M O D U L E 3: F A B R I C A T I O N

S T U D E N T N U M B E R : 5 8 6 1 0 6

G A B R I E L L E C A R R A S C O

R E F L E C T I O N: P A S T D E S I G N I N G P R O C E S S

At the end of module 2, my model’s translation adhered to my

natural process (figure 1). However I wasn’t 100 percent satisfied

with its form. The main aspects I wanted to capture was the solidity

in the shell and an abundance of light in the spiral, thus displaying

a contrast. I was instructed by my tutor that fin edges was difficult

to physically produce, this resulted in the trialling of other panelling

until it was decided that offsetting borders created a simple and

effective way of distributing light in the spiral. With the spiral being

representative of the pearl, I believe that this panelling was an

appropriate simplification of the nacre seen in Figure 3.

Figure 1: Final model from Module 2

Figure 2: Trialling three dimensional panelling (left) and offsetting borders (right)

Figure 3: Pearl Nacre

R E F L E C T I O N: P A S T D E S I G N I N G P R O C E S S

Throughout the process, the lantern

would always have to be buildable,

This aspect was a struggle. In

producing the original developable

surface I had errors. With parts of the

shell surface being too thin and

intersecting one another, the shell

would not be able to physically

translate. In order to fix the problem,

the surface was manually

reconstructed, changing the

thickness. After the appropriate

adjustments were made the

panelling was re-applied. With the

base surface altered, a difference in

the design was seen however the

important aesthetic of solidity was still

present.

P R O T O T Y P E 1: U N R O L L I N G

In the first stages of attempting to

unroll my design there were

difficulties in grouping the different

sections. This led to the simplification

of the original developable surfaces

as mentioned in previous slides

(Figure 6). Through grouping the

shapes as seen in figures 4 and 6 the

pieces unrolled in strips (figure 5)

opposed to individual and

sometimes overlapping pieces.

Through grouping the panels, it was

much easier to organise and

consequently build. Despite the

majority of the panels not

overlapping, it did occur at times,

this meant also printing out

individual pieces.

Figure 4: Grouped sections to be unrolled

Figure 5: Unfolded spiral sections

Figure 6: Grouped sections of shell

P R O T O T Y P E 1: T A B S & N E S T I N G

After the pieces were

unrolled tabs needed to be

created. Through creating

tabs in Grasshopper,

problems in the panels were

easily identified (figure 8). It

was common for tabs to

overlap, in order to fix this I

thought that it would be best

to get the file cut In fab lab,

seeing how the design

turned out. In doing this I got

rid of the intersecting tabs

(figure 9) and developed

them manually.

Due to the length of my

pieces, specifically the shell,

the pieces proved to be very

long meaning that at times

only one piece could be

nested on one piece of

paper. This resulted in a lot of

material wastage. However

this was the most effective

way as any other method

would prove more fiddley in

the construction process.

Figure 8: Cross over of scored sections

Figure 9: Cross over of tabs (Grasshopper)

Figure 10: Nesting and Fab Lab layout

P R O T O T Y P E 1: E R R O R S

Despite clear instructions to make sure all duplicate lines were

deleted I seemed to have some remaining in my fab lab file which

led to the destruction of my file. In collecting my cut pieces they

were all falling apart. With each piece splitting it was impossible to

build. For the sake of trying to experiment with this prototype the

pieces were attempted to be stuck back together. However, in

trying to save this file it turned out to be a waste of time. This

prototype was then discarded and a new fab lab file created.

The errors that occurred in this fab lab file determine the difference

between human and computer creation. While a computer may

be able to create an intricate design it is unable to think for itself,

see problems such as prototype one. I think this proves the fact that

computers are only a tool in a design process, and human logic,

thinking and creativity cannot be replaced.

Figure 11: Duplicate lines in Fab Lab file

Figure 12: The first broken Fab Lab file Figure 13: Broken panels

P R E C E D E N T 1: C I T R O E N F L A G S H I P S H O W R O O M, C H A M P-E L Y S E E S A V E N U E

Citroen’s car dealership is

similar to my model through

design and aesthetic. This

building was made with the

intention of having a stack of

cars, with each floor exhibiting

a specific car. As this was a

showroom, designers utilised

minimal beams and

attempted to create a light

and gentle structure. The use

of the glass is described as

‘gigantic origami’, and is

simple enough to attract

attention towards the

building, yet not be the focal

point. I think this relates

directly to my spiral structure

as I want maximal light to

come through the structure.

Gentle architecture is difficult

to achieve when attempting

to achieve a physically stable

building, however the Citroen

building adheres to all

restrictions with grace and

elegance.

P R O T O T Y P E 2 : E V O L U T I O N O F P R O T O T Y P E 1

The first panelling used was box panelling, in the

little experimenting done with prototype 1 as well

as due to advice from my tutor, a developmental

change to a pattern with triangles was made.

Due to my model twisting around, using triangles

would prove to be a lot more malleable. Also with

my experience with the score lines being quite

easily broken, this would put less strain on the

materials.

In reference to ‘the power of making’, I think this

stage in my design process proved the changes

that had to be made in order for digital forms to

be translated to the physical world. For myself, this

produced a gap between the power of making

and technology.

P R O T O T Y P E 2: U N R O L L I N G, N E S T I N G A N D T A B S

Through Prototype 2 I was able to learn from past mistakes. Firstly, I

coloured the different group sections in order to create some organisation

which would enable me to produce my model more easily. When

unfolding grouped sections, overlapping pieces were further unfolded and

had their own tabs. It was made certain that there were no duplicate

layers and lastly certain tabs were scored in order for the pieces to stay on

the page and limit breakage. The first prototype enabled me to see the

information that the computer required in order to cut my file properly, it

was an extremely important step.

The last difference between prototype 1 and 2 was that I was using the

card cutter for this second file. As mentioned in Gershenfeld’s Selected

Extracts In Fab, the card cutter that I planned to use was cheap and

would be able to easily cut through the ivory card chosen. If I had chosen

a thicker/ stronger material I would have opted to use the laser cutter.

Figure 14: Triangulated panelling with grouped parts of the model

P R O T O T Y P E 2: C O N S T R U C T I N G ( S P I R A L )

P R O T O T Y P E 2: C O N S T R U C T I N G ( S H E L L )

Speaking in reference to the TED talk Lisa Harouni: A primer on 3D printing, Harouni was definitely onto something. Speaking about how there are certain things, certain intricacies that cannot be obtained through human hands but rather through the method of 3D printing. I think that while fab lab enabled my model to be cut precisely it was unable to build it for me in the same way as a 3D printer. It was impossible for me to fit my hands into this model, hold tabs together until they dried and just generally keep the model together. I think models like mine show that sometimes computer complexities cannot be re-created by human hands.

P R O T O T Y P E 2: F A B R I C A T I O N E R R O R S

With my model requiring a twisting shape, the paper was hard to keep together. Despite the pieces fitting together and the use of multiple glues and tapes these areas of strain could not stay in place. I was unable to come up for a solution to this problem without the end result looking messy and different to other joins. Similarly, when I had to fit the spiral and shell aspect of my lantern together it was very hard to do so. Due to the fragility of the shell and the looseness of it’s joints, the spiral didn’t fit like it was designed too. Through attempting to squash these two objects together I began to damage both structures.

P R E C E D E N T 2: B U C K Y B A R B U I L T F R O M U MB R E L L A S - ROTTERDAMN ARCHITECTS

The Bucky Bar was a temporary bar built from the

umbrellas of visitors to the Netherlands. This bar

was chosen as a precedent due to it’s ability to

create something so solid out of a light material. I

aspired to join my model (specifically the shell) in

this same concise tessellation. The lighting and

spontaneity of the design create the same

gentleness and lightness I want to portray through

a solid object.

P R O T O T Y P E 2: F I N A L P R O D U C T

M O D U L E 3 R E F L E C T I O N

Translating digital data into a physical object was the biggest challenge for me in Virtual Environments. Knowing

that I would have to physically produce this model resulted in the feeling that Rhino was dictating a lot of my

creativity. However, in allowing some of the control to leave my hands I think I was able to produce a product

which was completely different to hand made productions I am used to. In a way, ‘the power of making’ was very

empowering. Through Fab Lab we were basically given the opportunity to physically develop something that had

never been existent in real life. I believe this was the most exciting part, however not until I begun to start folding

and connecting the pieces did I begin to see and understand the limitations between computer aided design and

human hands. Throughout lectures seven and eight, three-dimensional printing was discussed. In this way

computers were able to produce a physically identical model of what had been created by the designer through

the computer program. Through this, computer to computer translation was investigated. The experience of

constructing has made me realise that the difference in comprehension of design through computer and human

brains complicates the final result. With my model as an example, I found it extremely difficult to identify what

pieces were connected to others despite attempting to label them as clearly as possible. However, the most

frustrating aspect of this process was that despite the pieces all joining in my digital model it was impossible to

connect them in real life.

Through this design process I have not been blind to how much Rhino has assisted me in making my model, it

definitely brought through clear structural aspects that could not have been replicated by hand. However, not

being able to physically reproduce my model was extremely frustrating. This was not due to pieces being

mismatched or an error in design, it was clearly due to the fact that unlike other computer programs (as discussed

in past readings) Rhino was not able to judge material and through using my hands to construct the lantern I was

not able to work with something so physically large, bulky and yet intricate at the same time.

I believe that in attempting to push myself in Rhino and my expectations of my ability to fabricate my product

brought me down. My lack of knowledge in Rhino and unexpected failure of Prototype 1 meant that I was unable

to capture the design the way in which I envisioned it. Despite having a model that I am not satisfied with, I have

learnt that my approach towards creativity when working in conjunction with computers needs to be altered.

• C42 Citroën Flagship Showroom, MANUELLE GAUTRAND ARCHITECTURE, world architecture news,

architecture jobs. 2012. C42 Citroën Flagship Showroom, MANUELLE GAUTRAND ARCHITECTURE, world

architecture news, architecture jobs. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=12724.

[Accessed 09 October 2012]

• Bucky Bar Built From Umbrellas is a Pop-Up Party bucky bar – Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco

Architecture, Green Building. 2012. Bucky Bar Built From Umbrellas is a Pop-Up Party bucky bar – Inhabitat -

Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building. [ONLINE] Available at:

http://inhabitat.com/bucky-bar-built-from-umbrellas-is-a-pop-up-party/bucky-bar/. [Accessed 09 October

2012].

• Gershenfeld, N. (2005): Selected extracts in Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop – from personal

computers to personal fabrication, Basic Books, New York, pp 67-76, pp93- 101, pp 103- 113.

• Macfarlane, B. (2005): Making Ideas. In Architecture in the Digital Age, B. Kolarevic (ed.), Spon Press,

London, pp. 182-197

R E F E R E N C E S