deconstrucohedron

EmTech Boot Camp | Group 1 - 02 Nov 2010Riyad Al Joucka | Darrick Borowski | Jack Chandy Francis | Norman Hack

An installation exploring the space-making opportunities of a single component derived from the geometry of a space-filling tessellation.

Contents

Analysis + Research

Design Development

Logistics

Discussion

Deconstructohedron

EmTech Boot Camp | Group 1 - 02 Nov 2010Riyad Al Joucka | Darrick Borowski | Jack Chandy Francis | Norman Hack / 14Analysis + Research

Brief Analysis

Our response to the ‘Hauer Reloaded’ design brief is a result of the feedback of a back and forth process, both between digital modelling and physical/ material exploration, as well as between detail development of a single component and its resulting global form.

This process was led by two central questions which came out of our reading of the brief:

How can the system (rules) we establish inform the component and visa versa (how much will the component write the rules?)

How can the properties imbedded in the component be used to give the component freedom within the system to generate unexpected results?

‘Hauer Reloaded’ Design BriefKey Points:

Single cellular unit as driver of a more complex aggregation in space

A dynamic space / modulate ambient conditions

Evaluated on its performative and structural qualities, construction details as well as on the emergent spatial and aesthetic characteristics

Self-supported and span between three given points in space

Demonstrate its flexibility through changes in global geometry as well as in orientation and assembly of your unit

Generated parametrically and produced through in-house fabrication technologies

Restricted to sheet materials and fabric

EmTech Boot Camp | Group 1 - 02 Nov 2010Riyad Al Joucka | Darrick Borowski | Jack Chandy Francis | Norman Hack / 14Analysis + Research

Our Approach

Initial experiments with folding were consistently resulting in two-dimensional tessellations. After several attempts to develop a system which would grow in space, our team began to look for a precedent to inform our assembly.

We turned to space-filling tessellations. We began working with the bitruncated cubic honeycomb because it utilizes a single polyhedron, the 14-sided truncated octahedron, to create an endlessly repeating closely packed group.

We were excited by the potential structure provided by this system but were cautious that we not limit ourselves to the simple diagram. We would look for ways in which our global form would break free of the rigidly packed polyhedra while using its geometric logic.

The image of foamed plastic (at far left) implying the polyhedron (in the voids) without completing it, suggested to us one potential method of achieving this goal illustrated by the concept sketch (below far left).

Truncated Octahedron

Concept Sketch

Bitruncated Cubic Honeycomb Foamed Plastic

EmTech Boot Camp | Group 1 - 02 Nov 2010Riyad Al Joucka | Darrick Borowski | Jack Chandy Francis | Norman Hack / 14Design Development

Component GeometryExplorationFirst experimentations with packing were tried with other polyhedra such as the Dodecahedron (pentagon sided solid) which turned out to be not space-filling.

The Truncated Octahedron was space-filling and due to its truncation provided a form with two types of face, which allowed for dynamic combinations in space.

The truncated octahedron has 14 sides and therefore 14 possible neighbor positions.

From these locations we can extract a set of 14 vectors, which when reassembled at ran-dom can produce a path of growth...

2

34

5

67

89

1011

12

13 14

1

...or a clustering behavior.


Global Form

Populating the ‘Area of Intervention’ Growth between Attractors

Two initial paths to an overall global form were tried. The first was constructed via a grasshopper script which populated the surface resulting from connecting the three points of the ‘area of intervention.’ The second was made by ‘releasing’ a growth algorithm (via rhinoscript) towards attractor points.

Upon evaluation of the resulting forms it was felt that the polyhedron component was limiting the potential of the global form. We looked for ways the component could be modified to create a more dynamic overall installation and diffuse the reading of the initial polyhedra, which was only meant as a starting point, not as a final product.


Transformations

Transformations such as aperture size can be a determined by factors such as: 1. Global Position - heavier, more structural phenotypes congregate at the base, while lighter components bubble towards the top and extremities2. Environmental Factors - capitalizing on opportunities for interaction with light 3. Programme / Interaction - surfaces can provide opportunities for audience engagement, ie.. sitting, standing on, blocking/framing views

However in all these schemes the polyhedron was still too prominent. We decided to look for a way to break it down to smaller components.

Surface Apertures

Inverted Shell


Deconstruction & EvolutionDue to the excessive symmetry of the truncated octahedron, our system was static. We set out to imbalance our system and encourage an evolution.

This was achieved by reexamining the polyhedron and shifting our focus from the solid form out to its edges, to its skeletal structure. The whole truncated octahedron can be constructed from this unit and it also allows connection to the next octahedron. Therefor the structure becomes endlessly continuous.

From face to edge - geometric construction of the new component

Component construction in 3d from adjoining faces of the truncated octahedron

The revised component is extracted from the vertices of the adjoining space-filling polyhedra.

Truncated Octahedron(Plan View)

Apertures cut into the faces reduce the solid to its skeleton

Axes are drawn from face centres to split the remaining material into adjoining components

The new components fit together via lap joints at the midpoint of each edge


Material Studies

After several experiments in paper, chip-board and plastic, we quickly arrived at wood for the final material for its cost, durability, and its relative lightness and rigidity (as compared to MDF.)

At this point in the process we still were not sure of the final scale and so did not want to limit ourselves by the limitations of working in paper.


Component AssemblyThe change in material precipitated a change in component assembly. Paper allowed for folding, while wood suggested an assembly of interlocking planar elements utilizing the angles of the ‘webs’ to lock the assembly together.

Inspiration for this locking assembly came from interlocking wood block puzzles.

A system of loop, hook and tab was developed and tested in chipboard, and once proven, changed to wood. Tolerances needed to be adjusted as the first attempt relied on the softness of chipboard - the wood did not compress during assembly.

Adjusting the tolerances provided a tight fit.


Inter-ComponentConnectionsFirst experiments with component connection relied on the flexibility of the material to allow the ‘webs’ to slide past one another and provide overlap of surface for fixing.

A continuous planar connection was preferred which led to conversations with the fabrication lab regarding using CNC to route away half the thickness of the material to create a lap joint. The DPL’s CNC machine turned out to be not precise enough to work at this thickness leading to the strategy of laminating half-thicknesses of laser-cut material. The laminated pieces were staggered allowing for components to be lap-jointed, creating a planar connection.

The next issue became fastening. While mechanical fasteners were an obvious solution, this seemed unfulfilling considering the novelty of the puzzle-like component assembly.

Adhesives were also ruled out. While it would provide the desired strength (bonding the materials making them act as one) it would also rule out possibilities of disassembly and re-configuration, rendering the piece a one-time only installation.

This led back to the notion of another locking puzzle piece and resulted in fabrication of a wooden pin.


Growing the Global FormSince the component was derived from the vertices and edges of a space-filling tessellation (the bitruncated cubic honeycomb) all the geometry and rules of that system are built into the form of the component and can be used to stabilize the assembly as it grows.

Assembling multiple components together results in the reconstructing of the original polyhedra. When six components are assembled in the same orientation (following one of the obtuse angled sides, they build one hexagonal face of the truncated octahedron from which is was extracted. Likewise when assembling four the right angled sides in a row, one of the square faces is constructed. Eventually a polyhedron begins to appear. When these re-connections happen, the structure is greatly stabilized allowing further and further growth.

A new Rhinoscript was developed which would assemble the components within our ‘area of intervention’ while allowing for re-configuration in order to work around potential neighbouring installations or other changing environmental parameters. The script uses a control curve along which the component grows allowing for changes to the global form through redefinition of the curve. In this way, it is not only possible to have the component grow in

a linear manner but also to create self intersections of the line which result in interconnections and strengthening of the assembly. Hence by editing the curve the user is able to both work around obstacles in the space as well as define regions of varying density (and thereby stability). Unfortunately, in the current code, the algorithm blindly follows which of the three possible connections will be closest to the curve without checking to see if the decision is structurally

reasonable. It is then up to the user to evaluate each iteration and decide if the solution offered by the script seems reasonable he or she should go back and modify the control curve. A further development of the algorithm would incorporate rules learned from the physical modelling experiments (such as limiting cantilevers to 3 elements then requiring closing a ‘circuit’.) In this way material explorations feed the intelligence of the computational modelling.

‘Area of intervention’ and generating curve Resulting global form

EmTech Boot Camp | Group 1 - 02 Nov 2010Riyad Al Joucka | Darrick Borowski | Jack Chandy Francis | Norman Hack / 14

ConstructionLogistics

Costs 100 components (6 components cut from each 1500 x 1500 sheet of 1.5mm ply (38% waste)£24/sheet = £4/component£400 - project materials cost

Machine Time (Offsite) 14 min/ component23 hrs total (or 2 machines for 11.5 hrs ea)

Component Prep (Offsite)Material prep (cleanup) - 10 min / componentGluing - 15 min / component42 hrs / 4 fabricators 10.5 hours

Installation (Onsite)Fitting - 5 min / component Global Assembly - 5 min/ component17 hrs / 4 installers4-5 real-time assembly hours

During the prototyping process, it became apparent that the group needs a well structured study of the logistics of the component construction.

Aspects of construction were studied including costing and schedule to ensure the feasibility of the project.

In the end it was felt that the project could be completed by our team of 4 persons in 3-4 days at a cost of £100 per person.

Some issues arose, due to our fabrication choices, which we would look into improving on should we take this project one step further:

Craftsmanship - the laser-cutter produces burned edges which we liked the look of but were difficult to work with as they resulted in fingerprints on the components.

Schedule - The use of a laminated component assembly easily more than doubled assembly time.

Assembly Complexity - A more precise CNC fabricator would be preferable to laser cutting as it would reduce the amount of labour and thus reduce time and potential craftsmanship issues.

Logistics

EmTech Boot Camp | Group 1 - 02 Nov 2010Riyad Al Joucka | Darrick Borowski | Jack Chandy Francis | Norman Hack / 14Discussion

Discussion

In closing, we have many aspects of the design we’d like to continue exploring including, but not limited to the jurors’ comments to our final presentation. Below are a few of the areas we feel would benefit from further development:

Develop the logic of re-connections within the global form in order to be fed back into the Rhinoscript.

Remove the Rhinoscript’s reliance on a ‘generating curve’ (as opposed to a real structural logic learned from the material explorations) as the global form is built.

Reintroduce transformations of the component across the global form, including: component deformations, scale and cutting away of ‘web’ material based on component position.

Explore possible changes to the overall scale of the installation.

Explore further material options which would benefit from such scale changes - such as 18mm plywood, corten, stainless or aluminum.

EmTech Boot Camp | Group 1 - 02 Nov 2010Riyad Al Joucka | Darrick Borowski | Jack Chandy Francis | Norman Hack / 14

deconstrucohedron

Documents

single component

spacefilling tessellations

fabricemtech boot camp

packed group

component freedom

single polyhedron

spacea dynamic space

system rules