Digital Design - Module 02 Semester 1, 2019 Zachari Adam Orelowitz 910231 Daniel Parker - Studio 12
Critical Reading: Kolerevic B. 2003. Architecture in the Digital Age
Kolerevic described three fundamental types of fabrication techniques in the reading. Outline the three techniques and discuss the potential of Computer Numeric Controlled fabrication with parametric modelling.
The advent of computers inherently and consequently uncovered a new realm of complex and numerically controlled design. However, whilst it was now possible to generate such design concepts, equally complex fabrication techniques had to follow in order to convert these new digital images into physical contributions. In Kolerevic’s, “Architecture in the Digital Age”, he describes three fundamental fabrication methods for the construction of 3D objects; additive; subtractive and formative. Additive Fabrication: The successive layering of ‘2D’ material to generate a 3D solid. The most common form of this is ‘3D Printing’, although there are range of curing processes and materials available to utilise. Subtractive Fabrication: The removal of material from a larger volume. Furthermore, the degree of rotational freedom a certain milling machine has, prescribes the limitations in terms of its production capacity. Formative Fabrication: The use of mechanical force, steam or heat to strategically deform and reshape a material. This technique is significantly more common on large scale projects where extreme accuracy is required in the construction of beams, pins and structural members; etc. Whilst it is not to say that these methods did not exist prior to the digital design era – in a more rudimentary form – it was such methods that truly bolstered and ultimately enabled designers with the ability to render digital image into a physical form. Computer Numeric Controlled fabrication allows for extreme accuracy and the use of complex digital data to be transformed into physical space.
2
SURFACE AND WAFFLE STRUCTURE Surface Creation
PANEL VARIANCE Brep: Taken From final surfaces in order to simplify the journal script Quad Grid: To take the mid points of the surface grid Surface Closest Point: To convert the points into UV locators Evaluate Surface: To extract surface normals at surface grid midpoints Line SDL: To take the vertical Z-Axis as a reference vector Angle: Generates a Radian angle between surface normals and the Z-Axis. These were then converted into Degrees. Bounds and Remap: To standardise angle magnitudes, allow the script to work effectively on all generated surfaces
OFFSET GRID MANIPULATION *Note similar method to above, however: Surface Domain Number: To take 5x5 panel grid points Bounds, Remap, Number Sliders: To standardise and exemplify angle magnitudes: Allows for control/exemplification over max and min grid offset values in relation totheir relative normal angles against the vertical. Offset Grid: Offset panelling grid in the direction of the surface normal, and as a percentage of the normal’s angle of attack against the vertical.
3
SURFACE AND WAFFLE STRUCTURE Surface Creation
Number Sliders: Generate a decimal real number between 0 and 1 as angle values have been standardised between these bounds. Larger Than/Smaller Than: Set boundaries for the number slider values in order to generate an adjustable domain to then tile specific panels across the grid, depending on surface angles. And Gates: Set and internalise range of values larger than x1 and smaller than x2 as defined through number sliders and <> commands. Mesh Brep and Morph 3D: To identify a rhino panel, mesh it (so it is developable) and then output it as a grasshopper object. Note that 5 components were used in order to achieve smoother transition over the surface angle change. Cull Pattern: To select, reject and allocate specific panels to tile at specific surface grid points; based on that specific grid points difference between the grid midpoint surface normal and the vertical.
My model posed various challenges in terms of scripting. Foremost of which, was the fact that one of my surfaces has 3 points within the same plane. Due to a mismatching set of contour lines, I was required to rescript of the waffle code in order to resolve data structure. However, this ultimately allowed my panels to be triangularly symmetrical in the sense that in both vertical directions the waffle met ground (or extended into space) through a single point on one edge and a row of fins on the other.
4
Example of early iteration, interplay between openining and diffusion of light
Gaining complexity in light entrance module, however the panelling still appears
through surface vector dynamic
random and doesnt blend into a single system.
5
SURFACE AND WAFFLE STRUCTURE Surface Creation
In essence, this model was an attempt at self-referential and systemic design. As such all data used to manipulate the panels – both in variation and offset - was extrapolated and reinforced back within the surface topography itself. In order to accomplish this, the angle between the Z-Axis (Vertical) and the surface normal at each of the panelling grid midpoint was evaluated and standardised – this data was then put back into the system by varying the panels via their angle of attack against the vertical. A similar process was undertaken for the offset grid which enabled strong control of the panel offset based their individual angles of aggression. I found this particularly interesting as the outcome is now an internalised system of design. As a result, I would argue that there is an objective, inherent and underlying cohesion and a sense of emergence as the structure is designed from within itself – conceptually and aesthetically beyond what I may have generated without the data itself and my own subjective design choices.
Final Design; Gradual rotation of slits with the increasing angle the surface. Double pyramid module halves enclosing over the openings to redirect lighting to generate more complex threshold through visual porosity. The unity of the design now reflective of the scripts internalisaition of data.
6
Isometric View
Isometric 1:1 at A3 Isometric 1:1 at A3 5 10
20
5 10
20
50mm
50mm
The concept I wanted explore through panelling was the notion of threshold and circulation via light porosity and visual transparency. As a result, I developed 5 progressing panels which were built of two components; a double pyramid and slitted section. Both of these components act in unison with one half generating and the other dispersing light through the design outcome. Moreover, I attempted to reference the notion of ‘blossoming’; with the increasing angle of aggression at each panel grid prescribing the double pyramid segment to pull back further, engaging greater light penetration through the slits. Further, the slits themselves gradually rotate from horizontal to vertical throughout the surface – again based on the normal angle – subtly enhancing and implying the curvature of the surfaces as well as generating additional visual complexity. This ties in nicely with the waffle structure as the panelling outcome is now just a systemic extension of its form. In doing so, the waffle appears to meld between the two surfaces with the structure just emerging at points beyond the surface overlap. Additionally, as mentioned prior, the waffle itself is vertically symmetrical with each end meeting the ground at a point on one edge and structural row on the other.
7
SURFACE AND WAFFLE STRUCTURE Laser Cutting
1:1
1:2
2:1 2:2
1:3
2:3
1:4
2:4
1:5
2:5
Unrolling error correction, via onrolling, verlay and trim of non-holed geometry.
The unrolling process when preparing this model was particularly cumbersome. Each individual panel had to be exploded so the pyramids could unroll separate to the flat slitted segment in order to avoid overlapping. Additionally, when meshed the slitted segments were triangulated into 60+ sections, making accurate unrolling impossible and a non-developable surface. In order to overcome this constraint, I was required to bake a non-holed slitted area with the same form as my segments; unroll that; overlay it atop my slitted unrolled panels and then manually trim out the holes/place fold lines in the most accurate representation possible.
8
SURFACE AND WAFFLE STRUCTURE Matrix and Possibilities
1:1
1:2
(0, 0, 135)
(75, 0, 150)
(0, 0, 150)
(150, 0, 150)
(30, 150, 150)
(150, 150, 150)
1:3 (0, 150, 150)
1:4
Surface Edge Iso Cruve
(150, 150, 90)
(0, 150, 150)
Hidden Edge/Iso
(150, 0 150)
(X, Y, Z)
(150, 0, 135)
Control Point
(150, 0,105)
(150, 90, 150)
Lofted Surfaces
KEY
(0, 0, 135)
(0, 0, 150)
(0, 0, 0)
(150, 0, 60) (75, 150, 0)
(150, 0, 45)
(0, 0, 135) (150, 0, 0)
(150, 0, 0)
(150, 150, 90) (150, 0, 0)
(0, 150, 0)
(0, 0, 135)
(75, 150, 0)
(75, 150, 0) (0, 15, 0)
(135, 150, 0)
2:1
2:2
(0, 0, 0)
2:3
2:4
Surface Grid Point Offset Grid Point Surface Normal Vector
Offset Grid & Surface Vectors
Surface Edge
Left: (16, 6) Right: (6, 31)
Left: (36, 23) Right: (24, 28)
Left: (7, 40) Right: (56, 7)
3:1
3:2
3:3
Left: (34, 60) Right: (69, 42)
3:4
Offset Grid Bounds (MM)
Left: (Max, Min) Right: (Max, Min)
The variable parameter in my matrix was largely the data manipulation of the surface normals; how this affected offset distance and panel culling. I found that iterations grew aesthetically stronger with lower offset values that allocated min values at lesser
Panelling
magnitudes of angle. Additionally, by adding 5 panels over 3, I could gradually and mechanically transition the panelling system Triangle Crop w. Single Pyramid
Slit w. Single Pyramid
Double Pyramid Pullback
Slit Rotation w. Pyramid Pullback
from one form to another over the differential angle change, giving the overall form a sense of cohesion and underlying order.
9
Structure develops threshold through light porosity, with overhanging panels â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;buddingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as their angle increase - an intermediary/vestibular spatial form. Conversely, the opposing surface offers affordances for seating and tangible engagement.
10
Looking at how changes in scale effect function. The left image providing an example of the structure as an archway and space of transition - not large enough to act as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Threshold is developed through layering of light and shadow, with users circulating directly through from one end to the other. Again arch-like space acts as a transitional thresholdseperating one potential spatial realm from another. The right image acts on a larger scale. The underlying space which was once transitory, now acts as a grounds for gather and performance. Groups can cluster under the structure to engage with the space, which is now reinforced through the light dispersion down through the panelling system - now acting as a unifying presence.
11
At a smaller scale, the interior waffle formation of the structre acts as a lens - allowing direct views through the system. This angle also subtly (conceptually and visually) references an eye, with the waffle mimicking the pupil and panelling acting as lashes. Interesting contrast between the directionality of views through the ‘lens’ and the diffusion of light through the panels. Additionally, at this scale panels generate interestiing physical affordances and space for users, with one surface’s panels directing outward while the other turns inwards back into the structure.
12
SURFACE AND WAFFLE STRUCTURE Photography of Model
Additional views of the physical model to demonstrate the ‘blossoming’ effect and curvature of the form - accentuated with the rotation of the slitted panels from vertical to horizontal. The form also acts as an interlocked duopoly, with one surface overhanging users whilst another curve outward toward the ground plane.
As discussed earlier, the internalised system of design for this model is as interesting as the outcome itself – I would contend here that the process of construction is inexplicably intertwined with the final outcome, with each being directly informed by and informing one another within a greater ‘design eco-system’. Moreover, the angular data extrapolated allowed for generous design control; enabling a gradual transition of geometry as well controlled offset variation. In congruence, these panelling elements; the rotational slit; pullback and variation of the double pyramid allow for a ‘blossoming’ which maps to the surface angle. In doing so, threshold is generated via light penetration through the slits and then further diffused across the pyramids. It should also be noted that the pyramids revert most substantially at the strongest surface angles allowing for the largest light penetration at underlying and overhanging sections.
13
Visual Scripting of Parametric Model
BASE OF MOBUIS SCRIPT *Note that for my development, sliders were occasionally replaced with bounds and remap values and varied through a form of an attractor
Radius of Base Circle
Number of Frames
Radius of Perpendicular Polygon Frames
Define amount of polygon edges
Perp Frames: Generate a series of frames that are perpendicularly mapped along the base circle. Polygon: To define the form of the mapped Perp Frames. Allowed for generation of mobius strips with 3+ faces and the variability of their radii. Rotate, Series and Division: To gradually rotate the specified count Perpendicular Polygons so they complete a 360 degree rotation across the base circles perimeter. Each recurring rotation was an iterative value by dividing 360 degrees by the count of the frames. Loft: To loft the polygon frame edges in order to generate mobius surfaces. Brep: Output the crafted Mobius strip as an object to bake into Rhino.
The mobius script above was used in conjunction with the workshop script. Bounds and remap values allowed for interesting scaling and rotation opportunities.
14
SOLID AND VOID Surface Creation
Spherical subtractions generate interesting arena-esque cut outs. Providing spatial voumes which reflect back into their centre points. Could be interesting in terms of acoustic effects.
Quadrilateral Mobius strips generate undulating cave like formations. Interesting to see how the disrupted ground planes could lead to prescribed circulation and threshold through elevational difference.
15
Whilst the spherical forms provided interesting spatial possibilities, the Mobius geometry offers significantly more complex iterations. As a fourth dimensional shape perceived in the third dimension, the form has an interesting inherent circulation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; whereby linear progression simultaneously reinforces and contradicts itself. With no orientability and only one side I thought it would be interesting to see how its negative form could generate space. I found these outcomes particularly interesting as there is a distinct differential between vertical and horizontal elements, however at the same time the entire structure twisting into one overall form. Additionally the carvings in the horizontal elements generate interesting undulation which could prescribe strict circulation to users or separate interior spatial elements from one another via elevational threshold.
Symmetrical section where pentagonal mobius strips have been subtracted. Interesting column forms are generated where the skin and structure have now melded into a fluid form. Additionally, the bifurcation of the section and rotation of the column elements provides torsional strength to the form.
16
Skin and Foundation of the structure are now a unified system. Interesting internal views through the section and column elements generate a perpendicular intersectional like circulation with multiple levels acting as further threshold.
17
Ground undulations determine user circulation and generate spaces to recline. Additionally, changes in height act as a threshold - offering spaces for clustering and staging.
18
When stacked the structure can generate a larger entity - acting as a semipermeable wall. The bifurcation in combination with the twisting columns would likely embue the design with torsional strength and structural integrity whilst still remaining light. Such a structure would generate physical threshold whilst also allowing for visual transparency and ground poristy. Interesting contradiction, whereby the function acts as a barrier whilst the form acts as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;connectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Again, yet in a more explicit way here, the skin and structure meld.
19
SOLID AND VOID Isometric view
Pictured on the left is the final iterative section of my Boolean Modelling process. Whilst it offers underlying spatial qualities; its function, porosity and permeability are largely dependent on its scale. As demonstrated in the images above, at a larger scale the space is orthogonally permeable with a centralised crossing point. Additionally, the large openings and sweeping columns which emerge from the horizontal induce ground porosity by offering views through and guiding users into the structure. On a smaller scale, the model can be duplicated/stacked, ergo acting as a larger system. In doing so, the congregated model now acts as physically impermeable structure; whilst allowing for light penetration and visual porosity.
Isometric 1:1 at A3 5 10
20
50mm
20
Cullulate Manipulation
1:1
1:2
1:3
KEY
1:4
Cube Edge Boundary Cellulate Wires Hidden Edge
(59, -103, 73)
Attractor Curve (X, Y, Z)
Attractor Point Volume Centroid Pts
(16, 59, 107)
(88, 97, 37)
(0, 75, 0)
(Point Attractor)
(Point Attractor)
(Point Attractor)
(Point Attractor)
2:1
2:2
2:3
2:4 (100, 57, 118)
Centroid Point Differentiation
(-6, 70, 142)
(106, 53, 0)
(63, 109, 0) (86, 91, 0)
(63, 109, 0)
(Point Attractor)
(Point Attractor)
Object Variency
3:1
(Curve Attractor)
3:2
Sphere; Varying Scale
3:3
Hexagonal Mobius Strip; Uniform
Task B Matrix
(Curve Attractor)
3:4
Quadrilateral Mobius Strip; Varying Scale and Rotation
21
Quadrilateral Mobius Strip; Varying Rotation
Whilst I experimented with a range of iteration manipulations in terms of rotation and scaling; ultimately the complexity in the Mobius geometry left the cross sections with the least rotation and scaling variation to be the most effective. Whilst this was an unexciting realisation, the end forms of this end up having a greater sense of order and spatial presence.
FINAL THREE PRINTED MODELS
22
Appendix
Process
Viewcapture of Boolean Iterations (all pictured were made after file loss)
Viewcapture of Panelling Iterations
Top Viewcapture of Panelling progression, both in design and number. Shows development
Coloured Panels used for unrolling process (broken down into strips of 5)
process of rotating slit design.
23
Appendix Process
Completed waffle structure pre -panelling
24
Bagging of panels for organistion during build
Begining of panelling process
Final development of Surface One, before attachment.
Attachement of Surface 1 Panels to waffle.
Appendix
Process
STL File in Print Prep Phase (shown in makerbot software)
Thickness Analysis of Final Boolean Iteration
Print Preview of Model; using DD Makerbot settings; Replicator+ and True White Fillament
25
Appendix Process
Updated Grasshopper script for Waffle Structure in order to allow for one surface to have 3 points within the same spatial plane.
26