Digital Design & Fabrication Final Folio

DIGITAL DESIGN + FABRICATION SM1, 2017 M4 JOURNAL - ‘TRAM SPACE’ ELLIOT LEVI (694359) Tutor : Josh Russo, Group #9 (Thursday 12-2)

1

2

3

4

1.0 IDEATION 1.1 OBJECT 1.2 OBJECT + SYSTEM ANALYSIS 1.2 VOLUME 1.3 SKETCH DESIGN PROPOSALS

2.0 DESIGN 2.1 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT INTRO 2.2 DESIGN PROPOSAL V.1 2.3 PRECEDENT RESEARCH 2.4 DESIGN PROPOSAL V.2 2.5 PROTOTYPING AND TESTING

3.0 FABRICATION 3.1 FABRICATION INTRO 3.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3.3 PROTOTYPE 3.4 FINAL DIGITAL MODEL 3.5 FABRICATION PROCESS3.6 FABRICATION SEQUENCE 3.6 ASSEMBLY DRAWING 3.7 COMPLETED 2ND SKIN

4.0 REFLECTION 4.1 READING RESPONSES

5

6

0.0 INTRODUCTION This project provided an opportunity to learn a variety of valuable skills, as well as explore an aspect of design that I don’t get much exposure to in my major. In that sense I’m happy to have undertaken it, and I feel as though it’s been a constructive component of my design education.

I’m now aware of some excellent and exciting work being done both here and around the world, I’m more technically aware, and, most importantly, I’ve figured out that I’m probably not best put to use doing this kind of work.

Honestly, most of the time I didn’t enjoy what we were doing. This has as much to do with the nature of group work as it does with the project itself, but unfortunately a few different factors overlapped to make DDF the bane of my existence for the semester. That said, I learnt a lot and don’t regret a thing as a result.

Our project was based on the panel and fold material system, which we hoped would provide a good balance between flexibility of potential form and simplicity of function.

Please note that the format of my journal varies slightly from the template due to the nature of our design process. Additionally, this version of the journal has been much refined since submission of the physical copy to the Baldwin Spender Building.

My USB got caught it the rollers of the chute, but I’m pretty sure it went in. If you haven’t received it, it’ll be on the ground around there.

7

8

1.0 IDEATION My ‘found object’ was a folding stool, the mechanism of which was fairly basic: an upward folding hinge along the top, and two inward folding hinges (one on each side). This allowed it to fold down into a reasonably flat form.

It was measured simply using a ruler, as it contains few difficult to access components. The Rhino modelling process was time consuming as I modelled the hinges and joints as accurately as possible and used fillets of the correct diameter to mirror the subtle curvature of all the stool’s edges.

9

1.1 MEASURED DRAWING AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

10

11

1.2 VOLUME MODEL

12

1.3 SKETCH DESIGNS

13

14

15

2.0 DESIGN

BY Elliot Oscar Levi (694359), Hongrui Chen [Cheetah] (802344), Yue Hei Jasimin Cheng (805167)

2.1 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION Throughout the initial design phase we attempted to define personal space in a fashion that would guide our design thinking, and then experimented with forms that could potentially fill the resulting design brief. Unfortunately we were too long in focussing on a definition, and when we did focus on one - a user’s personal space on a aeroplane, specifically with the window to one side - we found it much too narrow, which constricted the creativity of our solutions.

The aspect of my Module 1 proposals that were carried forwards at this stage were the enclosing volume and the blunt but functional portable wall.

One of my very early, super-quick sketches that I made right after we began to brainstorm as a group and attempt to fuse our ideas from Module 1.

16

2.2 DESIGN PROPOSAL V.1 This design is a fusion of the angular, wall-like forms of my Module 1 designs with the more exciting, twisted form of Cheetah’s. Jasimin’s work is less present in this design, but he suggested we keep the response minimal - a refreshing change from my gung-ho, fortress wall-like approach. Although the design’s weakness is that how it exactly it mounts on the body is unclear, the basic idea was that the twisting elements wrap around the user’s shoulders and limbs to secure it.

This model is, unfortunately, a quick reproduction of the original one we made, but which we lost before our Module 2 presentation.

Images/3-D Model: Hongrui Chen (2017)

17

18

Images/3-D Model: Hongrui Chen (2017)

2.3 PRECEDENT RESEARCH After the brainstorming phase we began to experiment with different versions of our material system: a stock-standard set of panels joined with tabs at the edge, a variation of this with a panel on the reverse side for added strength, and one with kerfing. The first two were based on the Huyghe + Le Corbusier Puppet Theatre by MOS (2004), where the simplicity of the system they employed did not prevent the result from being both aesthetically pleasing and of interesting aspect.

Description MOS’s Puppet Theatre features a series of interlocking triangular panels of varied size that bolt together along the folded edge (see above).

The slightly shiny plastic panels reflect sunlight, while the fact that the joining edge of some panels is folded in the opposite direction to others creates further visual interest.

The mold on the exterior of the structure (not pictured here) makes for an interesting facade, and one that presumably changes as the mold grows (Elliot Levi, 2017; description from M2).

19

The kerfing variation was inspired by the following set of prototypes, known as ‘Wooden Waves’, by Arthur MamouMani (2015). We were excited by the aesthetic quality of the work, as well as the potential to make ‘panels’ that weren’t actually separate from each other yet still described a form.

Description Kerfing allows the material to bend with a series of strategically-placed cuts or etches. The primary difference between the two examples is that the former utilises etches, curves in two directions, and has extra holes cut in order to save weight. The latter is a classic straight kerf that allows a simple fold (Elliot Levi, 2017; description from M2).

Image: Mamou-Mani (2015): http://mamou-mani.com/project/wooden-waves/

20

We devised a number of potential applications of these variations, but didn’t devote ourselves to any one.

The following is a sketch of a design made with the double-panel variation.

21

A sketch of a design made for the the kerfing variation.

22

2.4 DESIGN PROPOSAL V.2 This design -the final for Module 2 - responded to a very specific context: on an aircraft, with another passenger to your right and the window to your left. The idea was that the bulkier, wall-like structure to the right would formally and definitively mark the boundary of your personal space for the people to the right; on the left, your space would still be defined, but with a more subtle gesture so as not to obscure your view out the window.

The specificity of the context was perhaps too much, imposing both extremely strict and somewhat confusing restraints on the nature of our design. Additionally, the two components of the design - the wall and the subtle gesture have no formal characteristics in common. This means the design lacks unity and both looks and feels clunky.

Images/3-D Model: Yue Hei Jasimin Cheng (2017)

23

24

Images/3-D Model: Yue Hei Jasimin Cheng (2017)

2.5 PROTOTYPE V.1 & TESTING EFFECTS We moved to prototyping each of the variations, which proved instructive: we found the single-sided panel to be weak, the kerfing difficult to do well, and the double-panel system to be by far the strongest and most durable. While we didn’t abandon kerfing straight away, the insights gained from these prototypes eventually informed our decision to go with the double-sided panel variation.

One of our kerfing tests: we found kerfing to be interesting but difficult, but we enjoyed the potential benefits it offered.

Our basic panel prototype.

Basically a replica of the MOS Puppet Theatre panels (with bonus holes!).

Effects Perhaps the most interesting effect we managed to test was the multidirectional kerfing pattern. This, applied across an entire design and combined with a few other techniques could create an engaging material effect.

On the angular panels we simply trialled weight-saving (and aesthetically pleasing) holes in the panels to create an effect. The double-sided design, with different holes on each side, was the most successful in this regard (Elliot Levi, 2017; text from M2).

Our double-sided panel prototype. It was easy to build and strong.

Images: Hongrui Chen (2017)

25

3.0 FABRICATION 3.1 FABRICATION INTRODUCTION

BY Elliot Oscar Levi (694359), Hongrui Chen [Cheetah] (802344), Yue Hei Jasimin Cheng (805167) Below: early design development post Module 2.

As mentioned in the Design Proposal V.2 section, our work up to this point lacked unity of form and was conceived under a restrictive interpretation of personal space.

And so, we spent the next part of our design process attempting to pin down a design direction, while other groups were developing the designs they conceived of for the completion of Module 2. We also decided to reinterpret personal space for our new direction, choosing a simpler scenario: on the tram and trying to block line of sight to your smartphone, sketchbook, or some such thing. We also settled on the double-side panel variation of our material system and hurriedly developed designs.

3.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Our first design idea (upper right) was effectively a box around the user with holes to save weight - a throwback to some of our earlier designs.

It was not particularly inspired, and was done in a state of... almost panic. For that reason, we did not choose to develop the design further or prototype its components.

26

The other (right) was more minimal and focused on blocking line of sight to the area where a user would likely have their smartphone or sketchbook. The design was conceived by using a series of only two or three standardised panels for ease of fabrication and assembly.

3.2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT After receiving feedback in class we realised we were ignoring all the possible advantages offered by certain digital design and fabrication techniques, namely Panelling Tools in Rhino. Moving to panelling tools was truly a major shift in the way we approached our design, and after actually using panelling tools to model and prototype an object I realised we should have been doing it all along. A lesson well learnt.

One of our pannelling tools experiments.

We began modelling a simple set of panels with a curve and then converting this to a laser-cut file to test our workflow. This was a trial and error process, with some failures and successes.

While this was happening we came up with some concepts for a design that wrapped around the arm, and by manipulating the results of some our laser cutting experiments we came out with a prototype.

A concept model by Hongrui Chen (2017) for a piece that wraps around the arm.

27

3.3 PROTOTYPE This design attempts to conceal the hand and wrist area with a much smaller gesture - almost a symbolic one. A point extends from the main piece, more or less covering the hand and making a physical statement about the importance of what’s being obscured.

Notwithstanding the fact that one side of our double panel system was not cut correctly, our prototype was relatively successful. We managed to achieve the desired form with a little bit of bending and manipulation of tabs. The process was instructive as it forced us to improve our pipeline (although not enough, as will be seen), test different materials, and refine our labelling system.

28

Images: Hongrui Chen (2017)

3.4 FINAL DIGITAL MODEL We worked up a design that included an enlarged forearm piece using the doublepanel system. This was supposed to mount on the arm and block line of sight to the user’s phone or sketchbook with a large curved extrusion that mostly concealed the wrist and hand.

To complement this we designed a large shoulder piece to block line of sight from behind, as well as to provide a large barrier that a user could direct toward an observer, thereby sheltering most of their upper body.

29

30

31

3.5 FABRICATION PROCESS Our fabrication process was a shambles: due to an error in some of our laser cut files (or, rather, a mistake on our part at some point in our pipeline), the two sides of our double-panel system failed to line up.

We used the inner piece (below right) in our second attempt, as it helped us fix errors in our second batch of laser cut files.

Additionally, on our first attempt we tried to assemble it on the assumption that we could fully construct the front, top, and back sections of the outer and then inner pieces, and then join those together after that. This didn’t work in the end, as the tabs connecting the panels of the inner and outer sides were too numerous and too large, meaning they interfered with the joining process.

Shoulder - Inside (First Attempt)

Our second attempt proved more successful, although we again encountered errors in our laser cut files. Fortunately, we’d made a couple of different versions of our files and had planned to use parts of our Module 3 model if necessary. We also switched materials, from mountboard to ivory card.

Finally, we did managed to assemble it, but certainly not more systematically… In some instances we constructed entire rows of full double panels and then joined those together.

This proved effective but not reliable, as the errors in our new laser cut files made this technique applicable to only very few rows.

We actually had to use an entire section of our Module 3 model, which we kept assembled as it was and then, panel by panel, glued the second side of the double panel design to it.

Once we’d assembled the front, top, and back pieces by employing a combination of the above techniques, a lot of glue, and a bit of brute force, we then joined those together.

32

Image: Hongrui Chen (2017)

Inner and Outer Pieces failing to Join.

33

Image: Hongrui Chen (2017)

Unfortunately we do not have photographs from our second attempt, as it was a stressful and rushed process in which achieving some sort of outcome was the priority.

34 Image: Hongrui Chen (2017)

3.6 ASSEMBLY DIAGRAM To the right is my attempted assembly diagram from Module 3, which I’m aware is inadequate but which does, in fact, illustrate the general means by which our final model was assembled.

1. SHOULDER - FRONT

2. SHOULDER - TOP

3. SHOULDER - BACK

First, each of the blue sections were assembled by whatever means possible (refer to previous section), and then the panels for each of the yellow sections were either glued to the blue ones individually or assembled in rows and then attached.

Once this process was completed - and it was neither ordered nor easy - the three pieces were joined together.

I’d like to diagram the process, but I’m not entirely sure how and don’t feel it would be constructive at this point.

35

3.7 SECOND SKIN In the end we only managed to fabricate the shoulder piece, which somewhat weakened the design. It was, at least, sufficiently large that a user could conceivably use it as a portable barrier, and on some level the bigness of it could potentially symbolise the user’s desire to maintain their privacy.

36 Image: Hongrui Chen (2017)

The inner panels pictured here are actually the ones from our Module 3 model - it’s a good thing we held on to them.

37 Image: Hongrui Chen (2017)

4.0 REFLECTION It’s possible that, at least for me, the task in this project had too many possible interpretations and was too far removed from reality. By this I mean that it was difficult for me to conceive of personal space as something to be addressed with a physical artefact. Why? Because personal space is a fluid social construction that all people experience similarly yet differently, and which varies from context to context and culture to culture. Really, under no circumstances can a physical artefact properly respond to the complexities of the concept, and I therefore could not ascribe a use-value to the project and thus fully invest myself in it. It’s definitely an interesting project as an exercise in contextualisation and design thinking, but being a bluntly practical person I couldn’t engage with it as much as I’d like.

Throughout the subject I learnt of the need to focus my design language early on in the process. The fact that we developed potential designs for several variations of our material system rather than devoting ourselves to one meant that we didn’t get particularly far with any variation before the submission of Module 2. Because we had no definite direction it was then difficult to focus on a design and rationale, which put us on an uncertain path for more or less the remainder of the project.

Once we began to work with panelling tools our entire process changed, and I realised that we should have been using digital tools for everything. I believe this would have very much improved the quality and flow of our work. As it happens, I had to pull my other group members along when it came to making the transition into using digital tools. One of the major things that I took away from this project is that group work is difficult, which I already knew, I suppose, but this was the only recent experience I’ve had with group members who were not nearly as disciplined as I feel myself to be.

I did what I could, but over the course of the semester the frustrations of group dynamics and our failure to do decent work damaged my morale to the point that my work for this subject is of a much lower standard than I am capable of. Such is life.

38

About the final design: It must be said that while I had a say in the general conception of the final design, I did not have a say in the details of it. Where I contributed to it most is in figuring out how to use panelling tools to create it, and how to move from the 3-D model to a physical product. I made some errors there, but at least we overcame them in the end (sort of). In hindsight I should have had more of a hand in the actual modelling of the design, as there were some issues regarding scale and the means by which it mounted on the body which I feel I would not have overlooked.

All in all, I learnt a lot. It wasn’t fun, but at least I’m now better at Rhino and have a handle on some interesting techniques and concepts.

4.1 READING RESPONSES Imagining Risk by Marble This reading is about how industrialisation of the design and fabrication process eliminated the varied character of previously ‘crafted’ objects - each one representing the artfulness of the designer. An object was produced under particular conditions with particular materials by a particular person experiencing whatever particularities of existence at that time. Along with the level and nature of their technical skill, the above factors accounted for what is known variously as character, charm, uniqueness and the like, the absence of which is often lamented in contemporary society.

According to Marble, this absence is due largely to the management of risk, or, rather, the control of human input using machines and the resulting standardisation of output. He then argues that digital design and fabrication technology is allowing for a return to craft. This is seen to be the case due to the integration of once abstract representation techniques with fabrication data, where the designer can now control the entire design and fabrication process and thus leave their signature on the final product. This, as far as Marble is concerned, is a “back and forth play between humans and machines (risk and certainty),” which “has become increasingly important (pp, 43).”

Thus, digitally designed and fabricated objects suffer the same fate as all other digital products: infinite reproducibility and thus a lack of uniqueness. Any attempt to restrict the reproducibility of the product (by limiting the number of units produced despite the fact that more could be, for example) would be foreign to the nature of the design and thus artificial: a lie.

Yes, digital design and fabrication technology does bring designers closer to their products, and those products may more strongly bear the designer’s signature as a result, but it is no replacement for traditional craft. To equate them is folly. Humans do not represent ‘risk’ in the production process, as Marble would have it, but rather adaptive creativity, happy mistakes, and whimsy: artfulness, the very nature of craft. This is not to say that digital design and fabrication is any worse than craft (indeed, in most ways it is much better), simply that it is not craft. Better to see it as an exciting and entirely new paradigm of production with its own merits, weaknesses, and impact on what and how we produce.

However, while digital design and fabrication technology does allow for a closer relationship between designer and product, the nature of this relationship remains fundamentally different from that of traditional craftspeople to their products. This is due to the nature of tool employed, which is the mediator of this relationship. While traditional tools served simply to enhance the ability of a designer to create a unique object, digital design and fabrication tools not only enhance the ability of a designer but guarantee the precision of the outcome. It is perfectly calculable and reproducible if necessary, while the outcome of a traditional fabrication process never is.

39

Distributed Capitalism/The Third Industrial Revolution by Rifkin The ‘Third Industrial Revolution’, its accompanying production methods, and business models certainly warrants the enthusiasm with which Rifkin writes. Since publication of the article the technology and styles of thinking involved have developed further and are being applied at larger scale.

Where 3-D printing has been, for most of its existence, a tool for prototyping, it is now possible to go straight from design to final product.

New technology such as Carbon’s Speed Cell system is not only faster than conventional 3-D printing, but also produces stronger and more durable products (Ramirez, 2017). This is only going to improve.

However, Rifkin comes across as overly optimistic when the idea of democratisation of energy generation and the means of production comes into the article. That some sort of ‘democratisation’ of access to these has come about (and will continue) is true to some extent, but at present the open source era is dominated by large companies - larger than ever before, in fact (PwC, 2016) - and the distribution of wealth across society is more unequal than it has been for decades (Pickety, 2013). Both trends point to the fact that certain corporations and individuals own something that is not ‘democratised’, but which is nonetheless essential to the production of goods and services: the basis of consumer society.

True, more software is free, networks in which users share their assets are expanding and emerging all the time, and renewable energy systems are increasing market share despite entrenched opposition, but the modus operandi of developed economies is not about to change. As long as people are consuming something, some entity or another is profiting by it - an entity that owns assets that require formidable capital investment and/or technical skill to operate. The important assets to own may change, but that they will be owned by someone will not. In this sense, power and access is hardly being more equally distributed.

If you really wanted to, you could 3-D print a new iPhone case in your garage - absolutely; but the internet does not run itself, software does not make itself (yet), 3-D printers do not print themselves, the intellectual property of emerging technology is overwhelmingly proprietary,

40

and the capital required to carry out sophisticated research, development, design and production is prodigious - you cannot 3-D print a hyperloop or a geothermal power plant in your garage. Quality design, whether open source or otherwise, will continue to mean that money goes into someone’s pocket. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. Indeed, the sharing economy may even go some way towards exacerbating inequality as it creates the illusion that fewer things are sold or operated for profit by large companies, when in fact it is only different things.

The political economy of technology aside, it is exciting that the overheads of small-scale production are (or will be) much reduced, the technical fabrication capability of everyday people and small firms expanded, and that ‘mass customisation’ - where a standardised product is customised for an individual using on-site fabrication tools - is becoming a thing. All of these things are incredible, and their future iterations will be central to a world drastically different to that of today. That the Third Industrial Revolution will be exciting is not at issue here, but that it will cause a dramatic shift in ideology seems unlikely at present.

References Pickety, T. (2013). Capital in the 21st Century. Boston, MA: Belknap Press.

Pricewaterhouse Coopers. (2016). Global top 100 companies by market capitalisation [Report]. Retrieved from: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ audit-services/publications/assets/global-top-100-companies-2016.pdf.

Ramirez, V. (2017, May 22nd). Carbon’s Bold Mission to Finally Dematerialize Manufacturing. Singularity Hub. Retrieved from: https:// singularityhub.com/2017/05/22/carbons-bold-mission-to-finallydematerialize-manufacturing/.