maria kozachenko620628

module 3

fabrication

virtual environments

sem 1 , 2013

inSPiration

analYtiC DraWinG

digitizing: reviewing the ShaPe

after receiving the feedback from module 2 i realised that my digitized model does not resemble my plasticine model. That was because of a wrong choice of digitiz-ing technique. even though i traced the edges quite accurately, the Cross-sections command smoothed the triangular profile of the model and the resulting shape appeared too rounded. so i was advised to review the whole shape of a model.The idea to wear the final product as an armour also seemed to be quite questionable. Bearing in mind existing time constraints i decided to fo-cus on creating a model resembling initial plasticine model on the first place.

First DiGital moDelimportant attributes: 1. extrusion of spiral 2. rotating triangles a base shape. i have chosen triangles because i was able to identify three spirals going from the center of the cabbage head. 3. on later stages i wanted spikes to appear in my model.

The new model appeared to be much more alike with the clay shape with sharp edges by contrast with the previous one which was too smooth.a new problem appeared when i started panelling. as the surface in not a single surface but a joined polysurface, panelling tools did not allow to do panels for the whole model at once. rhino kept drawing 3D panels inside of the model rather than outside. i found an easy way to fix that later, but at that moment i had to seek some help from the senior tutor.

digitizing: reviewing ShaPe

annie advised to work with a single surface rather than trying to “tame” a polysurface. she showed me how to make use of Contour command in rhino and helped to fix some errors in this new surface. For a moment i thought that the complexity, roughness and sharp edges are lost once again, but i was able to bring them into model on further stages, playing around points grid density.

Curves of a faulty polysurface, which were contoured

Contours, which where then lofted resulting surface

digitizing: reviewing ShaPe

after creating a surface i decided to moved straight into panelling. in previous mod-ule i have already experimented with different types of panels as well as with variable panelling, so i knew that it is most reasonable to use triangular panels, as according to geometrical rules a planar surface could be drawn through any three points, so all panels will be flat. This makes it possible to unroll the geometry. another alternative was to use some custom panels but still triangulate faces to reflect geometry better and be able to unroll it. making points disperse rather than dense i was able to keep overall shape quite rough. That was important as a part of my design concept, as it corresponds with all the rough, ‘broken’ lines and folds inside of a cabbage head, which was my inspirational pattern.

i used offset from the base tribasic pattern, because i intended to start prototyping us-ing the black card. The black card does not produce diffuse light as does the white one. This means that the model has to have cutting or slits to let the light shine through . i experimented with different sizes of offset. Then it came to my mind that the model is fully enclosed, which means that i might not be able to close it unless the holes are big enough for my fingers, so i put the offset equal to 1.5 cm.

digitizing: reviewing the ShaPe

PrototyPing : PrototyPe 1

Prototype 1 : - 2d panels - black card 300 - card cutter - 1:2 scale i decided to try tribasic pattern with offset borders to test the light effects and to see if it is generally possible to construct a fully enclosed model. i made the offset equal to 1.5 cm to be able to put my fingers into the holes and to press parts together while gluing them. Things that i found out while building this model: - it will be difficult to put the model together unless the offset is big enough for my fingers. But with a big offset the model becomes to open and it is impossible to hide lights and wires there. on the other hand, big offset gives very clean, sharp light effects. - i liked how this model was easy to unroll - only 6 large stripes. - it is important to be accurate with the glue because even the clear-drying glue leaves messy spots. i decided to use a thin flat brush instead of cotton bud. - The card is very rigid, so any inaccuracy in process of building a mod-el may result in tensions and the card will eventually be torn in joints. - i used 0.8 cm tabs, but found out that i could use even wider tabs. - labelling was not really necessary for my model as it was pretty obvious how to put it together. -length-oriented unrolling did not work well. For the next time i decided to try unrolling it in cross-sections.

PrototyPing : PrototyPe 1 light effectS

PrototyPing: PrototyPe 2

Prototype 2: - 2d panels - white card- card cutter - 1:1 scale

For my second prototype i’ve chosen white card. The mod-el was still unrolled in long stripes. The base pattern is triba-sic, but this time i decided to leave the gaps partially closed with flaps. This was supposed to hide lights and add some volume. However, there were a coupe of things that i did not liked about this model: - lack of volume, so i decided to try 3D panels -The white card produces diffused light, making shadows less sharp - The dashed lines are too visible. i decided to use score lines for folding.- With the bigger model it is better to use 300 gr card

PrototyPing : PrototyPe 2 light effectS

final model final model: - 3d + 2d panels - black card 300- card cutter - 1:1 scale

For my final model i decided to use 3d panels. Because the model’s tail are very pointy, the panels become tiny and messy even with the very small amount of points in a grid. That is why i eventually came to an idea of combi-nation of 2d and 3d panels in my design. together they empathise movement, growth. Final design also reflects rota-tion, twists and spirals of my inspirational pattern. spikes represent messy angles and folds inside of the cabbage head.

isometric nW

isometric ne

isometric sW

isometric se

unrolling a final model

unrolling in cross-sections

tagging to mark the beginning of each strip

i decided to unroll the model in cross-sections and to join units in groups of at least 3 pyramids to make assembling easier. Prototyping experience also thought me that it will be bet-ter to unroll pointy ends as cross-sections too, so i changed stripes to cross-sections before preparing the file for cutting. each stripe was in a different layer. it made it possi-ble to hide inactive layers and clear viewport for un-rolling. each cross-section of the middle part consisted of two stripes. each stripe consisted of three pyramids

final model: PreParing file for cutting

outlay file, which was used for reference during assembling, and nested pieces

final model: cutting with the card cutter

at first i was going to cut the file in the Fablab, but then changed my mind. i prefer to have a control over all stages of the process. in addition, i was afraid that a long queue in Fablab will delay construction. so instead i decided to come in off-peak time and do cutting myself.

final model: aSSembling

instruments

12 3 4

5

67

1. ruler. it is good to have a short ruler, because the tabs are small and it’s easier to fold them with a short ruler.

2. Craft knife - much sharper than a usual paper knife.

3. scissors - to correct overlapping tabs

4. Brush. i used small flat brush.

5. Glue. i prefer clear-drying Pva glue.

6. Clips. i prefer paper clips because they give a strong hold but do not leave traces. Their handles are really compact which makes it possible to use them even in narrow ends.

7. Cap from a bottle of water to pour the glue.

final model: aSSembling

1. Cut out the stripes2. Fold and glue the pyramids - 3 in each stripe. 2 stripes make a cross-section3. Glue two parts of a section together4. assemble all sections to make a final model

1 2 3

4

final model aSSembling

final model aSSembling

final model: aSSembled

right view top view

i was very satisfied with the model which i had constructed. it reflected the idea of growth, so natural for the plants. The spikes grow from non-existent to very evident and then to minimum again. There is also a degree of rotation in it, reflected in the anti-clockwise spin of spikes. Because the model was unrolled in cross-sections, the assemblage went much easier then in the case with length-oriented stripes.

final model: lighting

to light my model i decided to use leD lights preassembled in circuit. However, ready-to-use decision needed a few improvements. Firstly, i had to change the switch from a testing-only (that keeps the light on only while the button is pressed) to normal switch. secondly, it ap-peared the circuit is too long and needs to be shortened in several places. Thirdly, the cord was silver while i’d prefer a black one. so i used the black tape to mask it.That was sort of a prototyping as well: i learned that with the amount of time spent on amending the lights i could buy materials from the Fablab and use the exact amount of wires i needed without those un-necessary connections.

final model: lighting

lights attached to ribs of the lantern,

switch button positioned close to cutting easy to turn on/off

Battery block

most of the wires attached to the ribs

lightS on

lightS on: interaction

andrea del verrocchio. Putto con Delfino.

reflectionS: readingS and lectureS

every design tool has it’s own set of limitations. inaccuracies and mistakes occurring at the stage of transition from digital design to its physical implementation can corrupt the whole idea. That may happen because human hands don’t have the precision of digital instruments. The second reason is that design software does not calculate the properties of material. For example, bent material keeps a lot of potential energy which can lead to further deformation of final product. The first type of mistakes can be eliminated if the whole process of design and fabrication is conducted within digital space. For example, if idea is developed in a digital designing software and then the files are sent to fabrication to CnC or other computer-operated machine, the final product will have the exact dimen-sions, which were assigned by designer. on the other hand, it is impossible to omit the step of prototyping. Creator needs to test properties and behaviour of material. ben gilbert (2013) has shown the picture of the “long neck” installation, and explained that at some stage it became impossible for him to use rhino for further development of a project. He did several prototypes and then used the CaD software. That very well related to the stage of design at which i was at that moment: i actually found out that when working with 2D panels it is much easier to draw holes manually instead of creating custom 2D panels. i also agree that it is necessary to test various properties of material and of process of assembling. For example, in process of prototyping i found out that it is better to unroll the model in cross-sections rather than in stripes. This somehow eliminates inner tensions within the material and makes it possible to close the model with all the tabs on the inner side. it also appeared that thicker card would better hold structural pressure, while thinner card doesn’t tear while constructing. in loh’s (2013) lectures on digital fabrication it was stated that modern means of fabrication increase precision of production dramatically. kolarevic (2003) explained the process of digitising or reverse engineering. He notes that sometimes the object is not conceived and developed in digital space, but digital drawing is necessary for further fabrication. in this case the object can be digitised with the help of equipment using laser beams, or by digitizing hand, which uses physical contact with model. The resulting set of drawings can be sent to CnC machines. several types of fabrication are possible at this stage: 2D (which is a card-cutting machine in our case), and 3D operations. 3D manufacturing can be additive (when the material is deposited (added) layer-by-layer), subtractive (when cutting head of machine removes excess of material from a whole block), and formative (which changes material using physical or chemical forces). iwamoto (2009) expands on opportunities offered by modern digital means of fabrication. in her opinion, modern design software, design and fabrication tools actually initiate changes, “provoking” creativity and inventions. While architects were able to draw digitally for more than thirty years, the digital fabrication became widely used only in last decade. Working digitally also means constant switching between different digital formats and means (this part relates to our switching between different design means for the sake of better representation within the course). iwamoto (2009) also notes increased use of various patterns in architecture (tessellation), because it enables different spatial and light effects. Patterns can also help to break complex geometry into flat sheets of material (just as we did in this course), making the fabrication easier and cheaper. iwamoto (2009) adds that modern fabrication is unthinkable without the use of robots. They offer extra-precision in construction the building from prepared material. another popular fabrication technique is folding. Folding not only brings volume to otherwise flat surface, it can also provide structural support for the object

This perfectly correlates with my design development: initially i was going to use only 2D panels, but in the process of prototyping eventually changed my mind. i folded pyramids, which brought rigidity and added desired volume to my model. Stanislav roudavski(2013) expanded main ideas of this module. “Program or be programmed” (roudavski (2013)- designers need to understand main principles standing behind the modern software. There is a shift from actually drawing in a program to programming the drawing . This allows to experi-ment at a new level and receive diverse results by just changing a few parameters. according to roudavski (2013), understanding programming means de-velopment of a common language - between architects, designers and software. This relates to our to development of students’s skills in the course of virtual environment: from drawing in rhino to programming drawing in Grasshopper.

reflectionS: readingS and lectureS

reFerenCe list

1. loh, P. lecture week 6. Power of making. virtual environments. semester 1, 2013. The university of melbourne. 2. Gilbert, B. lecture week 7. Public Sculpture. semester 1, 2013. The university of melbourne. 3. loh, P. lecture week 8. Fabrication. Digital fabrication. semester 1, 2013. The university of melbourne. 4. roudavski, s. lecture week 9. Augmented space. semester 1, 2013. The university of melbourne. 5. Kolarevic, B. (2003). architecture in the Digital age - Design and manufacturing. spon Press, london6. iwamoto, l. (2009). Digital fabrications: architectural and material techniques. Princeton architectural Press, new York. 7. Del verrocchio, a. statue Putto con Delfino. Photo sourse http://museicivicifiorentini.comune.fi.it/palazzovecchio/gallery.htm?action=detail&image=35