Pattern v Surface M3

Pattern vs.

Surface Foundations of Design: Representation Module 3

Module 3 explores the relationship between pattern and surface through use of terrain. A portion of terrain is assigned to each student, which is then developed using Rhino, and 2D and 3D panelling is introduced. The final model is represented as an interaction between these two dimensions to show the terrain contours.

Sam Delamotte: 835413 Group 9 Anneke Prins

WEEK 6 READING // SURFACES THAT CAN BE BUILT FROM PAPER IN ARCHITECTURAL GEMOETRY

A developable surface is one which can be flattened to a singular plane without distortion of its shape. This is exceptionally interesting in architectural design as it allows surfaces to be replicated in the physical world in a very simple process.

This text describes three different forms of developable surfaces; cones, cylinders and tangent surfaces of space curves. These forms are considered developable surfaces due to their linear construction. For example, a cone is a curve extruded to a point, meaning that lines can be drawn to place the surface on a plane. Cylinders are also developable due to their linear extrusion of a curve, and tangent surfaces of space curves due to the intersection of lines from a curve to a 3d curve.

An understanding of developable surfaces is crucial in architectural forms as it allows understanding of the environment being designed.

Most building materials require rigidity and solid form to account for the structural needs, so it is important to understand the communication of complex surfaces and shapes to a practical world without skewing its effect. Greenhosue by Plasma Studio demonstrates a successful communication of a free-flowing form by using developable surface as a linkage between the environment and building to create unity.

2

DIAMOND PATTERN

TRIANGULAR PATTERN

This pattern, while not communicating the bounds of the terrain, uses a larger pattern surface which instead allows colouration to demonstrate the contours of the model with less distractions.

This terrain uses the Panel 2D Grid command in Rhino to communicate the terrain in a triangular pattern. It forms this design off a 10x10 grid of the panel, panelling the shape evently across the surface.

TRI 2 This form uses the same concept of the triangular form, but instead substituting the triangular pattern for a triangular mesh form.

This subsequently communicates a greater degree of directional flow throughout the design and gives greater definition to it’s boundaries.

Panelling 2D Patterns 3

2D CUSTOM: LIST

2D CUSTOM: SCALE W/ POINT ATTRACTORS

Due to the open design of the shape, there is an inability for this design to show the terrain boundaries. However, this technique is good for representing custom shape panelling which will interact better with the 3D modules.

This pattern, while not communicating the bounds of the terrain, uses a larger pattern surface which instead allows colouration to demonstrate the contours of the model with less distractions.

2D CUSTOM: SCALE W/ CURVE ATTRACTORS This form allows the panellised shapes to vary in size depending on their location with respect to the curves. While this can allow representation of the contour of the terrain, it limits the flow of these shapes.

2D Variable Design 4

WEEK 7 READING // DIGITAL FABRICATION

As technology became more prominent within the design industry, the former disparity between 3D and 2D design began to disappear.

Due to the autonomy and accuracy of CAD, the two-dimensional world increased in relevance as these drawings could directly correspond to the physical world resultant of this accuracy. This allows for greater exploration of the 2D space in developing and refining projects.

The technique of folding materials has many advantages in the world of model making. With focus architecture, there are two main drivers for the extensive use of folding. Firstly, folding allows the development from a flat surface into a three-dimensional form. This allows designed to both limit the materials, but also allows for development of the flat surface digitally, which can then be printed, pressed, cut etc. to the physical world and modelled.

Secondly, folding allows for very precise and clean lines, which can help to further develop the 3D space. Via techniques such as scoring, lines can be formed straight and folded without creasing in a way which can represent more rigid materials used in full-scale construction.

5

3D PANELLING: MODEL 1 To determine the right design for this terrain to adequately represent the contour and landscape, a great deal of experimentation was undertaken. This first model was made with pyramids trimmed to a plane at the top with varying opening sizes. This allowed a clear visual variation in the modules, and meant I could use them to show both height variation and grouping of forms to represent the terrain.

A standard pyramid was also added to be used in places closer to the curve attractor to blend eventually blend the 2D and 3D forms effectively. Although this was a suitable module design, it was too simplistic and did not leave much room for interpretation.

2D PANELLING: MODEL 1 The brickwork design was used here to compliment the square base of the pyramids. It also allows for a degree of complexity within the 2D via folds to represent the contour. This was made by intersection of a rectangle with a singular identical width line placed at the centre of the form to show flow and variation. I did not find this attractive as it created too much differentiation between the two forms.

Panelling Experimentation 6

3D PANELLING: MODEL 2 The inspiration for this honeycomb design form came from one of the models displayed in MSD by Achim Menges. It consists of a hexagon lofted to another hexagon of lesser diameter. This formed a similar effect to that of a beehive initially. The only flaw in this design is that it did not have a square base, and therefore there were diamond shaped gaps between the modules. This was chosen as the ideal design.

2D PANELLING: MODEL 2 The 2D complimentary panelling also used a hexagon of the same diameter as the base of the 3D model. This again formed the same gaps between them as the 3D model which would allow for some exploration of different patterns to fill the space in the model making process.

Panelling Experimentation 7

3D PANELLING: MODEL 3 This design played on the same base concept of model 1 by use of trimmed pyramids, adding a layer of complexity. The first module used the same linework, which was then dropped down a certain amount form the centre on the front and back. This created peaks in the mode, which was then rotated to show this same design on the second module on the left and right sides. These two forms were then combined on the third to create 4 peaks at each edge of the prism.

Although it did increase complexity, the final model appears jumbled and does not flow like the other.

2D PANELLING: MODEL 3 To add to the design of the 3D surface, a similar triangular design was used here. As there is variation in the peaks of the model, the 2D shape uses a flattened pyramid with a skewed top to try to replicate this.

Panelling Experimentation 8

Final Digital Model

9

FINAL TERRAIN DESIGN

The final terrain design used a combination of techniques learnt throughout this experimental process. However, this design does not display the complexity intended through the 3D design. There were many difficulties encountered in the design process, mainly attaining to the unrolling of the surface, where the complexity of the triangulated shape resulted in extremely distorted nets. For this reason, the design was simplified to be achievable. The 2D design incorporates the same 3 module designs, which have been flattened to the base plane. This allows for variation in both the 2D and 3D, which allowed me to reintroduce this complexity. The design uses curve attractors placed along the recessed sections of the terrain to form more defined contours in these areas.

10

UNROLLING TEMPLATE AND FINAL TERRAIN PLAN Unrolling the nets proved to be a very tedious process to track the location and set up of all the edges and cut/fold lines. Some forms had to have the tabs added manually due to the layout.

The numbers shown in the image of the nets correlated to rows and columns from 1-10 either direction. This allows for clear definition of where each row of modules will be placed.

11

Panelised Landscape

12

13

14

Appendix

INSPIRATION As mentioned earlier, this was the model

by Achim Menges in the MSD that drove the design for the planned final product.

PROGRESS An image of the construction part way through the assembly. Each row was assembled, then added to the full model using UHU, double sided tape, masking tape and bulldog clips.

UNDERSIDE The underside of the model, showing the tabs used to hold the modules together and the general layout of the bottom plan.

15