VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS ENVS10008_2013_SM2

Jonathon Koop (242915)Group 7

M1 IDEATION

I started looking at inflatables and in particular a floatie. For me the technical drawing proved difficult as the system was very simple when deflated, and complex when inflated. However looking at the logic of the materials and the system was extremely beneficial as this enabled me to focus on the key principles of inflation and retention of pressure.

DIGITAL MODEL

INFLATED

Digitally modelling the inflated floatie was a tricky exercise because of the difficulty in knowing how to measure it. Ultimately I found it much easier to create something from an idea rather than trying to reproduce an object, however it was very useful to gain experience with some basic modelling skills.

DEVELOPMENTAL SKETCH MODEL

PROTOTYPE

Making a prototype was extremely useful in finding out how the inflatable system operated. It also helped that my prototype used a different method of inflation as this was more likely to be how the final design would be inflated.

From this prototype I assumed that using tape to seal the inflatable would suit our purposes, however this was not to be the case. We also discovered later on that the plastic we had been using was also hindering inflation. It felt like our project had so many variables and we were unable to identify early on which ones were causing us problems. Thankfully with some expert advice we were able to rectify them but it would have been very difficult relying on our own knowledge.

3 SKETCH DESIGNS

PERSONAL SPACE

DOPPELGANGER

A life-size replica of the user. Instead of putting your belongings on the bench you can inflate your second skin.

PUFFER FISH

For those who prefer non-verbal communication, the Puffer Fish will let others know they have invaded your personal space.

The surface could also be mirrored so invaders see a distorted image of themselves.

DEPRIVATION SUIT

The suit is design to block out certain senses such as sight, hearing or touch, forcing you to interact with people in different ways. You may need to let someone in to your personal space to get things done.

M2 DESIGN

Once I was paired with Christina I tried to figure out ways to incorporate folding and inflation. Looking at it now I can see my initial ideas were too focussed on how to integrate them in to one system, whereas the final design had them working in unison but still as separate systems.

Once we decided to follow that path we started to conceptualise how it might look.

Conceptual sketch, Christina Care Calgaro, 2013

The model above was intended to beconceptual and not indicative of the form I hoped to create. In this way it was very useful to help us define a scenario and a personal space boundary for our project.

Inspired by Sommer’s own experiments on personal space (1969), in particular invading personal space by sitting very close to someone, our definition of personal space is very specific to its context. In this situation the person is hyper aware of the empty bench space and the potential for invasion, so much so that their feeling of personal space contracts around the body but extends out into the empty bench space.

DEFINING PERSONAL SPACE

FINDING PRECEDENTS - MIURA FOLD

Christina and I started to look at different folding patterns and were encouraged to look at the Miura fold in particular. We found several patterns and also a Miura pattern that would curve. We were able to determine the logic behind the folding pattern and decided to use it in our design because of the differentiated effect it could provide.

We felt the Miura fold was a good precedent to follow as it allowed for compression and expansion. Furthermore as it functions as a network, where a change to one area will affect another, we could see that we would be able to change certain paramaters (such as module size or folding angle) and still have it function as one piece.

FROM FOLDING TO INFLATION - EXPERIMENTATON WITH INTEGRATING TWO SYSTEMS

We also made some initial attempts at integrating a folded surface and an inflatable bladder. My prototype was intentionally very simple as I wanted to test how inflation would affect a basic fold pattern.

Our ultimate solution was to use an inflatable bladder that sat inside the folded second skin.

Christina made a model which used Miura folds instead and this proved to us that our concept would work.

Model and photograph, Christina Care Calgaro, 2013

M3 FABRICATION

First we tried to create a modified miura fold to see how would could alter the final folded form. Unfortunately our experimen-tation was a little too haphazard as we modified the pattern too much. However this was beneficial as we decided to keep the pattern very simple and any changes uniform.

Next we tried to use a simple pattern but overlaid onto a base shape. This also proved difficult as the miura modules did not conform to the base shape and when we tried to fold these it wasn’t very effective.

From there we decided to use square or rectangular patterns that we could, once folded, join together and then remove

any modules if necessary.

FABRICATION DIFFICULTIES

Our fold patterns were created in Rhino so we could use them with the card cutter. Our initial design utilised both etch and cut lines as we thought this would allow our card to fold easily in both directions (mountain and valley folds). Unfortunately we found that the cut lines often tore the card we were using and negatively affected it on an aesthetic and structural level.

We also found that the materials supplied by FabLab were too thick too create the crisp folds we were looking for. The folded card also appeared to be very rigid and we were worried that it would not inflate very well. Furrthermore we found that using a large sheet of material (600 mm x 900 mm) made it very hard for us to fold the material.

FIRST PROTOTYPE

Due to the difficulties we had with materials we were unable to produce a full prototype by week 7, however what we had showed that we were heading in the right direction. By this stage we had manage to connect 5 panels of miura fold together and attach them to our base. We had also made a makeshift bladder and were able to test the inflation. To our surprise it worked quite well.

We measured Christina to find out what the dimensions of our base shape should be and were able to create a very simple base which we could attach the miura folded skin to.

We also created a few unique miura fold patterns to allow for curvature in the skin as it wrapper over the left shoulder, around the back and over the right shoulder.

CREATING A BASE

The fabrication process threw up a lot of challenges for our design. We had identified early that the card cutter would be very useful for the amount of folding we needed to do, but we failed to consider what material would work best with the machine and still perform how we wanted it to. The type of material had a direct impact on the complexity of our design and we had to simplfy it significantly (as can be seen in the changes made since the first Rhino prototype). Nevertheless fabrication didn’t stop us from executing the core parts of our original design, but gave us a more realistic idea of what we would be able to achieve.

FEEDBACK FROM FABRICATION PRESENTATION

At our fabrication presentation our model did not inflate as we hoped. Thankfully we received some very useful advice which we followed and made our final model much more succesful than it would have otherwise been.

1) We increased the number of fans from one to two to increase the pressure and to reduce backflow2) We created a welded bladder rather than a tape bladder to reduce any resistance the connections would cause.3) We increased the size of the bladder and also modified the shape so it would sit inside the skin more naturally.4) We used elastic thread to stitch parts of the miura folds together and to the base.5) We connected the left shoulder to the right shoulder to make it once continuous piece.

FINAL RHINO MODEL

M4 REFLECTION

At the beginning of the semester I had never previously used any digital design software or fabrication tools, so I was slightly apprehensive about relying on them so heavily. At times during the semester it was easy to fall back to more traditional methods, however it was also a great opportunity to test out new methods and try a different approach.

Initially, during the design module, we were printing out fold patterns and scoring each individual line by hand. This was fine when we were testing out the possibilities of the Miura fold or making very small prototypes, but it would not have been feasible to use this method to create our final model as quickly as we did.

In some ways our digital design process, particularly the 3D models, was similar to more traditional methods in that they represent our design intent rather than actual objects that can be created from the model. However once we translated the 3D model to flat developable surfaces we had reached that point where the design provided accurate information that lead directly to fabrication.

Using modeling software like Rhino also allowed us to project what we wanted the design to achieve (even if it was at times a fanciful vision), and Panelling Tools allowed us to see what a Miura skin might look like and to gauge the visual effect it would produce. It gave us a goal to work towards, but also a means to quickly redesign if fabrication proved impractical or impossible.

In this way I think our work included a degree of design risk as discussed by Marble (2008). We had a goal in mind, but through the process of making and working with the materials we were constantly forced to resolve issues and make decisions while still making sure they fit within the overall design agenda.

It is at these junctures, when problems need to be solved, that I feel digital technology can rapidly speed up the design process as you are getting instant feedback as you design, which you can then use to improve or re-evaluate design decisions.

Even though we only used one method of digital fabrication, I can now see how other methods could also be used in a similar process. This will require a level of experience using these tools, but that will only expand the options available to us as we design. There will be situations where they are perfectly suited, and others where they are not, but I suspect that they will be useful on almost any project even if used only sparingly.

If we were to start this project over I feel we would be more likely to use digital design and fabrication more heavily now that we are more comfortable using it and also more confident in the results it can provide.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Marble, S 2008 ‘Imagining Risk’ In P Bernstein, P Deamer (eds). Building the Future: Recasting Labor in Architec-ture/, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, pp 38-42

Sommer, R 1969, ‘ Spatial invasion’ in Sommer, R, Personal space : the behavioral basis of design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, pp. 26-38