Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Unn Areecharoenlert 796631 Samuel Lalo | Studio 12


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 that Kolerevic outlines are additive fabrication, subtractive fabrication and formative fabrication. These methods of fabrication involves from chemical reactions to mechanical manipulations of the material. Additive formation involves the gradual layering of materials to create the forms, as created by machines such as the 3D printer. The benefit of the additive method is that advantage of efficiency, only utilising materials as needed thus reducing costs. One of the disadvantages this method would definitely be the time consuming nature of this method. Subtractive formation involves the subtraction of materials from a solid block in order to create voids that shape the final product. As for all machined methods of fabrication, the accuracy is extremely high. The constraint imposed on this is the volume of material, as well as limitations on the manueverability of the machine. Formative fabrication involves the manipulation of materials. This is commonly seen in processes such as steam-bending timber or heating and rolling steel. The limitations on this methods of fabrication is the properties of the materiality, whether it would be mallebable enough for manipulation or retain the new forms. CNC fabrication allows for the streamlining of production; objects can be directly created from parametric modelling with the highest degree of accuracy. This method of fabrication eliminates the need for technical or manufacturing drawing, and the unreliability that is common with human error in the process of fabrication. Therefore Computer Numeric Controlled fabrication allows for greater speeds in prototyping as iterations can be made with ease.

2


Week Three

Surface Creation

1

2

{150,150,150}

{150,60,150}

{150,150,120}

{0,150,150}

{150,0,150} {150,0,120}

{0,0,150} {60,0,150}

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

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

3

{150,150,150}

4

{120,150,150}

{150,120,150}

{150,90,150}

{0,150,150}

{120,0,150} {0,0,150} {150,0,75} {0,150,0} {0,112.5,0}

{0,150,0}

{50,150,0} {150,30,0}

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

{30,0,0}

The script involved a bounding box of the dimensions W150 x D150 x H150 to define our working space. The components of the box are isolated using the component ‘Deconstruct Brep’, the edges are divided into points on the edge curve whereby the points are used to loft a new planar surface to be used in the next stage. The intention behind the lofts were to create surfaces that visually interacted with one another. In the iterations I have found that the solution was to create surfaces that leaned in a similar fashion, whilst a degree of separation remaining to create tensions. I feel that I have done that successfully in iteration 4 of the lofts.

3


Week Four Panels & Waffle

The panels are supposed to act as a contrast between the permeable and impermeable. The porous panel have an internal cavity inside with apertures that frame the external and internal spaces. Light is able to penetrate the inner cavity of the panel, only the diffusion of that light is able to enter the inner space. In contrast, the triangular panelling, functions as a threshold separating the inner and the outer. The textural element of triangles flowing in a grain, plays with light and shadow.

The surfaces that form the internal waffle structure the edges of the waffle has a similar gradient which leans in the same direction. This creates visual similarities between the surfaces it is supporting, whilst maintaining a distance between the two, thus creating visual tension. The waffle structure itself follows a rectangular grid pattern that contrasts the curvaceousness of the surfaces.

4


Week Four

Laser Cutting

The laser cutter can directly cut and etch the panels with a high degree of accuracy which minimises human error in the assemblage. Noticably, the cuts and etches are signifcantly cleaner and helps the project look professional. One of the difficulties faced was due to human error because the of nesting were

600.00

Laser cutting has enabled the completion of this task to be completed with a higher degree of precisions and maximeses efficiency with regards to time.

placed correctly, surfaces have not been mirrored prior to the jobs being submitted.

796631 Unn Areecharonlert (Poom)

Sheet 1 of 1

900.00

5


Week Five

1

3

2

4

Within the dimensions of W150 x D150 x H150 to define our working space, I have used various attractors in panelling tools to manipulate the locations of the Brep centroids. I have experimented with ways of scaling the forms by setting different locations of point and curve attractors, as well as random attractors as well. The choice of form to boolean from the volume is the platonic octahedron as found in the ‘Lunchbox’ tab. The geometry is similar to a sphere however the angular shapes related quite well to the previous task in terms of creating rectangular apertures, as well as creating planar surfaces that is easier for people to appropriate. I have chosen interation number four to boolean my volume due to incredibly varied scales of the geometries and exhibiting both the clustered and dispersed arrangement.

6


Week Five

Isometric

I was intrigued by the Radix Padivilion, in which Aires Mateus creates spaces within the pavilion that play with the idea intimacy and exposure. In this specific iteration, spaces achieved here vary in scale which controls the degree of intimacy or exposure and controls how the spaces can be occupied and appropriated by people. This specific iteration possessed both tight clusters and spreaded dispersions of geometries which naturally had the spatial qualities that I was intending for. The choice of the truncated platonic octahedron to boolean the voids of the volume is because the once developed the angular shapes are translated into planar surfaces that could be appropriated by people. Due the subractive nature of the model creations, the model inherently has porosity and permeablity. With the variation of aperture sizes as created by the booleans, this dictates the amount of light as well as the movement of the people. In order to accentuate the relationship between the first and and second task, I have utilised a curvaceous loft to boolean out of the larger volume. The other consideration of the boolean loft was to contrast the angular planes with curvy lines.

7


Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.1

1.21 {120,150,150}

.3

{150,120,150}

1.4

{150,150,150}

{150,0,150}

{120,0,150} {0,0,150}

{0,0,150}

{60,0,150}

{50,150,0}

{0,150,0}

{150,150,150}

{150,60,150}

{150,150,120}

{0,150,150}

{150,90,150}

{0,150,150}

{150,0,120}

{0,150,0} {150,30,0}

{150,0,75}

{0,150,0}

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

{30,0,0}

{0,0,0}

{0,150,0} {0,112.5,0} {150,0,0}

{0,0,0} {0,0,0} {Index Selection}

Paneling Grid & Attractor Point

2.12

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

.2

{Index Selection}

2.32

.4 {0,156,105}

{38,430,140}

{-59,135,170}

{0,160,105} {149,72,70}

{212,160,17}

{153,102,155}

{Point and Mean Surface Attractors}

Paneling

3.13

{Point Attractors}

.2

+

{Point Attractors}

3.33

{Point Attractors}

.4

+

Task 01 Matrix For the loft surfaces, I have chosen to use iteration 1.1 because the outcome of the iteration that show the surfaces interacting congruently. I have chosen iteration 2.1 because the mean attractor produced panels that we divided into different sizes. In iteration 3.1, i have chosen those forms because triangles interacted well with the light and the rectangular double skin panel created an ambiguous threshold.

8


Week Six Task 02

Grid Manipulation

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

{106,76,83}

{80,40,83} {149,-156,0}

{11,-8,0}

Centroid Distribution

{Point Attractor}

{Point Attractor}

{Curve Attractor}

{Curve Attractor}

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

{30,120,65} {70,80,90}

{80,40,35}

{57,89,61}

Octahedron Scaling

{Point Attractor}

{Point Atrractor}

{Point Atrractor}

{Point Atrractor}

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

{Point Attraction Scaling [92,0,150]}

{Constant Scaling}

{Random Attraction}

{Point Attraction Scaling [76,24,67]}

Task 02 Matrix I have chosen iterations 1.1 and 2.1 because the centroids created by those attractors allow for a dense cluster of centroids whilst remaining sparse enough for variations of density. I have chosen iteration 3.1 of the point attractor method to determine the scales of the octahedrons, because the geometries also subtracted the external surface that created apertures that mimicked the panels of Task 1.

9

Module 2 - Journal  
Module 2 - Journal  
Advertisement