CONTENTS 1.000 /
WEEK 01
/ P.04
1.100 / LOFTS / P.04 1.200 / TRIANGULATION / P.06 1.300 / OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS / P.08
2.000 /
WEEK 02
/ P.10
2.100 / BOX MORPHING SURFACES / P.10 2.200 / MESHES, CONTOURS, & JOINTS / P.12 2.300 / OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS / P.16
3.000 /
WEEK 03
/ P.18
3.100 / IMAGE SAMPLER PATTERNS / P.18 3.200 / CULL PATTERNS WITH VORONOI / P.20 3.100 / OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS / P.24
7.000 /
WEEK 04
/ P.26
4.100 / FIELD PATTERNS / P.26 4.200 / FRACTAL GEOMETRY / P.30 4.300 / OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS / P.??
5.000 /
WEEK 05
/ P.??
5.100 / 3D FIELD WITH BEZIER / P.?? 5.200 / OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS
6.000 /
WEEK 06
/ P.??
6.100 / DATA TREE STRUCTURES / P.?? 6.200 / RELATIVE ITEM PATTERNING / P.?? 6.300 / PATH MAPPER TOOL / P.??
/ P.04
7.100 / LOFTS 7.200 / TRIANGULATION
8.000 /
WEEK 08
/ P.O4
8.100 / ?????????? 8.200 / ?????????
9.000 /
WEEK 09
/ P.O6
9.100 / ??? 9.200 / ???
10.000 / 4.000 /
WEEK 07
WEEK 10
/ P.08
10.100 / ??? 10.200 / ???
11.000 /
WEEK 11
/ P.O6
11.100 / ??? 11.200 / ???
12.000 /
WEEK 12
12.100 / ??? 12.200 / ???
/ P.O6
WEEK 01: LOFTS
LOFTS WITH 2 CURVES This set of lofts do not utilise any Rhino geometry. Two sets of three points were created using the ‘construct point’ component. Lines were created between the points using either ‘interpolate’ or ‘fitline’, the interpolate option worked better. Beginning with a loft between two parallel straight lines, a number of iterations were created by adjusting each points XYZ position with a slider.
LOFTS WITH 3 CURVES For this set the curves were created in Rhino as polylines, then referenced into grasshoper with the ‘curve’ component (container). The iterations begin with three repeated simple curves, and build in complexity. The third iteration lofts two gentle curves with a ‘zig-zag’, producing a dynamic form.
LOFTS WITH 4 CURVES By lofting with combinations of curved and rectolinear lines, the resulting forms were aesthetically interesting. With each iteration, the relationship between each curve becomes less and less topologically similar, meaning the final lofted surface will be more unique. The last iteration is one of my favourites, as it quite dynamic and could function as a wall/stairs transitioning into an overhead plane.
04
05
WEEK 01: TRIANGULATION
VORONOI AND DELAUNAY EDGES Initially the voronoi tool was used to create curves (cells) around a grid of randomly generated points, but the delaunay tool differs by creating curves between the points. By utilising the ‘triangular grid’ a pattern was created that could be used as a structural grid, where the ‘populate 2D’ combined with delaunay/voronoi achieves an affect similar to the geometry of Fed. Square.
OC TREE The oc tree component builds rectangles or cubes are around a series of points, a ‘pixelated’ effect. Different results have been achieved by changing the number of points, and the base geometry to which the oc tree algorithm has been applied. Interesting forms are generated that explore relationships between cubic geometry and verticality.
VORONOI 3D This algorithm quickly produces interesting linear patterns on 3D geometries. The results could be applied to wall surface, as in the fourth iteration, where the surface is articulated by shifting each geometry in/out. Alternatively the forms could be applied on a much larger scale, i.e. that of a whole building, the simpler geometry of the first iteration would be suitable for this.
06
07
WEEK 01: OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS
OUTCOMES Elegance/form. For each of the previous examples, generally the more time I spent ‘pushing’ the capabilities of the definition, meant the final form being more interesting or elegant. For example on the page of lofted surfaces (p. 4-6), each row of iterations reveals the algorithmic process of exploring the potential in a progressive manner. Beginning in a very controlled manner, the early iterations are results more of my own thinking, where the later iterations were more experimental, letting the definition ‘take control’.
Economy/function. Adversely to the above, the further the definition was pushed, the less practical the forms became in terms of how easily they might be fabricated. Also the more complex the forms became, the less easier it becomes to apply some ‘real life’ functionality.
ALGORITHMS 1. Loft with construct point 2. Oc tree 3. Voronoi 3D
08
1
2
3
09
WEEK 02: BOX MORPHING SURFACES
GENERATING SURFACES The initial surfaces were generated using the Loft, Sweep1, Sweep2, and Sum Surface components. An interesting discovery I made was that when lofting ‘zig zag’ rectolinear curves, a single ‘clean’ surface is not created, and instead a brep linking multiple surfaces is created. This caused problems when it came to plugging in the surfaces to the ‘surface box’ input.
BOX MORPH The box morph component was used to map smaller geometries over the surface. Variations were made by changing the geometry to map, changing the U/V extents of the domain to be mapped, and adjusting the height of the domain. I also tried mapping multiple geometries over a single surface, and deleting the original surface to create perforations.
OUTCOMES Generally the surfaces with a large amount of small geometries are more interesting, and they are more suitable for a garment, being reminiscent of chain mail or a course woven material. The surfaces with larger mapped geometries seem more applicable as architectural ornament. My favourite iteration is the 1st column/bottom row, where the mapped geometry is manipulated to burst through the domain mapping.
10
11
WEEK 02: MESHES, CONTOURS, & JOINTS
MESHES A NURBS surface can be converted into a mesh via both Grasshopper and Rhino. This mesh was manipulated by adjusting the amount of faces that approximate the geometry, and by using the smooth mesh component. Additionally the mesh was deconstructed into its encompassing faces and points, and then the points were used as an origin to construct other geometries.
CONTOURS The contour component easily maps contour lines onto a surface, as pictured their orientation can be adjusted to run along a specific axis. In the pictured examples the contour curves were ‘piped’, to make them clear in the renders, and could also represent a garment detail. An alternative contouring method was achieved by intersecting the base surface with multiple offsets off a planar surface, producing a result that could easily be fabricated.
JOINTS The joint definition creates a series of notched that could be fabricated to join 5 surfaces. Each of the 5 notches would slot together with a ‘tongue and groove’ style joint. This example would have been more successful if the notched pieces were of a more suitable scale for the surfaces, i.e. they are very large.
12
13
WEEK 02: BOX MORPHED GARMENT
14
15
WEEK 02: OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS
1
OUTCOMES Whilst the mesh tool is powerful for fabricating and simplifying surfaces, as seen in the results its difficult to achieve interesting iterative results by adjusting mesh settings alone. The box morphing tool and the contour tool on the other hand are both very applicable to the notion of garment design, particularly with relation to patterning. As the box morphing tool patterns with uniformly size mapped geometries, for me the next step will be to explore a way of achieving variations in size for the mapped geometries. Lastly, the garment were loosely based and appear almost to model a surface human proportions.
like surfaces I’ve created around the human body, like ‘fat suits’. Next I’d like more cosntrained around
ALGORITHMS 1. Box morphing surfaces 2. Offset and intersect surfaces. 3. Convert surface to mesh and mesh settings. 4. Joint between five surfaces.
16
2
3
4
17
WEEK 03: IMAGE SAMPLER PATTERNS
IMAGE SELECTION I chose an image of Merri Creek showing an example of the waterway being polluted with rubbish. This represents my own standpoint that pollution should not occur, and there is potential to explore a means of pollution prevention. Although the image is fairly mundane, the results produce an organic pattern. Additionally its a good means of relating site to design form, in a way that reflects my own design agenda as an environmentalist.
IMAGE SAMPLER The outputs of the image sampler were mapped over a grid of points and used as the basis for creating geometries. As shown in the examples the values generated via the sampler were used to influence factors including geometry size, extrusion height and the number of polygon sides.
CULL PATTERN The cull pattern component was used to remove certain data entries from the list. In the pictured examples a ‘larger than’ component was used to check for specific radii, and output a true/false boolean value. The spheres with the smallest radii were then excluded from the final geometry.
18
19
WEEK 03: CULL PATTERNS WITH VORONOI
BASE SURFACE The base surface is a simple undulating form built by lofting a series of circles drawn loosely around the mesh of a man. The resulting form is a vest or singlet type form, reminiscent of a medieval armour breastplate. In Grasshopper the ‘brepbrep’ intersection component was used to cut holes through the surface for arms.
VORONOI 3D AND CULL PATTERN The base surface was divided into a series of points which were then used as the inputs for a Voronoi 3D to produce various patterns of cells. To achieve greater variation, the cull pattern component was used to remove select points, with a variety of boolean patterns. Finally the patterns applied to the base surface were piped.
OUTCOMES Although the patterns are quite interesting, they would be difficult to fabricate. There is potential for each pattern to be applied to a surface (as pictured), or they could form a standalone mesh like material.
20
21
WEEK 03: IMAGE SAMPLER
22
23
WEEK 03: OUTCOMES & ALGORITHMS
1
OUTCOMES The previous page shows the image sampler applied to an image of sand ripples in the dessert. The image sampler outputs were used to inform: base cube dimensions, and extrusion height. Next I used a cull pattern to extract only the largest cubes, and move them upward slightly to create a more dynamic effect. I believe this was the most successful use of the image sampler, compared with the previous examples. The image sampler will be more effective if a larger amount of samples (points) are drawn upon, however I’ve found that increasing the amount of points will quickly cause Grasshopper to slow down and crash. Much of the process of using the image sampler has therefore been about balancing the amount of samples to get a clear image whilst not crashing the program.
ALGORITHMS 1. Image sampler with spheres and cull pattern. 2. Image sampler with polygons. 3. Image sampler with cubes. 4. Voronoi with cull pattern on surface garment.
24
2
3
4
25
WEEK 04: FIELD PATTERNS
FIELD PATTERNS Field patterns are generated by various types of charges which essentially act as a force in a direction(s), although they will only act as a force if they are converted to an actual vector with the relevant component. These patterns utilise the field line component, which draws a line from an origin point, and then conforms to the field.
SPIN AND POINT CHARGE A point charge originates from a single point, and can create either a pulling or pushing effect around its circumference. A spin charge, as it name suggests, produces a spinning effect around a designated point. For all the charge types, their strength and decay can be adjusted. The most interesting results occur when various charges are merged into a single field, so as they interact with each other.
OUTCOMES The more dynamic/organic outcomes are more successful, as seen to the left side of this matrix. The patterning effects could be utilised to articulate an architectural surface. The example on the following page is my favourite, as the field lines ‘break’, resulting in curious interactions.
26
27
WEEK 04: FIELD PATTERNS
28
WEEK 04: FRACTAL GEOMETRY
29
WEEK 04: FRACTAL GEOMETRY
FRACTAL GEOMETRY Fractal geometry is based upon a single unit, that repeats itself on multiple scales, potentially an infinite amount of times. Geometric proportion remains constant, and the forms build themselves of larger/smaller versions of themselves.
FRACTAL APPLICATIONS The base fractal geometry was manipulated by copying, mirroring and orienting to form a sort of gateway. In the first iteration I was trying to have each end touch the ground perfectly, and although I wasn’t successful, the cantilevered effect is dramatic and interesting. It was a tedious process to move, copy, mirror, and orient in Rhino, so I attempted to do it in Grasshopper without success. Given more time I’d like to develop a definition to create compositions with the base fractal geometry.
OUTCOMES By rendering with a number of materials, the fractal geometries are more easily read. The two examples on this page are not so successful, likely to the geometry being used. The example on the previous page was a result of scaling larger rather than smaller.
30
31
WEEK 04: OUTCOMES AND ALGORITHMS
ALGORITHMS 1. Fractal geometry. 2. Field patterns.
32
33
WEEK 05: 3D FIELD WITH BEZIER
BEZIER GRAPH MAPPING Firstly three iterations were produced by adjusting the bezier curve graph mapping component. This influenced how far the points from each curve division would be displaced along the Z axis. To continue developing the definition, a new curve was introduced by interpolating it through points created by dividing the original curves in three. Two results were achieved by interpolating through all the points, and then using list/branch structure to interpolate only through the mid points.
OUTCOMES The bezier graph mapper tool is powerful in its potential to rapidly iterate form. It could be utilised in other definitions or the design project as an adjustment parameter. The outcomes are effective in communicating how different bezier curves can manipulate geometry. However these geometries are quite simple and don’t suggest utility. The standout iteration is the one featuring interpolate through all points, as it begins to suggest at a complex formal pattern made via interlocking different sized discs.
34
35
WEEK 05: 3D FIELD WITH BEZIER
36
FURTHER ITERATIONS As an experiment, the sweep component was combined with the 3D field. Although this didn’t work correctly, the form created was unexpected, and brings to mind some kind of sci-fi/space creature or craft (left). The original geometry was offset using a normal vector, and then a surface was lofted between the old/new curves (right). Finally, the original geometry was divided up again and used as the basis of generating a new 3D field pattern (below).
OUTCOMES The offset/loft iteration is quite effective, in that it immediately begins to suggest a readable architectural form. It could be a building with a large central courtyard, and each level is comprised of the dynamic layering effect, with programmatic and circulative interactions occurring between the distinct pods.
37
WEEK 05: ALGORITHMS
3D FIELD WITH OFFSET AND LOFT
38
39
WEEK 06: DATA TREE STRUCTURES
STANDARD
FLATTEN
SIMPLIFY
GRAFT
40
OUTCOMES The param view component visually diagrams how grasshopper stores data in ‘tree structures’. The simplest structure stores a list of indexes on a single branch (data path), this is achieved with ‘flatten’. The ‘graft’ function takes each list of items and gives each item its own branch.
41
WEEK 06: RELATIVE ITEM PATTERNING
42
RELATIVE ITEM The relative item component takes a data list structure, and the values within this data list structure can then be offset by a specified amount. In these examples the data list structure is the intersection points between curves. Changing the data list with the relative item component will shift the location of the points, resulting in new patterns occurring.
43
WEEK 06: RELATIVE ITEM PATTERNING
44
OUTCOMES The relative item component can be utilised to produce a variety of developments to a pattern, therefore it is of great use to the patterning research field. These examples have explored how the architectural outcomes might be a steel grid shell, although the technique could easily be transferred to a garment. For example to create a weave or panelling effect.
45
WEEK 06: PATH MAPPER TOOL
01 NULL MAPPING
02 FLATTEN
46
03 GRAFT/TRIM MAPPING
04 FLATTEN/NULL MAPPING
47
WEEK 06: ALGORITHMS
PATH MAPPER DEFINITION
48
49