Digital Design M2 by Jia Min Cheong

Digital Design Module 02 Semester 1, 2021 Jia Min Cheong

1055131 Nancy Samayoa, Studio 17

Module 2 Reflection Questions: a) What is the key concept explored through your lasercut and 3d-print models? The key concept explored is the agglomeration of geometries through controlled growth, and by manipulating its parameters, further exploring the relationships of mass versus void. My aim is to create a form with sufficient internal void in addition to clear material threshold that could possibly be transformed into functional in between spaces architecturally.

b) What is the quality of the space generated in your design fragment? Consider this as a fragment of space and the scale is not yet determined, i.e. it can be 1:5 scale or 1:50 scale There are two main qualities of the space have been generated in my design fragements: 1) Functional in between spaces: The material threshold that frames the interior void become, itself, a functionalspace that could be occupied by sedentary users. 2) Compression and Release: The iterations in Task A share another common feature - narrow or enclosed midsection (though this feature is not as strong in Iteration 3). This midsection consists of yet another layer of material threshold that could be seen to stimulate a sense of compression and release when one walks through the space. This particularly quality is perhaps strongest in Iteration 2.

c) Consider this as a fragment of a pavilion design. Can you start to speculate on the threshold condition or possible means of circulating through your structure? Again, what sort of scale will your structure need to be? My key concept through this study was one that involved thresholds. My aim was to create a structure with material threshold acting as functional and useful spaces. Looking at my iterations, I believe I was successful in following through my concept as well as providing some permeability and porosity. At 1:5 scale, the outer edge of the study area could provide quality in between spaces but the interior volume mights be small and hence not as functional. At 1:50, the study area could provide interesting spatial experience with changing threshold as one travels through the porous structure.

Critical Reading: Kolerevic B. 2003. Architecture in the Digital Age | Chapter 3: Digital Production a) What is the significance of Frank Gehry’s project in relation to Digital Fabrication? Use an example to explain your point. (no more than 100 words) Frank Gehry’s Nationale-Nederlanden Building in Prague, Cech Republic utilizied irregularly-shaped glass panels. These glass panels were able to be produced and assembled with high degree of precision through digital design and fabrication techniques, by cutting the glass using digitally-driven cutting machines from the geometric information extracted directly from the digital model. This enables architect to be more directly involved in the fabrication processess through creating information to drive the digital fabrication equipment. Besides, it offers more productive opportunities to realize the desingn at the same time meeting the schedule and financial constraints.

b) What are the three dominant forms of fabrication technique outline in Kolerevic’s text? Choose one of the technique and expand on how this could be useful in design? (no more than 200 words) The three dominant forms of fabrication techniques are subtractive, additive and formative fabrication. One of the technique - the additive fabrication involves incremental forming by adding materials in a layer-by-layer fashion. Various materials such as metal, ceramic powder, plastic and concrete could be used o create the product. In the past, it is used mainly to fabricate models with complex and curvilinear geometries or produce series components in construction. Recently, it has become increasing useful in design as new experimental techniques have been introduced to manufacture large-scalr building components directly from digital data. For instance, a hybrid automated fabrication method - contour crafting is useful in design as it allows quick layered fabrication of highly finished building, by combining extrusion to form the surface sheel of an object and using pouring or injection filling processes to build the object’s core. Method such as computer-controlled trowels is used to shape theris of each cross-section on a given layer, then filled with filler material. It is useful in design as materials can be added precisely while other elements (sensors, floor and wall heaters) can be built into the structure in a fully automated fashion.

components tool and mponents.

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES Solid Generation 1

Generate Basic Geometry Geometry: Icosahedron Radius: 15 Using ‘Deconstruct Brep’ and ‘Brep Join’ components as ‘Platonic Icosahedron’ is old lunchbox tool and can only bake with the help of these components.

Define Closest Face to Pt Attractor This provides basis to ‘Mirror’ geometry at the later stage. Subsequent geometries will grow towards direction of point attractor.

Brep Evaluation Evaluate surface to produce plane.

Mirror Geometry at the face evaluated.

Mirror Geometry Mirror geometry at the face evaluated.

Define Closest Face to Pt Attractor This provides basis to ‘Mirror’ geometry at the later stage. Subsequent geometries will grow towards direction of point attractor.

Brep Evaluation Evaluate surface to produce plane.

Clusters of ‘Brep Evaluation to produce subsequent geo

Mirror Geometry at the face evaluated.

Grasshopper Script for Iteration 1 This script reflects the ‘Growth’ techniques learned from Workshop 2 with own modifications. It consists of two parts:

Mirror Geometry Mirror geometry at the face evaluated.

Clusters of ‘Brep Evaluation’ and ‘Mirror Geometry’ groups to produce subsequent geometries.

1) Growing geometries using ‘Mirror’ command: it generates a chain of four icosahedrons. 2) Orient and Scale NU: The chain is then oriented around a center core geometry, which is the same icosahedron used to generate growth. The use of single geometry as core allow the process to be more controlled and parametric. The agglomeration are finally scaled based on designated axes and ratio to achieve desired outcome.

Orient clusters around center icosahedron

Scale NU using mathematical expression to produce final geometries

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES Iteration Matrix 1

AGGREGATION: MIRROR GEOMETRY 1

This iteration explores the use of single geometry as generator to create aggregation. Icosahedron is chosen as basic geometry because the void it forms in boolean operation closely resembles a spherical void while still maintaining its angular features. By using icosahedron, I was aiming to generate a volume with maximum interior space that is framed by a clear material threshold.

Geometry Type Radius: 15 Icosahedron

Mirror Geometry

2.1

2.2

2.1 and 2.2: the aggregation formed would be too small to generate appropriate volume for study area.

2.3

If more mirrored geometries is used: the aggregation would be too dense and the generated study area would have insufficient interior void.

Radius: 15

Cluster 1

Orient Cluster Around Center Icosahedron

2.3 is chosen as it is most efficient.

The same Icosahedron from Step 1 is used as core here to ensure the process is more controlled and parametric. Isometric View of 3

2.3

Cluster 3

Cluster 2

Changing Index of Mirror Geometry

4.1

4.3

4.2

4.4

4.1: the extended chain are too dispersed to form a clear material threshold.

4.5

4.3, 4.4 and 4.5: concentrated towards center, resulting in insufficient void, 4.2 offers sufficient void framed by dense geometries.

From 3

Scale NU

Index: 1

Index: 2

Index: 3

Index: 4

Index: 5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

Scaling Axis: x

Scaling Axis: y

Scaling Axis: z

Scaling Axis: xz

Scaling Axis: xy

Scaling Axis: yz

5.1. 5.5: geometries too clustered at center, resulting insufficient void 5.3, 5.4: geometries too extended, chains become disconnected, difficult to form clear material threshold.

Determining Scaling Axes Scale Factor: 1.5 4.2

Scale NU

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

Ratio: 1.25

Ratio: 1.50

Ratio: 1.75

Ratio: 2.00

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

5.2, 5.6: chains of geometries are still intact while providing sufficient void.

Adjusting Scaling Ratio

5.2, 5.6

From 5.2:

Iteration Set 1 From 6.1

Iteration Set 1: Increasing scaling ratio in y axis elongated the geometries and may lead to loss of clear framing threshold as geometries only intersect with one another in a single direction. Iteration Set 2; Increasing scaling ratio in yz axis enhance intersection of geometries while still maintaining the near spherical void quality I was looking at the begining. However, as the study area designated is only 50 x 50 x 50 mm, 6.6 is chosen.

From 5.6:

Ratio: 1.25

Ratio: 1.50

Ratio: 1.75

Ratio: 2.00

Iteration Set 2 From 6.6

Iteration Set 2 is chosen as final 3D print model as it forms sufficient internal volume with clear material threshold that could potentially be transformed into functional in between spaces.

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES Solid Generation 2

Grasshopper Script for Iteration 2 This script reflects the techniques learned from Workshops 1 and 2 by combining the use of grid structure and mirror geometry in a single script. It consists of two parts: 1) Generating grid structure, with ‘Point Attractor Shuffle Grid’ to manipulate grid 2) ‘Cull Pattern’ and Mirror Geometry: ‘Cull Pattern’ removes elements from grid to ensure that the final aggregation formed will have sufficient void and not overwhelmed by the clusters formed from‘Mirror’ geometry. Geometries are then grown within grid structure. This move is an experiment to create aggregation in a systematic manner controlled by the grid structure.

As in Workshop 1 4) Using ‘Cellulate 3D Grids’

6) Platonic Tetrahedron

two bounding grids

Using Series Component to manipulate rotation angle of plane and radius. Using ‘Deconstruct Brep’ and ‘Brep Join’ components to produce platonic solid

Steps 1 toto5:generate boxes between 1) Generate cube (box) as base geometry 2) Using ‘pt Surface Domain Number’ to create grid points

Single unit

8) Mirror Geometry Each tetrahedron in the grid will form a group or mirrorred geometries.

3) ‘Move’ points to generate 3 x 3 layers of grid points 4) Using ‘Cellulate 3D Grids’to Grid using point attractor.

generate boxes between two bounding grids

7) Using Cull Pattern to remove elements

9) Scale NU to scale in non-uniform factor to produce final geometries.

5) Shuffle Grid using point attractor

5.1

6.4

Iteration Matrix 2

Basic Geometry 9

Mirror Geometry

Pattern: True False False True

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

Start 15 Step 0

Start 15 Step 1

Start 15 Step 2

Start 15 Step 3

8.1

8.2

8.3

Start 0 Step 5 Count 5

Start 0 Step 10 Count 5

Start 0 Step 15 Count 5

Pt Attractor Shuffle Grid

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

Magnitude: 0.25

Magnitude: 0.50

Magnitude: 0.75

Magnitude: 1.00

10.1

10.2

10.3

10.4

Scaling axis: x,y,z

Scaling axis: x,y

Scaling axis: x,z

Scaling axis: y,z

(shown in top view to demonstrate effect)

1st generation

8.1

Factor 1.0 3.1

Rotation

7.2

Radius: 15

Pattern: True False True True

Base Plane Using Series Component

Mirror Geometry 1

Pattern: True True False False

Using Series Component

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES MIRROR GEOMETRY in GRID STRUCTURE

Radius Alteration

Pattern: True False

3.2

10 Scale NU

Mirror Geometry

Isometric View of 8.1

Factor 1.5

Cluster Cluster 1

Isometric Views of 2 & 3 Cluster 2

9.4

Applying Grid Structure 4

Geometry Size Iteration Set 1 From 10.1

Radius: 15

Mirror Geometry

5.1

5.2

Cull Pattern

5.1

Radius Alteration

aggregation in a systematic manner. Tetrahedron is chosen as basic geometry as it has smaller volume when compared to cubes with same radius, which makes it suitable to fit in a grid

From 2.3

From 3.1

From 3.2

6.1

6.2

6.3

Isometric View of 5.1

6.4

Rotation Base Plane Using Series Component

structure while providing opportunities to generate interesting mass versus void relationship. From 5: 5.1 is chosen as it is not too dense, unlike 5,2 and 5.3 From 6: 6.4 is chosen as geometries are still closely related without any being isolated. From 7: 7.2 is chosen as geometries are not over-intersecting and could help in generating sufficient void volume in later stage

Pattern: True False

Pattern: True True False False

Pattern: True False True True

Pattern: True False False True

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

Using Series Component

6.4

From 10.4

This iteration aims to combine techniques learned from Workshops 1 and 2 by creating

5.3

From 2 and 3

Iteration Set 2

From 8: 8.1 is chosen as the variation in orienting angles of 8.2 and 8.3 are too large and may result in fragmentation of pieces during Boolean operation in later stage. From 9: 9.4 is chosen as it creates stronger contrast in the aggregation From 10: In 10.2 and 10.3. layers of geometries become disconnected or fragmented hence incapable to perform Boolean Operation (refer to appendix).

Start 15 Step 0

Start 15 Step 1

Start 15 Step 2

8.1

8.2

8.3

Start 15 Step 3

Iteration Set 2 is chosen as final 3D print model as it forms sufficient internal volume with clear material threshold that could potentially be transformed into functional in between spaces.

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES Solid Generation 3

Grasshopper Script for Iteration 3 This script reflects Growth techniques using ‘Move’ component from Workshop 2. In this iteration, by using planes generated from faces of icosahedron to generate cubes, the resulting geometries is a sphere-like form. Parameters of these cubes including radius, edge length are then manipulated to form the first generation of aggregation (2a). After that, this generation is then growed around a centre geomertry using ‘Move’ component.

2 a) Generate Surrounding Geometries Base Geometry: Cube Base Plane is plane normal to faces of icosahedron. Edge Lengths are adjusted using mathematical components so that the ratio of edge lengths to radius of icosahedron is constant.

1) Generate Core Geometry Icosahedron Using ‘Deconstruct Brep’ and ‘Brep Join’ components as ‘Platonic Icosahedron’ is old lunchbox tool and can only bake with the help of these components.

2 b) Brep Evaluation Evaluate surface of Icosahedron for geometries to grow on.

3) Growth using Move Component Growth elements: geometries produced in step 2a Core for growing: geometry from step 1. Amplitude of movement is adjusted to achieve desired result.

4.1

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES

length of z = radius of icosahedron * y

x=3

x=4

6.1

6.2

6.3

y=1

y=2

y=3

From 5.3

5.3

Isometric view of 6.3

Growth using Move Component

AGGREGATION: MIRROR GEOMETRY + MOVE Mirror Geometry: Choosing Core Geometry

Move

Basic Geometry

7.1

7.2

Amplitude = 20

Amplitude = 40

7.3

7.4

Amplitude = 60

Amplitude = 80

Grow Around Centre Icosahedron 6.3

Icosahedron

Scale

x=2

Using Maths Operator

Iteration Matrix 3

x=1

Geometry Size

2.1

1.4

Radius: 15

2.2

2.3

Radius: 35

Radius: 25

Mirror Geometry: Choosing Surrounding Geometries 3

Basic Geometry

3.1

Mirror Geometry

3.2

3.3

Cube

Tetrahedron

Icosahedron

4.1

4.2

4.3

Cube

Tetrahedron

Icosahedron

This iteration is aimed to explore aggregation derived from a combination of two geometries. By using growth techniques, the core geometry is able to generate growth elements which are distinctively different from itself. This feature is further enhanced by varying parameter such as edge length and amplitude of movement.

Around Icosahedron

Geometries Ratio

5.1

5.2

5.3

Isometric View of 4.1

From 4: 4.1 is chosen as 4.2 produces fragmented result under Boolean Operation while 4.3 is too dense and does not provide sufficient void volume (refer to Appendix)

5.4

radius of cube = radius of core icosashedron / x

4.1

x=1

Scale

x=2

x=3

x=4

6.1

6.2

6.3

y=1

y=2

y=3

From 5: 5.3 is chosen as 5.1 and 5.2 consists of over-intersecting elements that produce fragmented geometries under Boolean Operation while in 5.4 the geometries is too small and loose. From 6: 6.3 is chosen as the long tubes could offer more possibility in produce sufficient void volume and has less risk in producing overintersecting geometries in the later stage (refer to Appendix)

Using Maths Operator length of z = radius of icosahedron * y

From 7: Varying amplitude of movement has direct impact on the volume of void produced in the aggregation. 7.4 is chosen as it offers open void volume framed by dense geometries.

From 5.3

5.3

Isometric view of 6.3

Growth using Move Component 7

Move Grow Around Centre Icosahedron 6.3

7.1

Iteration

This iteraton is chosen as final 3D print model as it forms sufficient internal volume with clear material threshold that could potentially be transformed into functional in between spaces.

7.2

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES

Key Iterations

The process of creating these iterations was not a linear process. It involved exploring and combining different techniques learned from the subject workshop series and also Archistar tutorials, with the idea of ‘threshold as functional spaces’ as the underpinning concept. The iterations above are captured as they have sufficient internal volume with clear material threshold that could potentially be transformed into functional in between spaces. Although the iterations above were created using three seprate scripts and headed into different directions in their formal compositions, the process of creating each of the iterations inform each other as I explore same concepts using different components and manipulating different sets of parameters. For instance, the three iterations were all generated through aggregation in Grasshopper using ‘Growth’ technique, but strategically with different components (i.e. Mirror, Move) and different parameters (i.e. geometry types, sizes, scales, ratio and et cetera). This opened up more possibilities during the process and enabled me to observe how different methods could arrive at the common goal, yet each of them still encompasses distinctive qualities on their own.

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES The process of creating a 3D Print file made me realize my models require a lot of support which result in long print time. I tried to reduce the amount of support and print time by orienting my models differently so that it is more efficient. Even though at the end I have successfully found the best orientation for my models, the final print time still amount to 17 hours.

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES Isometric Drawing

This iteration encourages circulation and interaction in and out of the structure through large openings that aids in permeability and porosity.

Large opening and carved out area allows light to penetrate through

Structure in the midsection establishes threshold within interior spaces, where one side is more porous hence more effective in facilitate interaction

At the opening, edge of structure extruded outwards. It stimulates a change of threshold and may evoke a sense of comfort as people come in to seek shelter Change in volume of interior space: from narrow to more open space as one travels through the midsection.

Large opening can frame view and facilitate interaction. When thinking abouut human scale, this opening could also act as seating area. When thinking in human scale, the sloping edge of the opening can act as seating area. Scale: 2:1

Scale: 1:2

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES Isometric Drawing

This iteration allows mainly linear ciculation path through the center of the structure and encounrages secondary circulation around the outer edge of the structure Carved out area at top allows light to penetrate into the midsection. Large opening with no definite theshold at the entry: blurs the boundary of the structure and encourages exploration around the structure. Layering of form near midsection. When thinking in human scale, this form can act as seating area and may evoke a sense of comfort as its is more sheltered.

Narrow midsection and large openings at both ends: stimulate change of threshold, may evoke a sense of compression and release as one travels through the narrow passage.

Edge extending outwards encourage secondary circulation. When thinking in human scale, the sloping edge can act as seating area. Scale: 2:1

Scale: 1:2

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES Isometric Drawing

This iteration has the strongest material theshold among all three iterations as the access to the centre of the structure is relatively limited. However, porosity such as penetration of light as half of the volume of study area cube is carved away. Half of the volume of study area cube is carved away. Interior of the structure is left open and visible to the exterior. Angled structure at the top that might provide a sense of shelter underneath while at the same time also aid in framing view. Flat, large gometries at this end provide sense of enclosure and protection to the interior. When thinking in human scale, it can act as structure for people to lean on.

Small opening which might help to frame view.

Two angeld structures defines the interior space, providing strong material threshold and limiting accessibility to the central region. When thinking in human scale, they could act as seating area and a physical threshold where people have to cross over to reach the interior space. The structure opens up again at the back with large opening at the bottom. This provides a contrast to the front and might evoke a sense of curiosity as people walk around the structure and peeking into the central region from different perspectives.

Scale: 2:1

Scale: 1:2

SUBTRACTIVE & ADDITIVE PROCESSES 3D Rendered View

Although each of this iteration could across scales (refer to WIX online portfolio for more details), I have chosen the below three as they best illustrate the concept of ‘threshold as functional spaces”. The common features in these three iterations are that the material threshold of the structure could effectively provide space for sedentary occupation.

The material threshold of this iteration has large openings and some of them have sufficient volume underneath to act as seating area. The main parameter that gave rise to this quality is the geometry type - icosahedron. The void it forms in boolean operation closely resembles a spherical void while still maintaining its angular features. This gave the possibility to form these large openings at the material threshold.

This iteration structures extending outwards with passage-like interior space. This led to bluring of boundary and a sense of compression and release as one travels through the pavilion.

The material threshold of this iteration clearly demarcate interior from the exterior. It forms a physical barrier which at the same time, could be transformed into useful functional spaces.

The main parameter that gave rise to this quality is the scaling of geometries in yz axes by a factor of 1.5. In this way, the geometries are clustered densely with narrow void in between.

The main parameter that gave rise to this quality is amplitude of movement using ‘Move’ component. If the amplitude is below 80, there would not be sufficient interior space and the material threshold would be too fragmented to be functional.

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES Study Area Development

two arms extending from the core

layering of geometries with different heights and thickness

voids shaped by icosahedron

This iteration is chosen as it still closely resembles a cube like structure with carved voids. I think it is relatively more rigid and might be benefit from a perpendicularly intersecting waffles XY Waffles.

This iteration is chosen as its main feature is two extending arms from a central core. There are also layering of geometries within those arms. I think these features will be able to captured through the use of Radial Waffles.

As it has this uniquely shaped voids, I intended to highlight this feature in waffle structure by orienting the contour at an angle of 45 degrees and using exponential component to create a variation in density so that the waffles produced will have a ‘dense to light’ effect. This captured the original feature of the iteration while giving it an entirely new quality.

As it has two extending arms, I intended to highlight this feature with two radial waffles intersecting in the middle. Due to fabrication constraint, this idea was however not entirely followed through. Meanwhile, the layering of geometries were captured successfully through pieces of radial waffles with differnt height, which will be shown in the following sections.

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES Sectioning Script 1: XY Waffles

This script reflects techniques learnt from Workshop 3. It consists of three parts: 1) Generating X Waffles and Y Waffles separately. The original iteration is rotated at 45 degrees in Rhino and is then ‘Set Brep’ into Grasshopper. By using ‘Contour EX’ component along with mathematical operators, waffles with variation in density are generated to capture the feature of original iteration. 2) Generation of notches and joining profiles by using cutters at intersecting lines. ‘Cull Pattern’ component is then used to remove any smaller pieces resulting from the cutters, which might be difficult to be fabricated. 3) Components for laser cutting layout.

X Waffles

Set Brep in Rhino

Establishing Contour Starting Planes

Y Waffles

Cull Pattern Removing small pieces that might be difficult to be fabricated . Using Contour Ex to form Waffles with variation in density

Validation Removing small-area-pieces

XY Waffles

Generate Cutters at intersecting lines to form Notches and Joining Profiles

Laser Cutting Layout

to form Notches and Joining Profiles Cull

Removing pieces that are too small and not intact with the main body of waffles

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES

Laser Cutting Layout

Sectioning Script 2: Radial Waffles

This script reflects techniques learnt from Workshop 3 with some own modificatoins. Set A Waffles It consists of four parts: 1) Set Brep into Rhino and set center for radial contour

Generate Cutter at intersecting line to form Notches and Joining Profile

2) Generation of two radial waffles separately to capture features of original iteration and form notches and joining profiles for each set of radial waffles. 3) Trim over-insecting solids and generate Notches an Joining Profile at intersection line between two sets of waffles. 4) Components for laser cutting layout. Set B Waffles To ensure a parametric process, dimensions of rings and count of radial contour are determined by the same set of number sliders. However, I think the third part of this Set A + Set B

script is less parametric as one additional ‘Cull Index’ component is used in order to remove the one piece of waffles that was not able to trimmed in the earlier stage.

Trim Over-Intersecting Waffles

As the two sets of waffles are not perpendicular to each other, majority of the intersecting planes are trimmed using cylinders generated from rings to avoid failure in producing actual laser-cut model. Only one intersecting plane is kept to connect the two sets of waffle.

Rings

Generate Cutters at intersecting lines to form Notches and Joining Profiles

l Contour dary Surfaces

Form Rings and Radial Contour Boundary Surfaces

Generate Cutters

Cull

at intersecting Removing pieces that arelines too to small and not intact with form the main body of waffles

Notches and Joining Profiles

Set A Waffles

Set Brep in Rhino

Set Center for Radial Contour

As this iteration is aimed to produce two sets of radial waffle, the center is not set at centriod. ‘Bounding Box’and ‘Deconstruct Brep’ components are to find vertices of the model.The midpoint between centriod and vertices are set to be the center for radial contour.

As in Workshop 3: This part generates rings and radial contour boundary surfaces to form waffles. It then generates cutters between rings and radial waffles to form notches and joining profiles. Similar procedures are used for both set of waffles, except that in Set A Waffles, one additional ring is added for extra support.

Set B Waffles

Trim Over-Intersecting Waffles

Generate Cutter at intersecting line to form Notches and Joining Profile

Set A + Set B

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES Model Making XY Waffles

Radial Waffles The two sets (Sets A & B) of radial waffles do not intersect each other perpendicularly, hence there will be difficulty in fabrication and assembly of the models as the materials woud be difficult to be cut at an angle. Therefore, majority of the intersecting waffles are trimmed away.

Some of pieces at the edge of waffle structure are quite small and thin. Measurements are taken to eliminate any piece that become too small after generating notching profiles. (refer to ‘Cull’ component in script).

However, in order to keep the structure physically connected as a whole, one pair intersecting planes is kept intact with notching profile generated. This pair will be able to join to each other, but need to be treated with extra precaution, which is a major drawback of this waffle structure.

Some of the pieces on the upper part of the waffle structure could be too small and failed to attach to main body of waffles after generating notching profiles.

For Set A waffles in this structure, some of the pieces have to pass through holes located in the middle of the ring. Extra measurements are taken to ensure that this move is feasible by adjusting the location of the ring.

Precautions are taken to eliminate those pieces and only keep larger pieces that are intact with the main waffle structure.

Moving the ring closer to the edges of these waffle pieces enable the pieces to pass holes more easily while at the same time still maintaining the physical connection.

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES Laser Cutting

The constraints of creating a laser cut files first of all lie in the sizes of laser cutting pieces. In the process, I realized some of the pieces are way too small to be laser cut, hence I have to go back to the grasshopper script to adjust the parameter and eliminated any small pieces. The second would be adjusting and placing the text and pieces to ensure maximum efficiency To achieve maximum efficiency, I tried to arrange the pieces closely and accordingly while maintaining distances of at least 1 to 2 mm between cutlines to prevent hazard during laser cutting process. The main things I have learned are: 1) placement and arrangement of pieces are important to ensure maximum efficiency in time, material and cost. 2) By using etch techniques, each pieces could be labelled with text. Additionally, etching one end of each piece could prevent it from falling into the mesh holes of laser cutting machine and avoid the need to tape down the geometries.

1055131 Jia Min Cheong

Sheet 01 of 01

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES Isometric Drawing: XY Waffles

The contour is orienting at 45 degrees angle to the horizontal. This helps to better capture the voids formed by icosahedron in the original iteration. The ‘dense to light’ effect potentially makes the some of the void region more sheltered, which might evoke a sense of comfort to the user. By varying the density of contour, it creates a constrast within the structure, stimulating a sense in change of threshold as one walks from the heavier to lighter region, experiencing a sense of compression and release brought by the material threshold itself.

slanted pieces enhance carved out region of original iteration Capturing voids shaped by icosahedron, which the left side is more enclosed and shelterd

Column-like structures at corner, reinforcing sense of boundary and threshold. Scale: 1:1

Scale: 1:2

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES Isometric Drawing: Radial Waffles

This waffle structures consists of two sets of radial waffles intersecting in the middle. The exploded diagram shows that the waffles are formed by pieces of different heights capturing the layering of geometries in the original iteration. Only one intersecting plane in the middle to avoid modelling failure.

Scale: 6:1

Scale: 1:1 One extra ring for this set of waffle to provide extra support.

Waffle piece extending outward, although not accurate, resembling the extending structures of the original iteration.

When thinking in human scale, this structural element could be transformed into seating area.

SECTION & WAFFLE STRUCTURES 3D Rendered View

Although the waffle structures display different qualities from the original iterations from Task A, the same underpining concept ‘threshold as functional spaces’ is explored through the images below.

The variation in density of waffle pieces create a sense of contrast within the structure, which denser side is heavier and more sheltered while the lighter side has stronger porosity.

Structural element, i.e the ring could be transformed into a functional space. Larger pieces of waffle could be structures where people could lean on and starts to define small territorial areas between each piece.

This quality is mainly attributed to the exponential component used in the script, which creates varying contour distances.

These qualities are caused by the setting of midpoints in each arm to establish two radial waffles and varying the rings’ size to create desired density of waffle pieces.

3D Print Approval

Appendix

Process of Task A

Earlier testing done after completing Workshops 1 and 2. In this stage, although the main concept was determined, it was not implemented strongly as I was still unfamiliar with the software. Hence, I did not manage to push ahrd enough and produced relatively simple and basic aggregations. Nevertheless, the components that I used in this stage, such as ‘Series’ and ‘Scale NU’ informed my later progress.

disconnected geometries

Iteration 1: Unsuccessful testing Reason: The extrated study areas are lakcing in sufficient internal volume. The material threshold is unclear and some pieces are too fragmented to be fabricated.

fragmented pieces

Iteration 2: Unsuccessful testing (refer to Iteration Matrix 2: 10.2, 10.3) Reason: Layers of geometries become disconnected or fragmented hence incapable to

perform Boolean Operation

Appendix

Process of Task A Iteration 3: Unsuccessful Testing (refer to Iteration Matrix 3)

geometries with fragmented pieces in the center,which would be difficult to be fabricated

From the matrix, the idea of aggregation was further experimented with 4.2 Tetrahedron and 4.3 Icosahedron. However, the aggregation produced proved to be difficult to undergo Boolean Operation and thus considered unsuccessful.

From 5.2, after forming spherical volumes of cube, different methods of forming aggregation was experimented. However, the produced geometries proved to be difficult to form functional interior volume and clear material threshold and thus considred unsuccessful.

From 6, same group of geometries with different scales were tested with ‘Growth’ technique before yield the final result. However, the geometries with smaller scale produced fragmented result with little to no functional internal volume. Hence, at the end I chose geometries with larger scale.

Appendix

Process of Task B Prior to deciding which waffles systems will be employed to each iteration, some preliminary testing were done to examine the effect of sectioning and waffling the structures.

XY Waffles

failed to capture relatively curvilinear form of carved out area

Although XY Waffle system captures the original form exactly and accurately, I reckon it also offers less possiblity in exploring the structure in different light.

big hole

unsupported waffle pieces

Original orientation 90 degrees to the horizontal slanted pieces, capture the carved out area better hole become smaller but still significantly large

Single set of Radial Waffles

Rotated 30 degrees

The produced structure would appear to be quite empty and many of the original features would be lost.

slanted pieces enhanced hole diminished intersecting planes at corners start to resemble column like structures Rotated 45 degrees

From Task A Iteration 1, I think it is relatively more rigid and might be benefit with XY Waffles. When determining the contour angles, I tested with three different degrees of rotation in order to best capture the desired feature. In the end, a rotation angle of 45 degrees is chosen.

From Task A Iteration 2, I experimented with different waffle systems before making the final decision. This was because creating two radial waffles, I reckoned, was actually quite risky as many issues could arise (as mentioned in page 19 - Model Making). In the end, I nevertheless decided to challenge myself into creating a waffle structure that I think my iteration would be best suit for.

Task A Iteration 3 was not chosen to proceed into Task B as the original structure is made up of many angled tube elements. Radial waffles would not be able to capture these features while XY waffles would fail as many waffle pieces are left unsupported in mid air.