Foundations of Design : Representation, SEM1, 2017 M3 JOURNAL - PATTERN vs SURFACE Sandra Lin
915202 Carl Areskoug Studio 15
1
WEEK 6 READING: SURFACES THAT CAN BE BUILT FROM PAPER IN ARCHITECTURAL GEOMETRY Question 1: What are the three elementary types of developable surfaces? Provide a brief description. (Maximum 100 words) Cone: has a vertex at v and curve (or p) means that it gives a pyramid like surface with tangents all leading to v at the top. A helix is a curve of constant slope that comes from cutting a cone Cylinder: Made of parallel lines that connect two circles which unrolls to form a rectangle. A non orthogonal section cut of a cylinder forms an ellipse. Tangent surfaces of space curves: curves become developable surfaces by adding in tangents. The lines on the curve connecting the tangents are called planar segments. These planar segments are developable strips have unique algorithms which preserve planarity. Hence this means the surface can be divided continuously making it the most developable surface as the tangents are to the surface not a point. Question 2: Why is the understanding of developable surface critical in the understanding of architectural geometry? Choose one precedent from Research/Precedents tab on LMS as an example for your discussion. (Maximum 100 words) An understanding of developable surfaces explains the architectural history of buildings and design. Which shapes are able to hold their weight and how different geometries join together in reality vs imaginatively through digital design is explored. For example with Cloud Canopy the relationship between developable (buildable) and non developable geometries was explored. The conceptual idea of tessellating hexagons to create a honeycomb ‘canopy’ was analysed with many versions of digital software and engineers, exploring steel depth/weight and material type and placement so that a fluid development process was possible. Maddison architects had to understand that the hexagon geometry may be developable on its own but when arranged particularly (e.g. tilted at a certain angle or bent a certain way) it becomes a non developable surface. In knowing the limitations, conceptual design limits may be further explored as the design is reimagined to retain its original integrity but also the design brief. This may make the construction more difficult but not impossible.
2
PANELLING 2D PATTERN
2d Panelling, Pattern: Triangular
2d Panelling, Pattern: Wave
2d Panelling, Pattern: Dense
3
VARIABLE 2D PATTERN
Custom 2D variable panel: this is the hexagon shape that was used for the 3D panel and is varied using attractor curves at opposite sides of the panel.
Custom 2D variable panel: this used a simpler custom panel however was varied more intricately. 3 sizes of octagon were seected and varied using point attractors.
Custom 2D panel: this panel was created using only a hexagon. Instead of cgenerting space through varied sizes, space naturally formed via teselation and also allowed for othere gemoetries to be present without altering the size of the panel or 10x10 grid.
4
3D PANEL TEST PROTOTYPE & TEMPLATE
These panels remained the same for the final surface, only the
Prototype: experimentation with the joining and tesselation of the 3D and 2D panels. Note the tabs folded in or out of the
construction method was slightly altered.
space to how each geometry was to be filled with ivory card (using a panel of 3 triangles), before decidingto leave empty in final one as this “filling� looked unnatural since it blended into the rest of the developpable 2D.
5
WEEK 7 READING: DIGITAL FABRICATION Complete your reading before attempting these questions:
Question 1: What is digital fabrication and how does it change the understanding of two dimensional representation? (Maximum 100 words) Digital fabrication eases the transition between 3D and 2D design. It also changes the way an object is represented and perceived e.g. a wall is altered into a roof or floor depending on its position or orientation. Hence digital fabrication allows conceptual limits to be explored and design to evolve from folding (2D into 3D). It means representation becomes more subjective and the process of design more interactive as existing preconceptions and structural norms are set aside to allow for an interactive design and fabrication process. This allows for conventional 2D representation to evolve imaginatively or vice versa for a 3d design to become practical and developable since structures are made from a series of parts; digital fabrication helps to break down these parts into its fundamental geometries.
Question 2: Suggest two reasons why folding is used extensively in the formal expression of building design? (Maximum 100 words) 1. Folding mimics the developable possibilities that occur naturally in real life. It creates a simple transition between a concept and buildable surfaces or objects. A continuity and fluidity. There is confidence and assurance in using folding because structure is added but integrity of material and design is maintained which is important in communication of design (because complexity may lead to confusion = lost in impact of design and appeal 2. Folding also allows “new spaces and territories to emerge� from a single material without too much analysis into developable or non developable surfaces. Different geometries may be explored simultaneously and it integrates 2D and 3D representation. It brings attention towards aesthetic of design rather than functionality yet also gently highlights structural impossibilities.
6
EXPLORING 3D PANELLING
The final 3D panel involved 3 different modules, one hexagon and two variations of octagon. The points of the grid were offset diagonally and also at a slope following the landscape i.e. the height decreased as the terrain decreases. The 3D panels were deleted in groups of 3 (since it is M3). The deleted pattern on one half of the panel corresponded with panels on the other i.e. the same order only mirrored or offset. Hence the pattern of deletion or 2D is not symmetrical, rather a variation or group of different panels that when viewed from the plan create paths accross the landscape. Inspiration was taken from Donald Bates’ lecture and also “Cloud Canopy” at Federation square which both explore patterns, geometries and how elements work in relation to others, involving hidden complexities.
7
UNROLL TEMPLATE OF YOUR FINAL MODEL
Unrolling went considerably well compared to the other stages of the digital fabrication. The combination of a hexagon against an octagon meant that the sdoules could not be joined to unroll together hence I had to unroll each panel separately. Also note that the interior tabs (on the concave side) of each panel has unnecessary tabs that were removed at the cutting stage. As the developable geometries did not tesselate smoothly it made the fabrication process more difficult but not impossible. Assembling each panel individually made the project more time consuming however was necessary to maintain the integrity of the design idea. In order to join the 3D to the final 2D I also had to construct each section of the 2D geometry separately I l left the naturally undevelopable space between the hexagonal and octagonal panels open as it helps to highlight the difference between panel types rather than blending into the sea of 2D geometries.
8
PANELISED LANDSCAPE
In exploring pattern and surface my conclusion is that negative space is equally important as positive space and that
Notice the contrast of hexagon against octagon, 2D against 3D, empty space against solid as well as the relative heights. Each
each module may exist on its own or be represented as varied groups to generate different patterns and or surfaces
design element helps to highlight the other. The design may seem random however there is a pattern to the layout.
9
APPENDIX
Unrolling points and faces did not work as there were gaps and the edges would overlap. Fortunately UnrollSrfUV removed any of these issues.
Here the integration of 2D and 3D is shown as described on page 7. Blue is removed to become 2D. 2d itself has a pattern through the 3D, the octagons and hexagons form a pattern as do 2d and 3d, to come together and work as one surface.
10
Gluing each panel together. The process was made quicker using a regular glue stick and small clip and uneven curved surface. Whereas UHU and masking tape were used for joining 2D and 3D
Each 3D row was colour coded before printing. However I chose to print in black and white and label the ivory card in pencil instead as the paper was only temporarily stuck to the card and would fall off too easily.
APPENDIX
The empty panels represent the flattest sections of my landscape. The use of a heagon naturally creates a diiamond geometry in between however the final panel uses octagons which are the majority of of the 3D panels
Cutting out and scoring each panel, by far the most time consuming. The computer had to be used as a constant reference point to keep the sections in order.
I attempted to create alternating patterned and blank panels using the panelling tool but this warped the 10x10 grid. Also very few edges lined up with the 3D modules on top
A general layout of the final surface experimenting with the final tabs and methods of joining. Note the 2D space is completely filled in between the octagonal 2D panel, these were excluded from the final surface as they detractd from the other geometries and also made the space too flat. There are unscored 2D panels which mimic the flattest parts of the original landscape.
11
APPENDIX
Tabs had to be manually added as the 2D panel automatically added tabs on too many edges
The final joining technique of the hexagons and octagons. UHU is used in combination with thin strips of masking tape to secure the edge and add strength. I did not cut the tabs off but folded them in towards the 3D panel. Gluing down the tabs was not an option as the tabs were quite short so they were stronger and ended up warping the panel when bent.
12
A multitude of different 3D panels were considered. Varied using attractor points or custom panel sizes or attractor curves or arrangement type.
I experimented for a while with 2D to try and make the surface developable and also so tabs could be added. On the right a planar surface has been created which enabled tabs to attach but to every edge. It also meant that the inner pattern was not preserved.