The Node

8/19/2019 The Node

1/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

1 | P a g e

The Node

IntroductionThree dimensional printing is bringing forth a new method of constructing one’s own imaginary

ideas. This new method of printing has allowed designers to build and test computed models without

complicated plastic molding technology. This progress in technology has created developments in health

sciences, jewelry, art furniture, architecture and personal design. Architects like Davide Sher are even

using alternative 3D printing methods to create housing out of sustainable materials such as dirt.i Other

designers like Irina Shaklova and firms like VULCAN are creating artistic achievements in interactive art. ii

iii Today architects, artists and designers are beginning to use 3D printing to design in ways unimagined

by previous generations.

3D printing has actually existed since 1986 when Charles Hull invented stereolithographic.

However this process took months and thousands of dollars.iv In the last 30 years of development 3dprinting has become an accessible and affordable method for prototyping that has even allowed entry

level designers to create prototypes in their schools and homes. For most this hasn’t reached the scale

of full size houses or massive sculptures, however it has allowed for a new wave of inventing and artistic

designs. Out of interest of 3D computer modelling and printing students in and out of design schools

have begun to fall into this group of designers constructing prototypes. These designs and projects are

at such a scale that they are being prototyped in small affordable 3d printers. Whole design could even

be constructed out of a series of simple repeated, small scale components.

The question that arises is how can 3D printing improve on the world of architecture? Idea’s of

printing whole houses and eliminating labor intensive work are immediate ideas that have become ofinterest to designers. But why do designers need to print bigger when 3D Printing could already provide

advancements using Small Scale Repetitive components. Some of the finest examples of architecture,

such as the spaceframe system and the GeoDome came from designs using repetitive components,

however the architectural masterpieces that would greatly benefit from 3D printing aren’t these ground

breaking discoveries, but the designs that emerged from them.

Deployable structures are creations that use complex prototypes in order to obtain movement

and accessibility. These designs can fold upon themselves and create shelter using flexible fabric skin.

Although some of their base designs have been around since 1800’s in the form of small devices and

folding chairsv it wasn’t until the last century that these deigns began to make their way into

architecture. Due to advancements in modern technology such as 3D printing these designs will begin to

introduce complexities that allow for new movement and capabilities in deployable structures.

Deployable ArchitectureDeployable architecture has been used throughout history in circumstances where humans

didn’t have permanent dwellings. Early examples are as simple as tents and tipis used by the Native

8/19/2019 The Node

2/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

2 | P a g e

Americans and early Nomadic people. Designers only have begun integrating these attributes into

modern construction over the last century; however it was the 1950’s where advancements in

deployable structures as the aerospace industry began to merge with architecture.vi

One of the most important steps in deployable

architecture comes from an architect RichardBuckminster’s geodesic domes. The original dome design

was constructed in 1954 and is considered “the lightest,

strongest, and most cost-effective structure ever devised.”

(Ament 2006) By 1957 this remarkable spherical building

was finished construction 22 hours after the arrival of the

first parts.vii Some of Buckminster’s designs used a

combination of pneumatic cylinders and tension cables to

allow quick and easy construction. Although Buckminster’s

designs aren’t considered deployable by today’s

standards, they were ahead of their time and were a major influence of deployable architecture.Buckminster’s designs are still around today and similar deployable designs are even sold by the

company North Face as outdoor shelters.viii

Arguably one of the most important of deployable

designs came from an international competition held in London

In 1961. Architect Richard Buckminster would influence another

genius mind in deployable structures. The competition theme

‘Transportable theatre’ inspired Architect Emilio Perez Pinero

won a special mention for his ‘Three-Dimensional Deployable

Scissor Grid.’ This project was made reality in 1966 and wasinitially introduced in Plaza De Maria Pita A Coruna, Spain.

‘Transportable theatre’ weighed only 40 tonnes and could cover

8000 square meters with only a single center support required.

The design consisted of intersecting scissors of four arms made

of aluminum bars and interlocking hinge joints. Emilio Pinero

would further improve on his own designs in order to be

constricted of scissors of three arms by using pins mounted in coplanar positions.ix

In the late 1960’s Expo 67’s “creative America” theme became a host to a two of the world’s

major influences of deployable architecture. Richard Buckminster’s 20 story Geodesic Dome, which

represented USA in Expo 67, may have triumphed in popularity, however it no longer stood alone as a

lightweight, inexpensive design on a world scale. x The Space frame system which he helped developed

became a popular design that used in the Expo by multiple countries. Both the Netherlands pavilion and

the Canadian “Man the Explorer” design were constructed using repetitive steel framing components to

allow for flexible, large display spaces.

Figure 1 Buckminster's Geodesic Dome (Expo 67)

Figure 2 Transportable Theatre

8/19/2019 The Node

3/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

3 | P a g e

One of the most spectacular buildings from

Expo 67 was able to maintain the design intents of the

spaceframe pavilions without the labor required to

weld the spaceframe system. The ‘West Germany

Pavilion’ designed by Frei Otto introduced a tent like

structure that allowed for adequate lighting and a light

roof structure weighing only 140 tonnes. It also was one

of the fastest constructed designs of the Expo, with a

construction time of just 6 weeks. This structure was

also capable of covering an entire city block using

tension cables and a meshed net roof covered in a plastic skin. This design was able to adequately

manage twin problems of aesthetics and economics while reducing construction time. The design was

also adored for its ability to adapt to the irregularities of any site which

would allow the design to be seen once again in the Munich’s 1972

Summer Olympicsxi

The studies of 1970’s led another genius mind had entered the

world of structural morphology. Haresh Lavani began working on

topology and symmetry transformation. However it wasn’t till the

1990’s that his work would be heavily recognised and transformed into

Mechanical Geometry. In 1997 Alan Britt used his findings from

Haresh’s studies to produce a deployable truss structure for NASA. The

‘NASA Type Cubic’ allowed for various types of movement depending

that varied in capability whether a rigid or collapsible components was

used during assembly. The design that was created by NASA played

with the combinations of 4 of its major components. “...the teamdevelops a four-letter notation (t,b,v,d) that corresponds to the four

structural components grouped in a cubic cell. The first letter (t)

corresponds to the top horizontal members, the second (b) to the

bottom horizontal members, the third (v) to the vertical members and

the fourth (d) to the diagonal members… the notation describes

whether the member is rigid (r) or hinged (h).” The system when used

in symmetry allows for a greater compactness and generates solutions

to critical design issues such as; strut and node morphology and

deployment path geometry. xii

The 1990’s led to many inventive designs for the world of deployable structures. In 1992 Prof.

Zalewski’s Venezuelan pavilion was constructed in Venezuela, where the costs were cheaper and then

unfolded quickly in Sevilla where the Expo 92 was hosted. The system was comprised of Crane hoisted

prefabricates truss expanded while suspended in midair, then set in place for temporary exposition

siting. After the Expo the structure was once again collapsed and could be reconstructed at another site.

Figure 3 West Germany Pavilion by Frei Otto

Figure 4 Alan Britt 'NASA Type Cubic'

8/19/2019 The Node

4/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

4 | P a g e

In 1996 architects Felix Escreg, Juan Perez Valcarcel and Jose Sanchez revisited and revised

Architect Emilio Perez Pinero’s temporary theatre design. The ‘Deployable Cover for San Pablo

Swimming Pool’ used the X-frame system to span over an Olympic sized pool; however unlike Emilio

Pinero’s design the support column was no longer necessary. The thirty years

between Emilio Pinero’s project and Escrig’s pool cover allowed advancements

in hardware which allowed a much wider deployment then three- and four-

arm scissor structures. Escrig’s new connection allowed for the skin to hang

from the interior structure to reduce entanglement during assembly which

assembly, and storage.xiii

In the early 2000’s Architect Maciej Piekarski have

begun expanding on Zalewski’s ‘Venezuelan pavilion’ and

Escreg’s ‘Deployable Cover’ by combining the theories to

create the ‘Two-Way-Fold Trusses.’ This new design allows

for the ability to deploy in both directions while still being

constructed out of ridged components. The Two-Way-Truss’success comes form, rigidity and stiffness that makes up the

geometrical forms. The base unit was created of four

parallelograms and if joined with identical units, forms a flat

structure capable of expansion in multiple directions along

the same plain, however if the base unit is slightly modified

the structure can create cylindrical expansions.xiv

Today Deployable structures are continued to be developed in order to

improve on older techniques. New designs are being constructed for practical

applications such as temporary structures, pavilion designs, camping trailers, andeven Disaster victim relief.

xv Structural Morphology is a art which will continue to

grow in efficiency as technology allows for advancements in structural design and

prototyping.

Cube EfflorescenceThe core of the Node came from a beautiful design created in the fall of 2014.

The project later titled “Cube Efflorescence” was created as an exploration of both

material studies repetition of design. These explorations allowed me to see how a

simple design can create a beautiful creation. Cube Efflorescence was created by

building a single component out of 2 replicated pieces then intersected and repeated

until it began construct a transformable unit. In its “neutral state” the object

resembled a cube; however, once manipulated by the viewer the cube could stretch

out and become cylindrical or even a pyramid shape. The result was something

elegant and full of potential. Once again, the project grew from repetition and as

other cubes were connected, a simple and elegant project became something alluring

Figure 5 Felix Escreg

‘Deployable Cover’

Figure 6 Joshua Eckert

Cube Efflorescence

8/19/2019 The Node

5/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

5 | P a g e

and fascinating. The “Cube Efflorescence” became something that could be repeated and expanded

many times over, changing direction as it continues.

Designing the ‘ Node’

Cube Efflorescence was a theoretical design that was repeatedto create a system that could be mass produced using laser cutting and

easily assembled. Through physical models I could create a beautiful

system that captured the viewers’ attention. In search of a way to

create “Cube Efflorescence” into a real scale structure I attempted to

reconstruct a thin wood system in ply-wood components. In theory the

ball joints on each end along with the pin joint in the middle would

allow for the same movement as the original design; however, the

project quickly began to create problems and reveal its true

complexities.

The problems of the “Cube Efflorescence” design began early in

the reconstruction phase as a full scale model was constructed. Once

the single full scale unit was built, I began to understand that this design

was not one that I could simply scale up to form a structure. The

original project was built at such a small scale and was made of flexible

pieces, making it flexible and light. Quickly this began to create

problems as the full scale required a ridged large component which

required a very specific assembly and added a large amount of weight.

As I analysed the project I realised the problems came from the joints

themselves and a better system needed to be created.

In order for the design move forward it had to reflect on what

had made Cube Efflorescence successful. The project’s success appeared to be linked with its ability to

move and bend, but that theory was misguided, the movement of the

design was only a single element of a larger idea. The other major

element was the “neutral shape”. While reading about Yan Chan’s and

Zhong You’s “Deployable Structure Based on Bennett Linkage” project, I

discovered that if the cube efflorescence project was scaled it too could

be covered in fabric and used as a tent like structure.xvi

xvii

Once I

wrapped my design in a fabric casement, the cube efflorescence nolonger resembled an ordinary cube. The new 14 sided shape actually

resembled a cube with its corners cut off, and as I started to play with

this shape it became apparent that anything that “Cube Efflorescence”

could create could be constructed with this 14 sided shape.

This discovery began a new wave of explorations. The block

turned out to be able to construct anything that the cube efflorescence project could become except

Figure 7 Joshua Eckert ‘Cube

Efflorescence’

Figure 8 Yan Chan’s and Zhong You’sDeployable Structure Based on

Bennett Linkage”

Figure 5 Sketch of scales ‘Cube

Efflorescence’

8/19/2019 The Node

6/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

6 | P a g e

with the reduction of movement. The shape had a building block attribute with an amusing Lego-like

approach. The unique shape could create vertical and triangulated structures using its combination of

square and triangular faces and became something unique to design with. However, unlike “Cube

Efflorescence” this version couldn’t move and showed potential only as a single building-block-like mass

to construct with. The system also had numerous restrictions in terms of connections and aesthetics.

The problem with this design was the lacking of elegance that

the ‘cube efflorescence’ embodied; a system capable of movement

became a boxy looking, clunky building-block design that would be

heavy to build and inconvenient to construct with. While constructing

forms with the unique shape I realized that this shape was only

needed in places where a connection or a change in direction

occurred. Once the shape was shrunk down to a smaller size the

design began to use the shape as a node between bar like connections.

Extending perpendicular from the faces, the bar shapes connected one

node to another. This design was now capable of creating both squarespaces and triangulated structures and, as a project continued, it

became apparent that this design could be taken apart and rebuilt

with the same pieces in a completely different form. Although after

reconstructing the sequence the design began to show a striking

resemblance to the spaceframe system commonly used in architecture

today.

The project once again began to prove it could become a

structure with repeated components; however, this ridged form

lacked still the elegance that came with “Cube Efflorescence’s” abilityto move and even compact itself.

The movement that this project derived from was the major component missing from this

system. At this phase, I began to reflect back from the original scaled version of the “Cube Efflorescence”

(sketched in figure 5) and noted that the one part of the design that created a majority of the movement

came from the ball joint used in attempt to scale the project.

The reintegration of the ball joint allowed for the movement from the earlier projects but

allowed for the grid like connections of the space frame system. The Ball joints were made in the faces

of the 14 sided design (shown below on the left) which allowed me to visually construct very interestingforms and models using computer programs. However, though the results looked intriguing, the system

was unstable and at best could only be built in tension.

The project had begun to see restrictions of its own development due to digital modeling. Like

Cube Efflorescence, this new project needed to be constructed as a physical model to truly understand

the extent if its abilities; however, this design required too much critical detail at a small scale for me to

model by hand. The design needed to be 3D printed as a prototype.

Figure 10 Original 14 Sided Block

construction

Figure 11 Space-frame using 14 sided

connections

8/19/2019 The Node

7/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

7 | P a g e

Figure 12 Original Node design (left) and the Finalized Node Design (right)

The first prototype of the node (above on the left) was a raw idea that took many stages of

refinement from. The ideas from initial designs, mashed together with new idea’s such as ball joints and

paneling was forced together to form a working piece. These first few attempts were useful in

understanding how this object would work in a real scale and revealed the Node’s ability to move and

create, but 3d printing it also allowed critical flaws to be experienced first-hand and allowed

reassessment. The flaws varied from; how the panel designs connected to the core, to how connection

to how these panels was fastened. Other problems addressed the size, overall appearance and control.

The final vison of the node addressed all of these issues. The panels were fastened individually

instead of using multiple fastened panels, and the ball joints were all moved closer to the center to

reduce the size of the design. The project began to look and perform better with reduced costs per unit.

In addition, these revisions to the initial design also allowed for control and ridged control that was

needed for the project’s advancement.

A system made entirely of ball joints didn’t have the capability to hold itself up, let alone create

spaces or construct forms. Thus, in order to construct spaces, the project needed one final

development; ridged components in which to construct with. The solution came from adding holes in

the core into which pins could fit. Using the new ball and pin joints alongside the ball joints allowed for

a wide range of new design capabilities that both could include and prevent movement.

Design CapabilitiesOnce the node had been completed, it showed it could not only build ridged structures but also

moving forms. The new Ball-and-Pin design allowed a rigid connection in both compression and tensile

structures. Using 4 or more nodes the user was able to produce both curved forms and triangulated

frames.

8/19/2019 The Node

8/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

8 | P a g e

The ability to form structures came from the angles involved in the 14 faces

of the core. The 6 square faces are all on a traditional X Y Z axis which allows

for grid like construction. The grid like construction is formed by the 90° angle

between the square faces, allowing it to create grid like structures. The

triangular faces, which are 55° from center of the square faces, allow for

triangulation to occur within the grid. By using a combination of these faces

and the Pin-and-Ball connections (labeled in blue in all diagrams) you can

form a ridged structure capable of construction. Using the regular ball points

(labeled in red in all diagrams) tensile connections or moving structures can

be constructed.

The ‘node’ can also be used to create triangular objects by attaching

a combination of the triangular axis and square axis. For example the square

faces and the triangular faces are roughly 55° from center to one another. If

two of these angles are used in conjunction with one of the 70° angles made

by using two triangular axis, it will create a triangle made of ridged pieces(70°+55°+55°=180°). Other types of triangles can be made using combinations

of ridged and non-ridged faces; however, these may allow for some

movement in the joints where there is only one ridged component (Shown in

diagrams to the left).

In order to determine how many different combinations a single

node could create, one would have to refer to a statistics textbook. In the

case of Walpole’s equation: !

!! where x is the amount of sides, and y and x

are the combination of ridged and non-ridged components in a single node:

xviii

14!

0! 14!1 2 = 2

14!

1!13!14 2 = 28

14!

2!12!2 = 182

12!

3!11!2 = 728

14!

4!10! 2 = 2002

14!

5!9!2 = 4004

14!

6!8!2 = 6006

14!

7!7!2 = 3432

Figure 13 Moment with a pin-

and-ball and movement with

regular ball joint.

8/19/2019 The Node

9/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

9 | P a g e

2 + 28 + 282 + 728 + 2002 + 4004 + 6006 + 3432 =

As shown above the combinations come out to 16384 if all components are being used for

extensions. The number multiplies if we are also considering empty sockets as well as the ridged and

non-ridged components:

14!

4!4!6! = 210210

As shown above if empty sockets are included, one combination of 4 ridged, 4 ball points and 6 empty

create 210210 combinations.

If we begin including the different combinations of 4, 4, and 6;

6 ridged, 4 ball points and 4 empty



The design already could create over 630000 different combinations on one single node. If we include all

the combinations of different faces, these numbers will climb into the millions for just a single node.

The most magnificent aspect of this project came from the array of movement that came from

the ball-joint design. The ball-and-pin joint (blue) and the regular ball-point (Red) show the different

types of movement made with each typical ball point. In Figures 13&14 we see that the ball-point

(shown red) allows for an array of movement whereas the Ball-and-Pin (shown blue) restricts movement

along a single axis.

The full movement of the ball point allows for the construction of ornate, collapsible designs that

can create moving designs; however, in order to create any self-standing structure you need to use the

ridged, ball and pin designs. The ball and pin will only restrict movement if used on two or more axis.

The drawing below the node is shown with different combinations of 4 joints.

Figure 14 3 combinations of 2, 1, and zero ball-and-pin connections. Two allows for no movement, one allows for

movement around a single axis, and zero allows for a uncontrolled movement.

8/19/2019 The Node

10/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

10 | P a g e

In the First example of figure 14 the unit can’t move due to the use of 2 Ball-and-Pin connections

in different axis. The unit may no longer rotate in any axis; however, the regular ball points may

still move if the structure permits it.

In the Second example, the ball and pin connection is only used on one axis. The node is now

only able to move around the pin, therefore creating a single controlled movement.

The Third example shows the uncontrolled movement as a result of all points being regular ball

points. However, though this allows the node to move in all axes, it also loses its ability to hold a

ridged structure. The result creates a moving connection if built in suspension, but in

compression the structure will buckle and fail.

What can be created with the design is open ended and

infinite until material is taken into consideration. The model

was printed using plastics and 3d printed in order to

inexpensively and accurately bring the project to life, but in

order to build the project, scale and material need to be

taken into consideration. The most ideal construction

would be 3d printed aluminum components. Although this

process is still in its preliminary stages, it would allow for

the lightest construction and wouldn’t need to be finished.

If the product was to be mass produced, it is likely that the

object could be built using molds or by using a 5 axis CNC

machine to construct the core, along with a regular 3 axis

CNC to construct the faces.

Figure 16 A theoretical structure made with all rigid components.

Figure 15 A theoretical structure made with no

rigid components.

8/19/2019 The Node

11/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

11 | P a g e

Inspiration behind the NodeThis design may be unique and versatile;

however, it wouldn’t exist without the influence

and inspiration of some of the most genius minds

in deployable design. Architects such as Emilio

Perez Pinero, Maciej Piekarski, Yan Chen and

Zhong You became critical influences in the

research and development of the Node.

The design of the Deployable Structure Based on

Bennett Linkage became influential to the

development of my initial cube. The Bennett links

used repetitive components that used rotated pin

locations to construct curved structures. Like Cube

Efflorescence, their system required components

that were able to move outside of the axis. These

components used rotations like hinges or string

like connections. This design showed the limit of

what a hinge like connection can do before a ball

point design needed to be considered. Like this

project, the cube efflorescence used rotation in its

components to allow for a more three dimensional

scissor like connection (shown to right). Although

the answer wasn’t found solely in this project, it

aided in the creation of the first prototype.xix

A design that shared similar design intent to that

of the node was Maciej Piekarski’s Two-Way-Fold

Truss. The project, like Cube Efflorescence, was a

creative system that required a very unique joint

system to comprise the moving parts. In order for

Maciej to create the system, a joint prototype

needed to be constructed. The design was an

incredibly complex detail of rings inside rings

(shown to the left), which allowed a collapsible

system of moving, removable components. Themovement, however smooth, was very unique to

the specific design. The system, which was meant

to construct a two way truss, held keys to many

questions about disassembly and controlled

movement. The design for the Ball-and-Pin system

Figure 17 Hinged construction of Deployable Structure Based on

Bennett Linka e

Figure 18 Maciej Piekarski’s Two-Way-Fold Truss connection

Figure 19 Emilio Perez Pinero three-rod connection

8/19/2019 The Node

12/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

12 | P a g e

was derived from its sleek single axis movement.xx

Once the Node project had moved into its final stages, Emilio Perez Pinero’s project inspired

advancements for a more adaptable, moving node. The design, like cube Efflorescence, used scissor

grids to create a movable creation. A sudden realisation came to mind after studying Mr. Pinero’s

“three-rod connection” (figure 19) which allow for pin connections through his collapsible structures.This realisation was that the connections which were traditionally at the end of the metal tubing could

also pass through at any given point. This new consideration added a new depth of consideration for the

node design. After looking into Mr. Pinero’s designs, the realisation came to mind that without changing

the design of the node, the system could still be expanded on and continue to add new types of moving

components.xxi

Continuing DevelopmentThe design began to show even more potential with each minor

alteration considered. The use of the ball joint was redesigned tosupport horizontal pinning and sliding (shown on the right) was

just one consideration of further development. This unit which

has already proven it could be used in a million different

combinations began to show it could be used in many more. The

Nodes ability to restrict or support many types of movement

allowed for a self-supporting, moving, and collapsing design. New

adaptations of the ball joints, in conjunction with pins, rails,

extensions and even pistons would allow a limitless range of

movement for the project. Not only could this be used to create

the Cube Efflorescence for which it was designed, but it can alsocreate many new creations, moving or rigid. This is a system truly

capable of endless combinations that can be used to create

wonderful moving and deployable architecture.

i Sher, Davide. "The Pylos Project for Sustainable House 3D Printing Grows Taller - 3D Printing Industry." 3D Printing

Industry Pylos Projects Sustainable House 3D Printing Grows Taller Comments. 13 Oct. 2015. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.ii Rory Stott. "IaaC Student Develops 3D Printed "Living Screen" From Algae" 04 Nov 2015. ArchDaily. Accessed 6

Jan 2016. http://www.archdaily.com/776579/iaac-student-develops-3d-printed-living-screen-from-algae/ iii Rory Stott. "LCD's VULCAN Awarded Guinness World Record for Largest 3D Printed Structure" 28 Oct 2015.

ArchDaily. Accessed 6 Jan 2016. http://www.archdaily.com/776169/lcds-vulcan-awarded-guinness-world-record-

for-largest-3d-printed-structure/ iv "30 Years of Innovation." 3D Systems. Web. 6 Jan. 2016. .

v "The Galileo Project — Scheiner, Christoph" (history), Al Van Helden, Galileo Project, 1995, galileo.rice.edu

vi Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 12-13. Print.

vii Ament, Phil "Geodesic Dome History - Invention of the Geodesic Dome." Geodesic Dome History - Invention of

the Geodesic Dome. Web. 6 Jan. 2016. .viii

Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 74. Print.ix Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 75-78. Print.

Figure 20 Considered Pin-joint-and –rail

system.

http://www.archdaily.com/776579/iaac-student-develops-3d-printed-living-screen-from-algae/http://www.archdaily.com/776579/iaac-student-develops-3d-printed-living-screen-from-algae/http://www.archdaily.com/776579/iaac-student-develops-3d-printed-living-screen-from-algae/http://www.archdaily.com/776169/lcds-vulcan-awarded-guinness-world-record-for-largest-3d-printed-structure/http://www.archdaily.com/776169/lcds-vulcan-awarded-guinness-world-record-for-largest-3d-printed-structure/http://www.archdaily.com/776169/lcds-vulcan-awarded-guinness-world-record-for-largest-3d-printed-structure/http://www.archdaily.com/776169/lcds-vulcan-awarded-guinness-world-record-for-largest-3d-printed-structure/http://www.archdaily.com/776169/lcds-vulcan-awarded-guinness-world-record-for-largest-3d-printed-structure/http://www.archdaily.com/776169/lcds-vulcan-awarded-guinness-world-record-for-largest-3d-printed-structure/http://www.archdaily.com/776579/iaac-student-develops-3d-printed-living-screen-from-algae/

8/19/2019 The Node

13/13

Joshua Eckert

Jan 05, 2016

13 | P a g e

x "Richard Buckminster Fuller: A Visionary Architect." Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2 July 2015. Web.

7 Jan. 2016. . xi Stanton, Jeffrey. "Expo 67 - Architecture." Expo 67 - Architecture. Westland.net, 1997. Web. 7 Jan. 2016. xii

Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 78-79. Print.xiii

Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 23-26. Print.

xiv Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 106-107. Print.xv

Eric Oh. "Designnobis’ “Tentative” Provides Compact, Individual Living Spaces for Disaster Victims " 29 Aug 2015.

ArchDaily. Accessed 8 Jan 2016. xvi

CHEN, Yan. "Structural Bearings." Design of Structural Mechanisms (2003): n. pag. Web. 18 Dec. 2015.

.xvii

Adrover, Esther Rivas. "2.1 / Structural Components/ Rigid." Deployable Structures:. London: Laurence King,

2015. 27-29. Print.xviii

Walpole, Ronald E. "Sets and Probability (ch 2)." Introduction to Statistics,. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

14-17. Print.xix


2015. 106-109. Print.xx


2015. 75-77. Print.xx

Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 75-78. Print.

Photo Credits:Figure 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Biosph%C3%A8re

Figure 2: http://politicsfabrication3.blogspot.ca/2011_12_01_archive.html

Figure 3: https://reader009.{domain}/reader009/html5/0730/5b5e884503b29/5b5e884d94be7.jpg Figure 4: Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 24-25. Print.

Figure 5: Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 80-81. Print.

Figure 8: Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 14-17. Print.

Figure 17: Adrover, Esther Rivas. Deployable Structures. London: Laurence King, 2015. 28. Print.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Biosph%C3%A8rehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Biosph%C3%A8rehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Biosph%C3%A8rehttp://politicsfabrication3.blogspot.ca/2011_12_01_archive.htmlhttp://politicsfabrication3.blogspot.ca/2011_12_01_archive.htmlhttp://politicsfabrication3.blogspot.ca/2011_12_01_archive.htmlhttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/c2/de/cfc2de010912610707e85e71c7fa09e9.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/c2/de/cfc2de010912610707e85e71c7fa09e9.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/c2/de/cfc2de010912610707e85e71c7fa09e9.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/c2/de/cfc2de010912610707e85e71c7fa09e9.jpghttp://politicsfabrication3.blogspot.ca/2011_12_01_archive.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Biosph%C3%A8re

Documents

The Node