| summary |
Shapes in designs created by architects such as Gehry Partners (Shelden, 2002), Foster and Partners, and Kohn Peterson and Fox rely on computational processes for rationalizing complex geometry for building construction. Rationalization is the reduction of a complete geometric shape into discrete components. Unfortunately, for many architects the rationalization is limited reducing solid models to surfaces or data on spread sheets for contractors to follow. Rationalized models produced by the firms listed above do not offer strategies for construction or digital fabrication. For the physical production of CAD description an alternative to the rationalized description is needed. This paper examines the coupling of digital rationalization and digital fabrication with physical mockups (Rich, 1989). Our aim is to explore complex relationships found in early and mid stage design phases when digital fabrication is used to produce design outcomes. Results of our investigation will aid architects and engineers in addressing the complications found in the translation of design models embedded with precision to constructible geometries. We present an algorithmically based approach to design rationalization that supports physical production as well as surface production of desktop models. Our approach is an alternative to conventional rapid prototyping that builds objects by assembly of laterally sliced contours from a solid model. We explored an improved product description for rapid manufacture as bilateral contouring for structure and panelling for strength (Kolarevic, 2003). Infrastructure typically found within aerospace, automotive, and shipbuilding industries, bilateral contouring is an organized matrix of horizontal and vertical interlocking ribs evenly distributed along a surface. These structures are monocoque and semi-monocoque assemblies composed of structural ribs and skinning attached by rivets and adhesives. Alternative, bi-lateral contouring discussed is an interlocking matrix of plywood strips having integral joinery for assembly. Unlike traditional methods of building representations through malleable materials for creating tangible objects (Friedman, 2002), this approach constructs with the implication for building life-size solutions. Three algorithms are presented as examples of rationalized design production with physical results. The first algorithm [Figure 1] deconstructs an initial 2D curved form into ribbed slices to be assembled through integral connections constructed as part of the rib solution. The second algorithm [Figure 2] deconstructs curved forms of greater complexity. The algorithm walks along the surface extracting surface information along horizontal and vertical axes saving surface information resulting in a ribbed structure of slight double curvature. The final algorithm [Figure 3] is expressed as plug-in software for Rhino that deconstructs a design to components for assembly as rib structures. The plug-in also translates geometries to a flatten position for 2D fabrication. The software demonstrates the full scope of the research exploration. Studies published by Dodgson argued that innovation technology (IvT) (Dodgson, Gann, Salter, 2004) helped in solving projects like the Guggenheim in Bilbao, the leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy, and the Millennium Bridge in London. Similarly, the method discussed in this paper will aid in solving physical production problems with complex building forms. References Bentley, P.J. (Ed.). Evolutionary Design by Computers. Morgan Kaufman Publishers Inc. San Francisco, CA, 1-73 Celani, G, (2004) “From simple to complex: using AutoCAD to build generative design systems” in: L. Caldas and J. Duarte (org.) Implementations issues in generative design systems. First Intl. Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, July 2004 Dodgson M, Gann D.M., Salter A, (2004), “Impact of Innovation Technology on Engineering Problem Solving: Lessons from High Profile Public Projects,” Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, 2004 Dristas, (2004) “Design Operators.” Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2004 Friedman, M, (2002), Gehry Talks: Architecture + Practice, Universe Publishing, New York, NY, 2002 Kolarevic, B, (2003), Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, Spon Press, London, UK, 2003 Opas J, Bochnick H, Tuomi J, (1994), “Manufacturability Analysis as a Part of CAD/CAM Integration”, Intelligent Systems in Design and Manufacturing, 261-292 Rudolph S, Alber R, (2002), “An Evolutionary Approach to the Inverse Problem in Rule-Based Design Representations”, Artificial Intelligence in Design ’02, 329-350 Rich M, (1989), Digital Mockup, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1989 Schön, D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professional Think in Action. Basic Books. 1983 Shelden, D, (2003), “Digital Surface Representation and the Constructability of Gehry’s Architecture.” Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2003 Smithers T, Conkie A, Doheny J, Logan B, Millington K, (1989), “Design as Intelligent Behaviour: An AI in Design Thesis Programme”, Artificial Intelligence in Design, 293-334 Smithers T, (2002), “Synthesis in Designing”, Artificial Intelligence in Design ’02, 3-24 Stiny, G, (1977), “Ice-ray: a note on the generation of Chinese lattice designs” Environmental and Planning B, volume 4, pp. 89-98 |
