Technology|Architecture + Design

ISSN: 2475-1448 (Print) 2475-143X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utad20

Made-to-Measure: Automated Drawing and

Material Craft

Scott Overall, John Paul Rysavy, Clinton Miller, William Sharples, Christopher
Sharples, Sameer Kumar, Andrea Vittadini & Victoire Saby

To cite this article: Scott Overall, John Paul Rysavy, Clinton Miller, William Sharples,
Christopher Sharples, Sameer Kumar, Andrea Vittadini & Victoire Saby (2018) Made-to-Measure:
Automated Drawing and Material Craft, Technology|Architecture + Design, 2:2, 172-185, DOI:
10.1080/24751448.2018.1497365

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2018.1497365

© 2018 SHoP Architects

Published online: 29 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1413

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utad20
 Made-to-Measure 172
TAD 2 : 2
OVERALL ET AL. 173

Scott Overall Christopher Sharples

SHoP Architects SHoP Architects

John Paul Rysavy Sameer Kumar

SHoP Architects SHoP Architects

Clinton Miller Andrea Vittadini

SHoP Architects SHoP Architects

William Sharples Victoire Saby

SHoP Architects SHoP Architects

Made-to-Measure:
Automated Drawing and
Material Craft

PEER REVIEW / MEASURED

Automation in architectural design and docu-
mentation has often been a siloed process
where discrete parts are scripted while other
production is organized by analog docu-
mentation procedures. A made-to-measure,
direct-to-drawing process provides an al-
ternative model, leveraging the embodied
expertise of skilled trades through digital
automation of design and measured drawings.
As a practice that questions relationships
between digital processes and building, SHoP
Architects pursued the joint application of
craft knowledge embodied by established
trades with computational intelligence mani-
fested through automation in the design of the
WAVE/CAVE Pavilion in Milan. With WAVE/
CAVE as a case study, this paper explores
the precedence, context, and procedures as-
sociated with automation of fabrication and
material knowledge in design and drawing
production, demonstrating a bridge between
analog craft and digital scripting through
made-to-measure automated drawing.
 Made-to-Measure
TAD 2 : 2
v Opening Image. Interior of completed
pavilion. (Credit: © Delfino Sisto Legnani)
r Figure 1. Exterior of completed pavilion.
(Credit: © Tom Harris)
174
Introduction
The computer enables a paradigm of design thinking, including processes and
outcomes, that past methods of practice were unable to conceive. Computational
design in practice has surpassed the realm of hypothetical imagery in which the
design exists within a virtual world where the only constraints are algorithms.
Implications of computation extend beyond formal design, restructuring traditional
relationships of communication and responsibility. The emergence of computation
in project delivery allows digitization of material craft, empowering the designer
to simultaneously determine material, space, form, and fabrication procedures.
Through computational design rigor, each component can be digitally configured as
a constructible part, creating a new responsibility for the designer to develop and
manage fabrication with unprecedented involvement, commonly referred to as
“direct to fabrication.” Where communication between an architect and contractor
is conventionally facilitated through shop drawings as a confirmation of understand-
ing and capacity to produce an intended product, direct-to-fabrication leverages
the architect’s involvement in fabrication through management and output from a
coordinated digital model. This relationship creates the potential for new efficiencies,
shortening the distance between design thinking and fabrication processes, remov-
ing the divide between the architect and fabricator that unnecessarily complicates
communication and separates the design of buildings and building systems.1
Recognizing both the efficiency and the opportunities for increased control and
precision of the direct-to-fabrication process, SHoP Architects explored new work-
flows in the WAVE/CAVE installation in Milan, Italy, as part of Interni Magazine’s
Material Immaterial exhibition at the 2017 FuoriSalone (Figure 1). WAVE/CAVE was
developed as an extended architectural experience of fabrication, material, and form.
The project drew upon examples over the past decade, including projects such as
SHoP’s Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York, and Gramazio & Kohler’s Winery
OVERALL ET AL.
Owner
General
Architect Subcontractor
Contractor
Subcontractor
Architect Subcontractor
Direct-to-Fabrication
Division
(Fabricator)
r Figure 2. Project team structure. (Credit: © SHoP Architects)
Gantenbein in Fläsch, Switzerland, which were designed to deliver
models and machine code for production machinery, thereby remov-
ing the intermediary of a tradesperson from the process. Direct-to-
fabrication processes offer new efficiencies, but also raise questions:
Given the narrow fabrication toolset often available to architects,
will outcomes also narrow? Are there new ways manufacturing and
making can be delivered computationally? And what of the embod-
ied knowledge of the skilled tradesperson operating in contempo-
rary building practice? WAVE/CAVE considers these questions,
providing a case study in how computation delivers a complex proj-
ect through direct-to-fabrication, incorporating the craft knowl-
edge of tradespersons and leveraging years of learned experience
without constraining the design to computer-controlled fabrica-
tion methods alone.
Direct to Fabrication
The direct-to-fabrication process creates a unique relationship
with fabricators, necessitating a different organizational structure
and workflow. In a standard architect and contractor relationship,
the architect delivers architectural drawings, thereby interpreted
and transcribed into engineered shop drawings by the contrac-
tor or fabricator in pursuit of approval by the architect in meeting
design intent. If necessary, the fabricator will produce fabrication
drawings from approved shop drawings to instruct the tradesper-
sons on the factory floor how to assemble the fabricated product.
Lines of communication in such a relationship are often slow and
convoluted by several intermediaries, resulting in construction
methodologies not married directly to the design, or a design not
respecting the constraints of construction methodology, sacrificing
quality for speed or speed for quality.
Direct-to-fabrication has been enabled by the continued devel-
opment of both computer numerically controlled (CNC) and 3-D
computer-aided manufacturing (CAD) technologies that determine
cut angles, tool paths, and bend angles directly from 3-D CAD files
using computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software as the inter-
mediary with limited to no human intervention. With the means to
manufacture from 3-D models, the architect can, in theory, work
in a fully model-based environment where the design model is
175
developed and refined into a deliverable fabrication model, bypass-
ing the architectural drawing process save for regulatory and legal
systems designed for paper documentation and team members
who have not yet trained for model-based delivery. The architect
can then use their expertise with digital craft to deliver the fabrica-
tion model themselves to maintain control over the design. Despite
the draw of designing and delivering projects in a single 3-D envi-
ronment, 2-D fabrication documentation cannot yet be abandoned
entirely.2 Workers on the fabrication floor are reliant on 2-D docu-
mentation referencing directions on how to assemble systems and
to perform processes that are not yet CNC controlled.
In the direct-to-fabrication relationship, the architect instead
takes on a much closer working relationship, developing the shop
drawings in close coordination with the fabricator and, in turn,
taking over the fabrication drawing process entirely. In negotiat-
ing contractual involvement and liability, the architect can create a
separate legal entity in which the team engaging with the fabrica-
tor is legally separated from the team engaging with the client or
general contractor while remaining in close communication. This
allows for a direct correspondence with the fabricator that may not
have otherwise been possible in a typical contract structure, creat-
ing a more productive line of communication with the fabrication
PEER REVIEW / MEASURED
team. Such fluid communication provides an ability to work with
the fabricator directly in coordinating construction methodologies
and building systems as integrated and inseparable from the design
(Figure 2).
In a direct-to-fabrication project structure, strong working rela-
tionships with fabricators are necessary, as shop drawings take on
a different role of laying the groundwork for fabrication drawings,
establishing correct tolerances and connection details while con-
sidering the variable elements to be documented. In some instanc-
es, the close relationship between drawing types allows for shop
drawings to be simplified or skipped entirely, while the architect is
still reliant on the fabricator’s knowledge of means and methods,
construction tolerances, and equipment limitations to help estab-
lish the parameters of fabrication drawings.
The efficiencies of a direct-to-fabrication structure are made
possible if the architect is able to leverage an expertise with digi-
tal craft and their intimate knowledge of design geometry. Coupled
with the fabricator’s knowledge of assembly details and con-
straints, fabrication drawings can be more efficiently produced to
meet design intent, reducing errors and inconsistencies between
design and execution. The benefits are seen most clearly in, but
are not exclusive to, mass-customized architectural elements,
where a small number of shop drawings may describe several parts
with slight variation or idiosyncrasies. With the architect able to
deploy digital building systems across the entirety of a design proj-
ect parametrically, the architect can achieve a desired product
while also identifying fabrication challenges, unique conditions, or
break points where details may no longer be valid or new details
are developed and deployed. Through this process, design quality
can be greatly improved as the overall design model and assembly
methodology are refined simultaneously, so that systems of build-
ing are integral to the design rather than a forced response. In some
cases, including at WAVE/CAVE and SHoP’s Barclay’s Center, the
design model even becomes the fabrication model, making design
and assembly methodology entirely inseparable.
 Made-to-Measure
TAD 2 : 2
Lessons Learned from Past Work
The process behind WAVE/CAVE is an extension of SHoP’s previous
work and research in direct-to-fabrication processes. Beginning with
Dunescape, constructed at MoMA PS1 in 2000, the firm initiated an
exploration of novel methods that bring complex building systems
to fabrication. Dunescape’s complex landscape was achieved by
systematizing the free-form design into a simple construction system
consisting of 2 x 2 cedar sticks and 3-inch wood screws while varying
the length and angles of the sticks to create sectional frames shap-
ing the form surrounding the pavilion program. The simplicity of the
system allowed for alternative forms of construction documenta-
tion—printed full-scale color-coded templates—allowing for acceler-
ated production on site characterized by unskilled volunteer labor
working under a very tight time constraint.
Dunescape has served as an important building block containing
central ideas common in subsequent direct-to-fabrication work. Fore-
most, digital information can be used to drive rational assembly and
delivery of complex form, and the systemization of design is crucial
in producing efficiency in construction. When the variable elements
are reduced to essentials, the number of measurements, jigs, tools,
and unique pieces are minimized, allowing the fabrication effort to
be focused on the unique conditions and fabrication processes that
matter most to the specific execution and intention of the project.
Systemization enables prefabrication of elements, allowing repeated
tasks and tooling to be streamlined within a controlled environment.
Once the nature of the material and construction systems are
made clear, alternative forms of documentation and representation
are viable. In a CNC-based process, such as the ones used for the
176
Poka
-Yoke
Camera Obscura at Mitchell Park, in Greenpoint, New York, and the
Botswana Innovation Hub in Gaborone, Botswana, the dimensioning
of parts is unnecessary because CNC fabrication is directly facilitat-
ed from a CAD drawing or 3-D model read by CAM software to con-
vert the CAD file directly to the appropriate machine code. In these
projects, SHoP used exploded axonometrics as assembly diagrams,
not unlike assembly diagrams for a model airplane or IKEA furniture.
If the system is designed so only one correct way of assembling the
parts is possible, and parts are properly tagged and tracked, tradi-
tional dimensioned drawings are no longer necessary (Figure 3). In
the case of Camera Obscura in particular, no measurements needed
to be taken on site. A single weld in the entire project to attach a cam-
era apparatus was located via a printed template.
As the scale and complexity of projects has increased, new pro-
cesses have been explored to automate more of the modeling and
documentation work. In the examples of the Barclays Center and
the Botswana Innovation Hub, the 3-D CAD and Project Lifecycle
Management (PLM) software CATIA was used to manage the pro-
cess. CATIA’s parametric modeling and documentation capabilities
were leveraged to facilitate system modeling, enabling modules of
systems to be deployed on the façades and allowing the elements
designed to handle the variable global geometry—defined as the
building-scale geometry that controls the system geometry—to
adapt to differentiated inputs.
While the CATIA workflow has proven to be well suited to man-
age the modeling and documentation of complex systems at a fab-
rication detail level, the traditional digital fabrication process still
would have required manual work for each element that would
OVERALL ET AL.
Traditional Paper Workflow Typical Model-Based Direct-to-Fabrication Workflow
Architect Architect
Design Model Design Model
Architectural Drawing Fabricator Architectural Drawing
Shop Drawing Shop Model
Fabrication Drawing Fabrication Model
Machine Code
CNC
Assembly Diagrams Assembly Diagrams
Assembly
v Opposite page. Figure 3. Axonometric assembly diagram from the
Botswana Innovation Hub. (Credit: © SHoP Architects)
r Figure 4. Comparison of 2-D paper drawing and 3-D digital model
workflow. (Credit: © SHoP Architects)
have been time prohibitive in the execution of WAVE/CAVE. While
CATIA can easily output variable dimensions, the software is not
well suited to manage variability of elements. Within an assembly of
parts, systems are hosted to a global geometry, or as singular ele-
ments within a system. If the number of parts or tooling requires
change based on an additional data input—more parts or tooling
information—the designer is typically responsible for modeling
those changes. If the global geometry is altered, the system geom-
etry may not be able to fully adapt. Additionally, in CATIA the 2-D
documentation can be tied directly to the geometry of the mod-
ule to adapt the drawing as the geometry changes, yet the user is
required to manually check each drawing to ensure dimensions are
properly and legibly annotated, and scripting the dimensioning is not
possible; only very simple dimension resizing can be performed.
At WAVE/CAVE, an opportunity was presented to reconsider
direct-to-fabrication workflows. WAVE/CAVE employed a simi-
lar project team structure as past large-scale direct-to-fabrication
projects, with the design team handling fabrication drawings and
an outside fabrication team—in this case, NBK and Metalsigma—
managing the fabrication itself, requiring much of the same types of
modeling and documentation that was required in previous projects.
However, for a crucial step in the fabrication process—cutting of the
terracotta extrusions—a CAM software to directly convert models
to the CNC saw was not available, necessitating the production of
detailed paper fabrication drawings. The pavilion scale allowed for
some reduced model complexity, leading to the hypothesis that the
necessary fabrication and assembly paper documentation could be
fully automated instead, releasing a bottleneck that had been pres-
ent in past projects in the production of assembly drawings. With a
fully automated documentation process, the design model and fab-
rication model no longer needed to be detached, allowing the design
to develop alongside the documentation rather than through sepa-
rate processes (Figure 4).
Computation and Material Craft
Since Alberti, the architectural discipline has pursued allographic
production, notably distinguished by symbolic notation or drawing
as the output of an architect’s practice, contrasting the builder’s
177
WAVE/CAVE Hybrid Model+Paper Workflow
Architect
Design Model
Fabricator Architectural Drawing
Fabricator
Shop Model Shop Drawing Shop Drawing
Fabrication Drawing
Machine Code Machine Code
CNC CNC
Assembly Diagrams
Assembly Assembly
Manual Conversion
Model Refinement
Automatic Conversion
Collaboration
autographic work with the building as material form. 3 While the
drawing serves as an artifact and communicatory medium antici-
pating the fabricator’s work, each practice involves craft—defined
PEER REVIEW / MEASURED
broadly as a highly developed skill predicated on informed
mastery and experience, demonstrating “judgement, dexterity,
and care,” as the aesthetic historian David Pye has defined.4 Pye
elaborates, categorizing design work as propositional symbolic
thought and workmanship as dispositioned material form.
Reflecting on early applications of computational manufactur-
ing and production, Malcolm McCullough critiqued established
positions of making, anticipating digital craftmanship in compu-
tational practice, and this argument has been demonstrated and
reinforced through direct-to-fabrication processes. Considering
the influence of the medium—both physical material and digital
computation—McCullough suggests the differences between
symbolic and material craft collapse in the context of computa-
tional making, where individual knowledge creates variability and
craft in digital and physical constructs. 5 For WAVE/CAVE, the
design and project team sought to leverage the embodied knowl-
edge and understanding associated with an established practice
of material craft—in this case, terracotta—through programming
digital intelligence of design scripts, automating embedded con-
structability through notational drawing production.
Where measured geometry and architectural composition
converge, it is critical for the designer to manage both the design
and fabrication process. WAVE/CAVE follows the historical prac-
tice of stereotomy, of Philibert de l’Orme, François Derand, and
Guarino Guarini, bringing to bear the method of describing mea-
sured stone cuts in the construction of a larger, more complex
geometry through digital processes. 6 The direct delivery of mea-
sured cut files to the fabricator has been championed by a handful
of contemporary practices—see, for instance, the critical writings
and work of Mark Burry and Jane Burry, and their indexical cata-
loging of recent digital modes of architectural production, allow-
ing oversight of design and more direct lines of communication
between designer and fabricator.7 The workflow has demonstrat-
ed success in promoting a shared effort in pushing the limits of
fabrication processes.
 Made-to-Measure
Materiality
WAVE/CAVE engages a dialogue with the tradition of material craft
exemplified by the fifteenth century Gothic terracotta moldings
and sculptures of the courtyard in which it stood. The critic John
Ruskin described Gothic ornamentation as the ennoblement of
craft through the quality of “changefulness, or variety.”8 In Ruskin’s
Gothic, each detail, each ornament was an expression of the freedom
and genius of the workman. His concept of the Gothic served as an
antagonistic foil to the expanding mechanization of his time, which,
in his view, conflicted with established practices of artisanship and
material production. The terracotta industry has evolved consider-
ably since Ruskin’s time. The work of today’s terracotta fabricators
relies on the knowledge and mastery of extrusion tolerances, cutting
processes, and required wall thicknesses. Through a geometry that
reveals, pushes to the breaking point, and is itself defined by these
characteristics, WAVE/CAVE lays bare the embodied knowledge
and genius of the material’s production and workmanship, supported
by computational design and automation.
After the 1930s, architectural terracotta fell out of style as an
ornamental material. Large-scale terracotta manufacturing tran-
sitioned from the decorative reliefs of Louis Sullivan to terracotta
extrusions in competition with concrete and metals as a façade sur-
face treatment.9 In recent years, the use of terracotta has seen a sig-
nificant resurgence as a surface treatment for its perceived depth,
warmth, and sustainability as a clay product. At the WAVE/CAVE
TAD 2 : 2
installation, the office looked to further its investigation in terracot-
ta, integrating digital technology to augment the design and manu-
facturing of the material as both an ornamental and formal construct.
By leveraging SHoP’s experience in direct-to-fabrication process-
es, the architectural team took the responsibility of documenting
and managing each terracotta tile according to the scripted design.
Expanding on the office’s previous design and fabrication research—
including Dunescape, Camera Obscura, the Barclays Center, and
Botswana Innovation Hub—the office set out to fully realize an
entirely automated workflow of design and documentation, previ-
ously performed semi-manually, bringing the benefits of total auto-
mation to a traditional fabrication and production process. Through
this approach, the team efficiently managed the fabrication and con-
struction of complex, unique geometries.
WAVE/CAVE is unique not just in the creation of parametric, 3-D
geometry, but also in the delivery of a fully parametric, measured
2-D fabrication drawing set. While it may be that the 3-D model is
a future paradigm of practice, a great deal of change is necessary for
the construction and fabrication industries, as well as the legal envi-
ronment, to phase out the 2-D drawing set.10 Instead of waiting for
this paradigm to change, SHoP has adapted new procedures for the
2-D drawing to fulfill project and project team needs in the present.
Project Overview
WAVE/CAVE is a 55-square-meter topographic composition of
1,670 unglazed terracotta blocks. The blocks are extruded through a
custom die and CNC cut into 797 individual profiles. Stacked in three
tiers, the interior faces of the blocks reveal a surprising ornamental
richness as they describe a smoothly curved surface inscribed within
a perimeter wall 3.6 meters high. The unique extrusions feature regu-
larly fluted exterior faces and a webbed cross section that exposes its
full geometrical complexity when cut at various inclinations.
178
Design Concept
SHoP’s contribution to Interni’s Material Immaterial exhibition at
FuoriSalone 2017 is a study of “the slow”; a quiet commentary on
solidity, deep time, and the contemporary pace of change. WAVE/
CAVE is presented as an extended architectural experience in two
acts. In year one, the system of 1,670 fluted terracotta blocks were
arranged as a soaring sculptural enclosure, open to the action of life
around it but accessible only to the imagination and the gaze. At a
future date, the same composition will be rebuilt in the inverse, creat-
ing a meditative space for contemplative inhabitation. A purposefully
massive construction, evoking the constant of gravity, WAVE/CAVE
gestures to the sky, but in its final inverted state will invite viewers to
peer into the cave-like space.
Design Process—Materiality
When exploring initial design concepts, the project team investi-
gated performative and visual consequences of square profiles,
nested tightly within a rectangular grid. Due to the compact nest-
ing of square profiles in plan, it was deemed cost- and time-prohib-
itive, requiring an excess of terracotta. This directed the design
towards a hexagonal pattern, facilitating the creation of void spaces
between the extrusion profiles to lessen the density and amount
of material used.
Two firing processes were available, using either a box kiln or flat
kiln, distinguished by the capacity of size. The box kiln available was
capable of firing terracotta with a profile less than 250 mm in diam-
eter, whereas a flat kiln was able to fire tiles with a profile less than
100 mm tall and 400 mm wide at a much faster rate. The terracotta
profile was designed to be fired in the box kiln (Figure 5), but as time
became more limited, it was necessary to redesign the profile accord-
ing to the limitations of the flat kiln for increased delivery speed.
Rather than stand alone as a decorative profile, a 400 mm x 100
mm tile was selected allowing pairing with adjacent tiles to create
a larger, ribbon-like gesture, establishing an apparent continuity
between tiles (Figure 6). The final profile was deliberately designed
with consistent wall thicknesses of 10 mm, as recommended by
NBK to minimize deformation through extrusion and firing pro-
cesses (Figure 7).
With the profile resolved, the layout required reconsideration.
The profile would work in both a hexagonal and offset rectangular
grid. The hexagonal grid was chosen for its inherent structural rigid-
ity allowing further resistance to shear forces and more predict-
able nesting during construction, preventing inconsistencies during
installation (Figure 8).
Design Process—Global Geometry
The global geometry of the pavilion was conceived as a swept arch
carving out the resultant negative space of the terracotta, necessitat-
ing a translation from a double-curved surface to a faceted surface,
cut from the terracotta tiles with a CNC saw. Initial studies triangu-
lated the surface, so each tile received a single, flat, doubly mitered
cut resulting in an overly simplified faceted surface that did not
provide the desired texture.
To achieve heightened perception of surface texture, the team
investigated cutting tiles twice, which would have increased the num-
ber of facets in the resulting form. Because the design surface was
concave, however, it was not feasible to merely increase the density
OVERALL ET AL. 179

100
243

400

225
100

400

r Figure 7. Prototype of selected extrusion. With the profile resolved, the

layout required reconsideration.R The profile would work in both a hexagonal and
offset rectangular grid. The hexagonal grid was chosen for its inherent structural
R rigidity allowing further resistance to shear forces and more predictable nesting
r Figure 5. Initial box-kiln- r Figure 6. Final extrusion profile. during construction, preventing inconsistencies during installation.
sized hexagonal grid profile. (Credit: © SHoP Architects) (Credit: © SHoP Architects)
(Credit: © SHoP Architects)
F F

PEER REVIEW / MEASURED

R
Rectangular Tiling is unstable under a lateral force
R v Figure 8. Inherent stiffness:
hexagonal (left) and rectangular
(right) tiling. (Credit: © SHoP
F F
Architects)

R R

Rectangular Tiling is unstable under a lateral force

R
F F
R
R R
Hexagonal Tiling is stable due to triangulation
F F

F F
Hexagonal
Rectangular Tiling is unstable under a lateral force Rectangular
The Hexagonal grid is inherently stiff due to triangulation
Second cut
is The rectangular grid is unstable under lateral loading and would require
an additional bracing scheme.
chosen to ensure
convex cuts on
each individual
Hexagonal Tiling is stable due to triangulation v Figure 9. Vertex separation.
tile (left) simplified cut planes
R R (middle) simplified cut planes
Vertices are Splitting of edges with voids removed (right) final
allowed to sepa- are not noticed geometry. (Credit: © SHoP
rate at voids when voids are
Architects)
removed

F F

Hexagonal Tiling is stable due to triangulation

Simplified Cut Planes Simplified Cut Planes Final Geometry

with Voids Removed
 Made-to-Measure
Number of resulting
Faces in region 1 Faces in region 2
geometries
794 8 4
1670 8 4
Table 1: Calculation time: Boolean vs. planar convex hull.
of the triangular facets tangent to the volume’s outer surface, as it
would result in a concave valley on the face of the tile. A concave val-
ley would not be possible to cut with a saw and would have been
much harder and slower to achieve using a grinding process. The
project team instead looked for strategies to facet faces with convex
peaks made possible by saw cutting.
Through a process of digital studies, the project team found con-
vex faceting would necessitate separating the edges of the simplified,
triangulated form. Leveraging the void space within the tile geometry
allowed disconnection of each tile while ensuring the edges met in
locations where the tile geometry converged (Figures 9 and 10).
Other Fabrication Constraints and Considerations
After establishing the global geometry and tile profile, additional
fabrication and material constraints were factored into the final
design. To ensure the terracotta tiles would be straight and within
TAD 2 : 2
tolerance, the tiles were limited to 1200 mm in length, with an
allowance to increase up to 1450 mm in select instances in order to
prevent the need for tiles too small to manufacture. The 1200 mm
length limit was imposed to prevent wastage of terracotta, as extru-
sions longer than 1000 mm were more susceptible to warping during
the drying and firing processes. An option of constructing the pavil-
ion with 1000 mm tiles was explored, but they were deemed too
short to meet the design intent.
With the tile height restriction established and a given vertical
joint thickness of 15 mm, the final pavilion height was set at 3.63 m,
corresponding to three full-length tiles. The tiles were tied together
at their point of convergence using steel rings, which when aggre-
gated through the plan provided lateral rigidity to the entire form by
effectively joining individual tiles into a whole (Figures 11 and 12).
Each steel ring was placed between a cluster of individual tiles, held
in position by steel rods placed within the cavities of each extrusion
and concealed within the 15 mm joint between stacked tiles.
There were no prescribed limitations on cut angles, although steep
angles deviating more than approximately 45 degrees in either direc-
tion from a 90-degree cut created a cut face larger than the dimen-
sion of the saw blade. Such angles would necessitate grinding rather
than cutting, thus slowing the fabrication process and increasing the
possibility of tiles breaking. Steeper angles also increased the likeli-
hood of breakage at a tile’s tip. However, breakage was an acceptable
risk, as these conditions were limited through management of the
geometry and script, and clean breaks were repaired with a color-
matched adhesive while small chips and inconsistencies were ground
down and smoothed over during final finishing. Because of the chal-
lenging nature of the cuts and inherent inconsistencies of terracotta,
as well as the faceted form, tolerances of +/- 10 mm on the double
miter cuts measured from the tip to base of the extrusion were con-
sidered acceptable (Figure 13). This was determined through early
180
Boolean calculation Convex hull
time calculation time
8.9s 3.0s
11.2s 6.7s
mockups as being visually unobtrusive and, because connections
occurred away from angled cuts, did not impact the construction of
the pavilion. On extreme cuts, 75 degrees or more from perpendicu-
lar, the actual cut plane offset +/- 2 mm off the intended cut plane
would result in over +/- 8 mm variation when measured from end to
end with slight inconsistencies in cut angles, exacerbating the varia-
tion and need to grind rather than cut the tiles.
Methods
To execute the vision of automating the entirety of the architect’s
direct-to-fabrication responsibilities on WAVE/CAVE, it was
necessary to develop a suite of new digital tools—distinct from the
fabrication tools (saws, grinders) discussed above—to create a high-
resolution geometry and accurate documentation to achieve total
automation of both the design and documentation. The model and
output script were built within Grasshopper for Rhinoceros 5, taking
advantage of its capacity to quickly prototype and construct geomet-
ric scripts, and allowing the ability to integrate C# programming for
more sophisticated and computationally efficient code, interfacing
directly with Rhino’s back-end Application Programming Interface
(API) for custom processes. The entire script required minimal
design input, and once in place would run until all documentation was
output. Using Grasshopper as the basis for the script allowed quick
isolation of portions of the definition to perform design studies and
revise segments of the process as needed. Three primary modules
describe the design script: conceptual design, geometry develop-
ment and organization, and documentation (Figure 14).
Conceptual Design Script Module
The conceptual design portion operates on a set of three inputs: plan
layout, tile profile, and design surface. The plan layout was a regular
grid positioned manually to define extents of the terracotta in plan.
The design surface was a simplified version of the space carved out
from the terracotta form, creating sculptural figuration proposed in
the design concept (Figure 15).
Through the script, the base grid is projected onto the design sur-
face. A custom Grasshopper node was used to achieve proper facet-
ing of the tiles, taking the projected grid and simplifying the form as
a set of two convex cuts. If the angle between planes was less than 1
degree, the average plane was used instead, giving the tile just one
cut. Using the plane of the cut and grid outline, a primitive version of
each tile was created through a custom convex hull algorithm, allow-
ing for fast and lightweight construction of the solid geometry, guar-
anteed to be convex.
Due to the complexity of the script, an efficient construction of
geometry was critical in reducing the computer’s calculation time.
A simplified bounding geometry of convex planar faces represented
the final tile geometry in the design and organization segments of
OVERALL ET AL. 181

VARIES
LAYER 3 SHAPED TILE UNIT

15 MM MAX
EXTENDED THREADED ROD TO
PREVENT OVERTURN OF TOP TILE

THREADED ROD ANCHORED

WITH GROUT

r Figure 10. Nesting detail as built. (Credit: © Delfino Sisto Legnani)

1.2 METERS
w Figure 11. Tile assembly. (Credit: © SHoP Architects) LAYER 2 TILE UNIT

the script. A description of the geometry was maintained as mathe-

matical planes rather than boundary representations, constructing a
depiction when necessary through a convex hull algorithm, resulting
in a more responsive script (Table 1).
15 MM MAX

PEER REVIEW / MEASURED

The convex hull implementation was unique in that it uses infi- THREADED ROD ANCHORED
nite planes rather than points. The script operated by finding the WITH GROUT

intersection of all sets of three planes, discarding all points with a

negative relative Z-coordinate to any of the planes. Host surfac-
1.2 METERS

es partitioned the remaining planes, and a boundary was built with LAYER 1 TILE UNIT
2-D “gift wrapping,” or Jarvis march algorithm, providing each face
of the final geometry.11 Performing a 2-D convex hull operation was
feasible because the host plane was known, allowing us to forego
LAYER 1 TILE TO INCLUDE
implementing a more complex 3-D convex hull algorithm. Each face BOTTOM ROD FOR MALE CON-
of the geometry was created and joined into one single closed con- NECTION TO BASE PLATFORM

vex planar solid for visualization and further analysis. The benefit of
this method, in addition to calculation time, was that existing convex
planar solids could be easily defined as a series of planes by finding
a tangent plane to each face. Intersection volumes of multiple con-
vex planar solids could also be found by determining the convex hull
defined by all the planes of each solid merged into in a single set.
A simplified geometry was built, divided, and organized in prepara-
tion for fabrication. Additionally, 15 mm joints were added to accom-
modate structure required for lateral bracing. The joint placement
was intelligent in that no joint was placed where it would otherwise
create a tile shorter than 250 mm tall, combining it where necessary
with the tile below.
Geometry Development and Organization
With the design geometry established, a second script module
generated geometry for documentation and output. First, the script
created a system of organization and identification of named tile units
based on each tile’s horizontal and vertical location in the construc-
tion grid. The tiles were then tagged with an identifying name within
a 3-D naming grid to assist in locating them during construction. For
example, a tile tagged 07D1B would indicate it was to be placed in
location B within the grid at row 7, column D, level 1 (Figure 16). If
the design inputs were changed and tiles were added or subtracted,
names were associated dynamically without renaming other tiles,
facilitating geometry alterations even late into the documentation
STEEL BASE PLATFORM WITH
ANCHORAGE POSITIONS
process. Within the data structure of the script, all geometry was
indexed within a three-dimensional array that corresponded to the
3-D naming grid so that geometry associated with the tile could be
easily retrieved.
The placement of connection hardware was also optimized with-
in the overall tile assembly. Scripted variable hardware depth was
necessary to ensure that no hardware was visible when connected
to smaller tiles. The elevation at which each threaded rod connec-
tion would become exposed was calculated and then recessed 15
mm from that point or placed at 80 mm above the top of the tile,
whichever was shorter. An aluminum cap was then placed on the
rod, with the size determined by the remaining distance to the point
at which the hardware would become exposed. A cap extending
the rod by 170 mm was placed if space allowed; otherwise, a small-
er cap extending the rod by 5 mm was used, ensuring that no piece
of connection hardware was closer than 10 mm from any point of
visual exposure.
The detailed tile geometry was created after sorting the simplified
geometry and locating connection hardware. Due to the complexity
of the composition, it proved computationally prohibitive to generate
 Made-to-Measure 182

User Plan Layout Design Surface Tile Profile

v Figure 12. (Top) Inputs

Steel ring prototype.

(Credit: © SHoP
Faceted Surface
Architects) Calculated

Master Pavilion Script

Design Script - Global Geometry

Convex Hull Tile
Bounds Built

Naming
Geometry

Organization Script
Development and
Refinement
Connection
Hardware

Final Tile w/
Hardware

v Figure 13.
(Bottom) Cut terracotta Tile Oriented
to Cut Bed
compared to 3-D

Documentation Script - Iterative Per Tile

model. (Credit: © SHoP
Architects)
Cut Faces
Located
Drawing
Layout

Dimensioning

PDF Print
w Figure 14. Controller
TAD 2 : 2

Script process
diagram (Credit: ©
Automated
SHoP Architects) Outputs
3D DXF PDF Print Spreadsheet

a full detailed geometry all at once. Instead, a custom system was cre-
ated to iteratively construct each tile one unit at a time, “baking” each
tile into the Rhino model as datum geometry, then moving to the next
tile rather than holding the entire construction process for each tile
in memory. “Baked” tiles were paired with their connection hardware
using a system of instancing, identifying, and copying duplicate tiles
rather than creating unique sets of identical geometry.
The high-resolution version of each tile was produced by a
Boolean intersection operation—computing the common 3-D vol-
ume shared between two solid objects—between the simplified
geometry with cuts and an extruded and detailed full-length uncut
tile. The Boolean intersection allowed the cuts represented in the
simplified geometry to be combined with the extrusion profile of the
detailed tile. The Boolean operation was computationally expensive
and prone to failure by the Rhino geometry engine, causing improp-
er output of the tile geometry and documentation. If the Boolean
was performed at a loose tolerance, it was more likely to succeed,
although the result was less precise. To avoid failure but still maxi-
mize precision, a custom recursive function Booleaned the two sets
at a preferred tolerance, starting at 0.001 mm. If the Rhino geometry
engine was unable to compute the Boolean, the tolerance limit was
made looser by a power of ten to 0.01 mm, attempting the Boolean
operation again. The tolerance limit stepped by powers of ten until
the Boolean operation was successful or until the maximum toler-
ance limit of 0.1 mm was reached. With the recursive process, reli-
ability was improved by taking advantage of the strengths of both
precise-tolerance, high-failure-rate and loose-tolerance, low-failure-
rate Boolean operations.
Documentation Script Module
The final portion of the script generated fabrication drawings using
the geometry as scripted. Integrating documentation processes
into the design script was important to allow the documentation to
develop as the design was refined. Separating the documentation
would have added significant time and labor, given the variation
of tiles and the revisions required in coordination with the fabrica-
tor. Given the schedule, it was essential that the design and docu-
mentation processes remain connected. The script was built so the
documentation module could be deactivated in order to keep the
computational overhead down when not needed.
To provide necessary information to the fabricator, four measured
drawings and one 3-D DXF model were produced for each tile. Three
of the drawings were required to locate measured cuts on each tile.
Due to the constraints of the saw, each tile was oriented on the cut-
ting bed on its back (Figure 17), its left, or its right side, depending
on the nature of the cut. For each orientation, a measured drawing
was produced. An additional set of drawings was likewise delivered
for quality control, locating discrete points describing each geometry
and verifying dimensional accuracy. The 3-D DXF model set was pro-
vided for three-dimensional reference. All outputs were integrated
into the parametric model, and when enabled, produced the entire
set of fabrication documents as the design progressed.
The saw being used was a 3-axis CNC saw, but because it was
uncommon for NBK to perform unique cuts for each tile, the cutting
was done manually from the paper drawings. Though it may have
been possible to convert the DXF into the cut file directly, the pro-
cess was not available at the time of fabrication.
OVERALL ET AL. 183

v Figure 15. Inputs and geometry

development. Through the script, the base grid
is projected onto the design surface. A custom
Grasshopper node was used to achieve proper
faceting of the tiles, taking the projected grid and
simplifying the form as a set of two convex cuts.
If the angle between the planes was less than
1 degree, the average plane was used instead,
giving the tile just one cut. Using the plane out
of the cut and grid outline, a primitive version of
Inputs Simplified Geometry Final Geometry
each tile was created through a custom convex
hull algorithm, allowing for fast and lightweight
construction of the solid geometry, guaranteed to
be convex. (Credit: © SHoP Architects)

Cut Length Types Cap Length Types

THREADED ROD WITH NO CAP

UNIT TYPE LEGEND

PEER REVIEW / MEASURED

THREADED ROD WITH 250mm ALUMINUM CAP (RED)
Full Tile
B B
v Figure 16. Naming scheme and plan.
MSTR1

01A1A Trimmed Tile THREADED ROD WITH 28mm ALUMINUM CAP (BLUE)

F F
(Credit: © SHoP Architects)
54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

16
E D E
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

545
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR
MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

15 A C A
MSTR1A MSTR1A MSTR1A MSTR1A MSTR1A
MSTR1A MSTR1A MSTR1A MSTR1A MSTR1A
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

545
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

14 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
MSTR1D
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
1B

1B
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

B B
545
1E
1E

1E
13D

13E

13F
1B

1B
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR
1A

TR
TR

TR

TR

1A

TR

TR
1A
13D

13H
13E

13G
13D

13F
13E
TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR
1D
1D
1D
MS

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR
TR
13H
13E

13F
1A

1A

1A

1C

1A

1A
1C
1C
1C

1C
MS

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A
1B

13 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
13D1B
12D1F
13E1B
12E1F
13F1B
12F1F
13H1B
12H1F
MSTR1B
MSTR1C
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A

F F
1D
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

545
1E
1E

1E

1E
1E

12G
12C

12D

1E

12H
12E

12F

12I
1B

1C
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
MS
TR

TR

TR

TR
TR
1A
1A

1A
TR

TR

1A

TR

TR
1A

12G
12C

12D

12H
12E

12G
12C

12D

12F

12H
12E

12F

1A

12I

1D
TR
TR

TR

TR
TR
1D
1D
1D

1D

1D
1D
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
TR
12G
12D

12E

12H
12F
1A

1A

1A

1A
12I

1C
1C
1C
1C

1C

1C
1C
MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A
1B

12 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
12C1B
11C1F
12D1B
11D1F
12E1B
11E1F
12F1B
11F1F
12G1B
11G1F
12H1B
11H1F
12I1B
11I1F
MSTR1B
MSTR1C
MSTR1A
MSTR1A

Unit
1B

1B
1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

545
1E
1E

1E

1E
1E

11G
11C

11D

1E

11H
11E

11F

11J
1E
11I
1B

1B
1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR
TR

TR
1A
1A

1A
TR

TR

1A

TR

TR
1A

11G

1A
11C

11D

11H
11E

11G
11C

11D

11F
11E

11H
11F

1A

11J
11I

11I
1D
TR

TR
TR

1D

TR
1D
1D
1D

1D

1D
1D
MS

MS
MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR
11G
11D

11E

11H
11F
1A

1A

11J

1A

1A
11I

1C

1C
1C
1C
1C

1C

1C
1C
MS

MS
MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

11 MSTR1A MSTR1A 11C1B 11D1B 11E1B 11F1B 11G1B 11H1B 11I1B 11J1B MSTR1A MSTR1A

Unit Naming Key: 01A1A

MSTR1A MSTR1A 10C1F 10D1F 10E1F 10F1F 10G1F 10H1F 10I1F 10J1F MSTR1A MSTR1A
10C 1B
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
MS

545
1E
1E

1E

1E
10G
1E
10C

10D

1E

10H
10E

10F

1E
10J
1E
10I
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS
TR
TR

TR

TR
1A
1A

1A

1A
TR

TR

1A

1A

TR
1A

TR
10G

1A
10C

10D

10H
10C

10D

10E

10G
10F

10H
10E

10F

1A

10J

10J
10I

10I
1D
TR

1D

TR

TR
1D
1D
1D

1D

1D
1D
MS
MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
TR
10D

10G

10H
10E

10K
10F

10J
1A

1A

1A
1B
10I

1C

1C
1C
1C
1C

1C

1C
1C
MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A
1B

10 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
10C1B
09C1F
10D1B
09D1F
10E1B
09E1F
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
10H1B
09H1F
10I1B
09I1F
10J1B
09J1F
10K1B
09K1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
09C 1B

1B

1B
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

Horizontal Grid Line Below Unit

545
1E

1E

1E
09C

09D

09E

09K
1E
09J
1E
09I
1B
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
MS
TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR
1A

1A
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
1A

1A
1A
09C

09D
09C

09D

09E

09H

09K
1A

09J

09J
09I

09I
1D
TR
TR

TR

TR

1D

TR

TR
1D

1D
1D

1D
MS

MS

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
TR
09D

09E

09K
1C

09J
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
09I

1C

1C
1C

1C
1C

1C

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
1B

9 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
09C1B
08C1F
09D1B
08D1F
09E1B
08E1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
09I1B
08I1F
09J1B
08J1F
09K1B
08K1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
Vertical Grid Line to the Left of Unit
08I 1C
1B

1B

1B
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

545
1E

1E
08C

08D

08E

08K
1E
08J
1E
08I
1D

1B

1B
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
1A
TR

TR

1A

TR

TR

TR

1A

TR

TR
1A
08C

08D

08E

08K
08C

08D

1A

08J

08J
08I

08I
1D
TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR

1D

TR
1D

1D
1D

1D
MS

MS

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
08D

08E

08K
08J
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

Level
1C

1C
1C

1C
1C

1C

MS

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

8 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
08C1B
07C1F
08D1B
07D1F
08E1B
07E1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
08I1B
07I1F
08J1B
07J1F
08K1B
07K1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A

Unit
1B

1B
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

545
1E

1E

1E
1E
07C

07D

07H
07E

07K
1E
07J
1E
07I
1B

1B
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
MS
TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR
1A
TR

TR

1A

TR

TR

1A

TR

TR
1A

1A
07C

07D

07H
07E

07K
07C

07D

07H
07E

1A

07J

07J
07I

07I
1D
TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

1D

TR
1D

1D
1D

1D

1D
MS

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
TR
07D

07E

07F

07K
1A

1A

1A

1A

07J

1A

1A
07I

1C

1C
1C

1C
1C

1C

1C
MS

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
1B

7 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
07C1B
06C1F
07D1B
06D1F
07E1B
06E1F
07F1B
06F1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1B
07H1B
06H1F
07I1B
06I1F
07J1B
06J1F
07K1B
06K1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
1B
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
MS

545
1E
1E

1E

1E
1E

06G
06D

1E

06H
06E

06K
06F

1E
06J
1E
06I
1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
MS

TR
TR

TR

TR
1A
1A

1A
TR

1A

1A

TR

TR
TR

1A

06G

1A
06D

06H
06E

06G

06K
06C

06D

06F

06H
06E

06F

1A

06J

06J
06I

06I
1D
TR

TR

1D

TR

TR
1D
1D

1D
1D

1D
1D

MS
MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
TR

06G
06D

06H
06E

06F

06K
1A

06J

1A

1A
1B

06I

1C

1C
1C
1C

1C
1C

1C
1C
MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A
1B

6 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
06D1B
05D1F
06E1B
05E1F
06F1B
05F1F
06G1B
05G1F
06H1B
05H1F
06I1B
05I1F
06J1B
05J1F
06K1B
MSTR1C
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
1B
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

545
1E
1E

1E
1E

05G
05D

1E

05H
05E

05F

1E
05J
1E
05I
1B
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR
TR

TR

TR
1A

1A
TR

TR

1A

1A

TR

TR

TR
1A

05G

1A
05D

05H
05E

05G
05D

05F

05H
05E

05F

1A

05J

05J
05I

05I
1D
TR
TR

1D

TR

TR
1D
1D
1D

1D
1D
MS
MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
05G
05E

05H

05K
05F
1A

1A

05J

1A

1A

1A
05I

1C

1C
1C
1C
1C

1C
1C
MS
MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

5 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1C
MSTR1D
05E1B
04E1F
05G1B
04G1F
05H1B
04H1F
05I1B
04I1F
05J1B
04J1F
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
1C
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
MS

545
1E

1E
1E

04G

04H
04E

04J
1E
04I
1D
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
TR

1A
TR

TR

TR
TR

1A

04G

1A
04H
04E

04G
04E

04H

1A

04J
04I

04I
1D
TR

TR

TR

1D

TR

TR

TR
1D

1D
1D
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR
04H
04F

04J
1A

1A

1A
1B

04I

1C

1C
1C

1C
1C
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

4 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1B
MSTR1B
04H1B
03H1F
04I1B
MSTR1B
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
1B
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

545
03H
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
03H
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
1D

MS
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR

TR

TR
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A
1C
MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

3 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
MSTR1A
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS

545
1A

1A

1A
MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR
TR

TR

TR
MS

MS

MS
TR

TR

TR
1A

1A

1A

1200
MS

MS

MS
1A

1A

1A

2 MSTR1A
MSTR1A
545

1200

1
1200

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N LEVEL 1

LEVEL 1 PLAN (1:50) REFERNCE ELEVATION (1:100)

SHoP ARCHITECTS PC QUANTITY 1 REV DATE RELEASE 1/27/2017 RELEASED FOR FABRICATION

233 Broadway
New York, NY 10279
INTERNI NOMENCLATURE
MATERIAL TERRACOTTA
- 01
02
1/30/2017
2/23/2017
DRAWN BY
DRAWN BY
JPR
SPO
2/23/2017

L01
SHEET NUMBER
Phone (212) 889-9005 FINISH - 03 - CHECKED BY -
Fax (212) 889-3686
MILAN, ITALY PAINT - 04 - JOB NUMBER -
www.shoparc.com

R
v Figure 17. Typical cut sheet.
(Credit © SHoP Architects)

TOP (1:10)
L
L
AXON TOP

LEFT (1:10) FRONT (1:10)

BOTTOM (1:10) R AXON BOTTOM R

NOTE: ADDITIONAL Y(mm) A(deg) B(deg) COLOR

DIMENSIONS NOTATED
AS "C1" FOR CUT 1 AND CUT 1 445.9 147.6 26.8
RIGHT (1:10) "C2" FOR CUT 2 CUT 2 433.7 148.6 28.3

SHoP ARCHITECTS PC QUANTITY 1 REV DATE RELEASE 2/23/2017 RELEASED FOR FABRICATION

233 Broadway INTERNI NOMENCLATURE - 01 1/30/2017 DRAWN BY SPO

2/23/2017

New York, NY 10279
MATERIAL TERRACOTTA 02 2/10/2017 DRAWN BY -
SHEET NUMBER

03E3C
Phone (212) 889-9005 FINISH - 03 2/23/2017 CHECKED BY -
Fax (212) 889-3686
MILAN, ITALY PAINT - 04 - JOB NUMBER -
www.shoparc.com
 Made-to-Measure
After creating each tile, the script outputs a set of measured draw-
ings for each tile to be cut. The simplified and detailed geometry was
oriented to a cutting bed, and the cut faces were extracted from
the simplified geometry by identifying all faces that were not copla-
nar with the surfaces of the uncut geometry. Three measurements
defined the angles of each cut face—the angle from the intersection
of the cut face and cut bed to the edge of the bed, the angle between
the plane of the cut face and cut bed perpendicular to each plane, and
the distance from an established base, or work point where the cut
face intersected the edge of the cut bed. The cut faces were mea-
sured and annotated with one or two cuts per tile depending on the
number of cuts specified by the script.
Moreover, one quality control document was produced per tile
to allow the fabricator to dimension identifiable points on each tile
after it was cut. The measurements for the cut plane were taken
from a reference point on the cut bed that corresponded to a pro-
jection of the tile geometry outside the physical boundary of the
tile, since the tiles did not have the clear corners that a simpler
rectangular profile would have. Because of this, the cut plane mea-
surement points could not be used to verify that the tile was cut
correctly after it had been removed from the bed. The quality con-
trol reference points on the cut tiles were associated with the local
maximum and minimum of each cut face—points that could be eas-
ily identified and accurately measured by the fabricator. The fabri-
cator garnered these dimensioned and annotated points from the
TAD 2 : 2
drawings generated by the script.
For quick automated output, the documentation process
required the development of a custom PDF printing process that
allowed plotting directly from Grasshopper. Each scripted docu-
ment was produced using a standard sheet layout in Rhino that was
dynamically updated with new geometry as each tile drawing was
printed. Through an asynchronous process, a scripted PDF print
function controlled the print dialog and settings after each tile had
been placed onto a sheet by the Grasshopper script, eliminating the
need for managing hundreds of layouts or image-based documents.
An additional set of 3-D DXFs was exported for each tile to pro-
vide the fabricator with a digital representation of the tile along
with a spreadsheet of measurements providing all critical dimen-
sions from the printed documents, facilitating cut scheduling
and data entry.
Results Discussion and Evaluation
The scripted automation process ultimately proved invaluable to
completion of the project ahead of schedule. Modifications to the
design were possible even the day before delivery of the documen-
tation; new information regarding fabrication constraints or site
conditions arrived without disrupting the project schedule. When
the fabricator began cutting and required additional dimensions or
other information, the project team could quickly input data to the
script and reissue the documentation.
Through systematic naming and tracking within the design and
documentation script, the project was divided into phases, enabling
the tiles to be cut and delivered to the site in a controlled and efficient
manner and allowing the construction team to assemble the pavilion
in two weeks. Tiles that did not meet quality control standards could
be quickly identified and re-cut, helping to ensure completion of con-
struction ahead of schedule.
184
The tools and workflows proved to be well suited for organiz-
ing and drawing assemblies of cut extrusions, and translate well to
other materials (such as dimensioned lumber and metal extrusions),
enabling automated documentation of other systems, particularly
space frames, trusses, and, potentially, curtain wall systems. More
work needs to be done to consider scalability to larger projects.
Managing large quantities of geometry in Grasshopper and Rhino is
increasingly challenging as projects grow in scale. For WAVE/CAVE,
the limits of the system have not yet been found, which is promising
for its deployment in future work.
Conclusion
The completion of WAVE/CAVE over a nine-month period from
project inception to completion, with a small part-time design team
and an extremely tight production and installation schedule of four
weeks, demonstrated the value of automating measured drawings
leading up to the beginning of production. Scripting the output
of documentation describing complex geometry and assemblies
minimized human error and facilitated the fabrication of a highly
customized assembly. The 1,670 fluted terracotta tiles arranged as
a soaring sculptural enclosure is a study in material and technological
innovations leveraged by a strong collaboration between the design
team, operating through computation, and skilled fabricators with an
extensive understanding of their trade.
WAVE/CAVE is a critical case study in considering the automation
of 2-D drawings. The project serves as a model for bridging the dis-
tance between computational design and analog forms of contempo-
rary construction. Direct-to-drawing fabrication provides a means
of communication with traditionally skilled artisans and trades. Until
such time as project delivery becomes fully three-dimensional, the
made-to-measure paradigm provides architectural precedence for
meaningful collaboration and change within current contract struc-
tures and fabrication constraints in the building industry.
Open Access CC-BY-NC-ND_US
© SHoP Architects. This is an Open Access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
Acknowledgments
WAVE/CAVE was made possible thanks to Michelangelo
Giombini of Interni-Mondadori and our collaborators Klaus
Bayer and Maik Bluhm of NBK Keramik; Flavio Tunesi, Adriano
Capuozzo, Carlo Geddo, Daniele Ruboni, and Paolo Branca of
Metalsigma Tunesi; Elena Massignan, Monica D’Emidio, and
Luca Cusinato of Luce&Light; Beatriz Fernandez of Cricursa;
Peiheng Tsai of PHT Lighting Design; and Daniela Azzaro,
Federico Lorenzon, Paolo Cresci, and Nicola Carofano of
Arup, as well as Gregg Pasquarelli and Corie Sharples for their
leadership, Philip Nobel and John Cerone for their advice,
and the rest of the SHoP team for their continued support
of the project.
OVERALL ET AL.
Notes
1. SHoP Architects. “Eroding the Barriers.” In Versioning:
Evolutionary Techniques in Architecture, edited by SHoP
Architects (London: Wiley-Academy, 2002), 90–100. See
also C.R. Sharples. 2016. “SHoP Architects.” In Beyond
BIM: Architecture Information Modeling, edited by D. Briscoe
(London: Routledge, 2016), 227–34.
2. C.D. Sharples. 2010. “Labor and Technology.” In Building
(in) the Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture, edited by P.G.
Bernstein and P. Deamer (New York: Princeton Architectural
Press, 2010), 90–100.
3. M. Carpo. The Alphabet and the Algorithm. (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2011). Regarding allographic and autographic
production, see N. Goodman. Languages of Art: An Approach to
a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008).
4. D. Pye. The Nature and Art of Workmanship. (London: Herbert
Press, 2008), 20. See also R. Sennett. The Craftsman. (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
5. M. McCullough. Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand.
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 193–220.
6. R. Evans. The Projective Cast: Architecture and Its Three
Geometries. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 2000).
7. M. Burry. Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and
Programming. (Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2011). See also J. Burry
and M. Burry. Prototyping for Architect.s (London: Thames &
Hudson Ltd., 2016).
8. J. Ruskin. The Stones of Venice, edited by J. G. Links (Boulder,
CO: Da Capo Press, 2003), 164.
9. R. E. Schmitt. Sullivanesque: Urban Architecture and
Ornamentation. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002).
10. C.D. Sharples. “Labor and Technology.” In Building (in) the
Future, edited by P.G. Bernstein and P.Deamer (New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 2010), 90–100.
11. R. A. Jarvis,, “On the Identification of the Convex Hull of a
Finite Set of Points in the Plane,” Information Processing Letters
2, no. 1 (1972): 18–21.
Scott Overall is an Associate in Computational Design with
SHoP Architects. Overall holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering from the University of Kentucky and a Master of
Architecture from Columbia University. His work focuses on
applied computation in design and construction for projects
such as the Botswana Innovation Hub and the Syracuse National
Veterans Resource Complex. He has also taught virtual design
and construction at Columbia University.
John Paul Rysavy is a Senior Associate with SHoP Architects.
Rysavy received a Master of Architecture from the University
of Texas at Austin following study at the École Nationale
Supérieure d’Architecture de Versailles and the Illinois School
of Architecture. He has worked notably on the Botswana
Innovation Hub and the Uber Headquarters. He has held
teaching positions at the University of Texas and has served as a
guest critic at several academic institutions.
Clinton Miller is the Director of Computational Design at
SHoP Architects. Miller received a Bachelor of Science in
Architecture and a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from Ohio
185
State University and a Master of Architecture from the Columbia
GSAPP. He has worked on many of SHoP’s projects, including
Atlantic Yards B2, Pier 17, and the Uber Headquarters.
William Sharples is a Principal with SHoP Architects. He holds
a Bachelor of Engineering from Pennsylvania State University
and a Master of Architecture from Columbia University. He led
SHoP’s major institutional and commercial work with clients
such as Columbia University, Fashion Institute of Technology,
Botswana Innovation Hub, and Google Inc. Sharples lectures
widely at academic institutions and has held teaching positions
at Cornell University, Yale University, and the Parsons School
of Design.
Christopher Sharples is a Principal with SHoP Architects. He
holds Bachelor of History and Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees
from Dickinson College and a Master of Architecture from
Columbia University. He has taught at Cornell University,
Parsons School of Design, City College, City University of
New York, Columbia University, and the University of Virginia.
Sharples has served as Principal for many significant projects,
PEER REVIEW / MEASURED
including the Barclays Center, SITE Santa Fe gallery expansion,
Google Headquarter Offices, and Uber Headquarters in San
Francisco.
Sameer Kumar is the Director of Enclosure Design at SHoP
Architects. He holds a Bachelor of Architecture from CEPT
University and a Master of Architecture from the University of
Pennsylvania. He has led façade direction on many of SHoP’s
most high-profile projects, including 111 West 57th Street,
South Street Seaport, and Domino Sugar Refinery Development.
Kumar currently serves as a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton
University and the University of Pennsylvania.
Andrea Vittadini is a Project Director at SHoP Architects. He
received a Bachelor of Architecture from the Politecnico di
Milano in Milan, Italy, and a Master of Architecture from Yale
University. Vittadini has played a key role as Project Director on
several important projects, including the Botswana Innovation
Hub, a master plan for the LaGuardia Airport, Orlando
International Airport, Konza Technology City Master Plan and
Pavilion in Nairobi, and 447 Collins Street in Melbourne. VIttadini
has co-taught at Cornell University with William Sharples.
Victoire Saby is a Senior Associate in Enclosure Design with
SHoP Architects. She holds a Master of Architecture from
the ENSAPLV in Paris and a Master of Engineering from the
École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées. Victoire has worked
on several of SHoP’s high-profile jobs, including the Hudson’s
Site Project in Detroit and the SITE museum in Santa Fe.
She specializes in interdisciplinary design that spans across
architecture, engineering, computation, and construction. Saby
has taught and lectured at institutions in France and the US.