Hack 16 by Digital Hack Lab

Hack 04/16

Welcome

Hack 04/16

Welcome to Hack 04/16. The inaugural edition of the Digital Hack Lab Journal from the School of Creative Arts Design Research Group. This peer-reviewed publication takes a fresh approach to disseminating not only our research, but also provides invaluable insights from other academics and industry partners working with us in pushing the boundaries and using design as a catalyst for innovation. Our mission is to foster a unifying, cross disciplinary approach and work collaboratively, removing the silos that exist within design and other disciplines whether it be with fashion and engineering, medical, the sciences, architecture and product or industrial design. The Digital Hack Lab is a cutting edge research project that explores the possibilities of design, 3D printing, creativity, making, technology, science, business, art and everything in-between. With the assistance of leading industry partners, the Lab seeks to develop real-world experimental projects to dissolve boundaries between design, production, distribution and consumption, and forge communities through collaboration across disciplines and industry, upgrading traditional practice using digital tools, artisanal process and design thinking. We take existing problems and issues faced by organisations and redefine them. The diverse expertise of the Digital Hack Lab team enables specific research areas to be tackled while realising the opportunity for innovation, encouraging change through the broad scope of new thinking offered by digital technologies. We believe that collaboration requires all involved to re-think the way they think, be

adaptive to approaching things differently to creating solutions to complex issues. This outward facing approach encourages diversity that is forward thinking and challenges the norm. It leads to an environment that constantly addresses the needs of industry and education illustrating our understanding of the changing world and promotes forward thinking and risk taking. This edition includes inspiring vision articles from the research team along with interviews with leaders from industry and education. They define the face and the voice of this journal and set the stage for a future thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s designed, built and enjoyed by all. Read onâ&#x20AC;Ś Dr Shaun Borstrock Associate Dean of School, Head of Design, Innovation and Business. Head of the Design Research Group / Digital Hack Lab

Hack 04/16

Rethink Rebuild Recreate

Forward

As business becomes increasingly competitive, uncertain and disrupted the need to forecast and plan ahead becomes paramount to ensure businesses remains relevant and profitable. The University of Hertfordshire offers you and your organisation the opportunity to think forward, be risk free and re-create a future for your services and products. Design and Relevance How do businesses continue to remain relevant when the world around them is rapidly and constantly changing? Technology, the Internet and evolving behaviour continue to have an impact on all sectors of industry and education. Innovation is the buzzword of the moment as companies use it to define their products and services. But what does it really mean to be innovative? The Design Research Group established the Digital Hack Lab within the School of Creative Arts to explore and ask questions about innovation, to research new technologies and to establish processes that both equip and prepare students, academics and businesses for a future built on change. We know that innovation is powered by collaboration. To move outside our comfort zone we tackle cross-disciplinary issues head on, creating a culture of discussion and debate. We always deliver results that surprise and engage, making the ordinary, extraordinary. As a centre that encourages new thinking, the Digital Hack Lab develops new ways of facilitating interaction between all kinds of organisations and individuals. We do not discard the past, but incorporate it into a new way of

Hack 04/16

thinking and nurture ideas that begin to define an uncertain future by applying and making them relevant. ‘Think outside the box?’ We don’t consider ourselves to be bound by such constraints. We are a multidisciplinary team with varied expertise and as such organise and co-ordinate ourselves around an idea. This encourages debate and new thinking through which the projects begin to develop a life of their own. The very act of doing sets in motion an exciting chain of events. Through collaborative interaction, projects gain support and momentum and evolve. This changes our understanding of them and takes us to destinations uncharted. This is unexplored territory and new tactics are required to help map and define this landscape. We know that strategies need to be rethought as the tried and tested is displaced by the new and unknown. We’re not predicting where we will end up, but the journey enables us to deal effectively with uncertainty, equipping us with the foresight, determination and focus in making design relevant to deliver the discoveries we make along the way. Mark Bloomfield Visiting Professor, Design and Innovation

Hack 04/16

Contents

Hack 04/16

Contents

Forward: Rethink/Rebuild/Recreate Visiting Professor, Mark Bloomfield

Welwyn Garden City: Big Data, Mapping the Landscape Dr Paul Cureton

16 20

Producing Space with Big Data Dr Silvio Carta Digitality â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Physicality. Weaving digital and physical environments through design and fabrication Eva Sopeoglou

Modushelter Antoine Proust

An In-vitro Assessment of Therapeutic Ocular Lubricants using Ocular Cells Cultured on 3D Printed Scaffolds Noorie Madarbux, Mark Bloomfield, Dr David Chau

Innovative Material Makeover for Functional Medical Devices Antje Illner

Interview: The Business of 3D Printing Jonathan Rowley

Wearable Technology, Fashion and Emotion Nicola De Main

The Importance of Touch â&#x20AC;&#x201C; An Investigation into Digital Dance Performances Doros Polydorou

Digital Craftsmanship and Fashion Dr Shaun Borstrock

Interview: Does 3D Printing Change Design Education? Dr Jennifer Loy

When is a Product Not a Product? Richard Adams

Can 3D Printing be Creative? Julian Lindley

In Expectation of the Unknown, 3D Printing in the Home John Beaufoy

An Exploration of Post-processing and Finishing 3D Printed Parts Peter Brownhill

Products as Physical and Digital Combinations Steve McGonigal

Thinking from Different Perspectives. Customisation is Not a Choice, it is How We Survive Visiting Professor, Mark Bloomfield

Interview: An Enthusiastic 3D Printing Community Richard Horn

Team Profiles

Hack 04/16

Welwyn Garden City: Big Data, Mapping the Landscape Dr Paul Cureton Senior Lecturer: Design Software Skills and Innovation; BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design, BA (Hons) Architecture & BA (Hons) Interior Architecture and Design

Hack 04/16

Welwyn Garden City landscape infrastructure functions as a mediating space, which historically has been important in addressing the high-density housing conditions of London through satellite towns1. It is useful to compare the 1920 Louis de Soissons plan of Welwyn Garden City to a contemporary urban map. One way of doing this is by 3D printing digital data. The Garden City has remained one of the most dominant categories of UK city form and throughout the concept’s history, which has seen extensive literature written on the subject, the Garden City idea has remained in the popular conscious. However, according to Adrian Jones: ‘Both the founding visionaries [of garden cities] and so many suburban residents today share fallacies about history, society and its expression in architecture… ‘ 2 Welwyn Garden was designed to house its business and industrial base in the locality, but by and large this has been unsuccessful due to its agrarian vision and a contradictory globalised economy. The Garden City ideas rested on moralising principles through a strict authoritarian planning mode, best evidenced by J. Bruinwold Riedel’s garden city for Amsterdam in Tuinsteden, which professed to offer holistic, social and cultural reformation. However, the Tuinsteden example has been subject to extensive renewal strategies in the last two decades and has formed the most difficult urban area in Amsterdam’s planning history. The interest of the author for this project is a functional analysis of the city from its utopian diagram to its landed form and Welwyn is an excellent case in which to view this. As 3D printing technology continues to advance, certain processes now offer the capability to produce accurate, large-scale city models and data sets. The author’s research work here looks at representational practices and the design reflectivity that can arise from such a mode. The identification of various agencies of representation has been fundamental to research to date and the work with 3D printing has involved researching pragmatic solutions for large landscape territories and the suitability, issues and delivery of such fabrication.

The model produced, to the author’s knowledge, is the first 3D printed Garden City and the model forms a base in which various data sets are projected from deprivation maps and census data to transport provision. The model functions as a surface to which many diverse maps of the city can be analysed and visualised and is hung vertically, whereby a data projector can then be aligned and calibrated to the model. To create the model, LiDAR Data has been captured using an ALTM Gemini LiDAR sensor, the 3D data was then processed and ‘solid modelled’ in sections (tiles) to be joined after printing, as well as being hollowed out in preparation for 3D printing in the most cost-effective manner. Each 3D printed tile represents a National Grid 250m2 square. The data accuracy is reduced by the minimum thickness in which the data can be 3D printed (0.12mm), while the size of each tile is restricted due to physical limits of the 3D printer space, called the ‘build envelope’. The discourse of the revolution of 3D printing must be understood through its realistic practical application such as in medicine and the filtering out of those with vested interests in the technology. However, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, car mounted scanners and hand held devices mean that data capture and production is only set to be streamlined, meaning such future city visions and the creation of high fidelity works are becoming closer to realisation. 3D printing can provide a surface in which large data sets analysing landscape change over time, can be visualised, perhaps even for future thought outside professional futurologists. This work is located within the author’s wide research for the presentation of the range of ideas of the cities we have and have had, and the cities we want, need, desire, fear or dream of for our collective future. § References: 1. Alexander, 2009. 2. Jones, 2014; p.245.

Hack 04/16

Producing

space

with

big

data Dr Silvio Carta Programme Leader: BA (Hons) Architecture & BA (Hons) Interior Architecture and Design

Hack 04/16

This research project investigates the use of a large set of data in the design process with the aim of analysis and production of new types of spaces within the built environment. Digital design, big data and sampling The digital scene of architecture and design is today characterised by an expansion of the data to be included in the design process and the growing spectrum of variables that can be specifically considered for each design context. Models and approximations are gradually being replaced by the idiosyncrasy and precision that only a constant increase in computational capacity can offer. Mario Carpo depicted this significant shift as the passage from the spline to “big data”1, where the spline (invented by Pierre Bézier and Paul de Casteljau in the second half of the twentieth century) is assumed as the epitome of the mathematical translation of any random cloud of points realised by hand into parametrized, smooth and curving geometries. Conversely, the big data are presented as the counterpart of the sampling provided by the spline, offering an accuracy exponentially bordering the non-sample based reality. Big data are defined as a collection of data sets so large and complex that it is difficult to process using traditional data processing applications. Currently, big data are extensively and increasingly employed for statistics analyses based on data mining, predictive analytics, text mining, forecasting and optimization for the service of markets, businesses and planning and management. However, although few studies are being conducted on the historical and theoretical level2,3, in architecture there is some literature about the use of big data in the design process as the main core of the spatial production. The direct translation of data into shapes in the design process has been largely investigated 4. However, for all these precedents the use of data followed conceptual models led by the assumption that the specific case of design could be solved by using general models of reference applicable in principle to any case, but punctually modified for a specific project. The availability of big data puts into question the use of such models for design today and their relevance. When big data have superseded manageable sets of data at the individual level, the way of observing, analysing and understanding real life has dramatically

changed, and the same applies to design. Everything from global disease control to traffic flows, and mobile phone usage to Google search preferences can be (and is being) traced, stored and analysed. Every individual’s activity, habit or preference can be indexed in the form of datum. The equivalent change in the field of design means that everything within the design process that was traditionally guessed, learned from past experiences, sampled or approximated can now be known, controlled and tested with high accuracy. Techniques and processes are vigorously studied from a technological perspective, and the main categories of data that are considered valuable are those referring to business, consumers, administration, policing and social behaviour. Within the design realm, the open question is: if we can have access to and process a large set of data about almost any human activity or natural condition, should we limit design to the above mentioned categories? Or rather, is it plausible to develop (return to) a man-centred designed environment as opposed to an utter standardised one based on sampling? Using big data to inform the design process This research work tries to answer the questions: are the physical characteristics of the projects generated through big data consistently different from those based on sampling? If so, is there a pattern of spatial characteristics among them? And how is the new spatiality generated? How can we generate environments that able to illustrate this new spatiality? The research work involves two parts: (1) the observation of big-data driven projects and (2) the production of a series of spatial prototypes, which test the findings of the first part (1) This study originates from the collection and the analysis of a series of case studies based on the most recent productions of both architecture and products realised with the employment of big data as a driver in the design process, in opposition to those splinedriven digital designs based on sampling and mathematical approximation.1

Hack 04/16

The outcome of the analysis is the creation of knowledge about big-data driven projects to inform the design tests. (2) The production of spatial prototypes allows for the investigation of the design process at its core. Large sets of data are acquired externally or produced internally and translated into point clouds, which inform the creation of space. The emphasis of this part is on both a series of spaces generated with specific application to the scale of retail shops, and on the workflow that generates them. The general design process consists of: (a) collection of data about the use of (interior) space gathered through sensors and tracking devices (b) conversion of data into point clouds and points into space (a parametric sphere generated from each point and subtracted from a solid mass) (c) the resulting space is parametrically optimised and fitted into the existing room used as a case study If data about users’ preferences and the use of retail space are available, such information can arguably be utilised to improve the consumers’ retail experience by building a space that accommodates their preferences and requirements. In general terms, the final outcomes of these tests are objects, rooms or hybrid spaces of variable scale, which are based on the punctual and precise observation of people’s use of space and activities. §

References: 1. Mario Carpo (2014) Breaking the Curve, Artforum International, Feb. 2014. 2. Mario Carpo, (2011) The Alphabet and the Algorithm, The MIT Press. 3. Michael Pepi (2013) The Postmodernity of Big Data, The New Inquiry, December 2013. 4. MVRDV, METACITY/DATATOWN, 1999. Further reading: Viktor Mayer-Schönberger (2013) Big Data, John Murray Publishers, London. Peter Lyman, Hal R. Varian (2000) How Much Information?, Volume 6, Issue 2: Counting the Numbers.

Hack 04/16

Digitality â&#x20AC;&#x201C; physicality Weaving digital and physical environments through design and fabrication Eva Sopeoglou Lecturer: BA (Hons) Architecture & BA (Hons) Interior Architecture and Design

Hack 04/16

This paper considers the opportunities of engaging in a creative dialogue between the physical and the digital through the use of generative design tools and digital fabrication technologies. Digital iterations of an open-air installation for a pavilion take the shape of research in design. The design is partly driven by environmental parameters, such as the movement of the sun and shadows across a site in the Mediterranean. A fabricated microclimate is tailored through bespoke scripting and fabrication. For this project, scripting is intended to offer a delightful milieu for human comfort, rather than being used to optimise environmental parameters. Digital design and fabrication: between hard physicality and soft digitality The physical aspects of architectural design are understood to be three-fold: the materials and the building itself, but also the people, as they take on active roles as the designer, fabricator and user; and, thirdly, the temporal aspects for the environment, such as weather, climate and natural elements, which in this case are the sun and shadows. Architecture consists of digital matter and exists inside digital drawings, fed with information. In the condition of the digital drawing and the fabrication file, architectural design is able to navigate between hard materials and soft data. This paper will present a design case where both the digital and physical need to be considered. Designing with the invisible physicality of environmental design There is always an inherent challenge when designing with invisible materials such as the sun, wind, light and air. Working with such intangible, yet very physical materials, there is a need to visualise the information and place it in the design’s virtual environment. Environmental parameters then enter the design not as physical, but as digital data. This digital data is, in turn, transforming the physicality of the project through fabrication. As a result architecture’s physical materials can interact with the environment and the building can interact with the site. Design through creative interplay between climate and architecture There is a long history of designing with the climate, in vernacular and traditional

architecture, where form is directly influenced by specific micro-climatic conditions. In more contemporary examples from architecture there is evidence of some experimentation in form-finding using scripting, parametric and generative digital tools, where again climatic data become a form-generator for the architecture. Such examples demonstrate that if it is possible to design with enough information from the site, the architecture becomes more site-specific. However, often the aim of using scripting tools in design is to optimise a design, improving an aspect of its engineering performance. Often, environmental design becomes an instrument for optimisation. Other factors of sustainability and comfort, such as delight and the users’ experience are given less priority in this process. With the use of scripting there is an opportunity for the creative interplay between climatic data and fabricating materials, building components and the inhabitation of spaces. The project presented here is seeking to use digital aids as a means of enhancing creativity, at many levels: at the phase of design, also at the fabrication stage, and in the inhabitation, use and experience of the place. Thus, scripting and generative design becomes an opportunity for a creative architectural practise, where interplay is sought between design and the environment, rather than optimisation for engineering. Case study: dressing the body and the landscape in shadows The project presented here is of a Summer house, in a rural seaside setting. Because of the wish to connect in a direct way to the place, there is very little distinction between inside and outside spaces. The structure is more of an outdoor pavilion and an architectural site-specific installation, with minimum requirements for an enclosure. This project forms part of a larger research agenda, based on the notions of environmental comfort and designing with the climate. This design-based research investigates architectural fabrics, in spatial enclosures between the body and the landscape. The thesis is formulated around the backdrop of Gottfried Semper’s tectonic theory on the principle of cladding and his suggestion of a decisive link between textiles and architecture. A particular research focus is shadows and shading, conceived as ephemeral architectural

Hack 04/16

fabrics, which dress the city, the body and the landscape. Shadows form a particular kind of architectural fabric, as they are temporary, ephemeral and nomadic architectural entities. Moreover, shading contributes to time- and climate-sensitive design, at the same time addressing aesthetic and performative aspects of a fabricated environment. Digital: Scripting shadows as design process This project is partly developed in a digital environment, using Rhinoceros* design software, complemented by the plug-in scripting tool Grasshopper**. The scripts used so far in the project are mainly of three distinct categories:

•

First, scripts to manipulate twodimensional surfaces, which may represent a wall, roof or floor, representing architectural textiles. Digital manipulation enhances texture, in particular the texture of light and shadows. Scripts were used to read light and dark areas in images, which then generated surface textures for the project’s metallic panels. Second, the scripts were used as formfinding tools, in order to create threedimensional shaded spaces. As the sun follows a set trajectory based on the location, specific spaces are equipped with tailored canopies, projections and vertical shading devices in order to create a comfortable inhabitable shade for different times of the day. Third, scripting was used to track the sun and to visualise dynamic shadows as a moving and nomadic temporal condition, in other words, a four-dimensional shaded space. Points of attraction are placed where people may interact with the architectural components, seeking an intimate perceptual experience of comfort.

As a result of the digital interface, it was possible to experiment with much iteration. Thus, versioning – or if using the fashion analogy, building a collection – becomes a process of architectural design. This mode of designing is an appropriate tool, since shadows are dynamic phenomena. Physical: fabrication and building, weaving shadows The fabrication of the exterior envelope developed through a series of design iterations and fabrication tests. The pattern and design

were initially inspired by the natural landscape and the shadows of the olive trees. These patterns were then translated into fabrication files and tests were performed both in metal, using the digital CAD/CAM tools, and in paper using laser-cutting tools. The initial tests were placed on site in order to test the effects of their shadows. The final design and fabricated metallic panels were produced by a combination of digital tooling and post-processing by hand. Thus, the panels achieved a two-and-a-half dimensional texture and texture shadows. The finished project aims to create an envelope that dissolves the boundary between inhabiting interior and exterior spaces, especially in the context of the rural landscape. Output: weaving the physical and the digital The design of the pavilion provided the opportunity to re-think how environmental principles are dealt with in a generative, parametric design context. This context is able to deal with the complexities of a dynamic system that develops over time. The architecture generated using scripting design protocols here aimed to explore options that offer variety, instead of narrowing down to an optimum best solution. Instead, it is used as means to creatively engage the designer, the fabricator and the user in collectively producing a playful mix of manufactured and hand-crafted environments. In this sense, architectural digital design and fabrication extends from the production of objects to architecture, to describing a design process and a learning paradigm. § Acknowledgement: This research has been partly funded by the UCL Bartlett Architecture Research Fund and parts of the paper have been previously published in: SOPEOGLOU, E. (2012) Scripting shadows: Weaving digital and physical environments through design and fabrication. In: ACHTEN, H., HULIN, J., MATEJOVSKA, D. (eds.) 30th Physical Digitality Digital Physicality – 30th eCAADe Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Prague, Czech Republic. The built project is a 2016 Surface Design Finalist (http://www.surfacedesignshow.com/surface-designawards) * Rhinoceros www.rhino3d.com ** Grasshopper www.grasshopper3d.com

Hack 04/16

Modushelter Antoine Proust Research Assistant: Design Research Group/ Digital Hack Lab

Hack 04/16

Disaster issues caused by nature or war are affecting people all over the world and can occur at any time. One significant and frequently occurring result of disasters of this kind is that a large proportion of the local population are displaced — losing their homes under terrible circumstances. Once recent and striking example is the earthquakes in Nepal, which resulted in more than 40,000 refugees in immediate need of proper shelter and decent living conditions. This research project is focused on a resolution to this current worldwide issue, and proposes the creation of suitable shelters for refugee camps that improves the living conditions of inhabitants in the camps. Large “tent cities” are currently growing as refugees flee disaster areas and frequently result in very poor living conditions. Numerous issues such as extreme temperatures, lack of hygiene or contagious illnesses affect the refugees who require a proper habitat during the transition period. Shelters play an important role in protecting people from the elements as well as supporting the recreation of communities, which is recognized as a key factor in improving the personal well being of refugees who have lost everything. The use of tents as a first response in shelter provision following a disastrous occurrence is still considered to be the most effective solution for the very short term. However, this author believes that it is important to find an improved solution for the medium and long term, before the displaced population is able to move back into traditional housing. The Modushelter project has being developed as a solution for this transition period between tents and housing, which can last for several years. The aim of the research is to design a modular and efficient construction system to build habitats using sustainable materials and 3D printing technologies in order to support the improvement of the living standards of refugees in emergency situations. The proposition is that the modular nature of the design will result in the ability to create singular units that offer suitable shelter, with the possibility to evolve them into compounds of several houses, as required. Emergency shelters are often unsustainable in terms of costs and

environmental issues as they are made to be temporary. This new construction system is aiming to combine efficiency, sustainability and lower costs than the existing solutions to produce a shelter that can evolve with the user. The Modushelter will be made to be transportable, easily modifiable to accommodate the users’ needs, adaptable to a sudden change of situation as well as upgradable to a higher standard. All of the components of the Modushelter will be manufactured using large-scale 3D printers. The 3D printers, building materials and transportation drone will arrive by airplane to the production site, which will be located at the closest airport from the disaster area. The manufacturing will occur in an existing airplane hangar, facilitating the supply of sustainable building materials and transport of ready-made units. The selection of materials for this project is one of the priorities. Mineral materials are heavy and can easily break, requiring additional structures to secure them. In contrast, fibre-based materials are lighter, more efficient and stronger due to the arrangement of their natural fibres. The 3D printing process proposed for this project is photo-polymerisation, which utilises oxygen and light to continuously “grow” objects from a pool of bio-based polymers combined with natural fibres. In this way it is believed that the parts produced will achieve the maximum high strength / low weight ratio. Being fully modular the Modushelters have the capability to be easily disassembled and transported to a new area in case of a sudden change of situation or dismantlement of the refugee camp and can be reused for a new purpose when villages have been reconstructed. The lightweight, quality components can be reassembled in the shape of containers to be ideally transported by large drones so they can be dropped into new areas as needed. The container boxes are intended to be opened and assembled by the refugees themselves who would be using simple instruction leaflets similar to what comes with furniture from IKEA, and there would also be space inside for them to receive food and first-aid kits as well. This modular system does not require any tools, only minimal effort from two people who will need to lock pieces into place as

Hack 04/16

well as tightening them. Due to the easy manipulations, refugees or those inhabiting the homes can have input into their exact needs as well as upgrading later. It is hoped that the versatility of the design will enable refugees to be creative, and provide them with some ownership of their habitat and regain dignity in a very tough situation. The 3D printing technologies are a key tool for the project as it is being used both during the design process and for the realisation of the final outcome. Experimenting on a smaller scale enables the development of prototypes and creates an interaction between the digital and physical. The full-scale prototype will be manufactured using a large 3D printer to produce the main structure of the shelter units. ยง

Hack 04/16

An in-vitro assessment of therapeutic ocular lubricants using ocular cells cultured on 3D printed scaffolds

N Madarbux1, M Bloomfield 2, DYS Chau 1,* 1) The Research Centre in Topical Drug Delivery and Toxicology, Department of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. 2)The Digital Hack Lab, School of Creative Arts, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. *corresponding author: d.chau@herts.ac.uk

Hack 04/16

Introduction The use of human and/or animal models for performing toxicity assessments on novel drug compounds are accompanied by ethical constraints. To negate this dilemma, a more favourable technique is the consideration of in vitro cell-based models. These cell culture models are traditionally performed on flat tissue culture plastic (TCP) but, unfortunately, existing evidence suggest that these models do not produce a true or accurate representation of the real, in vivo conditions experienced by the cells.Subsequently, we propose the development of a novel in vitro model of the eye through a combination of ocular cells grown on curved 3D printed scaffold supports. As such, the aim of the model is to replicate the curvature of the ocular surface whilst also maintaining accurate cell growth and differentiation characteristics of the cells. In addition, this cell-based in vitro construct will be manipulated to represent dry eye syndrome (DES), a condition identified as the impairment of the normal tear production process causing the ocular surface to become dehydrated. Using this novel DES model, four over-the-counter, ocular lubricants will be assessed for their efficacy to reduce and/or suppress these symptoms. Method An Up! Plus 2 3D printer, which utilises a filament deposition process, was used to fabricate the 3D polylactic acid (PLA) scaffolds. Human ocular epithelium cells (CRL-2303, ATCC) were cultured in DMEM-F12 media and placed in a humidified-incubator at 37°C and 5% CO2 until required. 20,000 cells were added to each of the 3D PLA constructs and following 24h of incubation, the media was removed and cells were left to air-dry for 30 minutes to mimic DES. These cell samples were then exposed to four ocular lubricants (i.e. 0.3% hypromellose, Liquifilm Tears®, Optrex® and Viscotears® Liquid Gel) for 10 minutes. Cell, activity, viability and death were assessed using the Cell Titer AQ Proliferation/MTS assay (Promega) and CytoTox-ONE LDH assay (Promega). Results Cell growth and differentiation on the 3D curved scaffolds were successfully achieved and the fabrication of an accurate in vitro model representing DES was ultimately developed. Optrex® was recognised as the most effective

ocular lubricant as it maintained the greatest cell viability with a corresponding low cell toxicity. By comparison, 0.3% hypromellose was the least effective ocular lubricant as it displayed a significantly lower viability measurement and a higher cell toxicity reading. Liquifilm Tears® and Viscotears® Liquid Gel displayed moderate therapeutic activity, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure. 1: Mitochondrial activity of cells cultured on different scaffolds and exposed to lubricants.

Discussion Optrex® contains sodium hyaluronate (SH), a polysaccharide capable of absorbing significant amounts of water with the ability to hyper-hydrate the ocular surface. The presence of SH was seen to reverse symptoms of DES whilst also showing greatest cell viability. By comparison, 0.3% hypromellose contains the preservative: benzalkonium chloride. This excipient is considered the most widely used preservative in therapeutic eye drops. Its presence within these commercial lubricants has been associated with cytotoxic effects and it was observed that this lubricant generated the greatest LDH release/cell toxicity readings. Although the presence of benzalkonium chloride was relatively low (0.01% (w/v)), small volumes of this preservative may have still negatively impacted the ocular cells. Enhanced growth and differentiation characteristics were observed following cell culture on each PLA “curved” scaffold. The cell response to each lubricant was related to their formulations

Hack 04/16

and can be seen to reflect the corresponding cellular activity (MTS) and higher cell death (LDH) values. Conclusion Ocular cells were successfully cultured on 3D printed curved scaffolds. In comparison to cells cultured on flat TCP, a greater cell growth and a lower cell death was observed on the curved 3D constructs. A simple model representative of DES was achieved and four ocular lubricants were analysed for their efficacy in terms of maintaining cell viability and/or preventing cell death. OptrexÂŽ was documented as the most effective ocular lubricant whereas 0.3% hypromellose was recognised as the least effective. As a result of this research, the authors suggest that the variation observed in each ocular lubricant is likely to be related to the excipients present in their specific formulations. Â§ References: 1. Colligris, B et al. 2014. Expert Opinion Pharmacotherapy. 15:1371-90 2. Faraldi, F. et al. 2012. Clinical Ophthalmology. 6:727-731 3. Aragona P. et al. 2002.British Journal of Ophthalmology. 86:181-184

Hack 04/16

Innovative material makeover for functional medical devices

Antje Illner Senior Lecturer and Subject Lead: BA (Hons) Contemporary Design Crafts

Hack 04/16

The aim of this research was to investigate if a change of materials could be used to alter the iconography and user-experience of a medical device, specifically inhalers. By considering historical and contemporary examples of products that have undergone innovative style transformations, this project proposes a new approach to inhaler design and function. Inhalers are handheld, portable medical devices that deliver specific medication directly to the lungs of an asthma sufferer. Standard metered-dose inhalers consist of a small can fitted into a plastic body with a mouthpiece, that operate by a pump action as inhalation takes place.The most common ones are made of either brown or blue plastic, which indicates different medication — the blue inhaler supplies Ventolin (Salbutamol), which is a bronchodilator; while the brown inhaler supplies Becotide (Beclometasone), which is a corticosteroid inhaler. There is also a green inhaler variant that supplies Serevent (Salmeterol), which is a long-acting beta2adrenergic receptor agonist. When an asthma attack strikes, the sufferer needs to have instant access to the device to alleviate symptoms and prevent more serious consequences and therefore it should be kept in close proximity to the user. For the adult female sufferer, typically that place would be in her handbag. Personal observations suggest that many women use handbags to carry a mobile phone, keys, purse, medicine, cosmetics, pens, sunglasses, tissues and feminine products. The majority of the items in the handbag are very practical and the owner selects or personalises them to echo her personal style. The transition from utilitarian to personal also reflects societal attitudes to the objects and their function. For example, in the late nineteenthcentury, attitudes started to change with respect to women wearing cosmetics. By the early twentieth century, it was no longer viewed as vulgar or immoral and became accepted practice. In response to the growing demand for cosmetics and increasing market competitiveness, manufacturers began to produce non-utilitarian receptacles specifically designed for holding cosmetic preparations. These accessories were called compacts and were usually carried inside a handbag. They were made out of precious and non-precious metals, sometimes set with gemstones or synthetic stones or utilised other

decorative materials such as natural ivory, amber and tortoiseshell. Later Bakelite and plastics were also used. Case Studies iPhone Casing The Apple iPhone 2 was constructed with a metal casing, which resulted in many users complaining that it scratched too easily. Thus when Apple produced the next iteration, the iPhone 3, it came with a plastic back, but many users then protested about the cheap feel of the new phone. Apple once again changed the material for its iPhone 4, for which they introduced a glass back. This iconic mobile phone now had an attractive weight and feel, but, was prone to breakage, so Apple produced the iPhone 5 with an anodised aluminium back that was available with different colour combinations in gold/white, silver/white or grey/ black so as to offer even more personalization. MAC cosmetic compact The MAC cosmetic brand recently launched a holiday eye shadow kit compact, which is stylish inside and out. This elegant object contains a palette of five coordinated colours. According to the marketers, the satintufted compact is “a touch of modern romance with its demure black patent bow accent”. This recent revival of the concept of the compact demonstrates how the choice of materials is still fundamental to changing market share. Conclusion The contents of women’s handbags have long presented a target for brands and marketers. Objects that at one time were regarded as utilitarian, or even socially unacceptable (the compact) have received a make-over in terms of the materials that have been used in their manufacture to make them more attractive and desirable and ultimately embraced by more women. Contemporary objects (mobile phones) have embraced the user-experience from the outset, but some objects in the handbag have been overlooked. This project asks whether the common inhaler could receive a similar makeover, with the resulting benefits of user-acceptance, social acceptability and proposes some design solutions.

Hack 04/16

Project Proposition Here the author outlines the process of translating the research findings into new designs for inhalers, taking into account manufacturability. Visual research involved looking at surface patterns to aid grip and natural colours, and how some patterns have been applied onto objects, so that they could aid grip, create bespoke products, or be personalised. From the visual research, 2D Illustrator images were drawn to apply the designed pattern onto the desired form to assess how the object might look. The designs were then modified and a more supple approach has been applied to the 3D surface pattern, which was translated onto simplified inhaler forms. This process was achieved using a 3D computer aided design (CAD) programme. The surface pattern designs were then 3D The surface pattern designs were then 3D printed to produce prototype samples to test haptic qualities. This is a cost effective way to test before printing the large form.. The surface pattern were analysed and further designs were produced especially for women. Image 6; row 1 shows inhaler covers for more elegant occasions, whilst the other row shows covers for more casual occasions. ยง

Hack 04/16

The Business of 3D Printing

Interview

Hack 04/16

Interview with Jonathan Rowley Design Director, Digits2Widgets D2W provides a range of professional services, including CAD modelling, 3D scanning and industrial 3D printing, to a global client base from a central London location in the UK. The D2W team comprise experts from multidisciplinary backgrounds and includes an architect, model makers, jewellers, industrial designers, a games developer and an artist. Jonathan Rowley heads up the D2W team and is very pro-active in the 3D printing community with an industrial perspective. Digits2Widgets (D2W) was born out of a dental imaging facility, Cavendish Imaging, and you now work with companies and individuals from a broad cross section of disciplines from product, jewellery and fashion design to Art, advertising and architecture. Do you find that the more you collaborate with different disciplines that each new partnership informs your professional practice? What have been some of the surprising crossovers? We learn new things about the limits of 3D printing technology almost every day. Working with such a diverse range of disciplines means that the file types and forms we receive vary wildly. What we’ve learnt most from the medical visualisation models that we still produce for our sister company, Cavendish Imaging, is the level of detail that is achievable when 3D printing with Nylon SLS. These medical files can contain extremely fine details (for example within the sinus area of a maxilla model) as the doctors working from these models require the highest level of information possible. Thus, we just print the data —whatever the scale of detail — and allow the 3D printer to do its best. Any information that is too small or fine either falls off or doesn’t even register on the print when it’s below the print resolution of the machine. The doctors accept this as the best that is possible; and for anything that’s missing, they can refer back to their original scan data to fill in the gaps. Medical clients are therefore invaluable as they’ll accept whatever the technology can produce. Almost all of our other clients will not accept this and want perfect reproductions of whatever data they supply. When these digital files are clearly not going to physically reproduce successfully, then our experience of where the margin is between printable, borderline and unprintable is invaluable in terms of how far we’re able to let our clients stretch their ambitions. It means that we can

“Developing any project with a view to 3D printing reveals new lessons, which are useful for any design field.”

allow our customers to successfully stretch the envelope further than most other bureaus. Regarding design crossovers, we are in the very enviable position of providing a technology that is purposeful for the full range of design disciplines and are assisting designers from all fields. Developing any project with a view to 3D printing reveals new lessons, which are useful for any design field. What are the biggest misunderstandings designers have about 3D printing? Do you have some examples you can share? I find that a lot of people call themselves designers but that doesn’t make them such. Experience has shown that many of these “designers” are only shape making and tend to believe that if they can draw it, they can 3D print it and it will be exactly as they imagined it would be. They can’t necessarily be blamed for being naive as so much of the hype surrounding 3D printing technologies strongly implies that 3D printers can make anything. The biggest issue, which can crop up even with the most competent of designers, is that they do not have a very clear understanding of the properties of the materials that they’re requesting and their objects are often over or under structured. Another common misunderstanding, from our perspective, stems from the insidiously branded “multi-material 3D printing.” This suggests to those that hear the term that there is a machine that can directly print in a combination of different materials. The ‘multimaterial’ 3D printer actually produces blends of the same material in order to vary the rigidity of the part. This is of course an interesting technology, but multi-material it isn’t. On the back of this common misunderstanding, a PDF was once received at D2W along with a file and a request for a multi-material print. The diagram had notes that pointed to different parts of the single file saying “Glass, Metal, Rubber” and “an oak handle if that’s possible?”

Hack 04/16

A combination of people’s innate excitement and faith in the development of technology, allied to terms like “multi-material” 3d printing raise expectations to levels that are currently pure fantasy. Digits2Widgets not only provides 3D printing services but also design and consultancy expertise, do the majority of companies you work with require support to get the most out of their 3D printing projects? How widespread is the lack of understanding regarding design for 3D printing? Regarding projects that are received from design companies, they usually send very competent files that are ready to print, or very close to that point. However, projects can sometimes become problematic when designers are not aware of the differences in print quality that can be achieved by the orientation of the files whilst it’s being built. This is often the case with clients who are expecting engineering standard accuracy. When clients design and produce the object in 3D CAD programmes, they have the opportunity to apply levels of accuracy to the file that are simply beyond the capabilities of even our industrial grade 3D printers. We also have to help some clients to understand that the accuracy of the parts produced can vary depending upon the location of the part within the print chamber and then, that these can similarly vary from build to build. We have to explain that this technology just doesn’t produce to the engineering standards that they may be used to with more traditional processes. If they have to use 3D printing for their project then they need to build in relevant dimensional tolerances if possible. We’re wary of customers who own callipers! There is also the common lack of understanding of the material properties of 3D printing materials as mentioned before. It’s for all of these reasons (and more) that we don’t operate an automatic upload, quote and purchase system. It’s imperative that a human looks at the files that are sent before printing, so that if complex or problematic situations occur, we can speak to the customer, understand their intentions and advise accordingly before they purchase anything. How do you introduce designers to the appropriate benefits of 3D printing? On an informal basis, we have started running regular free evening seminars, focusing on certain creative fields, where we first demonstrate methods for producing CAD

Interview

files that are ready to print. The next stage is to illustrate good quality examples of what can be achieved and the processes required to get there by illustrating some of our own work and that of some of our customers. The story generally boils down to the fact that producing anything of quality from a 3D printer isn’t necessarily easy (despite what sales people might tell you!) but if you understand the technology, what it’s good for — and what it isn’t — and then apply that understanding to intelligent design; then, with effort, you can produce purposeful things. Here, purposeful doesn’t mean dryly functional (although that’s nice too), rather I mean that it meets your design needs and achieves your aims — whether that’s beauty, efficiency, economy, ingeniousness and/or customisation etc. So much output from the technology is praised simply because it’s 3D

“It’s imperative that a human looks at the files that are sent before printing, so that if complex or problematic situations occur, we can speak to the customer, understand their intentions and advise accordingly before they purchase anything.” printed. No matter how mundane, things need to have a value by meeting their purpose and not simply justify themselves by the method that wWe make a lot of effort in this area, as it’s in our own fundamental business interests for our customers to find the technology purposeful. If the technology is purposeful for them, then they will come back again. What percentage of new companies that you work with are still approaching projects from a traditional model making and manufacturing perspective? And do you see their design thinking and approach evolve as they become more familiar with 3D printing processes and materials? The vast majority of companies and individuals that we work with are trying to replicate object forms that they’re familiar with from traditional manufacturing. This is an excellent

Interview

Hack 04/16

“So much output from the technology is praised simply because it’s 3D printed. No matter how mundane, things need to have a value by meeting their purpose and not simply justify themselves by the method that was used to make them.” strategy for prototyping purposes before reverting to traditional manufacturing methods. We do have to be aware of customers who are intending to develop an object and then expect to continue to use 3D printing for production purposes as this is seldom viable, except in the case of quite limited batch production. There is a cost, quantity and time threshold beyond which this approach falls apart commercially. This is another instance of where we need to understand the customer’s intentions before going too far down the path of 3D printing. A lot of customers want to produce 3D printed objects in order to test the appeal of their object, but in these cases we have to advise at an early stage that if they do eventually need 1,000s, then they need to ensure that the design will still be achievable through traditional manufacturing. More and more of our return customers are learning lessons and we can see their work evolving towards better 3D printed outcomes. The first sign of this is somebody who started out by sending us an unprintable file and after having received some guidance, then returns with better data. The next sign is when the message that accompanies their file becomes shorter, as they become more confident about the material that they’re working with and have fewer questions. The final stage is when you see the sophistication of the objects being produced improve as their confidence with the technology becomes second nature. Once again, this is nothing new. It’s just good, old-fashioned time, knowledge, practice and growing confidence, leading to better results. It’s very gratifying that we’re starting to see more and more of this evolution in our customers’ work. In some circles, 3D printing is considered to be democratising design and manufacture, do you believe this is really the case? Only in Sales and Investment circles and the emphatic answer is not at all! 3D printing is enabling for the public at large in terms of

giving them the ability to produce a shape via a CAD file. Just because you can make a shape, it doesn’t make you a designer or a manufacturer with anything that will sell for a profit. This technology may be liberating for a tiny section of the population who currently has the inclination to design and make anything. This new ability may well lead to an increase in the number of people who want to have a go at making things and subsequently this may provide the inspiration to enrol in formal design education and then follow a professional career where they can learn about all of the other complimentary digital manufacturing techniques available! I hope that this is the case, but it’s not a mass democratisation by any stretch of the imagination. The level of sophistication of the current technology (CAD is too complicated, 3D printing mostly too crude) does not make it easy for the novice to do anything other than make shapes. Shapes are not design. As mentioned above, “time, practice, knowledge and experience are key factors in the design and making of anything of purpose. 3D printing doesn’t make any of this disappear.” Very interestingly, we find the customers who are using the technology to very best effect are already experienced designers and makers and understand the fundamentals of what it takes to bring things together to produce something good. §

Hack 04/16

Wearable technology, fashion and emotion

Nicola De Main Lecturer: BA (Hons) Fashion & BA (Hons) Fashion and Fashion Business

Hack 04/16

Overview What makes us human is a question that continues to fascinate scientists, anthropologists, designers, artists and fellow human beings, and it is a debate that has resulted in myriad theories and ideas. Focusing on the ideas of emotion, empathy and response, this project will endeavour to replicate emotions and reactions through experimentations with hardware and software in order to materialise a fashion/clothing based final output. Intention The intention of this research project is to create a second skin-like garment that communicates and reacts in human-like ways with both the wearer and the viewer, blurring the distinction between humanity and technology. Casting body parts in silicone will be undertaken to provide anatomically accurate reproductions of the human form, which will provide the core fabrication for the garment. By integrating haptic sensors within the garment’s fabrication, changes in the physical state of the wearer caused by emotions such as excitement, fear and joy will be detected, which in turn will trigger reactions in the garment — through output sensors — such as movement, data, light and warmth that will enable it to communicate to others around it and give it a ‘personality’, allowing it to show the emotions of the wearer and replicate the human condition. The author has undertaken extensive research, mapping out areas of development in the field of wearable technologies, noting in particular where such technology monitors and reports on the wearer’s condition. Currently, this technology is predominantly being utilized within the fields of sports and medicine, where products are being developed that allow garments to monitor and feed back the state of patients Of particular note is the work of designer Pauline Van Dogen in collaboration with the Eindhoven Textiel Museum for patients undergoing rehabilitation, and headbands supplied by “Muse,” have been developed to monitor brain activity, and are currently being sold on the open market. Wearables such as these provide particular interest as they serve both the purpose of function and the

development of technology, this is the arena that this research project is intended to sit amongst. The US National Intelligence council paper: 2030, (2012) provides validity to research within this area by predicting that neuroenhancements will, in the future, be able to provide superhuman abilities through the use of wearable technologies, aligning man and machine beyond what is currently possible. Working methodology The hand is the initial focus of this research as it is key to our humanity; helping us to communicate our emotions through a range of intricate gestures. Most notably and unique to humans is the pincer grip; which has evolved the formation of the written word — a form of communication that is specific to our species. This unique part of human anatomy is a fundamental component in being able to read emotions and has been utilized in polygraph tests since the 1920’s. Using the hand alone it is possible to detect a range of physiological indicators such as: heart rate, movement, blood pressure, respiration and skin conductivity; making it the ideal location for sensor placement. The initial experimentation for this project has been the casting of a hand using alginate, producing a complete plaster hand cast, which will form the basis of a two part pull away mould that can be used to create a fine skin-like silicone glove. Inside this glove sensors will be integrated in order to detect and communicate emotion. The technology to be used within the glove will be the Arduino, a small programmable computer to which sensors and outputs are connected, allowing communication with the unit and its surroundings and giving the wearer feedback. Through the use of haptic sensors, which give tactile feedback, it is possible to imitate the sense of touch, or to add feedback to “superhuman” senses i.e. those that we are only able to detect with the assistance of embedded sensors. The primary material intended for use in this project is silicone. Interest in this particular material is due to silicone being an excellent choice of material for mould making; as it is quick to set and in its liquid form it creates highly accurate and detailed moulds and casts. In addition, Silicone is an

Hack 04/16

extremely hardwearing material that is strong, flexible and heat resistant; interestingly it is also conductive, which is a key property when adding technology â&#x20AC;&#x201D; making it versatile and easy to work with. This project is currently in its infant stages, with the challenges and changes of actual experimentation yet to come, however understanding that the ultimate challenge in this project is not only to create a garment that challenges our perceptions of clothing, technology and self, but also to create a highly functional accessory with possible applications in sporting, military or medical spheres is key to its overall success. Â§

Hack 04/16

The importance of touch â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an investigation into digital dance performances

Doros Polydorou Programme Leader: BA (Hons) Creative Media and Digital Cultures

Hack 04/16

In recent years a number of contemporary dance performances have utilised technology in order to enhance the “spectacle” experienced by an audience. The majority of these digital performances focus on issues that explore the relationship between an individual — or a group of performers — with current technology. However, these technologies are rarely used to enhance the relationship between the dancers themselves during a performance. This research proposes a way to create a corporeal link between performers, by giving them the ability to become aware of each other’s feelings and actions in space, through the use of haptic technology that provides each performer with real-time feedback. The aim of the project is to examine the tactile experience of the performers as a means of communication. This investigation involves the creation of a holistic system that tracks and identifies the movement and the intentions of the dancers in space and communicates back to them the invisible link that is shared between them, through a wearable haptic system offering vibrations at different intensities. Despite many advances in digital technologies, performing in mixed reality and immersive environments is still currently a challenging task. Many such performances focus largely on exploring relationships with the audience, where the audience experiences the integration of the real and the digital as it occurs before them on stage. In these situations, performers must recalibrate and adjust their approach to their performance in order to retain normal expressive and communicative nuances. Such limitations are acutely apparent to performers, which suggests an unnatural barrier between the technology and the performer. Tactile experience is absent when the performer is interacting with virtual objects or virtual environments and they are often required to focus on other senses such as aural and visual to experience immersion. The methodology of undertaking this project is divided into four steps: 1) Develop a system that tracks the position of the dancers on stage, in real time: The reason for this is twofold. First to map the choreographic space, as points in 3D space, of each individual performer. And second, to track and identify the relationship of the

performers’ bodies in the space. This will be realized using two Microsoft Kinect sensors working in parallel. 2) Develop a wearable vibro-tactile feedback system: In order to allow the flexibility and free movement of the performer in space, the system will be developed with wireless technology as a wearable accessory that can provide vibrotactile feedback to the performer. The device that will be used is called x-OSC in combination with a vibrating motor. The haptic device can be worn on the hands, arms or legs of a performer. 3) Explore a number of dance experimentations (union, intersection, intimacy): In order to commence the investigation, three different scenarios of haptic embodiment that enhance a creative and corporeal link between two performers as well as the way they perform within a digital environment is proposed. Two dancers will be recruited for this experiment stage. Union Dancers perform collaboratively. Their bodies move in unison around the space feeling a constant stream of vibration that symbolizes the union. As they move apart from each other, the intensity of the vibration decreases as they get closer, it increases. Intersection Dancers perform in competition. They compete for “ownership” of their own personal space (identified by the body tracking mechanism). Vibrations intensify as their personal space gets invaded. Intimacy The performers are lying close to each other in an intimate position. As the hand of one performer approaches the body of the other, vibrations on the second performer’s body intensify, creating a greater anticipation of the touch. 4) Performance / Feedback Collection / Dissemination of Results: These experimentations will lead to a short choreographic performance, which will act as a demo to attract external funding. Feedback will be collected from the performers as qualitative data, which will shape future experimentations. As soon as a working prototype of the technology is ready, the aim

Hack 04/16

is to apply for a grant that will cover a fullscale dance production. Both the technology and the qualitative feedback analysis will be disseminated in appropriate journals. To date the preliminary research has seen the completion of steps 1 and 2. Through a series of experiments and tests, ways in which vibrotactile feedback can be applied to enhance and immerse the performer (dancer in this case) within a digitally created system have been examined,. Through the digital augmentation of vibrotactile feedback, the system is able to communicate, inform and interact with the dancer in a more intimate way. As a result, the dancer becomes aware of the technology in a physical and visceral way that can significantly improve the interaction and the experience between the two. Furthermore, with the ability to communicate through vibrations it was possible to identify and propose creative pathways and approaches between dancers and their digital environments. As the technology is now ready and initial tests were successful, the next step is to design the dance experimentation scenarios in order to collect initial data, with the aim of completing this within the next few months. ยง

Hack 04/16

Digital Craftsmanship and Fashion Dr Shaun Borstrock Associate Dean of School, Head of Design, Innovation and Business. Head of the Design Research Group / Digital Hack Lab

Hack 04/16

An exploration of constructing garments using 3D printing poses many challenges, not least the fluidity of the ‘textiles’ created by 3D printed materials and their relationship to the body. The opportunities 3D printing presents to this process for producing garments allow for complex construction techniques that defy traditional pattern cutting to create garments that are multi-functional and customisable. The potential allows for the construction of garments that are printed to create fluid pieces that, on paper, do not conform to a body shape, but when worn are transformed to augment the natural curves of the wearer. This project considers how traditional pattern cutting and draping can be combined with technology to redefine the perception of textiles and, ultimately, the wearer. The first challenge, and perhaps the most exciting one, is to define and overcome the parameters that one is confronted with when trying to mimic woven and/or knitted textiles from which to make a garment. The obvious limits with this technology include the materials that can currently be processed using 3D printing technology. While there are a number of generic 3D printing processes commercially available, each capable of processing different materials, this project is focused on the Laser Sintering (LS) process and Nylon material. In this case, transforming a white powder into a textile is not dissimilar, in thinking at least, to that of spinning silk from a silkworm. Achieving similar outcomes, however, poses a greater challenge. Silk can obviously be transformed into a woven or knitted textile that is pliable, drapable and fluid. The nylon powder utilised by the LS 3D printing process, by nature, does not have the same properties as silk. It comes out of the printer in a solid state despite the capability of including movement that is defined through the use of the software. As a prerequisite to the printing process, the printed objects are first designed, or “built,” in a digital environment using 3D modelling software where complex algorithms can be used to formulate and define the desired outcome. However, due to the limitations of the materials, the flexibility and fluidity found in natural textiles is limited, possibly non-existent. In addition, working within the limitations of a small print bed , constrains what can and cannot be done. For example, simulations of the textile and how it conforms to the available print space must be undertaken as the direction of each printed component must remain the same — much like working with the

warp and weft of a woven piece of cloth. This adds to the complexity of the design process. There are a number of examples that illustrate how designers have used 3D printing to create ‘garments,’ with limited success, as a result of the materials used. Most notably Iris Van Herpen and design brand Nervous System have both utilised the technology in their design work despite the challenges that they face. However, it could be said that the items they print are not particularly wearable. In the case of Iris Van Herpen, her garments are, in the main, solid with little to no movement at all. The designers at Nervous System have created a dress that achieves movement through the creation of highly complex geometry that allows them to print multiple, hinged moving parts. Creating 3D textiles that are flexible with movement that mimics traditional cloth and is seen as integral to a garment as opposed to an embellishment is crucial to this research as it ensures that the garments are wearable but at the same time addressing both traditional methods of garment construction and existing technology and advances in the development of materials. In the first instance, the project focuses on an interpretation of weave and knit. The initial prototypes are 3D printed as pieces of textile that have enough movement to ensure that they are fluid and represent a textile that can be used to make a garment. The focus is on movement; how the textile drapes and responds to manipulation in relation to the creation of a pattern of a garment that flows over the body of the wearer and is, at the same time, comfortable to wear. The potential to create customisable garments is enormous. The pieces can then be dyed in an endless spectrum of colours, another area of research and investigation that moves away from current limited use of, for example, black and white. Working on a dress making stand, employing traditional methods of drape rather than flat pattern cutting techniques, emphasises the idea of working in 3D albeit in different ways; through the use of 3D CAD and the physical object. Component pieces can be assembled in ways that allow for intricate and often surprising outcomes of pattern, drape and construction. § Reference: 1 )The limitations of the print bed size are an integral part of the research despite large 3D printers being available as smaller print beds are easily accessed providing the possibility of rapid manufacture for mass production.

Hack 04/16

Does 3D printing change design education?

Interview

Hack 04/16

Interview with Dr. Jennifer Loy Associate Professor & Deputy Director Griffith Centre for Creative Arts Research; Program Leader Industrial Design; Convenor 3D Design Digital Media. QCA & Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University, Australia.

Does 3D printing change design education? Dr Loy: The short answer here is yes, absolutely. But I am happy to discuss it in more detail…. Manufacturing constraints play an important educational role in understanding design for manufacture. How could the ‘openended’ creative opportunities offered by 3D Printing (3DP) — technically called Additive Manufacturing — be constrained so similar important lessons are learned? Desktop 3D printers are now more affordable, to the point where we can supply them to students to use in class. This improved accessibility means that students can have a hands-on experience of fused deposition modelling for prototyping as part of their design process, which in turn means they can learn how to use a manufacturing process on their desks that they can then replicate on a larger scale in production - that’s an amazing learning opportunity. However, it’s a myth that there are no design-for-process issues with 3D printing. There are constraints and opportunities in designing for 3D printing just as there are for any other manufacturing process. Even the term 3D printing is misleading in that additive manufacturing is actually a diverse range of different processes with very different constraints and opportunities. Designing for process for selective laser sintering, fused deposition modelling, material jetting, direct laser melting etc, and especially taking into account working with different material characteristics and post-processing, provides more than enough constraints for the student designer to have to work with. What project-based work looking at 3DP & AM have you found to be most beneficial with regard to learning outcomes? Could you share an example? What are the surprises and challenges? One of the most successful projects first year students at GU have worked on in this area was a packaging project where the students were asked to produce creative bottle forms for a perfume product to be used at the point of sale. The idea being that although there

were some functional constraints, the objects still allowed the students to explore more sculptural forms, design for a target market and design to demonstrate the opportunities provided by the technology. It was interesting with this project to see that when it was originally given to second year students, they were limited by their prior knowledge of conventional manufacturing technologies so tended still to design with those in mind. When the challenge was given to first year students the results were more organic, included captive parts and demonstrated a greater understanding of fused deposition modelling. 3D printing did release the students from only making models in studio materials, such as foam and cardboard, and so the forms they produced were more complex for first year work than otherwise.

“It’s a myth that there are no design-for-process issues with 3D printing. There are constraints and opportunities in designing for 3D printing just as there are for any other manufacturing process.” Actually, this is a good indication of the issues facing those working in the production environment – professional development will be needed to make that transition in thinking in order to exploit the potential of 3D printing to unlock new design opportunities. Meanwhile educators are going to have to keep up with the fast paced developments in the field if students are to graduate with a decent understanding of the technology and its applications. If you look at what has happened in 3D printing over the last four years – the length of an honours degree – it gives you some idea of how much change is happening in the

Hack 04/16

area. From printing customized hearing aids to 3D printing buildings, the technology is advancing across disciplines – and product design students with their 3D modelling skills and understanding of design for process have opportunities to work in new collaborations across those disciplines – and preparing students for the future of work with the technology in mind is a challenge. More than that, it requires a new, more open mind-set. That’s one of the reasons why at Griffith University 3D printing is now the first process that students learn, and then they learn conventional manufacturing processes such as injection moulding by way of comparison. They also have to learn about changing business models made possible by the technology, and the potential of 3D printing for more complex geometries means the computer modelling courses have also had to be ramped up to stretch the students even further. In terms of outcomes, the fact that the work was able to be physically 3D printed heightened the excitement and enthusiasm in the classes, with students’ motivation and willingness to interrogate their own CAD work also noticeably increased. The project work was predominantly student-led, where they mapped out their own exploration of the machines, built their own test pieces to see what was possible, created ergonomic models using studio materials, built their CAD models and printed their outcomes on a range of fused deposition modellers – some with soluble scaffolding, some with a single filament that had to be designed to reduce scaffolding.

“It’s a myth that there are no design-for-process issues with 3D printing. There are constraints and opportunities in designing for 3D printing just as there are for any other manufacturing process.” Based on student feedback, the biggest difference in working this way and to introduce a cohort from the ‘digital native’ generation to workshop practice and learning by making was that they felt empowered – I think mainly because they were working in the computer

Interview

environment early on which was their comfort zone and that led them into physical model making and the workshops rather than them having to go in cold. They were also proud of what they could achieve so early in their studies. Traditional hand making processes introduce design students to a wealth of techniques and material understanding, CAD and 3D printing processes remove that real world connection which can be problematic. What educational processes can be introduced to ensure that design students focus their attention on making things work in the real world rather than just the virtual? Today’s high school students have life experiences dominated by online and virtual activities in ways that could not have been predicted 20 years ago, and the quality of current computer-aided design (CAD) software for 3D and rendering is such that some students no longer understand the need to make physical models to communicate their design ideas. When design development is not anchored in the reality of making, the discipline of design becomes diluted and is in danger of becoming a transferable skill of ‘design thinking’ across multiple unrelated disciplines. 3D printing is a good way to bring students’ work out of the digital and into the physical during the design process. Basically by bringing digital fabrication technology into the design process to complement CAD means the students learn to work iteratively between screen and reality. Interestingly, for a wider audience, the successful FabLab model, conceived by Neil Gershenfeld of MIT, was developed to allow open access to digital fabrication technologies to stimulate innovation, and to reconnect people to making. This has been a great initiative and it applies just as well in higher education. Digital fabrication technologies – 3D printing, laser cutting, CNC routing, digital textile printing etc – help the digital generation (born after the internet became widespread) to reconnect with their environment. This has to be a good thing!

Interview

Hack 04/16

“Crowd funding is changing the way products come to market and designers are developing very new relationships with their customers, with fast-to-market and iterative design development taking over from conventional practices.”

There are more and more examples of products appearing on the market that are either customisable or that allow customers to participate in the design process through online tools. As the final product outcome is no longer fixed how should design students adapt to this emerging fluidity in design? What new skills do they need to acquire? Parametric modelling and web design skills will serve them well working in a digital environment. Sites such as UCODO and Digital Forming show us a blueprint for the future, where instead of resolving an object and then taking it to market, designers will work out the parameters for an object to function correctly then provide a parametric model for users to customize before printing. E-commerce, Crowdfunding sites and widespread access to digital tools and processes are reshaping the manufacturing landscape by creating alternative routes to market. Would you agree that there’s never been a better time for design graduates to realise their ideas? And, what are some of the best ways to prepare students so they can take advantage of this new way to make and sell? I think that, as ever, there are pluses and minuses for graduates at the moment, more opportunities but also more competition from amateurs, so designers will need to differentiate what they are offering by taking their work to the next level. If they do learn about the advances in digital technologies and really embrace the new ways of working they provide then graduates have the opportunity to maybe start a few rungs higher up the ladder – or to launch their own products online. Crowd funding is changing the way products come to market and designers are developing very new

relationships with their customers, with fastto-market and iterative design development taking over from conventional practices. Students need to learn about changing supply systems and business models along with their technical expertise to really take advantage of new market opportunities. Graduating students can best be prepared by being taught to think in terms of mass customisation rather than mass production. Another critical factor is the sustainability imperative, which requires greater accountability in design and production and invested design principles driving the redesign of products. Product Design students need to graduate into the digital world grounded in the physical world, with a good understanding of the context they operate in - and the impact of their work. They need to be prepared to lead the redevelopment of consumer products within the sustainability imperative and be equipped to make a living within the profession whilst influencing the changing production landscape positively with informed thinking and practice. § Further Reading: For more in-depth insight into Jennifer Loy’s opinions on this subject, information can be found in an article co-authored with Sam Canning for the Industrial Design Educators Network (IDEN), entitled Reconnecting through Digital Making. http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/handle/10072/57688

Hack 04/16

When is a product not a product? Richard Adams Programme Leader: BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design

Hack 04/16

In our everyday lives our sight is overwhelmed with information, all of which helps us to understand and develop our own visual translation and perception, which stays with us for the rest of our lives. The way our visual training enables us to interpret the world around us means we perceive objects in a particular way and make judgements about those objects in order to quickly understand them. But do these judgements impact on the decisions designers make when developing a new product? Existing products, through familiarity, define how we feel about them and can inform a design process. When designing a cup for example it’s difficult to forget what a cup looks like as it’s part of our everyday lives, its a very familiar object. But can we change the way we see things and in turn change how we approach design and creativity? One approach could be to distort an object, to change it beyond recognition in an attempt to see it differently. Traditional manufacturing processes would require a series of test hand built models, which are very labour intensive and would cost considerable amounts. This traditional process would include: photograph the object, dimension the object, and then using clay, wood etc make a series of models to test. The results of the test are used to inform a second & third iteration etc until a final solution can be found. Digital technologies can not only help to speed up this process but there are a variety of virtual tools and processes that can be applied to 3D data sets. With the explosion of additive manufacturing, this allows us to compress time to test these ideas and optimise the overall process. The hand-modelling phase can be considerably optimised by working in the digital environment, allowing many variations of the model to be designed and tested concurrently. By using the technologies available in the Digital Hack Lab we are in a unique position to explore and test these new directions in design towards understanding a new smart design process. This research project investigates the visual appearance of products and in particular the way products are distorted depending on where and how they are viewed. Many people will have seen the image by M. C. Escher ‘Ascending and Descending’ that depicts a set of stairs that eternally keep ascending or descending; or W.E. Hill’s image of a woman’s face which, for some,

looks like a young lady and to others it’s an elderly lady. An interesting dichotomy arises here between the disciplines of design and engineering. Designers tend to interpret information differently to most other disciplines, predominantly using 3 and 3 point perspective, while for engineers, isometric projection is largely used, both of which can give different interpretations of the same object. These are simple examples of how the same visual object can be perceived in different ways. The initial starting point for this research was an interest in applying these different approaches to 3D physical objects, and how they would look as a result. What information would be needed? And what might be lost? A designer or architect can ‘shift’ the horizon line to give the impression of something being big or small. If an object is photographed from different viewpoints, effectively shifting the horizon, what effect would this have on the object? The initial experiment explored exactly this, with a common cup, which was photographed from two different viewpoints; one from the top and one lower. One viewpoint only (top) was used to take data from. This data consisted of detailed measurements of the cup from the photograph only, with no reference to the real cup. The reason for this was to make sure that the final output would be of the object based on the perspective from which the data was gathered. Interestingly, it was difficult to take the dimensions verbatim. For example the bottom of the cup, as we know, is flat or functionally it couldn’t stand up. However, looking at the cup from above, the perspective introduces a rounded shape that would not allow the cup to stand nor function correctly. For this initial investigation it was decided to not allow this to happen for the base, and the base was designed flat. Once the measurements were taken they were then translated into a 3D environment and a CAD model was created, based on the measurements from the photo, with the exception of the base, as explained. The CAD model was then 3D printed and resulted in an object that looked like the original from one angle but observed from different angles it takes on a completely different appearance and in some cases does not resemble the original object at all. The project now questions if this can be put into practice to develop a series of products that enables the enhancement of their visual

Hack 04/16

“In the last few years the possibilities for rapid prototyping and manufacture through 3D printing machines has become financially possible and creatively opens up new possibilities.” A Traditional Approach to 3D Printing Julian Lindley1, Richard Adams1, John Beaufoy1 and Stephen McGonigal1 1)University of Hertfordshire

appearance when controlling the perspective from which they are viewed. For example, imagine if you were to walk into a lobby of a hotel through the front door, you could design the products within this area to be perceived as having no perspective on them to fully ‘sell’ the form. It is only when you move within the space that you realise that they are distorted. To what extent can products be distorted so that they still function as intended and what happens as the product is pushed beyond that threshold? When is a product not a product? §

Hack 04/16

Can 3D Printing be Creative? Julian Lindley MA FRSA FHEA Senior Lecturer: BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design

Hack 04/16

This paper is a summary of a presentation given at the Digital Hack Lab Round Table seminar hosted by the Design Research Group, entitled The Machine Hums / Innovation Works. This research paper considers the integration of the possibilities afforded by the new technologies of 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing (AM) within UH’s curriculum for Under-graduate Product Design. More particularly it outlines how at UH, faculties have progressively introduced these technologies both from a knowledge base and through practical project challenges. Initially, and in line with their capabilities, these new technologies were understood from a modelling or prototyping perspective whereby complex ‘one-off’ objects could be made quicker and cheaper when compared with traditional model making procedures. As the capabilities of the technology improved, however, there followed a realisation that complex forms could be manufactured directly, which otherwise would be impossible to produce. As these technology platforms have descended in price to the point, currently, whereby basic machines are available for less than £1,000, there has been a notable shift from 3D printing being available as a specialist service, to more general and widespread availability. This facilitates manufacture at home and could potentially change the landscape of production and consumption. All of these possibilities impact on the education of, and application of product design.

Fig. 1 Additive Manufacture and Product Design Education

Initially AM was introduced into the curriculum at UH as part of a two-fold process. First, to provide students with an understanding —via theoretical knowledge — of the methods of manufacture. This included economies of scale within production. Second, as a practical method for the rapid realisation of prototype objects (Fig. 1). With the latter, UH has invested in a variety of technologies that are used in student projects

to replicate design for manufacture1 resulting in full prototype components produced on 3D Printers. This replication is not substituting manufacture but enhancing the design process and prototyping capacity. This paper deals with the third identified strand within product design — Creativity. Central to this work is the superimposition of new possibilities on existing knowledge sets and methodologies within under-graduate design education. This superimposition is crucial if the next generation of designers are to understand and contribute to paradigms of consumption and production. With new possibilities afforded through AM consumers could, in theory, become manufacturers. This though is a subtext or platform to allow students to express creativity through new possibilities. Against this backdrop final year students were set a very simple challenge: ‘Design a personal three-dimensional business card using new technologies.’ This project ran concurrently with a Major Project (final year), which simulated the commercial constraints of professional development. The 3D Business Card challenge had two distinct benefits. First, it allowed students to express their creativity in form generation and, second, the resulting ‘card’ could be used as self-promotion in an original way, again as an expression of creativity. Within this challenge students were encouraged to think differently and use the new technologies to challenge both the perception of the brief’s requirements and also to demonstrate abilities in the understanding and realisation of form through sketching, computer modelling an AM output. These creative aspects were very important as technology is not only facilitating new possibilities but, particularly in digital and data driven fields, reducing human input in traditional economic sectors raising questions on what are we training students for? An example is technology replacing human input with driverless cars, which are being tested on public highways. Ideation in its many forms currently remains an area where humans have a comparative advantage over machines. Scientists come up with new hypothesis, journalists sniff out a good story, chefs add a new dish to the menu. Many of these activities are supported and accelerated by computers, but none are driven by them.2

Hack 04/16

“How will these new possibilities impact on the way we manufacture and consume products?” A Traditional Approach to 3D Printing Julian Lindley1, Richard Adams1, John Beaufoy1 and Stephen McGonigal1 1)University of Hertfordshire

This highlights the need for creativity to resolve issues in different ways. Universities should be facilitators encouraging creativity within their students. There is a new role for product design to identify opportunities — to question existing paradigms and act as a catalyst for change in which futures can be realised. In essence we are training adaptable Creative Thinkers. The business card challenge is an opportunity for students to express themselves and demonstrate creativity when encountering new technology. It is for you to judge, from the examples given, the level of creativity demonstrated. § References: Lindley, J. Beaufoy, J., Adams, R. and McGonigal, S. ‘A Traditional Approach to 3D Printing’ EPDE14, TU Twente, September 2014. Brynjolfsson, E. and Mcafee, A. @The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress and Prosperity in a time of Brilliant Technologies: New York. 2014. P190.

Hack 04/16

In expectation of the unknown: 3D printing in the home

John Beaufoy Senior Lecturer: BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design

Hack 04/16

During recent years, 3D printing has received huge volumes of media coverage across mainstream and technology focused outlets and in many cases has been referred to as ‘the next industrial revolution.’ The media’s fascination with this technology genre continues today, but often does not differentiate between industrial 3D printing and desktop 3D printing. Currently there are advanced, large and expensive machines for printing 3 dimensional objects, which service the industrial market. These are mainly used for functional prototyping and low volume manufacturing application. The capabilities of these machines allow the production of highly complex components (in a growing range of materials) that were previously unachievable using traditional manufacturing processes. More recently less capable but more affordable desktop machines have become available for the domestic market. The potential applications of these printers, within a domestic setting, is the subject of much speculation. This research has been focused on exploring design and making processes using these lower cost 3D printers, from a ‘novice’ perspective. The questions that the research addresses are: 1. Will the consumer become a ‘Citizen Designer’ and if so what is the subsequent role of the professionally trained designer? 2. Can these developments with 3D printing be compared with the birth of desktop publishing and the growth of home computing in the 1980’s? 3. Can low cost 3D printers really be used to make our own products and is there any benefit from having these 3D printers in our homes? 4. What are the possibilities and limitations for a family wanting to use an affordable 3D printer within the home? 5. How can traditional design craft and digital making be combined? The equipment used for this research work so far is an ‘UP Plus’ 3D printer and a ‘Next Engine’ 3D scanner, with an approximate total cost of £3000. After completing some prototyping projects on the 3D printer using existing CAD files, the author undertook a self-learning programme with design software, that would enable him to create personalised designs and explore the possibilities and limitations of making products within the home.

Project 1 Table lamps: manufacturing in the home Lamp 1 was designed and made in one working day using only home 3D printed components and a standard ES 14 bulb-holder. The size of the lamp was limited to any one single component fitting within the printable area of the machine (140 mm x 140 mm x 140 mm). The lamp took two hours to design and draw, five hours to print, with a further two hours for final assembly. Lamp 2 is an IKEA lamp that had a broken lampshade, which under normal circumstances would have been thrown away. For this particular case, the aim was to consider the possibilities of repairing household objects and explore the process of 3D printing spare parts as a means of increasing the product’s life-cycle. Project 2 Cat character mood lights This project explored the combination of traditional craft and sculpting techniques with digital making processes to produce four working mood lamps in different sizes. The aim was to see if it was possible to 3D scan sculpted forms and then produce hollow 3D prints to make working lights. The cat mood lamps were 3D printed directly from the scanned forms with no

Hack 04/16

CAD manipulation or re-drawing. They were printed as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;shelled outâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; form on the UP Plus 2 3D printer. The hole was cut by hand, the colour change LED light and circuit was then inserted into the hollow form to provide illumination. It took three hours to complete the initial sculpture, one hour for the 3D scanning, 1 hour to print each object and 1 hour to make the hole and fit the light inside. Project 3 Automata and movement pieces These objects undertaken with this project once again explores the opportunities of combining traditional design and making processes with digital practices. Designing and making Automata in wood enables the creation of real movement art pieces that are hand made using traditional craft skills and followed by testing of the designs to assess if they actually work. The subsequent aim is to create fully working versions of these automata using multiple components in one single 3D print. Alternative machine options will be considered to produce the 3D printable versions of this range.

Hack 04/16

“Making is an essential part of the design process and new technologies can enhance this empirical approach.” A Traditional Approach to 3D Printing Julian Lindley1, Richard Adams1, John Beaufoy1 and Stephen McGonigal1 1)University of Hertfordshire

Research Objectives and Outputs • To continue to explore the possibilities of designing and making within the home using digital 3D technology. • Experiment with the combination of traditional design crafts and digital making. • Understand the impact that the “Citizen Designer” may have on design education. • To continue to submit papers to appropriate conferences. The author is the co-author of “Understanding through making” and “A traditional approach to 3D printing” with Julian Lindley, Richard Adams and Steve McGonigal, presented at the Engineering and Product Design in Education conference at the University of Twente, Netherlands Sept 2014. • Presentations have also been given at University of Hertfordshire (UH) research seminars, 2014 and 2015.

The process of engaging with digital practice has proved very interesting, with particular enjoyment found in exploring the possibilities of combining some of these new practices (3D printing and 3D scanning) with more traditional approaches to design and making (drawing, sculpture and hand-made crafts). Within the scope of this research, 3D printing has allowed the fabrication of product prototypes that would be difficult to make purely by hand and it has also enabled the production of low volume, actual products that can be used in the home. The next challenge involves trying to improve the quality of design, surface finish and aesthetic appeal of future work — an exciting process that will enable the author to garner further experience with the technology and improve his 3D digital design skills. Furthermore, this research has had a significant impact on the quality of this author’s teaching practices and subsequently has informed the students practice as well. Immense benefit has also been achieved through collaboration and discussion with work colleagues and students within UH. It’s been an interesting journey... so far. §

Hack 04/16

An exploration of post-processing and finishing 3D printed parts

Peter Brownhill Principle Technical Officer

Hack 04/16

Traditional model making is a wide industry supplying models for a variety of purposes, from design prototypes to film props. Model makers are skilled professionals who are not only versed in the creation but the finishing of prototypes. More time is often spent getting the right effect than in the construction. While other craft areas have a truth to material ideal, model makers can bring a range of finishing expertise to create the feel and qualities required. It is quite a sophisticated combination of practical skills. Finishing 3D prints has now become more important as designers and their clients require more than a simple plastic model that resembles a toy more than a prototype. Many professionals and members of the public have difficulty seeing prototypes as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; when it has a uniform plastic finish, resembling a cheap mass produced injection moulding, even if it is illuminated and set in a context. There are a number of articles and guides on finishing SLS, FDM and Polyjet 3D printed models. These tend to focus on the batch production or mass finishing of items. The colour is generally unchanged and the emphasis is on smoothing the surface to give a uniform gloss, satin or matte effect. These effects can be achieved by using processes that include vibro-finishing, bead blasting or the more exotic vapour smoothing using acetone baths. The field of more bespoke finishes is a smaller area. Paint effects and techniques from other areas and professions can be brought into the area of 3D printing to give a more dramatic impact to the finished item as it projects the qualities of the intended piece. A traditional way of looking at it would involve four points, namely preparation, sanding (or smoothing), priming and painting.Preparation of the printed surface could involve a number of techniques. Each 3D printing process results in different levels of surface quality, usually a result of the inherent process construct. Below is an image taken with a scanning electron microscope of the cut edge of a laser sintered part. The smooth surface is the internal cut and the gravel like top surface shows an untreated sintered exterior.

There are a number of commercial products, such as XTC-3D by Bentley Chemicals, which have been developed to smooth and level these surfaces, as they see this area as a growing market. In a more traditional way, artists have conventionally used acrylic gesso for sealing canvas. Gesso dries to a tight, uniform finish, is self-levelling and brush stroke free. It seals the surface of the print and is a good primer to work on with most types of paints. Sanding is an important finishing technique for 3D printed objects and is where patience, tools, experience and care can transform the output of these machines. Smoothing the object whist maintaining accuracy is a time consuming task, which rules it out for batch production, which in turn requires a process low in cost and short in cycle time. Painting finishes can be applied in a number of ways. Spray-painted with a gun or can, brushed on or a combination of the two. Washes of thinned paint or inks can be used to give depth to the model and techniques such as dry brushing and blending highlight raised edges. These processes take the model away from a flat colour and can transform models into replicas, duplicating surface textures. Most people are fascinated by a custom-made and accurate rendering of an object or structure. Through careful work, pieces 3D printed with plastic filaments can be made to resemble clay, stone, distressed metal and wood. Examples of this can be seen in the work of artist Cosmo Wenman. The desktop 3D printing community has a lot to learn from the sculptors, hobbyist model makers and gamers. The capacity to transform plastic shapes to look like other materials and the joys and challenges of creating these effects can be fun. It creates an object that can be played with, interacted with and held in high esteem. Â§

Hack 04/16

Products as physical & digital combinations

Steve McGonigal MA FHEA Senior Lecturer. Product Design Consultant.

Hack 04/16

In 2013, the Product Design Team at the University of Hertfordshire (UH) won a SSARHI grant to purchase a low cost 3D printer in order to explore the potential for home 3D printing. This equipment initiated a number of specific design and print projects to consider how a 3D printer could be used in a domestic environment to create bespoke products, augment hobbies and enhance up-cycling projects. The understanding and experiences gained from this initial research have been used to inform additional practical research into how commercially developed products could be designed and supplied to exploit the future potential of home 3D printing.

•

Some constraints were observed:

The quality of entry-level 3D printers is variable and the filament extrusion process (often referred to as Fused Deposition Modelling or FDM), which is the most common process employed by low-cost desktop machines, produces parts with obvious • layering and ‘build structure’ witness marks. The ability of the home user to create the complex, digital models required to generate the 3D print is also a serious constraint. An article in Stuff magazine (2013) highlighted the problems that continue to face 3D printer users with no experience of 3D CAD or digital design. “Yeah, we know – you bought a 3D printer a few years back. We all did. And like you, we’ve just sat and stared at it since then because it turns out that it’s actually really hard to make a detailed 3D model.” 1

The consequence is that despite the media excitement, low cost 3D printing technology aimed at the home user has been of limited value so far. The situation is very different for commercial 3D printing which, using higher quality industrial equipment, has successfully achieved quality components for prototyping, short run production and customised products over several decades. However, this author believes that the potential future benefits of 3D printing in the home should perhaps not be ignored. Realising all or some of a commercially supplied product at the point of use has several potential benefits including reduced product cost, reduced packaging and, of course, customisation. The concept is not new. Flat pack furniture, self-assembly products, downloadable books and music are all products that now occupy this arena. Furthermore, the recent increase of ‘open source’ manufacturing options suggests that the trend for bespoke, customer specified products could increase. Key advantages for the end user are customisation and choice. If consumers are limited by their ability to create and interact with complex 3D models, the manufacturer or designer can produce and supply digital models that can be altered — rather than created — by constructing parametric digital files with dimensions that can be driven by external data. There are significant commercial advantages to be gained from this strategy, including increased market share through design options, the potential for a reduction in manufacturing costs and the potential for minimising production variation. The latter could be achieved by producing a minimalistic generic technology module (GTM). This would contain the functional engineering required to deliver a product that could then augmented at its point of use with a printable digital file to deliver the customers individual preferences. This project seeks to explore the challenges, opportunities and value of supplying products to the end user as a combination of physical and digital elements. A computer mouse has been chosen as a vehicle to demonstrate this concept. It contains the necessary elements that would benefit from the approach. It has defined electronic and mechanical components that could make up a technology module, with the opportunity to offer a customisable enclosure to meet the individual anthropometric needs and design

Hack 04/16

preferences of the end user. There is also a potential market. The interest in gaming mice is buoyant, with button function customisation already an option to boost user performance. As a starting position, the current project considers a three-button mouse, based on an HP X1000. It focuses on the requirements necessary for the creation of a minimalistic, technology module that could be commercially designed to meet current product safety and regulatory requirements. The project considers the design of the digital file that will be necessary to convert the technology module into a useable product. This includes the interface between the physical and digital elements and how this may impact the product architecture. It also considers the construction requirements for a stable digital model, to allow the complex form to accept customised dimensions and how the end user could supply the input for these. Ultimately, this project will explore the potential for manufacturers to have two parallel factories — one to produce the physical technology modules and the other to produce downloadable digital product options. The intention is to explore these aspects as generic principles that could be applied to a range of potentially customisable products. § References: Stuff (2013) ‘Start Menu’. Stuff Magazine published by Haymarket. Volume 17 issue 6. 2nd May. p.19.

Hack 04/16

perspectives.

Thinking from different Customisation is not a choice. It is how we survive. Mark Bloomfield. Visiting Professor, Design and Innovation

Hack 04/16

We may not consider the choices we make as directly customising our life experience but it could be argued that everything we do does create the life we end up leading. Simple choices about what to drive, what to wear, what to eat and what to read all contribute to the creation of an outcome that defines who we are. One of the most obvious examples of customisation takes place within the home. Over time, an interior can take on a variety of personalities depending on how the space is populated with different furnishings, fittings and finishes. The personal decisions we make about how we choose to live are directly reflected in the home in which we live. Our home ultimately becomes an example of our individual style that is customised to suite our needs. The personal decisions we make about how we choose to live are directly reflected in the home in which we live. Outside the home, the automotive industry is a big investor in customisation. When buying a new car, customers are presented with a range of options. From the obvious paint colour and finish to interior details, fittings and engine size. All of these options define a vehicle that is as close to the customer’s requirements as possible. Each car-maker provides its own range of customisable options, which have increasingly become a very important aspect of the product offering. Providing choice enhances the buying experience and increases the customer’s interaction with the product and in turn their ultimate satisfaction with their purchase. The automotive industry is probably the most mature when it comes to offering and fulfilling a customisation service on a massmarket scale. But customisation services are becoming increasingly popular across a range of industries, including the fashion industry. Companies offer customised products that include footwear, clothing and accessories. However, customisation processes also run much deeper than the simple choices we’re asked to make about colour or size when buying cars and fashion. Customisation is most evident through the digital technologies we use daily. Our smart phones, tablets and PCs are customised according to how we use them. Different backgrounds, applications, build specification, etc., as well as the cases we use to protect them allow our digital devices to exhibit personal qualities based on who owns them and how they are used. To keep things simple we tend to customise using pre-made products. Furniture is usually

purchased off-the-shelf and then combined with other manufactured items to complete the look. Not all customers have the confidence, time or money to commission custom made furniture as it’s perceived as being inconvenient, complicated and costly. Commissioning custom made furniture and other products is now becoming viable through the use of computerised processes and digital fabrication technologies accessed via an online application or ‘configurator’. Customers are presented with an on screen interface comprising a preview visual and a number of sliders, buttons and text boxes which can be used to specify a range of different items from shelving to jewellery to shoes. Customers simply customise a base shape using the buttons and sliders until the desired outcome is achieved. This specification is then manufactured using a range of digital fabrication processes including 3D printing. Often these product configurators can be complicated due to the number of choices and decisions required to arrive at a viable conclusion. In addition, there will always be uncertainty regarding the look of the final manufactured item right up to the point that it is delivered, this is due to the disconnection inherent in screen based processes, which can deter prospective customers from using these systems. This is easily resolved as simply shifting the context of how we use a configurator can make a big difference. The computer games industry is probably one of the most advanced developers of configurators as they tend to be used to define in-game characters, weapons, vehicles and environments. And despite them being very sophisticated, presenting 100’s of options, their use is encouraged through the game play mechanics, turning the inconvenience of customisation into a playful activity. Customisation services are being offered across a range of different industries. Most are about offering the customer more choice but in reality they are used to drive more sales. However they could be seen to offer too much choice, which can be confusing for the customer. To address the confusion of too much choice, automated customisation processes are now controlling how we access content through our digital devices. These are often based on a personal digital footprint or profile that is used by service providers to determine what new content will be the most appealing to us. Our online experience is then customised accordingly. There are many examples of customisation

Hack 04/16

that is not captured by our digital profile. Simple things like the way we like our coffee and the impact this may have if we do not have it the way we like it. The desire to own and consume things that are aligned more accurately with our wants and needs is becoming increasingly important to us. Companies are addressing this through their service offerings and are apparently helping us to survive in an increasingly complex world — it’s what they define as their competitive advantage. If, however, we take this trivial aspect of basic survival to an extreme, removing the convenience of the developed world and imagine being stranded on a desert island. What would we do, what would we need to survive? Fortunately we’re all equipped with a basic survival instinct. Chances are we would scope the surrounding area in search of water and forage for food and start to pull trees apart to assemble a basic shelter. Familiarity with the environment would become crucial so we could upgrade and refine these basic living conditions to ensure we would cope. Paths would become defined based on our movement. Skills would develop according to what we needed to do. The need to be able to manipulate raw materials into objects that aid our survival becomes paramount. Addressing ones needs in extreme situations is in effect a form of customisation. In this instance the environment is configured, adapted and customised to meet our individual requirements to ensure our survival. Customisation could be considered to be a natural phenomenon that gives us our competitive advantage, which in turn allows us to survive and shine. If our need to adapt and customise is hardwired into our very being. If it is instinctive and simply something that we naturally do, then customisation should be accepted, exploited and, more importantly, embraced. §

Hack 04/16 11/15

An Enthusiastic 3D printing community

Interview

Hack 04/16

Interview with Richard Horne aka. RichRap3D Richard Horne (RichRap) is an Electronics Engineer, Product Designer, Salesman, and Problem Solver working in a wide range of industries and applications, across many platforms and technologies for the last twenty years. His interest and passion for 3D printing started in 2009 after visiting the RepRap project website and reading a series of blog posts by another highly dedicated developer, Nophead. RichRap started blogging, designing and developing with 3D printing shortly after. He is co-author of 3D printing for Dummies and he holds an advisory board position for the 3D Printing Association. Richard strongly believes in Open Source technology, collaboration and open innovation along with the freedom to share ideas and designs. You’ve mentioned RepRap as being the reason that initially attracted you to 3D printing, but what was it about RepRap that got you hooked? For me the RepRap project had a perfect recipe of ingredients and an almost unlimited set of challenges ahead. I initially got involved with the project after the first Darwin 3D printers had been built and the Mendel (by Ed Sells) was just starting to be distributed. There were probably less than 500 RepRap 3D printers ‘alive’ at that point. Now, in 2015, I would estimate that there are more than 500,000 units out there, in one form or another. No one really knows for sure, but what I am certain of is that the RepRap project has influenced many areas of desktop 3D printing — open source and commercial. I do have a long background in electronics and product design, but I don’t believe you

need any experience — other than wanting to get involved — to be part of RepRap. I enjoy the mix of 3D design, electronics, software and mechanical construction — not many projects get you involved in all aspects of product development and refinement. And if you are only interested in one aspect, then that’s fine, all the rest works, so you can just focus on the part of the project that is interesting to you. When I first got started I was quickly wondering how I could help, almost every aspect worked well for the Mendel, but it does not take long to see that there are thousands of things that can always be improved. ‘I could see almost no end to the RepRap project and 3D printing in general, and that was what actually got me hooked. The fact that it was Open Source and everyone was happy to share just convinced me to invest my time and energy. I’m still delighted to be doing that to this day.’

Hack 04/16

“Looking forward, it’s always the challenges that drive me to experiment. I can see so many more things that can be improved, and like always it will be totally new processes that will leapfrog the existing 3D printing manufacturing methods and improve both speed and quality.”

You make a big contribution to the RepRap community and maker activity in general is on the increase. Why do you think that the maker movement is so popular at the moment? I think maker culture has always been popular. Many traditional hobbies, like model trains, sewing, paper-craft and DIY electronics have been occupying many people for decades. The internet has certainly helped connect people and turn even the smallest niche market sector into profitable businesses. Access to low cost tools, technology and materials mean that anyone can attempt to make, create, design or invent something themselves, it’s more of a change in mindset: ‘It can be done’, and here is the Youtube video, blog or workshop showing you how to do it. If you don’t get enjoyment out of making, then maybe it’s not for you. But at this point you can find a guide, forum or group that will probably help you do whatever you want. ‘The sharing and openness of a project is almost more important than the end result. How to do things, what worked and what didn’t. And most importantly who helped you achieve, pushes many people to do more, and share whatever they make. That’s probably the essence of the maker movement mindset.’ You’ve been interested in 3D printing since 2009. From your perspective what have been the biggest changes over the last six years. And looking ahead what are the challenges to be overcome to ensure the community continues to flourish? When I started it was a series of interesting challenges that very few people had tackled, the end result was 3D printed parts, but that’s not what was driving the early RepRap

Interview

developers and users. Most people forget that the RepRap project is not actually about 3D printers. It’s about self-replicating machines. ‘3D printing’ just happens to be the easiest way to achieve that goal at the moment. To be a “RepRap” the machine needs to be able to self print as many of its own parts as possible. We are obviously a very long way away from having a 100% RepRap machine. I remember about 18 months before I actually got involved with RepRap, a few people were demonstrating how to wind your own heating coils from NiChrome wire (the same sort of thing that’s used in toasters that glows red hot). The process of making a single hot-end (the part that melts the plastic in a controlled manner) was long and complicated — just sourcing all the raw components required to make it required a lot of research and multiple orders for parts. You then had to manually drill parts, shape heating blocks, wind wire coils and do your best to insulate it with materials like fire cement and Kapton tape. I watched all this with interest, but didn’t have time in my life to do so much, just to get started. There were no kits or modular components, it was almost all to be made from (very) raw components and materials. The tipping point came when some of these aspects were refined by the first core team of developers. Chris Palmer (nophead) and others made it easier to get started by simplifying the most complicated parts of 3D printing. Some of the hot-end components could now be bought pre-machined and resistors were much easier to use as heating elements rather than winding wire. I jumped in at this point as it seemed like I could get something working with only some basic tools required. I still made my own extruders and hot-ends — mostly to show it could be done without the need for lathe’s or other expensive equipment. The biggest changes are that you can now buy every single component required to build a 3D printer — and from thousands of places. They are defined as 3D printer parts rather than raw components that you could ‘adapt’. Easy to build kits are commonplace and many built machines are available.

Interview

More significantly, for the last few years we have been moving into the most productive area of desktop 3D printing. People can now use personal 3D printers to make things that are useful. 80% of the parts I 3D print, even now, are for new 3D printer designs or 3D printing developments and experiments. Not everyone wants a 3D printer to upgrade and improve. They are buying a desktop machine because they want the parts, models and finished objects from the machine because that helps them in their business, hobby or life. When I started it could take well over 1 hour just to process (slice) a 3D model of a toy whistle into Gcode data that the 3D printer can understand. So almost any experiment or change of setting, parameter or design change could take hours just to prepare, then printing could easily take another three hours. Now we have Slicer programs that do the processing almost instantaneously, and printing that same whistle could be achieved in 30 minutes. ‘Looking forward, it’s always the challenges that drive me to experiment. I can see so many more things that can be improved, and like always it will be totally new processes that will leapfrog the existing 3D printing manufacturing methods and improve both speed and quality.’ The RepRap and Open Source hardware community has never been all that coordinated, it’s commonly described as an Adhocracy. That can seem totally counter-productive to anyone new who wants to work on a problem or improve something. This often leads to them doing it on their own. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as some people will share what they have done, and others will decide to make a business out of it. A few even do both. It’s also why we see so many diverse ideas, solutions and inventions. If it’s too controlled it takes the fun away (I think people have enough of ‘control’ in their daily lives). For me I see the continued random developments as a good thing, although I would really like to see a few more ‘standards’ adopted by the community so it’s easier for more things to be compatible (see my universal filament spool standard as an example). That

Hack 04/16

will probably come naturally as more aspects become standardised as the optimal way to do things, these then become interim standards until someone changes everything because they have discovered an even better way. I’m sure we will see more focus on usability and also many more specific projects that either use 3D printers or help refine them. The eNable project1 is a fantastic example of gentle coordination, worthwhile goals and individual, personal focus to help a very worthy cause. People want to help people, and it’s this sort of project that would collapse if too much red-tape was involved in the process. But there is always room for improvement so it’s good to see core members guiding and promoting the project, even when companies like Google get involved. 2 Desktop 3D printers have come along way in the last few years and you’ve been instrumental in pushing their capability, functionality and reliability. What are you most pleased with in terms of your own 3D printing innovations? And what 3D printing problems are you looking forward to addressing in the future? I have very much enjoyed experimenting with materials, from my mechanical paste extruder that could print ceramic, chocolate and didn’t need a compressed air source, to mixing colours and material types. Designing 3D printers like the 3DR was a lot of fun, I had my kids in mind when designing it, and they can use it safely to print many different things. I am most pleased when I get messages from people or someone stops me at a trade show, just to say they read my blog or that they have done something based on my work. It’s great to hear the story or share in that moment knowing that something you did made a difference or inspired someone, even just for personal use or if they have made a successful company from it, it’s heart-warming. I do get the occasional message from people telling me how I could of used a tool, or piece of equipment to make the design better, and that’s great. But my goal with almost every project I have done was to use as simple and basic parts as possible with as many 3D printed

Hack 04/16

parts and off-the shelf components because most of my messages are from people who have managed to make one of my designs in parts of the world where they do not have access to custom machined components or expensive machinery. I have tried to keep the RepRap philosophy in mind when I design things, so everyone can replicate it or build on the work or idea. I get a few messages like ‘I took your design and CNC machined it all in metal, and now it works even better’ It’s always great to know people can build on ideas, so I always reply and find out what they have done, why they did it and if they are likely to share their ideas too. I probably worked twice as long and compromised so I didn’t need to CNC machine or Laser-cut the design. I’m not trying to make things that can be mass produced or traditionally manufactured. But if that’s your goal, then it’s fine by me, I’m glad to have helped. I like to think that my RepRap and 3D printer projects are valued because they are accessible and can be made up without the need for single source or machined custom parts (other than custom 3D printed parts you can print yourself). For the future, it’s ever more exciting. Many people are looking at aspects like colour printing, and multi/mixed material combinations for more useful printed products (like combining soft and hard materials in differing proportions). I believe we need to further refine the tool-chain of 3D design – processing and have more of a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) end result with 3D printing models – quite often what you get (or not) is still a surprise for the bemused user. I also hope we can speed up the desktop 3D printing process, many times faster than now. It’s not going to be easy as thermoplastic melts and cools at specific rates, UV resins take time to set and powders with binders can only be applied so fast. I’m hopeful that RepRap will find new ways to produce entire print layers at a time, so tracing out and infilling each part is a thing of the past. But if it was that easy, we would have done it 30 years ago. Right now it’s going to take some clever ideas and maybe

Interview

“But it always comes back to the flexibility and ability to do whatever you want. If a new material is released that needs specific temperature settings, and processes for printing, with an open platform you can make it work and use it. With a closed platform, you have to wait for the manufacturer to decide if they will support that material or option, and even if they do, will they insist you buy their version of it, at an inflated price?”

even some new materials to considerably speed up desktop 3D printing, and that’s what most people really want. Building your own 3D printers must give you a fantastic insight into understanding how they work and how to get the best out of them, but what are the most surprising and challenging aspects of this direct relationship you have with the machines? Yes, having control over a product is immensely satisfying. And when you get used to the flexibility this provides it’s hard to invest time in something that you can’t adapt in the same way. One of the most challenging aspects is actually all the possible changes, I have on a few occasions not been able to print anything on any machine because they were all in various states of change or in an unstable state. It’s that moment when you wish for a 3D printer

Interview

Hack 04/16

that just works and can not be tinkered with — this is often the mindset of a user wanting only the end result from 3D printing — rather than a developer, tinkering with almost endless settings. ‘But it always comes back to the flexibility and ability to do whatever you want. If a new material is released that needs specific temperature settings, and processes for printing, with an open platform you can make it work and use it. With a closed platform, you have to wait for the manufacturer to decide if they will support that material or option, and even if they do, will they insist you buy their version of it, at an inflated price?’ Having any custom 3D printer can also make it tricky to help other people get the same results (with a different 3D printer or software). It would be nice to have some ‘standards’ but that’s the trade-off — flexibility or more limited but stable platforms. File sharing sites, forums, blogs and events all help disseminate the findings of the community but the volume of information can be overwhelming. For those that are just getting started what advice would you give to ensure their first steps into the world of 3D printing are encouraging? First, that desktop 3D printing is still in a basic state of development, you can’t print ‘anything’ or ‘everything’ it’s not a refined or press and print system... yet. If you need 3D printing for your hobby or business think about the different ways you can achieve 3D printed results. Also think if any other technology is better suited to the task you want to complete – 3D printing is not always best for everything. Often other manufacturing processes are more suitable. For example, you can still 3D design jewellery and get someone else — like Shapeways — to 3D print your products for you, in almost any material you can think of. Operating your own 3D printer can be frustrating if all you want is the finished output, especially if you need specific materials, fine details or multiple coloured prints. If, on the other hand, you want to get involved in 3D printing to understand the technology, maybe even help evolve it or experiment with materials and new ideas people have, then getting a 3D printer kit that you build yourself, can be a highly rewarding experience. If you don’t like the idea of assembling your own 3D printer – just bear in mind that you will need to perform maintenance operations, clear blocked hot-end nozzles and generally adjust and alter many mechanical parts of any 3D printer. It’s not going to be as easy to use or as maintenance free as a 2D paper printer. Select

a well-known machine from manufacturers like Printrbot, Ultimaker, RepRapPro, BCN3D Technologies or Lulzbot for example. Expect to pay $400 /£350 as a minimum, if you are spending less, make sure you know why (for example does it have a heated bed so you can print many different types of materials). Likewise if you are spending over $1600 / £1200 then ask what extras you are getting? Support? Higher quality materials? Etc. Then, when you get a 3D printer, take time to understand its limitations and start small – everyone needs to print a few test cubes to check everything is working and calibrated as expected. Ask questions and take pictures of issues. The 3D printing Google group now has 100,000+ members and the RepRap Forum has exceptionally experienced users who will help you for no reward. § References: 1. e-Nable Website: http://enablingthefuture.org 2. 3DPrint.com: http://3dprint.com/68384/google-grantenable-prosthetic/

Hack 04/16

Team Profiles

Richard Adams Programme Leader: BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design After completing his MSc in Industrial Design, Richard has worked internationally and designed everything from transportation to high technological medical products for the National Health Service. His passion and focus is on human centred design approaches to help designers be more people facing. He has previously set up and run two successful companies, one a design consultancy and the other focused on the development and manufacture of technology driven products. Among Richard’s many accolades he was one of a team of five who visited Cape Town as part of the internationally acclaimed ‘The International Entrepreneur’ conference and provided the keynote presentation at the Dalian Design Festival in China. Richard’s research project investigates the visual appearance of products and in particular the way products are distorted depending on where and how they are viewed. In our everyday lives our sight is overwhelmed with information, all of which helps us to understand and develop our own visual translation and perception, which stays with us for the rest of our lives.

John Beaufoy Senior Lecturer: BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design John has more than 35 years’ experience of design and making. He started out as a designengineering apprentice at Dunlop in Coventry. Since then he has worked as a mechanical and production engineer, product designer, model maker and sculptor in advertising, toys and crafts, film and T.V, consumer products, childcare products, packaging and branding, architecture and photography. John has worked with many leading brands, including Unilever, Boots, Hasbro, Mattel, IDEO, FutureBrand, The BBC, and Mothercare as well as with many other artists, clients and design teams. He has an interest in all areas of art and design, sculpture, automata and mechanical art as well as an obsession with bicycles! As a member of the Design Research Group Digital Hack Lab, John’s research focuses on the possibilities and implications of using 3D printers within the home and how this impacts

Team Profiles

Hack 04/16

on the way products are designed. As part of this research he is designing and making a range of 3D printed table lamps. He also works cross discipline combining traditional craft design and making with digital scanning and 3D printing.

and Design, BSc Industrial Design, BA (Hons) Graphic Design and Illustration, BA (Hons) Fashion and BA (Hons) Fashion and Fashion Business. He teaches on both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in the School. He also supervises postgraduate research at Another aspect of John’s research considers Masters and PhD levels, including projects on experimenting with ideas for craft toys using branding, fashion, product and graphic design lenses and Camera Obscuras. He was recently and illustration. He is Head of the Digital Hack commissioned to make a piece of metal and Lab, leading a team of fourteen innovators, wood sculpture for an award and has just the Creative Ideas Office where he is finished a series of figurative sculptures and clay responsible for industry consultancy projects, and plaster. work in the community, short courses and executive training. Mark Bloomfield Visiting Professor: Design and Innovation Jewellery designer and Royal College of Art graduate Mark Bloomfield is a digital craftsman based at London’s iconic Oxo Tower. He is also Visiting Professor of Design, Innovation and Technology at the School of Creative Arts at the University of Hertfordshire. Mark has designed for some of the most influential and prominent designers, including Asprey, Vivienne Westwood, Paul Smith and Matthew Williamson. In addition he has worked in film and TV making jewellery for Titanic, Judge Dredd, Braveheart and Poirot. As a leader in his field, using traditional craftsmanship techniques, digital tools and manufacturing technologies, Mark continues to dissolve boundaries and redefine the process of making through his exploration of the possibilities offered by current and emerging technologies. In 2012 he won the Materialise World 3D Print Award. His fascination with the natural world is reflected in his renditions of flora that are digitally manufactured and finished by hand. All of Mark’s current work is customisable and encourages creative participation as the combinations of shapes and colours present a never-ending world of possibilities. Mark creatively combines traditional craft techniques with advanced digital processes resulting in jewellery that is engaging, surprising, thought provoking and sparks conversation.

Dr Shaun Borstrock. FRSA Associate Dean of School, Head of Design, Innovation and Business. Head of the Design Research Group / Digital Hack Lab Shaun’s remit in the School of Creative Arts includes the BA (Hons) Product Design, BA (Hons), BA Architecture, Interior Architecture

He also works as an independent consultant to luxury brands and associations around the globe. They have included Unity PR, Ford, Finpro, The Cape Town Fashion Council, Thomas Pink, Fortnum and Mason, Dolce Gabbana, Gucci, The British Luxury Council and Alessandra Gradi, former Creative Director at Asprey. He is a regular Keynote speaker at government, corporate and education events around the world as an authority on delivering design education as well as on subjects that include luxury branding and fashion, consumerism, branding and brand strategies. His success in the design industry, collaboration with global corporations and personal viewpoint make him a valued contributor to industry and education. Shaun’s research evaluates notions of luxury that seem far removed from today’s world of excessive consumption. He considers and establishes how notions of luxury, designer, consumerism and manufacturing have played a role in determining the emergence of the ‘designer luxury’ market. Shaun sets out to explore how technology is changing the perception of the hand made and considers traditional hand production methods, hand stitching, and limited production and craft skills. In addition, mass production is considered in the context of how luxury brands have grown as a result of being able to supply historically hand crafted products en masse through technological innovation.

Pete Brownhill 3D Principal Technical Officer Pete was instrumental in the purchase of the School’s first 3D printer 17 years ago. Since then, the area has expanded to three workshop-based units, using three different methods of manufacture, each having its own strengths and applications.

Team Profiles

Hack 04/16

Pete is a member of the Design Research Group / Digital Hack Lab team producing his own work as well as collaborating on a number of projects including product design, fashion, medical, urban planning and architecture. He has worked in the workshops helping students and staff to create a huge variety of objects, ranging from life casts to high end engineered products. He has a model making background and works in a workshop that has integrated traditional making and the digital environment. It is a resource that supplies models for a variety of purposes, from design prototypes and test rigs to film props. Pete’s own work focuses on the exploration of finishing prints as bespoke items, giving them a stronger character. Paint effects and techniques from other creative disciplines are considered and applied to 3D printed objects to give a more dramatic impact to the finished item. These processes take the model away from a flat colour and transform models into replicas, duplicating surface textures. Most people are fascinated by a custom-made and accurate rendering of an object or structure. Pete uses Z-Corp printers, Dimension BST systems, Objet and Ultimaker systems. He also uses the EOS laser sintering system and prepares files with Magics software.

Dr Silvio Carta Programme Leader: BA (Hons) Architecture & BA (Hons) Interior Architecture and Design Silvio has a Ph.D. from the University of Cagliari, Italy, Doctor Europaeus, ARB RIBA architect. His main fields of interest are architectural design and design theory. His studies have focused on the understanding of contemporary architecture, digital design, architectural criticism, research through making, and the analysis of the design process. He taught at the University of Cagliari (Italy), Willem de Kooning Academy (University of Rotterdam) and Delft University of Technology, Department of Public Building. Articles by Dr Carta have appeared in A10, Mark, Frame, Bauwelt, Domus et al. Since 2008 he has been editor-at-large for C3-Korea and he has recently edited the monograph Urban Presences, Maurice Nio – Complete Works 2000–2011 (2010), and CEBRA, from Drawing to Building (2012). He is currently working on a series of forthcoming publications about the use of big data in the most recent digital designs.

Silvio’s research focuses on the use of a large set of data in the design process to analyse and produce new types of spaces in the built environment. The research involves the observation of big-data driven projects and the production of a series of spatial prototypes. The research methodology involves analysis of case studies and production of spatial prototypes. The outcome of the analysis of case studies is the creation of knowledge about big-data driven projects to inform the design tests. The production of spatial prototypes allows for the investigation of the design process at its core. Large data sets are acquired externally or produced internally and translated into point clouds, which inform the creation of space. The final outcomes of these tests are objects, rooms or hybrid spaces of variable scale. Silvio is the curator of the AUDITORIUM 2015-16 international Lecture Series in Leuven, Belgium.

Dr David Chau Senior Lecturer: Pharmacy David specialises in teaching Pharmaceutics; the design and manufacturing of dosage forms - at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. David originally trained as a chemical engineer before gaining an interest in biology, which resulted in his interest of regenerative medicine. He is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Pharmacy. His ongoing research activities focus on tissue engineering and applications of biotechnology for healthcare. David is a firm believer in the concept: ‘to make things better, you first need to know how it works’ which engages his science and engineering background. However, David believes that the boundary between the arts and the sciences is becoming increasingly blurred and is involved in a number of projects that integrate these distinct disciplines. “People don’t build planes, if they don’t dream of flying like the birds”.

Dr Paul Cureton Senior Lecturer: Design Software Skills and Innovation; BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design, BA (Hons) Architecture & BA (Hons) Interior Architecture and Design Paul is a Landscape Architect teaching across programmes in the Design Group.Research

Team Profiles

interests span applied, technological and historical contexts of large geographic regions. Primary research interests include future cities, urban imaginaries and scenario planning, landscape architecture representation, urban notation, territory mapping, modelling & visualization and novel capture techniques such as UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), LiDAR (Laser Imaging Detection & Ranging) and 3D printing.

Nicola de Main Lecturer: BA (Hons) Fashion & BA (Hons) Fashion and Fashion Business Over the past ten years Nicola’s work has extended beyond traditional design methodologies. During this time she has managed Hussein Chalayan’s design studio and subsequently set up her own label, focusing on contemporary digital print, sold through stores in the UK and Europe. She was awarded the Fashion Futures designer of the year in 2004 for her debut collection. Nicola works as a consultant identifying solutions related to emerging technologies and the integration of LEDs and audio into garments. Her clients have included Nivea, Nokia, ASOS and fashion conglomerate VF Corporation. Nicola’s research interests include wearable technologies, and more specifically testing the properties of silicone and its relationship to haptic technology where hardware and software is embedded into the fabric creating user interfaces controlled by the wearer or viewer.

Antje Illner Subject Lead: BA (Hons) Contemporary Design Crafts Antje Illner undertook a goldsmithing apprenticeship before studying Jewellery Design in Schwäbisch Gmünd Germany. She graduated from the Royal College of Art in 1994. Working as a professional jewellery designer and design consultant, Illner has worked continuously in higher education since 1995. She spent four years at the University of Plymouth, Exeter teaching 3D Design. Since 1999, she has been a Senior Lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire, and in 2010 she became the Programme Leader for Contemporary Applied Arts and subsequently in 2013 became Programme Leader for

Hack 04/16

Contemporary Design Crafts. She joined the RCA in 1996 as a visiting lecturer and became a tutor in jewellery in 1998, with responsibility for the course elective ‘Designing for Industry’, which offers students the opportunity to design and gain an insight into related creative industries. The aim of Antje’s research is to investigate if a change of materials can be used to alter the iconography and user-experience of a medical device, specifically that of inhalers.

Julian Lindley MA FRSA FHEA Senior Lecturer: BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design Julian’s interest in 3D printing revolves around two possibilities. Firstly, exploring new approaches within design methodology and education. That is how will this new technology alter the way we develop and consume products? And subsequently how this will affect the role of ‘professional designer’. Secondly how do we utilise additive manufacture in creating a Sustainable Future. Within this he acknowledges the paradox that currently 3D printing has increased rather than decreased material consumption. His research, for which he is widely published and presents internationally, revolves around sustainability — particularly issues of design and social sustainability. These themes are interconnected and impact on the way he teaches future designers. Julian currently divides his time between Design Consultancy, helping clients develop new or existing products and lecturing across the undergraduate programmes in Product and Industrial Design while co-ordinating the School’s cluster of post-graduate programmes in Design.

Noorie Madarbux Graduating recently from the University of Hertfordshire with a Masters of Pharmacy degree, Noorie has since worked at St George’s Hospital, London as a pre-registration pharmacist. Whilst at university, Noorie was involved in scientific and pharmacy practice research and presented this work at conferences including the British Pharmaceutical Student Association Annual Conference in Liverpool and the United

Hack 04/16

Kingdom Clinical Pharmacist Association Conference in Nottingham. Since working at St George’s Hospital with a rotational position for the year, Noorie is able to alternate between the different roles of a pharmacist in the hospital setting. Having worked as a surgical pre-registration pharmacist for six weeks, Noorie is now working in sterile services as well as in paediatrics. She has been involved in aseptically assembling total parental nutrition and cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs for patients within the hospital as well as performing ward rounds on a post-operative children’s ward. After this, Noorie will have the opportunity to explore other clinical areas including cardiology wards and the HIV clinic before working off-site at Wandsworth Prison. After this year, Noorie intends to remain in the hospital sector whilst completing a Clinical Diploma in Pharmacy Practice

Steve McGonigal Senior Lecturer: BSc (Hons) Industrial Design & BA (Hons) Product Design Steve is a design consultant and senior lecturer in Product and Industrial Design. He has a First Class Honours Degree in Industrial Design Engineering from The University of Teesside and a Masters Degree with Distinction in Industrial Design Engineering from De Montfort University. He has a Post Graduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education and is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Steve is a creative and practical product designer with a broad range of design and business skills including creative product design, design for manufacture, user interaction, product graphics, corporate design management and project management. These skills have been developed throughout a career spanning more than 20 years within corporate design and manufacturing environments and design consultancy. In 2006 Steve established his own product design practice, Iomlan Design Ltd. This is run in parallel with teaching commitments. Consultancy experience includes developing creative product design solutions within markets such as commercial printing, life sciences, scientific instruments, consumer

Team Profiles

electronics, financial systems, medical and children’s equipment. Combining industrial experience with the fresh thinking of academia, Iomlan Design can offer creative design solutions balanced with practical manufacturing knowledge. From a research perspective, interests include the development of products as physical and digital combinations and the emerging use of low cost 3D printing in the home environment to realise products at their point of use.

Antoine Proust Research Assistant: Design Research Group, Digital Hack Lab Antoine Proust, MA BA (Hons), began his education in France fulfilling a “Bachaloreat” diploma in Management of Information Systems, Economy and Law before moving to Norway. He then began his Bachelor degree in Interior Architecture at the Norwegian School of Creative Studies (NKH). Two years into his studies Antoine decided to finish his undergraduate studies at the University of Hertfordshire, where he completed a Masters in Interior Architecture and Spatial Design. The aim of his research is to design a modular and innovative construction system for habitat called MODUSHELTER, combining sustainable materials with 3D printing technology. Reconstructing communities rather than camps, it will contribute in raising the living standard for emergency situations by promoting a sense of ownership, physiological comfort and emotional safety. The shelters can be flown by large drones in self-contained units to access even the most remote areas. Its modularity will promote creativity allowing the refugees to design their own living space adapted to their need. The next step of the research will be 3D printing a full-scale prototype to be tested in real life conditions.

Dr Doros Polydorou Programme Leader: BA (Hons) Creative Media and Digital Cultures Doros Polydorou is a creative coder with a keen interest in technological embodiment. He has undertaken extensive work with visual toolkits, game engines, arduino boards, wireless sensors and camera vision systems.

Team Profiles

Throughout his past work, he has collaborated with dancers, live music composers, costume designers, stage designers and many other visual artists. His work was presented in venues in London, Japan and Slovenia. Doros’ research considers contemporary dance performances where technology is used in order to enhance the ‘spectacle’ experienced by an audience. The majority of these digital performances focus on issues that explore the relationship between an individual or a group of performers with the present technology. At the same time, these technologies are rarely used to enhance the relationship between the performers themselves. This research proposes a way to create a corporeal link between performers, by giving them the ability —through haptic feedback — to become aware of each other’s feelings and actions in space.

Eva Sopeoglou Lecturer: BA (Hons) Architecture & BA (Hons) Interior Architecture and Design Eva is a London-based practicing architect, academic researcher and architecture tutor. Eva holds a BA professional degree (AUTh, Greece, 1998) and an MA post-professional degree in Emerging Technology (PennDesign, University of Pennsylvania, 1999). She has many years of teaching experience in Greece and in the UK. Eva was a Visiting Scholar at the CCA - Canadian Centre for Architecture in Montreal (2012), researching the archives of Cedric Price. She has practiced architecture in New York (1999-2004, with Gruzen Samton Architects and with Bernard Tschumi Architects). Eva’s practice and research focus on creative outlooks in architecture and urban design that consider the environment and fabrication technologies. She is currently completing a PhD in Architectural Design at the UCL Bartlett School of Architecture, exploring the concepts of the envelope enclosure and of thermal comfort in the built environment through a multi-disciplinary approach, studying the overlaps between architecture, textile-design and fashion. Her work uses digital fabrication technology to design, fabricate and construct 1:1 prototype enclosures, perforated facades and environmental screens. She maintains a professional practice, and collaborates with metal fabricator METALSO designing and

Hack 04/16

fabricating with cutting-edge CAD/CAM technologies. Her work and research have been widely published and exhibited.

Credits

Hack 04/16

Head of the Design Research Group & Digital Hack Lab Dr Shaun Borstrock Editors Rachel Park Rachel is an accomplished print and web editor with more than 24 yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience of producing engaging and informative copy. Her specific area of expertise is the 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing sector. and Mark Bloomfield Visiting Professor: Design and Innovation Designer Nick Lovegrove Photography Agnes Lloyd-Platt Stylist Alex Petsetakis Make Up and Hair Anna Payne Models Kayt Webster-Brown Gala Colviet-Dennison Contributing Photographer Reggie Bartlett

For more information contact: digitalhacklab@herts.ac.uk

Principal Technical Officer Peter Brownhill

www.herts.ac.uk/digitalhacklab

School Resources Officer Adam Ladlow

ÂŠ University of Hertfordshire Higher Education Corporation 2016

With special thanks to all who contributed to this publication.

ISBN: 978-1-909291-75-1

Digital Hack Lab

University of Hertfordshire School of Creative Arts Hatfield AL10University 9AB of Hertfordshire t. +44College (0) 1707 284000 Lane e. ask@herts.ac.uk Hatfield w. herts.ac.uk

AL10 9AB