M1m2m3m4 591230 by Rachel

Module 1: IDEATION Rachel Brien Student No: 591230 Semester 2/2013

Group 6

Measured Drawings

I emulated the drawing of the ‘Tokyo scissors’ from “300 years of industrial Design”/Jensen by drawing my object from each face in a plan view. As the fan is comprised of a few elements – panels, fold, pin joint – I also deconstructed it. I then scanned and resized it at a scaled of 2:3 for the body part, and 1:1 for the paper folding part. I then traced the scanned documents.

Scale 2:3 1 = 1mm

Paper folds out when opened

Paper

The paper aspect folds to close

Wood panelling is stuck to paper The very first and last arm rotate in opposite directions

The arms stuck to the paper prevent 360 degrees spin around pin

Pin stays same as arms rotate

Each arm tucks behind the one before The arms rotate around pin

All arms flatten into line when fan is closed

When fan is closed from side this is its shape Cross section

Measured Drawings

I also traced a photograph after reading â&#x20AC;&#x153;How to layout a crossaintâ&#x20AC;?/Miralles to give the viewer a sense of how all the deconstructed components come together. I also focused on drawing particular parts of the fan that drive its function, form and movement (such as the pin joint that holds the arms in order, and the paper which folds).

Scale 1:1 1 = 1mm

Rhino Model

Rhino Model of fan to scale

Reconfiguration of Object

When looking into how I could reconfigure the fan, I really wanted to explore the flexibility, as it is quite two dimensional in its normal function. I cut the fan in half through the paper, as this was the main thing that kept the panels rigid and in order. I then had two fans on one pin joint. I connected the fan back together at the two original end points. This created a space at the join. Then I bent the edges around to create an encapsulating volume.

Reconfiguration of Object

A technical issue that occurred when bending the fan was that because of the quality of the material of my particular fan, it was not very flexible. I had a few of the rigid panels snap. Additionally trying to get the bend to stay in the desired position was an issue and I had to use sticking tape to hold it in its place.

Second Skin Ideation 1

The edges come up and fold over the head

Panels are joined together through a single material to which they are attached

The structure of this design is intended to create the same effect as the peacock with its tail feathers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a feature used to gain attention and assert confidence and sociability. This ideation centres the head and face in its open and encapsulating span. It makes the focal point of the wearer the voice and face. When reading â&#x20AC;&#x153;Personal Spacesâ&#x20AC;?/Sommer it became clear the notion of personal space was relative and complex. This idea explores a positive and interactive personal space through promoting the visual personal space of an individual wearer. Such personal space would be ideal in a social environment like a party, where you are with people you want to be around and include or draw in to your personal space.

Structure is attached to waist band-like structure which makes the design self supportive in conjunction with the individual

Pin joint where structure panels and folds out

String would be used to enhance the curve over the head and body of the wearer

Second Skin Ideation 1

Full use of hands and lower body is possible wearing this design. Any interaction from behind or to the side is however inhibited. Other people would have to engage in the immediate personal space of the wearer. A technical feature of this second skin is the use of transparent string to pull down the curve at the top. I have suggested this feature as an issue that was realised when reconfiguring my object was how to bend or curve rigid panels. This idea provides a theoretical solution to the issue that would need to be explored in fabrication if a similar function were to be used.

Waist-band like structure where the design fans upwards from

String to promote curve of fan like structure inwards

Second Skin Ideation 2

This design is two of the same structure mirrored, spreading out and inversed like butterfly wings. The interplay between straight and curved creates a volume of space that is both extended outwards and focused inwards. Part of its function is panelling and pin joints. As the conjoined panels bend over the front, it provides a large amount of personal space to the sides and front of the person.

Second Skin Ideation 2 Stays in place by curving over shoulder and hooking into place

This second skin ideation explores personal space through parading the wearer as an individual. It creates a space so only the wearer can be within the vicinity of the second skin when moving. If the wearer were mobile they would be able to be approached from behind. This design mimics wings, symbolising freedom. When personal space is encroached upon it can feel like an attack on oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s freedom. This system prevents this through creating a space for the wearer that individualises them. Hooks around waist

Panels are attached to still plank for stability

Second Skin Ideation 3 Could be an issue with the rigidity of the structure as it may inhibit the curve outwards that allows for the projection of personal space behind Strong structure like the end of a fan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; with a pin joint â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to add stability and a center to the design that correlates to the human spine like a second skin

These diamonds represent a hollow in the panel structure that both symbolically and physically indicates the transparency of privacy and personal space in a public area

This second skin design works with the wearers personal space by covering their upper body in a shape similar to that of a clam shell. It limits arm movement but provides support for the neck and head. Holes in the panels, as opposed to the second skin being completely solid, could represent the transparency of privacy or personal space in a public area. It explores whether personal space is a form of privacy.

Second Skin Ideation 3 The panels fold inwards over the shoulders

If a person were waiting in line at a supermarket, the personal space provided by the design is the personal space the person may expect and require to feel comfortable. The design creates a boundary outwards at the back and sides of the wearer that prohibits other people from entering the vicinity, but allows the wearer to have full vision of their surrounding area.

Design function relies on it overhanging the shoulders

While design moves in the same way as the fan by panelling and folding, it differs because it curves around rather than remaining planar

Panels that have the ability to fold into one another

Rhino Training Screen grabs of models made in Rhino after reading â&#x20AC;&#x153;Inside Rhinocerosâ&#x20AC;?/Cheng and watching video tutorials.

Module 2: DESIGN Rachel Brien Grace Stephenson Timothy Tan Student No: 591230 Semester 2/2013

Group 6

Second Skin

The Brief Innovative design of a second skin; a wearable volume or surface that accommodates the body. The skin will explore, measure and/or negotiate the boundary of personal space.

Note Through our exploration of personal space, a recurring theme that personal space was not a boundary, but a dynamic psychological construct implemented by an individual based on their situation. From this, we began to explore personal space as being something selective in, that it keeps people apart but also has the ability to bring people together. The interactions that result and derive from personal space can form connections between people.

Investigation of Personal Space

Real Time Sketches of Public Observations As a group, we made a series of observational sketches of people and the way they behaved on public transport such as trains and trams, as well as other public areas across Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CBD. Intimacy between friends and family was evident through the proximity, particularly around the face, and physical touching. In most cases strangers were blocked through body language such as crossed arms or legs, or through turning the face away. Maximum distance that the area allowed was kept between strangers, and eye contact avoided. Audible privacy was sought through actions that concealed the face, such as turning away from potential listeners or by covering the mouth while talking on the phone. These examples illustrate an attempt to create a physical personal space, or an attempt to avoid intruding on the personal space of others.

[Sketches: Grace Stephenson]

Investigation of Personal Space

The Rules of Personal Space Personal space does not exist without interpersonal interactions. Personal space grows and shrinks based on the situation and the person or people involved. Forced invasion of personal space, such as those created when using public transport, can be psychologically uncomfortable for some people. Personal space is dynamic. Sometimes it is present and sometimes it is not. Similar to the fan or an umbrella that can be both opened and closed. When a fan is open its function can be performed, when it is closed it cannot.

Personal space is most present in public spaces. Personal space is often linked with issues of privacy. The face is one of the most sensitive area of the body concerning personal space. Our design will try to communicate the diverse and dynamic nature of personal space.

[Images: Google]

Mapping Personal Space

Through our investigation of personal space we created layers of intensity based on an average of interviewed individual’s perceptions of their personal space, as well as who they are comfortable letting within that distance.

Intimate space <0.45m Personal space 0.45m Social space 1.2m Public space 3.6-7.6m

Based on this research, only partners, close friends, and family were comfortably allowed in the ‘intimate’ zone. The ‘personal space’ is for colleagues and friends. ‘Social space’ is reserved for associates and friends of friends. Finally, the ‘public space’ is for complete strangers and performances. The face is one of the most sensitive parts of the human body in regards to personal space. Based on group research, the face has an ‘intimate’ distance of 10-20cm, and a ‘personal’ distance of 20-40cm.

[Images: Grace Stephenson]

Intimate space 10-20cm Personal space 20-40cm

Characteristics of the Fan

[Sketches: Timothy Tan]

[Sketches: Rachel Brien]

Major Concepts and Design Direction

Both the fan and the umbrella include design elements that lead to shared concepts and design directions. For instance, a hinge alters the form of an object through movement. Both the umbrella and the fan are transformative structures. Both objects possess an ability to conceal and reveal their function through movement. The use of panel and fold in the fan creates this effect in the fan. Additionally, both objects are concerned with the face and upper body, which based on our explorations, is an important factor in personal space.

[Sketches of Umbrella: Grace Stephenson]

Based on our investigations, the face is one of the most sensitive parts of the human body in regards to personal space. Testing the distances of facial personal space.

We tested the distances between two faces and the level of comfort associated with certain distances to create definitions such as ‘intimate’ and ‘personal’ space shown on the previous page.

Initial Designs and Precedence

As a group, we began investigating panelling and folding as a method for creating a space that can be opened and closed based on the user, and their perception of personal space. Creating a volume that could be occupied by more than one person was important in our interpretation of the concept of personal space. For instance, some times personal space applies, and some times it does not. Some times you want a person in your personal space. It is within this area where physical social bonding interactions occur. An example is linking arms, hugging, or embracing.

[Image: Corogami Folded Hut â&#x20AC;&#x201C; David Penner]

[Images: Grace Stephenson] [Prototype: Timothy Tan]

Initial Designs and Precedence Aerial view

This design came to fruition through an investigation of areas and spaces that could house more than one person. In addition to this, the personal space created by the design also explores how individuals interact with others in public spaces and areas. This design looks at creating an interesting social dynamic by being a prompt for personal interaction within a public area.

Attach to ceiling

Object in compressed state

Able to be detached here

The way the material will fold in on itself when compressed

The main idea of this design is something that can fold up or down. When the design is not compressed, it should create a soft physical boundary within a public area, as well as a sense of intimate or personal space for the 1-3 people who engage within it.

Structure folds up and down

Rigid

[Image: The Drop â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Olivia Decaris]

[Image: Google]

Prototyping

These designs use hinged panelling to create a structure that is able to open and close depending on the individual interacting with it and their environment. A volume is created through the designs form and the opening and closing action.

[Prototype and Sketches: Grace Stephensen]

The idea of personal space being an implied boundary is explored through the use of negative spaces in the panel.

This design uses a pin joint and panelling to create a volume that resembles a shell.

Rhino and 123D Catch Model 2 pin joints shared by top and bottom fastening

Based on the prototypes and initial designs, we decided to go with a panelling and pin-jointed design that works with an individual, as well as another person. Additionally, we had issues with our 132d catch model. The quality of it was very poor, however time limitations inhibited us from producing a higher quality one. Also, as no exact design had been arrived at as a group, the first Rhino model produced was more illustrative in mapping the personal space the group design will explore, rather than what it looks like.

[Sketches: Grace Stephensen]

When it came to working on our design for fabrication, as a group we came to the conclusion that using 3 pin joints, as shown in the lower right, would express and capture our concept of personal space better in the design. If we were to do this it would allow for upper body interaction and would integrate the changing scale of personal space better. It would do so through contrasting the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;intimateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; space around the face of wearer against the larger reaching space produced by the larger section of the design.

3 pin joints, 1 shared on top and 2 separate bottom fastenings.

Prototyping

When arced with a pin joint, rectangular panels varying in size achieved the desired result for producing a panelling volume. Further exploration into materials, movement and shapes lead us to this prototype.

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

The main issue with this prototype was attaching it to the body in a way so that it can still move around the wearer.

Rhino Model Based on the prototypes, we as a group confirmed that for fabrication we would go ahead with the pin joint panelled design. Our designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s aim is to cater to the individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of their personal space, based on their situation and comfort level. The smaller arc shown below in the Rhino model that surrounds the face, has been designed to accommodate the individual wearer only. While the larger arc shown to go from the top of the head on the 123D Catch model to the lower waist, is large enough to accommodate another human. Ultimately, the intended effect is to create an interactive volume that is large enough to either include or exclude another human on multiple levels.

The panels shown, which have been outlined in the above Rhino model, are connected by 3 separate pin joints and can be moved based on the individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wants or needs. Through the pin joint the wearer can open and close the panels. Additionally, the arc shape also creates some audible privacy, as was desired by the subjects we observed in crowded and public areas.

Pre-Fabrication

For our design, we intend to communicate the diverse and dynamic nature of personal space through our use of materials. Through prototyping, we learnt that in order for the arc shape on the panels of the design we have decided to fabricate, the panels will have to be made out of a rigid material. Some suggestions for materials that we have are plastic, polypropylene, or Perspex. Another idea put forward for the design, was to coat the panels with a one way mirrored microfilm like the oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s used on glass [see image]. The reason for this detail is to further explore the idea of personal space being based on perceptions. The desired result of the mirrored microfilm would be for those external to the design not being able to see the wearer when the panels are opened and encompassing them. This would highlight the notion that what one individual perceives as their personal space, another may not.

[Image: Google]

Module 3: FABRICATION Rachel Brien Grace Stephenson Timothy Tan Student No: 591230 Semester 2/2013

Group 6

Prototyping

These prototypes from Module 2: Design explore the idea of personal space being an implied boundary through their use of negative space in the panels. Although we are not going ahead with the design we retain the concept of personal space they created.

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

[Prototype and Sketches: Grace Stephenson]

Prototyping

These prototypes from Module 2: Design use hinged panelling and paper to create a structure that is able to open and close depending on the individual interacting with the design and the environment. We are taking the fundamental ideas from this prototype, such as the volume that is created through its form, and the opening and closing action.

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

Prototyping

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

Another prototype from Module 2: Design which explored the size and shape of panelling when wanting to create a round, panelled volume that functions on a pin joint.

Personal Space

[Image: Screen Shot from “Emotional Shelter” Video] – The site where the shelter was built in this video, Federation Square, is a place where our design could be utilised to create a private or interpersonal space for the user amidst strangers.

Intimate space <0.45m Personal space 0.45m Social space 1.2m Public space 3.6-7.6m

Intimate space 10-20cm Personal space 20-40cm

[Images: Grace Stephenson]

As discussed in Module 2: Design, we are appropriating our design to work within the mapping of personal space in relation to the human form. The diagrams to the left exemplify our definitions of personal space on a technical level.

Head to waist

Pin joint

330mm

Head to shoulders

1740mm

690mm

Measured Drawings

Panels and folds in a circular motion around pin joint Ground

We did measured drawings to explore the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ingredientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and components of our design, making a connection between Module 3 and Module 1. This gave us a better understanding of the connections between the different stages of the design process. We also used a figure [shown in the photographs] to explore the relation between the human form and the prototypes.

Proportion 11:23

Prototypes

Shown in the photographs is the prototype of the design we intended to fabricate to scale. Our testing and prototypes showed that in order to hold the arc shape the panels will have to be made out of a rigid material such as plastic or Perspex. Locating materials that behaved in this manner was extremely difficult. The plastics we did find such as polypropylene were not rigid enough and the woods were too rigid. This material issue lead is to reviewing the existing design.

[Photographs: Grace Stephenson]

Prototypes Pictured is a prototype made in the same shape as the previous one, but using a flexible, transparent plastic. The beauty and implications for personal space of a clear volume was a direction we wanted to head toward with our final design. The clear plastic material reinforced the group’s notion that personal space is only an illusion, are a psychological construct. The length of the pictured prototype [left] is 20cm from end to end. In order to make the design function at a larger scale in a material like the plastic [which was taken from the packaging from the container of the figurine doll we used], a ‘backbone’ or supporting rod would need to be implemented. The issue of our design being self supportive in relation to the wearer was a recurring theme.

20cm

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

Materials Positives of a transparent material were that it reinforced our groups notion that personal space is only an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mental perception of their environment. Negatives of the clear material were that the design would need to be made out a rigid, sturdy material in order to hold the form at a larger scale. Polycarbonate was a material we were prompted to explore [pictured]. Based on our search for materials, no polycarbonate in the format we would need was available or within budget. After going to various places searching for the right materials [images below show clear plastics that were either too rigid to bend how we wanted, or too expensive], we realised that no such material could be found within the budget and time frame of our assignment.

Fabrication Issues Based on the availability of materials and the issues that arose when prototyping, it became clear that we needed to move in a new design direction. Our new design needed to be self supporting, both through the use of different, more rigid materials that can maintain its rotating function. Additionally the design no longer needed to be bent laterally in line to be curved, as there were no materials available that allowed us to achieve this.

To the right is the design that was created as a solution to our fabrication issues with materials.

[Image: Grace Stephenson]

Fabrication Issues

The image to the right explores the new direction our design began to move in after encountering issues with finding materials.

[Image: Grace Stephenson]

Fabrication Issues

[Sketches and Photographs: Timothy Tan]

These sketches illustrate another issue arrived at in our new design, where it would not close fully because the perpendicular slots created a horizontal space between the vertical spines. Timothy sketched up his solution to the design problem as well as prototyped it to ensure it would work.

Prototyping Prototype for Final Design 1

We first began to investigate our options for manufacturing a design that can still open and close in order to resemble our interpretation of personal space. The result is shown in the photographs. A tongue in groove joint connects the arcs to the smaller pivoting panels at the top and the bottom of the design. Tongue in groove joint areas are also used to connect the ribs/slats to the arcs as shown in the photographs.

Prototyping

Prototype for Final Design 2 The rigid material used for the ribs/slats has now been replaced with folding paper. It makes the opening and closing function more smooth. They are now glued to the inside of the arcs. This design move makes manufacturing this model at a larger scale more efficient and easier. Additionally the modifications do not alter the overall intended movement and function of the design.

Prototyping

Rhino Models and FabLab

These are some of the Rhino models constructed to explore the shape of the parts in our design. The white images are the files that were submitted to the FabLab to be laser cut in plywood for testing our design. These were the shapes used in our final design for Module 3.

Fabrication Development

Through our investigations into how our design could be self supportive, we came up with the idea to fasten the pin joint to the head. The design itself alone was not self supportive so we decided to trial a bowl on the head connected at the top pin joint. We used a diamond core bit to drill through the Pyrex glass bowl [glass was chosen as it was least obvious visually and this was only being used for the technicality of attaching the design to the person wearing it]. However, the glass bowl proved too heavy for the final model, so this idea was omitted.

Fabrication

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

As a last minute decision we decided not to include these sections as they were hand cut and made our design look messy. Additionally they were superfluous to the function and were mainly added to increase the complexity of the design and hold some symbolism regarding personal space. These parts explored the different scales of personal space through the movement they created within the larger scaled movements of the design. We also liked showcasing and exploring the movement and rotation created by the pin joint within the panelling and folding. On the technical side, the card cutter didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t process these in time either so we had to manually measure out and cut them by hand.

Fabrication

As we were using Rhino files that were processed via the laser cutter in the fablab, we decided to explore our final design through making sections of it as shown in the photographs. This was to ensure that the materials all functioned as intended.

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

Fabrication

[Photographs: Grace Stephenson]

Photographs taken during the fabrication of our final model.

Final Model

These photographs show the completed head section of our model.

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

Final Model

[Photographs: Timothy Tan]

These photographs show the completed head model for Module 3.

Rhino Model Progression

These are the Rhino drawings of the main structure of our final design. We included the most important components that were critical to the modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s function. Additionally these were the components that had been sent to the FabLab to be processed in order for us to fabricate our final model. [Rhino Model: Timothy Tan]

Rhino Model Progression

[Rhino Model: Grace Stephenson]

Assembly Drawing The larger panels connect perpendicularly to the flat panels which rotate around the pin joint.

The smaller panel system mimics the larger scaled system within it.

Reading Response â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Week 6 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Architecture in the Digital Age - Design and Manufacturingâ&#x20AC;?/Branko Kolarevic Q. Briefly outline the various digital fabrication processes. Explain how you use digital fabrication in your design. Digital technology is not used as a medium of conception, but rather as a medium of translation in a process that takes as its input the geometry of the physical model and produces as its output the digitally-encoded control information which is used to drive various fabrication machines. Three dimensional scanning: A common method that involves the use of a digitising probe to trace surface features of the physical model. The process of translation from the physical to the digital realm is the inverse of computer-aided manufacturing. From a physical model a digital representation of its geometry can be created using various three dimensional scanning techniques in a process referred to as "reverse engineering". Three dimensional scanning techniques can be used to digitally capture not only the physical models, but also existing or as built conditions, or even entire landscapes. Digital fabrication: Architects create information that is translated by fabricators directly into the control data that drives the digital fabrication equipment. "Architects drew what they could build, and built what they could draw." Real life final products are cut or made using digitally-driven cutting machines from the geometric information extracted directly from the digital model. New digitally enabled processes of production imply that the constructability in building design becomes a direct function of computability. Two-dimensional fabrication: Most commonly used fabrication technique. Various cutting technologies, such as plasma-arc, laser-beam and water-jet, involve two-axis motion of the sheet material relative to the cutting head, and are implemented as a moving cutting head, a moving bed or a combination of the two.

Subtractive fabrication: Involves the removal of a specified volume of material from solids using electro-chemically or mechanically-reductive (multi-axis milling) processes. Additive fabrication: Involves incremental forming by adding material in a layer-by-layer fashion, in a process which is the converse of milling. All additive fabrication technologies share some principle in that the digital (solid) model is sliced into two-dimensional layers. The information of each layer is then transferred to the processing head of the manufacturing machine and the physical product is generated incrementally in a layer-by-layer fashion.

Reading Response â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Week 6 Formative fabrication: Mechanical forces, restricting forms, heat or steam are applied to a material so as to form it into the desired shape through reshaping or deformation, which can be axially or surface constrained. Assembly: After components are digitally fabricated, their assembly on site can be augmented with digital technology. Digital threedimensional models can be used to precisely determine the location of each component in its proper place. Surface strategy: Architects today digitally create and manipulate NURBS surfaces, producing building skins that result not only in new expressive and aesthetic qualities, but also in new tectonic and geometric complexities. Production strategies: Often include contouring, triangulation (or polygonal tessellation), use of ruled, developable surfaces, and unfolding. They all involve the extraction of two-dimensional, planar components from geometrically complex surfaces or solids comprising the buildings form. New materiality: Due to advances in material science and new forms of architectural expression - there has been a renewed interest among architects in materials, their properties and their capacity to produce desired and aesthetic spatial effects. Mass-customisation: Rigidity of production which can be seen in twentieth century modernism is no longer necessary as digitally-controlled machinery can fabricate unique, complexly-shaped components at a cost that is no longer prohibitively expensive. In other words, the efficiency and economy of production is no longer compromised by variety. How is digital fabrication used in our design: Many parts of the process of our design were driven by digital fabrication. For instance, after sketching up the initial design ideas, they were then translated into Rhino. From there, using a 123D model, we could look at the proportions of our design in relation to the person who will ultimately wear the final model. The 123D model used photographs of a person to translate into a computational model. This can be seen as a branch of, or variation of, three dimensional scanning. When constructing our prototype and final model we have used the fab lab to laser cut Rhino drawings that were drawn to scale.

Reading Response â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Week 7

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Digital Fabrications: architectural and material techniquesâ&#x20AC;?/Lisa Iwamoto Q. Describe one aspect of the recent shift in the use of digital technology from design to fabrication? How does the fabrication process effects your second skin project? Based on the recent shift in the use of digital technology from design to fabrication, to move from design to constructions, it is necessary to translate graphical data from two-dimensional drawings and three-dimensional models into digital data that a computer-numeric-controlled (CNC) machine can understand. This demands that architects essentially learn a new language. Decisions as to which machine and method to use must marry design intent with machine capability.

This fabrication process has been a driving force in our second skin project as we have learnt to use many different programs in such a short period of time (Rhino, InDesign, 123D catch). While all these programs are quite straightforward and basic, by being taught them at such a fast pace (and having 3 other units with an equal workload demand) you don't really get the time to explore, master, and feel comfortable using the programs to the level demanded and desired by yourself. Additionally some group members may be at different levels to others (based on skill or the level of time commitment they have put into learning and using the program) so some of the models that come out may be varied in technical success. When using these programs, if we have technical limitations we may have to alter our designs and our models from what they have been designed as or look like in real life.

Final Model Adjustments

In the presentation for M3, the model we presented was neither selfsupportive or able to be worn. This was as a result of poor time management and leaving things to the last minute. We realised as a group we needed to come together and finalise the design. Grace came up with the idea of changing the shape of the curve so two parts were no longer needed. This shape made the model easier to be used and interacted with by the user. Additionally I redesigned the slats shown above so the model would be able to close better. As the design was also a lot simpler, we decided to make two and have them interact.

Final Model Adjustments

Shown in the first image is the original slats against the modified slats. The designed shape of the newer slats improved the function of our model, however the Perspex ones were quite delicate and prone to snapping. We used plywood and Perspex for our two models. The reason for this was to differentiate the two as separate individual models. The plywood one would symbolise a solid physical barrier for personal space, whereas the Perspex model â&#x20AC;&#x201C; being transparent â&#x20AC;&#x201C; showcased our idea that personal space is a psychological construct. The two interacting illustrates the complexity and relativity of personal space for the individual. Additionally, to make the new model self supportive, we got a flexible material [shown above] and sewed the edges into a triangle. The ends of the lengths were there attached onto the two opposite pin joints of the arc. When the model is not being used it can be slung across the users chest until they choose to open and engage with it.

Final Model Adjustments

We manually cut the polypropylene and paper used within the arches of our final design. Polypropylene and paper were used as an extension of the symbolism behind the use of plywood and Perspex â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one is solid and one is transparent.

Final Model Adjustments

Shown in the images is the leftover plywood from our FabLab order for the final adjusted model. Also shown is the gluing of the slats into the larger structure of the plywood. We used a PVA Adhesive and super glue for this. For the polypropylene and paper lengths within the long arches we used a hot glue gun as this was the most efficient and quick drying glue adhesive we could find. The slats were joined into a pin joint using wire.

Final Model Fabrication

Here are some images of the fabrication process for our final adjusted model. The images show the scored and bent polypropylene [or paper] lengths being glued into the large slats using a glue gun. A handle was also attached onto the arch using wire and slats so the user could hold onto it when opening and closing the model over them self.

Final Model for M4 Presentation

Shown above is our two final models interacting together to form one volume. Each person can use their model alone to create a boundary from other people, or with the other user to create an inclusive and interactive boundary against others. The models are not solid as personal space is something that is constructed by the individual, so the symbolism of the structure would be enough to alert other people outside of it that the volume is excluding them from the users personal space. [Photographs: Timothy Tan]

Reading Response â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Week 7

Module 4: REFLECTION Rachel Brien Student No: 591230 Semester 2/2013

Group 6

Reflection Throughout the semester, through the guidance of the lectures, readings and tutorials our design slowly came together. Looking back now, I can see how the design process works. As mentioned throughout the lectures, the design process is not linear. Despite knowing this, as a student you still expect it to be. For example, in our final design, elements from the original object can be seen, such as the pin joint and panelling. Throughout each module you carry relevant parts of the previous module in to your work. Because of the different systems (panel and fold) and the type of design you make not every thing felt relevant or was able to be used. However, by deconstructing the original object you learnt the fundamentals of function and movement. Probably the most difficult aspect of creating our model, was the briefs exploration of personal space in relation to group work. Actually, group work in general made the whole design process very difficult. Exploring personal space at first seemed pretty straightforward. But exploring personal space as something ‘that is not a pipe’ – in the symbolism produced by that metaphor – it really required a lot of communication and visual explanation when working with others towards putting these ideas into a built model. Based on this semester it has become clear that design in general requires strong communication. After working in a group I can see how powerful the image is for design, often language can complicate or miscommunicate ideas. When discussing abstract concepts with others, you may not always understand what they are saying or the vision they have. This makes it extremely difficult when you need to work together to build another person’s vision. The worst thing you can do when trying to design something, based on my experiences this semester, is to leave everything until the last minute. No design is ever perfect, therefore by allowing yourself the time to make corrections you can slowly build it up to where it needs to be. Across the semester this eventually happened with our design, however I feel that if we as a group had have coordinated and used time more efficiently we would have been able to have reached the final model sooner. However, due to the lifestyle of a university schedule and the time restrictions of the subject this was not always possible or realistic. And based on one our what our guest speaker Keiran Stewart said in week 9, perhaps this unpredictability and inconsistency is often part of the process. In the first lecture we were shown an image from the film “The Matrix”, and told that virtual environments was a lot like looking at the information in the environment. I feel like my group never made it to this level, that we were more focused on the aesthetic and this limited us. We often built things, then long after it had been built went back and tried to draw the aesthetic of them in Rhino without understanding the information. However, as I also learnt this semester, you are often limited by what you already know [as well as what you do not], and I think my group tried to work to our strengths instead of allowing our weaknesses [such as not being very good at using Rhino] hold us back. On reflection though, I really do think Rhino was not used to its full potential in mapping our designs. Rather we used it to explore the relation between the model and the wearer in regards to the physical display of personal space. The reason for this was often, in our design process, we did not know what we were making until it was built. Someone would come up with a design they were not able to communicate to others. So often, we went ahead and built our ideas in order to try and explain them. The result of this was very costly, time inefficient and a lot of materials were wasted. The main function of Rhino in relation to our design was through getting the parts of our design cut and processed by the FabLab’s laser cutter or card cutter. This form of technology really allowed us to design shapes however we wanted to for later assembly.

[Image: Rene Magritte]

Reflection

“The third Industrial Revolution”/Jeremy Rifkin Q. 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? Digital technology in relation to my view of design, making and the context of the built environment has been changed in an unexpected way based on my practical experience. Often, the program Rhino felt more limiting as I knew how to use it based on the tutorials and technical sessions, but not in relation to the context of the design direction my group was going in. If I produced a model it was because I had to for assessment, not because I saw it’s connection to physically producing the final model. However, the reason for this could be that our design was not something that needed Rhino to be manufactured outside of sending cuttings to the FabLab. What I mean by this was that we were able to isolate parts of our model that were very simple to draw up in Rhino and get them processed. Additionally, the way my group seemed to work was not really knowing what our design was until it was built. Not having the best camera has really inhibited showcasing our design in print. The low image quality detracts from trying to reproduce the physical elements of the design. As mentioned earlier, sometimes images are able to express things better than words. I think digital technology is a way of expressing the information of built environments, instead of trying to explain them through the limitations of words. Paul Loh discussed in his lectures how some designers are moving back to craftsman ship and hand making. I feel like this unit really had a division between the digital and the making – well at least in relation to the design we made. I felt my group was more willing to hand make something than model it in Rhino when trying to communicate and work towards our final model. However, based on the theory of this subject I have been able to see it as a crucial part of design and manufacturing. As mentioned in the reading, standardised quality and uniformity in what is manufactured, is evident everywhere. Mass production drives our society, as well as mass customisation. I saw a hint of this when we processed files to the FabLab. The efficiency of this really sped up the fabrication process for our final model. Something we learnt from using the FabLab was actually the connection between Rhino and the end product. Unfortunately we often learnt this after the fact. If you put the wrong dimensions in, you would get the wrong cuttings. On many occasions this occurred.

Reflection

“Building the Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture”/Phillip Bernstein, Peggy Dreamer Q. Evaluate your process of designing and making the second skin against the notion of craft outlined in the reading. Have you included a degree of risk in your design work? I found this reading really interesting because it redefined my notion of technology. Growing up in the 21st century you associate technology with everything digital. While in the reading the form of digital technology is focused on, it still reminds you that there were manual technologies prior to it. If craft is the direct linking of the creator to their tools, then this expresses why our process of designing and making the second skin was so difficult. I’m not sure if anyone in my group used Rhino to model the original design of the second skin. I think this is because no one had the skills to create the ideas and design. Also, it demonstrates the shift in culture. Manual technologies may require a physical labor or skills, whereas digital technologies require a mental skill and labor. This is really hard, because if you are unable to learn the digital technology at the required pace and under the certain conditions, your work is very limited – as my group experienced. Risk was often included in our design work through using and processing Rhino files to the fab lab without first testing their function – either in Rhino in relation to our 123D or model, or in real life with different materials. It was very lucky in the end that our trial and error manufacturing of parts through the FabLab paid off.

References [Images, Sketches, Rhino Model: Grace Stephenson] – Taken from original M2 and M3 group presentation or from the shared facebook group [Images, Sketches, Rhino Model: Timothy Tan] – Taken from original M2 and M3 group presentation or from the shared facebook group [Images: Google] – Investigation of Personal Space, https://www.google.com.au/search?q=people+in+public&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=chV3UtiuPM26kQXV1YCABQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=741&dpr=0.9 [Image: Corogami Folded Hut – David Penner] – http://www.pleatfarm.com/2010/03/15/corogami-hut-david-penner-architecture/ [Image: The Drop – Olivia Decaris] – Week 4 Design Effects Lecture [Image: Google] – Initial Designs and Precedence, https://www.google.com.au/search?q=people+in+public&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=chV3UtiuPM26kQXV1YCABQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=741&dpr=0.9#q=portable+changin+r oom&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=_DflP0wb1WSBdM%3A%3BiPebLTq0yZDh_M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Flumberjocks.com%252Fassets%252Fpictures%252Fprojects%252F160773.jpg%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Flumberjocks.com%252Fprojects%252F36616%3B900%3B675 [Image: Google] – Pre-fabrication, http://stuffpoint.com/unbelievable-facts/image/303700/mirror-house-picture/ [Image: Screen Shot from “Emotional Shelter” Video], Personal Space – http://vimeo.com/71346457 “Inside Rhinoceros”/Cheng – http://issuu.com/annie_walsh/docs/01_cheng-inside_rhinoceros__2002_ “300 Years of Industrial Design”/Jensen – http://issuu.com/annie_walsh/docs/01_jensen_300_years_of_industrial_d “How to Layout a Crossaint”/Miralles – issuu.com/annie_walsh/docs/01_miralles_-_how_to_layout_a_crois “Personal Space”/Sommer – http://issuu.com/annie_walsh/docs/01_sommer_personal_space “Architecture in the Digital Age - Design and Manufacturing”/Branko Kolarevic – http://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3984089-dt-content-rid12657208_2/courses/ENVS10008_2013_SM2/03%20Kolarevic%20-%20Architecture%20in%20the%20Digital%20Age%20-%20Design%20and%20Manufacturing%20_2003_.pdf “Digital Fabrications: architectural and material techniques”/Lisa Iwamoto – http://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3984089-dt-content-rid12657209_2/courses/ENVS10008_2013_SM2/03%20Iwamoto%20-%20Digital%20Fabrications%20_2009_.pdf “The third Industrial Revolution”/Jeremy Rifkin – http://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3984048-dt-content-rid12557973_2/courses/ENVS10008_2013_SM2/ENVS10008_2013_SM2_ImportedContent_20130722120254/04%20Rifkin%20-%20The%20Third%20Industrial%20Revolution%20%282011%29.pdf “Building the Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture”/Phillip Bernstein, Peggy Dreamer – http://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3984048-dt-content-rid12557974_2/courses/ENVS10008_2013_SM2/ENVS10008_2013_SM2_ImportedContent_20130722120254/04_Imagining%20Risk_Marble_2.pdf