Generating Ideas Through Processes

In this project, we are introduced to the three fundamental types of fabrication techniques. They are Subtractive fabrication, Additive fabrication, and Formative fabrication. Subtractive fabrication involves creating something by removing material from a solid form, much like sculpting. Additive fabrication, on the other hand, works the opposite way by creating the model through layering material. Formative fabrication works by reshaping a material through processes such as heat or force.

The concept of the algorithm design process is also a key concept. The 4-steps process of designing an algorithm is to design, analyse, implement, and experiment. The first stage is to identify the problem, then plan a path towards the solution. Next, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm. Finally, the algorithm is written and coded before variables can then be tweaked to experiment with different possibilities. The exploration of ideas and methods are demonstrated in this module.

Matrix Development

I started with creating a 100mm x 100mm x 100mm box to work with, then made grids for my geometries. I started by trying different geometries that would work, and decided on cubes. Then, I customised my matrix through scaling, rotation, placing point attractors and applying growth on the structure.

I employed the basic visual scripting taught in the workshop, but I made adjustments to all the flexible variables; edge lengths, scale factors, rotation angles, point attractor magnitudes, and growth factor. I tried to keep the script as simple as possible as I wanted to focus on the different interesting fragments that can be found within the large 100mm x 100mm x 100mm model, rather than making the main matrix overly complex. I chose to capture the specific results above as I am particularly interested in structures that can be interpreted in a range of ways anc scales. For example, the first iteration can both be a playground or a bedside table, the second can be both a pavilion or a chair, and the third one can be a table or a house. I consider iterations that have flexible purposes ‘successful’ designs. Eventually, I’m working towards a final product that is most suited for people to stay in for a long duration of time.

Creating Isometrics and 3D Prints

The first step is to save the models as STL files, then import them into Makerbot as separate layers, so that adjustments can easily be made. Before exporting them as 3D print files, I checked the model material against the support materials and oriented my models to make sure that the 3D print is in its most efficient state. I also check structural things such as rafting and ensuring that the objects are closed and ungrouped.

The isometric drawings are created by first creating a section using a cutting plane in Rhino. Then, a rendered version will be exported along with a Make2D version of the outlines. The wireframe of the 100mm x 100mm x 100mm box will also be exported seperately to be put into Illustrator. In Illustrator, the lineart is put over the shaded version, while lineweights and stroke shade will be changed, as well as changing the box to dashed lines.

The space test is created by exporting the Rhino model on ‘Rendered’ mode onto Photoshop, then using the magic wand tool to clean up images of the silhouettes, before placing them onto the design.

The first iteration shows the top and bottom platforms of the structure, and two empty spaces carved out of the solid block. I placed the cutting plane in the middle of the design fragment because this shows the most interesting part where the most features can be seen at once. I chose this iteration through testing every matrix developed throughout and decided that this would be the best choice as it has an interesting interior space that can be imagined for various uses. The space is quite permeable since it is designed to have parts that connect and also areas that are appropriately separated. The bottom cut-out creates an interior space across the structure, and there are extra spaces on top of the design that can be used.

The isometric here shows the sheltered areas that can be sat, leaned, or laid on, which is essentially the key idea of this design. I wanted to pick an iteration that had an inviting element to it; where people can freely walk on and around the structure, and stand or sit on it however they liked. Thus. I decided that this design was most suitable for a space that reflected the purpose of a pavilion. In regards to porosity and permeability, the design is tightly linked together in terms of being cohesive and intact, but also contains subtle ‘spacers’ that can define personal boundaries, which can accommodate to the needs of individuals and groups that coexist within a public space.

This sectioned isometric of the third iteration reveals two interior spaces within the structure, which further defines the design’s two main thresholds. I chose to develop this iteration as I wanted to create a design that can be scaled up to the size of a building, hence this structure was the most suitable as it provided both semi-exterior and interior spaces within. In terms of porosity and permeability, the building is mainly solid when observed from the outside, but there are also hidden gaps inside, some of them partially exposed, which emphasises the idea of a space people can be ‘inside’. In addition, this design creates a distinct flow of circulation where people can move freely around and within the building itself.

Space Test

This photo shows a 40:1 scaled version of my enlarged 100mm x 100mm x 100mm fragment, and acts as a space that can be used as a playground or place for hanging out. The empty interior through the middle, as well as the open area on the roof both provide public spaces to inhabit temporarily. It is suited for people who either want to be exposed to or sheltered from the outside. I created this iteration in the early stages of development by tweaking the edge lengths, scales, and angles, then using BooleanIntersection command.

This photo suggests that the design is scaled up approximately 30 times larger than its original size as it would be suitable as a pavilion. Since there are areas to sit, lean, and walk around, it can be a useful design for a public space. I created the open style of the pavilion by adding point attractors to my previous iteration, then used BooleanDifference to create a design fragment using the subtractive method.

This photo shows that the design is expanded to 60 times its size and has become a building that resembles a house or a look-out. The silhouettes represent the main thresholds and circulations. Applying growth to the previous iteration has helped to build more depth and sense of structure to the design. I used BooleanIntersection to form this design as well.

XY Contours and Waffle Process

I first split the X and Y contours into two different lines of code, made two seperately in the same method. Then, I connected the X and Y contours together and modelled the notching before trimming them out of the waffle. After that, I added text dots and text tags, and laid two points to lay out my individual surfaces.

I created the contours, notches and text dots on Grasshopper and baked them into Rhino to edit and export. Overall, the constructibility of the model is very high, and I made checks to ensure that assembly was possible. However, I decided to go ahead with attempting the radial contour process as I believed the potential of the model has not been represented in the most suitable way in the form of a XY waffle.

I downloaded the Fablab lasercut template and pasted the exploded surfaces onto the template. I made sure to adjust the texts on the surfaces so that they are not easily seen after assembly. I made sure to place and align the surfaces in a way where they are the most efficient for lasercutting in terms of the amount of time and material used. Since the model is not too complex or abstract, there weren’t many constraints, and I made sure everything ran and worked smoothly every step from Grasshopper to Rhino to Makerbot and Lasercutting so that there were no errors at all. I’ve learnt a lot about the purpose of Grasshopper and how powerful it is as a tool. It made the lasercutting process so much faster as opposed to exploding the pieces one by one in Rhino and inserting the text tags on each and every one of them.

XY Waffle

I selected the XY Waffle method to represent my first iteration. This form reflects with the cubic and solid characteristic of the original model, although some parts may be tedious to construct. However, this iteration is successful as it clearly shows the two main threshold areas.

Radial Contours and Waffle Process

First I coded the ring and intersection lines, then I made a top and a bottom ring and extruded them. After that I trimmed the planes around my object and finished up by adding notches and text. To explode the surfaces, I simply applied the cluster I had coded before and laid them onto two points. One row was for the tings, while the other is for the individual surfaces.

In the same way, I cut and pasted the Make2D version of the exploded surfaces onto Rhino for adjustments. I adjusted the template by editing the details first, followed by changing all the text onto the ‘etch’ layer, while changing all of my surfaces into the ‘cut’ layer. Then, I rotated and rearranged my surface pieces, with consideration of the 2mm minimum gap between each seperate curve so that the template is as efficient as it can be.

The radial contour method worked really well for my model in terms of making it appear more interesting, while showing more of iits interior compartments. There were barely any constraints while coding, with the exception of making a few adjustments to ensure that the contours extruded properly. The radius was taken right in the centre of the model as I wanted to make it appear more balanced and symmetrical. The waffle is considered successful due to its openness as it can show more features of the structure.

Radial Waffle

I selected the radial contour method to create my second waffle iteration. I believe the radial waffle represents my original model slightly better as it very clearly shows the shapes of the individual surfaces and the differences between each plane. It is also very constructible and reflects the model’s inner details.

Waffle Space Test

This image shows the XY waffle at around 50:1 scale as it resembles a two storey building where people can stay around and on the first and second floor. The form of the waffle better shows the spatiality and texture of the design fragment better. This is the result of exploring two gaps where multiple geometries partially intersected.

This image shows the radial waffle at approximately 50:1 scale as well, but this method has made the model appear more sbtract, which may even allow more space to potentially use and interact with. Unlike the first iteration that implies a closed space, this further developed iteration makes the model seem more abstract and multi-purpose, which seems more effective as a pavilion.