

{Attractor Point}

{Reverse Attractor Point}

{Morph}

{Random Scale}

Task 02 Matrix The first row of the matrix for tsk two shows investigations of distribution of volume using curve attractors. 1.1 was chose to be developed further in row 2 as the volumes were not overly complex but had enough distortion to create a change in how the geometry might form within it. Row two determines the cetroid of each volume and investigates different geometry. After trying spheres, dipyramids and dipyramids combined with pyramids, 2.4 was chosen to be developed further. Since the dipyramid appeared to be more simple than the sphere, pyramids were added to each face to add complexity while keeping the clean form of the dipyramid. In the third row, the scaling of each geometry was investigated. 3.1 was chosen to be used for the final design as it had nice intersections that worked even after the cube had been sectioned. the other options either did not turn out clean when sectioning or it simply did not intersect enough to have a successful boolean. 3.2 is pretty similar to 3.1 so there was no need to investigate that option any further.

9


Week Six

Final Isometric Views

10


Appendix

Process

Task 1: SURFACES The above images show the exact script for developing the four iterations of the surfaces in row 1 of the matrix. The values of each of the sliders, which side, number of parts, and which point of division, all vary in each surface. At this stage things such as the curvature of individual spaces and the interaction of the two surfaces, also the space created between the two surfaces was explored and taken into consideration before moving onto the next step.

11


Appendix Process

TASK 1: GRID MANIPULATION AND PANELS After deciding on a set of surfaces a grid was place on each surface. These grids were then manipulated through using a point attractor. Here many interesting iterations were made however the grid without any manipulation appealed to me most as its simplicity complimented the complexity of the curvature on each surface. These iterations can be found in row 2 of the matrix. Next came the process of creating panels. In the end i combined 4 different types of 3D panels and 3 different types of 2D panels. This helped in achieving the complexity of the overall form and balanced with the simplicity of the grid distribution. This was also an effective decision as a gradual change in form and shape was achieved, adding movement to the facade of the structure.

12


Appendix

Process

TASK 1: WAFFLE CONSTRUCTION AND LASER CUT After completing the design of the surface a waffle structure needed to be design to support these two surface but also to express the relationship between these two surfaces. The waffle structure also contributes to the creating of an internal volume. The two surface were simply plugged into the script created during the workshop. Minor adjustment were made when trying to bake the waffle parts into rhino but the rest of the script worked out fine and the waffle was successfully made. Finally the waffle and the unrolled panels were laid out on the template and sent off to as a laser cut job.

13


Appendix Process

PART 2: BOOLEAN SCRIPT For part two the same boundary of a 150x150x150 cube was used. The cube was then used to develop 4 sets of points which were grids to be manipulated.


Appendix

Process

PART 2: BOOLEAN SCRIPT CONTINUED The grid was then manipulated by using attractor curves to create different distributions of 27 volumes within the boundary cube. These iterations are shown in row 1 of the matrix for task 2. Within these meshes, geometries were created and further manipulated in scale to find the best distribution. The below script display how the dypiramid and the additional pyramid on each face was created. After baking the geometries it was not easy to boolean it away from the bounding cube as the pyramid and dipyramid did not come out as one form but rather two. This meant that after converting the mesh into a surface i had to create openings to allow for two open surface to be joined to create one. Next time I’d like to investigate further to try and determine how to join these meshes together in grasshopper as the join mesh command did not succeed.

15


Appendix Process

PART 2: GEOMETRY SCALE MANIPULATION As can be found in row 3 of the matrix, a few iterations were created with the scale of the geometries. First, the attractor point and reverse attractor point was created. Both had the same script except the domain was flipped around. This achieved a nice contrast and visually understandable difference between how the scale varies depending on the centroids distance from the attractor point. Next it was attempted to morph the geometries. first the geometry was created, then a bounding box. This became the initial box and the meshes were the volumes that the geometries were to be morphed into. As the meshes were simple the geometry failed to display an interesting variance in scale. Also the geometries didn’t intersect very well meaning that the boolean command would have failed for most of the geometries.

16


Appendix

Process

PART 2: GEOMETRY SCALE MANIPULATION Lastly, the random command was used to achieve a random distribution of scale within the boundary cube. This turned out to be a very interesting distribution however the clean lines of the geometry was disturbed as the scale changes were too drastic. Similarly to the morph, many of the geometries did not intersect meaning that it would have cause trouble when attempting to boolean the geometries out of the cube. For this reason the attractor point iteration was chosen to be developed, booleaned, and sectioned to create the final design.

17


18

821698 m2 journal  
821698 m2 journal  
Advertisement