EnterActive : Interactive Architecture on Robotic Behaviour

EnterActive Interactive Architecture on Robotic Behaviour Members: Nick van Dorp Romana de Vries Chenxi Dai Veerasu Sae-Tae

Tutors: Prof. Kas Oosterhuis Dr. Henriette Bier Dr. Nimish Biloria

1:1 INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE PROTOTYPES HYPERBODY MSC2, 2016 TU DELFT, FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.Design Parameter 1.1 Framework 1.2 Concept 2.Prototype and Movement Behaviour Prototype 1.0 3. Variation and Customisation 3.1 Texture 3.2 Pattern Arrangement 3.3 Variation of the arms 4.Interactive Behaviour 5.Supporting Structure 5.1 Component 5.2 Research 5.3 Design 5.4 Conclusion Conclusion References

1

1.Design Parameter 1.1 Framework The goal for the studio is to create an interactive stage for the Game Set Match III, which will be held at the Orange Hall in the faculty of architecture, Tu Delft. The stage will host an international symposium, celebrating the success of Hyperbody studio over 15 years. The event will last for three days. The plementary volume has been given and divided into 12 components. Each group has to select three components and their location. An elementary feature calls for dynamically responds among the neighbour. The component will interact with lectures and audiences in different scenarios during the event.

Figure 1.1: The given plementary volume for the stage, which divided into 12 components. The selected volumes are highlighted on the right figure.

1.2 Concept The design approach was inspired from Hyperbody methodology of interactive design “that attempted to provide meaningful interaction with a participant by moving beyond a superficial one-to-one cause and effect interaction and designing a one-to-many interactive system that exhibit emergent behaviour and performed liked a living system.� 1 Our team believe a good interactive process should be able to create a nice relations between the elements: the user, the interactive component, the non-interactive component and the context. The interactive component is the core in this relationship. It is used as a medium to transfer information and coordinate the whole process. The interactive component is actively responsible to the behaviour of the user, which is supposed to be achieved in various ways. The interactive component should be able to inspire behaviour of the user and ensure the response comprehensible. It is important that the components, including the interactive ones and non-interactive ones, are able to work in one system spontaneously and synchronously. In addition, the interactive process should involve the context. The interactive component should react to the condition of the surroundings. When the environment changes, the behaviour model of the components need to be transformed as well.

1

Oosterhuis, K., Hosale, M. D., & Kievid, C. (2010), p73 ​ 2

The ways animals communicate with each other helped us a lot to form our original design concept. It interested us that animals use various ‘languages’ to transfer information. Primate animals like to use gestures to communicate. Dogs gaze people’s eyes to show their feelings. Octopuses change their body colour to hide or show goodwill. Fireflies use lights to work with others. Elephants touch each other’s trunks to greet. Inspired by these behaviour, we designed our interactive and ‘emotional’ components.

Figure 1.2: Greeting of Elephants

2.Prototype and Movement Behaviour Prototype 1.0 The design process of the EnterActive has taken many different directions. The prototypes took an important role in our design process. Thus, by explaining the prototypes the design process will also become clear. The main issues we focused on in the prototypes were the movements made by the arms and their look.

The first prototype that shows similarities with the final result is shown in Figure 2.1. This is a ​ scale model of a design where people can go under and experience the inner atmosphere. The arms will go inside to let people in and then go down again. If the arms go down they will probably hit the people inside and to prevent this we had to find a solution in the movement of the arms.

3

Figure 2.1: Model where the arms go up inside.

The solution you can see in Figure 2.2, where the arms move outside. The design as it is in this prototype had too many ​ bending lines​ , so the movement was too strong. The weight of the elements where the rope gets through was big and, because of that, quite heavy. This combination makes the arm bend while no rope was pulled.

Figure 2.2: In this model the arms were used like a door, to let people in an inner space.

To let this model work better there were some changes needed. To reduce the weight the rope was connected to the arm by putting it between the fabric and the arm. Another change was the number of bending lines​ . By reducing these the arm stays more straight if the motor does not pull on the rope.

So, for this prototype, the straight position was much better than the previous model. To bend this arm it took a lot of extra strength if you compared it to the earlier model. This was mainly because of the distance between the arm and the rope.

To make the movement to the outside possible the material between the arms has to follow the movement of these arms. This is possible, for example, by using a folding pattern, like you can see in Figure 2.3.

4

Figure 2.3: The movement of this model was harder than the one before, but it stayed more straight if it didn’t move. So a combination of the model in figure 1 and 2 was needed to find a nice way of moving the arms.

While discussing these two prototypes with the tutors, they suggested us to only use arms and no material between them, so the arms can move freely. They referred to the Medusa project, which is a rotating arm that can move in two directions, both forward and backward.

With this suggestion in mind, the design changed to a new form. Like the tutors suggested we made arms without material between it. This new arm exists out of flat, circular and transparent pieces around a circular tube. At the outside of the circular layers there were four holes where the wires go through. By pulling at one of the ropes the arm will start moving in this direction. The reason that the arm has four wires is because we want it to move in all the directions. This is also possible with three wires, but then you need three motors. In the case of four wires you can combine two wires on one motor.

This new prototype looks quite similar to the Medusa, but this one can move in every direction instead of only two. The movement of this prototype is not really smooth. One of the other things that we want to change was the way to keep distance between the elements. Now there is a string used in the middle of the elements to make this distance.

Figure 2.4: The Medusa is made in a previous hyperbody project and an inspiration for the EnterActive

5

Figure 2.5: In the left drawing the elements that are needed to make an arm that can move in all the directions get clear. With this guideline we came up with a three-dimensional module.

The layers can keep a distance between themself by forming a three-dimensional element. The next model is thus a module made out flat laser cut pieces that together form a three-dimensional element. Not only the way to keep distance between the elements fits more closely to the movement, but also the movement itself works better.

This principle worked well, so we decided to continue working on this idea to make it even better. To achieve this there were some changes needed, like the connection between the elements. This connection was not always strong enough, which resulted in the modules to fall apart at times.

Another change that had to be made was the appearance of these modules. The elements don't look like they will be used for a robotic arm. So, the next prototypes focused on this appearance. Later again, the connection between the elements got more attention.

Figure 2.6: This is the first model where we used three-dimensional modules to make a height.

To give the modules the look that fits the concept, another material or shape could help. So the next model we made was in the same form, but with a transparent material, just like the first moving arm.

This material fits closer to the concept and is in harmony with the light that will be used.

6

We also tried a circular module in a transparent material. However, this severely reduced the freedom in movement compared to the more straight one. Also, the look was not as convincing as the previously made prototype. A more straight shape was thus needed, but the final model could probably be a little more round shaped as the previous model.

Figure 2.7: The transparent material give the arm the appearance that fits the concept. Another aspect is the light that can work well with this material.

To make the arm more attractive and to make it more closely resemble a moving creature it was interesting to use different sizes of modules. These different sizes can have influence on the movement of the arm, so a prototype incorporating this change was also made. By constructing the model and testing the movement of it, it became clear that the movability was a little less than before.

However, it was still movable enough to keep this change.

Now the form of the arm had become clear, the connection between the elements needed some attention. The first three-dimensional models were connected by sliding the elements into each other, but if there was too much pressure on these modules the elements would slide out of each other and the module would fall apart. To solve this problem, the connection had to be made in a different way.

One of the connections we tried was putting elements ​ through each other and put an element through one of these elements so they can't go back. This system didn't work so well because the last element got out too easily. By trying this system, it became clear that putting elements through each other already worked well. So we decided to just put the elements ​ through each other and put some glue between to make the connection even stronger.

This new way of connecting was applied on a real scale prototype. This model is around 1,5 meter long and exists out of different size modules with a width between 10 and 30 centimeters. We were quite content with the overall shape and look, but of course there were some changes needed for the final arm. One important aspect was the movability that was less than in the scale models made before. One of the reasons for this was the shape of the new connection. Another aspect that made the ​ movement less than in the scale models was the weight. Because of this weight it was hard to move the lower part of the arm. To solve this problem the wire had to go ​ to half of the arm and the 7

lower part had to have its own wire. Like this, there is less weight on the lower modules, making them be able to move around more freely.

Figure 2.8: The different ways of connecting the elements of the modules.

To make the ability of the arms to be moved better there were some changes needed in the point of connection between the modules. To take care that the different modules will not interlock with each other, a little plate between the modules was necessary. However, even with this plate the movement was not that fluent. This was because the form of the elements ​ that goes throug​ h was rectangular, so to move the arm more power was needed. To make the movability better, the form of these elements had to be rounded​ . By trying this the movement was improved and the form we had now was ready to use for the final arm.

To come up with the final design there were some prototypes needed. The prototypes are used in different ways. First to find the ​ direction of the design​ , by defining what we wanted to achieve and how that could be made. When that became clear there was more focus on the specific shape and movement of the arms. ​ If we hadn't made the prototypes, the final arm would be probably less fluent, if​ you compare it with the design as it is now.

8

3. Variation and Customisation To achieve the goal of attracting people to interact with our devices, we decided to make some variations on the components. Basically, we focused on the texture and the arrangement.

3.1 Texture We believe that with various textures, our components could be more attractive. Some textures were attached on the skeletons of the components. Groups of patterns were designed and printed on the transparent bodies. When the LED lights are turned on, the lights going through the components create beautiful shadows.

The initial idea on the textures was to imitate some patterns in nature. What inspired us especially were animal skins and leaf veins. Several textures on skins were considered, including those of zebra, lizard, hedgehog and sea anemone. By using those bionic textures, the arms could be more associated with emotional creatures. When touching the ‘skins’, people could have a multi-sensory experience: touch, vision and hearing at the same time.

Figure 3.1: First version of texture ​

The second version of the textures was based on geometrical patterns. We did some research on the basic geometrical shapes and then tried transforming them by changing scales, rotating, bending and realigning. The density of the patterns is unequally arranged so that an effect of gradual emerging and fading could be achieved.

9

Figure 3.2: Second version of texture

The final version of our texture contains two patterns: circle and triangle. Both of those shapes were selected from the existing element on our components. The circle shape could be associated with the hole left for string going through. The triangular shape comes from the basic form of our components. In this way, the design language could be more united as a whole.

Figure 3.3: Final version of texture

3.2 Pattern Arrangement The four skeletons of each unit were applied with different arrangement of patterns. One of them are covered with full patterns. The other two are covered only half of the patterns. The last one is left totally empty of textures. By arranging like this, the components could show the beauty of the patterns without losing the transparent feature.

Figure 3.4: Pattern arrangement

10

3.3 Variation of the arms The components were connected in different orders to form a arm. As a result, the profiles of the arms differ between each other. Four types of order were used. The first type is large scale components at the top and gradually shrinking to the bottom end. The second one is the opposite of the first one, which is large components at the bottom and small ones at the top. The third type is large components at the two ends and the small ones in the middle. The last type is to set the small ones at the two ends and put the large ones in the middle part. Because of the different ways of weight distribution along the arms, each type’s moving behaviour could also be different. For example, the arms with smaller components at the bottom are moving faster compared with the arms with larger ones. In this way, the four types of arms have different ‘characteristics’, just like living creatures do.

Figure 3.5 Variation of the arms

11

4.Interactive Behaviour The initial concept of the design interaction developed from the movement study of interactive arms which act as robotic creatures that could react to its environment and responds to its users. In this case, the arms will serve as a threshold for the stage, which are embedded with multiple behaviours that could respond to lectures, audiences and the surrounding environment in real time. The interaction aims to form a dialogue between users and interactive components. The project challenges the notion of emotive architecture, exploring an aspect of human emotion and kinetic movement.

Figure 4.1: Interactive arms on structure

A robotic arm consists of nine diamond-like geometries, each component composed of five triangulated pieces of 2mm-thick transparent Perspex plastic. They are attached with a series of string that connected all the components together. The design variation of the component ‘s sizes and apertures were experimented to create a lightweight design that would allow more flexible and malleable movement. In this project, ​ 8 robotic arms (Figure 4.1) are suspended to a frame structure, creating an interactive threshold that has multi-functional purposes, such as a door, a wall, a ceiling, a curtain, a lighting, or an interactive game. An interactive arm is actuated by two 360-degree motors and strings; this would allow the arm to move in four directions. The motors are placed at the top of the frame structure,one motor would control left and right movement while the later would control the backward and forward movement. This would be create more spontaneous responsive behaviour to the interactive arms as people would be able to engage to them all directions.

12

Figure 4.2: Interactive system

The main sensor integrated in the frame is an ultrasonic sensor which could detect people within a range of 4 metres. Working together with an Arduino panel, the data detected by the ultrasonic sensor could be used to control the 180° servo motors that set on the top of the supportive structure. When people walk within a range of 2 metres, the servo motors will start running, which allows the arms below to rise up towards the position of people. If people continue getting closer and enter within a range of 1 metre, the arms in front of people will be risen higher and let people go through from the empty space. With the same principle, the RGB LEDs, which are set inside the arms, work following the guidance of the distance data.

13

5.Supporting Structure Besides designing the interactive components of our part of the stage, there is also the need for a supporting and connecting element. The robotic arms must in some way be attached to a load bearing structure, connecting it to the neighbouring components. This chapter will give an insight in the challenges that were faced when designing such a structure. First will be explained how our component connects to the neighbouring components. After that a short summary of research into materials, shapes and precedents will be given, focusing on the applicability it has or has not and why. Also will be explained how the final design emerged and how it is produced and assembled. To conclude the end result will be reflected on.

5.1 Component Neighbours & logic To establish a good connection with our neighbours, we first gathered the most recent 3d-models of their components. In picture 1 you can see our component in red. You can also see that at this place there is the possibility to make some sort of entrance to the centre of the stage. This is the place where the arms are preferred to be placed. To make a fitting structure, we used the lines of the faces touching the neighbouring components. We formed a fluid curve from these lines; this is the centre-line of our supporting structure, as seen in red.

Figure 5.1: Concept diagram of the component and structure

Shape One of the requirements the structure needs to meet is that it both blends with the shape of the entire stage while still being able to stand on itself. That is why we have chosen for a triangular section that is wider at the base to provide stability (picture 2). The faces are oriented in a way that they appear to continue from roof to side to bottom and are a continuation from the rest of the stage. Also, the triangular shape is structurally strong, like a three-dimensional space-truss.

14

Figure 5.2: Multiple views of the structure

5.2 Research After the general shape and size were known, it was time to think about materiality, production and assembly. For this, some experimenting and researching has been done.

Materials Early on in the process, we wanted to make the entire design out of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA).

A waffle-like principle was the first option that was researched (picture 3). Eventually it turned out to be very inefficient and it neglected the beauty of the continuous surface. Therefore, a more efficient and suiting alternative had to be found. Cardboard is much lighter, more affordable and easier to laser-cut. Therefor the possibilities of this material were further researched.

Figure 5.3: First research model

15

Precedents Catalyst Hex-shell This project gave us a great insight into the capabilities of cardboard as a structural material. The surface that forms the canopy is optimized in a same way as Antoni Gaudi did with chains to find the form, but then digitally. This surface is then divided into smaller, hexagonal components, each one being unique. Every side of the hexagons has an extra wing to connect them to each other. All of the components are tagged with a number for assembly. This method is much more suiting then the waffle method, because it shows the surface of our structure more clearly.

Figure 5.4 : Catalyst Hex-Shell

Cocoon EVO Pavillion The second project we researched is very similar to the first, but is made from Etalbond, aluminium composite. This project gave us a little more insight into the process from design to production and assembly. Here, the same strategy is used by tagging the unique components. Only for this project is well documented that using different cutting/engraving settings make it possible to easily bend the wings. This gives a clean result.

16

Figure 5.5 & 5.6: Cocoon EVO Pavillion Digital Design

Figure 5.7 & 5.8: Cocoon EVO Pavillion Physical Result

5.3 Design Shape As seen in the precedents, the surface of our structure will consist of many unique components.

Contrary to the hexagons used in these two projects, we decided to use triangles. There are two reasons for this choice. The first is that the robotic arms also have a triangular form language.

Secondly the tight turns and narrow surfaces are easier to construct from triangles. In the image below you can see the structure and the triangulated version side to side. This version, which we will produce in full scale, is a smaller version of the actual structure.

17

Figure 5.10: 3d Models of prototype

Material The material we choose is corrugated cardboard, the same type used for the ‘​ Catalyst Hex-Shell​ ’. The benefits of this material are the fact that it is affordable, recyclable, lightweight and easy to laser-cut.

Because this cardboard has two layers of thin cardboard with a hollow space on the inside, it is possible to cut through just one of the layers. This makes is able to bend or fold it at the preferred place.

Logic To use less material, the shape of the structure is optimized, although it being manually. At the base it is wider and upper part is more slender. We also left holes in the centre of each triangle, because the material is not really needed here. Very much like in a space truss.

The direction of the triangles is purposefully not made symmetrical. As seen in red in the image below, the direction accentuates the fact that the surface is continuous.

Figure 5.11: Continuous direction of seams

18

Production–method To be able to produce all of the unique components precisely, the model had to be made ready to laser-cut. By displacing every face onto flat panels and tagging them with a number, we are able to efficiently produce and assemble the structure. The folding lines (red) are cut with lower power than the cutting lines (blue and yellow). Below is shown that the 203 unique components are spread out on 95 panels.

Figure 5.12: Digital design for assembly

Figure 5.13: Digital design close-up

19

Figure 5.14: Producing the components

Figure 5.15: Close up component

20

Assembly Assembling the structure is done by using a stapler to connect each of the components wings together. By looking at the 3d model with number tags it was clear where to place the next component. However, very early in the assembly process, it became clear that the staples alone were not strong enough to keep the structure together. Also the cardboard was very thin at the folding lines, which caused it to tear at some parts. Transparent tape was used to further strengthen the structure. The structure was divided in three parts, which were later connected together.

Figure 5.16: Assembly at Protospace

Another problem that occurred was that the legs were pointing in the wrong direction. The cause of this is that in the digital model, each face of the component touches the neighbouring ones directly. In the real model however, the folded cardboard wings which have a thickness, lead to a small difference in rotation angle, compared to the digital model. This happens because every diagonal is pointing in the same direction along the curve. When all the small offsets are summed up, the result is a big change in rotation of the legs, as seen in picture 16.

21

5.4 Conclusion Looking at the end result, it can be concluded that making a full scale, digitally produced structure is quite a challenge. Mistakes are made in both designing as well as in choosing the material and in the method of assembling. However these insights make us believe that with this design, but made from a material like aluminium, and keeping in mind the material thickness, a stable structure can be realised. Also, in a following research, the structure could be further optimized in thickness and shape by using simulation software to minimize the material usage. Sort of like this was done in the ‘Catalyst Hex-Shell’ project.

Figure 5.17 & 5.18: Final result of the structure

22

Conclusion Generally, the final result of our project achieved our initial goal successfully. The interactive components, the structure, the users and the environment could work as a system, which creates an opportunity of interactive experience. The project is a part which could be embedded with the other parts of the stage quite well. Due to the limited time, some of the functions we would like to integrated have not been achieved yet, which could be used as the next step of this project, including touching sensors, auditory sensors and more forms of supportive structure. We believe this project contains many potential values in further exploration and development.

Figure: Final model with lighting ​

23

References Catalyst Hex-shell, MATSYS, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2012: http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/catalyst-hexshell/ Cocoon EVO Pavillion, FORMAKERS, Rome, 2013: http://www.formakers.eu/project-943-mediterranean-fablab-co-de-it-picernocerasolab-tekla-m aker-faire-r Oosterhuis, K., Hosale, M. D., & Kievid, C. (2010). IA#3: Emotive styling. Heijningen: Jap Sam Books.

24