module 3- fabrication
DESCRIPTION
Gabrielle Carrasco 586106TRANSCRIPT
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