Body and architecture: Paper Nature - Robert Williams

Virtual Environments Robert Williams 585 138 Semester 1 Group 4

Chosen Pattern and Analytical Drawings I chose the skin of a pineapple for my natural pattern. I like how it is a little different and quirky because of its context.

From the Kandisky reading I created a series of analytical drawings that focused on the lines and shapes within the pattern.

Triangles are a major element and are able to be used to express symmetry, balance and movement.

Symmetry

Balance

Movement

Workshop 1 Emerging I translated the flat image into a 3D form. Focussing on the top layer of the skin I identified the scaling involved to replicate the form. Using peaked pieces of paper I copied the gradual increase and decrease of the extrusion.

I then made an iteration of this by using curved bases rather than rigid triangles, forming a tear drop shape and continued to explore the scaling concept by attaching them smallest to smallest and largest to largest, creating a line of these scaling groups.

Further Development

I revisited my emerging form using the peaked pieces paper (above) and thought about how to join them together to create one surface. I used folded paper to create three surfaces that incorporated an angle and when attached to together formed an arch. I made multiples of this form in different sizes and looked at how to attached them. I decided on a using symmetry to create a geometric ring. To join the rings together I continued with this line of symmetry and rotated each ring to create a grouped arrangement.

The Formation Process Translated Into Rhino I researched how a pineapple gains its shape and found that growth up and outwards was a major element in it’s development (Figure 1). This fitted nicely with the scaling concept that I was already exploring in my work.

The third utilises a central point and using the 3 Point Plane Mirror function I expanded out from the central ring; branching out in different directions but not altering the scale.

Fig. 1

Using the development of a pineapple as inspiration I used the basic ring component to create forms that visually explored the concept of growth.

The first uses copy, rotate and scale and looks at the various angles that I can connect the rings.

However this creates a reasonably flat arrangement.

With trying to expand the overall structure I used the Polar Array tool to copy five rings spaced vertically in my second attempt. I used different scaling and rotations to fill the gaps, which created clusters of shapes to show growth.

The Fourth led on from this central point concept.

Still using the mirror function I made a spiral down the bottom and went upwards and out, creating more natural curves; appears as a more organic structure.

The Fifth is another cluster but explores what lighting effects I could create through layering the rings on top of each other. I elongated some rings making them resemble crystals and used ranging sizes to create this closely connected form.

Further Development of the Lantern Form I created sketches of possible forms relating to growth and how they would integrate with the hand and arm.

I took inspiration from how the pineapple plant grows as it produces the fruit, as well as previous Rhino forms. The red arrows indicate the direction(s) that the form is ‘growing’.

Proposed Lantern Form For this design I have merged my first and last forms, taking the growth from the palm of the hand and the tentacles wrapping around the shoulders, neck and head. The layering of shadows from the growth at the palm and the direct lighting around the head add to the presence of the combined forms.

Desired Lighting Effects of My Developed Form

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Employing the Lighting Effects in My Lantern The lighting characteristics that I would like my form to possess are a mixture of direct and layered lighting. The layered lighting would be from the cluster of components on the palm of the hand and as the form expands up and around the shoulder direct beams of light would be emitted from the line of components, creating walls of light around the neck and head of the wearer.

The images illustrate the elements of which I would like to use.

Figure 2 (controlled roof system) shows the use of direct lighting and the pattern it can create on a surface. This image uses geometric shapes like my form and shows the hard lines in the shadows separating the light from the dark.

Figure 3 shows the layering of shadows and how they can be used to distort a space and give it a new perspective. The cluster growing close together and out from the hand in my form would create these intersecting shadows to depict centred energy of growth like in a plant.

My lantern will be made up of connecting individual components in lines. Because of this construction, each component has a hole in the centre in the shape of a irregular pentagon. In this sketch I combine the hole locations of the rings and the light direction to show the clustering and layering of light around the hand. The light then disperses up and out around the shoulders of the human form.

Simplified Lantern Mock up Having thought about the lighting effects that I wanted to achieve I made a paper model to see what kind of result I would actually get. I decided to base this model on the growth in the hand to see how the projections would work together when the ‘fingers are grouped. Since the form is made up of the individual ring components I represented these joined rings by cutting holes into opposite sides of the ‘fingers’.

To the right are the projections achieved from the direct cuts into the paper. I used a small LED torch, with the light travelling along the whole of the shorter ‘fingers’, but not quite reaching the end of the longer one.

Exploration Continued I extended the model further by adding a piece along the arm. Again I simplified the form to run straight up the arm rather than twisting around as shown in the previous plasticine representation. I did not intend for the paper model to be appear 1:1, I have just made the extension to long in taking inspiration from my earlier sketch (left). Overall the form is in the wrong proportions to the body, needing to be thicker. However this gives an idea of how the lantern may be wired with LEDs in future fabrication. It also shows I would need to have at least one LED in each ‘finger’ and many along the extension for it to be effective. As a result this would mean a lot of wires and lights which will make it complicated to fabricate.

Simplification Thinking about Paul’s comment of not making my lantern too linear and having looked ahead at what is required in creating a contour model in Rhino and the panelling tools available, I realised that I had complicated my design and decided to bring the lantern back to a simpler representation.

I brought the ‘fingers’ growing from the palm back to one expanding mass of cubes representing the rings, with a single line of components running along the outside of the arm (not twisting around). At the shoulder a similar expanding mass but with smaller growths suggesting ‘finger’ like forms protruding alongside the head (like the original sketch) From this I created a singular volumetric form.

Digitisation Contour Method 3 Variation

The extra ‘fingers’ were created separately because of the separate contours.

I found drawing the contour lines onto the model quite difficult and so the lines aren’t as neat as I would like but I when I cut the model into sections it clarified the lines, finding that not all the lines were necessary; especially around the protruding ‘fingers’ at the top.

Unable to make the ‘finger’ hollow so light would pass through it. I was shown how to do this but I was unable to repeat the process successfully.

Development of New Form Having tried to digitise something a little too complicated for my skill set, I thought a singular organic form was best. This earlier sketch (left) demonstrates this growth through the expanding spiral up and around the arm. This simple representation of growth is what I would like to replicate but in a smaller size to reduce the complexity. Having reflected on what I have done so far, I feel that my form was still too complicated and that I didn’t consider the constraints that I brought with me, like my own skills and the time available.

In these sketches I tried to keep it simple. The first is another version of the form modelled above but smaller and with only two twists. The second and third relate more to the pineapple plant and the pineapple growing from the centre of the mass. The fourth utilises scale to show this growth by starting thin at the bottom and being the thickest at the top. The fifth is simplification of the fourth starting in the hand.

Scaled and Orthogonal Views Top

This is my simplified form represented in 1:5 scale. I feel it is the best option in terms of depicting growth in a simplified way which will be easier to digitise and fabricate. Because of its simplicity it leaves plenty of options to be manipulated using the panelling tools plug in.

Bottom

Side

Front

Back

Panelling Designs

Alternative 1

Isometric view

Unrolled strips with cuts

Side view showing the scaled sections

Sketch of scaling cuts when arranged

This design separates the form into three sections of different numbers of control points. Since I was having difficulties creating my own 3D custom panels, for this panel system I used the 2D ‘TriBasic’ pattern in the provided library to make sure the panelling worked correctly and achieved a level of simplicity. To begin with I looked at communicating this transition of scale upwards as simple as possible; a direct solution. To do this I used simple cuts mimicking the shape of the triangle panels. To emphasise the growth of the lantern the bottom section has no cuts, the middle has small cuts and the biggest section at the top has the largest cuts. This system is easy to fabricate with simple shapes and communicates the ideas of growth and scale effectively.

Paper Prototypes Testing Material Properties and Lighting Effects Alternative 1 I used 80gsm white paper for these prototypes which made it light weight and delicate. The paper itself was not thick enough to block the light completely so the rings tend to glow, however in each case a clear projection of the cuts were produced.

I made prototypes of these panels and tested for what lighting effects could be achieved in terms of direct lighting and possible layering.

Change in Direction Prototype Fabrication From reviewing Module 2 it was felt that I had fulfilled the requirements but had lost a much better form in the process. Since I wasn’t happy with what I had produced in the module, I went back to my earlier form (right) made up of the individual geometric rings.

For this prototype I unrolled each ring and printed it onto 80gsm white paper and cut out each section by hand. Working out the best size to work with was tricky because of the limitations of a A4 Printer so my first attempt was a little small. The next print out I worked out where the tabs went along the edges of the surfaces, deciding that 4mm wide was the best size for the tabs. Each ring was identical so I repeated the same process until I had made enough components to create the form.

This prototype was also used to work out how to connect the rings together. I looked at connecting them using the same sides (far left) but this method didn’t allow a dramatic curve.

But by similar triangles I was able to better replicate the spiral at the bottom of the form.

Prototype Fabrication Continued I continued making the components and connecting them in sections using sticky tape. The 80gsm paper that I used however was not very strong and could not support the weight of the branches at the angle that they protruded. The components under stress would buckle and became crushed by the other components. There was a point where the form could be balanced but was not very stable (shown by the series of photos below).

The prototype portrayed the concept of growth up and outward well from the front, however the profile view was very flat and didn’t convey this concept at all. This ‘flatness’ will be developed so the whole form from either view point is in keeping with the concept of growth.

Positive characteristics though are the geometric feel of the form overall, with the many triangular faces and pentagon openings in each component. The spiral at the bottom of the form is also an attractive part, with the spiral configuration beginning just in front of the hand; ‘growing’ from this point. The other curves that make up the form are also aesthetically pleasing because of the interaction between the rigid outlines of the components to create a curving outline.

Reflecting on the Physical Properties of the Prototype After completing the initial prototype I looked at how the light was going to travel through each component to reach the ends of each ‘branch’. In the physical model I had used similar sized triangles on the components to attach them to each other, however when cutting these unneeded panels out the triangles would not always line up, with gaps forming which would allow the light to escape (shown below).

From this result I went back to the Rhino model and adjusted the components so the surfaces joined to each other right around the edge. This allowed me to remove the internal walls as a means for light to travel throughout the whole form.

Through the process of joining the components in this way I was able to make a hand grip in a similar position to where I held the paper prototype. This involved closing up one side of the of the components to protect the hand from possible heat but mainly to provide a strong section in the lantern to carry it by.

Components joined using similar triangles. They weren’t all the same size and so left gaps between the connections (red ring).

Original unjoined components, some intersecting with each other

Joined components

Hand grip incorporated into the lantern form

Addressing the Form of the Lantern As mentioned earlier, after making the paper prototype I noted that the profile view was very flat and did not portray the idea of growth very well. To change this I added extra ‘branches’ coming off the form, bending outward. The prototype also had problems in balancing and by having the extra branches ‘growing’ in the opposite direction it will help to balance the form when being held.

Revisiting the Lighting Effects

Precedent images

Arrangement of shadows from Module 1

Experimenting with the complexity of the triangles by closing up the ring

Scaling cuts system from Module 2

I still wanted to have a mixture of direct and layered lighting effects and so went back to my earlier modules. The sketch of the shadows (far left) depicts a different form but the idea of the cuts helping to depict growth through the concentration of the light is something I would like to retain. In Module 2 I came up with a scaling cuts system through separating the form into sections and panelling in accordance to the section (left). The lowest would have no or very few small cuts, the middle would have medium sized cuts and the top section would have the largest to produce the most light.

In transferring these ideas to the components I looked at totally enclosing the bottom rings, so there were no holes for the light to escape. In this exploration I tried to simplify the geometry and levels of triangles (going left to right) however I prefer the first arrangement because of the complexity of the shape but feel the hole in the centre helps to emphasise this complex arrangement of the triangles. I decided then that the cuts would be on the triangles that create the hole and would change the frequency and size of the cuts depending on the components position within the form.

Individual components showing the change in cut sizes

Prototype component

Scaled cuts showing direction of growth

Fig 4. A’Beckett Tower, Melbourne, Victoria

Creating the Cut Panels Using the ‘Dupboarder’ and ‘Offset Boarder’ functions as before, I created cuts in the triangles that made up the holes in each component. I made the decision not to cut into the triangles that made up the width of the components so as to avoid too much complexity. If I were to apply cuts to these triangles as well, I feel that it would make the form to busy and confronting to the viewer. Another factor was the strength of the material and to allow it to be self supporting. By having these spaces intact, it increases the strength of each component.

I made a prototype component using the offset boarder technique (second from left). It works well in letting light out but the thinness of the struts is a concern. The paper started to bend and did not hold it’s shape if knocked. This may also be the strength of the paper, so in future I will trial thicker, sturdier card and increase the width of the struts (which were only 2mm).

Another issue was the tabs being slightly to big and protruding past the width the of the struts themselves. In the next trial I will make sure the tabs are better positioned and of the same width as the struts.

To convey the concept of growth I applied these cuts to the whole form, starting with none at the beginning of the spiral and as the it comes to the hand grip small cuts appear (bottom section), with their frequency and size increasing as the form grows.

When it reaches the point when the components are branching off, the cuts become larger in size (medium section). As the branches continue out, the cuts become more frequent and larger. This growth continues towards the end component until the last ones are reached, where the struts are 4mm thick and create the largest openings (this is like the A’Beckett Building but in reverse) with every triangle cut into. The overall effect of these cuts is impressive and through the complexity of these openings, their frequency and concentration portrays the growth up and outwards of the form of the lantern (right).

Fully panelled form

Fabrication of Prototypes Prototype 1

Prototype 2

Prototype 1 is the section that accommodates the hand grip and I wanted to see if this was modelled correctly in the software and found it was successful in providing this function.

The material I used was Ivory Card. This was easy to cut and manipulate into shape but I feel that it won’t be strong enough to support the upper section of the lantern.

For Prototype 2 I chose one of the upper branches because it has complicated connections and cuts into nearly every face, making it appropriate for testing lighting effects. The material used was Mount Board and is much stiffer than the Ivory Card. This makes it much stronger and has a higher chance of supporting the whole lantern. However it proved difficult to manipulate compared to the thinner card. Another outcome was the need for dashed lines rather than scored on one side. The dashed lines would allow the two way movement the faces need.

Prototype Lighting Tests Testing Prototype 1 with LED lighting I found that the material was thin enough to allow light to transfer and results in a soft glow given off from the section.

One draw back from the thinness is that the tabs can be seen as darker shadows. I would prefer that the components are joined seamlessley as they continue up and out; create a sense of flow and continuality rather than the end of one component and the start of another.

Prototype 2 was more successful in controlling the light through the cuts and produced some promising results with projecting the triangle cuts onto the wall.

In having to wire these prototypes I found that my hands were to big for the openings and so it was rather time consuming to wire them. When constructing my final lantern I will build the components into smaller sections such as two or three and work out the wiring lengths for the next section before attaching them.

Final Lantern Fabrication Process

I had the Fab Lab use the Laser Cutter to cut out my surfaces. I then used a stanley knife to detach each piece from the board.

I used a steel ruler to guide the knife as I cut off excess tabbing.

To make it easier for myself I cut the board up into sections, so I could rotate each one separately to ease the cutting process.

I then folded and glued each component.

Piles of finished pieces.

From the folding process I was able to find more excess tabs to mark and cut off.

Some completed components.

Pile of waste from the cutting process. Because of the irregular shapes I’m not sure if I would have been able to reduce this.

Because some of the cuts were quite large compared the panel area it made the edges weak. To bend accurately I used at metal ruler.

Excess tabs. (Quite a few)

The mount board has two layers and if the tab wasn’t bent far enough before gluing, the material would sometimes split.

When joining the components together I found that a cut out had been flipped and was inside out. After gluing the component together I had to undo it and fold and glue it the other way. This solved the connection issue but now glue residue was obvious and burn marks were on the outside rather than the inside. Thankfully this only happened with two components

The 40 completed individual components.

Components connected in slightly larger groups to help construction.

Attaching the components into small groups.

Tested where the optimum position for the LEDs were. This section is the start of the spiral and so only requires minimal lighting to show growth.

Marked LED positions inside the components.

Sections with wiring prepared.

Used solder to connect wiring and LEDs and held in place with masking tape.

I wired the LEDs in parallel because the multiple directions needed and protection from LED(s) failing and breaking the circuit.

First two sections connected with wiring.

Measuring the wire out over the sections.

Next section attached with wiring.

Marked positive wire with black dot.

I made the wiring for the following section in preparation to attach it.

Finished lantern viewed from behind.

Next section attached with wiring.

Finished lantern viewed from the front.

Next section attached with wiring.

I added a battery pack and switch.

Attached end of branch with wiring.

Added extra card to support connections in stress areas.

Top section attached to finish branch.

Assembly Drawing of Lantern My lantern had a very complicated assembly process so I chose to explode groups of components outwards. Each connection is different and that is why the connections look slightly rotated when compared to each other.

Nested Cutting File Due to the irregular shapes of each surface this made nesting them together a little challenging. It was hard making the most of each page, especially in the curves of the pieces. As shown in the fabrication process there was a considerable amount of off cuts. I would estimate around 30% waste in total.

Lighting Effects First Impressions The lighted scaling cuts in the components help emphasise the growth in the form.

The projections are defined as well as layered, which was the effect I was trying to achieve.

Post Fabrication Lantern Detailing In an attempt to improve the surface quality I experimented with using white spray paint to remove burn marks, glue stains and reduce the prominent brown middle layers of the mount board.

I tested this method on Prototype 2, with the spray paint creating an even surface with a gloss finish. However it didn’t reduce the appearance of the brown cut lines and this was the main aim of the using the spray paint.

My final lantern does have some burn marks and glue stains but I believe are minimal in comparison with the whole form. Using the spray paint would be a nice finishing touch but I believe not entirely necessary.

To try and make my lantern more stable I created another component to finish the ring and provide support for the upper sections.

This was a sound solution however I feel that the concept of growth from a central point is now lost because the extra component provides conflicting two origin points.

Lantern Design

Lantern Effects

Reflection The process of getting to the end result was interesting and sometimes challenging in using the digital software to achieve the outcomes. I had the most trouble with digitising my plasticine models; translating the physical into the virtual. In attempting to achieve an accurate translation I went through a simplification process because I felt my original form had so many individual contours it would be impossible to translate accurately. Because of this decision I brought my form to a simple curving shape that I accurately represented in Rhino but lost the original and more appealing form by doing so.

Through trying to meet the requirements I did learn about panelling, the functions to create custom panels and the use of grid points to create panelled surfaces upon desired forms. So it was more of a detour than a dead end and I used the panelling techniques I had learned to create the panels on my final lantern. This period of time was definitely one of “to program or be programmed” and because of my limited skills it was Rhino that was dictating my design outcomes. I also feel that if I hadn’t taken the detour I would have ended up with a lesser design, so I feel it was a part of the learning experience of using digital means to aid the design process. The regular presentations also helped to realise the desired outcome and being able to discuss what was working and what wasn’t was also productive.

The design outcome itself is complex because of the detail in each of the components and the shear number of them. These factors create the overall impressiveness of the form, however this was time consuming and challenging to fabricate. I’m not saying that I regret putting in the extra effort to build my lantern, because I am very pleased with how it turned out, but I feel that I did not utilise the resources available to me as well as I could have. Grasshopper did help in creating the tabs and dashed lines in a time efficient manner, but because of small imperfections in the connections within some of the surfaces it confused the plug-in and caused it to created random lines criss-crossing over each other. When I first starting using the plug-in I did not know that the imperfections were the cause of the outcome and thought it was the complexity of the unrolled shapes when comparing it to the example shown. So I ended up manually drawing in most of the tabs and the dashed lines for the majority of the surfaces in Rhino; which added to the time spent on preparing the file for the Fab Lab. This allowed me to be in complete control of the outcome which was not a bad thing, but it was definitely the long way round. Having gone back after finishing my lantern I worked out the issues and was able to use grasshopper more effectively. I was able to draw tabs for the surfaces it didn’t like and still use it to create the dashed lines for the edges of the surfaces. This method cut the time spent by at least half, which in a time restricted situation it would have been much more favourable and less stressful.

Looking back I feel that the readings and lecture content guided my thinking and I am glad that I incorporated this information into my design process. The early lectures on how we perceive our world and how this can relate to design was a very new concept for me but through the texts on pattern theory and abstraction such as Kandisky, it helped to create the connections and made my process more informed. The Kandisky reading forced me to identify the main elements of my pattern. It expressed a way of representing the essence of the pattern using reduction and abstraction and I feel it was very valuable to do so. Through this exercise I identified the triangles present in the arrangement and the growth and scaling elements that were present as well.

The lecture on Composition was a huge influence on my work. The analogy of 1+1=1 really illustrated what we were required to do in bringing many different elements together to create a functional form. Researching how the pineapple grew in its natural context supported and influenced the composition of the form and the integration of the panelled cuts. The transformation process of the pineapple growing from within the plant translated to the depiction of growth up and outwards from a point, becoming the main theme that I used throughout the Modules and helped to guide my decisions when considering the composition.

By finding precedents of the lighting effects it clarified what I was trying to achieve and having the visual image helped understand how the light was behaving in those instances. The controlled roofing system shows the direct cuts used to project defined shapes onto a surface, with the lampshades creating a layered pattern to provide a spatial effect. By combining these outcomes I create an ‘aura’ around the lantern of continuous growth from the lighting effects.

Kandisky inspired abstraction of pattern.

Layered and Direct lighting effects.

A’Beckett Tower, Melbourne, Victoria.

Fig. 5 The Great Hall of Sydney’s University of Technology.

The A’Beckett Tower in Melbourne (Fig 4) illustrates the idea of growth through increasing scale of the rectangular window ‘eves’. This transformation in the facade gives the effect of being able to look through the building at lower levels and as the building goes up this view diminishes from the increasing size of the ‘eves’. The use of a patterning system such as this is what I applied to my panels but in reverse; as the lantern grows the cuts start small but gradually grow in size right up until the final components are reached.

The use of triangles to create an angled surface was the focus and was almost like a puzzle. This sum of parts to create a singular entity relates well to the Composition Lecture; 1+1=1. The ceiling of The Great Hall of Sydney’s University of Technology (Fig 5) has a sense of randomness but achieves uniformity through creating the one surface. This randomness of size is definitely evident in my final lantern through the varied panels that I have used to create a singular form, much like the ceiling of The Great Hall.

Module 4 Reading Responses

Drawing inspiration from the reading and your own learning from the last 10 weeks, describe how digital technology has changed your view on design, making and the context of the built environment?

By using Rhino to design the lantern it reduces the margin of error in the fabrication process by using the CNC Laser Cutter as the ‘technique’. Because of its accuracy it removes the time used to refine the design through repeated trial and error. However it is not the solution to creating a singular form that will succeed straight away and because of this prototyping is still necessary but to a smaller extent. Understanding how materials behave when used to construct the form was pivotal in reaching a solution. The design itself had physical risk in that I was not certain that it would be able to support its own weight, because of the unbalanced curves within the form. I added more branches to improve the chance of success, but still relied on the final outcome as to whether further adjustments were required. The choice of material still came from the prototyping phase since the digital version was unable to identify appropriate means but how I had the material cut was dictated by the digital realm through clean, scored or dashed options. My fabrication process also introduced the ‘workmanship of risk’ to some extent. Considering that the each component was drawn and cut through digital information it was accurate, however in assembling these components I was responsible for the accuracy of the joins and connections between them and the sections that these created. If a join did not hold, the section would be compromised and in turn compromise the form. I did improve the success of the joins through adding larger strips of card inside the components to create more ‘workmanship certainty’ for the form to work.

The digital revolution has made so much more possible. The internet provides a huge amount of resources readily available and allows communication between people across the globe. I feel that the only boundaries that exist are the ones that I bring with me and that this is a period of time through learning about digital design that these restrictions can be removed. Being able to draw a form in a digital program and then have it electronically cut out with such precision is ridiculous to think of when compared to the past where it was done by hand. My only reservation of this kind of technology is that it removes the ‘master craftsmen’ from the fabrication process. Through machines creating the objects it removes the skill of humans. However thinking of how the direction of the economy is changing with the social elements, there will always be people that are experts so the description of a ‘master craftsmen’ changes with this movement. Considering that it broadens the access to people that have an interest in design and fabrication and that it allows them to do it themselves it can only be positive. This kind of new ‘individual design’ is mentioned in the reading through the introduction of 3D Printers and how this creates mini production lines within private homes. The digital realm also allows for forms to be designed that were once difficult to define, but through this new technological age it is able to be visualised accurately and can be tested. In relation to the built environment BIM software (Building Information Technology) can design a building in great detail, test how it would respond to forces in the environment and instruct the designer on the process of building it. Again the possibilities are much greater than what was available in the previous industrial revolutions, which makes this a very exciting time.

Evaluate your process of designing and making the lantern against the notion of Craft outlined in the reading. Have you included a degree of design risk in your work?

Module 3 Response to the Assigned Readings

Design and Manufacturing

2D Fabrication or CNC (Computer Numerically Controlled) Cutting consists of a moving head (2 axis motion along X & Y) or moving bed which the material is attached or both working together. It can use three different cutting methods, A Plasma Arc- An electric arc passes through a compressed gas jet in the cutting nozzle, heating the gas into plasma; which converts back to gas as it passes the heat to the cutting zone.

Water Jet- A highly pressurized water jet is mixed with solid abrasive particle and directed through a tiny nozzle to create a focussed stream. This creates rapid erosion of the material, providing clean accurate cuts. This method can cut almost any material.

Laser- High intensity infared lights combined with pressurized gas is used to melt or burn the material. This method however is used only to cut materials that absorb light energy.

Subtractive Fabrication is the removal of a specified volume of material using electro, chemically or mechanically reductive processes (multi-axis milling processes). The milling can be axially, surface or volume constrained. Lathes are an example of a axially constrained method. Surface constrained is identical to a cutting machine. 2D Subtractive Fabrication consists of a 2 axis milling router, using a rotating drill bit following the X & Y axis’. The 3D method is an extension with the Z axis added. These methods are limited with the 4 & 5 axis millers able to create a larger range of forms.

Additive Fabrication involves incremental forming by adding material layer by layer. The model is sliced into 2D layers and this information is transferred to the processing head. There are a range of processes that fall under this method catergory: Selective Laser Sintering uses a laser to melt a metal powder layer by layer to create solid objects.

Laminated Object Manufacturing is a method of laser cutting sheets of material (paper or plastic) that have been laminated together into the required shape.

Fused Deposition Modelling consisits of each cross-section being produced by melting plastic fillament that solidfys when cooled.

Multi-jet Manufacture uses a modified printing head to deposit melted thermoplastic material in very thin layers.

These methods however require costly equipment and have long production times, resulting in little application in building design.

Countour Crafting is a recent development using a fulling automated method which combines extrusion of the shell and a filling process by pouring or injecting material to form the shape. Computer controlled trowels then shape the ouside edges of the object.

Formative Fabrication utilises mechanical forces, restricting forms, heat or steam to transform material into the desired shape.

The constraints of the CNC Card Cutter and Laser Cutter are the size and scale that a model is able to be produced, however this is already addressed in the brief. The machines are unable to cut curved shapes to represent a curved form accurately. Triangulation or tessalation of the form are possible solutions. The positives of using the machinery are their accuracy in cutting; much higher than by hand, the process is non-labour intensive and much faster than manual operations.

Digital Fabrications

“Digital Technology streamlines production effectively by blending upstream and downstream processes that are typically compartmentalised.”

This technology allows us to continuosly alter and develop designs with little effort, rather than making the prototype to be able visualise the form and then changing it. 3D modelling provides an accurate description in the virtual world, satisfying the need for lots of intermediate models throughout the design process. Physical representations are still practical means of communicating ideas, however this new technology has broadened what we can design and the communication of these ideas.

For the fabrication of my lantern I am using the 2D Fabrication methods of the card and laser cutters. Because these machines only operate on a X & Y axis, there is no depth to the model being created and so the form needs to be unrolled. Because of the restriction of the 2 axis’ ability to create curves in the form through depth, there is the requirement for the form to be flat when unrolled. To create these flat surfaces that can be reassembled into curved 3D forms, I have used triangular configurations to provide the curvature in my lantern.

Module 2 Responses For my proposed form I took inspiration from the growth of a pineapple plant and the position of the pineapple as it grew. Transfering this process gave meaning to my form and allowed me to intergrate it with the preexisting conditions of the human form effectively. I also merged two previous ideas together to create the singular form: The way the pineapple bush separates in the middle to let the pineapple emerge is used except its the head that the form is parting to allow.

Connecting the torso with the form mimicks the growth of the arm from the torso and branches out like the fingers from the palm in the human form.

This assimilation with the human form could also be seen as implementing the ‘resolution’ strategy, with the human body uniting the two concepts to form a new entity.

Thomas Heatherwick Talk Discussion I found the apartment blocks in Kuala Lumpur really clever in that by taking away parts of the base or giving the towers a ‘small bottom’ and then placing these parts at the top of the building it provided more ground area around the tower as well as more space at the top. The unique shape of the apartment blocks interrupts the usual skyline of tall, straight buildings in that area and changes the relationship between the buildings and the environment. Another aspect of the design is the utilisiation of the roof area by turning it into rainforest. Heatherwick changes it from being ‘dead space’, to reconnecting with the natural landscape around it. So rather than a collection of rooms clustered together at the top of the towers that are claustrophobic, the roof top rainforest cures this as it expands across the entire area, allowing for inhabitants to experience these wide open spaces. Another achievement of this design is that the towers do not take over the landscape rather they become a part of it.

Figure 6

Lost in Parameter Space Response Abstraction is the action of reducing infinite complexity to a more managable description of an object. A model is an example of an abstraction, with a perfect model being one that uses as little information as possible to describe an object. When abstracting detail in an object it is the systematical development of a general solution suiting all individual components that is used. For the analytical drawings of my base pattern, the second drawing would be an abstraction because it holds the basic information to describe the shapes present whilst removing unnecessary lines as shown in the first drawing. Hence no important detail is lost and no one gets distracted by unnecessary detail.

Reduction is finding the optimal way to transport this information by rewriting the description and not altering the content. Much like the Kandisky approach, it is how to represent an object in the most effecient way. This can be achieved by removing rendundancies; information that appears more than once.

References Figure 1: Birgit Bradtke 2007, Tropical Permaculture, accessed 16 March 2013, < http://www.tropicalpermaculture.com/growing-pineapples.html> Figure 2: Elsevier B.V. 2012, Heuristics rendered preview, Science Direct, accessed 23 March 2013, < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0926580512001148> Figure 3: livebreathestyle 2012, Gorgeous lighting at Hotel Sorrento, Blog at Word Press, accessed 23 March 2013, < http://livebreathestyle.wordpress. com/> Figure 4: John Gollins (2011) ‘A’Beckett Tower’. Architecture Australia Nov/Dec 2011, 51 Figure 5: Brett Boardman (2012) ‘A series of chevrons built into the surface mantle accomodates track and accent lighting’. Architecture Australia Mar/ April 2012, 26 Figure 6: Thomas Heatherwick, Kuala Lumpur Platinum Park Residences, Heatherwick Studio, accessed 5th April 2013, < http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ showthread.php?t=1600839>