Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2018 Renee Relampagos 832 666 Chelle Yang + Studio 27
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 different types of fabrication are: Additive: incremental formation of the by adding the material layer by layer Subtractive: involves removal of volume from a solid material through different milling processes Formative: mechanical forces, heat or steam are applied onto a material which is then reshaped to the desired outcome There are different ways that CNC can work altogether with parametric design and modelling in real life structures. As discussed in the reading a few of those tackle the use of CNC in the creation of the surface (or the skin), production of the materials used to construct many non-developable components of parametric design and also how it can utilise old and familiar materials such as brick. As the use of NURB surfaces become more frequent, more exploration is undergone into surface constructability - surfaces that are not only visually appealing but also tectonic and geometrically complex, and creating structures that are able to carry its own self-weight and monoque through new materials and CNC fabrication. CNC has also helped in the fabrication of non-developable doubly curved surfaces. Where previously, triangulation as used to make developable surfaces, CNC-milled styrofoam molds can be used to make these non-developable elements.
2
Week Three
Surface Creation
4
1
2 7
8
9
10
5
3
6
On the process of creating different iterations, I decided to first experiment with the number sliders as shown in Workshop 1 to create those shown in 2. I then started to use points made on Rhino to as a basis, plugged into Nurb Curves to create the desired curves (1,2). This was then extruded and baked into a surface.
3
Week Four Panels & Waffle
Perforations are made on the top to allow diffused light through the structure.
Small perforations also create soft lighting within the structure
The panelling on the left part of the structure are potruding pyramids with perforations on the top
Waffle structure revealing a very wide, open space within
4
Week Four
Laser Cutting
z23 z22
x23
x23
x21
x19
x17
x15
z21
z20
z19
A challenge I came across was in the preparation of the tabs where they were not physically constructable because of the size.
5
x23
x23
x23
x22
x20
x18
x16
x14
z18
z17
z16
Another obstacle I faced was during the assembly, the horizontal waffle structures were flipped which meant my vertical panelled surface mirrored the waffle.
Week Five
(1) (3)
(6)
(4)
(7)
(5)
(2) (8)
(9)
The main changes that were experimented with on grasshopper were the different point and curve attractors as shown on (1) which were linked to different thirds of the box. This alterred the positioning and distribution of the chosen breps (4) & (5), which can be observed on (7) & (8).
6
Week Five
Isometric
My isometric was made through the use of a series of intersecting lines which were then extruded and booleaned into one. I chose a section which contained checkered-like pattern on one elevation which reveals a series of different levels and depths. The isometric chosen makes these checkered patterns appear like doorways to seemingly cavernous interiors, which then transition into a series of openings that look like doorways (refer to Appendix for more detailed photos). These aim to create a balance between the space and solids within the structure where light can penetrate.
7
Week Six Task 01
Lofts
1.1
1.31
1.2 {149,99,145}
{845,124, 868}
.4
{801, 135, 0}
{228, 149, 150}
{402, 116, 0} {495, 191, 150}
{149, 2, 145}
{35,101,150}
{140, 2, 131}
{130, 89,150} {537, 191, 0} {258, 149, 3}
{159,133, 2}
{35,101,150}
{845, 124, 0} {140, 2, 0}
{10,99,0}
{734, 122, 0}
{552, 115, 0}
{853, 0, 0}
{10,2,0}
{Index Selection}
{Index Selection}
Paneling Grid & Attractor Point
2.12
.4 {508,150,92}
{40,50,153}
{203,50,85}
Paneling
3.13
{108, 149, 3}
{Index Selection}
2.32
.2
{Attractor Point Location}
{237, 0, 0}
{495, 191, 150}
{801, 0, 0} {Index Selection}
{552, 116, 0}
{822,107,28}
{148,150,68}
{Attractor Point Location}
{Attractor Point Location}
3.33
.2
{Index Selection}
.4
Task 01 Matrix For task 1, I mainly wanted to explore the interaction of 2 contrasting surfaces and panelling which projected light in an intersting way. This is why I chose to use the surfaces on the left hand side. The fairly simple surface on the right allowed more attention to be drawn towards the curvature and perforated panellings of the surface on the left, while still strengthening the concept of light explored through the panelling used. The second one explored the use of a 2d and 3d surface, however, while they do appear to contrast each other in an interesting way, the 2d surface was too flat and did not have the dimensional aesthetic that I liked. This same issue was also faced on the last one.
8
Week Six Task 02
Task 02 Matrix For task 2, I believed that using an interesting shape to begin with would create booleaned surfaces that were also interesting which is why I went with the shape used in columns one and four. As mentioned before, I mainly played around with the positioning and distribution of the breps as well as scale. I booleaned different sections in each perforation and decided to go with one that was visually interesting to me.
9
Week Six
Final Isometric Views
10
Appendix
Process
A few reasons for why I chose (4) was also to do with the scale of the the other iterations and the limitations for 3d printing in terms of time. (2) Section cut variation (1) Original 150x150
(6) Rendered on rhino
(3) Section cut variation
(4) Submitted file for 3d printing
(7) Model photos
11
(5) Brep used to boolean
Appendix Process
12
Appendix
Process
13