Fabrication - Student Journals Sem1 2012

MODULE 3: FABRICATIONSTUDENT JOURNALS

SEMESTER 1, 2012

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

Faculty of Architecture, Building & Planning. University of Melbourne

A SELECTION OF MODULE THREE STUDENT JOURNALS PRODUCED BY STUDENTS ENROLLED IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS SEMESTER 1, 2012

STUDENTS WILL USE COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO UNFOLD THEIR MODEL INTO A CUTTING TEMPLATE.. THEY WILL MAKE A SELF-SUPPORTING PAPER

MODEL FROM THE TEMPLATE.

THE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS COURSE FOCUSES ON DIGITAL DESIGN METHODS AND DESIGN COMMUNICATION AND IS A CONSTITUENT COURSE

OF THE BACHELOR OF ENVIRONMENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Module Three

Yi CHENYing CHEN

Student NO: 397888 Semester 1/2012 Group 12

ReflectionReflection

The natural process I study is whale jumping. The basic shape of my model comes from the overlap of curves of whale shape at different moments during the jumping process. And through Module One and Module Two, the 2D pattern is found from the distribution of splashes that made by whale .

Then I tried to turn the 2D Pattern into 3D Pattern by using fin edges tool in Module. And the outcome is so complex as showed that would take long time to build the physical model. When I unroll the model with the original patterns, it comes out thousands of pieces aces. It seems like impossible to complete it in such a short time. So I tried to simplify the patterns.

Precedent

Then I got the inspiration from the book named Folding Then I got the inspiration from the book named Folding Techniques For Designers From Sheet To Form (Jackson 2011). The author introduce a method to turn a single 2D paper into a 3D pattern only by folding. This can reduce the number of independent surfaces to form a 3D pattern. And this is what I need to do to solve my model making problem Hence I adapted my patterns model making problem. Hence, I adapted my patterns to fit this making method, but also keep the ideas of whale shape curves and water bubbles distribution.

(Jackson 2011)

Develop The Patterns

The original patterns are designed to be connected by separated ring surfaces. To develop them, I adopted the folding method mentioned before to lift up my 2D outer

Top View of Pattern of Outer Skin Part A

Perspective View of Pattern of Outer Skin Part A

before to lift up my 2D outer pattern into a pyramid, and leave sixangular holes on the top to let the light go through. In order to show the idea that size of water bubbles change

Original Outer Pattern

depending on their space distribution. So I divides the outer surface into two parts to using two types of patterns. There are two holes on the top of each pyramid pattern in Part

Top View of Pattern of Outer Skin Part B

Perspective View of Pattern of Outer Skin Part B

of each pyramid pattern in Part A representing smaller water bubble in higher place, while there is only one hole on each single pattern top in Part B representing bigger splashes in l l A f th i lower place. As for the inner surface, I just use the folding method to show the curves of whale shape forming the basic surface of model by a whole surface instead of independent

Original Inner Pattern

psurfaces to pieces together. And the different levels creases show the motion of whale jumping .Aslo ,there are the rectangular holes to let the light arrive the outer skin to

Top View of Pattern of Inner Skin

Perspective View of Pattern of Inner Skin

light arrive the outer skin to create different light effect.

And the shape of holes is hexagon. This is because the water bubbles like diamond water bubbles like diamond would reflect the sunlight to shine, which I would like to use in my lantern. I wanted my holes not only to show showthe distribution rule of splashes, b t l hi th k but also achieve the spark effect as water bubble or even diamond. And the diamond always be cut as hexagon to reflect maximum amount of light. Therefore, I gtried to used the hexagon as the shape of holes on the top of patterns to deliver my idea.

So the final patterns are showed as figures. h ki di id d i The outer skin are divided into two parts

indentified by different types patterns. However, both of them combine with the same inner pattern.

Part A Pattern with inner Pattern Part B Pattern with inner Pattern

Inner Surface Outer Surface Part B Outer Surface Part A

Precedent :Restaurant Georgesg

The restaurant Georges in Pompidou Centre is used the digital building representation during its design process. And the designers edit the design through the digitization. This gives me the idea to edit and prototype in digital way.

Fabrication of Prototype

First of all, I choose a part of my digital model to prototype (as lefr). Then I unroll the outer and inner surface separately by ) p y yusing seam and strip method. And the results are displayed as follows and coded by colors.

Unrolled Surfaces

In order to process the physical prototype. I added taps to the unrolled surfaces for connection with each other pieces. And I turned all the surfaces into curves and code the objects with text by using the tag tool in rhino. And followed the instructions to prepare the file for Fab Lab to print out the card The black line represents the cut line print out the card. The black line represents the cut line and the red one represent score line.

Eg. Strip 2 in file for Fab Lab

Unrolled Surfaces

File of Prototype for Fab Lab

1:1 Full Scale : u Sca e Prototype Using FabLab: Construction

Picked up the pieces from the cards printed out by Fablab. And followed the score line to folding up or folding down into strips or pyramids.

Use glue to connect black strips as surfaces. And use the same way to make pyramids into strips. After that, connect the white pyramids strips to the inner black surface one by one.

Prototype With Light Effect

The aim of this part is to look at the shadow, shading and transparencythat the double-skin prototype create and find out the difference of prototype with cold light and warm light. And as the photos showed, the warm light create the photos showed, the warm light create the a purple light effect, though I did not use the purple card or light to do prototype. The effect of warm light seems like much better than clod light.

Errors:

Through Prototype, I found there are problems in the taps of both outer surface and inner

f At fi t I ff t th b d f i surface. At first, I offset the border of pieces as 2cm distance. But in the prototype, it shows that they are too big, especially in outer surface, which effects the elegance of model. On the one hand, because the big size of the taps of the pieces in outer surface, hence, p p , ,when I tried to connect them to inner surface, it seems not fit to the connected space. Therefore, I cut the taps smaller. However, this causes the untidy border as I cut by hand. Also, there the space leave for connection did not cover by white outer surface due to did not cover by white outer surface, due to imprecise angle of the taps. It seems impossible to make all taps to connect each other seamlessly. On the other hand, the big taps also lead the damage of beauty in inner surface. The big taps interrupt the smooth surface in the reserve side of the inner surface, Therefore, I backed to rhino to turn the all taps smaller as width 1.2cm and cancel some unnecessary taps. And hided the taps when I connect the outer skin to the inner skin in final model making process. inner skin in final model making process.

Final model Process

Using the method as prototype , unroll the surfaces first And then prepare the the surfaces first. And then prepare the file for Fablab to print as the instruction and correct the errors that I found in prototype.

Colour coding ,text referencing and unfolding outer surface Part A for assembly reference using seam surface Part A for assembly reference using seam and strip method.

Colour coding , text referencing unfolding outer surface Part A for assembly reference using seam and strip method.

File of Outer surface for Fab Lab (Ivory Card –White)

File of Inner surface for Fab Lab (200gsm Black)

Final model construction

The card printed by Fablab for the final model has poorer quality than that for the The card printed by Fablab for the final model has poorer quality than that for the prototype as the original card material had run out and Fablab changed another card to print. The new type of the card is thinner and easy to breakage. So it increases the hardness to process and reduce the strength of the model.

Light EffectThe final model achieve the light effect that I except. The inner black surface blocks the light and only leave the light to go through rectangular spaces Hence we can see the more light casts on the outer whit surface as rectangular shape And the through rectangular spaces. Hence, we can see the more light casts on the outer whit surface as rectangular shape. And the different types of holes on the outer surface also represent my idea of water bubble distribution. And the shining score lines on the outer surface also shows the effect as the diamond.

Technical Documentation: Colour Key & Number ReferenceThe position of strips on the model can be identified two ways; by referencing their colour using the colour key below and diagram to the i f i i i i iright or by referencing their number using the diagram to the right.

Construction: Master Guide

Use the glue connect the pieces taps as the figure by Number and text referencing.

The lines represent the connecting path.p g p

Reflection

As the reading Making Ideas (Macfarlane 2005) says that digital representation has lots of advantages than traditional one. It is much easier to modify the design. And all the details comes into data, which helps a lot during constructing process. So I also create digitization of model in Rhino And correct the errors that showed in of model in Rhino. And correct the errors that showed in prototype.

According to Lecture 8, the prototypes including the physical one and digital model do do a favor in model performance. By this way, we can avoid some errors in final model making, Therefore, I did both physical and digital prototypes , and found out some errors as well as correct them in final model process. Making Ideas (Macfarlane 2005)

My Physical prototype digital prototype (Lecture 8 2012)Physical prototype (Lecture 8 2012)

nicola leongstudent no: 586066 semester one/2012 group fi ve.

nicola leonmodule three

pattern prototypes.

In module 2 I explored different ways in which I could use circles to create a pattern on the surface. Realising I wouldn’t be able to just use lofted interlocking circles as my surface, I decided to further explore patterns I could create by cutting out circles.

In this prototype I cut out a series of different circular patterns on the one sheet to see how the shapes would interact with each other. Cutting them all onto one sheet also allowed me to easily compare what I liked and didn’t.

I really liked the open circles of varying sizes, the half open circles and the donut-like circles. I was rather pleased with the clarity and outcome of the shadows cast and hope that my fi nal lantern will cast such clean shadows. I didn’t really like the half moon circles and the joint bubble cut outs that can be seen in the top left hand corner of the sheet. I felt the half moon cut outs confl icted with the perfectly symmetric aesthetic of the other circles, and the bubble-like cut outs were too abstract, looking almost like blobs rather than the merging of circles.

fi nal rhino shape.

To create my desired box panelled surface with circular cut outs, I wasn’t able to create cut outs on the 3D form, and hence decided to draw my pattern onto the surface once fl attened and unrolled in Rhino.

Originally I had problems unrolling my surface as I had not triangulated my box panelled surface, and because of this certain parts would not unroll. In my fi rst attempt I tired to unroll the form in vertical strips. I managed to unroll some strips in one piece, however many of the strips would not unroll, or only partially.

In my second attempt to unroll, I unrolled one strip vertically and the rest horizontally. Again I was able to unroll a fair amount of the surface but not all of it.

unrolling in rhino.

Despite not being able to unroll the whole surface, I decided to test ways in which I could draw my pattern onto the fl attened surfaces that I did have.

To draw my pattern onto the surface I fi rst tried “fl ow along surface”. Using this tool, I drew a pattern on a single rectangular surface and used the “fl ow along surface” com-mand to print the pattern onto each panel individually. I had a few problems with this, as each panel wasn’t the same shape and hence the circles would be warped and stretched to fi t each different sized panel. I also had diffi culties getting the pattern to fl ow in the right direction, as sometimes the pattern would come out sideways or upside down.

Once I realized I had to “triangulate surfaces” this process was Once I realized I had to “triangulate surfaces” this process was much easier, but this also meant I would have problems using much easier, but this also meant I would have problems using “fl ow along surface” to draw my patten upon the surface.Because the panels were triangulated, having circles on a square surface meant that they would get scored in half and would be warped when I came to building the actual model and the shadow would be a manipulated circle. Using “fl ow along surface” on triangulated surfaces also meant that print-ing each circle in my pattern in the correct position on each square was too hit and miss and I wouldn’t be able to achieve my desired pattern.

Rather than drawing each circle onto the surface individually, and using “fl ow along surface” I used a Grasshopper script to populate using “fl ow along surface” I used a Grasshopper script to populate each strip with circles of the same size. Using Grasshopper I was able to use the “slide” bar to adjust the radius of the circles, and the grid plane to position the circles on the surface.

Although the circles weren’t always in the correct place on each triangle, I was able to quickly populate and “bake” circles onto my surface. After this I could manually just move the circles around how I wanted and begin creating my pattern.

using “fl ow along surface” I used a Grasshopper script to populate

To create To create tabs around my strips I I also used a Grasshopper script, adjusting the width and angle of adjusting the width and angle of my tabs to be quite narrowmy tabs to be quite narrow so they wouldn’t block the light from wouldn’t block the light from shining through the through the holes.

creating tabs.

Once I had fi nished “baking” the tabs I fi nished populating my sur-face with my circular pattern usingGrasshopper and manually drawing curves and lines.

In creating my pattern I fi rst populat-ed the surface with a number of dif-ferent sized circles, that were bigger and more dense in the middle and dispersed and got smaller outwards towards the top and the bottom.To create these half open circles which would fold and fl ap out to make the fl at surface slightly three dimensional, I “trimmed” some of the circles and created a score line through it, where the circle would fold.

To make the donut-like circles I drew a circle within a circle and used the trim tool to cut through the middle twice, and then reconnected the cut lines.

As you can see, the fl aps rotate from facing left, to facing down, and fi nally facing to the right, slowly rotating as they move up the lan-tern. This is beacuse I wanted the light to shine downwards on the biggest surface (being the back of the lantern) and to fold inwards as they turned to face each other in the front curve of the form.

Finally I was able to nest all my strips onto the one 60x90cm page on Rhino.

I decided to use a thick, creamy coloured mountboard to ensure the lantern would stand solid and not be too fragile. I also thought the off white would match the burn lines of the laser cutter, which I really liked be-cause of the old, smokey look it left upon the surface. I hand cut these strips from the same mountboard as prototypes so I could see how this material would work in building my structure.

material/construction prototypes.

When I began constructing this mini prototype I realised that the mountboard was made up of a number of layers. This meant that when I went to fold the tabs down and glue them together, the tabs began to peel, creating tiny gaps for light to shine through. Because the board was so thick, it also meant that a gap of up to 3mm was created between the strips. Having this gap gave the model an unrefi ned, patchy and unseamless look and would mean the middle strip (which was unrolled vertically) would not connect in line with the rest of the model.

Because the board was so thick, it also meant that a gap of up

constructing a full size prototype.

I got my strips cut by a laser cutter becase I really liked the score lines left by the machine and the rustic, worn effect it created. Unfortunately because my mountboard was so thick, the score lines hardly scored the surface, even some of the cut lines didn’t cut all the way through, which meant I had to go through the long process of cutting over each and every score line so that it would fold.

Using a scalpel I peeled away layers from the tabs and the back of the circle fl aps allowing them to fold properly.

After cutting out one strip I tested shining light through the holes to see what sort of shadow it would create. I was really pleased with the way the shadow turned out, as well as the way the model looked.I felt the light really enhanced the aesthetic of the strip, bringing it to life and allowing the circles to stand out.

I began constructing my full scale prototype using UHU craft glue and bull dog clips to clamp the tabs tightly together whilst the glue dried.

Originally I hoped that the bottom of the model would stand up on the tabs which I purposely left on the top and Originally I hoped that the bottom of the model would stand up on the tabs which I purposely left on the top and bottom because I thought they made the fi nish of the lantern look more interesting, rather than having the top as an open and fl at curve. However in this prototype I accidentally peeled the tabs thinking I was going to glue them to something else, so ended up folding them in at the bottom. I actually didn’t mind the folded in look at the bottom in the end, as it gave the form a more sturdy platform in which to stand. I ensured I left the tabs at the top in tact, which I found to be quite visually appealing.

I really liked the look of the cleanly cut circles I had popped out of my surface and thought that I could perhaps use them somehow, sticking them onto the surface to create even more of a 3D surface. However I found that my model was already so busy and populated with circles that I wasn’t sure I needed more circles as this could overcrowd the surface.

construction process.

architectural precedents.[Uptown Penthouse by ALTUS Architecture + Design]

This 6 storey penthouse in Mineapolis was designed by ALTUS Architecture + Design. I was particularly intrigued by the stair-case and use of a similar circular design in elements through-out the whole apartment. The staircase is very much the focal point, aesthetically a structurally beautiful piece from the inside as well as out. I love the dispersal of light which forms a spotlight composed of small circles around the base of the stairs when light is shone from above. When looking up through the stairwell, not only are the walls interesting to look at, but the steps themselves are made up of lots of little circles as well. I like the subtlety of change between the size of the circles that outwardly look the same, but actually cre-ate this dynamic pattern.

I like how the variance in circles and how much light shines through creates more circular patterns within the pattern of circles.

http://www.altusarch.com/uptownpent.html

architectural precedents.[Lightmos Thonglor by Architectkidd]

Designed by architecture and design practice, Architectkidd, the design of this building “sought to create a kind of ‘acci-dental’ facade.” I saw similarities between my pattern and this surface which hoped to refl ect on the improvisational nature of construction in Bangkok. Like this building, I wanted my pattern to have an underlying formula, whilst still looking almost ran-dom, unique and individual.

http://www.architectkidd.com/

fi nal full scale prototype.

Although you can see through to the insides of the structure and some of the tabs when you look through the bigger holes, I actually quite like the pattern created on the inside of the model. If I wanted to I could trim the tabs and make them smaller and less visable, however I like the rows of tabs you can see when you look through the lantern from the top, and the patterns you can see front on as well.

I quite like the way the lantern looks with a light in it. Here I just placed the LEDs at the bottom of the lantern, and as you can see the light is dispersing through the gaps in the bottom which I didn’t seal properly. Unfortunately having the light sitting on this angle didn’t really produce great circle shadows which was rather disappointing.

placing light within the prototype.

Holding the light at the top of the lantern really created the shadows and effect that I was after, having circular light dots surround the lantern and slowly disperse outwards. I will have to test ways in which I can get the light to sit or hang within the lantern higher up to create these kinds of shadows.

after, having circular light dots surround the lantern and slowly disperse outwards. I will have to

refl ection.

For my fi nal model I’ve decided to use a thinner material, ensuring the paper is not made up of layers. This will allow the fi nish of my lantern to be seamless between the joins and hopefully have a much cleaner look. I will also make sure the edges of the circles aren’t too close to the score lines as some of these circles ripped slightly as they were too close to the edges.

To ensure the fl aps open properly I will adjust the score line to make more of the circle fl ap outwards. This will also allow more light to shine through.

Overall I was quite happy with the aesthetic of my full scale prototype.

S T U D E N T J O U R N A LM O D U L E T H R E E - F A B R I C A T I O NR E N E E J A C O V I D E S 5 8 5 4 3 0

R E D E F I N I N G F O R M

Following the feedback for my module two final presen-tation, I chose to slightly redefine the form in week seven and re-panel accordingly. I wanted to make each section ‘bumpier’- more inflated in a sense - for I feel this was lost in module two when filtered through a visual perspective. This was to restore in the design a likeness to my drawings in module one, where a focus on distinct, scale-inspired sections, arranged to simulate the motion in sloughing, was underpinned.

I found utilising the ‘cage edit’ command could not fully deliver the results needed. I ended up tracing the original profile curves from module two, adding more control points for adjusting pur-poses.

Along with this ‘bumpiness’, I also extended the length of the model at the left, shorter edge. This was in consideration for the lantern’s ability to remain around the neck without further fastenings. In all my past panelling attempts with scale patterns, the panels were cut off prematurely, not reaching the outer edges of the

I chose to purposely leave a perforation within the form at the innermost, shortest curve. This was a decision of con-venience, for my panelling did not properly close the gap and replicate the surface. I later decided against this and sealed the gap by drawing surfaces myself.

R E - P A N E L L I N GI came to the next step of panelling the new surface with my final tessellation con-cept. I encountered a problem loading my saved 2D panels though, and was not able to retrieve the designs used in module two. Correspondingly, I attempted to replicate the shape of the panels in a new 2D design.

The model featured less scales, a given with an altered surface and fewer points in the panelling grid. I viewed this as a positive when reflecting upon the challenges of fu-ture fabrication. Despite this, the variable sizing of my new scales added further complexity to an al-ready involved design.

Mo

du

le T

wo

’s M

od

el:

Juxt

ap

osit

ion

I S S U E S I D E N T I F I E DThe new panels created on my new surface did not possess the same uniformity as those produced for module two’s final. This was an issue, since the idea of consistency in the panels was relevant to my natural process. Furthermore, when trying to add ‘notching’ to my structural ribs I found that too many incisions were automatically added to the model. The ribs were not planar and convoluted. I did not see a viable way to construct them, so I separated the panelled ‘skin’ from the ribs as a next step.

U N F O L D I N G P R O C E S S

In order to unfold the model made in week seven I divided the two components, ribs and scales. Due to time constraints and a lack of Rhino knowl-edge, I only managed to unfold the scales at the time. When undertakings were taken to unfold the complex ribbing the surfaces would not respond singularly, rather unfolding on top of each other at the origin. Another problem was with the scales, which individually were not connected at any points to one another. As such, the logical method of unfolding at the time was to unravel them each individually, creating over 70 components.

I S S U E S W I T H

P A N E L S

As the next step I add-ed some simple, tri-angular tabs to select edges of the unrolled panels. Through observation of the digitised model I found that all of the panels were closest at the same points throughout, which made adding tabs undemanding.

The other main issue I had with week seven’s panelling was the triangulation of the scales, which deformed the shape of panels overall. As seen highlighted on the right in green, the process of triangulation created overlapping polysurfaces which still unrolled. Also highlighted in orange are examples where the central ‘decline’ in the scale was lost, with overlapping triangles found on the underside of the model.

Panels unrolled with tabs and numbered labels. Placed onto A4 sized segments for home printing and fabrication of a prototype.

M O

D E

L

P R

O T

O T

Y P

E

I formulated a prototype using the model and method of unrolling from week 7. The prototype was a 1:1 version of one of the model’s ‘bumps’ or ‘segments’. I was not happy with the shape produced by this technique. The original shape of the section was lost to elaborate panels and gaps. The sense of scales was also patently missing.Nevertheless, I thought it was successful in regards to structure. It was through this prototype that I saw the integrity produced by the many folds in my panels. At this point I decided to abandon my ribs altogether.

D E S I G N P R E C E D E N T S

At the initial stages of the model, when I was still resolved upon embracing ribbing as a key feature of the design and structure within the lantern, I came across this real, fabricated example of a lamp at a family member’s house. Although the lan-tern took on the literal shape of a light bulb and only boasted a simple box panel, the paradigm of consistency within my own panelling was reinforced through this object. This was typified through the uniform shadow patterns projected through such an unchanging approach to tessellation, an aspect of the design I admired, This lantern also served as an exemplar for the intersection between digital design and material fabrication, which was looming at the time. The joints for the plywood were a complex, yet effective means of notching for this specific material.

C O O K + F O X A R C H I T E C T S‘CLOUD STUDIO, NEW YORK’The cloud studio was introduced to me by my tutor in module one, where I reacted with some incomprehension. However I feel that it is a relevant precedent now because of its com-parable design process to my own, and its emphasis on fabri-cation of an elaborate, naturally-inspired concept. The idea of a merging between overall form and more local, patterned geometry following a defined meander was a challenge un-dertaken by me in module three and executed brilliantly by the architects here. The use of ribbed ‘cells’ correlated to my own scales at the con-clusion of week seven, though an interesting dissimilarity comes forward through the panelling’s lack of crevices, even after the fabrication process.

D E S I G N P R E C E D E N T SIn particular though, the design process and reliance on digital fashioning in architecture for the cloud project makes this precedent approximate to the lantern brief.

-Manually creating triangulated panels in the style of scales, with ‘surface from three or four points’ tool. This was to seal the opening at the inner seam of the lantern.

-Re-drawing triangular segments in order to join the pan-els in unfoldable strips.

A P P R O P R I A T E A D A P T A T I O N SFrom the prototype exercise I was able to observe and alter the faults in the model. On the advice of my tutor, given upon hearing of my plan to discard the ribs, I chose to close the gap in the model in reinforce structural stability. This involved another step backwards to re-loft the surface with closed cross-sectional curves. In addition, I re-panelled the surface with another scale pattern. My new pattern connected at some seams, but not for the majority. Week 8 was spent re-creating triangular surfaces to join the scales in ‘strips’. Further, the new panelled skin did not span the entire surface, repeating my past prob-lem with a gap at the innermost seam. Here, I manually created panels to seal the aperture.

U N R O L L I N GAfter finally joining the seams of the scales, I proceeded to group and unroll the model in long sections following the curve of the design. This was a recommend-ed change at a drop-in help session and the most rational means of unravelling the model. To do so with singular scales, as per the proto-type, would have been arduous and chaotic

One strip selected of ten, following the natural curvature of the model. Triangulation in each strip was al-ternate, depending on the size of the scale.

Unrolled strip with tabs. I created two types of tabs - a sided trape-zium shape and a triangular shape. The triangular shape was used for the majority of the panels.

F I N A L F O RF A B L A B I prepared the unrolled sections appropriately following the fab lab’s de-fined settings for the card cutter. By this point I had resolved on white card as the material. Taking into account the intricacy of the lantern, a differentia-tion between materials was unnecessary to add detail.

My model’s tabs were at the same point for every scale. I created a simple system of triangles here which would suit the deli-cacy of the panels. To ensure the card cut-ter did not spoil the work, I made one line in each tab ‘area’ a score line in order to prevent rips in the card.

L E G E N DScore LineCut Line

FOR RE-FABRICATION-Four layers must exist within the Rhino file for the design to be appropriate for the card cut-ter. Red = Score Lines, Black = Cut lines, Blue = Pen lines, Magenta = Card boundary.

D E S I G N P R E C E D E N T SN G V - P A N E L L I N G

During the module I had the chance to visit the National Gallery of Victoria where I en-countered this glass, square panelled wall. I found it an interesting junction between tessellation, building materials, joint meth-ods and form for the real world context fo-cused upon during module three, particu-larly in the readings.

The section caught my attention due to the curvature in the wall, which flows to be-come the panelled roof as well. A clear variation existed between the joining meth-ods for the panels on the planar portions of the wall and the rounded crossroads for the roof. Overlapping of the glass gener-ated an intriguing effect with the shadows above, whilst the inflexibility of the material demonstrated to me an operation for real panels in professional practice.

T O P V I E W

0102

03

0405a05b

06a06b

B O T T O M V I E W

06a

06b

07

08

09

10

01

0203 04

05a

05b

06a

06b

0709

0810

In order to help me differentiate between strips and set the lantern up for future assem-bly, I coloured and numbered each of the strips. The fact that only ten strips form the model removes some complication. Num-bered labels were ‘penned’ onto my final card pieces from the fab lab.

D E T E R M I N I N G F O L D SSpanning from my fabrication of the prototype to the newly panelled and unrolled section, determining the status of folds and ‘joints’ was a lengthy process involving much alternation in ‘views’ and reference to the original Rhino model.

When specifying the direction of folds, drawn dia-grams (right) assisted me for each type of scale, of which there were many.

L E G E N DFold OutwardsFold Inwards

Score LineCut Line

Clearly recognisable, the complexity of my model arrived in the many fold lines for each scale, providing the lantern with its structural strength and inherent shape.

Here I have used another system of colour-coding to differentiate be-tween lines which must be folded inwards and outwards.

Score lines and cut lines still remain upon the edges of the model, these do not undergo folding.

P L Y A R C H I T E C T U R E‘SHADOW PAVILION’The ‘Shadow Pavilion’ for the University of Michigan, by Ply Architecture based in the US. I came across this online and thought it an appropri-ate precedent for the direction of my work, since it involved a panel-ling approach with caverns and curvature in the design, just like my own 2D scales. What was inspiring about this project was its basis in a study of architectural ‘space entirely made up of holes’. Although the adoption of cones as a panelling system for a largely rounded was inconvenient, the overall design and original vision for the pavilion (in-spired by the botanical concept of phyllotaxis) was not hindered in this regard.

In particular, the use of such a raw steel materials and joints to convey this free-form design served as another indication into the potential of virtual composition. I found this also correlated to Paul Loh’s lecture upon the changing design sphere in week seven.


M A R C F O R N E S, T H E V E R Y M A N YTESSELION, PHILIDELPHIA UNIVERSITY, 2008As in my last module I was fascinated by the installation work of Marc Fornes and found it influenced me in the direction of my own design. Here, the project ‘tesselion’ encompassed a particularly complex, jigsaw of panels to produce an irregular form dictated by virtual processes. During the module I came to realise the direction of design, the reliance in the professional world of architecture upon ‘hard’, ‘digitally written’ creation to create contemporary, as well as serviceable works today. This project especially caught my notice because of its approach to ‘tabbing’ complex quadrilateral panels. An awareness of the form’s solidity is also portrayed from Fornes, with the inclusion of perforations to increase light flow and reduce ‘bulk’ /opacity being an aspect of the design also connected to my lantern.


M A K I N G F I N A L

M O D E L• Cutting out the strips along the

edge’s score lines .• Following the fold guide I had

produced I folded each scale along score lines until it repli-cated the digital version. Ref-erence back to the Rhino file really assisted in this process for further clarification.

• GLUING TABS ONTO ULTIMATE TRIANGULAR POINT FOR EACH ADJOINING SCALE.

F A B R I C A T I O N P R O C E S S

• Continuing to glue the strips to-gether at the appropriate seams. I found this a finicky, difficult process which required time and precision.

• As the sections were glued down the model took on the defined surface shape. I aided somewhat here, adjusting folds in some scales to emphasize the ‘bumpy’ seg-ments in the form.

• Lighting was also an issue I didn’t address to my own standards. I in-creased the length between my LED lights and their batteries through the addition of wires. Blu Tac meant the lights could be simply slotted/stuck into place, with the wires allowing the batteries to still be accessible to the wearer.

F I N A L M O D E L - P H O T O G R A P H S

F I N A L M O D E L - P H O T O G R A P H S

C R I T I Q U E, R E F L E C T I O N, C O M P A R I S O NDEFICIENCIESAlthough I was satisfied with the resulting appearance of the model from some perspectives, I believe it lost some of the aspects crucial to the Rhino design and original theories from my natural process.

• The form of the lantern was quite flat when viewed from the front or side perspectives. The ‘bubbles’, representing indi-vidual scales in motion and life’s stages in circular, repetitive formation, were not as defined as I had hoped. I believe this was a flaw in my reproduction of the NURBS surface in week 8, despite making allowances to inflate this effect.

• The length of the shorter ‘hooked’ end, was not adequate for the wearable position around the neck. I found the model did not stay in this spot as I had intended. This was also an issue with the NURBS surface, but more specifically with the tenden-cy of a panelled grid to not extend the full length of a surface.

• Lighting was difficult to incorporate when worn on the body. This was not an issue for photographs in the photostage.

TRIUMPHSDespite drawbacks listed above, there were many features of the model I was satisfied with:

• Consistency in scale pattern and seam position gave an im-pressive visual effect, especially with the addition of LEDs, cast-ing a uniform like shadow onto surrounding planes

• The numerous folds in each scale removed the need for interior ribs. This was an aspect i did not recognize at the beginning of the module until my first partial prototype. I would further exaggerate the model’s voluminous form if I were to recreate the lantern.

C R I T I Q U E, R E F L E C T I O N, C O M P A R I S O NPersonally, module three was a learning curve for me, whereby I was intro-duced to the limitless possibilities for real-world fabrication with the aid of digital methods . However, I was somewhat contained within Rhino due to inexperience, and partially restricted in the production sense due to the complexity of some of my computerised designs.

I discovered the importance of prototypes from separate materials/de-signs when producing three-dimensional products in this digital medium. As such, prototyping can be seen as an intersection for the analogue and virtual systems addressed in the project - where the shortcomings and solu-tions of digital design can be realistically determined.

The many factors involved in making a usable, serviceable and aestheti-cally realised lantern were challenging on the front of eluding original inspi-ration and notions. To remind myself of my natural process of sloughing, of capturing motion and symbolizing life’s recurrent pattern was necessary to produce a relevant model which reached my standards, along with those of the brief.

I find this was reflected in the ‘Making Ideas’ reading, where Jakob + Mac-farlane’s architectural creation for ‘Restaurant Georges’ served as a cru-cial advance into digitally conducted design, yet the original intentions for the project and the practice’s design style was only enhanced rather than inhibited by new methods. The Restaurant Georges for Paris’ Pompidou Centre epitomized the production of organically inspired forms via com-puterized means, leading to a more successful result and higher compre-hension of space and materials’ abilities in synonymous conjunction.

In contrast to this and my own altered approach towards fabrication/de-sign processes were Architect Frank Gehry’s perspectives upon digital de-sign, addressed in the reading for week eight. As fervently substantiated by the start to finish manufacturing of MIT’s Strata Centre by, ‘a flowing, three dimensional form could not be adequately captured by two-dimensional drawings’ relied upon for the fashioning of the Guggenheim centre.

I believe it is this significant shift in architectural thinking which enables for a more involved, coordinated and spatially free-form style of design that still realises original notions and enables for further illustration of visual concep-tions.

[ABOVE] Georges Restaurant, Pompidou Centre.

[LEFT] MIT Strata Centre, Mas-sachusetts.

“The beauty of the digital model is that it can encompass that which a two dimensional drawing cannot: tempera-ture, air flow, the bahaviour of smoke, light and acoustics.” Reading #3: David Littlefield, SPACE CRAFTL: developments in architectural computing.

An interesting notion covered in reading three was how digital design can grasp and illustrate extensively both literal and unseen worldly processes. I found this directly connected with my natural process but extended into the realistic domain of fabrication. The difficulty of the past three weeks was translating a very theoreti-cal, virtually assembled object into a physical product which still realised original hypotheses. Throughout the module I came to fathom digital design’s role in this very twenty-first century idea.

Take, for example, THE TERRAIN MAP, by Rodi MacArthur and Sheppard Robson for the redevelopment of Penrith, Cumbria, UK. The topography around England’s Lake district was a key aspect of the design for a town facade, where digital maps of the landscape were literally transcribed onto the vertical wall and appropriately panelled in strips. I find this precedent inherently linked with the theories being projected to us during the module three lectures and task work, being registered also by my own design process . It is incomprehensible to fathom how my results for module three could have been attained without the service of RHINO 5 to expressively communicate the ‘sloughing-in-motion’ process in fluid, justified lofted surfaces.

Further than this, to generate a systematic, uniform panelling approach and ac-cordingly unroll these segments for testing was a crucial element behind the lan-tern’s design process, evidenced in many similar projects referenced during the model. The ‘to and fro table’ by NEX architecture (Alan Dempsey, Paul Loh, Michal Piasecki) in for London Design Week. The initial idea behind this invigorated reeval-uation of a mundane household object, being the expansion of communication, had to meet building requirements and address the impositions of materials/nec-essary mechanical equipment for cutting.

Recognizing this intersection - this crucial development in the design process from virtual creation to physical assembly - informed and influenced my design over-all. The module was ultimately a consistent exercise of modifying my form for the good of fabrication, whilst still retaining original plans through the aid of the digital medium.

[ABOVE] Terrain Map, im-agery, Rodi MacArthur, SHappard Robson.

[LEFT] To and Fro Table, Nex Architecture.

C R

I T

I Q

U E

, R

E F

L E

C T

I O

N,

C

O M

P A

R I

S O

N

Rovi Dean LauStudent No: 543495 Semeter 1/2012 Group 8

MODULE THREE - FABRICATION

R e c a p o n M o d u l e T w o . . .

Digitization of Model

In module two, I explored with different panels for my lantern. De-signing it as close as my plasticine model.Features I took note of was the principle of sound and the twisted body.Ended up with a design with a cus-tome 3D panel with twisted body.

P R O T O T Y P I N G - M A R K I ( s c a l e 1 : 3 )

Prototype of model - Scale (1:3)

Material: White A4 paper 80gsm

First prototype in process.

Parts that I prototyped was the body and the head.

For the head, I tested out whether it was a good idea to unroll it vertically.

Outcome: Not good to unroll vertically due to the shae of the panels, giving it a hard time to stick sharp corners together.

P R O T O T Y P E - M A R K I I ( s c a l e 1 : 1 )

Labeling of unrolled surfaces and colour identification. (Head)After my first 1:3 prototype, I carried on with a full scale prototype. It makes more sense for me to do a full scale prototype due to its fragile triangular shape panels. Unrolled it in a twisted manner, mmistake laernt from my first prototype.

Legend: - Above

- Below

Head

Labeling of unrolled surfaces and colour identification. (Body)

Unrolled in a twisted manner. Designing it as close as possible to my plasticine.

Legend: - Above

- Below

Body

Labeling of unrolled surfaces and colour identification. (Tail)

Legend: - Above

- Below

Tail also unrolled in a twisted manner. Showing the flow of wave going through the lantern; soundwave.

Tail

Tabbing - Grasshopper

Found a script for grasshopper which made things easier.

In order to manually edit tabs from grass-hopper, I had to bake them first then ex-plode it in Rhino.

This allowed me to deleted tabs that I do not need and resize individual tabs.

Once the tabs were created, I arranged my surfaces into the are of 900x600mm and were ready for cutting.

Hoping to achieve from second prototype:- Testing out the cutter to cut small triangles without ripping.

- Twisted unrolled surface could work.

- Lightings

Starting of putting together of Prototype - Mark II

Mistake found:- Found double tabs cre-ated on the same side.

Resolved by cutting away the tabs.

In order to prevent this happening again, I edit on Rhino as I go along.

In order to form my triangles properly, I had to under score the other side of the paper and fold it.

Process of Prototype - Mark II (Head)

Head Completed

Outcome (Head):- Twisted surfaces easier to put together.

Process of Prototype - Mark II (Body)While I was done with the body, I thought of testing the lightings out. From my precendent in Module Two, I wanted to create that calm soothing effect that does comforts someone when they look at it.

Thematic Pavilion EXPO 2012 Yeosu, South Korea

Architect: SOMA (Austrian firm founded in 2007)

Construction date: 2010 (completion 2012)

Testing with original design - Result: Feels abrupt, not that calm and soothing.

Original design with tracing paper - Result: Calm and soothing, close to what I had in mind.

Process of Prototype - Mark II (Complete)

Result: - Folds were not accurate

- Holes due to improper gluing and folding

- Material was tearing.

- Due to lots of triangle holes, the lantern was not that rigid.

Solution:- Use a thicker ivory card

- Making sure all the folds are accurate

REFINING IDEAS: PRECEDENTS & INFLUENCESLooking back at my process which was soundwaves, I focused too much on the principle of soundwaves, which was compression and rarefaction.

Looking beyond that, soundwaves generates different frequencies and amplitudes. Simply put it, noisy (harsh noise) and quiet (peaceful and calm).

Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3Architect: Woodhead Pte. Ltd.Completed 2008

Paper Lanterns.

The roof panels are controlled by a light sensor to control the amount of light entering.

- Noisy soundwaves = Random peaks of waves = Harsh Lights

- Quiet soundwaves = smooth soundwaves = Calm Lights

Materials and Structure

Tracing Paper

Black paper - 200gsm

Wanted to try out other materials besides tracing paper. Tried tracing paper, black paper or polypropylene for effects on the body. Polypropylene was more rigid then tracing paper, however it was too clear. It did not diffuse the light like how paper lanterns does.

Black paper did not allow the loght to pass through, so went back to the origi-nal idea, tracing paper.

Added holes on the solid panels of the body. Replacing them with other materials like tracing paper.

Lighting

Tested LEDs with 1, 2 and 3 batteries

LEDs with 2 abd 3 batteries are about hte same brightness, but brighter then with 1 battery.

Connected them in Parallel:- Shares the same voltage across all LEDs

- If 1 LED blows, the others will still light up.

To create a harsh light and fading at the end, I decided to Put 3 LEDs at the head, followed by a set of 2 LEDs and lastly 2 sets of 1 LED.

Lighting

I was trying to find a way to place the circuit in my lanter.

Plan to hide the switch, making it less obvious so I fiddled around with my prototype. Cutting open the tail and tried placing it at the tail.

For the LEDs, they will be placed at the center of the lantern through the whole body.

Metal wire and tape to hold it in place. Used tracing paper to conceal the colour of the wire.

F I N A L D E S I G N . . .

Final Design in process

Final Design in process

Final design on the left with lights on. Prototype Mark II on the right.

FINAL DESIGN

Reflection

Out of all 3 modules, I would have to say that module three is the most reward so far. It basically shows our outcome for the past 6 weeks.

One thing I learnt from doing this module three - fabrication, was about prototyping. The stage where it reaches prototyping is very crucial because that is twhere most mistakes and ideas come about. The object bascially comes to life, a solid 3D object, not a 3D animated object on the computer screen. Our mind thinks and feels better when an object can be held or felt, it gives our mind a different perspective. For example, constructing a chair. On a computer screen are basically lines and shapes. One thing that we are unable to see or feel is the comfort of the chair, or the strength of the chair, materials and so on. In order to find the perfect chair, or which ever suites the purpose, we have to go through the prototyping stage where different chairs are made out of differ-ent materials and find the best chair. As far as designing is concern, an architect, fashion designer or a mechanic, prototyping and fabrication of such ojbects are need to examine where mistakes and errors are which cannot be identified from the computer, and also the good stuff.

Besides the hardware stuff, even chefs have to create different samples of their dishes to try and see which ingridients creates the best tasting dish. So it is probably a way of life in the professional world, always finding new ways to design objects better and more improved version of the previous. A good example is the Apple products. From iPhone to the latest iPhone 4s. Improving and identifying the errors may take months to years as well. I would say it is an on going process, a life cycle.

SARAH FRARACCIO539769

Virtual Environments, Semester 1, 2012

MODULE THREE

AIRFLOW KEY IDEAS

The oscillating intensity of energy as air! ow as it passes over a surface con-

tinues to govern the design process in module three.

With great focus on the representing the changing phases of this natural

process, module three allows structural, material and luminescent qualities

to strengthen the outome and further consolidates the linkages between

the initial concept and each stage of the design process.

As the outcome takes shape, the representation of the natural process

becomes more relevant to the human interaction with the form, thus the

path of the air as it passes over the arm upon which it will be held becomes

a dominant governing factor in the design.

AIRFLOW UNROLL

The lantern was divided into " ve panel sections that

illustrated di# erent stages of the air! ow process as it

passes over a surface.

Structural qualities and location of joins and tabbing

were also taken into account so that joins were not

placed on major areas of visibility. Using only " ve main

pieces minimised confusion during the construction

process.

1: rapid high energy

air! ow converges at

elbow

2: high energy air! ow disperses and mean-

ders outward after converging at elbow join.

3: Low energy, ! oating air! ow

converging at wrist join

4: High energy air! ow cascades

and disperses, low energy

5: dispersing outwards

and downwards

1 2 3 4 5

AIRFLOW TAB

Simple rectangular tabbing was used and attached to

every join edge rather than glueing tabs to the under-

side of a surface. This system was selected to minimise

the visibility of surface joins when an inner light source

is applied.

AIRFLOW JOIN

01

02

03

04

05

Sections 02, 03, 04 and 05 each

have multiple components that

form the greater section piece.

Due to overlapping panels and

paper size contraints, these

panels had to be seperated

and re-joined in the contruc-

tion process. Each section joins

onto a panel edge of section

03, this process is illustrated in

the " gure at right.

AIRFLOW NEST

With prototying procedures in mind, unrolled surfaces were nested into an A2 sized " le for

cost e# ectivity in printing. Sections were arranged to reduce wastage material and space

was left between panels to allow for di# erentiation in cutting and constructing.

AIRFLOW PROTOTYPE ONE: SCALE 1:2

The initial prototyping pro-

cess was aimed to determine

whether the unrolled faces

would connect and whether

the structure would hold

together. The nested surfaces

were printed on standard A4

printer paper and manually

constructed at 1:2 size. The

structure succesfully held

together though the inner

tabbing interfered with the

smaller panels. In future pro-

totyping, the tabs in areas of

substantial joining will need

to be tidied, particularly where

they are visible through the

AIRFLOW REPRESENTING THE PROCESS

high energy air! ow

dispersive, low energy air! ow

high energy air! ow

dispersive

energy, air

meanders

outwards and

downwards

To further strengthen the representation of the ! uctuations

of energy within the air! ow process, contrasted card colour

was considered. The black card representing areas of en-

ergy intensity and the white card, areas of dispersive ! ow.

The digital representation of this outcome produced a stark

contrast between stages of the process rather than the

desired gradual ! ow from one stage to another.

Other representational techiniques will be tested to " nd a

more suitable outcome.

AIRFLOW LIGHT

Main areas of illumination, illustrative of

dispersive energy air! ow.

Aiming to further represent the ! uctuations of energy involved

in the chosen natural process, lighting will play an important

role. Lighting will communicate the intensity of energy by way

of placement in the model. The areas of dispersive air! ow will

be more illuminated than areas of intense energy. The diagram

below depicts the possible placement of LEDs in the model,

this will be further experimented with in prototyping.

AIRFLOW PRECEDENT

The facacde of this parking facility, designed in collaboration with Roderick Quin, an artist

from Vancouver, utilises metallic disc paneling and light re! ection to evoke the motion

and ! ow of cloud formation. By re! ecting light, these multi-directional discs portray the

natural process and, when viewed at di# erent angles,display di# erent " gures.

The use of light as a representational technique will be implemented into the lantern

design, where the placement of lighting will further illustrate the energy intensity of the

natural process.

SOUTHERN ALBERTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PARKADE: BING THOM ARCHITECTS.

AIRFLOW SHADOWING

The suggested technique of using tabs as ‘double

panels’ to convey shadowing was considered in the

representation process but it was realised that, due

to the large panel size, this e# ect would only apply

to some panels at the join areas unless the 5 sections

were further split, which is not favourable both for

structural qualities and for ease of construction.

Varied card thickness could be applied to represent

areas of di# ering intensities as ‘dark’ and ‘light’ areas.

This process could produce an e# ective outcome

aesthetically, but may cause di$ cult in joining pan-

els of di# erent card thickness. The model would be

likely to appear incoherent and may warp if thick-

nesses are too varied.

thick card: intense energy

thin card: dispersive energy

area of intended shadowing

Tab a$ xes beneath the join

panel and creates a shadow

a# ect

AIRFLOW SHADOWING

As an alternative to using tabs as ‘double panels’, A second set of faces will be

printed and attached to the back of the shadowed faces.

The images at right display darker panels where the shadow faces will be attached.

This shadowed e# ect will work together with a lighting system to communicate

the energy intensity ! uctuations.

AIRFLOW PRECEDENT

Shadowing and overlaying surfaces are implemented here in the design

of the Swarm Chandelier by Zaha Hadid and in the facade of this eco-

lodge. The spacing of material and the layering of them in response to

light creates ‘light’ and ‘dark’ areas much like the proposed ‘double panels’

of the lantern form. This shadowing e# ect creates depth and intensity in

each of these examples, the lantern design should also evoke the varied

measures of energy using this technique.

AIRFLOW PROTOTYPE TWO: SCALE 1:1

Prototype 2 was constructed at actual scale and printed onto standard printer paper. The " nished product indicated the outcome size

and how it will sit on the outstretched arm. The sizing " tted perfectly on the forearm with a suitable panel located for hand support in the

second ‘high energy’ section. Constructing the model to actual size more accurately depicted the relative size and location of tabs within

the model and in congested join areas and also indicated that some tabs had not been seperated where two face edges were on the same

straight tab edge, this will need to be improved for the " nal model.

AIRFLOW PROTOTYPE TWO: SCALE 1:1

A second set of selected ‘shadow’ panels were glued to the outside

of the panels where this e# ect was desired. Due to the lightweight

quality of the paper, the technique did not produce as e# ective an

outcome as was aimed forwhen light was applied. A heavier weight

card should produce a greater variance in shading, this technique will

be implemented into the " nal design.

Applying light to the top half of the model demonstrated the area that

one light source can illuminate in a cavity. The " nal model may only

need a small number of LEDs to convey the gradual dispersion of light

as the use of a high number of LEDs may solidify the light rather than

accentuate the light and dark areas.

AIRFLOW LIGHTING: LED

LEDs were connected in series with

resistors on each globe.

A total of 4 LEDs were decided

upon so that di# erentiations in

lighting could be visibly seen

rather than the structure emitting

a solid light with no evidence of

gradual luminance.

The series was tested on the full

scale prototype to decide on

the placement of lights within

the structure and also to discern

the e# ectivity of the shadowing

panels. As the model was made

from standad o$ ce paper, the

light emitted was su$ cient and

the shadow panelling proved

e# ective.

AIRFLOW FINAL MODEL

NESTED MODEL: FABLAB FILE

Set out on the 600x900mm " le size, panel pieces were labelled

and arranged in the most space-saving manner.

End tabs and narrow corners were marked as

score lines rather than cutting lines to minimise

tearing in the fabrication process

Additional ‘shadowing’ faces arranged in the remaining space of

page 2, the shadow panel " le will be used as a guide in construction.

AIRFLOW FINAL MODEL

AIRFLOW FINAL MODEL

The full scale model was constructed of a medium

weight ivory card and even with this card thickness,

some tabs were di$ cult to join as the form was not

as maliable as the previous paper prototypes. Particu-

larly in panels that folded inward rather than outward,

the form was di$ cult to shape as the score lines had

been marked to aid the most common outward fold-

ing direction of the card.

The lantern, once completed, appears to be solid and

durable, an indication that the card weight was well

suited to the end product and the issue of hiding

the visible tabbing became less of a problem with

less than expected visibility of the inner lantern. The

shadow tabs however, did not appear as succesful

as hoped, possibly due to the few LEDs in the most

shadowed regions.

AIRFLOW FINAL MODEL

FULL SCALE MODEL: ILLUMINATED

Interestingly, the clear LEDs slightly change from a blue-white light

at the initial phase to a green-white light at the end. This e# ect,

although not an intended outcome, could further illustrate the

air! ow process and the principle that the air disperses at the end

of it’s ! ow in a di# erent form than how it began.

The form is shaped to ! ow over the outstretched arm and is e# ectively

proportioned to this shape.

The LEDs cast circular light projections onto the surface of the lantern

but. in doing this, further enhance the cascading and meandering mo-

tion of the process by indicating the lack of stillness.

AIRFLOW ANALYSIS

Module three materializes the design of which each student has been re" ning and

shaping throughout the semester, this journey of transfer from the digital expecta-

tion into the physical form can encounter more constraints than one could have

anticipated.

Referred to quite often in the design world is the notion that the design process is

like " re-" ghting, that one must solve each problem (or " re) as it arrives.

Surely each student is faced with material, technological and time-based con-

straints in each design task undertaken but with the technology of digital fab-

rication, a multitude of other possible contraints are avoided. In the case of this

lantern design task, very few students would be able to fathom how to form such

intrictately precise structures out of card without the aid of digital development

and fabrication. In professional practice too, lies this bene" t too, of the adoption of

digital fabrication in design.

This is certainly the case for German company ‘Huf Haus’ who produce digitally-

fabricated housing and buildings to much of europe. Although the company

mass-produces these housing panels, they still claim to tailor-make their houses

to each client’s needs and this principle is justi" ed by the ability of digital fabrica-

tion to re" ne the digital plan of an existing base-model building without having to

completely re-draft a new concept. The standard of quality and precision produced

by this digital fabrication process exceeds many on-site, manually constructed

builds of similar nature and the time frame for an entire Huf Haus to be constructed

on site can be as little as 3 days!

With the rising predominence of digital fabrication techniques in design it is in-

creasingly important that students embrace new technologies, particularly when

they save increasing amounts of time and monotonous e# ort. It is important

though, that digital fabrication and virtual modelling do not become the driving

idea of design, although we can surely ‘learn from the machine age’ we must be

careful to retain and capture the unique workings of the designer’s mind without

the external options such as what new technology could be used to produce the

design. Design that takes form through digital fabrication should " rst be birthed

from pure design ideas, not a thinking that automatically considers technologies

and techniques.

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS -


CONTENT

- Introduction ....................................................................... 3

- Design difficulties ............................................................... 4

- Structure difficulties ........................................................... 5

- Unrolled surfaces ............................................................. 11

- Materials ........................................................................... 12

- Assembly instructions ...................................................... 13

- Construction difficulties and tips ................................... 15

- Lighting ............................................................................. 18

- Precedents ....................................................................... 20

- Critical reflection ............................................................. 23

2


INTRODUCTION

In the first module, change of seasons was studied and a physical model was model. Using the software Rhino, the physical model was drawn on the computer. After manipulating the overall shape, custom panels were designed to cover the model. After making a couple of adjustments the final virtual model was complete. This module demonstrates the steps which was taken to divide the model into smaller pieces, cut from materials and constructing the final physical model.

3


DESIGN DIFFICULTIES

The custom panels which covered the design, were non planar and they started to overlap at the bottom of the model. This has happened because the panels were not into a mesh before the base surface was paneled. In the fabrication process only planar surfaces are suitable to be cut out of paper. To solve this problem, the faulty panels were deleted and then replaced by a series of planar triangles which created a surface. By doing so, the structure was more stable and it also enables the process of fabrication. The new drawn surface would also prevent the model from having a sharp edge at the bottom which could have complicate the assembling process.

4


PANELS

In the first attempt to fabricate the custom panels, the main part (with black color) was cut separately from the transparent part. A base was also cut to make the whole panel more stable. The panels were designed to connect to each other as it is shown on the picture. The main problem with this construction method was that since the pieces were not cut out of the same material, the gaps between them could be seen easily as the model includes some strong curves. As it can be seen from the pictures, the overlapping tabs could be seen from the other side which was not desirable. Having 2 tabs at the same place was also a waste of material.

5


To solve those problems, all of the panels were joint together and cut out of Polypropylene. After that, the black stripes were joint together and then cut of black ivory card. The black ivory card was glued on top of the Polypropylene. The black ivory card does not let the light to pass through, as a result the glue traces are not visible from the other side. This method allows the assembly process to be done in a shorter amount of time and the final model is tidier.

6


RIB STRUCTURE

To support the panels, a rib structure was needed, so the panels could connect to. In the first prototype a series of thin ribs were chosen to connect to each other and provide strength for the whole model. The problem with this method was that the chosen rib was very thin and it was very weak. The edges and some gaps were visible if a light was put behind the ribs.

7


This problem was solved by choosing another part of each rib. By choosing a bigger piece, no gap was made in between the ribs and it was easier to glue the ribs together. The complete rib structure was so strong that it could support its own shape and also after connecting the panels, it was strong enough so a base was not needed for each of the panels at the bottom.

8

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon

Siavash

Polygon


PROCESS OF MODEL MAKING

9


VIRTUAL MODEL

1st series of panels

5th series of panels

4th series of panels

3rd series of panels

2nd series of panels

1st rib

9th rib

8th rib

7th rib

6th rib

10th rib

5th rib

4th rib

3rd rib

2nd rib

10


UNROLLED SURFACES

11


MATERIALS

- Black Card

Black card was stronger than normal Ivory card which made it a good material to use for the structure holding the load of the model. It also did not the light to go through which made it perfect for the outer panels which had to filter the light. Black card also did not leave any traces after being cut by the laser cuter.

- Polypropylene

Although Polypropylene was very difficult to bend, its thickness and strength helped to strengthen the model. This material was also transparent which was used in making the panels.

- Ivory Card

Ivory Card was both the weakest and lightest of the materials. Its weight was useful, as the model was getting heavier. It also let the light trough although not as much as Polypropylene which was used where there was less light filtration needed.

- Glue

Super Glue was used for most of the model where two card materials were joining. But Super Glue failed to provide a strong connection between Polypropylene and the card materials. UHU was a very good substitute as it dried reasonably fast and it was more tidy to use.

12


ASSEMBLY

My goal was to design the pieces in a way that would ease the assembling process. The desired methods should be quick an would be able to hide the connections between the pieces. The desirable structure also supports the panels weight in addition to its own.

13


PROCESS OF MODEL MAKING

14


CONSTRUCTION DIFFICULTIES AND TIPS

To fix the panels on the correct place was to some degree difficult at the beginning as the model and the curves were shaping. Clippers were crucial to hold the pieces together as the glue was drying.The use of UHU as the bonding glue enabled me to use Acetone or Nail Polish Remover to remove the traces of the glue on the model. This had a huge effect on the overall tidiness of my physical model.

15


ASSEMBLY STAGES

16


VIRTUAL VS. PHYSICAL MODEL

17


LIGHTING

18

For the lighting, first the plastic part of the wires was removed to allow a connection between the LEDs and the wire. Then the cupper part of the wires were twisted around the LED legs to have the maximum contact between the two. After that to fix the connections, they were covered by tape which would prevent the connections to create a short circuit as it was not conductive. This process was done 42 times. after that the LEDs were connected to the model using Blue tack as it helped to hold the LEDs inside the panels and not to let them touch the model so it would create a better light effect. This would create a type of light which shows the path of the light and not its source.

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS - 19


PRECEDENTS

Canadian born Frank Gehry is well known his expressive and recognizable architectural style.Gehry’s works are innovative in the use of materials and they are driven by shape. He spent most of his life in Los Angeles and the city’s life style had a big influence of his first projects. By assembling ordinary materials such as ply wood, chain-link fence and etc. He tries to create Cubist-inspired buildings. By time, his works adapted a more curvilinear shape as he tool on bigger projects. Rather than reflecting or blending with the surrounding, Gehry’s buildings stand out as defining aspects of their surrounding.

20


Gehry was the first architect to use digital technology to fabricate previously unrealizable forms. The importance of digitization can be clearly seen in his own words as he says: “I started making shapes that were hard to draw. That led us to the computer and to Catia software which made me realize the possibilities and the level and degree of accuracy you could create in your documents and your relationships because of the software”. The use of CAD software has allowed Gehry to draw, design and construct buildings such as the Guggenheim Museum (left hand side) and Experience Music Project (right hand side). Similar construction methods have been used to build the two buildings. As in can be seen from the pictures, a fabricated steel frame clad supports the building and then it is covered by Titanium or metal sheets. These eccentrically-shaped sheets of the outer shell were cut by laser guided data generated directly from the modeling software. Then the sheets are fixed to the skeleton using a pin.

21


MODEL ON MY BODY

22


CRITICAL REFLECTION

As a future architect, I believe one of the biggest challenges in architecture is to bring the ideas in the designers mind on a piece of paper. CAD software is a tool that helps the designer to broaden his imaginations and to dream big. In some occasions even big architects such as Gehry cannot draw some of their complex ideas on paper. Using CAD software allows them to draw these ideas and to present them to others which is very important for architects, as a big part of their job is to transfer their ideas to the client.

Digital designing has enabled architects and structure engineers to be able to think about the fabrication process from the early stages of the design process which can be very helpful to save both money and time. By doing this module I realized how considering the fabrication process while designing can help to create and generate new ideas in both designing and fabrication process. This allowed me to design my model in a way which no tabs were necessary and the structure was strong and stable.

The virtual side of the designing process allows architects to test their ideas in the virtual world before making them in the physical world. In this module I have learned that a design does not necessary have to be physical and a virtual design could also be more effective to create a virtual space for people to interact. As it was also discussed during week 10 Lecture, the design is developed by the designer to some extend and some of the design stages are completed by the design itself. Using Rhino introduced me to this part of the design process and enabled me to understand it in a much better way which could be very useful in the future.

23

Tiffany Natasha SantosoModule 3Student Number 551502 Group 15 Semester 1 2012

Recap: Precedent RecognitionDiploid Lamp

Diploid Lamp Series (2009-2010) - Matsys. These digitaly fabricated lamp series in-cludes very unique lamps with a kind of flowy surface, just like how I want my lat-ern surface to be. As you previously see from my key ideas, I tried to capture the shape of the Mimosa Pudica leaves during thigmonastic movement where the leaves start to fold when it touches vibration from the end of the leaves stalk towards the rest of the petiole. Thus creating a flowy, curve like, abstract shape. The flowy shape as you can see, influences the flow of the light throughout the lamp. The Diploid lamps’ light paneling patterns are inspired by nature such as scales, honeycombs, and bar-nacles. I really like how the shape of the lantern and the paneling paterns goes per-fectly in harmony. Furthermore, the new Diploid B lamp (2010; img: top right) is fabricated entirely without a glue. Every connection is a locking tab that enables the lamp to be built quickly despite the nearly 1000 parts. This method of ‘a locking tab’ will certianly be a useful reference when I try to panel and fabricate my lantern.

2009 Diploid Lamp

2010 Diploid B Lamp

Recap: Precedent Recognition Linfan Liu and Luke Johnson’s

Project by Linfan Liu and Luke Johnson (Spring 2009). Focusing on thigmonasty, the folding reaction of the plants when it is directly touched, they tried looking into a simple shape that can be folded into a more complex geometry. By add-ing sensors to the panels, it creates inter-action between the body and the design . When a person gets closer, the basic shape of triangle would divide up and it will go back to the basic triangle shape as time goes by. This project inspires me a lot when creating my paneling patterns. Just like them, I want to capture the ef-fect of thigmonasty. Through light, they managed to tell a story of a mimosa pu-dica plant which undergoes thigmonasty and this is really interesting. As a de-signer, I personally like things that tells something/story. I think it gives a deeper value/meaning to the design and shows that it has an excelent quality.

Module 2 Recap

Standard 2D ‘Tribasic’ Panel Custom Variable 3D Panel with Point Attrac-tors Model 1

Custom Variable 3D Panel with Point Attrac-tors Model 2

During the digitazion process in Module 2, I went through form and paneling manipulation and experimented with several techniques. I decided on hav-ing Standard 2D Tribasic Panel as a guide to my 3D paneling as I thought it is the most suitable 2D panel for my design. The model 2 was my final design outcome during that module, however I decided to manipulate and change it further due to the problems that it has.

Digitation3D Paneling Elaboration - First Model

I also found out that there is another problem with this paneling method, the edges of trian-gle does not seem to stick together. Furthermore, there are no ‘locking tab’ system that could hold these triangles together.

I went with my intial paneling pattern to see how it will work on my shape using the 3D custom variable paneling tool. With the offset, I set up the point-attractor to create an asscending effect of the thigmonasty. Unfortunatelly, it does not go well. It looks pretty ‘bizzare’ and I could not really see the different openings of my paneling patterns unless I zoom in and look at the surface of my shape at a closer distance.

Digitation3D Paneling Elaboration - Second Model

After the problematic result on my first tryout on the 3D paneling, I thought about the experiment that I had with TriBasic patterns while doing 2D grid paneling on my lantern shape. Dave also suggested that I formed the triangles into square, so that the triangles can stick to one another and the surface will not collapse. I tried making another set of paneling patterns. I copied each of the respective triangle and rotate them using the mirror tool to form the TriBasic shape, hence creating a locking system for each pair of triangles. Like the first try out, I used the 3D custom variable paneling tool with the point attractor on the top to create the asscending effect of thigmonasty with the 4 different paneling patterns. At first I thought that I have solved the problems which occurred on my first model. However when I look closely at the panels, I realized that there are still a lot of gaps between each ‘squares of triangles’ and the chance for these panels to stick to one another is very low. I had to acquire the fact that this wont work eventually. Furthermore, I thought that increasing the dense of the grid will help me achieve a smoother outcome. However at this stage, I realized that increas-ing the dense of the grid means more hardwork during the fabrication later on because it makes the pattern even smaller. At the end of module 2, I knew I still need to do a lot of manipulation and experimentation to get my paneling patterns to work. I also want to make sure that the panels goes in harmony with the shape of the lantern. In addition, I also considered leaving some surface at the bottom part of the lantern flat.

DigitationModule 3: Remodeling

Towards the beginning of module 3, I decided to do alterations and re-modeling to my design. I created a panel with similar concept that looks more simple and less problematic. With this new panels, I was hoping that one triangle will stick to another triangle, hence forming a square and those squares will stick with each other. Unfortunately when I tested these new panels onto the surface, there were gaps here and there. Fur-thermore, the panels does not stick with each other.

RemodelingReducing Grid Dense

With the limited amount of time I have left for this subject and the problems I have with my panels, I realized that having a grid dense that is too high would give me more trouble in the future. Hence, I decided to reduce the grid dense to the amount that fullfils my aesthethic value. The new grid dense that I use is 10 by 10. With this new grid, I think my surface shape looks interesting in a way that it gives this sense of antiquity and at the same time it still represents the thigmonasty process in a Mimosa Pudica plant. Furthermore, I also think that with this new grid my surface shape still looks pretty smooth.

RemodelingDesired Final Outcome

To solve the problems that had been occuring to my panels, a suggestion came up that I should put a frame to my triangles. Hence, there is that locking system which holds the triangles and the the squares of the triangles. I tried the new panels with the same method (panel custom 3D variable). It was a relieve to see that this new theory had put an end to the se-ries of problems that occurred on my previous pan-els. There seemed to be no gaps and each triangles look like they are attached to one another.

Precedent Recognition - A: ABC DBAYEH FACADE

ABC DBAYEH FACADE (In construc-tion as of January 2011) - nARCHI-TECTS. The ABC Dbayeh department store is a Beirut landmark for Beirut’s old-est and most important department brand. The interesting part about this project is that it turns various constraints into op-portunities. This project creates a cohesive assembly of disparate parts: four volumes step down the sloped site, terminating in a backlit laser cut aluminum screen on a prominent highway bordering the Medi-terranean Sea. Furthermore, waste from the aluminum cut-outs on the westernmost volume is being used as a cladding element throughout the remaining three volumes.

The following precedent and my lantern model has a similar patterns of panels in terms of the asscending opening of the 2D triangular panels. It is also similar in a way that the distribution and the placement of each specific panel pattern for this prec-edent is completely controlled according to the designer’s aesthetic. To stick with the 3D panels that I want and to have it work, I had to go through a long process where I had to face different problems and tried different methods. With presistence, I was able to turn various constraints into opportunities. I learned that sometimes you have to look things in a different view to able to overcome the constraints and problems which you face. To get my pan-els working, I had to view my 3D panels through a 2D perspective. After this long process, I was finally able to have my pan-els to unroll successfully. I think that it is very important to be able to “[turn] vari-ous constraints into opportunities” in the world of design with a great presistence.

RemodelingPanels

The Evolution of Panels

Remodeling3D in 2D Perspective

In intention to save more time and prevent undesired faults and bugs when unrolling, I created a 2D version of my 3D panels. Although it means more work on rhyno, it will give me more time in the future to fabricate my model and do any changes if needed.

Remodeling: 3D in 2D PerspectiveUnrolling Defect

On the process of unrolling and seperating each strips, I found out that the panels are not exactly joined to together. As you can see from the pictures above, there were cracks, gaps and the overlapping of the panels.

Remodeling: 3D in 2D PerspectiveUnrolling Defect: Approach

The pictures above shows my attempt in solving the defects by rejoining the trian-gles with the ‘edit points on’ command. I begin by seperating the models into 8 horizontal strips and 1 seam strip and re-joined each deffected points to have tri-angles that are attached to one another.

Remodeling: 3D in 2D PerspectiveUnrolling Defect: Unsuccessful Approach and Unroll

Moving onto the process of unrolling, there were numerous tiny gaps and cracks on my panels. This means that the technique that I used previously is not working. Although I attempted to ‘fake it’ by creating additional surfaces on these gaps, I even-tually decided that it was just too time consuming to do. Upon questioning the tutors during the help session as to why this defect occurred, I was told that it may be due to to a slight height difference among the tiny triangles. It may also due to the bug that Rhyno 5 has.

Remodeling: 3D in 2D PerspectiveNew Approach

Constructed the the same concept flat 2D panels composed of various curves, but this time they are each created on separate surfaces.

A colour coded, standard 2D basic ‘Tribasic’ panels of my model was created.

Remodeling: 3D in 2D PerspectiveNew Approach: Unfolding and Nesting

The new approach involves unrolling the colour coded 2D Tribasic strips and lofting it into surfaces. Then I used the command ‘flowalongsrf ’ to get the respective 2D panels planted onto my strips. The advantage of this method is I can specifically decide the location for each panel pattern.

File ready for fablab

PrototypeConstruction

Prototype360 Look

Precedent Recognition - B: House in Imazato and 4-pli

House in Imazato (1999) - Katsuyasu Kishigami (Left). The main material of this lightbox house was polycar-bonate sheeting. There is always that structure behind a skin which gives it strengh and shape. In a leaf structure, these structures are like it’s petiole and veins. I really like how the lighting hilighted the structure of the congurated walls, it gives that extra story/meaning to the building. I also think that the white-paper-like materials, suits very well with the frosty light, it creates a very unique and in-novative effect. This simple-yet-sophisticated construc-tion recalls the traditional paper architecture that Japan has. It was intended that the material around the court-yard that let in light and sound would help make the space feel as open as possible and not too clausatphobic.4-pli (2007) - Associated Fabrication. This lamp has a similar concept to House in Imazato in which both tries to highlight the hidden structure which be-came such important aspects to the design’s aesthethic.

With the ivory card material which I use for my lantern as well as the use of ‘tabs’, I think applying this method to my design will give it an extra depth and uniqueness. Further-more, I want to convey the veins and petiole that leaves have.

PrototypeConstruction: Imperfections and Future Improvements

As you can see from the images above, some parts cracked and some were torn which are due to some duplicated lines. I am not sure why this happens as I have removed the duplicated lines through the command ‘seldup’. Nevertheless, this should not be hard to solve, as I can recheck again whether I still have duplicated lines on my file. I chose double tabs because it creates a stronger locking system. Also in case of emergency, you have one spare tab to use. For further improvement and preparation towards the final model, I am going to print my file on several types of paper which are thicker than the ivory card to obtain a more rigid construction. I will also try the single tabs to create the ‘House in Imazato’ effect and see whether the outcome will suit my aesthethic values. Although it may be difficult due to the huge openings that my panels have, but it is worth to try. Furthermore, I am also going to try card cutter instead of laser cutter to obtain a cleaner look. I actually requested for the card cutter for my prototype however I was informed by the fab-lab staff that the card cutter machine is not working properly. In addition, I am going to rescale my file to make it bigger because the prototype is cur-rently too small for my wrist. Increasing the scale and paper density should help me create a neater model as it will certainly be easier to handle.

Precedent Recognition - C: Flylight

Flylight (2007) - Design Drift. FLYLIGHT is an interactive light installation artwork made of around 180 glass tubes. The glass tubes will light up in respond to the viewer’s movement. FLYLIGHT is inspired by the behavior of a flock of birds and the fasci-nating patterns they seem to make randomly in the air. What they are trying to capture is the scene when an intruder interrupts their flight. This is what the viewer will experience when approaching the FLYLIGHT. The lights can see their environment through sensors that translate the information into a computer simulation, which then drives the electronics of the lights. Just like this precedent I am trying to capture the effect of a specifc natural process through lighting design. Expressing the effect of thigmonasty on a Mimosa Pudica plant through both the shape of my lantern and the distribution of light in my lantern are my aims for this project. Although the use of sensors could further enhance the thigmonasty effect on my lantern, the amount of time given for this project made it hard for me to conduct a further research on this. Nevertheless, the paneling tools and ‘flowalongsrf ’ commands on Rhyno gave me the advantage to demonstrate thigmonasty through the lighting of my lantern.

PrototypeLighting

experiment with flashlight

eexperiment with LED Lights

Final Fabrication Fab Lab File

Final FabricationConstruction


I chose water colour paper because it has a unique texture to it, similar to leaves’. I also chose it because of its thickness, it is thicker than ivory card but thinner than mount board. Although using water colour paper made the process of folding harder, the texture and the rigidness of the paper turns out really nice. One of the im-perfections that I encountered on this final fabrication is the tearing of paper. To solve this I simpli coated the teared parts with a mixture of glue and water.

Another problem I encoun-tered is that I seemed to forget

to include one of the strip that during re-scaling, hence I could not use that strip during fabrication. Fortunately, I had that strip duplicated with the right scale. However, I had to

manually draw the panels and cut it myself.


This is the paper which I decided not to use because the score is too

light.

The unused and leftover papers can certainly be used again for testing ‘scores’ and ‘cuts’ in different types of cutter. Furthermore, I could certainly use these water

colour papers for paintings as I love to do water colour paintings.

Final Fabrication

Final Fabrication

Final Fabrication

Final Fabrication

Final Fabrication

Final Fabrication

AbstractLighting effects

Module 3 Critical ReflectionPersistence, as Dave said, is what I have to stick with. I had to bear with myself due to my lack of knowledge on 3D softwares. During module two, I have said that it had been a bumpy ride for me. I had to face nu-merous problems during digitizing and manipulation on Rhyno. I con-tinued to encounter these challenges during module 3 as well. Problems after problems occurred when I tried to fix my 3D panels, manipulate it to make it work and even during the process of unrolling. Moving backwards, decreasing grid density, creating new panels, new theories that sometimes does not work, facing rhyno bugs are like daily repet-itive steps that I had to go through during these two modules. Persis-tence. Nevertheless, I had to keep on trying and eventually I managed to have a perfect working panels and was ready to fabricate my lantern. Unfortunatelly, I was a bit late in submiting my file to the Fab lab due to the long process of refining my panels, unroling and nesting. In result, I had a very limited amount of time left to fabricate my prototype and I was only able to produce one prototype and one final model. However with that proto-type I was happy to be able to make improvements and changes for my final model. Albeit the fact that there are several changes that are need to be made for my future final model, I am happy to work on them with persistence.

During one of the tutorial a question was raised: Will your design pro-cess change if there is a particular machine? If yes, how would it be changed?

KUKA KR16-2 - KUKA ROBOT GROUP. It will definitely be changed. With the KUKA KR16-2 parametic robots, the process of fabrication could be faster and more precise in terms of measurement rather than manual cutting or fablab. I believe if I have get the chance to work with that parametic robot, my model will be definet-ly be more neat, strong and polished. Above are pictures of the Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart, this pavilion useed Kuka to create a very strong and neat tab system. Kuka is also capable of dealing with heavy and dense materials such as metal and wood. With this advantage, I could experimented with different kinds

Arthur Wen-Jun Wei

Student no. 555279

Semester 1 2012 Group 16

ENVS10008

Module 3

Recap: Module II

Above:ptPanel3DCustom

Above:ptOffsetBorder

The digitized model has been transformed by ptPanel3DCustom and ptOffsetBorder techniques. This model, however, has three weaknesses needed to be modified.

(See Refinement I, II, & III below)

Above:Initial digitized model

Refinement I: OffsetBorder

OffsetBorder with distance of max = 3 cm & min = 0.1 cmResults fine eduges, which are unstable and unable to be attached with taps as tap have width = 1cm.

Right: Initial Model

OffsetBorder with distance of max = 2 cm & min = 1 cmEdges become more stable and being able to be attached with taps.

Right: Refined Model

Refinement II: OffsetBorder - Point Attractor

Initial position of point attractor was placed inside the model, results an incompleted rotation of offsetborders.

Above: Initial Model

Initial position of point attractor was placed inside the model, creates offsetborders at the wrong area.

Below: Initial Model

New position of point attractor is placed outwards, which resolves problems. Now, borders are offseted correctly.

Left: Refined Model

Refinement III: Stability of Structure

The interface is unstable due to the shape of pyramad where the very end is fine.


RHS of the model has the same issue.


This interface joins LHS & RHS together. But only edges are being attached, which makes it unstable. Potentially, the whole structure might collpase.

Right: Initial Model

Refinement III: Solution - Substructure

Above: Left Substrcture

Above: Right Substrcture

Above: Bottom Substrcture

Refinement III: Solution - Substructure - Left/Right/Bottom Substructure

Above:The substructure is created by lofting curves from results of command - OffsetCurveOnSrf.

Original Curve

Joined Offset Curve

Above: OffsetCrvOnSrf Process

Original curve

Inward Offset curve

Outward Offset curve

Duplicate Original curve

Offset each curve separately results disjoint curves. This is solved by joining disjoint curves with command - Lines.

Above: Technical Issues

Right: Curves for lofting

Curves are offset both ouwards and inwards as creating two substructures to improve stability of the structure.

Another purpose is to utilize upper substructure as the base for light sources. The lower substructure ensures the stability of light system.

Above: Two 3D Triangular substructures

Left substructure is symmetrical to the right substructure, is done with the same

technique. This technique also applys to the bottom substructure.

Left: Right/Left/Bottom Substructures

Fabrication Preparation: Color Reference

RHS = Ro + RiLHS = Lo + Li

Fabrication Preparation: Color Reference - Left Hand Side (LHS)

Above: Left Hand Side (LHS)

Left: Left Inside (Li)

Left: Left Outside (Lo)

Fabrication Preparation: Color Reference - Right Hand Side (RHS)

Above: Right Hand Side (RHS)

Right: Right Inside (Ri)

Right: Right Outside (Ro)

Fabrication Preparation: Unrolling and Labeling - LHS

L1

L20

Fabrication Preparation: Unrolling and Labeling - RHS

R1

R20

Fabrication Preparation: Unrolling and Labeling - Bottom

Right Top Substructure (RT) Right Bottom Substructure (RB)

Left Top Substructure (LT) Left Bottom Substructure (LB)

Below: Reflection on materials used

The quantity of materials used are 12 pieces of 90 cm x 60 cm white Irovy cards, done by laser cutter. From estimation, 80% of area are used. To be more efficient, wasted papers are reused for further manipulation, stand of model and pillars used to improve stability of the strucutre.

Bottom Substructure

Prototype: Partial Model - RHS

Glue: Unpleasant outcome - tip is disjoint Double sided tape: More stable outcome

Glue: Untidy and messy outcome at tips Double sided tape: Due to thickness of papers are not taken into account, propotypes are unable to join together precisely even using double sided tape.

Prototype: Partial Model - Substructure

Above: Attemping to prototype substructures

Issue: The taps used to connect each segement are small, they tend to break off

Solution: Using transparent tape directly to increase its stability

Modeling: Left Hand Side

Modeling: Right Hand Side

Modeling: Light Source

In parallel: LEDs are connected in parallel as to reduce the total load of cells on the model. It only needs 2 AAA baterries to light up 10 LEDs.

Left: LEDs system is inserted under the upper substructure by using both doble sided tape and tapes.

Right: Complete LEDs system in RHS of the model

Above: Complete LEDs system in LHS of the model.

The cell can be inserted inside the extra space that is accidently generated from

thickness of papers, which was not taken into the account

Modeling: Installing Light Source

Modeling: Merging LHS & RHS with Substructures

Precedent Recongnition: Water Cathedral

The horizontal nave of Water Cathedral is made of numerous vertical components with vary in height and density. Its formation is

similar to the composition of the center of model.

By looking at how sunlight is passing through its center and forming condensed light effect, it inspires me a solution for

untidy appearance of the model...

This is caused by thickness of irovy card.It is not able to fit all components to the center which is an imaginary tiny point.

Left: Untidy Form

... thinking from a different perspective without being restricted by the untidy shape. Utilizing the lighting effect allows me

to transform this weakness to the strength.

Experiment: Lighting Effects

Light emits from holes forming systematically reductive lighting effects conveys the conceptual idea of dynamics of waves - waves become smaller over time due to reduction of energy within itself.

Above: Lighting Effects

Lighting effects are not restricted only to light ejection, but also the reflection within model which forms inner glow effects on interface of each segment.

Precedent Recongnition: Middelfart Savings Bank in Denmark

Middelfart Saving Bank has one large elegant wooden roof with numerous openings which brings in abundant amounts of daylight and allow for direct view of the sea from all places in the building. In this way, the light and friendly atmosphere sought for by the bank is achieved.

I am interested in how lighting effects are created upon on the strucutre. Light sources are installed underneath the triangular structure forms inner glow lighting effects. This inspires me on how to function the light sources in my model.

Left: Middelfart Saving Bank

Above: Lighting Effect of My Model

Further Development: Pillars

This is built undernearth the model, which increases

its stability to ensure the model does

not collpase.

Further Development: Pillars Finishing

Right: Completed Model with Pillars

Further Refinement I: New Pillar System

The design of initial pillar has greater depth and two taps, which does not fit well to connect substructures. It results height level difference in the center of the model.

Above: Intitial Pillar System

1

2 3

Above: New Pillar System

Above: Differences of Two Designs On the same level

Further Refinement II: New Light System I

Pointing Outwards

Pointing Inwards

The design of initial pillar has greater depth and two taps, which does not fit well to connect substructures. It results height level difference in the center of the model.

Above: New Light System

Desired Effect: LEDs Pointing Outwards

Desired Effect: LEDs Pointing Inwards

Above: LEDs Pointing Inwards

Above: LEDs Pointing Outwards

Desired Effect: As this model has contrastive presentation in form of shape - LHS (aggresive) & RHS (ressecive). I decide to follow up with lighting effect. LHS with recessive lighting effect while RHS with aggressive lighting effect.Further, integrating two light systems achieves more balanced lighting effect.

Further Refinement II: New Light System II

Placing a piece of double sided tape between two wires to avoid short circuit

Left: Refinement for switch

Changing the position of battery to the back of last segment of

the moe, so that battery would not been seen

Right: Refinement for battery

Critical Analysis: Conceptual Idea vs Model

How well is the model corresponded to the conceptual idea (dynamics of waves)? How is it being conveyed through paneling and lighting effects?

Critically:

This is conveyed through identical shape of each

triangular segment

< Wave never change its initial shape and wavelenth

Gradual reduction of amplitute is conveyed through systematic reduction of the size of segments. The gradual reduction of energy is communicated through lighting effects whereby the amount of light emiting through holes on each segment.

Amplitute decreases gradually as energy depletes

This is conveyed through formation of segments that

rotates around the center

< Every wave is generated from its origin

<

Personal Reflection: Moduel III

In moduel 3, I became familiar with techniques of transferring the virtual design into the real-world from. The process was extremely challenging as it took me more time than expected to unrolling the 3D design as well as constructing the physical model.

Importantly, I have learnt how to itentify problems and establishe suitable strategies such as designing appropriate substructures and

pillars to improve stability of the model. This allows me to think and visualize as an architect.

This model has complex structure which actually required more than one individual to complete. The assistance was needed when assembling parts

of the model together, installing light systems, and constructing pillars inside the model. Positively, I gained cooerating skills from working with others in a

team. As well as gained a strong sense of accomplishment at the end.

Amy Skipper583483Semester 1 2012Group 14

Fabrication

The final design for module 2 did not have a developable surface. The doubly curved faces of each panel were not able to be joined when unrolled and consequently when a strip was selected for unrolling each individual face was unrolled simultaneously, not allowing for cutting. The ribs also unrolled ineffectively with each face intersecting with the last. Consequently the surface and form had to be remodelled in Rhino. This allowed for an alteration and improvement in the overall form, more explicitly expressing the overall motion of the bird flock with the twisting effect of the flock on display. To achieve this flat faced surface a spine curve was created from the module 3 design, and the ‘circle around curve’ command created contours referencing the last model and these curves were then lofted to create a surface. This form was then rotated along the x axis and the ‘bend’ command used to create a final form with a surface which could be panelled into planar faces.

Creating developable geometry

Creating new geometry with developable surface

Overlapping and intersecting individual panels when unrolled

Double skin and ribs on cylinder prototype.

Prototype file sent to fablab

While this form was being configured I created a simple cylindrical form which I could panel with my idea and create a prototype on an approximate 1:1 scale of the final model. The inner skin was panelled with the shapes in one orientation, and the outer with them in the opposite. While creating the file for this prototype I came upon the problem of how the panels would connect to the ribs between the layers when fabricated. A few ideas were; 1- that the ribs could be exposed and that each panel could nestle between the frames of the ribs. 2- The tabs connecting the panels could attach internally to the ribs with the join between panels slightly offset from the middle to the edge of each rib. Another idea at this stage was 3- to have the tabs sticking out externally from the skin joining to each other, creating an extra layer of complexity to the design. This idea would really negate the use of the ribs at all as the lantern would only need to be a single layer closed surface which would be self supporting. This however would lose the moire effect of the two layers and colours.

Prototyping

Tabs from two panels to join to one side of rib

Tabs to stick up and down to connect to inner layer and protrude from surface

Prototyping

The scale needs to be taken into account when figuring our how many points to leave attached when cutting at fab lab. Mine are too far apart and consequently the pieces all fall out a little bit too much or have been taped in place which takes off a layer of card as it is peeled.

The 1mm box board is not white as I had assumed, although it is not a feature it still ruins the clean effect of the overall design. So this meant the idea of exposed ribs is not a good idea unless a black or white box board can be sourced and used.

Laser cutter leaves burn marks on white card. As my design is quite simple and does not involve intricate 3d panelling this effect is not disguised at all. Changing the black to the outer skin will still keep an effect of change in colour, but will hide the burn lines on the white layer.

In full scale I am surprised by the large size of each panel. The size will vary according the curvature on my model, but I think the shape needs to vary as well.

The ribs are only 1 cm wide, which means once the notches are in there is only 0.5 of scored cardboard holding them together. This has proven too narrow and the rings of the ribs have fallen apart when trying to construct the ribs together. The notch width is perfect however, to allow for a tight fit between each side of the join, but as they are the ribs are useless. I can try to overcome this by making the ribs wider and taking the layers further apart or notching less than half way through the rib, which will also result in the layers being further apart.

From prototyping I found that the similarity of relief surfaces between the two layers didn’t really create a moire effect, it just had holes for the light to pass through. The shapes are too much on top of each other, the combination of creating more distance between the panels with wider ribs and varying the shape or orientation of the cut outs will create a more interesting emergent light and shadow effect.

Ribs in 1mm box board- fragile, but connect well

White skin shows regularity of panelling, tabs poking out, light effect with one skin

Black skin Double layer skin with internal light

Design Precedent

Paul Loh of Nex architecture studio uses prototypes extensively in the process of design. He sees that making can actually be part of the design process, not just the end result. In his project for Oxford University, Kendrew Quad along with MJP Arhchitects prototyping was used throughout the project with scale models to decipher light filtration through each room, through to 1:1 scale models which were tested for craftsmanship, detail and finish, air seals, weather proofing and more. It was the use of prototyping which in the long run was a cost saving measure. Although each module prototype cost approximately that of ‘a small bmw’ producing these and testing them off site allowed for a much cleaner final construction process without having the uncertainties present themselves at the final stage of construction. A single module of the design was produced to test light effects within the room. A second prototype was constructed to test against weather conditions and a third was to the overall craftsman ship of the unit. Being a modular design it was only necessary to create one of the rooms as prototype, allowing the budget to construct this at full 1:1 scale. Hence when it came to producing the final result of a multiple module residential housing unit there was much less decision making to be made as the design had been completed with prototypes along the way.

The bugs in the current beta version of Rhino 5 wouldn’t allow the use of variable 3d panelling on my surface, so I had to work between Rhino 4 for this and Rhino 5 for the fin edge extrusion of the ribs. Using the end surface curves as attractor curves I created a series of panels which could be listed in order on the surface towards the attractor curve to create a variability to my surface image. Applying a similar process but with the panels listed in the opposite order on the inner skin should allow for more variability between the layers and more of the moire effect I am after.

Learning from prototype

Two skins with opposite direction variable panelling Ribs 3cm wide between skins

I decided to triple the width of the ribs between the layers and make them 3cm wide this will allow for a 1.5cm notch and 1.5cm still intact to hold the ribs together and for the skins to remain 3cm apart. The inner skin is set to be in the white card to hide the laser burn marks and the outer will be the black card. Now that the shapes cut from the panels are varied and the size of the panels also follows the geometry of the form, I think there is sufficient variation over the entire form as well as between the layers.

Unrolling and nesting

With my remodelled and panelled form and surface I could now unroll each layer in sectional strips which could be cut from my desired materials. Some of the ribs still had slight intersections on the panels to be joined so these were separated from the main rib to be joined manually. For efficient use of materials these pieces need to be nested within the dimensions of each piece of paper or card. When attempting this I found that almost every panel of the outer skin was too big for the paper, or that a single strip required a single sheet of paper. To me this was excessive and when cost was taken into consideration it was decided that this was not acceptable. So I decided to scale down the dimensions of the entire lantern to 75% of the original. This will allow for a more efficient use of materials and overall reduction in cost.

When adding tabs for joining the grasshopper script for Rhino produced many errors and ultimately was not usable for my purposes. Tabs drawn by hand allowed the variation to occur in the width of each row of tabs to protrude from the shape on the outer layer and uniformity to those that join to the ribs beneath the surface. Each tab within the shape could not exceed the width of the ribs of 3cm.

Unrolled inner and outer skins Unrolled ribs

Nested for fab lab

Design Precedent

At the intersection between architecture, engineering and product design, ‘The Swarm’ was chosen as the winner of an internal student design competition at the Institute for Emerging Technologies at TU Munich 2011 by a jury of renowned external architects, designers and industry representatives. The pieces are made from Alucobond, a laminate of aluminium with a polypropylene core. By combining various milling techniques an intelligent folding of the plane material is enabled, which are thus brought into a three-dimensional, stable form. Three different bird-modules were developed: one-way folded modules, modules with a folded Alucobond inlay and for the base points modules with a steel inlay. This allows each module to compensate for different external forces acting on the sculpture and assures a consistent shape throughout the modules. Different views show different perspectives of the piece, with perceptions being altered by the viewer’s personal experience and impressions. From one view it is simple the flowing shape of a flock of birds, but from the back it shows the formation of the modules and the individual behaviours of each forming the flock.

Prototyping

Initially I thought to construct each ribbed section and two layers of panels sequentially, but the fragility of the ribbed frame is only negated when all notches are joined in place and so I decided to construct the ribs first, followed by the inner skin and then finally the outer skin. Although the ribs are now sturdy at 3cm wide they still carry a lot of self weight and the scored sections are likely to tear if manipulated to harshly.

Glue ring sections together where required

Fix with masking tape while glue dries

Lay ribs in number order to avid confusion

Join spines to rings in order beginning in the centre and moving out towards each end

Finished form in ribs

However when the tabs are complete on the inner skin and stick up towards the outside they actually form rings themselves therefore negating the need for the ribs at all and reducing the weight and bulk of the lantern. The tabs of the outer skin can then attach to these inner tabs to create the connection between the layers.

Fabrication

Inner skin

Outer skin

Fabrication

Joining end of ring tabs together first

Join black outer layer to inner white skin with tabs

Cut outer scored edges an scored shapes on black card

Joining rings together in number order

Join end of the ring together

Cut outer scored edges an scored shapes on white card

Continue joining rings to the centre

Complete inner skin

Join next ring with tabs sticking out Continue joining rings over white layer Continue to create the outer skin to cover the inner

Material Usage

Even after reducing the overall size of my lantern to achieve a lower material usage it is still not very efficient as it is. 7 pages of 600x900mm for each layer seems a little excessive. Altering each panel to have one or two joins in each strip would allow more smaller pieces to be placed on the same page. Left over materials from this form could be used in future projects where the pieces required were smaller. The shapes cut from each panel are quite interesting and would be great to use as a confetti like spray.

Analysis

Although digital fabrication technology has been around for the last two decades it is only more recently that it has become widely available and cost effective. The rise of user friendly digital software combined with the functionality of cnc cutters and additive and subtractive printing allows for a greater scope for mass customisation within many industries, while still keeping the role of the designer integral to the process. On top of the designer is the craftsperson who will actually fabricate the piece if it is broken down into flat planar pieces and digitally cut. As Daniel Charny quoted in the V&A’s exhibition ‘The Power of Making’ “Making is the most powerful way that we solve problems, express ideas and shape our world. What and how we make defines who we are, and communicates who we want to be .…. making is something everyone can do.” This process of making through prototyping also allows us to create unexpected outcomes- different to those conceived in the digital design process, but which may add an extra level of complexity or elegance to a design which could not be foreseen, or may be difficult to design using solely the software available. This results in a final product which still retains an organic element, or human touch, while utilising the amazing opportunities available to us through the digital fabrication process. My limitations in knowledge and practise of the possibilities of Rhino, especially scripting with Grasshopper and algorithms limited my ability to truly communicate the phenomena of emergence within my design, but by engaging with the prototype and manipulating it in the physical world I was able to recreate this in what is essentially a digital design.

Ben RydingStudent No: 587403 Semester 1/2012 Group 10

Module ThreeFabricaTioN

Module oNe: ideaTioNrecapping on Module one, my chosen natural process was rainfall; particularly the changing form in it’s motion as it descends towards earth.

When a raindrop makes contact with another, they combine to form a larger raindrop. The combined raindrop will keep getting larger, and it’s base will keep getting flatter, until it reaches a radius over over 4.5mm. at this point, the raindrop can be seen to gradually morph into two seperate raindrops, as demonstrated in the rainfall diagram (left).

i became fascinated with the work of henry Segerman, as he was able to visually represent some of the complexities within the natural and constructed environment in ways that were previously unknown to me.

i was particularly inspired by his ‘Juggling club Motion’ design, as it was a simple design that demonstrated and communicated motion, without the movement of the model. This design is shown in the top right corner of this page.

after much playing around with the general form of the design, i reached my final sketch proposal (bottom right) which demonstrates this motion, without movement in a time-lapse style design.

Module TWo: deSiGNIn Module Two, I developed my model from an analog medium into a digital model. This produced a much cleaner and more acurate aesthetic than I was able to achieve with plasticine.

The screenshot in the top left corner of this page demonstrates the process of converting my physical plasticine model into a digitised form through the means of multiple curves and the ‘loft’ function. Although extremely time-consuming, I was eventually able to achieve my final digitised model (middle-left) which shows the intended form of my model.

After achieving this form, I began thinking of possible lighting methods for the lantern. i returned to my original natural process, being rainfall, for inspiration. The most common example of lighting in regards to rainfall is the rainbow. a rainbow is a spectrum of different coloured light which can be observed when the suns rays are reflected and refracted by mist of raindrops. This process can be observed in the top right corner of this page.

I decided that the most effective way to recreate this process would be to create panels with several openings in order for the light to be released in many different directions; much like that of a rainbow. After a few attempts at this, I arrived at my final panelling which is shown at the bottom of the page. These panels were applied with the ptPanelcustom3dVariable function with the largest openings being at the areas of the intended light source.

This process of panelling allowed me to arrive at my final working design, demonstrated to the bottom right of this page. This design demonstrates the motion without movement of raindrops, as achieved in Module One, as well as the quality of light, which allows randrops to to release light at many different angles.

chaPTer oNereFiNeMeNT

ProbleM aNalySiS

After reviewing my final model from Module Two, it was made clear that the panelling grid did not evenly distribute the points to make up the grid; particularly in the mid-section and the two ‘legs’. This caused a very clustered group of extremely thin triangular panels in that section. This is undesirable for two reasons. Firstly, this caused a rather unappealing aesthetic for the model. Secondly, all of these thin panels would make the model incredibly difficult to fabricate and construct.

it is clear that this clustered group of panels is at the point of my model where I was having trouble making smooth. This gave me two options; I could either take the time-consuming option of manually adjusting control points to evenly distribute them myself, or find an alternative method of lofting the model in order to distribute the points evenly. After my regret for taking the first option in Module Two, I decided to choose the latter.

Grid PoiNT MaNiPulaTioN

My first alternate panelling idea was to start from scratch, and manually create the panelling grid. I spent a few hours evenly placing points on the curves that I created in Module Two. However, after I was finished laying these points, I discovered that tjhe grid I had created was just a grid, not a panelling grid and hence, couldn’t be panelled.

after that, i decided that i would try this method again, but to ensure that a panelling grid was created, i would create a panelling grid on my models surface, and then manually manipulate these points evenly on the curves. Once again, I spent a few hours adjusting the points into an even panelling grid. However, after I had created the grid and attempted to panel it, I achieved the panelled model shown to the right which, although even in the top half, is clustered, messy and overlapping in the bottom half. This occured as the points are already labelled and do not panel based on which are the nearest point but, instead, to the next respective point, regardless of where it is in the grid. Therefore, due to my manipulation of the points in order to suit the deisgn, the points were no longer in their respective place-ment.

This allowed me to decide where to continue with this method, and re-manipulate the points ensuring that the points stayed in their grid location; or, decide to attempt another alternate lofting method. once again, i chose the latter,

SecTioN SePeraTioNi decided to attempt lofting my model in three seperate, open section; being the body and two legs. I did this with my original panels originally however, as shown to the left, i encountered two problems. Firstly, the panel grid was too dense, giving far too many panels which would be difficult to fabricate. And secondly, a lot of the panels lofted are not flat surfaces. As it is impossible to panel curved surfaces, it is a problem that i would need to address in order to progress with this design.

I was given the suggestion to turn my panels into meshes, panel the meshes and then use the MeshtoNurb function to turn the panels back into surfaces. i tried this with my panels but encountered a difficulty. Rather than my panels being turned back into surfaces, they were made up of overlapping polysurfaces which were no longer perfect triangles, but quadrilaterals.

i realised that this was due to the manually created holes in the panels as the pyramids worked perfectly. i therefore decided to attempt panelling my model with mesh pyramids and then converting the mesh back into surfaces. This was a lot more successful, giving me my desired panels.

The only thing i had to edit was the placement of grid points on the two legs, to ensure that they lined up with the grid points of the body. after this, it was simply a matter of joining the corners of panels from the legs to the body to create one, single, panelled surface, shown to the right.

There were other minor editing steps involved, such as deleting and rejoining the panels on the base of the legs and the end of the model in order to create a simpler, more elegant design. The only difficulty now will be attempting to recreate the lighting holes of my original panels.

liGhTiNG

When it came to lighting, I realised that in order to achieve my original panelling i would need to manually cut the holes of every panel. This would prove to be very time-consuming due to the high number of panels, around 124 pyramids with 4 triangular panels each.

This caused me to re-think the holes of my panels. I thought, as a pyramid is a shape that naturally faces 4 seperate directions, that I would be able to have even triangular holes on all saides of the triangle and still achieve the desired effect of the spreading of light, like raindrops do.

This made making the holes simpler as, rather than having to make four sperate panels and panel with the ptPanelcustom3dVariable function, i could panel the surface with a single pyramid mesh and then use MeshtoNurb, like i did on the previous page, so that I would be able to ensure that only flat faces are used.

i was then able to use ptoffsetborder to create the holes auto-matically. by using this function with attractor points, i was able to create larger openings where the intended light sources will be.

WorkiNG reFiNed Model

chaPTer TWoPreParaTioN

ForM MaNiPulaTioN

a section of my model which appeared concerning was the inside of the models main curve. This is the section that will rest of the shoulder and I wanted to reduce the size of the pyramids so that it would rest more easily and provide a sense of greater comfort for the wearer.

I referred back to the reflection and refraction of light in raindrops and noticed a quility that I hadn’t yet included. I noticed that when light is reflected, it enters and exits the raindrop on one side and doesn;t affect the other. i realised that i could, then, use only closed panels on the inside of the curve to make the model take on this aspect more.

I decided that the best way to fulfill both of these new requirements would be to simplify each of the inside pyramids into two flat, closed triangles. This creates a flat inner curve that would rest easily on the shoulder and result in the light being released in many different directions out from the body.

PrecedeNT ackNoWledGeMeNTPrecedent acknowledgement: This geodesic dome was devel-oped by buckminster Fuller in 1954 as an affordable, energy effiecient form of housing. It was said that the geodesic dome is one of the strongest, lightweight and economical structures. it can be shown here that with more panels, the overall form becomes more apparent. With my design, although still evident, a lot of the obvious curve between spherical sections has been lost due to the smaller amount of panels. i could have used more panels, like this design, to make the overall form more evident, but I believe that I have found a good middle-ground, between overall form, material efficency and overall complexity.

Precedent acknowledgement: The space frame, designed by Davide DelGiudice and Andrea Graziano utilised 3D modelling software, similar to the way my model was designed, with a similar square-based pyramid panelling. This demonstrates how regardless of how similar certain methods and aspects may be, very different designs can be achieved. It, therefore, highlights that there is a large human element in designing. Even though a computer modelling software is used, it is the human controlling it which allows the design to take on it’s form.

Precedent acknowledgement: The rMiT Swanston academic building, designed by lyons architects, is a perfect example of the incorporation of pyramid panelling within the constructed environment. These panels slightly differ from mine, however, as rather than having whole protruding pyramids, this building uses half pyramids, combined with flat panels to combine into its form.

uNrolliNG

After achieving my desired design, the next step was to begin unrolling it into strips of panels. I chose to divide my model into 7 sections: the two legs, the body divided into two sections, and each of the three tips. This allowed me to choose panels in a diagonal, spiralling motion across these sections in such a way that they would still fit on an A1 page.

i did this by selecting a group of panels and using the Join function to combine them, and placing them on seperate layers, designating a different colour to each group of panels. once i had done this for all panels, I achieved the multi-colour model in the top left. Although the colours don’t make a difference to the actual design, nor to the fabrication process, it was very helpful in keeping track of the different groups of panels once i had unrolled the model.

after grouping all panels into strips, i began unrolling. This was done using the ptUnrollFaces function. This allowed me to achieve 27 strips of panels corresponding to the 27 strips on the model. although the colours may not have seemed important when on the model, once I reached this stage of unrolling the model, the colours helped me to keep track of where each strip of panels came from in relation to the model.

TabS

When all my strips were created, I was then required to make tabs so that I would be able to join the panels together once I reach the fabrication stage. This was done with the Polyline function.

i decided to make all tabs 0.5cm, as that was the smallest border of my holes and it would ensure that the tabs didn’t extrude past the holes in the panels. Therefore, I used the DupBorder, and Offset function, set to 0.5cm, to extrude the border of the strips 0.5cm. This allowed me to turn on osnap and manually draw the polylines to the border in order to make the tabs.

I also decided to put tabs only on one side of the strips. This would allow me to have an even amount of tabs connecting the panels together, and allow me to better release light by controlling the shadows around the holes.

PaGe layouT

in order for the design to be sent to the Fablab for fabrication, i needed to lay my strips out into pages. due to the cost and time for the card and laser cutters, it was in my best interests to fit my strips onto as few pages as possible, and use the material as efficiently as possible. As can be shown above, I managed to fit my strips onto only two pages.

The first step in setting up my pages was to make a rectangle of size 90x60cm for the A1 pages to be used. I then rotated and moved each strip into the most effective place to make the best use of the material. i had to ensure that the strips were at least 20mm away from the edge of the page and no more than 10mm away from the other strips to ensure that that there were no errors in cutting out the designs. i then went through and numbered each strip, with the TextObject function, so that I would be able to keep track of the strips once it has been sent to the Fablab.

Then, I had to remove faces, only leaving their borders. This was done using the DupEdge function, allowing me to duplicate all the edges of the surfaces. I was then required to delete all faces, leaving only the edges, tabs, number and pages. Then, using the TextObject function, I wrote ‘Ivory Card - White’ under each page indicating I wanted my designs cut into white ivory card.

The final step in the page layout was changing the colours of each line/curve to indicate what i wanted done with each line; black for cut, red for score, blue for pen or magenta for the page or non-cutting lines. This allows the card or laser cutter to understand what you want it to do. This allowed me to achieve the final pages that could be sent off to the FabLab for fabrication.

FiNal PaGeS For FabricaTioN

chaPTer ThreeFabricaTioN

Fablab PaGeS

Due to the large number of projects sent to the Fablab in the weeks leading up to the Module Three submission, my job was completed almost a week after sending it in. This resulted in very little time to construct and analyse the faults within the model.

The first noticable difference after receiving my completed pages was the format. although i sent my pages on two a1 pages, my returned pages came back as four a2 pages; once again due to the large amount of submissions resulting in the Fablab running out of Ivory Card A1 pages.

The second noticable difference was the immediate faults that the card cutter made. The main two are visible to the left of page being that one specific strip of panels ripped as it was being cut by the card cutter, and that the pen tool dragged across some of the pages.

This staff in the Fablab fixed this problem by reprinting the ripped strip on the same page so that it would require no additional cost. The problem with the pen tool, however, would have to be fixed by me, removing lines and figuring out which panels were which, due to the lack of labelling in some sections.

cuTTiNG

The first step towards farbication after recieving my final pages was to begin cutting out the panels. This was done with relative ease. However, due to the varied format, it was unclear of what some panels were and where they fit in the model. Therefore, I had to look at my Rhino model on the computer and attempt to match respective pieces to their numbers to allow for more simple construction.

coNSTrucTioNWhen the panels were cut, it was just a matter of gluing them together. i decided to construct the model in four sections, much like the way i chose strips. This was not only for convenience, but also because it allowed openings to put the lighting in, particularly as i aim to put a circuit inside the model.

The constructing stage was fairly complex as I had to keep referring back to my rhino model to determine whether a mountain or valley fold was required along each strip of panels. There were often mistakes in the folding process by making the wrong fold and this would make that particular fold a lot less clean then those made accurately, so it was essential to make sure that folds were made correctly.

once constructed, i decided to attempt shining a lamp through each of the sections to test the lighting, and how the light is released by the model. i really think that the lighting turned out as good as i was anticipating. However, when installing the LED’s, I would have to ensure that they are relatively hidden so that they don’t obstruct the clean aesthetic of the model.

liGhTiNG circuiT

after a lot of messing around with different circuit ideas, i settles on a simple series circuit, made up of three led’s, a battery pack of three 3V batteries piled on top of each other and an oN/oFF button. although simple, this cir-cuit works effectively with minimal materials to obstruct the light being released out of the models holes.

One of the most difficult parts of making this circuit, was determining the lengths of wire required to place the LED’s in the spaces inside the model that I wanted them to be. However, as the lights will be facing away from the circuit, it does not particularly matter if there is slightly too much wire used.

i decided that it would be best to use a soldering iron to connect the circuit in order to ensure that the circuit would not break inside the model. This would not only make the lights not work, but as it is a closed model, it would be incredibly hard to repair.

The next step would be to place this circuit inside the model and construct the remaining pieces around the cir-cuit to ensure that the circuit is placed where it is required.

FiNal coNSTrucTioN

Putting the last sections of panels together proved to be extremely challenging. Although the overall form and lighting is exactly how I wanted, a lot of the small details and joints are quite messy and poorly constructed.

The next time I construct this model, I would put more thought into determining where my final section would be glued on and how it would be done.

I did, however manage to figure out a better way of putting the light switch in my model. While the switch is entirely on the inside of the model, i cut one panel on the inside of the models curve into a flap so that you can reach a finger in and press the button. This allows for an easy way to turn the lantern on and off without disturbing the model’s aesthetic qualities.

FiNal laNTerN

reFlecTioN

Reflecting on this module, it is clear that the transition from digital to fabricated model is a lot more complex than first anticipated. Although the card cutter does a lot of the work in creating your panels, without a steady hand and a strong control, it is possible for the model to fail.

Luckily, my model turned out relatively the way which I intended it to, however there are a few minor mistakes which reduce the aesthetic quality of the model. It is clear that a lot more thought needs to go into the seemingly minor details such as the tabs and the way in which the strips of panels are constructed together. although these seem like minor details, they do make the difference between a perfect model and a model which is full of errors.

although i am happy with the way this lantern turned out, in Module Four i would like to attempt re-designing and re-constructing the model in order to fix up the evident mistakes.

This module has made it clear that when designing anything, you must think about and consider every aspect of it. Because, whether it seems like a major or minor aspect, they equally have the potential to be the making or breaking point of the design. Therefore, when re-designing this model in Module Four, I would take everything into consideration to ensure that it is more successful than this one.

However, despite the mistakes in the construction of this model, it fulfills all the criteria which i assigned for it regarding the original natural process, rainfall, and it has a really elegant overall form. In this way, I believe that this model was, to some extent, successful, and therefore, shouldn’t require much repair when re-designing it in Module Four.

This module proved to be a good analysis of my design and how successful it was in fulfilling its purpose and would, therefore, be a good gateway leading into Module Four.

Student No: 590473 Semester 1/2012 Group 7

MODULE 3C A L L U M M O R R I S O N

FABRICATIOND E S I G N R E I N T E G R A T I O N

At the conclusion of module 2 I had decided on the two dimensionally panelled form to the right with random cutouts to allow light through. The base of the form also works as a contrast to the spire with the structurally rigid base a stark contrast to the curves of spire.

During module 2 I began to question whether the inclusion of a foot in my design was necessary, as the design appears to stand well on its own accord. The exclusion of the foot, however, compromises the integrity of my original concept with the essence of the conflict between this form and my foot being lost. For this reason I have decided that the foot needs to be reintegrated into my design.

PRECEDENTL I A N N A S H E P P A R D

Lianna Shepard is a fashion designer who focuses on how two dimentional forms may be transformed into three then interact with the body. This last charcteristic of Shepard’s work is of most interest to me as I attempt to integrate my foot into my design.

Shepard’s work is interesting as the forms that sit on the body do not attempt to mold to the body, as traditional clothing does, but instead appear as an extension of the body, excentuating and extending some part of the human form. Applying this thinking to my design my concern shoudld move away from how to get my form to fit to my body but rather to how can my form use my body as an extension of itself to communicate the conflict between man and nature.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONU N F O L D I N G

My model unfolded with the segments colour coded to allow for easy assembly. The images on the far right act as references to allow the nets to be reassembled.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONN E S T I N G A N D R E F E R E N C E G U I D E

After unfolding my model I decided to go straight into using the Fablab to cutout my nets. I made this decision to familarise myself with the Fablab before cutting my final, identifying any possible issues early.

So, I proceeded to add tabs to my nets using a combination of Grasshopper scripts and manually offsetting them. This combination of techniques proved to be effective as, whilst Grasshopper did save a lot of time, it got confused with tabbing the smaller panel of my model and did not take into account the variation in my model between the base and spire.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONC O N S T R U C T I O N

I consturcted my model in the three segments it was original designed in, finally fitting them together at the end. The model was constructed at a 1:1 scale

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONF I N A L

A comparison of my 3D model to my initial prototype. Whilst not completely accurate, the accuracy is acceptable for an initial protype. The main issue is the base being too wide which is caused by the weight of the spire and its form applying outward pressure to it.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONR E F L E C T I O N

Examining my design in a physical form I am not taken in by it as much as I had hoped. The antagonistic conflict between the natural and human appears absent, with the surface appearing bare and plain. I feel an element of aggression needs to be injected back into the model.

The other main issue is how the model interacts with the foot. In the image on the right it can be seen that the model does not really fit the foot, and due to it being rigid, cannot be changed. This ability to fit to the foot is crucial in communicating my concepts. With this in mind dynamic or adaptable, to link back to the concept of natural selection, systems of constructing the spiral need to be examined with further prototyping and precedent research possibly offering a solution that can be made to fit to my leg, or even more ideally, could be made to fit anyones leg.

Using the Fablab proved to be a good decision with the time taken to cut out segments reduced exponentially. The scoring of fold lines also allowed for the prototype to be relatively easily assembled, with only the lack of a referencing system slowing down the process.

Consturction of the prototype was difficut from the outset. The first issue I encountered was a lack of any system to orientate the nets to each other. This made construction of the spire extremely difficult and resulted in a compriomise of the finish. For the final careful planning at the start and documentation of how segments fit together is a must.

The thickness of the card also proved a problem, especially in fitting together some of the smaller segments. After pondering why these segments didn’t fit properly I went back and examined my Rhino model. I suddenly realised that Rhino assumes an infinitely small material thickness when modeling. This fact must be allowed for in the final construction with extra space being left on smaller more delicate segments, such as the point of the spire.

DES IGN

FABLAB

CONSTRUCT ION

DESIGN ELABORATIONR E D E V E L O P M E N T

In light of the reflection of my prototype I decided to redevelop my design attempting to capture more of the hostility and conflict from the underlying concept. To do this I decided to use spikes on the base, further enhancing the contrast between the spiral and base (a quick conceptualisation of this is shown to the right).

Two of the variation of spikes I experimented with are shown on the far right. Both look effective, however, after the experience gained from building my prototype the top variation appears too complex and impractical to build.

DESIGN ELABORATIONR E F I N E M E N T

The refined base incorporates the offset edges from the original prototype into the new aggressive form. The spikes have a hostility about them with the manual movement of individual grid points creating a randomness and lack of order in the spikes. This chaotic hostility when seen in context with a human foot communicates the antagonistic conflict between my form and the human body, with the form becoming an extension of the body such as in Sheppard’s design.

PRECEDENTT H E P R E D A T O R

Predator is an installation piece of artwork constructed of 35 rings linked together with a transparent covering placed on the frame. This method of construction is of particular interest to my project as the segmented rings could be used as a means to construct my spiral.

If I was able to create a series of wire rings at the same size as the contours of the spiral I would be able to create a base structure, like with Predator, then apply my panelling on top of it. The only issue with this is that cardboard is a rigid material so would not be able to move when glued. Experimentation with other materials or possibly cutting joints in the cardboard need to be conducted to test the practicality of this idea.

If we return to the examination of Predators structure the rings it is contrusted of were originally intended to be self supporting, however, the material they were constructed from was to flexible and aluminium supports had to be used. This demonstrates the importance of prototyping before constructing finals.

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N R E F E R E N C E G U I D E

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

The following images show the nesting of the 3D base panels.

When constructing the base the placement of panels may be determined by cross referencing the panel number with the master guide above.

MASTER GUIDE

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N R E F E R E N C E G U I D E

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

MASTER GUIDE

The material used for the construction was 300gsm, 60x90cm, white ivory card.

Examining the nesting it may appear to be an inefficient use of paper, however, it was going to be impossible to fit the panels on only three sheets so I decided to spread them out on four.

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L I N G

Strips JoinEnds JoinEnds join

KEYThe following two pages of drawings show how each of the individual segments fit together. This should hopefully eliminate the problems I had in the prototype construction of segments not fitting together properly.

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

MASTER GUIDE

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L I N G

Strips JoinEnds JoinEnds join

KEY

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

MASTER GUIDE

CONSTRUSTIONC O N S T R U C T I O N

The above timelapse captures the construction of the base of my model.

REFLECTIONA C R I T I C A L A N A L Y S I S

This module saw a transition from the virtual space of Rhino into the physical realm of the real world and its laws. This transposition of our model from a conceptual idea to a physical object posed many hurdles which can be seen in my prototype construction. I found most of these hurdles to be the result of assumptions made by sole consideration of my digital form, soon discovering there are many factors involved in producing a physical reproduction that digital software does not take into account, such as the thickness of materials. What the discovery of these limitations in my virtual model forced me to do was reconsider and really think about how my model would fit together, rather than assuming Rhino had worked it out. This allowed me gain a far greater understanding of how my model fitted together as I began to develop an appreciation for the disconnects between the virtual and physical worlds. The consequences of not paying proper consideration to the differences between these worlds was seen in the Predator precedent where a lack of testing and consideration of materials meant the original design would not work, but had to be supplemented by aluminium supports. These miscalculations can prove expensive and waste time and materials.

This ability of a designer to adapt and modify their design is another crucial skill highlighted in this module. As said above, the laws governing the physical are far different from those of the virtual. If we as designers are unable to adapt our designs to these new laws because we are too caught up in our concepts then the resulting physical manifestation of this design ends up as an ineffective representation of the original concept.

Delving further into the above commentary the interrelatedness of the physical and virtual becomes apparent. This idea is something that I have really noticed in Module 3 with my use of the Fablab. The Fablab allowed me to produce a final model with a level of complexity I would not have dream possible if I had just been give some card and told to make it. It is this fact that brings me to my final point. The use of digitally enabled fabrication (Fablab) altered my perception of what was possible in the physical world allowing an improvement of my design in the virtual. This shows how interrelated the virtual and physical have become with modern technology. Thus, the importance of understanding both has never been greater, designers can no longer be complacent with their current knowledge and understanding, but must always be aware of improvements in technology and materials due to the potential advances in these two areas have to change the face of the physical world around us.

Module 3: Fabrication

Elizabeth Long Student Number: 23212Semester 1/2012Group 1

Uneven base

Although I hadn't yet completed a full scale model, so I wasn't aware of the implications to the final model, I realised that the model had an uneven base (figure 1). As the lanterns is designed to be both carried and to stand independently, the uneven base would cause the lantern to lean.To make the base flat, I actually had to go back to the control points. I rotated the bottom group of control points (figure 2) so that they were parallel to the horizontal plane. I then rebuilt the model , using dense panels and inserting holes in the panels with ptOffsetBorders and attractor point.I also decided that I didn't want the inner tube to have any holes in it, as I wanted it to be be very visible , and I also wanted light to shine down the tube to form a spotlight on the ground. I removed the holes (highlighted with red lines in figure 1) by deleting each panel and rebuilding a surface with 3 corner points in its place.

Figure 1. Uneven base & inner-tube panel holes.

Figure 2. Blue points in original position, red points in changed position to create flat base.

Partial full scale prototype

This prototype was created in module 2. Only the top section of the model was built, as it contains the most complicated geometries, so any problems with the model are most likely to become apparent when this section is constructed.The most obvious problem is that the tube/handle is supposed to pass through the body of the lantern, but I had not yet learned how to punch a hole through the surface. As a result, I could not include the inner section of tube in the prototype. Figures 3 & 4 show the distance between the end of the tube and the bottle. It can also be seen from these images that the model has reversed when it was unrolled. This is likely because some of the surfaces were reversed, so when the sections were unrolled, the program had to choose which side was 'up', and chose the inside surface.

Figure 3. Partial scale prototype Figure 4. Model showing intersection of panel sections

Also, the fin is much too

large for the bottle (it is 4 cm wide) and it dominates the whole structure.The fin is positioned incorrectly, because it was unrolled as a part of the bottle, rather than as a single strip to be added to the bottle. The unrolling process shifted the fin and when I attempted to locate it back on the bottle, its orientation was incorrect.

First attempt to fix tube/handle to body of bottle

In order to connect the tube to the bottle and punch a hole in the side of the bottle so the tube is continuous, I was advised to

shift the control points of the tube so that they intersected with an panel edge on the body. Figure 5 shows the yellow edge that needs to be brought in to match the red edge. The panels that are blocking the tube could then be deleted, and the corners re-built.Figure 6 shows the altered tube, with a red line indicating its previous geometry.I was unhappy with this solution, as it changed the shape of the tube and narrowed it significantly. I wanted the tube cross-section to be as close to a circle as possible and this solution make it quite ovoid. Also, the fact that it made the tube narrow would make it much harder to construct.

Figure 5. Tube before changes. Figure 6. Tube after changes

Second attempt to fix tube/handle to body of bottle

I realised while I was making the changes above that I could simply cut the panels of the body, so that the tube could pass through, rather than alter the shape of the tube.I shifted the ends of the tube so that the panels joined at the point where it intersected the body. I then drew a polyline around

this edge. I used this polyline to split the panels of the body, so that I could then delete the parts of the panels that blocked the tube.This produced a much more satisfactory result, as the geometry of the tube was not altered.

Figure 7. Tube after changes

New smaller Fin

I decided to re-build the model entirely from the points grid, because the previous version did not have a perfectly flat base.I also decided to remove the cut-outs (made with the command ptOffsetBorder) from the internal tube. I did this by deleting and re-building each panel in turn.I then tried to add the fin using ptFinEdges. Unfortunately I had created a new file by copying and pasting only the control points in order to re-build the new form, and I hadn't transferred the original lofted model to the new file. As it is necessary to have a surface for the Fin Edges command to work, I tried to paste the lofted form in the new file and place it on top of the panelled model.Unfortunately, the command didn't work very well, and the fins were created at strange angles, passing through the surface of the panels, rather than coming out perpendicular at the panel edges.

Figure 8. Fin made with ptFinEdges

Smaller fin, manually built

The solution I came up with was to build the fins manually. I drew a line along each edge where I wanted to have the fin, then I offset each line by 0.5cm and lofted between each pair of lines. This created separate, flat panels, that were perpendicular to the panel the were adjacent to, but were all at different angles and didn't connect. I extended each end of each fin panel (using the command Extrude Curve) so that each panel intersected, but many of them didn't meet evenly. Those that did I just trimmed using the split command, and deleting the excess where they overlapped. Those that didn't meet well, I had to re-build (using the command Surface from 3 or 4 points). This created a doubly curved surface, so I then had to triangulate the fin panels (command ptTriangulateFaces), which converted the single curved rectangular panels into two flat triangles.

Figure 9. Lines drawn prior to lofting. Figure 10. Lofted fin prior to re-building

Unrolling options 1

If the model is unrolled in one piece, the panels overlap and the result is very confusing (figure 9) – impossible to separate for cutting and then reassemble into the model. The model has to be unrolled in sections. I first tried to group the panels in curves that spiralled up and round the form following the line of the fin (figure 10). The tabs connecting the strips would follow the curve of the fin, emphasising the reference to the spiral path of the helicopter seed.However, once unrolled onto a two dimensional plane (Figure 11), some of the panels had overlapped (yellow arrow) and others had separated (red arrow). In order to cut the panels, it would be necessary to separate this strip into sections and then add tabs to connect the sections. This would result in tabs being used in different directions, ruining the effect of having the tabs spiralling round the form.

Figure 11. Model unrolled in one piece Figure 13. Model unrolled in spiraling sections

Figure 12. Model grouped in spiraling sections prior to unrolling

Unrolling options 2

I then attempted to group the panels in vertical strips (figure 12). This resolved the problem of panels overlapping and separating. The strip of panels stayed connected once unrolled onto a 2 dimensional plane (figure 13)I then realised that I would have a lot of tabs to connect inside the narrow tube, and that it would be very difficult and fiddly to access this space in order to glue and clamp the tabs.Also, in order to attach the fin, I would need to separate some sections of each strip and add tabs.

Figure 14. Model grouped in horizontal sections prior to unrolling

Figure 15. Model unrolled in vertical sections

Unrolling options 3

I then attempted to group the panels in vertical strips (figure 16). This resolved the problem of panels overlapping and separating. The strip of panels stayed connected once unrolled onto a 2 dimensional plane (figure 17)The horizontal strips did not necessarily unroll with a break where it was needed – at the intersection where the fin would be

inserted. Figure 17a shows the position of the fin in red. I needed to rearrange the panels so that there was a join where the fin could be inserted between the tabs (Figure 176).

Figure 17. Model unrolled in horizontal sections

Figure 16. Model grouped in

horizontal sections prior to unrolling

Formatting Unrolled panels for cutting

In order to connect the sections together, tabs need to be added to the panels. This is done using the command ptPlanarLips. This added tabs to every side of every panel in a section (figure 18), so many of the tabs had to be deleted to leave tabs only on the outside edges (figure 19). Tabs of 0.5cm were created.The colour of the lines had to be set so that the lines that needed to be cut were black, and the fold lines that needed to be etched were red (figure 19).

Figure 18. Panel sections with tabs on every edge

Figure 19. Panel sections with excess tabs removed and lines coloured for cutting

Unrolled panels for cutting, showing colours and labels

The panels were unrolled, one group at a time. I numbered each group, and designated one edge side a, and the other side b. I started with section 1 (the first section where the handle emerges from the body of the model) as 1, and numbered the rest in order. I designated the upper edge of section 1 as a, and the lower edge (that intersected with the body of the model) as b. The edge of panel group 2 that connects to panel group 1 along 1a, I designated b. I used this system to label all the panels to enable me to orient them correctly during assembly.

Figure 20. Unrolled model panels with tabs added.

Figure 21. Unrolled model panels with tabs added.

Figure 22. Unrolled fin panels with tabs added.

First attempt to build full scale model

My first attempt to build a full scale model revealed another problem. I had thought that the direction of each panel was not important. Figure 23 shows that some panels have their front face (white/grey) on the outside surface, while others have their back face (magenta) on the outside surface.I suspect that this might have caused the panels to unroll incorrectly, which has resulted in the poor connection between the two sections of panels in figure 24.

Figure 24. Poor connection between handle and inner tube

Figure 23. Front face and back face panels

First attempt to build full scale model 1

In figure 25, it can be seen how, when a section of panels is reversed (the inside surface has been cut as the outside surface), the direction of the fin, when it is inserted between the tabs, will be reversed. The yellow line indicates the correct angle for the fin, while the red line shows how it is re-directed when a set of reversed panels is attached. This will prevent the fin from connecting correctly with the next panel.

Two of the groups of panels were reversed when they were unrolled, group1 and group 6.

Figure 25 Reversed panel with fin direction reversed


Although there were problems with the model, I decided to persevere, and to consider this version a full scale prototype.The handle should curve round to meet at the inner edges. In figure 26, arrows indicate the sections that should be in contact. I am unsure why they have not aligned properly, and can only conclude that it is a consequence of some of the panel groups being reversed. I am hoping that this will be resolved when I build the model again, with all the panels correctly oriented prior to unrolling.

Figure 26. Red arrows indicate

where the two ends of

the handle should be touching.


Apart from the handle not connecting with the body, this first, complete model worked well. Other than the problems already mentioned, all the connections worked well, and the geometry of the rest of the form (excluding the handle) seems to work. The structure is strong and capable of supporting its own weight, and the weight of the lights and batteries.

Figure 27. Completed Lantern


I found that the white paper provided by the FabLab for this project had a tendency to de-laminate, especially at fold lines. This produced a messy and unsatisfactory finish. I decided that I would purchase my own paper (paper that did not have a polished surface so was less likely to peal away from the rest of the paper) to cut the second model. While the black paper may also de-laminate, it appeared less obvious, so was not such a concern.As a result of the problems with the FabLab, there has been a delay in the cutting of my second model. This has lead me to re-

think the colour of paper I am using. White paper with a black fin was my first choice, but I didn't really think about the possibility of making the model with (mostly) black paper. When I realised I might not get my paper cut with the card cutter and might have to use the laser cutter, I reconsidered my choice. White paper allows light to pass through the paper as well as the holes, while black paper does not allow light through except through the holes. The result would be a more dramatic shadow, and contrast between the lantern and the light emitted by it. A white lantern would glow all over, including the handle, while a black lantern would be dark, with patches of light where there are holes.So I decided to switch to black paper, and hopefully get the model cut and assembled sooner than if I waited for the white card. As it turned out, the day after I switched my paper and cutting machine choices, I received an email to say that my original request had been completed. Great! I decided that I would take the opportunity to build both a black and a white model, and compare the results.

Second attempt to build full scale model

I went back to the Rhino model, and corrected the incorrect orientation of some of the panels. I selected the panels in their groups for unrolling and joined them together. This caused the panels to all face the same

direction. Sometimes the direction was incorrect (back face was facing the outside) so it was then necessary to flip the joined panels.The result was that all the panels then faced the same directions, and, hopefully, will fit together perfectly as it is built.

Figure 27. Panels all facing correct direction.

Figure 28. Orthographic view of final model.

Precedent 1

The work of Earl Pinto and the process involved in design development, fabrication and assembly have significant similarities to the processes involved in the fabrication of this lantern. Earl Pinto is a design team, working together at the design stage. The design process to create the lantern involved feedback from different sources, although the design has been an individual process.To produce the lamp 'Anise”, Earl Pinto engaged in a trial and error design development phase, while they worked out the details of the design, the materials and the assembly. They experimented with different configurations of the one basic shape

until they found one that was aesthetically pleasing and structurally sound. They also had to trial different materials and joining methods. The same process was gone through to produce this lamp, different papers and tab configurations for joining had to be trialled.The lamp produced by Earl Pinto is large and fragile, so presents difficulties in transport. They experimented with creating a flat-pack version, with instructions for customers to assemble the lamp themselves, but soon realised that the process was too complicated, so had to resort to factory assembly and expensive postal costs. The assembly process for my lantern is very time consuming (much time is wasted in waiting for glue to dry between each step), complicated and technically quite difficult.

Figure 29 (left) 'Anise', by Earl

Pinto

Figure 30 (right). Detail of 'Anise'

Precedent 2

This is the work of a Japanese artist. The branches have been cut and folded out of toilet rolls. I suspect this work is hand cut, as I doubt a card cutter, laser cutter or other mechanised cutting machine would be capable of cutting only one surface of the three dimensional cardboard roll.As can be seen in the image below, lighting is soft, external and multi-directional, which results in multiple, overlapping shadows. The shadows are caused by the tubes themselves (they are quite opaque, unlike white paper, so no light goes through them) and the cut and folded branches.It would be interesting to see the shadows formed by placing an LED light inside each tube. Light would come through the cut-out area, but not through the card. If a second tube, of, say, twice the diameter of the toilet roll, and made of white paper, where placed over the toilet roll, the branch would be projected in light onto the second tube.

Figure 31. Corner Forest, by Yuken Teruya

Precedent 3

The Air Turbine Light is a 3d printed ceramic light. The ceramic shell has been designed to catch the wind and behave as a wind propeller. The ceramic body is attached to a generator via a vertical axis. When the wind turns the shell, it rotates the axis and the generator converts the movement into electricity, powering the light.The aerodynamic shape of the ceramic body is remarkably similar to the motion of a falling helicopter seed – which doubtless is a result of the similarities in the aerodynamic design of each. Not only is the shape of the Air Turbine Lamp functional in terms of generating electricity, but it also creates a beautiful shadow.

Figure 32. The Air Turbine Light, by Margot Krasojevic

Figure 33. Stop-motion image of falling helicopter seed. Image: courtesy of David Lentink via Caltech press release.

Precedent 4

The lantern in figures 34 and 35 was designed with Rhino and Adobe Illustrator and made with paper. The really interesting feature of this lantern are the tabs. Rather than use tabs that are a functional necessity to hold the model together but otherwise have no function, these tabs are the decoration and detailing that make the lantern interesting. The use of these tabs also means that no glue or other adhesives are necessary – the tabs lock together, but can be disassembled and re-assembled simply (though I don't think it would be easy, as there are a lot of tabs to link up, and it looks like a fiddly process).The lantern is made with solid paper with no holes to let light out. The paper is translucent, so emits a warm glow, with shadows where the tabs form a double thickness of paper, that emphasise the half-star shape of the tabs.In combination with cut-outs in the paper, the subtle differences in translucency of the layers of paper would be lost, so this model works quite well as it is. This use of tabs to add shadow would not work on my lantern, as the base of the lantern has large openings to emit light, so the subtlety would be lost.

Figures 34 & 35. 3D Art Project: Lantern, by christopherc15111194

Critical Analysis

I have thoroughly enjoyed the process of digital fabrication. The technology increases the potential for testing alternatives and alterations to the model, compared to physical modelling alone. It allows for immediate visual feedback on ideas, that feeds back into the process of creation, accelerating and inspiring the process in directions that the slower process of manual

modelling might not achieve.The main challenge for me lay in converting the digital design into a physical model. I experienced problems as a result of the reversed panels, which lead to some sections unrolling upside down. If I had realised that some panel groups were reversed, I would have simply folded them in the opposite direction, but unfortunately I didn't realise the problem until I had began to glue the sections together. I was able to cut the sections apart, flip the reversed sections and then tape them back together in the correct orientation, but still the geometry of the model was wrong.I have compared the unrolled panels that contained reversed sections with the unrolled panels where all the sections are facing the same direction. Other than sections 1 and 6 (as noted earlier) the panels all unrolled correctly. I did not miss a section and double up another section. I do not understand how the geometry of the final model could have changed so much from the digital model. Small irregularities in the way the tabs were glued down would cause some small distortions in the final model, but even if the distortion were amplified across all 6 panel sections that make up the handle, it could not have accumulated to produce such a dramatic shift in geometry.In order to try to avoid encountering the same problem with the second attempt to build the model, I will tack the model together with tape and bulldog clips to test the geometry, prior to the permanent application of glue. If necessary, I may have to manually trim some of the edges, to adjust the form so the handle curves as it is supposed to.The step from a three dimensional object to the two dimensional unrolled sections is actually a large leap. When I was flicking between the 3d model and the 2d unrolled sections to make sure that the sections all joined at the intersection that would hold the fin, I struggled with directions and orientation. The fact that I was looking at the two different section in two separate

viewports probably made this harder, as it created a visual break between each object under examination. Being able to flip between 3d models and 2d projections is a necessary skill, unless a 3d printer is being used. It is necessary to look past the distortions that occur when viewing 2d representations of 3d objects.

References & Sources

Figure 29 & 30: http://earlpinto.com.au/lighting/anise/Figure 31: http://www.yukenteruyastudio.com/projects-1/coner-forestFigure 32: http://plusmood.com/2012/04/the-air-turbine-light-margot-krasojevic/Figure 33: http://inventorspot.com/articles/what_can_maple_seed_teach_helicopter_about_flying_28995

Figures 34 & 35: http://tasblogs.tas.edu.tw/wpmu/christopherc15111194/2011/12/01/3d-art-project-lantern/

origami lamp rhino, http://www.google.com.au/imgres?

um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1241&bih=545&tbm=isch&tbnid=Z3WtRvN6MSAJaM:&imgrefurl=http://creoflick.net/creo/449/&docid=39KCf4TjCrHS_M&imgurl=http://creoflick.net/images/origami-lamp-rhino-2435.jpg&w=550&h=366&ei=

Assembly of Model 1

Tools: a. Bulldog clips

b. Metal ruler

c. PVC Glue

d. Small paint brush

e. Scissors

f. Sewing needle

g. Cutting blade

Materials: a. Electrical wires

b. battery pack

c. 5 sets of bulldog clips

d. 2 x aa batteries

e. 4 x opal LED globes

f. 1 x clear LED globe

g. Adhesive Velcro dots

h. The cut model

Figure 36. Tools

Figure 37. Materials

Assembly of Model 2

The unrolled sections of the model were labelled 1 to 16, starting at 1 with the handle at the point where it emerges from the side of the lantern and ending with 16 with the top most section of the inner tube that joins to the handle, part 1. The top and bottom edges of each section were also labelled a and b, with the a tabs always joining to the b tabs of the adjacent section. The body of the model (figures 39 &4 0) was cut from black 200gsm paper. The fin (figure 41) was cut from white 200gsm paper

Figure 39. Model pieces Figure 40. Model pieces

Figure 41. Model pieces: Fin

Figure 38. Model with sections numbered

Assembly of Model 3

The tabs are mostly square, so need to be trimmed with scissors to make there outside edge narrower than their inside edge, in order that they don't interfere with each other at corners.Figure 42 shows that tabs at points a and b have not been trimmed, but tabs at point c have been trimmed.Also, all scored lines need to be pre-folded. The score lines between each panel need to be folded gently, just a small amount. The score lines along the edges of tabs need to be folded firmly. Once they are in position, they will be folded at an obtuse angle. The score line naturally folds to the outside.

Figure 42. Tabs at points a and b need to be trimmed. Tabs at point c have already been trimmed.

Assembly of Model 4

I started assembling the model at the handle, section I. All the sections have a tab along each end. The first 6 and last 3 sections have tabs along one edge (edge a) and the other sections have tabs on both edges. When the panels are folded and the section curled round, the two end tabs can be glued and clamped together so that the section forms a loop. For sections 1-6 and 14-16, because they form a narrow tube when the two end tabs are connected, it is not possible to join the sections in the same way, hence they only have one set of tabs. Instead, the tabs are glued to the inside of the adjacent section.Each section is connected in order, from 1 through to 16. First the the ends are connected (with the fin inserted for sections 1 to 13), then it is connected to the adjacent section. Figure 43 shows the assembly order, with the tabs of section 1 glued to the inside of section 2, and so forth.

Figure 43. Showing assembly order for the first 6 sections.

Assembly of Model 5

Figure 44 shows the clamping of the end tabs of sections 1 and 2, with the fin positioned between the tabs.Figure 45 shows the tabs of section 1 being stuck to the inside of section 2.

Figure 44. Sections 1 and 2 with fin, glued and clamped with bulldog clips

Figure 45. Detail of sections 1 & 2, showing tabs of section 1 being stuck to inside of section 2.

Assembly of Model 6

The LED's were wired in parallel, with four LED's attached to section 16, and the 5th LED attached to the battery pack, at the

bottom of section 14. This way, the lamp would emit light through the holes in its panels, and a light would shine down from the inner tube.

Figure 46. Wiring of LED's in parallel.Figure 47. Wiring of LED's being tested.

Assembly of Model 7

The battery pack has been stuck to the inside of section 14 with self-adhesive Velcro tabs, with the 5th LED attached to it with electrical tape, so that its light shines down from the lantern.

Figures 48, 49 & 50. Completed lantern

Ellie BaiStudent Number: 562808

Semester 1 2012Group 12

Remodelling

Fabrication

My final model in Module 2 used 3DVariable patterns and the outcome was not consistent, so I failed to unroll the surfaces with this digital model.

I then tried to use the patterns above to Digitize the model. The outcome was Satisfying, but the triangular patterns inThe middle of the model appear to be Curved.

Unrolling Surfaces Fabrication

When the model was unfoldedSome errors occurred to the topPart of the model. This is probablyAttributed to the non-planar surfacesOf the model.

Unrolling and NestingFirst Prototype

Construction & ResultFirst Prototype

The material I chose wasIvory card, it was hard enoughFor my model, and can be Easily folded.

Identifying IssuesFabrication

Some of the tabs are shown Through the holes. This is becauseThat the edges of the holes are tooClose to the the framework. Those Superfluous parts of the tabs can beManually cut to avoid this problem.

The size of the prototype was obviouslyToo small and the actual physical modelShould be much larger than this. And I Also think the prototype was too slim andIt should be fatter.

There are some gaps between the triangular patterns due to its curved shape. Mesh should be Used on those patterns to makeThem straight.

Refinement

Fabrication

I tried to mesh both the square and the triangular elements. But it seemsThe mesh is creating straight lines toSubstitute the curves of the ellipse.

Then I meshed only the triangular elements and Keep the squares the same. However, in order to Avoid the unrolling errors, I used flat squares toPanel the top half of the model. The holes can be then added after unrolling.

Refinement

Fabrication

For the top of the model where errorsOccurred, I abstracted the edges of theSeparate surfaces and then loft them inTo a closed surface.

For the bottom of the lantern, I used a single flat surface to Substitute the original shape, And then trimmed the surface.

Unrolling

Fabrication

The holes were added to theSurfaces after unrolling.

Construction

The top part had too many curves and wasn't rigid.

In the middle part of the model,Some unrolled surfaces failed toFit each other.

Second Prototype

Dew

Fabrication Refinement

I panelled the top part of the model,Which is also the handle with triangles.But the triangles fold randomly inwards orOutwards, making it difficult to fabricate.What I was expecting was one singleStrip that can be uniformly folded.

I then simplified the shape and manually built surfaces,The shape turned out to be uniform.

Refinement

Fabrication

The middle part of the model was also rebuilt with triangular surfaces. The triangular extruded surface were then added to the surfaces seperately.

Final Digital Model Fabrication

Fab Lab

Fabrication

Different parts of this model should fold to different directions, but the card cutter can only score one side of the paper. So I left some blanks to be scored manually.

Material UsageFabrication

Material: Ivory Card (60×90cm) UHU Craft Glue

Acutal amount of materials used Was about 40% of the cards.

The gaps between each twoObjects are much larger thanI thought, And I will rearrangeThe cutting template if I were To submit the file to Fablab Again.

I then manually remade some Parts of the model, so that the Waste was effectively used forModifying the design.

Dew

Fabrication

All the strips were manually scored and assembled.

Tabs were manually cut in order to avoid overlap.

Construction

Fabrication

The construction of the top half of the lantern.

The construction of the handle of the lantern.

Construction

Fabrication

The construction of the bottom half of the lantern.

Lighting Management

Fabrication

I used strings and clipsTo hung the LED lights.So the lights can be pulledOut when they are notNeeded.

The lights weren't bright Enough, and I am thinking About adding more LED Lights to the structure.

Final ModelFabrication

There are still some flows inThe final model: the middlePart of the model is not rigidEnough; and due to the twistingShape of the lantern, I tape Was used to stick the panels Together.

I am thinking about building a Larger model and remodellingThe twisting parts of the modelIn module 4

Lighting EffectFabrication

Precedents

Basket Lights were designed by the New Zeeland designer David Trubridge. They have an interesting shape and look like some huge tears or drops of rain. I was attracted by the neat lighting effects they have at first, but then began to think about why they look so much like drops. I found that it was not only the shape but also the gentle lighting effects of the body part remind me of drops. It also occurred to me that plastic wraps could be used in my design to create a drop-like lighting effect.

Fabrication

Dew

Hope Tree is a conceptual installation that was exhibited at Tokyo Designers Week 2010. Although the starting point of this design is tree, it has a very similar pattern to my lantern – a combination of box panels and curved cutouts. In the hope tree, leaf-like cutouts were strategically sized and deformed accordingly to the geometry of the box panels, which was an idea that I wanted to use on the ellipse cutouts of my design. But the most impressive feature of this design is that the materials were folded directly to create the cutouts, therefore the materials have been effectively used. I think this panel can be an alternative for the shape I used in the final model, and really should be tested out.

Another interesting feature is that the openings were backed with a tracing paper, which performed as a diffusing surface for the LED string lighting beyond. This detail created a gentle lighting effect which I believe is applicable to my model. Therefore, I decided to try applying tracing paper to my design.

PrecedentsFabrication

Reflection

In Module 3, I mainly used Rhino to refine and unroll my digital model and then made a paper model of it.

Digital techniques offer limitless possibilities for fabrication and enable us to express different ideas. Digital enabled fabrication is always accurate, effective, and it allows us to modify our designs very flexibly. But it also has its flows, for example, mechanics ignore the properties of materials and they can’t detect errors like people do. And sometimes, some mechanical errors even make the fabrication process difficult. Hence, when digitally enabled fabrication is used, no matter in a student’s project or in a professional practice, material properties and limitations of machine should be considered before fabricating.

As Paul Loh highlighted, making is the most powerful way of identifying errors and correcting them. While unrolling my model, I had a hard time identifying problems and refining the errors directly in Rhino. And in the modeling process, I found that even a minor error, such as a slightly change in scale, could influence the whole model significantly. Therefore, making prototypes and modifying the design according to the outcome of prototypes becomes very important.

My biggest problem for the past three weeks was that I had no plan of what should be done in module 3, and my expectation exceeded what I am capable of. What I was trying to do at the beginning was to firstly model from the surface I already have, and then elaborate it further. But it turned out that I was working too slowly at the beginning that I had to rush just before the due date. So I didn’t have enough time to apply the ideas that I picked up from the precedents to the model. In the coming weeks, my plan for module 4 is to use various materials/shapes to elaborate the model base on my final model for module 3.

Fabrication

MODULE THREE : FABRICATIONHILARY PACKHAMSEMESTER ONE 2012

RE-CAP

PRECEDENTS - LISA IWAMOTO - VOUSSIOR CLOUD

I like the way Iwamoto displays and visually explains each element of the installation. In the description of the work, it identifies the use of Rhino in creating the overall design and using scripts to generate each petal like form that creates the installation. In this design I also like the shadows and the material used (thin wood laminate)that creates a soft glow. I feel that this is valid as I too have used Rhino to create my form. I also intend on using a script to create the tabs that will allow me construct my lantern once it has been cut.

PRECEDENTS - BRIAN STEENDYK - TREE HOUSE

This residence designed by Brian Steendyk is a good example of using laser cutting technology for decorative exteriors. Laser cutting allows the designer to create intricate patterns cut into a wide variety of materials. The exterior design is cut out of rusted steel, creating a marron colour finish. In terms of this design, I like the shadows that it casts on the grass as well as the textured light that escapes the cut out diamonds. What I like most about the application of laser cutting is the infinite possibilities of patterns that can be cut from it and use in a wide variety of applications. This also shows the scale to which laser cutting is available, as it can create panels large enough to clad the exterior of a house.

PRECEDENTS - STUDIO 505 - AUSTRALIA PAVILION 2005

The Australia Pavilion from the World Expo 2005 is clad in an intricate laser cut design. Like my lantern, each triangular flap is folded out. In this precedent, the stainless-steel flaps vary the amount of light that is visible from vari-ous positions around the exterior. This design is equally as effective during the day as the contrast is reversed - the sun lighting up the reflective surface vs. The flaps darkness.

Unfolded design

To aid me in unrolling my lantern form I colour coded each strip and numbered it. Each strip has all faces grouped so that they will unroll in their groups to make it easier to add tabs.

STRIP SHAPES

These images show a random sample of the grouped strips that make up my lantern form.

STRIPS

STRIP ONE

STRIP TYPE TWO

At first I decided to break up my lantern into two strip types - Strip one runs the length of the lantern whereas strip two types are taken from each arc. There is only one Strip one whilst there is twenty-five strip twos, this is because when creating the initial shape, whilst triangulating the form, I split it into twenty-five sections.

NEST 1

Strips nested ready to be laser cut.I really enjoyed this process of nesting each piece. I found that it was like a jigsaw puzzle, trying to fit each irregular strip together.

The black lines are cut whilst the red lines are score. To change the properties of each line to either cut or fold I manually selected each line. This took quite a while but I couldn’t find a quicker way. To create the tabs I used a Grasshopper Script created by Dave(Thanks Dave!)

PROCESS

As each strip is double tabbed I used bull-dog clips to secure them whilst the craft glue dried. This process became much easier once I bought more clips. I did find it difficult to attach the smaller tabs at the tapered ends of the lantern. I worked in order of the pieces (from 2 to 25), applying a very small amount of glue to corresponding tabs before securing it with a bull-dog clip. Each tab matched relatively perfectly, I feel that this was because I used the Grasshopper script that made each tab with the same angles and dimensions, but vary depending on the size of the panel.

PROTOTYPE

This is my completed prototype. Through the construction process I found a few flaws in my unrolling process. I found that I had missed unrolling a piece, I also discovered that I had left some lines as cut where is would have been score. Creating this prototype allowed me to see the potential finished product as I could not create what I wanted fully in Rhino. I had reservations about using the laser cutter as it creates fine burn lines, however they are barely visible on the ivory card once lit up.

SHADOWS

I really like the shadows that my lantern casts. I also like how each flap has a subtle light gradient. This reflects the notion that light intensity alters throughout the day in all environments.The direction of the flap represents the sun rising and setting over dunes, as it goes from left to right.

If I had a machine to do the work for me, I could program the distance each flap is raised to keep it even depending on the size of the flap and panel.

SHADOWS

START AGAIN

Because of the mistakes I had made in my first unroll of my lantern, I have to start again. The way in which I had unrolled it made it extremely difficult to construct as my hands were too big to attach the long under strip into the cone like ends.

UNROLL TWO

I decided to unroll my lantern form in a different way - taking the whole strip joined and splitting it in half. This means that I will have to join each strip together but it means that I build all the rounds together rather than putting in the base strip last, which caused me trouble.

Starting the unroll process again allowed me to slightly increase the size, as my first prototype turned out smaller than I anticipated.

NEST 2

I couldn’t fit all pieces on one page because I had increased the size of my lantern. Also because of the way I have unrolled the form it is now in around fifty pieces.

REFLECTIONThis module has been a combination of highs and lows. I found it extremely satisfying once I had completely unrolled, created tabs and dictated cut and score lines. Yet finding flaws in my design was a little disappointing, but necessary as they needed to be fixed. My initial unrolling was not a success when constructing the lantern. Hopefully the changes I made in unrolling it a second time will be a success, as I have not received the changes cut out. I like the way my panels turned out with the open flaps, as I could not create them in Rhino, and had to wait to see the final product. This could have been not so good if I did not like the way they created shadow or the texture they created on the surface. I like the flexibility of the laser cutter and its ability to cut any shape or pattern in a variety of materials.

Module 3Jackson HallStudent No: 583477 Semester 1/2012 Group 11

Wanting to further my design, I tried to come up with ways to implement a more visible three dimensional panelling method that would not take away from the form of the model. Instead of the structure (with the sort of growing rib - tab system) I tried to think more about what the light would be doing.

I decided that i could shine the light down the surface of the lantern, which would be repre-sentative of the falling rain at this point and also allow the light to be used in an interesting way rather that just shining straight into the viewers eye.

My first attempt at such a panelling method was somewhat effective but not at all elegant. Even if implemented better that shown on the right, in would still give the lantern the appearance of being covered in windows and exterior blinds, which I was not really after. but it did achieve in showing the concept was plausible.

Design Development

I went back and looked at my panelling design from module 2, and figured out how to integrate these downward facing openings with it.The model uses three sets of gridpoints, one on the surface, one offset inside the model, and one outside. The openings extend out to the to the outer gridpoints at the top, and the inner gridpoints at the openings bottom. This was achieved deleting the panels her and manually drawing new ones.In this way the openings were achievable just by moving around my already existing pan-els.

I went ahead and prototyped this design, creating half of the model to scale. It turned out pretty decent, the only flaw being the openings not staying open as much as they should. This could pretty easily be fixed be adding some extra structural support to these openings. THe model would also need more openings, and more panels as the lantern was looking quite blocky.

But the model was still a bit uniform and could do with more three dimensionality in the panelling. Before prototyping to scale it had seemed to me that making the panels obvi-ously 3D wold take away fro the form too much, but now the model does seem it would benefit from it as it’s currently quite plane.

I also used the prototype to test different tabbing options. It was quite evident that having tabs connect to each other was the far better alternative. This is because the shape of the panels would otherwise mean the tabs would need to be triangular, which doesn’t connect the panels very well. On top of that, the parallel tabs become visible when the lantern is illuminated from the inside, which isn’t a particularly nice effect.

I played around in rhino to try to come up with something that would be more continuous, and more interesting and three dimensional, while still directing the light down in this way.

My first developments tried to use the same sort of down-ward openings as the previous model, but in a more obvi-ously three dimensional and numerous manner.

However these sort of designs it seemed would give the model an overall jagged spiky texture which is really not what I was going for. Another problem was the fact that these openings would only be placed on the sides. Doing this would give a certain two dimensional element to the overall model, whereby the openings only make sense when viewed from side on. This two dimensionality was something i definitely wanted to avoid.

The curvy design may have become alright with some work, but experiments showed that bending the paper like this would not be structurally sound.

i tried to think back to my original process, and think about what the water and air are doing throughout the process. I thought I could use the panelling to show the way in which the water turns from a gaseous state when it rises up to the suspended water droplets that give the visible cloud, and the falling droplets that give the rain.

I came up with a custom design (which was basically a pyramid) that could be inverted inside the model in some parts and extruded outwards in others. I had in mind the way in which water would be changing from a gaseous state when rising to a suspended liquid droplet state in the cloud, and falling droplets in the rain, and how the air wouldn’t have so much water left when it descended after the cloud dissipated. This gaseous water is shown by the inverted pyramids, and the liquid by the extruded ones. The dry air lacks in any three dimensionality. I also used openings to let light out and show the falling rain.

To achieve this I used a curve attractor under the centre of the model and created a second grid that would offset here positively and nega-tively further away. The dry end was just separated and panelled with a two dimension version of the custom pattern.The holes at the bottom were created by manually created (in rhino) by using the trim command (with Osnap).

To unfold I separated the model into fourteen different strips, which travel diagonally across the sur-face (so the panels can actually remain joined). As well as being the most actually possible way, the diagonal twisting effect becomes visible when illuminated from the inside which adds a good effect.

These were then all split in half, otherwise each strip would need its own piece of paper to be cut out of which would be a tad wasteful.The strips are assigned letters, each half having a separate number (ie A1 to N2)

Unrolling

After grouping the panels into strips, I unrolled them using panelling tools. Tabs were then added using grasshop-per, and manually edited so they wouldn’t overlap and removed from where they weren’t needed. Even thought the strips were halved they were still unable to be nested particularly well, meaning seven pieces of paper were needed. I’m not entirely sure how this could be avoided, apart from shortening the strips still. Another consideration would be decreasing the size of the model itself. Fortunate-ly the bits of leftover cardboard come in handy for proto-typing and things.

Fabricating

In gluing together my Fab Lab cut paper pieces I simply followed the method of joining A1 to B1, C1 to D1 and so on, and then the A1/B1 piece to the C1D1 piece, building up bigger and bigger pieces of the model until I had two halves.

Joining the two halves together proved to was by far the hardest part. At this point especially the cardboard began to give way a little in some areas, resulting in a few small tears.

Joining the two halves together proved to was by far the hard-est part. At this point especially the card-board began to give way a little in some ar-eas, resulting in a few small tears.

The next step was sim-ply to insert the light and a wire to hold the lantern up. These were held in place using paperclips.

As a precedent for digital fabrication I think the sushi below (“Design “Nori” by I&S BBDO) is a good what has become possible that wasn’t previously. The laser cut rolls are so intricately de-signed that they are practically impossible to be hand cut (in any sort of human time frame). For many digital designs, manual cutting is still a possibility, but this kind of detail requires some sort of digital fabrication. What this also means is that objects can be prototyped and made in a de-cent amount of time, allowing for more testing and experimentation. In this way it also becomes possible to mass produce such items.

On a more architectural note the canopy on the left by aptly named Digital Architectural Lab has been digitally modelled and laser cut out of plywood. The sheer amount of differing panels involved shows how they have been taken advantage of this mechanised fabrication method, as well as the intricacy and accuracy with which the entire structure comes together. The pro-cess has allowed them to create a very much curvilinear surface with otherwise flat pieces of material.

Precedents

The physical fabrication of our models has been quite enjoyable, namely in being able to see the semester’s work as a tangible reality.

The main challenge has been working within the time constraints. It would have been good to be able to try out more design options and make more adjustments accordingly. This is especially true in that there was only so much I was able to learn from partial prototypes: I found a big differ-ence in creating half the model and the entire one. Even with the Fab Lab doing the cutting, the time it took in receiving the cutouts left hardly anymore time for actual construction.

Other smaller issues I feel could have been better resolved with more time. For instance the way the paper started tearing when constructing the model. This may or may not have been due to the nature of the laser cutter when compared to the card cutter, which I didn’t get to use due to the time constraints.

What has been evident however is that it would be quite hard to manage to get anything done (of any sort of complexity) without the aid of digital fabrication. This was evidenced by extended period of time I spent hand cutting the prototype. Furthermore, to achieve the accuracy needed for the final model as well as the many more panels would have been impos-sible in this manner.

In relation to course work the thing that most stood out for me was when Paul Loh discussed the importance of prototypes. I have definitely found them to be an important part of the design process in making a model that will actually function.

Reflection

References

designboom: http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/20710/lasercut-nori-for-designer-sushi.html

designboom: http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/9/view/11525/macdowelltomova-wave-pavil-ion.html

ArchDaily: http://www.archdaily.com/165298/dal-canopy-design-digital-architectural-lab/

MODULE3

RICATIONFAB

DIGITALDESIGN -Tweaking Final Design

As such, I changed it to a custom panel using the panel-custom3D command to a more complex shape. I tried to make is so when viewed from above, it retained a some-what uniform look to it, when viewed from below, are more jagged, textual design.

I desided to tweak my lantern design yet again; origi-nally, the bottom half had been fairly smooth to convey the smooth, contrasting bottom half; I howeve realized that it lacked complexity.

i

When on the tram on the way down to Melbourne Central Station, I saw the RMIT Swanston Academic Building , and surprisingly drew some inspiration for some paneling from it. I really enjoyed the pyramidical paneling on this building, and how it evoked an interesting sense of texture. However, I somehow wanted to retain some of that ‘smooth’ look that I had set out to achieve when I defined my natural process and form of shells/life and death. As such, I decided to make the bottom ‘half’ of each panel a more textual looking , like the panels used on the RMIT Swanston Academic Building, but made the top half a smooth, flat surface. As such, when viewed from the top, it should ideally appear as a smooth, whole form. When viewed from a lower angle however, the pyramidical panels are apparent, and the interplay be-tween light and shadow evoking that sense of texture and complexity that I was after.

DESIGNPRECEDENT -

Sour

ce:

RM

IT A

rch

itec

ture

- R

MIT

Sw

an

-st

on

Ac

ad

em

ic B

uild

ing

, http

://a

rchi

tec-

ture

.rmit.

edu.

au/P

roje

cts/

Swan

ston

_Aca

-d

emic

_Bui

ldin

g.ph

p

ii

RHINOUnrolling

FLATTENINGTHE DESIGN -

Unrolling respecive panels pt.1

First, I measured my model, to find that it was about 2cm in total length; obvi-ously it had to be a lot bigger! I simply used the scale command to scale it up to about 33cm in total length.

The design was firstly split into 4 main parts to allow for easy unrollingThe Top Section

Two Connecting Sec-tions For easy construc-tion; simply needs to be creased

The Bottom Section To be subdivided later to be unrolled perhaps in strips.

iii



Here The Top Section is shown as being cut into 6 horizontall strips. When I first unrolled the panels, I unrolled them vertically, and as such, the panels did not work correctly and ran across each other. Dividing this top half into horizontal strips mostly eliminated that error, with some of the strips being divided into two parts to prevent overlapping.

I then colored the piece for easy construction. NOTE: Not shown here are the little triangular ‘inserts’ underneath each pyramid. They were simply flat-tened, labeled and place with each vertical strip.

iv

1

2

3456



After The Top Section was made into horizontal strips,then the ptun-rollfaces to flat-ten the panels.

The Two Connec-ing Sections are here shown being flatten via ptunrollfaces

FLATTEN

FLATTEN

v

12

3

FINAL UNROLLEDDESIGN

The Bottom After a few failed attempts, I realized I had to divide each panel of the bot-tom into two parts to ensure that the unrolled surfaces would not intersect. Each one had to unrolled by ‘hand’ though, making it a time-consuming process.

The conplete unrolled design Placed on the 900 x 600mm rectangle, trying to maximize utili-zation of space.

vi

FABLABDIGITAL > ANALOG

When sending files to the FabLab, several things had to be considered.Layers -Cut - These were the lines that needed to be cut; initially where the lines were placed and how long they were, as a card cutter would rip certain forms of lines.Score - These were the lines where the folds were to be made; different score depths could be selected, I how-ever went with the standard depth as I assumed it would be deep enough to allow for easy manipulation.Pen - This layer is where I placed the necessary labels for the pieces. However, as it was simply scored out.Page Layout - This magenta layer simply indicates to both the FabLab and I where the border of the page is to avoid panels being cut too close to the border and possibly ripping the page; I went with the Ivory 900 x 600mm because it looked clean, modern.

vii

Pag

e o

ne

of t

op

ha

lf

Pag

e t

wo

of t

op

ha

lf

Pag

e t

hre

e, b

ott

om

ha

lf

LANTERNFabrication

The fabrication process of the T-shirt Issue, an experimental fashion project by Berlin design-ers Mashallah Design and Linda Kostowski, was quite similar to my lantern design process; they scanned the form of a body and transformed it into a 3D panelled form in a digital polygon program (most likely, if not similar to Rhino). They then (paralleling my design process) unrolled the form into a variety of flat panels, then used a la-ser printer to, interestingly, cut out the shapes out of the desired fabric. This is demonstrative how the digital medium is seeping into all aspects of the design world, even fashion, and can pro-duce unique fabrications.

DESIGNPRECEDENT -

http://www.core77.com/blog/object_culture/3d_body_scans_used_to_create_2d_sewing_patterns_11283.asp

viii

FABRICATINGPROTOTYPE -

Fabrication of the prototype pt.1

I initially tried making the bottom half of my model by making each of 8 ‘walls’ seperate-ly. I initially tried craft glue, however, it seemed to be too weak/slow setting to be able to managably hold the inidividual panels together, so (stupidly), super glue was utilized for the entire model. Because of the stiffness of this glue, the walls curved and became impossible to stick together.

ix

FABRICATINGPROTOTYPE -

Fabrication of the prototype pt.2

Here, an attempt was made at constructing a prototype top half; several mistakes were found. First, the use of single tabs made constructing very difficult. Also, many creases (such as the trian-gular inserts) had to be folded against the score line. Finally, the super glue was too unrelenting and made everything far too stiff, and the small scale did not provide enough flexibilty. Thus, the prototpye was a complete failure in one sense; but finding the mistakes was important, to rectify them for the final.

P

Here you can clearly see where the super glue left the paper very messy and semi-transparent

PThe bot-tom panels curved a lot when con-structed this way.

x

A slightly larger scale meant that there was more room for me to work with, plus more flexibility and give with the ivory card. This, coupled with double tabs and utilizing craft glue and bull-clips should give me a more precise, cleaner and completed model.

FABLABDIGITAL > ANALOG 2

After rescaling the model, I had to retab the shapes and re-nest. This time I had a better sense of the scale of the paper in mind, so with that, I nested everything close together to minimize paper waste, plus flipped the triangular ‘inserts’ around so that I could work with the score, not against it.

xi

FABRICATINGTHE DESIGN -

Fabrication of the lantern pt.1

I had to be careful that each strip was was folded in the proper orientation. Then, the tirangular inserts were slowly glued with craft glue and held in place to dry with bull clips, bit by bit; the use of double tabs was effective.

First, the pieces for the top half were carefully cut out of the ivory card. The strips and trian-gular inserts were then folded.

xii



The bottom part was the tricki-est to fabricate, and require a mixture of materials; the indi-vidual panels were too small to glue with craft glue, so had to be super glued then was care-fully craft glued and clamped together, layer by layer; this was to prevent the curling problem of the prototype.

xiii



I wanted to create lighting that was somehow easily able to turn on and off, so it was fully functional as a lantern. I realized that in order for the lights to be on, the electrical ‘prongs’ had to be in contact with the sides of the battery, and that creating a sort of sliding mechanism to be able to change whether or not they were in contact. I assemblied this with pieces of left over card to minimize waste. Finally, the whole lantern was asssembled. The top was attacthed to the connector strips, then the bottom connect-ed up too. I had to be careful not to bend any of the elements too much. Unlike the prototype, the final worked.

xiv

FABRICATINGPROCESS -

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

CRITIALREFLECTION -

The unrolling process within Rhino was an incredibly time consuming one, each panel requiring a combination or all of grouping, ungrouping, exploding, moving, scaling, unrolling, joining and tabs (which had to be again, ‘hand’ made, not programmed with Grasshopper, due to the vastly differing shapes and scales which had to be considered). If much of this process could be somehow automated within Rhino, it would of saved a vast amount of time; this is reflective of the consuming nature of the design process, even with digital design fabri-cation software, such as Rhino available. It also speaks of the technical retraints and difficulties that designers, such as Architects, would face; the consuming process, the rectification of mistakes, and translating the finished digital design into one that can be fabricated out of physical material means.

My lantern did not construct neatly at all; the limitations of more flexible and forgiving glues such as glue sticks, PVA etc. did not leave room for error, and some were made when using super glue as the binding agent. Later on, these became apparent with the stiffness of the model, as well as some inconsistencies in the card’s color and opacity. This shows how whilst the digital design fabricational techniques such as NURBS modelling gives us certain freedoms in design, consideration for materials is a must to produce a satisfactory result outside of the computer. This is applicable especially to Architecture; whilst the aesthetical aspect is clearly represented through the digital medium, collaboration with other disciplinary professionals such as engineers, building com-panies etc. is a given it terms of clearly defining whether or not the design will be functional in a real-life sce-nario, as well as what materials should be utilized for usability and sustainability.

This module was perhaps the hardest of them all in terms of construction; my first model was not constructing in a behaviour that was wanted. It was vital in teaching me how ideas in a digital medium was not necessarily a direct translation into the physical medium, and how one must consider both to achieve their design proposal.

Module three of this lantern project is doing prototype to fins the best tab type and connection method for completing the final product. In the previous module, the model of the lantern is digitalised but there are several parts of the model have to be modified. The arms of the model is modified into smaller size and extra structure lines are aaded to the model to improve the shape of the model. The in-ner structure of the model is also improved by using command ‘rebuild’ so that varioud 2D patterns are able to be applied on it. Another command ‘offset face border’ is used to construct more different examples of the model for the best outcome. In week 7, the lantern is finalised and further exploration of how to build the final product is also carried out.

The lantern design is finalised and tribasic offset face border pattern is applied on it. This model is chosen because the pattern on it is geometric triangular shape, which is related to my concept of ‘colli-sion’ and this contructs a nice appearance for the product. Also, this lantern design will not be too difficult to build. The examples that I experimented before are either too complex for achievement or not relevant to the concept so I have given up those examples.

Trial A of the tab prototype is adding regular tab for every single piece of the model. This method would need to glue a lot and form a really firm structure. However, this is not really necessary and too many connection tabs might be difficult to stick well. This might ruin the shape of it as too much glue would damage the paper.

Trial B is the prototype which uses the advantage of black and white paper. As black paper would block the light flowing through the paper, the overlapping sections between pieces of paper wouldn’t be seen. I decided to use white paper for odd number parts and black paper for even number parts. Connection tabs will be added to odd number parts while tabs of even number parts are removed to reduce the conncection problem.

The trials are carried out by printing template of the unrolled model and cutting it into different parts. On this stage, only 3 parts of model are tested for the efficiency of doing prototypes. With the use of scissors, cutter and glue stick to com-plete the trials.

1 2 3 4

1. Trial B right view 2. Trial B close up3. Trial A right view 4. Trial A top view

Trial B exposed the disadvantage of thin paper, which is thin paper is too fragile to build a lantern. Also, white paper al-lows the light flowing through the paper a lot which shows the overlapping section between pieces of paper. However, tri-al A is more stable and firm because thicker card paper is used, this kind of paper is easier to be stuck together. Besides, black paper is used between two sections of white paper, overlapping sections are not shown. Therefore, I will choose card paper to build my final product. Black and white design will be enhanced by using paper of two colours.

Kilden Performing Arts CenterKristiansand (Norway), 2010http://www.designtoproduction.ch/content/view/88viewed 5 May 2012

Architectual design in real world makes use of the process of prototype testing and fabrication to experiment for the best outcome. In mod-ern world, designers use technology to enhance their design but 3D modelling with computer software does not tell whether the design can be produced in reality. Testing prototype is very important for completing the design. For the design of Kilden Performing Arts Center, the dramatic architectual wave cannot be built with a smooth wooden plane so one surface is broken down into parts. The wooden parts are held together by wooden connection. This method is suitable for my lantern design as well. The ‘collision’ shape cannot be made by two pieces of paper and connected together by edges. I learnt the skills from this precedent and added extra structure lines into my design. Also, I divided the parts into black paper group and white paper group. With the advantage of black paper, blocking the light flowing through the paper, the tabs between parts are bearly seen under the light. The tabs connect the part to form the perfect ‘collision’ shape without affecting the ap-pearance of the lantern. Prototypes are made with this structure design and it works well enough to complete the entire lantern with satisfy-ing lighting effect.

After finalising the design, solving the structure issue and prototype testing, building the final product is the key of the completion of the lantern. The un-rolled lantern parts are put into the cutting template ready for cutting and the digital model is colour labelled for reference while building the lantern. The paper parts are cut and modified further with cutter manually. Folding the parts by hands and sticking the parts together.

The material of the lantern is card paper, which is flexible and firm enough for shaping the lantern into ‘collision’ shape. During the building process, there are several difficulties. Cutting the card paper has to be really careful due to the thickness of the paper. It has to be cut from double side to get the part out without damaging it. Besides, sticking the tab is another difficulty. There are sticky ‘string’ produced as the glue is adhesive. One of the ending tab of a particular part of the lantern is glued wrongly, which shows the black and white overlapping section and ruined the appearance of the outcome. These issues are overcomed by practising the process gradually. As this product is not in the best quality, I decided to build another one as the final product.

Here is the outcome of the lantern with good lighting effect and the collaboration between black and white paper is good.

One of the application of my lantern design is a lantern decoration standing at the top of laptop. It works as expected as it stands at the top of laptop with stable condition.

Joshua Graf - Module 3

Student Number: 587672 Semester 1/2012 Group 14

Module 2 Recap

The second module ended with this design, consisting of an outer ‘window’ shell with a set of smaller squares inside. I felt the idea was effective in that the centre squares could be filled with alternating thickness or coloured paper to create patterns similar to the formulated snake patterning above. However, after recieving feedback in presentation I realised this same effect could be reproduced more effectively with smaller openings. Hence the first things I need-ed to address was the panelling styles of the interior shell, and how the two shells would be connected together.

Zoomed in to see the 2 layers

Remodelling for Fabrication: Interior Shell

This was one of the reject panelling types be-cause the mesh created was so complex. However, it produced a really attractive light-ing effect and would likely have been cho-sen if fabrication was available. Hence, in or-der to simplify this, the design was triangulated.

The idea with this style was that the pink corners (which would not actually be the back faces on the model) would be offset , creating holes in a similar pattern to the formulated snake pattern that I was trying to replicate. This translated onto my shape resulted with this (right).

Newly panelled form

Prototyping: Interior Shell

To see if it was createable, a scale version of the bottom part of the interior was made. The final file was sent to the FabLab to be cut on white Ivory card.

1

2

34

56

78

9

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

9

In addition, I wanted to test 2 different tabbing styles, one where the tabs match the triangles of the shape, and anoth-er where the faces both have tabs which stick together.

Triangle Tabs Matching Tabs

FabLab Card-Cut Partial Scale Prototype: Interior Shell Bottom

Left: The final overall shape came out pretty well, and it proved to be constructable. I found the process also to be very helpful in identifying the following potential issues.

Below: The rings were only con-nected every second ring to the central strip, which left undesri-able holes.

Above: The matching tabs, through the fact that when they were bent up they were still a little lower than the bottom of the face meant there was a gap between them.

Above: The Triangle tabs didn’t have the gap issue and came up nicely when put together cleanly. Below: A problem with the Tri tabs though, was that since they were set up so that each strip has its own connec-tions to latch onto the next one, this ef-fect built up and distorted some panels, especially the thinner, weaker ones.

Prototyping: Exterior Shell

Front

1 2 3 4 5

67 8

9

12

3

45

6

7 89

The next step was to test the outer windows to see how they went when actually made. These were also sent to the Fab-Lab but were cut on Black card, since I wanted to test how the lighting and effects would differ with this. The tabbing is not visible here, but since I thought that tabbing wouldnt show through the black I just created a simple tabbing, connecting the rings up with tabs on the right hand side of the pieces and connecting the rings together with tabs along the tops.

Another thing that came up while unroll-ing was that the double curve meant that the sides were slightly curved and didnt line up. To fix this first I rotated the shapes so the ends lined up, then I DupEdge’d the shapes then deleted the bent lines and replaced with a straight connecting line. Hence this prototype was also testing whether this was creatable.

At first glance

Close Up

FabLab Card-Cut Partial Scale Prototype: Exterior Shell Bottom

Left: The outer windows proto-type. This part was more prob-lematic than the interior, but the adjusted lines worked which was good.

Above: The card itself showed to be quite strong and was able to hold shape, but the larger pieces in par-ticular would deform. Also, glue plus pegs can mean deformed card. Below: I also learnt the importance of correct tab making, having to cut of some wrong tabs and make re-placements. Good to know there is a semi-decent way of fixing it though.

Above: The bottom, without any support, would fold up and give way when sitting on the base. Since this is meant to be hung, it is less of a problem, but it does mean that even when hung, the bottom can be formed which may be-come a problem.

Below: The downside of using black is that inaccuracies are very visible. Glue shines up quite prominently on black, and the corners if not glued to the very edges can produce quite large and visible holes.

FabLab Card-Cut Partial Scale Prototypes: Limitations

A very frustrating limitation of the card cutter is how it can easily rip the page when trying to cut usually quite intricate shapes. I found this could be over come by using etches in place of cuts in places, but this made the process of creating the model all more time consuming.

The card cutter’s inability to cut on the reverse side as well, meant that to create clean ‘valley’ folds a dashed cut line had to be used. These cuts are much less visible in a valley than a mountain fold, but are still visible against the light, especially with black since it blocks out all the other light.

The card cutter was used initially as the primary source for my cut outs, due to its ability to cut quite precisely, that it didn’t leave burn marks like the la-ser cutter and that it was relatively inexpensive.

Visible Dashes

Precedent: Kendrew Quadrangle

MJP Architects’s Kendrew Quadrangle is located at St. John’s College, Oxford, London. Whilst looking sleek and modern like many new buildings, this design was also quite unique and revoluntionary in the way it approached design. Instead of the traditional approach where the whole building is built on site, with the builders taking their materials down and then putting it up, MJP architects took a approach similar to the way in which aircraft are manufactured. This approach required develop-ing ‘super blocks’ of the building, where the facades that were meant to house the exterior were prefabricated and then installed all at once. These super block facades were design to be completely finished on their own, and could be put straight in. As this a very new and unique approach to creating build-ings, no real precedenst or examples existed for their ideas tp be tested against, so the team required to create prototypes to test that the designs were feasable. As a result changes were made to improve the design. This is the key thing that I wanted to take away from this example, that prototypes are integral in forming a comprehensive final product.

Prototyping Adjustments: Manual Manipulation

Above: To address the loss of formation at the bottom of the shape, I created a simple ring of cardboard to insert inside. Below: The ring significantly added to the strength of the bottom, meaning the structure didnt collapse under its weight anymore.

Above: Outer shell with no covering panels

Above: Tracing paper is used here on every second window. The light-ing effect is not effected too much by this, but is visually okay.

Left: This one is using normal white paper. The increased opacity of the paper meant that the shadow was better defined on the paper. I want to use this effect in the final design.

Prototyping Adjustments: Further Adjustments

89cm

55cm

Left: The flexibility seen especially in the black card on large scale, meant that the design had to be scaled down so deformation of the parts didn’t occur.

Right: To fix the stack up effect of the triangles, I broke up the tabbing so that one piece would serve as the connecter for two pieces. I also set it up so that these pieces connect to the centre piece as well so that those gaps were prevented. This was also used in the outer shell tabbing.

Prototyping Adjustments: Connections and use

The problem still remained though that the outer and inner shell need-ed to be connected. The first way this was attempted to be done was by merging the inner and out-er shell into one panelling system.

This method worked but presented a few problems. Firstly, alot of the side panels on the shape became deformed as a result of the shape. This wasnt a completely unfixable prob-lem, but the time constraints meant it was impractical to go through all the shapes and rebuild them. Secondly, by doing this, an even greater level of complexity would be added to the unrolling stage which made this method even more im-practical.

Prototyping Adjustments: Connections and use

Left: The second way the connections were addressed was by re-incorporating one of my original aspects of the design; a handle or point for the piece to be speared through.

To attempt this I first had to look at how it could be incorporated. I decided that if my grid for outer shell were adjusted so that I could get 2 windows lining up, then a pole could be inserted to hang the lantern.

I found to accomodate this some of the panels from the interior needed to be deleted. Since they didnt line exactly up with the exterior, I cre-ated ‘walls’ for the handle. These handles would serve as the base connection between the exterior and interior shells. Extra structural support may be added if this isnt strong enough, most likely near the base.

Technical Documentation: General Construction

Each shell was broken up into threepieces; the Top with the handles, the middle and the base. This would allow for 2 things: breaking it up like this should reduce any stack up effects that may be caused as a result of inaccuracies during production, and also that it will allow for each sheel to be placed easily inside each other.

1 2 3

45 6

7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21

2223

24

25 2627

2829

30

1

2

3

4

56

7

89

10

1112

13

1415

16

1718

19

21

20

26

25

27 22

2324

28

29

30

Technical Documentation: Exterior Shell Break-down

The tabs will all be placed on the right most side of the rings to allow the rings to connected around. Then, every second piece will have tabs top and bottom to connect the rings together. The bottom ring will be the exception with only the top tabbed.

Technical Documentation: Exterior FabLab File

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

13

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

1

2

3

45 6

7

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

18

192021

22

2324

2526

272829

303132

33

Technical Documentation: Interior Shell Break-down

Technical Documentation: Interior FabLab File

Technical Documentation: Material Descriptions

Left: Black card was used for the exte-rior because of the way that it reacts to light. Black surfaces do not provide any transulacancy so can act well to emphasise other colours or lights. This worked well with the windows since they were ‘emphasising’ the interior. One problem with them though was that the mistakes in terms of holes were much more obvious with black, but its emphasising qualities, and being pre-cise made uo for this.

Below: The white ivory card was used for the interior for the opposite reason, it was partially translucent therefore was more suitable for presenting the snake scale patterning that i was trying to represent. This meant that the placement and accuracy of tabbing was more clearly visible, but this also meant that these tabs could be used to my advantage in the design.

Right: The white paper was used for the fill ins because it acted as a good way of displaying interior shadows which added another layer of depth to the design.

Full Scale Model Construction: Exterior Shell

Full Scale Model Construction: Exterior Shell

ReflectionIt has become strongly apparent to me over the course of this module, the importance of planning and testing in the construction of something. The partial prototypes were really paramount in my final desing being feasible and without substantial problems. This is where digital tools become so important, in that they can accurately plan and display data that would be very hard to produce manually. I found that it still had many limitations in its ease of use, and how many complex things often relied on eachother (eg: the fablab cutter and rhino files) which could be both very effective and very frustrating when things aren’t connecting up. I can imagine the role and importance that these tools would then play in workings of whatever design firms. If you take examples such as the Kendrew Quandrangle, Federation square or Southern Cross station, the complex nature of their designs would be very highly dependent on planning and testing. As we found in the lecture with Paul Loh, you often have to prove that your ideas work, which again reinforces the role of prototyping. Over all this module was enjoyable as we finally got down to the constrcution of our long devleoped designs, and has taught me alot about planning and timing.

Documents

Fabrication - Student Journals Sem1 2012