Part B

AIR 2017 SEMESTER 1, STUDIO 8 FINN WAI YAN CASSANDRA TOM 767899

CRITERIA DESIGN

1

B 2

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITER

RIA DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN

3

B.1 Research Field Geometry Geometry is fundamentally a mathematical principles based approach.

It is a process of studying the relationship of different dimensionality through the generation of geometries. And because of the approach links up the relationship from 1D to 3D, the potentials application could be broad and often widely cross over with the other research fields. For example, 2D geometry is often seen as patterning, and the process of generating a 3D geometry may involve techniques of strips and folding.

In the digital age, the generative parametric approach has allowed speedy and accurate calculation , and innovation of robotic mechinary has pushed the limits of achievable geometries.

1.

4

CRITERIA DESIGN

2.

3.

CRITERIA DESIGN

5

B.2 Iteration 1.0 Case Study 1.0 Project: SG2012 Gridshell Project Year: 2012 Designer: MATSYS

6

CRITERIA DESIGN

4.

CRITERIA DESIGN

7

B.2 Case Study 1.0 Iteration Series A Triangulation of grideshell

A.1

A.2

Lunchbox QuadRand U=30

LunchBox TriB

A.5

A.6

Testing out different method to achieve surface panelization, including lunchbox, relative items

SDivide U=40 RelItem 2;1 0;1 -2;-1

Series B Surface Curves

SDivide U=13 RelItem 2;1 0;1

B.1

B.2

Divide Crv N=6

Divied Crv N= Loft no rebuild Changing Ge

B.5

B.6

Replacing geodisc crvs with field lines in generative crvs along surface

Divied Crv N=100 Popogeo N=16, S=8.0 Cull TF, PCharge C=-2.42/2.51

8

CRITERIA DESIGN

Divied Crv N=1 Popogeo N=16 Cull TF, PCharg

U=34

A.3

A.4

LunchBox TriB U=34 Cull FTFF

SDivide U=40 RelItem 0;0 1;1 0;1

A.7

-2;-1

=2 d eodisc Crv Start & End pt.

100 6, S=8.0 ge C=-0.6/0.6

SDivide U=13 RelItem 2;1 0;1 -2;-1 Cull TFF

B.3

B.4

Divied Crv N=100 Popogeo N=16, S=10.0 Cull TF, PCharge C=-2.42/0

Divied Crv N=100 Popogeo N=16, S=10.0 Cull TF, PCharge C=-2.42/1.22

B.7

Divied Crv N=100 Popogeo N=16, S=4.8 Cull TF, PCharge C=-0.6/0.6

B.8

Divied Crv N=363 Popogeo N=16, S=4.8 Cull TF, PCharge C=-0.6/0.6

CRITERIA DESIGN

9

B.2 Case Study 1.0 Iteration Series C Base Geometry

C.1

C.2

Changed base curves and test out mesh geometries: Delaney edges, geodesic curves, lofts Changing baisc crv, geodisc crvs

Series D Volumetric extrusion With surface panelizing method developed in Series A, I start to generate voulme from surface, and experiement with attractor point and transformation menu in the extend of extrusion

D.1

Lunchbox Hex Cull TTFF, Move, ruled srf

D.5

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.72, Move with attractor pt.

T=FaceN*Expression z/u=0.53

D.9

10

CRITERIA DESIGN

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.25 Cull TF, Move with attractor pt.

Changing baisc crv, l

D.2

Lunchbox Hex Cull TTFF, Move with a

D.6

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.72, Move with T=FaceN*Expression u=0

D.10

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.25 Cull TTFF, Move with attr

loft

attractor pt.

h attractor pt.

0.191

ractor pt.

C.3

Popgeo N=185, Del Mesh

D.3

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.36, Move T=FaceN*0.5

D.7

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.25 Move with attractor pt.

T=FaceN*Expression z=0.573

C.4

Popgeo N=185, Del Mesh Cull TTF, WB Frame D=9.114

D.4

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.72, Move T=FaceN*6.3

D.8

Lunchbox Quad Scale F=0.25, List Item 1&2 Move with attractor pt.

T=FaceN*Expression z=0.573

CRITERIA DESIGN

11

B.2 Iteration 1.0 Selection

Species B.5 Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

12

CRITERIA DESIGN

Species C.4 Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

CRITERIA DESIGN

13

B.2 Iteration 1.0 Selection

Species D.7 Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

14

CRITERIA DESIGN

Species D.9 Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

CRITERIA DESIGN

15

B.3 Reverse Engineering Case Study 2.0 Project: San Gennaro Northgate Project Year: 2011 Designer: SOFTLab This hanging installation project is fabrication of a minimal surface with surface geometry.

The base shape is created using a minimal surface blending the two oculi together and the piece is completely held in tension from cables attached to the surrounding buildings. The shape is completely site specific and would only held in shape by attaching each unique geometrical piece at these specific points and tensioned with the proper lengths.

16

CRITERIA DESIGN

5.

CRITERIA DESIGN

17

B.3 Reverse Engineering Approach

18

Step 1: Drawing base curves in grasshopper

Step 2: Loft curves into surface & join them into a single mesh

Step 3: Using kangaroo to generate minimal surface

Step 6: Move Surfaces along normal of surfaces to create a twisted box

Step 7: Drawing base curve for surface geometry in grasshopper

Step 8: Join curves & closed surface

CRITERIA DESIGN

o simulation a smooth e

create a

Step 4: rebuild mesh with to create quad mesh surface

Step 9: Box morph geometry

Step 5: Explode & deconstruct mesh to draw surfaces from 4 points based on mesh face vertices

surface

CRITERIA DESIGN

19

B.4 Iteration 2.0 Case Study 2.0

20 CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

21

B.4 Case Study 2.0 Iteration Matrix Series A Base Form Recreation

A.1

A.2

Changing the initial form with Loft order and base curve alterations

Adjust circle radius Move Center quad vector

Adjust circle radius & quad size Move Center quad vector

A.7

A.6

Change circles & quad to polygon

Series B Surface Geometry

B.1

Change circles & quad to polygon Kamgaroo simulation

B.2

Testing variation of surface geometry using Iteration A.7 as starting geometry

Mesh Popgeo = 200 DelMesh

Mesh Popgeo = 50 WB Loop L=1 Surface geo remove edge circles

B.6

22 CRITERIA DESIGN

B.7

Popgeo = 50 DelMesh Surface geo remove edge circles Polar array Morph crv N=8 Scale f=0.605/0.711, RuledSrf

Popgeo = 50 DelMesh Polar array geo N=8 Surface geo remove edge circles Change Morph crv position, mirror crv

v

A.3

Adjust circle radius & quad size Move Center quad vector Rotate circles

A.4

A.5

Adding extra loop to loft Change center qud to polygon

Adding extra loop to loft Change center qud to polygon 4ptsrf mesh

A.8

Change circles & polygon Kamgaroo simulation WB SplitQuads

quad

to

B.3

B.4

Mesh Popgeo = 200 DelMesh Cull Nth =5

B.8

Popgeo = 50 DelMesh Polar array geo N=8 Surface geo remove edge circles Change Morph crv position, mirror crv Twisted box (3 edged)

Popgeo = 50 DelMesh WB CatmullClark L=2 Surface geo remove edge circles

B.5

Popgeo = 50 DelMesh Poar arraygeo N=8 Surface geo remove edge circles

B.9

B.10

Popgeo = 50 WB Catmullclark, DelMesh Polar array geo N=8 Surface geo remove edge circles Change Morph crv position, mirror crv Twisted box (4 edged)

Popgeo = 50 WB Catmullclark, DelMesh Polar array geo N=8 Surface geo remove edge circles Change Morph geo to circle CRITERIA DESIGN 23 Twisted box (4 edged)

B.4 Case Study 2.0 Iteration Matrix Series C Mesh Panelization

C.1

C.2

WB Tri L=1 DBrep, 4ptsrf

WB Tri L=3 DBrep, 4ptsrf

C.6

C.7

Del Mesh, 4ptsrf Cull TF, Brep Edge Scale F=0.798 Fillet R=0.282, loft

Del Mesh, Explode mesh Cull TTFF, Subdivide mesh, 4ptsrf Scale edge with attractor pt.

Cull TTTF, Fillet with attractor pt., loft

D.1

D.2

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 WB Edge, Scale F=0.4 Cull TF , FaceN, move1/-1, ruledsrf

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 WB Edge, Scale F=0.510 Cull TF , FaceN, move 0.32 Loft scaled geo only

D.6

D.7

Testing of different ways of panelling minimal surface, with the play around of attractor point & cull pattern

Series D Changing Mesh parameter Play around with surface curves in dynamic geometry formation based on iteration C.8

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 Voronoi 3D, BBX Cull TTFFFF, Kscoop S=11 with YZ plane

24 CRITERIA DESIGN

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 Voronoi 3D, BBX Cull TTFFFF, Kscoop S=4 with custom plane

C.3

C.4

C.5

WB Tri L=3 DBrep, 4ptsrf

Vorinoi 3D BBX, Move, loft

Del Mesh, 4ptsrf Brep Edge Scale F=0.798 Fillet R=0.282, loft

C.8

C.9

C.10

Same setting as C.7 Data Cull not grafted, data not matched up

Del Mesh, Explode mesh Cull TTFF, Subdivide mesh, 4ptsrf Scale edge with attractor pt.

Cull TTTF, Fillet with attractor pt., loft

Del Mesh, Explode mesh Cull TTFF, Subdivide mesh WB Catmullclark L=2, WB Frame, 4ptsrf

D.3

D.4

D.5

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 Voronoi 3D, BBX Cull TTFFFF, move vec X & Z with attractor pt., loft moved X & Z geo

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 WB Edge, Scale with attractor pt.

Rotate with custom vector FaceN, move with attractor pt.

D.8

D.9

D.10

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 Voronoi 3D, BBX Cull TTFFFF, Kscoop S=11 with custom plane

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 Voronoi 3D, BBX Cull TTFFFF, Move vec Z with attractor pt.

Kscoop S=11 with XY plane

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 Voronoi 3D, BBX Cull TTFFFF, Move Vec X with attractor pt.*Expression Kscoop S=4 with custom plane

Popgeo 40, WB Catmullclark L=2 Voronoi 3D, BBX Cull TTFFFF, Kscoop S=11 with XY plane

CRITERIA DESIGN 25

B.4 Case Study 2.0 Iteration Matrix Series E Changing Mesh parameter

E.1

E.2

Adjusting kangaroo inputs, simulation pause, exoskeleton in creating dynamic form Set anchor pt: mid & top loop only

E.6

Cap geo, Wb quad mesh WdEdge len*0.244 Unary force F=3724 Anchor pt: vertices Cull TFFF

E.11

Del mesh Exoskeleton WB Loop L=2

26 CRITERIA DESIGN

Change loop radius Anchor pt: mid & top loop only

E.7

Cap geo, Wb Tri mesh WdEdge len*0.244 Unary force F=3724 Anchor pt: vertices Cull TFFFFFF Simulation pause

E.12

Del mesh Exoskeleton Cytoskeleton

E.3

Change loop radius Anchor pt: mid & bottom loop only

E.8

Cap geo, Wb Tri mesh WdEdge len*0.244 Unary force F=3724 Anchor pt: vertices Cull TFFFFFF Simulation pause

E.4

Change loop radius Anchor pt: top & bottom loop disc only

E.9

Popgeo loft, Del mesh WdEdge len*0.244 Unary force F=10 Anchor pt: E1 edge disc, vertex pt. from bottom of del mesh

E.5

Cap geo WdEdge len*0.325 Unary force = -216 Anchor pt: top disc only

E.10

Del mesh Exoskeleton

CRITERIA DESIGN 27

B.4 Iteration 2.0 Selection

Species C.4 Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

28 CRITERIA DESIGN

Species C.7 Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

CRITERIA DESIGN 29

B.4 Iteration 2.0 Selection

Species C.8 Based on our design intend of reflecting dynamic motion of a ballroom, I find the random-like lofted surface reflects a great sense of movement even-thought they are just flat surfaces. In terms of material performance and the development of this definition, there appears to have great potential, yet the effectiveness of whether it is fabricable might be a concern, as more sophisticated definition is needed to get clear where surfaces intersects.

30 CRITERIA DESIGN

Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

Species E.12 Materiality Aesthetics Fabrication Development

CRITERIA DESIGN

31

B.5 Protoyping

32 CRITERIA DESIGN

6.

It is often quite different when a design goes from digital to fabrication, and that because our design intend to reflect the dynamic movements in ballroom in an architectural language which could be something abstract, we aim to explore the possibilities and the most balance approach in fabricating our concept through the series of prototypes.

We intended to use dichroic films and PETG plastic as our material for this project, yet we have not get the supplier deliver the material for our prototype testing, at the moment, alternatively we used polypropylene, which has a similar degree of flexibility to test out possible geometries and effects based on some of their shared properties.

CRITERIA DESIGN 33 7.

B.5 Prototype 1&2 Prototype 1

Polyprorpylene strips held in place by running through frames

34 CRITERIA DESIGN

Prototype 2 The first 2 prototypes focused on using different connection method to fabricate an iteration of an irregular geometry formed by undulating strips. From the rhino file, we first unrolled curved strips and laser cut 2 sets of strips with polypropylene, then we tried to put them in shape using metal brads and clear perspex frames accordingly.

Comparing the 2 prototypes, metal brads/ fishing lines bolting apparently a more clear and less visible connection, yet it turns out being hard to control the overall shape of the strips as metal brad allows moments at the connection.

Comparatively, the use of perspex framing to held strip in place is more stiff. However, because the need of contour framing in a close distance to achieve the undulating shape, the framing turns out more like part of the design than just a connection. This may be a potential for our later stage design, as our intended material is translucent, meaning that connections may possibly be exposed.

Iteration to sample shape for prototyping

Metal brad connected

Strips could be bend/ flip to both directions

Strips could be rotated to different extend along the joint

CRITERIA DESIGN 35

B.5 Prototype 3&4 Prototype 3

Original shape of geometry segment

Some possible shapes made from rotating along the flexible joints

It came to our interest of how different shapes could formed along flexible joints.

In particular to this iteration, we notice the pattern of share edge are on one side of the geometry, hence we extracted a segment to conduct shape testing though physical transformation along joints.

Iteration to sample shape for prototyping

36 CRITERIA DESIGN

Prototype 4

Geometry arrange to held in place with order by 3D print

Even though the geometry digitally is one continuous piece, in reality, they are more effective to fabricate as combined individual pieces. Since the initial form of the prototype is irregular, we experimented on 3D printing a rigid joint to held pieces into its digital positions.

Even though the geometry digitally is one continuous piece, in reality, they are more effective to fabricate as combined individual pieces. Since the initial form of the prototype is irregular, we experimented on 3D printing a rigid joint to held pieces into its digital positions.

CRITERIA DESIGN 37

B.5 Prototype 5

Iteration to sample shape for prototyping

38 CRITERIA DESIGN

Flexibility of the ring connection between triangle panels creates diffe

Metal rings used as flexible joint

In this prototype, we tried to fabricate the curved surfaces through triangulating surfaces into smaller fragments. Given the limitation of the chosen material (mirror acrylic), which the shared edges are always perpendicular, we used a more flexible connection ( metal rings) in joining fragments together such that it allows flexibility to fold at an angle along edges.

Yet, the flexibility of the joint arise another issue, which we find it difficult to create an exact angle as we expected from the digital model. Such that it has lead us to our next prototype.

Fishing lines at different angle used to hang the shape

Another possible solution might be getting the exact distance from the panel to the joint, so the shape may be controllable by the hanging strings.

erent shape at a different angle free fall

CRITERIA DESIGN 39

B.5 Prototype 6

Iteration to sample shape for prototyping

40 CRITERIA DESIGN

Cable ties in tension to minimize the flexibility for moments at the connection

3D print angled plate for bolt connection acrylic pieces in different angles

This prototype is a simple testing of rigid joints in fabricating a digitally designed shape.

We tried out tensioning cable ties on the connection, but limitations are cable ties come with standardized size, meaning that gaps in different joins are different and extend of joint flexibility. From the previous prototyping experience of controllability in flexible joints, we decided to 3D print connection to ensure shape to be fully controllable from digital to physical fabrication.

CRITERIA DESIGN

41

B.5 Prototype 7

Apart from simple bolt geometry, we have then developed a similar geometry with a different material and connection technique to previous ones.

As our intended material are more likely something as flexible as polypropylene than something as rigid as mirror acrylic, we used polypropylene to approximate the degree of flexibility in creation of joints.

Iteration to sample shape for prototyping

42 CRITERIA DESIGN

Taking the flexibility of the material, we test out on creating conceal joints by having a surface extrusion along normals of shared

Corners doesn’t stay in position which folding panels are not bolt together

Tried to bolt folded panels together with cable wires Staple folded panels together as a temporary connection in replacement of glue

edges, so connection are done on the extruded surfaces and kept surface geometry clean from other visible connection.

However, since polypropylene is not a suitable material for gluing, we used stapler to nail folded panels to achieve bolt-free-surface.

CRITERIA DESIGN 43

B.5 Prototype 8

44 CRITERIA DESIGN

Further to our previous prototype in connection of overlaps, this prototype aim to integrate the technique of fabricating dynamic surface geometrically to test out the most effective way in having control on the free form.

The connection of the prototype is having panels overlap at vertices and bolt together, then having certain vertices of the panels ties with fishing line in tension to stretch out dynamic forms.

Iteration to sample shape for prototyping

CRITERIA DESIGN 45

B.6 Design Proposal

46 CRITERIA DESIGN

Design Brief/ Intention

Design Proposal

What makes a ballroom a ballroom, is the diversity of atmosphere it creates when different occasions happens within the spaces. Different from other type of spaces, it requires the interaction between people and with the space in creating the atmosphere ballroom. Without people, the space would not be activates as a ballroom.

With the techniques and exploration in connections we developed through prototyping, and consideration to our intended materials are translucent, we would like to put focus on:

Hence, we would like to abstract the idea of capturing and reflecting the these dynamic motions in an architectural language through our ceiling (and potentially column/ wall) design.

Firstly, test out material performance we intended to use (Dichroic films & PETG plastics) including flexibility, fabrication caution and importantly performance under lightings.

Secondly, deeper into junctions between discontinuity, in particular to integrate connection points as a part of the overall design, and its interaction with lighting under the translucent material.

Thirdly, put forward our techniques from developable surfaces to volumetric surfaces with the engagement of lighting effects in different ways.

CRITERIA DESIGN 47

B.7 Learning Outcomes

48 CRITERIA DESIGN

To a large extent, I think that the matrix exercise has helped me in address a great range of design possibilities under a given situation.

I was actually a bit doubt about my choice of taking geometry as my research field. The matrix exercise in B.2 has been helpful for me in familiarizing myself with parametric design. Instead of ideas generation from my thoughts, some of pretty outcomes in this task were unexpected. These surprising outcome from the matrix has then trigger my interest in approximating mesh geometries with developable surfaces, which is part of the driving force that I have chosen a more freeform geometry than something geometrical.

B.3 has been a critical part that driven my focus of techniques to generate fabricatable possibilities. In the study of the logics to achieve the project outcome, I have spent quite sometime moving back and fore editing the reverse engineering script, in improving the approach to recreate the project simplest possible. With these convenient parametric tools, I find that it is not really that hard to generate something looks decent enough to approximate the form regardless of the logic to digitally process a fabricatable solution.

Indeed, the difficult part is to approximate the project in a way that is later fabricatable.

This also highlights the important role of computation in design process to solve and approximate undevelopable/ difficultly developable geometries.

Computation’s role the design process does not end at getting digitally ready for physical fabrication, instead it is another back and fore process until the final model built. In our process of prototype for instance, we basically have pieces and joints ready from digital file to be fabricated, yet, sometimes dis-match between material performance and assumption in digital model may arise other issues, and require adjustments to solve, making the physical prototyping and digital processing an alternating process. This has also been part of the reason that we created a series of prototypes.

With the range of exploration we had tested out prototyping, I believe that in the next stage of prototyping (Part C), we would be spending more time to focus on one or two of them to strike for a greater depth in engaging the parametric modelling process further more.

CRITERIA DESIGN 49

B.8 Algorithmic Sketch

50 CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

51

52 CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN 53

Bibliography Images 1. Antoni Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia - Interior - Barcelona, 2011 < http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ antuanysmith/5646743311/ >SOFTLab, IBM MWC 2017, 2017 < http://softlabnyc.com/portfolio/ibm/ > 2. SOFTLab, IBM WMC 2017, 2017 , <http://softlabnyc.com/portfolio/ibm/> 3.UTAOT, scared geometry and architecture in Iran, 2012,< http://www.utaot.com/2012/11/15/sacred-geometryand-architecture-in-iran/> 4. MATSY, SG2012 Grideshell, 2012 < http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/sg2012-gridshell/> 3M Fasara™, Dichroic < http://www.decorativefilm.com/3m-fasara-dichroic-df-pa-blaze-48-wide-3 > 5. SOFTLab, ‘San Gennaro North gate < http://softlabnyc.com/portfolio/san-genarro-north-gate/ > 6. 3M LifrLab SXSW 2015, 2015, < http://softlabnyc.com/portfolio/3m-lifelab-sxsw-2015/> 7. Marcelo Spina ,StalacTile ,Tessellated Manifolds , 2009 < http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/stalactiletessellated-manifolds/>

54 CRITERIA DESIGN