1 2016

E D B O TRenee de Thierry

rdet742

2 E D B O T

I N T R O

Through the use of digital technologies today, architects, engineers, fabricators and contractors can produce and build, complex objects and forms that were considered ‘unrealistic’ pre-digital age (Kolarevic, 2003). It is now possible to ‘de-sign with numbers’ on a computer screen which then can be produced into a physical object or building. Robotics such as lazer cutters and Robotic arms were

the key tools in this project in order to produce the desired form/object with immaculate precision. Coupled with complex coding and numbers automatically generated by computer software’s such, as Rhino, Grasshopper, and adobe Illustrator; the Robotics and its corre-sponding software were able to produce the final product (the video). However, not all was digital. Material studies were conducted to explore, experiment and understand in-depth, the qualities of materials (whether good or bad) to see if they were sufficient to help us achieve our desired goal. As Kolarevic and Klinger put it, “interrogating materiality is funda-mental to new attitudes towards achieving design intent” (p.7).

The design intent for the final output was this- “How digital technologies can be used to produce a physical simulation showing new material behaviour, which can produce an evocative space through light and shadows”. From individual experimentation and research of template design; materiality analysis; end-finger designs, and connection types, we were able to rule out which worked best coherently to best convey our design intent. The final video highlights the dramatic use of shadow, and intricate patterning, which produces a shadow(s) that are exciting and pleasing to the viewer.

q u i c k l i n k :Submission A= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdOd-nFluQSubmission B= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgOy1Ct4EU

3 2016

According to Bryan Lawson (1990), the 4 stages of design (1. Assimilation 2.General Study 3. Development 4. Communication), show how fundamental the first 3 stages are, as designers constantly fluctuate between them to generate a final product (p.31). These three stages are the ones portrayed in submission A. Experiment one was running a piece of flax through a pasta machine that produced series of cuts and patterns, which I was then able to pull and stretch. This material analysis allowed me to assess the flaxes physical properties after it has been altered by a pasta machine. The result was that the material produced very fine patterning that was able to be stretched, to a certain distance, or else it would completely split apart. This proved how “utterly conventional material” can change a person’s perspective on it when its physical properties is altered; which then can be put to “unexpected uses” if further developed (Klinger, 2008).

However, even after also experimenting with 0.2mm felt and 100gsm Plastic, I found that material properties of upholstery worked best with Eva’s template. Before the tem-plate was applied to the material, the upholstery was extremely firm, and could not be stretched by hand. However, after the template was cut into the fabric, the physical properties of this material changed. Now I could manipulate by hand this ‘new’ material by stretching it very far; scrunching it tight, and still retaining its shape; as well as push-ing the whole material into itself. These vital stages of experiment and understanding of materiality before, and after helped me to recognise the strengths and weaknesses in the material, but also the new potentials it could be used for.

MaterialName- Upholstery (blue)

Size- 400x400 mm

Thickness- 0.5mm

Cost- $15.00 per meter

TemplateBy- Eva

Extracted from- Rhino/ Grass Hopper

Manipulat ionFormat- Manual manipulation using hands

Time- 3mins approx

Sub A/ Experimentat ion

4 E D B O T

Explorat ionMaterial. Multi-disciplinary practices, such as ‘Front Inc’, New York, are showing how new

ideas can be achieved through a collaborative process (Klinger, 2008). Collaborating with a friend from a Bachelor of Design, majoring in Fashion, allowed me to ask of her expertise in terms of fabrics that she thought would be suitable for my project. She suggested several possibilities which I then explored, but to no avail, all were a failure. The first to be tested was a 0.5mm thick synthetic suede. This material was pleasant to touch as it was soft and had a shimmer effect, but after the template was applied, its weak material properties showed an extremely floppy and undesirable product. It resemble a ball of waste material. The second and third material, 1mm thick petroleum based mat and trampoline fabric, proved to be disastrous, as half way through the lazer cutting the machine had to be stopped as it was producing hazardous fumes! Yet, its these types of experiments of trial and error that Kolarevic and Klinger (2008) suggest that, if we ignore the materials and forms that are familiar to us, they will always be unfamiliar, so by experimenting with the underappreciated familiar you can “open up a quest for new material use” (p.8).

Template design and fabrication. Traditionally, all architects could do in terms of shaping was “translation, rotation, reflection, and scaling” (p.76), but now due to digital technologies all these previous shape vocabularies, together with geometric transformations, can generate a multitude of shape algebras (Kolarevic, 2003). These shape algebras are generated on comput-er through sophisticated software, which can then be translated onto a machine to create the physical object. The fabrication of my template shows much of this matter. As it is on the com-puter screen, we see lines and curves. But what the computer sees is a digital object made up of numbers. The software (in this case illustrator) translates the image on screen into a language of long codes of numbers, which all mean a particular movement for the fabrication machine ie. Lazer cutter (Kolarevic, 2003, p. 78). When the lazer cutter cuts the pattern of the template, you are left with a precise replica of the model that was on the computer screen. Through digital communication from computer to machine, via numbers, you can generate products, of “greater complexity of detail; very quickly and of low cost” (Kolarevic, 2003, p. 78). This has an advantage over manual production as if I were to cut this complex pattering into my fabric, it is guaran-teed that it would be crooked, and time consuming. Therefore, by generating template designs digitally, may it then be able to communicate to different machines such as CNC routering, 3d printing, water jet cutting and lazer cutting. This cross communication saves time and money. Traditionally, all architects could do in terms of shaping was “translation, rotation, reflection, and scaling” (p.76), but now due to digital technologies all these previous shape vocabularies, together with geometric transformations, can generate a multitude of shape algebras (Kolarevic, 2003). These shape algebras are generated on computer through sophisticated software, which can then be translated onto a machine to create the physical object. The fabrication of my tem-plate shows much of this matter. As it is on the computer screen, we see lines and curves. But what the computer sees is a digital object made up of numbers. The software (in this case illus-trator) translates the image on screen into a language of long codes of numbers, which all mean a particular movement for the fabrication machine ie. Lazer cutter (Kolarevic, 2003, p. 78). When the lazer cutter cuts the pattern of the template, you are left with a precise replica of the model that was on the computer screen. Through digital communication from computer to machine, via numbers, you can generate products, of “greater complexity of detail; very quickly and of low cost” (Kolarevic, 2003, p. 78). This has an advantage over manual production as if I were to cut this complex pattering into my fabric, it is guaranteed that it would be crooked, and time con-suming. Therefore, by generating template designs digitally, may it then be able to communicate to different machines such as CNC routering, 3d printing, water jet cutting and lazer cutting. This cross communication saves time and money.

5 2016

Material 1Name- synthetic Suede

Template used- Eva’s initial

Thickness- 0.5mm

Cost- $8.49 per meter

FAIL. This experiment lead me to know that its mate-rial properties are too weak. In order for this material to work with the template the material need be thicker by at least half, as well as increasing the scale of the template

Material 2 & 3Name- petroleum based mat and trampoline fabric

Template used- Eva’s initial

Thickness-1mm

Cost- $12.90 and $10.99 per meter

FAIL. Template didn’t make it onto the materials fully, as it was too dangerous to cut. But what was cut showed potential as it held its form when manipulated. This could have resulted in a solid object.

Template 1Material used- Upholstery

Size- 400x400mm

Together this template and material proved to be very strong in terms of horizontal stretch. Howev-er due to the patter it does not extrude as high, so therefore cannot produce the desired effects of shadow and form that i am after in the final product.

Template 2Material used- 100gsm Plastic

Size- 400x400mm.

This product produced a springy reaction between the template and material as when it was pulled on all corners, then let go, it sprung back into a flat surface. This product didn’t show exciting proper-ties that was desired. Therefore, this template was dropped by the group.

6 E D B O T

Coding/ Forms/ End-f ingers

End-finger for GoPro

Bottom- Two templates stitched together, and pulled horizontally.Right- Form only with one template and using only vertical pulling

7 2016

Coding. It is stated by Kolarevic and Klinger (2003) that “digital technologies are enabling a direct correlation between what can be designed and what can be built” (p.v). The digital world now lets us produce a very different kind of architecture and form from that of medieval times. This is due to the application of information (Kolarevic, 2003). As mentioned before, numbers are an integral part of design on screen, but it is not visually seen that way, unless we extract data. When on rhino and grasshopper, you can create a path in which we want to send to the robotic arm to do. What you draw on screen is a set of lines which then are given set point values along the X, Y, and Z axis. This way of making uses a clear and concise com-munication platform in order to get “conception into production” (Kolarevic, 2003, p. v). Which therefore, allows a manufacturing guide to be simultaneously created as you are making the object on screen. As I did not create the code myself, I did try to get to grips with it. From making a path on rhino and using grasshopper to extract a set of numbers or coordinates, for the robotic arm to follow; it is then up-loaded on another platform- Robotstudio. This simulation software enables you to test the script created to ensure that it works safely, thus protecting the equipment from harm, and saving time and money. By producing a single code you may play this multiple times and will get the same result. Whereas, if a human were doing so, errors will occur with exact movements, timing, and precision.

Forms. The form of the object overall was vital to ensure we get the ‘best look’ possible. The first form was just a singular form extruding vertically. However, we found this form boring and lacked a sense of engagement with the rest of the space. We initially sketched our designed based on two robotic arms, however, one robotic arm was taken away therefore leaving us with one. As a group we set up the area so that we could suspend the object from the ceiling, as well as attaching one end to one robotic and the other to the wall. This was the only way to achieve the horizontal form we desired. We also experimented with one template within another but it proved to be messy when operating on the robotic arm.

End-fingers. In order to control or puppeteer out object we needed to produce an end-finger connection for the robotic arm. Many of the forms I created were variously different, but when tested on the robot, they showed little difference in terms of performance. Size of the end-finger matters when dealing with a ‘pre-cious’ robot. One of my end finders about 15cm long and was dubbed “unsafe” by the OML crew, so I did not get to experiment with it. I did create on Rhino a Gopro end-finger in which you mount a Gopro onto. Ideally this would have been placed on the second robot, but since that robot was unavailable, it was not used. After final deliberation, Shakira’s end-finger was used as it was a safe size, and had pup-peteer qualities. The connection between end-finger and material was decided to be cotton string as the elastic proved to be difficult.

8 E D B O T

The Video

F i n a l O u t p u t :

In this video we wanted to convey “How digital technologies can be used to produce a physical simulation showing new material behaviour, which can produce an evocative space through light and shadows”. As you see from the opening scenes, shadows are playing on the wall while a robotic arm controls its pace and movement, creating a very sensual feel. The shadows reveal more about the object than the object itself as its sil-houette seems more striking and ‘smooth’ and consequently more interesting. These scenes appear quite mysterious as it is not made obvious what is creating the geometric shadows. But following from then reveals the process using rhino/ grasshopper and ro-bot studio. The robot follows a simple path to pull the material up and down, left and right because we wanted to open and close the material to reveal more shapes in its shadow. We also used the joy stick to create a path for the robot where we extended the arm back, and stretched the material. This actually made it ‘sag’ as the stretching action turned out to be a bit strong. The robotic arm as predicted did what the script said, which shows how you can transfer unseen information (numbers) from one platform (computer) to another (robotic arm).

As a development into the future, I can visualize this piece as a kinetic light shade cre-ating atmosphere through its patterns and manipulating the light to reproduce what is displayed in our video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jgOy1Ct4EU

9 2016

Light ing effect 1What- Projector lighting

This type of lighting proved to be very powerful as its high intensity left a crisp shadow on the was. Such results represented the shadow as another object, and it was more interesting to look at the shadow than the actual object.

Light ing effect 2What- One torch

Controlled manually, a hand held torch produced shadows of various angles, portraying really complex geometric shadows. The controllability of the torch allowed us to highlight interesting parts of the object which is then projected on the wall behind it.

Light ing effect 3What- two torches

The light quality of this affect was the best as stated by the whole group. Two hand Held torches we used and positioned at different distances from the object. This resulted in an overlaying affect that really manip-ulated your mind. Shadows were appearing then dis-appearing, geometries were crossing over each other and moving independently of each other.

10 E D B O T

C O N

Overall, digital design in this project has proved to be ex-tremely efficient as it saves time and money in certain as-pects, as well as producing high quality results day in, day out. A thorough understanding of pretty much every aspect of this project was needed in order to produce the final re-

sult. Materiality needed to be assessed as its properties were key into producing forms that could be held up; but more importantly to produce great shadowing effects in various types of light. Template iteration was key into discovering what worked best with the material chosen. Various templates were produced but there was a definite line between success and failure. By working with the programmes on computer for most as-pects of this project allowed for a better understanding of the “behind the scenes” action that takes place between programme and machine. We experienced a lot of failure in this project but in the end digital technologies challenged us in the way we think conceptually (Kolarevic, 2003). The final out put clearly shows our design intention of a ‘shadow show’ (instead of a puppet show) in which the puppet was the template/material, the puppeteer was the robotic arm, and the lighting crew was us.

B i b l i o g r a p h y :

Klinger, B. K. (2008). Manufactouring Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York: Routledge.Kolarevic, B. (2003). Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufactouring. New York: Spon Press.Lawson, B. (1990). How Designers Think. London: Butterworth Architecture.

-Renee de Thierry