Student No: 590473 Semester 1/2012 Group 7

MODULE 3C A L L U M M O R R I S O N

FABRICATIOND E S I G N R E I N T E G R A T I O N

At the conclusion of module 2 I had decided on the two dimensionally panelled form to the right with random cutouts to allow light through. The base of the form also works as a contrast to the spire with the structurally rigid base a stark contrast to the curves of spire.

During module 2 I began to question whether the inclusion of a foot in my design was necessary, as the design appears to stand well on its own accord. The exclusion of the foot, however, compromises the integrity of my original concept with the essence of the conflict between this form and my foot being lost. For this reason I have decided that the foot needs to be reintegrated into my design.

PRECEDENTL I A N N A S H E P P A R D

Lianna Shepard is a fashion designer who focuses on how two dimentional forms may be transformed into three then interact with the body. This last charcteristic of Shepard’s work is of most interest to me as I attempt to integrate my foot into my design.

Shepard’s work is interesting as the forms that sit on the body do not attempt to mold to the body, as traditional clothing does, but instead appear as an extension of the body, excentuating and extending some part of the human form. Applying this thinking to my design my concern shoudld move away from how to get my form to fit to my body but rather to how can my form use my body as an extension of itself to communicate the conflict between man and nature.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONU N F O L D I N G

My model unfolded with the segments colour coded to allow for easy assembly. The images on the far right act as references to allow the nets to be reassembled.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONN E S T I N G A N D R E F E R E N C E G U I D E

After unfolding my model I decided to go straight into using the Fablab to cutout my nets. I made this decision to familarise myself with the Fablab before cutting my final, identifying any possible issues early.

So, I proceeded to add tabs to my nets using a combination of Grasshopper scripts and manually offsetting them. This combination of techniques proved to be effective as, whilst Grasshopper did save a lot of time, it got confused with tabbing the smaller panel of my model and did not take into account the variation in my model between the base and spire.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONC O N S T R U C T I O N

I consturcted my model in the three segments it was original designed in, finally fitting them together at the end. The model was constructed at a 1:1 scale

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONF I N A L

A comparison of my 3D model to my initial prototype. Whilst not completely accurate, the accuracy is acceptable for an initial protype. The main issue is the base being too wide which is caused by the weight of the spire and its form applying outward pressure to it.

PROTOTYPE CONSTRUCTIONR E F L E C T I O N

Examining my design in a physical form I am not taken in by it as much as I had hoped. The antagonistic conflict between the natural and human appears absent, with the surface appearing bare and plain. I feel an element of aggression needs to be injected back into the model.

The other main issue is how the model interacts with the foot. In the image on the right it can be seen that the model does not really fit the foot, and due to it being rigid, cannot be changed. This ability to fit to the foot is crucial in communicating my concepts. With this in mind dynamic or adaptable, to link back to the concept of natural selection, systems of constructing the spiral need to be examined with further prototyping and precedent research possibly offering a solution that can be made to fit to my leg, or even more ideally, could be made to fit anyones leg.

Using the Fablab proved to be a good decision with the time taken to cut out segments reduced exponentially. The scoring of fold lines also allowed for the prototype to be relatively easily assembled, with only the lack of a referencing system slowing down the process.

Consturction of the prototype was difficut from the outset. The first issue I encountered was a lack of any system to orientate the nets to each other. This made construction of the spire extremely difficult and resulted in a compriomise of the finish. For the final careful planning at the start and documentation of how segments fit together is a must.

The thickness of the card also proved a problem, especially in fitting together some of the smaller segments. After pondering why these segments didn’t fit properly I went back and examined my Rhino model. I suddenly realised that Rhino assumes an infinitely small material thickness when modeling. This fact must be allowed for in the final construction with extra space being left on smaller more delicate segments, such as the point of the spire.

DES IGN

FABLAB

CONSTRUCT ION

DESIGN ELABORATIONR E D E V E L O P M E N T

In light of the reflection of my prototype I decided to redevelop my design attempting to capture more of the hostility and conflict from the underlying concept. To do this I decided to use spikes on the base, further enhancing the contrast between the spiral and base (a quick conceptualisation of this is shown to the right).

Two of the variation of spikes I experimented with are shown on the far right. Both look effective, however, after the experience gained from building my prototype the top variation appears too complex and impractical to build.

DESIGN ELABORATIONR E F I N E M E N T

The refined base incorporates the offset edges from the original prototype into the new aggressive form. The spikes have a hostility about them with the manual movement of individual grid points creating a randomness and lack of order in the spikes. This chaotic hostility when seen in context with a human foot communicates the antagonistic conflict between my form and the human body, with the form becoming an extension of the body such as in Sheppard’s design.

PRECEDENTT H E P R E D A T O R

Predator is an installation piece of artwork constructed of 35 rings linked together with a transparent covering placed on the frame. This method of construction is of particular interest to my project as the segmented rings could be used as a means to construct my spiral.

If I was able to create a series of wire rings at the same size as the contours of the spiral I would be able to create a base structure, like with Predator, then apply my panelling on top of it. The only issue with this is that cardboard is a rigid material so would not be able to move when glued. Experimentation with other materials or possibly cutting joints in the cardboard need to be conducted to test the practicality of this idea.

If we return to the examination of Predators structure the rings it is contrusted of were originally intended to be self supporting, however, the material they were constructed from was to flexible and aluminium supports had to be used. This demonstrates the importance of prototyping before constructing finals.

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N R E F E R E N C E G U I D E

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

The following images show the nesting of the 3D base panels.

When constructing the base the placement of panels may be determined by cross referencing the panel number with the master guide above.

MASTER GUIDE

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N R E F E R E N C E G U I D E

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

MASTER GUIDE

The material used for the construction was 300gsm, 60x90cm, white ivory card.

Examining the nesting it may appear to be an inefficient use of paper, however, it was going to be impossible to fit the panels on only three sheets so I decided to spread them out on four.

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L I N G

Strips JoinEnds JoinEnds join

KEYThe following two pages of drawings show how each of the individual segments fit together. This should hopefully eliminate the problems I had in the prototype construction of segments not fitting together properly.

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

MASTER GUIDE

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONC O N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L I N G

Strips JoinEnds JoinEnds join

KEY

1

2

5

6

4

311

9 8

7

14

12

17

16

15

18

10

13

MASTER GUIDE

CONSTRUSTIONC O N S T R U C T I O N

The above timelapse captures the construction of the base of my model.

REFLECTIONA C R I T I C A L A N A L Y S I S

This module saw a transition from the virtual space of Rhino into the physical realm of the real world and its laws. This transposition of our model from a conceptual idea to a physical object posed many hurdles which can be seen in my prototype construction. I found most of these hurdles to be the result of assumptions made by sole consideration of my digital form, soon discovering there are many factors involved in producing a physical reproduction that digital software does not take into account, such as the thickness of materials. What the discovery of these limitations in my virtual model forced me to do was reconsider and really think about how my model would fit together, rather than assuming Rhino had worked it out. This allowed me gain a far greater understanding of how my model fitted together as I began to develop an appreciation for the disconnects between the virtual and physical worlds. The consequences of not paying proper consideration to the differences between these worlds was seen in the Predator precedent where a lack of testing and consideration of materials meant the original design would not work, but had to be supplemented by aluminium supports. These miscalculations can prove expensive and waste time and materials.

This ability of a designer to adapt and modify their design is another crucial skill highlighted in this module. As said above, the laws governing the physical are far different from those of the virtual. If we as designers are unable to adapt our designs to these new laws because we are too caught up in our concepts then the resulting physical manifestation of this design ends up as an ineffective representation of the original concept.

Delving further into the above commentary the interrelatedness of the physical and virtual becomes apparent. This idea is something that I have really noticed in Module 3 with my use of the Fablab. The Fablab allowed me to produce a final model with a level of complexity I would not have dream possible if I had just been give some card and told to make it. It is this fact that brings me to my final point. The use of digitally enabled fabrication (Fablab) altered my perception of what was possible in the physical world allowing an improvement of my design in the virtual. This shows how interrelated the virtual and physical have become with modern technology. Thus, the importance of understanding both has never been greater, designers can no longer be complacent with their current knowledge and understanding, but must always be aware of improvements in technology and materials due to the potential advances in these two areas have to change the face of the physical world around us.