Ingrid Cecilia

Task 0

This task was completed using Rhino software, in accordance with the provided instructions.

Task 1

The objective of Task 1 was to experiment with 3D printing for the first time. I designed a set of buttons by selecting one of the curves created in the previous task and transforming it into a 3D shape. The modeling process involved the following steps: Extrude → Pipe → Boolean Union → Cylinder → Boolean Difference. To reduce the printing time, I only printed two of the buttons.

Task 2

Task 2 involved using the laser cutter for the first time. I utilized the boundaries of the curves to construct a triangle, which was assigned to the 'cut' layer in Rhino. The circle was also included and placed on the 'engrave' layer.

Task 3

I created a vase shape using Grasshopper. To start, I selected a base curve from the previous tasks. This curve vas moved upwards using the components Series, Unit Z, and Move, generating a series of vertically stacked profiles.

Next, I wanted to introduce a dynamic twist to the form. I rotated the curves using: Radians → Series → Rotate.

To further refine the shape, the curves were scaled non-uniformly using a combination of Range, Graph Mapper, Multiplication, and Scale, allowing for smooth variation along the vertical axis.

After shaping the form, the bottom surface of the vase was constructed, and the walls were given thickness using the Offset component. To finish, I applied Mesh Brep to generate a visually interesting mesh surface. This process included: List Item → Boundary Surface → Loft → Merge Items → Offset Surface → Mesh Brep.

Prior to 3D printing, the entire model was uniformly scaled down within Grasshopper to reduce printing time from approximately 8 hours to 3 hours, while maintaining the overall proportions of the design.

The 3D print was generally successful, however, some issues occurred near the top of the model.

Task 4

A simplified truss roof structure was developed in Grasshopper, inspired by the reference example. The geometric model consists of linear elements. To construct the geometry, points were first generated and then used as start- and endpoints to create the connecting line elements.

Task 5

Task 5 is to use the same structure as in Task 4 to create a Karamba structural model and perform an analysis. I used the glulam material GL32h with a cross-section 100x200mm. To prepare the geometry, all lines were first merged and then connected to the "Create Linear Element" component. This output was subsequently fed into the "Assemble Model" component. The supports were defined by selecting the relevant support points, merging them, and inputting the result into the "Support" component. The support definition was also connected to the Assemble Model. Load cases were defined to simulate both vertical (gravity) and lateral loading conditions. The two separate load cases were created and connected to the Assemble Model. The Assemble Model component provided the total mass and center of gravity of the structure:

· Mass: 7069 kg.

· Center of gravity: {30.0, -2.05289, 3.154723}.

The assembled model was then analyzed using the "Analyze" component. The maximum displacement for the two lad cases are 2.8 cm for LC0 (-3, vertical, gravity) and 1.4 cm for LC1 (10kN, lateral, PointLoad) .

The "Analyze" output was connected to the "Model View", then to "Beam View", and finally to the "Legend" component for visualization. The utilization ratios were evaluated for each load case: 39% for LC0 and 14% for LC1. Both values are within the acceptable limit, which requires ratios to remain below 100%. To improve structural performance, adjustments can be made to geometry, material selection, or cross-sectional properties. Utilization and deformation are visualized below and highlight critical areas.

Task 6

Task 6 involves using the same structural model as in Task 4 to perform a hand calculation. The model was simplified as much as possible while still allowing for manual analysis. The same loads as in the Karamba simulation were assumed.

The hand calculations indicate significant deformation, in contrast to the Karamba results. This is likely due to the simplifications made in the manual model. Increasing the cross-sectional area could be an effective way to reduce the deformation.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse