Module 3

Module 3: Fabrication

Module 3: FabricationTan Yee Ann (Ean)573608


Revisiting Module 1: Ideation (Iterations of Designs)Starfish

Design 3

Using Polings reading. Generated designs for the under-belly of the starfish.

Leaf

Generation of analyical drawings for the 2nd natural design considered. The leaf pattern was chosen. Further development would stem from iteration 3

Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3

Chosen iteration


Leaf designThis natural pattern shows a granular pattern.

Derivation of Recipe

Extracting of tensional and relations suggested by Pol-ing’s reading on analytical drawings.

Simplification of the base units forming a pentagonal tessellation.

Combination of both pro-cesses.Analytical drawing used as the basis of the final paper model

Final paper model.Origin for the Development of the initial recipe

Translation of recipe into a clay model, for the module form of the lantern. I chosed the 1:5 scale to develop my design.

Final development of 3D module for digitalization.

From week 3’s lesson on basic transformation lead to the derivation of the digital model deriving the recipe.


Recipe (that applied through out design process)

1. Base unit

2. Repetition (3 layers) 3. Scaling (at the middle)

4. Continuous Rotation

5. Complex centre as compared to the peripheral zones (differentiation of core and periphery)

I have incorporated the recipe and embedded into my design process. Con-sidering the base pattern, the physical structure, the lantern in illuminated the lantern in non-illuminated state and the shadow that is cast by the lantern.

Base tessellation Custom 3D panelCustom 2D panel Custom 3D panel

Initial Digitalization phase

Clay model interpre-tation of recipe

Final design module for the lantern

Edited module for lantern altered by problems faced.

Initial Digitalization phase Using curve attractor to represent the twisting effect on the 3D grid. having the edges rotating

Digitized paper model Custom 3D panel Custom 3D panel Final model design

Complexity reflected in the shadows Complexity reflected on the illumi-nated lantern

Complexity reflected on the lantern


Base Module DesignModel 1

Model 2

Model 3

Final Concept in Module 1&2

Final Design Form for lantern

Hand interaction (context lantern)

Cosideration of ways the lantern is held in Module 2.Hand interaction of the final model will be discussed later in the slides.


Panelling designsPanel Design 4 was chosen because1. It had reflects the concept of core and peripheral (recipe- described in later in the presentation) between than the other design with its central depression.2. It follows original design closer as compared to the other 3 de-sign which follows the basic guidelines of the recipe.

Panel 2 and 3 I experimented with a thinner material. Which al-lowed more light to shine on the surface.Panel 1 experiments with the degree of open and closed surfaces

Panel design 1 Panel design 2 Panel design 3Panel design 4


Revisiting Module 2: Design

Slicing model for digitaliza-tion

Digitalization not representa-tive of the design

Created the base module in Rhino.

Removal of the edges as it is not evident when panelled.

Using curve attractor to rep-resent the twisting effect

Digitalization of the paper model. (Origin of the recipe)

Attempts to create a custom panel with the derived

Failure due to the incom-plete edges. Formation of curved surfaces.

Resolution of problem through triangulation. Devel-opment of a 3D grid pattern derived from the 2D base pattern. The pattern clearly shows the relation to the complex core concept from the recipe.

Base module

Chosen Panel

2D panel

3D panel


Design concept (2 Skins)Have 2 skins to bring accentuate the concept of complex core where there is central 2D skin with a outer 3D skin. Increasing the complexity with the presence of a inner skin. Offset boarder was employed to create shadows that would interfere to reflect the theme of core complexity and peripheral scarcity.

2D panel (inner skin)

3D panel (outer skin)

3D skin before offset face boarder Testing of lighting in RhinoCreated a desired complex lightingcurve attractor to show rota-

tion( based on recipe

3D skin

2nd skin Testing of different offsets

2D skin before offset face boarder 2D skin before offset face boarder


Success:1.Intricate Shadow formed shows a complex core theme.

2.Tabs- strengthen the structure-Can be used to attach the inner and outer skin (inner skin tabs affixed in the opposite direction) 3. 1:1 scale-enables me to get a sense size and also the ways the hand can interact with the lantern. With a bet-ter understanding I start creating the next proto-type. Resolving the problems of the this model

Failures1. Over exposed form-unable to conceal light source and wiring

2. Structure-Not much differentiation between the inner core and outer core. ( Developed in prototype 3)

Learning points for next prototype1. Offset boarder have decrease2. Tabs have to increase in lenght.

Tabs on the edge of the surface.

This is to connect to the 2nd skin.

(A need to increase the height of

the inner tabs)

The second skin was discontinued. After testing our the effects. The second skin poses another issue, the second skin does not differ much from the inner layer hence not emphasizing the goals of the recipe

Shadow effect and hand interaction

Prototype 1: the inner layer of the deign

2nd skin

Learning points from Prototype 1

2nd skin

Hand interactions to Prototype 1


Testing of 1.Grid 2. Offset value 3. Point attractors

varying offset 4. Lighting effect in Rhino

Prototype 2Steps taken after prototype 1:1. Alteration of the offset.-decreased the offset value (more closed form)

2. experimentation with grid -point attractors and curve attractors (recipe’s central and peripheral concept)-to achieve a differential shadow sizes.

3. Creation of longer tabs for the joining of the 2 skins

After much experimentation on Rhino I decided on a 20 x 20 grid with a 2 cm offset for the 3D grid point. I decided to add the point attractor at the front and back of the model to create a more dense form at the centre of the lantern. After which I created prototype 2.

Creation of longer tabs such that the inner skin can be attached to the outer skin

2D skin

3D skin

Interference in the shadow created

Prototype 2 created to test the lighting effects.


Resolved issues:1 Structure- more closed form (able to conceal light source and wires)- Shadows echoes the recipe’s theme of core and peripheral- Light segments have an interference pattern.

Problems faced/ Failures:1.Structure (form)-There is little Differentiation between the 2 skins.-The base form with 3 layers is also lost (recipe).

2. Folding process- model surface bending in 2 direction - Score lines have a crease formed

Learning points in Prototype 2

The design just look like the 3D skin. Cannot clearly see the presence of the 2D skin embedded within. Evident in prototype 1 and 2

Actions taken for Prototype 31. Having combine the 2D and 3D design. Consider using different coloured card.

2. Attempt to use dashed lines instead of score

lines.

2. Score lines making it difficult to fold in the op-posite direction.

2. The effects of dashed lines.

Interference in the shadow created

Actions taken for Prototype 3Resolved issues:

Problems faced/ Failures:


Prototype 3

Integration of the 2 skins to make a clear distinction. Experimentation to use different card to distinguish 3 segments.

This is possible due to the same base pattern differing only in the Z-plane.

This reemphasis the central them/recipe on the core and peripheral concept.

In the final model the card distinction facilitates the central concept and reinforces the theme.

+ = Differ in the Z-plane


Prototype 3

Problems/ issues emerged.1.Loss of the central core idea in previous 2 prototype.

Solution:Design concept 2 (Central Core)

Complex core evident in the shadows cast on the wall

Interference of light source.Creating a peripheral glow dimmer than the central fragment

The unexpected success of experimentation of dashed lines.Created a clear glow bringing out

the design pattern

The distinction between black and ivory card carries out the distinction between the 3 layers (recipe) stronger.This was an unexpected successful

experimentation.


Considering the original concept of a central core replacing the inner skin with a central core (focusing on the theme/recipe)

Design concept 2 (Central Core) (Prototype 4- Improving Prototype 3)

The centralised core that sits within the structure would carry out the core concept stronger and hence the decision made.

Inserting the ellipsoid (a shrunken version of the outer model cutting out the 2 sides) into prototype 3. The tabs created outward make it difficult to close the outer skin (Picture 2).

The shadow is lost, losing the interference pattern.

However it created a soft glow that allows the lantern’s exterior to reflect the complex core concept (Picture 3)

Picture 3

Picture 2


Steps towards the Final Model.

Experimentation of different material: Picture 2 shows the area with the translucent paper pre-vented any lights to leave the prototype.

Picture 2

Redesigning (Both puzzle making&problem solving)Testing and rendering of different offset for final model.

Interference pattern lost:I am satisfied with the final design. However the interference pattern created and the shadow is lost.

Size issue:I also decided to shrink the size of the inner core because I had issues with closing the model.

From the experimentation with the translucent paper I decide to reject the idea. This is because it would pre-vent light from passing through. Which lead to the idea of having offsets along the inner core. The offsets are through the y-axis. This echoes the recipe’s complex core concept. The offset would then enable me to reestab-lish the interference and shadows casting effects.


Steps towards the Final Model.

Final 2 parts of the lantern

Final Outer skin Final Inner core.

I also learnt that I have to attach the light into the lantern while constructing the model

Lessons from prototype 3&4: I real-ised that I have to build the central portion (part 2) last before encas-ing the core structure.

From prototype 3&4 I learnt how the black card will have very obvious glue stains. Hence the need to be exceptionally careful in the final model.

For the final model I re unrolled the lantern to determine the area where the black card is located at.(in prototype 3: the black parts were randomly included)

Attaching the LED light while constructing.

Prototype 4:Glue stains ofn black card.

Prototype 4:Problems with closing the model

Prototype 4:Uneven distribution the black and white card on the model.


Final ModelThe final model has a beautiful and intricate form and shadows/lights casting.

The inner core allows the lights to pass through and allowed interference to oc-cur previously prevented in prototype 4.

Because of the small opening it result in diffraction, something I learnt in physics in the past. The light distribution is caused by diffraction due to the small aper-ture. Hence resulting in a diffraction of the light source.

The light pattern is shaped in the shape of the light (circle) which is different from the openings (triangles). Making the lamp complex (recipe).The offsets on the inner core creates an interesting light pattern on the outer skin, show-ing a complex centre core. The effect can only be achieve when shining on a ivory card. The distinction between the black and ivory card emphasises the complex core theme.

Diffraction- the bending of light/waves as the pass through a small opening.


Hand interaction with the Final Model.

Hand interaction in prototypes

The final model can be held in all the ways shown in the prototype as well as in the pictures of the final model.

Hand interaction with the final model

I have decided to hold the lantern in this way as it is less tiring and it allows people to see the lantern. It al-lows the light to be projected forwards as well.

IdiomHolding cards close to one’s chest = Keep your intended actions a secret.Correlating with the complex core theme. Where hand gestures translate the emotion across to the audience


Construction Process (for Prototypes and Final Model) (UNROLLING)

Unrolling steps:1. Explode the polysurface into different segments.

2. Select different segments and join them together.-Selecting a maximum of 3 pyramid as i am using dashed lines if i were to used score lines it might be more difficult. For the 2D pattern or a 3D pyramid, I would exclude 1 triangle for each set to prevent an overlap in the unrolling process.

3. After which I would keep the same object and unrolled surface on the same layer with a distinct colour. ( Annotating with numbers is another alternative which could be done too).

4. Next I would nest the pieces into a 900mm x 600mm boarder and run grasshopper plug-in to create the tabs and fold lines.

1. Exploded surfaces 2. Joining the pieces together

3. Screen grab of how I identified different segments.

4. Creation of tabs with Grasshopper


Grasshopper issues1. The difficulty in creating tabs for dashed lines. It only allows single brep

2. The running of the tab lines (the imperfection of the plug-in).Hence there is a need to draw the tabs manu-ally after running through grasshopper.

3. The issue with the grasshopper plug in is that if we want to have boarder offsets and dashed lines we need to run both the make tabs grasshopper and the make dash grasshopper plug-in to get the lines.

4. Some of my unrolled surfaces had 2 curves on the edge hence unable to run the plug-in. I only discovered this was the issue after I drew the pieces using Osnap function, an alternative is to use the Make2D function. I place the curves drawn on a different layer. I then scaled the lines by the mid point by 0.9/0.8 to ensure the edges are not cut and changed the continous lines to dashed lines.

Construction Process (for Prototypes and Final Model) -Grasshopper Issues

4. Failure to create tabs (need to manually draw curves)

2. Manual drawing of board-ers.

3. Dashed lines created for inner offset. 4. Photo of my screen. Scaling the lines from the mid point.

4. Scaling the lines from the mid point.4. Scaling the lines from the mid point.


Construction Process (for prototypes and Final Model) -Grasshopper Issues

Make dash plug-in:Creates all the lines in a dashed form in-cluding the inner offset.

Make Tabs plug-in:Used the other plug-in in order to get the inner offset as a continuous line.

Delete the dashed offset boarders on the 1st page and copy over the dashed join lines.

Other issues that arise due to the plug-in. The boarders generated either intersect or does not follow the form. In either case I will have to manually edit the lines.


Preparation for fablab on Rhino (prototype)


Preparation for fablab on Rhino (Nesting)


Cutting the nested Rhino files with the CNC machine.

Construction process (for prototypes and final model)

Cutting out the piec-es and gluing them together.

Keeping them in the paper to locate each segment.

Then selecting piece by piece and attaching them together.

Using triangle clips ti hold the glue togeth-er ensuring adhesiveness.Add the LED light in and tape the wire in place.

Placing the inner core in the outer skin. Closing the outer skin by holding on to the tabs.


Material used and decision made

Led light’s wire taped on to the inner skin.

8 AA battery in a plastic case

Double sided tape and glue tape is not strong enough to hold the structure in place. White Glue does not dry as quickly hence would require a longer time to make the model.UHU glue is prefered as it allows some error as its cohesiveness is not as strong as white glue when dried hence if mistakes are made correcting them is a lot easier.

To cut I used a art knife which I broke. Hence I use the a craft knife and scissors to trim the edges. The craft knife is preferred over the art knife. The craft knife is more resistent to stress.

The triangle clips are used to hold the tabs in place while the glue sets.

Joining the wire s by twisting the open wire.

Delamination of the double sided tape and glue tape.

Rulers used to help the cutting of the score line to help keep the pieces on the card.

Art knife Craft knife D/S tapeGlue tape


Electrical setup

Reason for choice of Light:I needed a stronger source of light as the lantern has 2 layers. The light source also produces a cool white light that I was looking for.

Location of the lamp:The LED light is placed at the bottom of the lamp in order to illuminate the entire lamp.The direction of the lighting is to shining out wards and not to the ground hence the location of the LED Light.

Attaching the Light:I used sticky tape to place the wire in place while I was constructing the inner core. The wire followed the path of the folds of the inner skin. It exited at the center of the elipsoid. The wire then continues to exit the outer skin through a offset border.

Electrical setup:The circuit is in a simple series set up with a single Light and a pack of batteries. The input voltage for the light is 9-30VDC. Hence, I chose the 8 pack battery case to optimise the time the light can be lited up. A single battery cell is 1.5 volts hence the battery pack will be a total of 12V which is within the specified range.The lantern would be able to be turn on for 45mins straight without any issues.

Although the set up is in series the internal struc-ture of the LED light is in parallel .

The exiting of the wire from the inner core.


Steps taken to build the final model (exploded model)

Part 1

Part 3

Part 2

Part 4

Construction order:

1. Part 4

2. Part 1

3. Part 2 (not closing the structure)

4. Part 3


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Final Model


Lecture and reading analysisI Learnt that in design there are 2 processes that we have to continuously visit the concept of Puzzle making and problem solving. In the design and fabrication phase I have employed these processes the creation of my lantern. Using the puzzle making technique I consider widening my horizon by focusing on certain elements in the recipe de-creasing the limitations to my design outcome. While considering the problem solving aspect such as practical ways to illuminate the lamp and positioning of the light source to achieve desired effects in line with the recipe. A practi-cal step I took in my design was through opening a panel at the bottom of my lamp in order to on and off the lamp.

Both the lecture and reading increased my horizon by revealing the myriad of technologies available in the market that can facilitate me in more complex designs in the future.

As I transit from the design to the fabrication phase I related to the video shown in the lecture. It showcases people who produce hand-made designer products.

Interaction with materials during the fabrication phase results in possible alterations to the design. Having both de-sign and fabrication done by the same person is something that is rarely done in the industry of product as suggest-ed in the video. I am pleased that the school has given us a chance to interact with the CNC machine enabling us to go through this experience of fabrication of my own design. As an aspiring architect, now being aware of the developments and problems that may arise in the transition from design to fabrication, I am will seek to understand the happenings within the manufacturing process if possible in the future.


Lecture and reading analysis W8 reflections

In this weeks reading I learnt how technology has greatly improve the flexibility and ability of our to produce complex structures. In Kolarevic’s reading shows large range of different technology is being used in the fab-rication of architecture design as well as in product design. From the lecture I have learnt how customizing is becoming more accessible with the proliferation of the technology. These processes are enabled through the development in software, CNC (computer numerical control) technology and stimulated analysis. Iwamato dis-cusses several concepts that are relevant to the fabrication process. In the reading he discusses how fabrication relates to the materials. The reading shows how materials are pushed to the limits due to the greater understand-ing of materials due to the advances in technology. Previously impossible designs are now made possible. He also talks about the concept discussed in the lecture on problem solving process and puzzle making process.

From the lecture I can see how the topics discussed in the readings helps me realize the direction technology has shaped the design industry both in architecture and in product design. The lecture enabled me to see the examples discussed in the readings and learn the different processes taken to develop the design. The lecture also reinforces how experimentation leads to the development of a design.

In the lecture the building by Frank Ghery has struck a chord in me. I see how my lantern relates to the building. It has a separate skin that has a totally different structure, which was able to show the core and complexity that I was trying to achieve.

The lecture also has many amazing buildings that were raised in the readings. Chris bosses lava Digital origami feature enable light to shine both way, which created an interesting effect. The play of coloured light is some-thing that I could consider in my design.

Module 3

Documents

Transcript of Module 3