Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Thomas Martiniello 834 955 Joel Collins - Studio 15

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)

Kolerevic’s three fundamental types of fabrication as outlined in the reading are; subtractive fabrication, additive fabrication and formative fabrication. Kolerevic describes subtractive fabrication as fabrication in which a specified volume of material is removed from the source solid. This can be done by electro-, chemically- or mechanically-reductive processed. This form of fabrication however is restricted by the volume, axis on which it can be subtracted and surface. Additive fabrication on the other hand involves adding material layer by layer, using machines such as 3D printers. A benefit of additive manufacturing is that it uses only the material required thus it is more efficient and produces less waste. Finally, formative fabrication utilises other machines to reshape desired materials into desired forms. For example, steam bending timber or heating and then hot rolling steel. Computer Numeric Controlled (CNC) fabrication has a great potential with parametric modelling as data can be imputed straight from the computer program into the machines computer to produce the end product, eliminating any need for technical drawings or manufacturing drawings. It also enables a faster production and prototyping turn around as you can simply change the data input into the machine by editing the script on the parametric model.


Week Three

Surface Creation

Surface Iteration 1a

Surface Iteration 1b

Surface Iteration 1c

Surface Iteration 1d

Grasshopper Script

To enable the most efficiency in prototyping and iterating my surfaces I chose to create a continuous script. From the box to the surfaces all the way through to the panels there was a continuous script which meant that if I was to change any of the initial parameters the whole script and surfaces would update. Labeling my script was very important as it ensure I knew where I was up to and it made it easy to know which part of the script related to what part of the model.


Week Four Panels & Waffle

Panel Isometric

Waffle Isometric

I chose to use both a 2D and 3D surface for my 2 different panels. Within my 2D surface I have used the lunch box tools creating 2 different panels and combining them. For the second surface I used attractor points to manipulate a 3D geometry over the surface.

The Waffle Structure for my surfaces was made complex buy the drastic curve in one of my surfaces. The Waffle Structure has a great variation in width from the base to the top with some ribs being cut short due to the variation. This all meant that labelling and correct placement of parts was important during setup, print and construction.


Week Four

Laser Cutting

Creating a Laser Cut file for my model was seemingly straight forward however on my first file I made the error of forgetting to change the lines connecting the tabs to the panels to etch layer. As a result I cut off all my tabs and had to adjust and resubmit my file.

Objects sharing same line to save on cutting time and cost

Waffle Structure cut on 1mm Mount Board

Dashed lines etched for folding

I made sure to share lines where possible and then made 2d of the whole file to ensure that there was only 1 line to cut on the overlaps. I also joined lines on the same layers and used the commands; purge and seldup to clean up the file prior to cutting. Limitations of the Laser Cutter are that it can only cut flat surfaces and its workable area is only 600x900mm.

Labels referring to position on 3D model for construction

Paneled Surface cut on Ivory Card


Week Five

Grasshopper Script

Boolean Iteration 1a

Boolean Iteration 1b

Boolean Iteration 1c

Boolean Iteration 1d

Scripting my boolean form in a clear and orderly manner was very important to enable me to experiment with different attreactors and manipulation tools. I tested many tools from lunch box and paneling tools to create different geometries and change how they moved within the cube. As seen in the right hand side images, some objects did not work as well compared to others as they did not contain many geometries protruding through the cubes perimeter surfaces.


Week Five


The isometric I have chosen to use highlights some of the intricate spaces created from the intersection of my chosen geometries. Its also provides a sense of where boundaries may lie through the use of shadow, internal spaces and indirect pathways created by the booleaned geometries. It also highlights some of the ‘light-wells’ opening into the internal mass which could be larger rooms or niches dependant on scale. Determining which iteration to develop was a combination of which shapes worked well and which attractor styles I liked the most. It was important to obtain a combination which hinted to the original from but at the same time created interesting booleans. Then selecting which section to print was difficult as some of the more intricate sections were not able to be 3D printed. This was due to the internal nature of the geometry and not being able to remove support structures. To print my chosen section I rotated it on the Makerbot software until I found a position that would limit the amount of support material needed. Some of the spatial qualities shown in my model include the triangular intersections where more than one geometry have met to form a layered boolean intersection. As a result the spaces are not clearly defined or obvious and so you are lead thought the spaces as defined by the geometries.

Boolean Isometric

Looking at porosity and permeability the model addresses these ideas through the unequal subtractions from the main cube. Light, water, air or even people can pass through the different entry points created however the amount or flow is determined by the size of the subtraction. This then also helps to define the spaces as being intimate or large and public.


Week Six Task 01




{100,0,150} {150,133,150}

1.4 {150,25,150}


{100,150,0} {37,150,0}

{150,0,90} {0,0,129}








{150,38,0} {107,150,150}



{94,0,150} {0,100,0} {17,150,0}






{Index Selection}









{Attractor Point Location}




Triangular 2D panel using Lunch Box and Weiver Brid

3D panel using created geometry

3D panel with picture frame and 2D panel using created linework



+ Combination of 2 Lunchbox and Weiverbird 2D panels (3.1) and 3D panel using created geometries (3.2)

Task 01 Matrix I chose to explore the differences between surfaces touching and then being pulled further apart (1.1-1.4) in the first instance. From there I after selecting the surfaces I liked best (1.4), I explored what effect moving the attractor point into the bottom corner of the surfaces verses the top (2.1 + 2.3). I also at the same time looked at pulling the point in between the two surfaces and then far away from both (2.2 + 2.4). Then moving onto the panels I explored both 2D and 3D panels using many tools and plug-ins (3.1-3.3). From there I merged some of the past iterations to form my 2 final panels (3.4).


Week Six Task 02




1.4 {30,26,191}


Curve Attractor

Random Attractor

{Attractor Point Location}




{Attractor Point Location}

Curve Attractor

Random Attractor

Standard Centres





Random Attractor

Different Object, Standard Centres


{Attractor Point Location}






{Attractor Point Location}

Task 02 Matrix For the development of task 2 I started by looking at manipulating the grid using different forms of attractors (1.1-1.4). I also looked at adjusting the grid number (1.4) but decided that this would create too much subtracted space later on. From there I looked at manipulating the distribution of the object within using the same types of attractors (2.1-2.4). From this process I selected which two sets I liked the best (1.3 + 2.3) and looked at experimenting with objects. Finally I tested what type of attractor would work best to manipulate the objects ending up with my chosen boolean (3.4).


Week Six

Final Isometric Views



Process - Panels

Selecting points to form my 2 surfaces.

Setting up the flow of my file.

Making my waffle structure and laying out the parts - note labeling the parts on the export and model is important!

Connecting my surfaces directly to my panels without baking for ease of iteration.

Setting up a 3D panel using Panelling tools Morph 3D tool.

Waffle structure with part numbers on grasshopper file.

Testing 2D panels with pre-drawn surfaces and then morphing them using an attractor curve.

Testing a more detailed 3D panel and transforming using panelling tools.

Experimenting with Weaverbird Frame.

Applying Weaverbird Frame to my own 3D geometry.

I wanted to use this panel as my final however due to the complexity it would not unroll properly so I had to rethink and simplify.

Creating simpler shapes and iterating to see what unrolls.



Process - Panels

Testing panels with a combination of Lunchbox and Weaverbird tools.

Testing panels using Lunchbox tools and the Frame tool within Lunchbox.

Attempting to add a Wevearbird frame to my referenced brep however it would not work as the faces did not connect properly.

Test printing my unrolled panels before laser cutting to ensure they are correct - note you must mirror the net for it to work!

The first laser cut I did I put all of the tab lines on the cut layer by mistake and as a result my tabs were all cut off and I had to edit my file.

Exploded numbers referencing which section of the waffle goes where in relation to the 3D model.

Completed 3D panel put together in strips and held together with bull nose clips until the glue dried.

Attaching the 2 surfaces to the waffle using glue and elastic bands.

The tabs needed to be glued down and cut in places so the 2 surfaces could sit flush with the waffle.


Waffle structure put together first without glue to ensure it was correct then fixed with a small amount of glue in the joints.


Process - Boolean

Transformed panelling grids after point attractor adjustment.

Adding more than 1 point attractor to transform the base grids.

Playing with the domain to change where the shapes are manipulated over the surface.

Attempting to use a cylinder as an object however they tended to link up and cause vast empty spaces within the cube.

Trailing boxes as the object however they tended to create voids which were too large and not very interesting.

Trailing cones as the object however they did not scale as well when connected to the attractor point script.

Using clipping planes to determine which section of my solid I wanted to cut.

Setting up my file for 3D printing in Makerbox, changing the orientation for maximum efficiency.


Testing geometries from Lunchbox tools.

Module 02 Journal  

Digital Design Generating Design Through Digital Processes

Module 02 Journal  

Digital Design Generating Design Through Digital Processes