Page 1

Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Xinran Huang

(904912) Michael Mack 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)

The three fundamental type of fabrication techniques introduced by Kolerevic are subtractive, addictive and formative. Subtractive is a technique of removing volumes from solids, for example, CNC fabrication. Addictive is a process of adding material layer by layer, such as 3D printing. Formative is a process of reforming the shape by restricting forms, applying forces, heats or steams. Every process in CNC fabrication is controlled by computer and can model parametric designs with higher accuracy and lower costs. Therefore, it is suitable to model customised design.

2


Week Three

Surface Creation

Left: top: script for surface one / bottom: script for surface two panel. Right: top left: the first two surfaces baked from rhino / top right: all edges are changed from the first two surface. bottom left: two edges of each surfaces were changed from top right / bottom right(final): edges remain the same as bottom but the end points were changed. Different surfaces were created by changing the listed edge from the box and by changing the dividing points. Because of the further fabrication process, I kept the surface as simple as possible to avoid the condition of unable to make the panel and the waffle structure.

3


Week Four Panels & Waffle

The offset grids were attracted by one side of the surface. Therefore the top of the panels are pointing to the attractor. The offset distances various between 15mm to 45mm from right to left. Panels are bigger at left and smaller at right in oder to create different spaces. Openings were created by using weaverebird, therefore light can penetrate.

Waffle structure was created accourding to surface, which further lead to the problem of sticking the panel and waffle together during fabrication process. It will be better if the waffle structure was created according to panels.

4


Week Four

Panels & Waffle

The offset grids were attracted by both sides of the surface, where panels closer to both edges are smaller than panels in the middle. The offset distances were the same in order to contrast with panels on the other surface. The splid panels clearly differentiate the exterior and interior spaces while the concave top emphasis the connection to the ceiling.

Waffle structure was created accourding to surface, which further lead to the problem of sticking the panel and waffle together during fabrication process. It will be better if the waffle structure was created according to panels.

5


Week Four Laser Cutting

Nesting was important in order to save material. Combining two files into one is also helpful to save material and money. Numbers on tabs are helpful to differentiate the panels. When putting the unrolled surfaces and waffles into templete, it is essential to make sure it is not scaled.

6


Week Four

Laser cutting

Nesting was important in order to save material. Combining two files into one is also helpful to save material and money. Numbers on tabs are helpful to differentiate the panels. When putting the unrolled surfaces and waffles into templete, it is essential to make sure it is not scaled.

7


Week Five

Left: top: script for the final boolean design. Curve attractor and surface attractor were used for cells and another curve attractor was used to determine the size of the geometry / bottom: script for the final boolean design. Geometries were rotated three by three in different angles along the same axis in rder to create variations. Right: top left: pyramid geometries rotated at 0, 40, 80, 120, 180 degree / top right: pyramid geometries rotate at 0, 90, 180, 270, 360 degree / bottom left: weaverbird icosahedron geometries rotate at 0, 23, 45, 68, 90 degree, the attractors for cells are different to the previous two designs / bottom right (final): weaverbird icosahedron geometries rotate at 0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degree

8


Week Five

Isometric

Left: half of the boolean design. Right: cutted model for 3D print. As the purpose of this design is to show the interest view privided by multi-face geometries and the variation created by rotation, the model prepared for 3D print is cutted diagonally, therefore the interesting corner is maintained. This geometry adds interest to the view as it is not possible to see all faces at only one position, which encourages people to walk around the whole spaces. An open space the corner can also attract people from both directions.

9


Week Six Task 01

Lofts

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4

{0,0,0}

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

{150, 90, 150} {60, 0, 150}

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

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

Grid Points

{0, 120, 150} {0, 90, 150}

{0, 120, 150}

Offset distance

{150, 60, 0}

{0, 150, 120} {150, 60, 0}

{150, 120, 0}

{150, 60, 0}

{0, 0, 0}

{30, 0, 0}

{150, 120, 0}

{30, 0, 0} {0, 90, 0}

{120, 150, 0}

{0, 60, 0}

Attractor Points Attractor Curves

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

Control Points (X,Y,Z) Isocurves

{150, 60, 150}

{150, 0, 150}

{60, 0, 150}

{120, 150, 0} {0, 90, 0}

{0, 30, 0}

{0, 150, 0}

Offset Grid & Attractor Point / Curves

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

{Index Selection}

[3]2.1A

[3]2.1B

[4]2.2A

[4]2.2B

65 mm

45mm

45 mm

15 mm

{0, 90, 150} 15 mm

15 mm

15 mm

15 mm

{70.61, 112.60, 76.96}

{0.00, 48.15, 45.38}

{65.98, 95.98, 0.00}

Paneling

{Attractor Point Location} + offset distance

{Attractor Point Location} + offset distance

{Attractor Point Location} + offset distance

offset distance

[1B]3.1A

[1B]3.1B

[2B]3.2A

[2B]3.2B

Task 01 Matrix 1.3 and 1.4 is chosed to be further developed as these two surfaces are not twisting as 1.1 and 1.2, which is more suitable to be fabricated. 1B and 2B were chosed to be developed as they have different offset distances which creates variations. Panel 3.1A failed during fabrication stage as the model can not hold itself. 3.1B was not able to be unrolled properly therefore was not chosed as well.

10


11


12


13


Week Six Task 02 Grid Manipulation

1.1

1.2

1.3

Key

1.4 {77.48, 210.25, 152.71}

{50.83, 229.95, 170.18}

{0,0,0}

Control Points (X,Y,Z) Cell

{0,0,0} {177.37, 27.39, 95.06} {172.72, -111.31, 127.97}

{138.78, 162.56, 0.00}

Attractor Points Attractor Curves

{143.26, 207.75, 18.68}

{163.57, 152.6.1, 17.35}

Centroids

{0.00, 0.00, 150.00} {-23.77, 171.34, 45.22}

{135.44, -106.67, 125.59}

Central axis after rotation

{0.00, 150.00, 0.00} {29.98, 199.47, -111.54}

{44.99, -1.14, 2.78}

{Attractor Point Location}

{44.99, -1.14, 2.78}

{-6.02, -8.11, 32.65}

{Attractor Point / Surface Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

{76.21, -28.08, -163.87}

{66.22, -33.10, 0.00}

{Attractor Curve / Surface Location}

Surface attractor not to scale

Sphere Transformation

[3]2.1A

{77.97, 72.09, 185.46}

[3]2.1B

[4]2.2A

[4]2.2B

{224.17,-65.49,61.94}

{150.00, 0.00, 0.00}

{0.00, 0,00, 0,00}

{44.99, -1.14, 2.78}

{-154.30,-65.49,61.94}

Sphere Distribution

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Point Location}

{Attractor Curve Location}

[1A]3.1A

[1A]3.1B

[2B]3.2A

[2B]3.2B

Task 02 Matrix 1.4 was chosed as a surface attractor and a curve attractor was used to create more variations. The icohedron geometry was chosed as the final design as it has multiple faces where views provided are more interesting. 3.2B has geometries rotate between 0 to 180 degrees, creating enough amount of variations while still maintain most thikness above 2mm.

14


15


16


17


Week Six

Final Isometric Views - Task 1

3.2B + 3.2A

Panels are exploded and arranged vertically according to the size of panels. Panels with openings were chosed for the front surface therefore light can penetrate. Panels with the top folding inwards were chosed for the back surface to emphasise the connection of people with the ceiling when looking from inside.

18


Week Six

Final Isometric Views - Task 2

Task 2: the back piece of the booleaned design was cutted and shown so that we can see what is happening at the back. The model cutted for 3D print was also shown at the front. The multiple faces of the geometry add interest to the views.

19


Appendix Task 1

Left: some other panels explored for task 1, they were not chosed because of unrolling or fabrication. Middle: during unrol stage for panels on the front surface, some faces have gaps and overlapped part because of the openings created in weaverbird, therefore I manully cleaned the lines for laser cutting. Right: another panel explored using attractor point near the edge, it failed to be unrolled as surfaces overelapped with each other.

20


Appendix

Task 2

In order to make sure the thickness of the model is above 2mm, I used galapagos to help calculate the percentage of thickness below 2mm, and find a balance between an ideal design and the ideal thickness.

21


Appendix Task 2

During the exploring stage of task 2, I used random in grasshopper to control the rotation of geometries, yet I can only control the whole domain of angle instread of controlling the rotation angle for each geometry. Therefore, I changed the way to control the rotation by listing all geometries three by three and change the angle manually. In this way, I am able to control the whole geometry.

22


Appendix

Fabrication

This test print panel didn’t work because of the etch and the design of the panel with a big opening on the top. Therefore, I later laser cut the panel with dotted cut and cap the panel.

This test print panel worked.

23

Digital Design M2 Journal  

Xinran Huang

Digital Design M2 Journal  

Xinran Huang

Advertisement