R Louie

component exploration Ryann Louie | arch 491 | Fall 2013

Washington State University School of Design and Construction

2

WAVES & PLANTS This component exploration began with a vision of being a fence for my parents’ front yard. Being mindful of the environment is a primary goal so it should have to have areas for holding plants and should be made in a way that doesn’t create any waste.

For the first assignment, modules were made using white printer paper. By doing a series of cuts and folds, different types of modules were created. While a fence was kept in mind, folding paper became somewhat of an abstract activity. To relate to the beach culture where my parents live, a wave form was attempted to be made.

3

The first unit was made on a 4 ½” x 2 ½” sheet of paper. Seven, random length, horizontal cuts spaced out 1/8” from each other were made, ½” from the tops and bottom. Vertical folds were made at random points along strips between the cuts. The result was a relatively flat sheet that had volumes due to the folds. A curved form was achieved and the volumes were successful but the unit couldn’t stand alone.

1:1 Flat wave form

Two other units were investigated. One was meant to explore the curvature of paper. A 6” x ¾” piece of paper was cut and twisted, and both ends were slipped through a slit on a paper base. It didn’t stand up or hold its form very well. Although paper was able to be curved, it didn’t achieve the goal of standing up.

Another unit used rectilinear folding to create an overall curve form. A 5” x ¾” strip of paper was cut and the folds were made on a diagonal axis of a ¾” x ¾” square along the strip. It could stand alone and created a curving shape.

After making these three units, it seemed necessary to explore the first one further. There had to be a way to make a unit in such a way that it could stand up vertically and not just lay flat.

1:2 Curvy figure

1:3 Folding to make curve 4

?

On a 8”x 1 ½” rectangular strip of paper, two rows of three horizontal segments were cut. Cut lengths were arbitrary but there was an attempt to make them equidistant. This resulted in three rows on one sheet. Vertical folds were made at the midpoints of each segment so that the center row would project in the opposite direction as the top and bottom rows. The slight curves resembled waves and gave volume to a flat sheet of paper.

The method of cutting slits and folding is a sustainable way to make a module without creating waste, as additive or subtractive methods would do. Curves along the strip allowed it to stand freely. It was an interesting module but giving the curves and angles a specific measurement and shape were not a desired task.

Using the same methods of cutting and folding, a second module was made. On a 7 ½” x ¾” strip, two horizontal cuts were made: one 2 ½” cut 3/8” from the left side of the strip and one 1 ½” cut ¼” from the right side. Vertical folds were made on the outsides of the cuts, resulting in two square void spaces. The smaller arms of each square were folded toward the spine and taped.

MATERIAL CONSTRAINTS • Paper is recyclable and can be glued, taped, or stapled together.

• Paper is flexible and can take curving and folded forms.

• When under load, it curves and causes the component to fail.

The two squares were envisioned to be places to hold plants, or as void spaces for viewing through. Its ability to stand up by itself and resist some loads was desirable.

1:4 Standing curve form

1:5 Folded component

5

FLEX FOLD To create a more systematic way of measuring out the component, the Fibonacci sequence was researched. By definition, the first two numbers of the Fibonacci sequence are 0 and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8…

The units were applied to the first formation with the goals of having two square pieces attached to a spine and each having a wing on its end.

A 7 ¾” x ¾” strip of 140 lb. watercolor paper was cut and vertical scores were made at ¾”, 1 1/4”, 1 ¼”, 2 ¼”, ¾”, ¾” and ½” from the left.

Two horizontal cuts were made, one 2 ½” cut ¼” from the bottom, and a 1 ½” cut ¼” from the top.

Pulling out the arms and folding along the score line created the same shape. The arms were taped to the spine.

Horizontal cut lines were mirrored from each other with the intent that they could fit together like a puzzle. Aggregations should have more variety than if the cuts were along the same edge.

6

3/4”

1 1/4”

MATERIAL CONSTRAINTS 1 1/4”

• Watercolor paper is far more rigid than priner paper but must be bought in packs.

2 1/4” 3/4”

Score Cut

3/4”

1/2” 1/2” 1/4”

2:1 Cut and score strip

• It still curves a little but can maintain rigidity when under load.

• Glue, tape, or staples can be used for connections.

2:2 Pull arms apart SPECS Material: 140 lb. Watercolor Paper Height: 3/4” Width: 7 3/4” # Cuts: 2 # Folds: 6

2:3 Fold arms to spine

2:4 Standing form 7

This unit was quite rigid. On its edge, it could withstand top loads, and doesn’t bend like printer paper did. But when pushed down on either elbow, tips over. It could also stand alone on its faces but would fold when loads were applied. Folding isn’t a problem; it is an attribute of a flexible unit.

Two components laid next to each other could be connected at their wings. The linear assembly could go on infinitely and the lines could be stacked on top of each other. It would be able to resist downward loads and would be flexible horizontally.

Another linear assembly comes from flipping one component over and interlocking the different height elbows. It would also work well against vertical loads and have horizontal flexibilty.

2:5 Top load on face causing shear

2:6 Top load on edge of spine with no reaction

Although it was an intriguing shape and had its own potential, it was far too complicated as a single component. The arms taped to the spine were a redundant part of the structure and were a waste of material.

At first, the Fibonacci sequence seemed to be driving the design of the component. Using the digits aided in creating proportions, but the sequence wasn’t actually applied. The idea was thrown out.

2:7 Top load on small elbow causing tipping

2:8 Top load on large elbow causing tipping 8

2:9 Two components connected at their wings

2:10 Local component using stacking 9

THE SIMPLE COMPONENT How simple should a component be? Is it one square? An elbow? One arm? Simplification began with cutting off the small square of the flex component. It left the larger square still with an arm taped to the spine. The tape was removed and the spine was unfolded from the square. Having the spine seemed unnecessary, so it should be removed. But removing it would cause the continuity of one piece to be destroyed; the link for the elbows was gone. To remedy that, a second wing was kept on the unit.

Using a single 4” x ¾” strip of water color paper, three lines were scored vertically, at ¾”, 1 ¼”, 1 ¼”, resulting in a symmetrical piece. One horizontal cut was made between the two outer score lines, ¼” from the top and the elbows were folded out with the elbow angle at 60°.

This unit was rigid when standing on its edges and could withstand top loads. It leans over when pushed down on either elbow, but not when loaded on its spine. It could also stand alone on its faces but would fold when loads were applied.

Folding isn’t a problem; it is an attribute of a flexible unit. Limited by its own length, the component can withstand full compression and tension on the wings without breaking. When stood up on its large elbow, it can handle all downward loads on it except when pushing down on the small elbow. This causes it to fall over.

A square can be abstracted from the plan view of the component, which can be extruded into a cube. The cube can be aggregated by stacking in alignment, offset stacking, connecting the edges, or connecting at the vertices. Four components frame the top and bottom faces of the cube. They are oriented so that their large elbows are facing out and are connected by overlapping and gluing the wings. A second face is the mirror image of the first, so that the large elbow is facing out.

The two squares are connected by four vertical components that are all oriented in the same direction. The overlapping wings are glued together.

The Rhino component was modeled in one way but the paper model turned the corners out 30°. So the had elbows of the component originally at 120°, are now right angles. The resulting shape has the elbows as the edges of the top and bottom squares rather than the wings, making the abstraction look more cube-like.

10

3/4”

1 1/4”

1 1/4”

3/4”

SPECS

1/4” 1/2” Score Cut

Material: 140 lb. Watercolor Paper Height: 3/4” Width: 4” # Cuts: 1 # Folds: 3

3:1 Cut and score strip

3:2 Pull arms apart

3:3 Fold wings Small elbow

Wing

60°

Large elbow

Arm

3:4 Parts to component 11

3:5 Wing compression

3:7 Top load on wings and large elbow cause no reaction

3:6 Wing tension 3:8 Top load on small elbow causes tipping

12

3:9 Cube extraction from plan

3:10 Single components on cube edge

3:12 Local component flipped to bottom cube face

3:11 SIngle vertical components connect top and bottom 3:13 Regional cube component 13

30째

30째

3:14 Model transformation

3:16 Compression load on regional model 3:15 Transformation in plan

3:17 Side compression load on regional model

14

3:18 Regional component

3:19 Vertically stacked components

3:20 Cube edge connection and offset stacking

3:21 Local components connected by single components 15

OTHER FORMATIONS The crown formation came from rotating the single components so that they lay on the joints of the elbows rather than the edges.

Connections are similar in that they connect at the wings. It turns out that the regional assemblies are the same as the original cube study, it’s just turned 90°.

Another model exploration, the Benz formation, is made of three single components. One of their large elbow faces are glued to another. The elbows are anlged at 120°.

It is also flexible and can be connected at the wings.

The three Benz formation was made by turning one component 90° and then turning a third one so that the wings overlap.

4:1 Crown local component

4:4 Linear assembly

4:2 Wing tension 4:5 Cube form

4:6 Continuous aggregation

4:3 Wing compression

Its compressive force is limited by the small elbows hitting each other and it can’t be tensioned very much.

Though the Benz formation is an interesting component, more intesive study would be needed. Since I already have been working with the cube aggregation, I will continue with it.

4:7 Benz component 16

4:8 Regional Benz component

POSSIBILITIES & BEYOND It will be important for the next material to be able to bend without breaking. Having one continuous piece that only uses folds and cuts is a main goal of the component. As scale increases, materials will have to be stiffer to prevent the arms of the elbows from curving and bending. Museum board is a possibility; scoring and folding would still be possible without having to create a flexible connection.

If wood or plastic were used, the areas that were scored would have to be more carefully considered to still have a moveable connection. In the case with wood, I’ve already experimented with cutting small voids that allow a thin piece of wood to bend. Researching different plastics, metals, and materials will be necessary.

Depending on what material is used in the future, glue or nuts and bolts will probably be employed for connections.

5:1 Mars rover with components as wheels

Reviewers commented that the regional component could be the wheel of the next Mars rover and resembled expanded metal mesh. The fence planter is still an idea as well. There is a lot of potential for this component.

5:2 Expanded metal mesh

5:3 Planter fence 17

5 5/32’

6:1 Elevation

20’ 5’

6:2 Plan

18

FOLDING TEST SPECS

Space

Cut Small Arm

Wing Large Arm Gap

6:3 Parts of Component

Test #1 3/16" plywood Cut Width Gap Small Arm 1/32 1/16 Large Arm 1/32 1/16 Wing 1/32 1/16

Space 1/16 1/16 1/16

Test #2 1/8" basswood Cut Width Gap Small Arm 3/32 3/32 Large Arm 3/32 1/8 Wing 3/32 1/8

Space 3/32 3/32 3/32

Test #3 1/8" basswood Cut Width Gap Small Arm 1/16 1/8 Large Arm 1/16 1/8 Wing 1/16 1/8

Space 1/16 1/8 1/8

The global component is going to stand 5 5/32’ tall, 5’ wide, and 20’ long. Individual component angles vary at 30° and 60° to make a sinusoidal pattern in plan. There are 80 components in the full aggregation: 10 stacked verticall in 8 rows.

The first test was done on 3/16” plywood. Laser cutter problems resulted in it burning and cuts not lining up, but the wing and large arm bent relatively easily. After a while, the small arm broke off.

6:4 Plywood Test #1

In previous experiments with kerf cutting 1/8” plywood, it was found that a cut width of 1/32”, gap of 1/16”, and

19

6:5 Large Arm bend

6:6 Small arm failure

6:7 Desired action 20

HALF SCALE COMPONENT SPECS

7 3/16”

space of 1/16” will create a successful system. It was implemented for the half scale model.

3 3/32”

9 11/32” 30°

4 5/16”

7:1 Half scale dimensions at 30°

A half scale component was studied due to time restrictions to use the CNC router and suggested tests on a smaller scale.

At the half scale, the component is 3 3/32” tall by 23” long. The wings are 4 5/16” long and the arms are 7 3/16” long. At 30° the space between the elbows is 9 11/32” and at 60° its 14 25/32”.

A full sized component will be 6 3/16” tall, 46” long. The aggregation will be 5 5/32’ by 30 2/3’ but can be bended to be reduced to 20’ long.

The kerf cuts didn’t keep their shape, so to maintain the form wood pieces were cut to make a box as a support system.

14 25/32”

60°

Another piece of wood was introduced to connect the components. Each wing of a component has two screws connected to the backing piece.

7:2 Half scale dimensions at 60° 21

7:3 Half scale dimensions

7:4 Half scale cut, gap, space dimensions 22

CONNECTION

8:2 Model with screw connection

8:1 Connection diagram

23

CONCLUSION The component didn’t turn out as planned. The material change from paper to wood made a difference in construction, weight, and connections.

Instead of cutting ccomponents into single components, two components could have been made using a single sheet of plywood. This woudl reduce the need for connection between stacked components.

The kerf cuts made the structure of the component relatively weak. The elbows sag if they aren’t stacked in a vertical line.

9:1 Half scale model

Using screws wasn’t the original intention for connecting the components but after kerf cutting the components, they were the simpe and sure solution to a secure connection.

In contrast, the paper model could simply be glued together. Its dimensions weren’t altered because there are no kerf cuts to interfere with connections.

9:2 1/12 scale model 24

MATERIAL OPTIONS Material 4'x8' 7/32 Revolution Plywood Screws

Unit Price # Components/Unit # Units Needed Total Cost 15.95 16 5 79.75 0.05 320 16 95.75

Plywood, galvanized steel, and plexiglass could be used to construct the full scale model. Each requires a different connection method

SP4#34 6"x13' Galvanized Steel Rivets

8.49 4.48/100

3

27 320

229.23 17.92 247.15

18.95 4.69

4

20 3

379 14.07 393.07

WIth 4’x8’ piece of plywood, 16 single components can be produced. To get to the full aggregation, 5 pieces of plywood will be needed, with a total cost of $79.95.

Connecting the wood components will require 320 screws at $0.05 per piece, totalling $16. The grand total for the wood assembly will be $95.75.

1/8" 24"x48" Plastic Epoxy

Using wood will enable the use of kerf cuts and flexibility. But using galvanized steel and plexiglass will result in a rigid system.

A 6”x13’ sheet of galvanized steel will yield 3 components per sheet. It will take 27 sheets to makea complete aggregation. At $8.49 per sheet, the cost will be $229.23 plus 320 rivets costing $17.92. The total cost will be $247.15.

If 24”x48” plexiglass is used, it can yield 4 components per sheet. 20 sheets wil be needed, costing $379. Epoxy glue can connect the pieces. It is estimated that 3 tubes will be needed. They cost $4.69 each, so the total cost for the plastic aggregation is $393.07.

25

ASSEMBLED POSSIBILITIES The initial intent was to create a fence, but after exploration, the component could be used at different scales with different uses.

Filling the voids with soil and seeds could give life to the fence and become a planter. If its scale is reduced, it can act as a wine rack. It could also be an interior screen.

Being a flexible module gives the component the ability to become a lot of different things.

10:2 Fence planter

10:1 Wine rack 26

10:3 Interior screen