FOAM + T.A.K.O - The Emergence of Human Augmentation in Three Dimensional Fabrication by Hadin Charbel

FOAM + T.A.K.O The emergence of human augmentation in three dimensional fabrication.

FOAM + TAKO (Tool Aided Kinetic Operations) The emergence of human augmentation in three dimensional fabrication

Students: Ying Xu Hadin Charbel Samuel Aaron Eugene Lalo Professor: Yusuke Obuchi Collaborate Professors: Jun Sato Takeo Igarashi 1st Year Studio Instructor: Kaz Yoneda DFL Associate: Ken Hotta CU Associate: Kosuke Nagata Technical Support: Yosuke Takami Structural Support: Mika Araki Masaaki Miki

Abstract...................................................................................................7 Part 1 1.0. Manifesto.........................................................................................9 2.0. Human..............................................................................................11 2.1. User erogonomics............................................12 2.2. Catalogue of movements..........................14 3.0. Material..........................................................................................19 3.1. 2 part polyruthane foam.............................20 3.2. Material..................................................................22 3.3. Mesh........................................................................24 4.0. Tool.................................................................................................27 4.1. Preliminary Tool Prototype......................28 4.2. Prototype 1 .........................................................38 4.3. Equipment............................................................40 4.4. Second experiment......................................44 4.5 Second Prototype..........................................48 4.6 Tool Summary...................................................52 5.0. T.A.K.O ........................................................................................53 5.1. Full Haptic Method .........................................64 5.2 Semi Haptic Method ....................................66 5.3. Micro Patterning/ Mass Forming...........72 5.4. 1:1 Section Model ............................................74 6.0. Formal Prototyping .............................................................79 6.1. Design Process - Form Finding ...........80 6.2. Design Process ..............................................82 6.3. Construction Method ..................................84 6.4. Construction Process..................................84 7.0. Pavilion Proposal ..................................................................88 7.1. Site Plan................................................................. 90 7.2. Plan.......................................................................... 92 7.3. Section.................................................................. 94 7.4. View from building 8.................................... 96 7.5. Interior view....................................................... 98 7.6. Exterior view..................................................... 99 7.7. 1:10 Scale model..............................................101 8.0. Project Timeline................................................................. 110 Part 2 9.0. One Offâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.................................................................................. 113 9.1. Material.................................................................. 115 9.2. Tool....................................................................... 123 9.3. System................................................................ 131 9.4. Form...................................................................... 135 9.5. Material Test.................................................... 146 index Material Test................................................................................... 148 Image References........................................................................151 Acknowledgements...................................................................153

Abstract

PROJECT ABSTRACT The primary limitation in three dimensional fabrication revolves around that of scale; at some point growing the machine beyond a certain size loses any sense as both material and efficiency are not able to grow with it. As a result, architectural designs either remain in a 3d printed model state and size, or they are retrofitted to the constraints of current construction standards and processes in order to achieve an architectural scale, often times fundamentally changing the project. Moreover, the issue of scale in the fabrication process doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t relate strictly to the limitations of machinery, but also to the limitations that have been imposed on the users operating them, often times being heavy, oversized, and counter-intuitive. Observing man and machine as independent entities within a historical context, the order of things that lead to this point are evident. It is only fitting to question how redefining the relationships between the two could change not only the fabrication process, but the ways by which projects are spawned and evolved. It is within this framework that the research was conducted; a bottom-up approach with the only steering force being that of merging the intrinsic and intuitive nature of human beings with the calculated precision and computational capabilities of machines. The proceeding pages record the process of how we sought to put these two often opposing substances in dialogue. Finally, it is commonly known that the nature of any research is never linear, and most, if not all, are only concluded after a series of steps forward, backwards, and sometimes entirely out of bounds. For this reason, the book has been divided into two parts; the first re-arranges the contents in order to express a clear and linear narrative for the sake of communicating the project; the second, exposes the chaotically-organized process undertaken in order to reach the point we have.

“... are the tools we are dealing with adequate for dealing in representing these design problems, or are we mostly dealing with representation in a sense; the actual thinking and design and solution of designs happens still in our minds and not in the machines where we hoped that technology would actually make a difference.” “I think we have to be [rigorous and non-sloppy] all the time, but that doesn’t mean that we are not allowed to make new models that actually match our desires, and not just sort of trying to settle on other models developed in other disciplines.” “…that’s a very difficult question; how we can actually match our representational capabilities with our design questions and also develop models that are adequately complex and responsive and actually are developed by us as designers rather than looking for them to respond to that, and ultimately leverage potential advances in technology and then also allow us to see or find novel things that break out of paradigms.”

Kilian, Axel. “Future of Technology.” University of Michigan Taubman College. Rackham Auditorium , Ann Arbor. 24 Sept. 2010. Lecture.

PART I

1.0. Manifesto

The Emergence of Human Augmentation in 3-Dimensional Fabrication. PRESCRIPT Man’s capability as an intelligent and creative being can be traced back to the cave paintings in Lascaux; through depictions of animals, human figures and abstract signs one observes the relationship between man and creation through the translation of the hand. This kind of intelligence can be said to have first moved from the two-dimensional by the creation of the primitive hut (as speculated by Laugier); a primordial structure that also expressed the limited and intrinsic relationship between the human, the hand and now scale. As the scales of these structures increased, the capacity of the human was consistently integrated into the process, either as a means to perform independently or within a group. It wasn’t until the industrial revolution that the human found himself completely dwarfed and his capacity surpassed, not only as a physical being but also as a thinking one. Reduced to performing mundane tasks in factory lines, and moving oversized parts with oversized machinery, three dimensional creativity became a commodity reserved for the few licensed practitioners. As a result of this sudden mode of mass production, gentrification in the creative world, and new class of bourgeois architect, the creative outlet could only be claimed by one of the following categories: 1-three dimensional at the table top scale (i.e. pottery)

Modernism and Corbusian ideology furthered this segregation through a kind of “Stockholm Syndrome” where the human, now hostage to these technological advancements and new theories, accepted his place as a separate entity from nature and machine, promoting a lethargic consumerist existence, made available by home shopping networks, catalog furniture, brand name clothing, and of course the isle of hundred different toothbrushes which provide a perverted illusion of choice and creativity. The introduction of the computer began resolving this severance by virtualizing the complications that arise from dealing with large scale 3 dimensional objects. However, the hand remained subject to the prosthetics of keyboard and mouse for translation. Recent trends are gradually bridging the gap between the hand and creation; evidence can be seen in the proliferation of smart phones, drawing tablets, and most recently the 3D doodler; all of which address the long suppressed human instinct to need to feel the thing. It is now that we propose to bring the digital back to the primitive; and through the use of tool, material and technique, three-dimensionalize architecture at the human scale. POSTSCRIPT We are our own constraint; weak, irrational, small... But we are intuitive, flexible, and unique from one another.

2-three dimensional at a slightly larger scale (i.e. sculpture)

We have the capacity to operate individually, or communicate collectively; interpreting, changing and modifying at any point in time.

3-three dimensional at the super human scale (i.e. Mount Rushmore)

Machines have been designed to execute their task first, then modeled to be manageable by humans.

or simply

Humans are forced to learn and adapt to the fixed and static equipment available to them.

4-two dimensional, achievable at most scales (i.e. painting) The above outlets are simply substitutes, either on extreme ends of the human scale, not addressing space, or simply resulting in a step down in dimension; all bypassing the issue of man and his ability to shape his environment.

It is inevitable and predictable that aiming to perfect machines will continue to marginalize the human. We mustn’t continue growing machines as separate entities, but must redefine them from the start. Starting with the human. 9

2.0.Human

PART I

HUMAN As the focus of the project revolves around augmenting the human capacity in the construction process, we began first by looking at what the average human bodies are inherently capable of.

2.1 User ergonomics

As the focus of the project revolves around augmenting the human capacity in the construction process, we began first by looking at what the human body is inherently capable of in itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most basic state. We then studied the movements in relation to his hand as the output and the arm and body as itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s displacer in space. In these studies, the subject was asked to simply move their hand as freely as they wished, being constrained only by the idea that it ought to relate back to some idea of a continuous and smooth movement. The exercises were first divided into three primary groups: -leg area (ground level) -torso area (mid level) -head area (upper level)

The exercises revealed that in some cases the subjectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural tendency varied depending on their orientation and positioning, as well as their eventual destination; provoking further analysis of gestural movements: -full range (ground to upper) -full range continuous (ground to upper to ground) -full range semi-continuous (segmenting according to changes in body position, i.e crouching, standing etc...) The movements were rationalized in order to derive an over-arching natural tendency. The cataloguing illustrates that all the movements relate back to a curve, with or without inflection.

PART I

Subject 1: Sex: Female Height: 162cm Position 1: 60cm Position 2: 60cm Position 3: 230cm

Subject 2: Sex: Male Height: 175cm Position 1: 65cm Position 2: 65cm Position 3: 235cm

Subject 3: Sex: Male Height: 197cm Position 1: 75cm Position 2: 75cm Position 3: 245cm

2.2. Catalogue of movements GROUND LEVEL

MID LEVEL

UPPER LEVEL

CONTINUOUS SEGMENT

CONTINUOUS SECTIONING

ENCLOSURE SEGMENTING

PART I

2.2. Catalogue of movements GROUND LEVEL 0.25

Foot Level

RADIUS: 0.25 - 1 M RANGE: 0 - 0.65 M LENGTH: 1 - 1.32 M

0.25

Radius (min/max): 0.25 - 1 m Range (min/max): 0 - 0.65 m Length (min/max): 1 - 1.32 m

R0.38

R1.00

R0.70

R0.25

MID TorsoLEVEL Level RADIUS: 0 - 1.25 M RANGE: 0 - 0.28 M LENGTH: 0.6 - 1.32 M

0.25

R0.50

Radius (min/max): 0 - 1.25 m Range (min/max): 0 - 0.28 m Length (min/max): 0.6 - 1.32 m

R0.55 R0.80

0.25

Eye Level

UPPER LEVEL 0.25

RADIUS: 0.35 - 0.90 M RANGE: 0.75 - 1.05 M LENGTH: 1.15-1.30 M R0.55 R0.35

R0.50

Radius (min/max): 0.35 - 0.90 m Range (min/max): 0.75 - 1.05 m Length (min/max): 1.15-1.30 m

R0.90

CONTINUOUS SEGMENT Full Range

RADIUS: 0.5- 1.10M RANGE: 0 - 1.05 M 0.5- 1.10m Radius (min/max): LENGTH: 1.6 - 2.0 M Range (min/max): 0 - 1.05 m

0.25

0.25 R1.10

Length (min/max): 1.6 - 2.0 m

CONTINUOUS ENCLOSURE Enclosures

RADIUS: 0.25 - 4.30 M Radius (min/max): 0.25 - 4.30 m (X) 0.46 - 0.600.46 M - 0.60 m (x) RANGE: Range (min/max): (Z) HEIGHT: 0.95 M - 1.69 (z) Height (min/max): 0.95Mm - 1.69 m (L) LENGTH: 3.68 - 3.89 M - 3.89 m (l) Length (min/max): 3.68 Enclosure: Varying Sections

CONTINUOUS SECTIONING

R0.50

R2.50

0.25

RADIUS: 0.20 - 0.80 M (X) RANGE: 0.45 - 1.60 M Radius (min/max): 0.20M- 0.80 m (Z) HEIGHT: 1.75 - 1.55 Range (min/max): 0.45 - 1.60 m (L) LENGTH: 1.74-4.55 M

R R0.30

Length (min/max): 1.75 - 1.55 m

R0.30

R0.20

Enclosure: Large Section Building

R1.00

R0.60

0.25

ENCLOSURE SEGMENTING RADIUS: 0.5 -1.3 M

R0.55 R0.50

Radius (min/max): (X) RANGE: 1.75 M 0.5 -1.3 m (x) HEIGHT: Range: 1.75 (Z) 1.65m M (z) Height: 1.65 m M (L) LENGTH: 0.8-1.2 (l) Length: 0.8-1.2m

R1.30

PART I

R0.50

R1.00

R0.40

R0.44

R0.55 R1.25

R0.90

0.25

R0.25

R4.30

R0.25 R0.75

R0.80

R0.60

R0.50

R0.55

R0.90 R1.25

3.0. Material

PART I

MATERIAL Whatever the material selected, the user ought to be able to deploy it in such a way that it enables free flowing movements while materializing them in three dimensional space.

3.1. 2 part polyurethane foam

The material to develop the project was 2 Part Polyurethane Spray Foam. (Left) Hyper #30 Two-Part Polyurethane Spray Foam. (Right) 8 frames from a single spray from a jig 20cm high. The total time elapsed between beginning and end frame is 60 seconds. The foams expansion of approximately 550% can be clearly observed between frame 3 and 8.

PART I

3.2. Material

To a large degree, the material performed in accordance with the constraints of the humanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity: -lightweight, averaging 1g / cm3 -fast drying, around 1 minute

(Above Left) Dimensions: 3.5 x 5 x 10.5 3 Volume: 183.75 cm Weight: 6.3g 3 Volume /Weight: 29.16 cm /g (Above Right) Dimensions: 6 x 11 x 4.5 3 Volume: 297 cm Weight: 10.8g 3 Volume /Weight: 27.5 cm /g (Right) Dimensions: 6 x 5 x 42 3 Volume: 1260 cm Weight: 42g 3 Volume /Weight: 30 cm /g

PART I

Consequently, because of the material’s conventional use as a space filling\ insulation, there were some limititations in using the spray gun in an unmodified state: -the spray’s precision is inconsistent, -the material’s expansion is predicatble only within a large margin of error.

Spray from 20 cm high. Plan (left) Elevation (above) width: 8cm length: 50cm height: 4cm

Spray from 30 cm high. Plan (left) Elevation (above) width: 12 cm length: 50 cm height: 4.5 cm

Spray from 4 0 cm high. Plan (left) Elevation (above) width: 17 cm length: 62 cm height: 6 cm

3.3. Mesh

The imprecision conflicts with the degree of control required in a construction process. However, we saw opportunity in these otherwise flaws and chose to adopt them accordingly: -the expansion of the foam could be used as a way of literally expanding and filling in human imprecision. -itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to adhere in a parasitic manner could eliminate the need for a conventional supporting formwork, as it could grow off itself. What was required then was finding a way to coerce the foam rather than strictly control it.

It was therefore necessary to introduce another element which was relatively non-existent, serving strictly as a guide and temporary backdrop for the foam to adhere to during its short curing time from liquid to solid. Three meshes were tested in order to confirm the idea, as well as to differentiate between varying porosities and outcomes. Ultimately, the more porous Polyester Honeycomb was selected as it is the lightest, the least visibly present, and allows the foam to adhere to one side and expand through to the other, leaving the least differentiation between the two sides.

PART I

(Left) Polyester Honeycomb Mesh (high porosity) (Middle Right) Fabric Mesh (medium porosity) (Right) Fabric Mesh (low porosity)

TOOL

4.0. Tool

PART I

TOOL The challenge was then to devise a way to dispense the material in a way that would utilize it’s qualities without being overwhelmed by it’s unpredictably, bearing in mind the human’s capacity as the constant.