Rhino Scripting and Modeling Course Documentation

bridge elevation

4.0

4.1

INVESTIGATION 01 |

MATTHEW CARLSON

INTRODUCTION Investigation one served as an introductory exploration of Rhino’s capacity to model and render architectural objects. The object to be modeled was Santiago Calatrava’s bypass bridge in Barcelona. Upon completion of the three-dimensional working model, a set of orthographic line drawings were produced, in addition to a further set of detail, interior, and exterior renderings. Several useful skills wee developed in this excercise, including the manipulation of an imported base drawing, as well as the application of materials for rendering in VRay.

bridge plan view

bridge plan view [below]

center column exploded axonometric

fabrication cut sheet layout

4.2

4.3

digital wall component model

INVESTIGATION 02 |

MATTHEW CARLSON

INTRODUCTION Investigation two involved an exploration of Rhino’s ability to act as a fabrication interface – with both the capacity to model and produce informative data to drive a fabrication process. In particular, the investigation centered around the planar fabrication process of contouring.

This involves taking a fat (3D) object, slicing it into flat contours or section cuts of a defined thickness (2D), and, after a subtractive CNC process such as laser cutting, returning it to a fat (3D) shape. The object to be contoured was an individual component of a larger wall system, assembled on-site.

wall component contoured assembly diagram

P4 1

P4 2

P4 3

4.4

4.5

P4 1

P4 2 P4 17

P4 14

P4 19

P4 11

MATTHEW CARLSON

P4 16

INVESTIGATION 03 |

display screen concept

P4 18

P4 13

Investigation three continued an exploration of Rhino’s ability to act as a fabrication interface. Using another planar fabrication strategy, an egg-crate or interlocking assembly logic, the investigation involved the design of a screen section. This design seeks to combine the divisive capability of a screen with that of a display case, creating a permeable means of product display. Limitations in cut sheet dimensions left the final product a paired-down prototype of the original design. The prototype was laser-cut from 1/8� steel and joined via a MIG welding process.

P4 20

INTRODUCTION

P4 12

P4 15

P4 21

P4 22

P4 10

P4 25

P4 8

P4 9

P4 24

P4 23

P4 7

P4 4

P4 6

P4 3

P4 5

P4 30

P4 26

P4 28

P4 27

P4 29

final screen section design

fabrication cut sheet layout

4.6

4.7

INVESTIGATION 04 PT. 1 |

MATTHEW CARLSON initial modeled surface

INTRODUCTION The fourth investigation explored the planar fabrication strategy of tessellation systems. In this process, a curved surface is tiled or tesselated with a pattern. This patterned surface is then unrolled or unfolded, the components of which are then cut in a planar fabrication process. In this excercise, a small object (6” x 6”) was printed onto bristol paper and cut out with scissors before being assembled with glue. The object was tesselated with a hexagon pattern via a honeycomb Rhino script , written

by Andrew Kudless.

post-script tesselated surface

fabrication cut sheet layout

interior perspective of completed model, 6”x6”

E16

E15

Grasshopper definition layout

E13

E14

E17 I73 I74 E18

I68 I66

I70

I67 I71

4.8

E19

E11

I59

I64 I62

4.9

I56

I60

E10

I53

I61

E20

I57

I58

I69

I65

INVESTIGATION 04 PT. 2 |

E12

I72

I55

I63

I54 I52

E9

I51

MATTHEW CARLSON

I48 I47

INTRODUCTION Investigation four part two further examined the tesselation of surfaces in Rhino. A voronoi tesselation was used, informed by the placement of points upon an image of sea foam. A pointset reconstruction plug-in was then used to create the tesselation upon a 1’x2’ surface, which was then extruded to a 2” thickness. The unfolded fabrication strips were given a labeling system to assist in the assembly process, saving copious amounts of time and confusion. Despite this ease of assembly, adding a final border of plywood around the piece proved difficult, due to the structural rigidity inherent in the tesselation.

I49

I50

E21

E8

I46

base image with plotted points I43

I45

I44

E7

I42

E22

I40

I39

I41 I34

I37

I35

E23

I32 E24

I33

E6

I38

I36

I31 E5

I30

I27 I28

I25

E25

I26

I29

I24

E4

I21

I20

I22

E26 I23

I11

I9

I18 I15

I16

I4

I3

I14

I7 I8

E3

I19 I12

I10

I6

I17

I13

E2 I1

I5 I2

E27 E28

E29

E30

E31

E1

voronoi diagram and cell assembly chain

01. footing height

02. shelf depth

03. shelf width

4.10

4.11

INVESTIGATION 05 PT. 1 |

MATTHEW CARLSON Grasshopper definition layout

INTRODUCTION Investigation five part one served as an introduction to parametric modeling, using the Grasshopper plug-in for Rhino. A chosen object was examined and reverse-engineered into its basic elements. These elements were then used to inform a parametric definition of the object in Rhino. A number of variations were created from this definition, in this case that of a simple shelf. As the variable constraints for the shelf were changed, possibilities for separate or hybrid objects were ceated, ranging from a set of mail slots to a coffee table / storage unit.

04. unit height

05. no. of shelves

06. no. of shelf divisions

07. shelf thickness

possible variations in shelf type

Grasshopper definition layout

4.12

4.13 proliferated gill / louvre component

INVESTIGATION 05 PT. 2 |

MATTHEW CARLSON

INTRODUCTION Investigation five part two continued the ongoing exploration of parametric modeling in Grasshopper. Using a scyscraper as a building type, a definition was created using several constituent parameters.

Additionally, a basic component, in this case a gill to allow for airflow and sunlight, was proliferated upon the building’s surface. In effect, this becomes a porous skin. The parameters defined for the skyscraper are as follows: 01. Height 02. Number of Floor Slabs 03. Floor Slab Thickness 04. Number of Support Columns + Sides 05. Bottom and Top Radii 06. Adjustable [pinch + expand] Radius Height 07. Rotation 08. Louvre Thickness 09. Louvre Aperture Width

possible variations in skyscaper type

1

17”

20” 4

2

7

desk plan view

4.14

4.15

3 6

INVESTIGATION 06 | MATTHEW CARLSON

5

36”

fabrication cut sheet layout

INTRODUCTION The Fill-it Desk is informed by a design of simplicity. The design seeks to minimize wasted materials by utilizing the total surface area of a 4’ x 8’ cut sheet. The construction of the desk follows a notched or egg-crate logic, allowing for straight-forward assembly and inherent structural rigidity. The assembly logic and cut sheet nesting are presented aesthetically to be observed and appreciated, whilst consequently revealing the layered properties of the plywood material.

12”

18”

desk elevation

Additionally, the Fill-it Desk makes use of excess cut sheet material to provide a variety of supplementary components, the breadth of which is limited by the size and scale of the desk’s top surface and supporting legs. These accessories could vary in form and function, from a small shelving unit to a stool.

full-scale prototype, 3/4” plywood

possible variations in desk components

assembly diagram