Experimenting with a Generative Hollow Panel Algorithm:

material and immaterial representation in the search for

flexibility

Larissa Gonçalves Maia da Silva

Under-Graduate Student at Universidade Federal da Bahia

(UFBA) Faculdade de Arquitetura –Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

larissagmaias@gmail.com

Julia Cruz Gaspari Veras

Bachelor in Science and Technology (UFBA)

Under-Graduate Student at Universidade Federal da Bahia

(UFBA) Faculdade de Arquitetura –Salvador –Bahia, Brazil

jcgveras@gmail.com

Marcelo Filgueiras Bastos

Bachelor in Science and Technology (UFBA)

Bachelor in Architecture and Urban Planning (UFBA)

bastos.mf@hotmail.com

*Corresponding author.

Focus 1: Theories of Drawing and Digital Practices

for the Project

Authors:

Fernando Ferraz Ribeiro*

Bachelor in Architecture and Urban Planning (UFBA)

M.S. - Computer Simularion (Senai/Cimatec)

Assistant Professor at Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)

Faculdade de Arquitetura –Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

Researcher at LCAD.

fernando.ribeiro@ufba.br

+55 71 988477586

Kyane Bomfim Santos

Bachelor in Architecture and Urban Planning (Unifacs)

Graduate Student (M.S.) at Universidade Federal da Bahia

(UFBA) Faculdade de Arquitetura –Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

Researcher at LCAD.

kyanebomfim@gmail.com

Marina Moreira Santos Pereira

Bachelor in Architecture and Urban Planning (UFBA)

Graduate Student at Senai/Cimatec –Product Design –

Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

marinamoreirasp@gmail.com

I N T R O D U C T I O N

halved joint and its parameters

Implementation:

Use:

Create a variety of hollow panels by the application of a set of rules and a

defined workflow;

1st version of the algorithm

O B J E C T I V E S

Expand the possibilities of form

generation;

Increase the computational

performance;

Reuse the components with other

shapes and objects;

P E R F O R MA N CE

2nd version of the algorithm

Simplified representation of

geometry

Change in code strategy aiming a

gain in computational

performance

Possibility of reusing 2nd and 3rd

components

When drawing by freehand, the representation is more fluid. If we have the total

control of the drawing forms, they're going to be the result of our imaginary.

Why use four different viewports when one can manipulate

geometry in only one with a perspective view and top view?

A N A L Y S I S

Possible results:

1. Straight line +curves or straight lines +real value;

2. Polyline or curve +polylines or curves +real value;

3. Closed curve or polygons +polylines or curves +real value;

4. Curve or straight line +polylines or curves +curve.

BASE iCURVE HEIGHT

GEOMETRY INPUTS

A N A L Y S I S

Limitations:

1. Intersection in a distance smaller than a

connection length from the axis extremes will

result in a halved joint crossing the upper or

lower limit of the panel;

2. Maximum and minimum length of the

elements;

3. Collisions between elements of the panel;

a. Width of pieces

b. Number of axes

c. Steepness of the base curve

M A T E R I A L / IM M A T E R I A L

The three layers of information

Intangible representation and relations run at the code level

Points, vectors and planes

Intersection types

M A T E R I A L / IM M A T E R I A L

The three layers of information

Intangible representation and relations run at the code level

Points, vectors and planes

Intersection types

A bridge between the intangible and tangible aspects is

materialized through the panel projection

The product becomes tangible through 3D output

Control feeling over the process

Yet, intangibility is still found on the optical effect

2 D C N C C U T T I N G

P R O T O T Y P IN G

Prototyping is

possible through 3rd

component

This method is only

possible when the

joint angle is set to

45°

C O N C L U S I O N

Graphical representation techniques

3D model and 2D projection

Analytical approaches

Mathematical and abstract concepts

3D interface x Mathematical aspects

Future works:

Form-finding optimization

Thermal and acoustic performance of panel

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Davis Daniel, 2013. Modelled on Software Engineering : Flexible Parametric Models in the Practice of Architecture. Melbourn :RMIT University, 2013, 243p.

Harding John, Shepherd Paul, 2017. Meta-Parametric Design. Design Studies. 2017. Vol.52, no. Supplement C, pp. 73–95.

Kolarevic Branko (ed), 2003. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. London: Spon press. ISBN 9780415278201, 2003, 320p, ISBN 0415278201.

Mccormack Jon, Dorin Alan ,Innocent Troy, 2004. Generative design: a paradigm for design research. In: Proceedings of Futureground, Design Research Society. Melbourne:

Design Research Society. 2004. pp 1–8. ISBN 1616890770, 9781616890773.

Milena Stavrić, Ognen Marina, 2010. Application of Generative Algorithms in Architectural Design. In: Advances in Mathematical and Computational Methods. 2010. pp. 175–180.

ISBN 9604742434.

Mitchell William John, 2008. World’s Greatest Architect MAKING, MEANING, AND NETWORK CULTURE. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008, 147p. ISBN 9780262265409.

Oxman Rivka, 2006. Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies. May 2006. Vol.27, no. 3, pp. 229–265.

Picon Antonine, 2011. Ornament and its users: from the Vitruvian tradition to the digital age. Le Visiteur. 2011. No. 17, pp. 176–180.

Stiny George, Mitchell William John, 1978. The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B. 1978. Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5–18.

Terzidis Kostas, 2006. Algorithmic architecture. Burlington: Architectural Press, 2006, 159p. ISBN 9780750667258.

T H A N K YOU !

Fernando Ferraz Ribeiro

fernando.ribeiro@ufba.br

Kyane Bomfim Santos

kyanebomfim@gmail.com

Marina Moreira Santos Pereira

marinamoreirasp@gmail.com

Larissa Gonçalves Maia da

Silva

larissagmaias@gmail.com

Julia Cruz Gaspari Veras

jcgveras@gmail.com Marcelo Filgueiras Bastos

bastos.mf@hotmail.com