Edward Kermode 639119

Module 3: FABRICATION

15/05/13

Base Concept + Recipes

Chosen pattern as the CONIFER CONE:- Contrast of organic spiral movement with geometrical scales- The Fibonacci Spiral patterns: Balance of ‘threes’; triangular and hexogonal composition- Radial rhythm

MovementVariation of scale and rotation

SymmetryOverlapping Fibonacci spirals beginning from a central point

BalanceRadial balance and rhythm; form di-

vided up in factors of three

Influential Precedent Studies in the Design Process

MovementDiminishing and overlapping scales towards a central point; the commands Surface Do-

main Variable and Point Attractors helped me imitate this.

Diffusion lightingThe Notre Dame Du Hait’s windows produced lighting that gave a ‘sacred’ glow and had an organic but random variation of window sizes. This led me to loft my 3D custom shape

and to allow my scales to respond accordlingly with the Point Attractor command.

SymmetryThe DNA strand follows my main principle of rotation and spiral movement. Although I initially wanted two spirals interwining each other, it proved as a

source for my vertical spiral in my form.

Handheld formsThe wretched feeling of steppig the scales of a conifer cone was something I wanted to represent in my form. I ended up with this handheld idea; it holds the ‘spiky’ section of the lantern and reflects a sense of caution in holding the lantern. This awareness evokes a sense of fragility in my work, thus in turn creating a sense of san-

citity.

Spatial Effects and ScaleHeatherwick spoke about his idea development behind ‘Seed Cathedral’ and focused on the importance of scale and the negative interior and exterior space of the form. He suggested a small scale reflected a more precious, organic environment, which correlated with my desired environment like the Notre Dame Du Hait’s. Each individual seed of the building were harmonious with each other and ‘unified’ the building as one. This is why I allowed Rhino to ‘uncontrollably but organically’ create each scale of my lantern as a

slightly shape that, hopefully, creates a harmonious variety in my form.

“Thinking and doing, design and fabrication, and proto-type and final design become blurred, interactive, and

a part of a non-linear means of innovaion”Based on Week 8’s readings, this comment made in the article explains per-fectly how connections between my physical, inital ideas and digital model were frequently lost due to my lack of experience in Rhino, thus letting my

model ‘flow’ with how the program developed it.

Lecture Response

Architecture in the Digital Age - Design and Manafacturing This reading was correlated very nicely with the lecture in week 8 and was based a lot on Gehry’s architectural work.. It spoke about the process of translation from physical to digital, and digital to physical. The physical to digital method was expained through scanning techniques of the form’s geometry, such as reverse engineering and point cloud. The point cloud method sounded similar to the one we used t contour our clay models; it was converted by Rhino through a close apprixomation of the object by generating profile NURBS. The reading spoke about how Digital fabrication now “enables architects to become more aware and involved of the fabrication process... offer prospective opportunities within schedule + budget frameworks”. The digital to physical fabrications mentioned were two-dimen-sional fabrication, subtractive and additive fabrication, and formative fabrication. The digital translation section emphasised the relationship between geometries and new materialities; it produced larger opportunities to explore the construction of curved surfaces with new materials like timber and steel. There was also an emphasis on monocoque surfaces absorbing the stresses through digital fabrication, which is what our lanterns are doing.

Digital Fabrications: architectural and material techniquesa The expansion of digital fabrications is described to have opened up more opportuni-ties for “what we conveive is formally, spatially and materially possible”. The digital to physi-cal practice has the potential to degrade the quality of the gap between representation and building, whilst ‘hypothetically’ created a seamless conection between design and making. The comment that got to me most, and particularly in relation to the production of our model, was Michael Speak’s definition of “design intelligence”: “Thinking and doing, design and fabrication, and prototype and final design become blurred, interactive, and a part of a non-linear means of innovaion”

My process in my lantern construction can totally relate to this; I find difficulty in sepearating these different stages for my design folio as I keep losing connections with my brainstormed ideas and final product. I think this is due to my lack of experience and control with Rhino so I end up going with the ‘flow’ of the program rather than my own ideas. The process of tesselating and folding is also a digital fabrication process evident in my lantern; tesselating allows the curved form of it to be produced and folding creates a sense of natural defortmation and inflection that I want my model to have.

Recipes to Clay Models to Rhino Form

Movement

Symmetry

Balance

Clay model #1 - change of scale from origin point

Clay Model #2

Tail of Form

Movement/Body of Form

Pieces of Form

Prototyping

Fibonacci Sequence in Cut Outs.

Diffusion effect in closed, lofted pyramids.

Cut outs in terms of the Fibon-acci Spiral

Contour of L-scale in Movement Clay Model.Symmetry + DNA influenced form

Digital Into Physical

Method:- Unrolled 2 cells/scales vertically each- Colour coded for each row unrolled; named each piece e.g. the 1st red scale is “R01”- Single tabs to not affect cut output light- Certain lines of spiralling scales are roofed with lighter paper such as tracing paper; gives a muted but emphasised glow.- Pieces were originally split into 5 separate pages. the distance between score lines were too small effectively construct. Scale of pieces of increased by 220% and split into 14 pages.

Attempted Final ProductUnfortunately the final product was not successfully built. The smaller prototype (not displayed) did not result in a final spi-ral due to smaller score lines not being able to fold and the stiffer product. \The one displayed on the left provided prob-lems in glueing each row/layer of cells to-gether; due to the bending of paper, the joining strips did not match accordingly to the previous layer and could never ef-fectively glue the thing together without

one scale breaking the glue blond