M O D U L E 3: F A B R I C A T I O N STUDENT NUMBER : 586106 GABRIELLE CARRASCO
R E F L E C T I O N: P A S T D E S I G N I N G P R O C E S S
Figure 2: Trialling three dimensional panelling (left) and offsetting borders (right)
Figure 3: Pearl Nacre
At the end of module 2, my model’s translation adhered to my natural process (figure 1). However I wasn’t 100 percent satisfied with its form. The main aspects I wanted to capture was the solidity in the shell and an abundance of light in the spiral, thus displaying a contrast. I was instructed by my tutor that fin edges was difficult to physically produce, this resulted in the trialling of other panelling until it was decided that offsetting borders created a simple and effective way of distributing light in the spiral. With the spiral being representative of the pearl, I believe that this panelling was an appropriate simplification of the nacre seen in Figure 3. Figure 1: Final model from Module 2
R E F L E C T I O N: P A S T D E S I G N I N G P R O C E S S
Throughout the process, the lantern would always have to be buildable, This aspect was a struggle. In producing the original developable surface I had errors. With parts of the shell surface being too thin and intersecting one another, the shell would not be able to physically translate. In order to fix the problem, the surface was manually reconstructed, changing the thickness. After the appropriate adjustments were made the panelling was re-applied. With the base surface altered, a difference in the design was seen however the important aesthetic of solidity was still present.
P R O T O T Y P E 1: U N R O L L I N G
Figure 5: Unfolded spiral sections
In the first stages of attempting to unroll my design there were difficulties in grouping the different sections. This led to the simplification of the original developable surfaces as mentioned in previous slides (Figure 6). Through grouping the shapes as seen in figures 4 and 6 the pieces unrolled in strips (figure 5) opposed to individual and sometimes overlapping pieces. Through grouping the panels, it was much easier to organise and consequently build. Despite the majority of the panels not overlapping, it did occur at times, this meant also printing out individual pieces.
Figure 6: Grouped sections of shell Figure 4: Grouped sections to be unrolled
P R O T O T Y P E 1: T A B S & N E S T I N G
Figure 8: Cross over of scored sections
Figure 9: Cross over of tabs (Grasshopper)
Figure 10: Nesting and Fab Lab layout
After the pieces were unrolled tabs needed to be created. Through creating tabs in Grasshopper, problems in the panels were easily identified (figure 8). It was common for tabs to overlap, in order to fix this I thought that it would be best to get the file cut In fab lab, seeing how the design turned out. In doing this I got rid of the intersecting tabs (figure 9) and developed them manually. Due to the length of my pieces, specifically the shell, the pieces proved to be very long meaning that at times only one piece could be nested on one piece of paper. This resulted in a lot of material wastage. However this was the most effective way as any other method would prove more fiddley in the construction process.
P R O T O T Y P E 1: E R R O R S
Despite clear instructions to make sure all duplicate lines were deleted I seemed to have some remaining in my fab lab file which led to the destruction of my file. In collecting my cut pieces they were all falling apart. With each piece splitting it was impossible to build. For the sake of trying to experiment with this prototype the pieces were attempted to be stuck back together. However, in trying to save this file it turned out to be a waste of time. This prototype was then discarded and a new fab lab file created.
Figure 11: Duplicate lines in Fab Lab file
Figure 12: The first broken Fab Lab file
The errors that occurred in this fab lab file determine the difference between human and computer creation. While a computer may be able to create an intricate design it is unable to think for itself, see problems such as prototype one. I think this proves the fact that computers are only a tool in a design process, and human logic, thinking and creativity cannot be replaced.
Figure 13: Broken panels
P R E C E D E N T 1: C I T R O E N F L A G S H I P S H O W R O O M, C H A M P-E L Y S E E S A V E N U E
Citroen’s car dealership is similar to my model through design and aesthetic. This building was made with the intention of having a stack of cars, with each floor exhibiting a specific car. As this was a showroom, designers utilised minimal beams and attempted to create a light and gentle structure. The use of the glass is described as ‘gigantic origami’, and is simple enough to attract attention towards the building, yet not be the focal point. I think this relates directly to my spiral structure as I want maximal light to come through the structure. Gentle architecture is difficult to achieve when attempting to achieve a physically stable building, however the Citroen building adheres to all restrictions with grace and elegance.
PROTOTYPE 2:EVOLUTION OF PROTOTYPE 1
The first panelling used was box panelling, in the little experimenting done with prototype 1 as well as due to advice from my tutor, a developmental change to a pattern with triangles was made. Due to my model twisting around, using triangles would prove to be a lot more malleable. Also with my experience with the score lines being quite easily broken, this would put less strain on the materials. In reference to ‘the power of making’, I think this stage in my design process proved the changes that had to be made in order for digital forms to be translated to the physical world. For myself, this produced a gap between the power of making and technology.
P R O T O T Y P E 2: U N R O L L I N G, N E S T I N G A N D T A B S
Figure 14: Triangulated panelling with grouped parts of the model
Through Prototype 2 I was able to learn from past mistakes. Firstly, I coloured the different group sections in order to create some organisation which would enable me to produce my model more easily. When unfolding grouped sections, overlapping pieces were further unfolded and had their own tabs. It was made certain that there were no duplicate layers and lastly certain tabs were scored in order for the pieces to stay on the page and limit breakage. The first prototype enabled me to see the information that the computer required in order to cut my file properly, it was an extremely important step. The last difference between prototype 1 and 2 was that I was using the card cutter for this second file. As mentioned in Gershenfeld’s Selected Extracts In Fab, the card cutter that I planned to use was cheap and would be able to easily cut through the ivory card chosen. If I had chosen a thicker/ stronger material I would have opted to use the laser cutter.
P R O T O T Y P E 2: C O N S T R U C T I N G ( S P I R A L )
P R O T O T Y P E 2: C O N S T R U C T I N G ( S H E L L ) Speaking in reference to the TED talk Lisa Harouni: A primer on 3D printing, Harouni was definitely onto something. Speaking about how there are certain things, certain intricacies that cannot be obtained through human hands but rather through the method of 3D printing. I think that while fab lab enabled my model to be cut precisely it was unable to build it for me in the same way as a 3D printer. It was impossible for me to fit my hands into this model, hold tabs together until they dried and just generally keep the model together. I think models like mine show that sometimes computer complexities cannot be re-created by human hands.
P R O T O T Y P E 2: F A B R I C A T I O N E R R O R S
With my model requiring a twisting shape, the paper was hard to keep together. Despite the pieces fitting together and the use of multiple glues and tapes these areas of strain could not stay in place. I was unable to come up for a solution to this problem without the end result looking messy and different to other joins. Similarly, when I had to fit the spiral and shell aspect of my lantern together it was very hard to do so. Due to the fragility of the shell and the looseness of it’s joints, the spiral didn’t fit like it was designed too. Through attempting to squash these two objects together I began to damage both structures.
P R E C E D E N T 2: B U C K Y B A R B U I L T F R O M U MB R E L L A S - ROTTERDAMN ARCHITECTS
The Bucky Bar was a temporary bar built from the umbrellas of visitors to the Netherlands. This bar was chosen as a precedent due to it’s ability to create something so solid out of a light material. I aspired to join my model (specifically the shell) in this same concise tessellation. The lighting and spontaneity of the design create the same gentleness and lightness I want to portray through a solid object.
P R O T O T Y P E 2: F I N A L P R O D U C T
MODULE 3 REFLECTION Translating digital data into a physical object was the biggest challenge for me in Virtual Environments. Knowing that I would have to physically produce this model resulted in the feeling that Rhino was dictating a lot of my creativity. However, in allowing some of the control to leave my hands I think I was able to produce a product which was completely different to hand made productions I am used to. In a way, ‘the power of making’ was very empowering. Through Fab Lab we were basically given the opportunity to physically develop something that had never been existent in real life. I believe this was the most exciting part, however not until I begun to start folding and connecting the pieces did I begin to see and understand the limitations between computer aided design and human hands. Throughout lectures seven and eight, three-dimensional printing was discussed. In this way computers were able to produce a physically identical model of what had been created by the designer through the computer program. Through this, computer to computer translation was investigated. The experience of constructing has made me realise that the difference in comprehension of design through computer and human brains complicates the final result. With my model as an example, I found it extremely difficult to identify what pieces were connected to others despite attempting to label them as clearly as possible. However, the most frustrating aspect of this process was that despite the pieces all joining in my digital model it was impossible to connect them in real life. Through this design process I have not been blind to how much Rhino has assisted me in making my model, it definitely brought through clear structural aspects that could not have been replicated by hand. However, not being able to physically reproduce my model was extremely frustrating. This was not due to pieces being mismatched or an error in design, it was clearly due to the fact that unlike other computer programs (as discussed in past readings) Rhino was not able to judge material and through using my hands to construct the lantern I was not able to work with something so physically large, bulky and yet intricate at the same time. I believe that in attempting to push myself in Rhino and my expectations of my ability to fabricate my product brought me down. My lack of knowledge in Rhino and unexpected failure of Prototype 1 meant that I was unable to capture the design the way in which I envisioned it. Despite having a model that I am not satisfied with, I have learnt that my approach towards creativity when working in conjunction with computers needs to be altered.
REFERENCES •
•
• •
C42 Citroën Flagship Showroom, MANUELLE GAUTRAND ARCHITECTURE, world architecture news, architecture jobs. 2012. C42 Citroën Flagship Showroom, MANUELLE GAUTRAND ARCHITECTURE, world architecture news, architecture jobs. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=12724. [Accessed 09 October 2012] Bucky Bar Built From Umbrellas is a Pop-Up Party bucky bar – Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building. 2012. Bucky Bar Built From Umbrellas is a Pop-Up Party bucky bar – Inhabitat Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building. [ONLINE] Available at: http://inhabitat.com/bucky-bar-built-from-umbrellas-is-a-pop-up-party/bucky-bar/. [Accessed 09 October 2012]. Gershenfeld, N. (2005): Selected extracts in Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop – from personal computers to personal fabrication, Basic Books, New York, pp 67-76, pp93- 101, pp 103- 113. Macfarlane, B. (2005): Making Ideas. In Architecture in the Digital Age, B. Kolarevic (ed.), Spon Press, London, pp. 182-197