W
MODULE 4
Thomas Schmitt Student Number: 604907 Semester 1/2013 Group 11
IDEATION The lamp was inspired by the shape and formation of the plant below. This lead to these three rules:
1. Sets of 3 2. Increasing size of the base element
~120o
3. 120oangles
This became the first base element which was used to design the clay model.
2D Analysis
This became a secondary base element that was portrayed through the lighting effects.
3D Analysis
In Kandinsky’s teachings he talks about looking at the “simplification, analysis and transformation of the graphic characteristics presented by the motif� (Poling 1987). This was the starting place for the whole design of the lamp, taking the natural pattern and then breaking it down into its most simple elements. Then through the analysis of the rules and using simple transformations to build it back up into a design that not only is elegant but also contains the underlying effects of the original design.
The first transformations did not follow the rules enough and thus resulted in a very chaotic design with no resemblance to the original pattern.
The next attempt followed the rules the way nature uses basic elements and forms them into combinations (Poling 1987) and the result had a greater resemblance to the original pattern while having its very own set of rules which as explained by Ball (2012) are generally very simple but produce a very complex and natural looking design.
A combination of paper and then Rhino was used to develop the emerging form and the basic rules of the lamp and then clay was used to design the overall shape of the lamp which worked on the notion of increasing size from the center out and then stretching along the z axis to produce an indepth 3D model.
DESIGN
The first clay model was an over simplification of the rules and resulted in a shape that was only very loosely linked to the original pattern. The second attempt focused much more on the first base element and arranging it in different ways following the rules of 3, changing size and 120o angles to come up with a shape that could be better related to the original pattern.
The design process started off as just experimentation with panelling but as knowledge of the program increased and with the realization that the design opptions are near endless, more and more complex but also more specific designs were created.
This design used 3D pyramids in the panelling because once the faces were off set the cut outs had a strong resembalence to the second base element.
Scheurer (2011) talks about how computer-aided design (CAD) software has lead to the slow eradication of the mathematics behind architectural practices and now very complex designs can be achieved with very little understanding of the mechanisms behind it. He also talks about how these designs do not always translate smoothly from CAD to computer-aided engineering (CAE) to computeraided manufacturing (CAM).
Errors: overlapping of pannels and very thin pannels which alsough it works digitaly, it would not translate onto paper
In this attempt that the translation from the clay model to the lofted model did not work well and although the lofted model has a resemblance to the clay model it is clearly not the same and with further panelling and development of the lofted model it became clear that there were numerous errors that would prevent the design from being fabricated.
A section of the first design that worked was taken and printed off to look at the lighting effects. This specific panelling was chosen because the cutouts had the closest resemblance to the second base element and when a light was shone through it became clear that when shone at a slightly curved surface, it curved the triangle to form the second base element.
Second base element It became clear that 2 LED’s formed two shadows so the idea became to use 3 to create shadows in sets of 3’s following the first rule
This lead to the creation of the third clay model which was lofted with greater understanding of how the entire process worked and resulted in a more accurate lofted design.
The model was firstly split into a front a middle and a back. The front was 3D panelled, the middle was left without offset faces and the back was 2D panelled with offset faces. This highlighted the three separate sections as well as made it so that three sets of shadows would be cast as a result. The front was also panelled so that from the top there would be 3 flat faces and 3 extruded faces and the same effect would be created from the bottom. The 3D panels were extruded to different extents to mimic the natural differentiation in a plant.
FABRICATION Flattened files for fablab
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Kolarevic in his paper Design and Manufacturing (2003) highlights the importance in understanding and choosing the best method for fabrication, turning the digital model into a physical model. The card cutter is defiantly the best option as the card is very thin and it greatly increases the speed of production. Cutting the pieces by hand would take many days as opposed to a few hours and would lead to a huge increase is errors due to human error.
There are a few downsides to the card cutter, as the blade becomes dull the cuts are not always the correct depth which makes folding score lines and removing the cut pieces from the main piece harder which happened for the first two pages, possibly leading to small errors. “Like traditional drawing, digital production is a generative medium that comes with its own host of restraints and possibilities� (Iwamoto 2009) The digital technology we use allows the creation of more and more complex designs however it is important to understand the material used and its limitations when it comes to the fabricating process, for example the panels must all be flat because we are using card and not something like metal that can retain a curved surface. So by triangulating the surfaces it makes sure they are flat so the model can go directly from the design to fabrication.
The model was made layer by layer starting with layer 1. The use of small bull dog clips increased the rate of production and made sure the glue was given ample amounts of time to dry. It became clear that some of the pieces needed to be folded inside out in order for them to then fit together correctly which highlights how the move from the design to the fabrication is not always flawless and a strong understanding of the process is needed, it is more than just “the flick of a button in the designers CAD software� (Scheurer 2011)
The lighting effects worked well. There were 3 sets of triangles cast on the wall all of varying sizes. The triangles could also be curved to create the second base element and we can see three sets of shadows being cast each one getting fainter. However the lights were very faint and would not show up at the lamp parade because the internal volume of the lamp is so large It was decided to put in some much stronger LED’s.
To fix the problem of the light being to week, 3 sets of LED strip lights were used each conected to its own 9V battery and all conected to one switch. These were set up in a triangle to follow the rule of 120o.
There were some errors in the translation from the design to the fabrication and the need to put in stronger LED’s was an opportunity to fix up some of the errors.
The lights on their own were actually too strong and focused, so paper was stuck around the LED strips inorder to diffuse the light
In Rhino the tabs on all the flat top facing surfaces were left on in order to highlight the overlapping that naturally occurs in the leaves of plants in nature and the stronger lights helped to emphasize this effect.
REFLECTION The journey of this project from the original natural image through the ideation to the design and then even further onto the actual fabrication of a full 3D lamp has been a very interesting one for me.
The start was a jumble of new ideas, skills and technologies to learn to use and the notion that this would all lead to a physical lamp was beyond my comprehension. Slowly as I gained knowledge about the processes involved in architectural design and the nigh unlimited possibilities made possible through CAD software a much more coherent plan and design process was set up that would then be possible to bring to life in a physical form. Bernstein in his book, building the future (2008) talks about how architects have been separated from the actual construction part of craft for a long time, but that they are becoming much more reconnected with the process of making. The importance of understanding and being a part of the actual making process is emphasized by Scheurer (2011) and was also a very important skill form me to learn, that the jump from a digital model to a physical model is not a linear process and requires a strong knowledge base of the material and the machinery used. This realisation that the transition is not completely straightforward lead to some nasty surprises in the fabrication however this has left me with a better understanding of the importance highlighted by Scheurer and as a result has left me with much more satisfaction at having managed to fabricate the design. Being a part of the design from the start to the finish has taught me many important skills the most mind blowing of all being how by analysing a pattern or object down to its most simple of elements and then building it back up can result in such complex and diverse designs that have a sense of purpose and are so different from the original patterns and yet a resemblance can still be drawn. The entire journey has been an important insight into what design is all about and has had a very steep learning curve and yet it left me with a sense of pride at having succeeded at producing a 3D lantern way out of my belief to be possible at the start of the process.
REFERENCES Ball, P 2012, Pattern Formation in Nature, AD: Architectural Design, Wiley, 82 (2), March, pp. 22-27 Bernstein, P and Deamer, P 2008, Building the Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture, Princeton Architectural Press, pp. 38-42 Iwamoto, L 2009, Digital fabrications: architectural and material techniques, New York : Princeton Architectural Press Kolarevic, B 2003, Architecture in the Digital Age - Design and Manufacturing, Spon Press, London Poling, C 1987, Analytical Drawing In Kandisky’s Teaching at the Bauhaus, Rizzoli, New York, pp. 107-132 Scheurer, F and Stehling, H 2011, Lost in Parameter Space? IAD: Architectural Design, Wiley, 81 (4), July, pp. 70-79