module4 maxwellbracher 636699

A Second SkinSemester 2, 2013

Maxwell Bracher 636699Tutorial 8

Virtual EnvironmentsMaxwell Bracher 636699

ABOVE: Architect’s elevation for Seville’s Metropol Parasol (J. Mayer H., 2011). The contouring of the form is very clear in this plan.

BELOW, FROM LEFT: The recently-completed Metropol Parasol in Seville (Alda 2011), NH Architecture’s proposal for the Flinders Street Station Design Competition (NH Architects, 2013), Nine Bridges Golf Clubhouse (Forbo Flooring, 2013), and the Lazika Pier Sculpture (It’s Liquid, 2013).

MODULE 1IdeationThe chosen system is ‘profile and section’: a system that relies on intersecting notches between two 2D planes to create three-dimensional forms. The rigidity of the system relies on the stiffness of the material, and the density of the panelling. Throughout the world of architecture, this is a system that is becoming more pre-dominant in modern structures. The most prominant of which is the recently completed Metropol Parasol, by Jürgen Mayer-Hermann in Seville. Locally, NH Architecture’s Flinders Street Station incorporated this system into an iconic roof form.



An object of close studyExperimenting with ‘panelling and sectioning,’ ‘waffle design,’ and the ‘notch system,’ I built a ‘pre-fab’ helicopter. Having closely examined the model, it was found that notches correspond exactly to, or less than the width of the material. This is to ensure the connections remain tight and rigid. It was extremely obvious when pieces were too loose a fit - they simply fell out.

Closely studying this model also provided me with the opportunity to test my Rhinoceros 3D modelling skills. This was a steep learning curve, but one that allowed me to develop more intricately an interesting and interactive design.

Through the surrounding photographs, the transformation between two-dimensional piece to a combined three-dimensional form is clear. The beauty of this profile and section system is that greater complexity can be achieved by simply increasing the number of pieces. Furthermore, the gaps left in the form allow for various lighting effects through highlights and shadow. I would learn from these findings for my final model.

RIGHT: The pieces of the helicopter laid out flat.GHOST IMAGE: Hand-drawn isometric drawing of the helicopter.BELOW: Photographs of the model in form, juxtaposed with Rhino-produced three-dimensional models.



Imagining personal spaceMy research into ‘second skins’ and ‘personal space’ yielded varying and interesting inspiration for my own design. Picking up on key elements as seen in my research, I started to think about what ‘personal space’ meant to me.

Clearly, early conceptions were very literal understandings of what I had already seen. Inspired by the cocoon, and by the onion - the skins emphasised form over function. ‘Dynamic movement’ was to come much later in the piece.

On the other hand, I had begun to think about how movement might be incorporated into a form. Something like the twisted wires (bottom right) may have had the potential to surprise or intrigue the audience.

What I came to realise was that I had an intense interest in form around the neck. This was the place that stood out to me as needing protection.

I gathered from precedent studies that our emotions, as are our physicalities - are represented by layers. Our challenge as designers is to manipulate those layers for a modern context.

ABOVE RIGHT: Literal conceptions of second skins. An onion is composed of multiple layers that together form a functional whole. A cocoon is a means for transformation. Could my model bring about a similar change?

BELOW RIGHT: How the human form might wear such a model. The ‘onion’ form could frame the face, whilst protecting the neck. A twisted form might give the impression of protection, but be primarily decorative.



Sampling ‘Profile and Section’The initial test models were hand-cut and usually relied on a single connection between pieces. The limitation of doing so was that if that connection became loose, there was nothing else to rely on - it was difficult to maintain rigidity.

I consider this model a good learning experience, but an overall failed design. Profile and section should consider multiple points of connection, and should create an overall form. Instead, this model relied on creating individual two-dimensional shapes and combining them. The effect was such that the model was more successful when viewed from the top in a planar fashion.

As I moved forward with my design, I was more informed by the final form rather than the form of individual pieces.



MODULE 2DesignIn partnership with a colleague utilising the ‘panel and fold’ system, we challenged ourselves to mesh the systems and create an interesting, interactive form.

We came to a mutual decision to ‘think outside the box’ in terms of our understanding of personal space. We had observed in our assigned literature and in our own class, that to many people, personal space was an external concept, tied only to the need for space to function.

However, no-one had seemed to consider the inner spaces within which our concept of personal space is most often challenged. The heart and the brain are the emotional personal spaces within our body, not external to it.

The heart and mind thus framed our overarching theme of “emotional personal space.” Upon finding this prompt a bit too vague, we followed a design path via the theme of “one thing controlling all else,” as the brain does for the emotions and physicalities of a human being.



WearabilityIt was all very well and good that we had established that emotional personal space centred on the brain and the heart. We had confirmed that these spaces needed protection, but also needed to be revealed at times. How could we possibly abstract the two forms to be wearable?

Also challenging us at this point was the pursuit of unity. We certainly had a central, overarching concept. We certainly had a sense of uniqueness - something that set us apart from others. We certainly had the get-up-and-go. What we didn’t have was any idea about what this model might actually look like.

Our systems were of course ‘Profile and Section’ and ‘Panel and Fold’. At this stage of the project, we thought the two could work separately to create a dynamic juxtaposition. This was not to be. Despite the jagged heart and sectioned brain that we came up with, they were inevitably too literal and were not working together as one system. We were challenged to redesign.

BELOW, FROM LEFT: The brain component of our initial model, viewed from behind. The brain stem had the potential to control the movement of the heart.

The process of fabrication. This was a manual process that informed the way I later used digital technology.

The same model viewed from the left elevation.

A concept model investigating the way the heart and mind could interact; we late found this to be too literal.



Thinking abstractlyAchieving juxtaposition between the smooth, welcoming curves implied by happy emotions and the sharp, jagged lines of agitation was key to the process of redesigning according to the theme ‘one thing controls all else’. Ultimately, the ‘blob’’s movement was controlled by a central axis - one extruded point (as pictured at far left).

But we asked ourselves: how is movement incorporated as central to the design? That we chose to revise. It was an ongoing challenge making our form conform to the body - especially where to place it. We decided directly in front of the chest was ideal - not only was it protective, but it was also readily visible to oncomers.

Looking back, we were yet to grasp the concept of ‘wearability’, or even the fact that our model was to be a second skin. Ultimately the resultant design was too detached.

Above: initial concepts for ‘one thing controlling all else’. In this case the ‘one thing’ was a central axis along which a form could expand and contract. Illustrated is where the form might fit - the axis being the upper body.

Right, two early concepts for the ‘emotional blob’. We were continually challenged as to how our ‘blob’ would be distinct from any other random form. How we wore an item influenced how it was understood.



A group effort...There were weaknesses in this design, however it was our belief that we were progressing towards a workable model. We were proud of the way we had made the two systems appear and move. In fact, the panel and fold system refelected the underlying movement profile and section was prodiving. We were impressed by the effort we had made to produce the prototype. But we weren’t sure how we got there!

It was a struggle to put into words our process, the story we would tell. Moreover, we felt we had become so abstract it was no longer clear how any of this actually related to emotional personal space. So what could we take away from this experience? For one, our theme needed to be clearer, secondly, the systems needed to be integrated, thirdly technology needed to inform the way we design.

CLOCKWISE, FROM ABOVE: The finished model, the process of integration, the panel and section portion, the profile and section body.


Technology informed designReflecting on the work of Module Two, vast improvements in the way we designed our second skin were required. During this module, our design had been manually generated, with Rhino providing us with the opportunity to digitise our design (despite the remblance being far from perfect). We hadn’t fully realised the opportunity for Rhino to inform the way we design, or indeed to generate design itself.

Kolarevic (2003) highlighted the benefits of digital fabrication, especially in terms of fabrication. This was also highlighted by the feedback we received. I would utilise two-dimensional fabrication through the FabLab, so to understand how the technology worked assisted me to better design according to its capabilities.

Nonetheless, simply mocking-up our Module Two model expanded our skillbase in terms of digital modelling technology. The form itself wasn’t a successful solution to the design problem of a ‘second skin,’ thus heading towards Module Three, I ascertained that a new form would be necessary. Module Two taught us valuable lessons about virtual design, however upon concluding this module my partner and I decided to go our separate ways.


Module Two was an interesting and useful exploration of ideas between a partnership. Ultimately, our form failed to meet expectations in terms of ‘wearability’ and ‘dynamic movement’. Module Three was about turning over a new leaf, whilst using the things learned previously to guide a new design.

Our initial concept was ‘one point controlling all else,’ however it was felt that this was overly-complex and limiting our design conceptions. Thus, the new concept was derived as :

“A smooth exterior revealing a jagged interior”

How is it possible to conceive a ‘smooth exterior’ with a ‘jagged interior’?

TOP: if the heart is the jagged inside, and our body is the smooth facade, where the heart’s perimeter extrudes from the body should be exaggerated. Principally, above and below the arm

MIDDLE: If one side of the brain is ‘creative’ and the other ‘logical,’ then why can’t this be represented on the body?

RIGHT: How the jagged extrusions might have been represented.

MODULE 3Fabrication


Can the form look inward as well as respecting its outer context?

Left: Derived from the same concept as the left and right brain, a smooth skin only covers part of our jagged inside. This is metaphorical for the way that we can mask emotions, but just below the surface the truth always shows.

Top: Having rotated the ‘hood’ 90 degrees, the wearer is now provided with a second set of eyes. Perhaps this allows the wearer to see the jagged inside of someone around them.

An effortless curveInspired by case study buildings such as the Haesley Nine Bridges Golf Club House that was featured in the Week 8 lecture, I wanted my design to flow effotlessly around the body. It was to be ‘fluid’ in design. However, it had to be clear to me where the model started and finished; this was after all a second skin that could very easily be taken away. As such, there was a stark juxtaposition between the curved lines and the straight edge.

At the same time, I had to think of a way to represent the jagged innards of the human form. As I had established, by extending the radius of the heart, sharpness revealed itself above and below the shoulder.

This initial idea placed the ‘shards’ below the arm, where they might be hidden when the arm was placed in a normal position. However, I then thought about what the positions of the arm connotated. When arms are by the side of the body, a person looks unresponsive and cold. However, when they are opened (as if to warmly embrace another) they are welcoming. It was decided then that the shards should be visible in the ‘unresponsive’ pose.


Exploring movementA solid form represented well the ideas I had in mind, however it failed to interact with the emotions, environments and body language at play.

This system - profile and section - is an inherently rigid one. By building up layers of bracing one upon the other, strength is inevitably derived. However, the challenge was now almost contradictory. The model was to retain its essential form, but it was also to move!

Having partnered with a panel and fold system during Module Two, it became possible to subtly merge the two systems in order to allow ‘profile and section’ to be flexible.

Having experimented with folding both the x and y planes of the profile and section model, it was apparent that movement was indeed possible. Nonetheless, I felt that there was too much allowance for movement, and thus the model soon lost its form. Back to the drawing board!


ApplicationDigital sectioning- as reviewed by Iwamoto in week seven’s reading, “streamlines the process of making...parallel sections”. Not only is it an efficient construction method - it has been widely used by designers the world over.

Rhino allows us to create amazing 3D forms with intersection between profile and section, but when challenged to create a moving form it was very much up to me as the user.

Whilst the initial prototype allowed movement between the planes and joints, it heavily distorted the form. At this point, I believed that by conserving the essential form and providing a folded hinge between the upper and lower part, I would be able to create a interesting and clearly definied form.

But this was not to be! The material I had chosen - 1.8mm boxboard - did not allow for the movement I wanted and was far to delicate when etched at the joints. Also, because the bottom of the model was less supported than the top, joining the two parts proved impossible. The bottom simply could not hold the weight of the pper component. On top of that, the ‘wow’ factor just wasn’t there. However the form would inform my design from now on.

Right: The top section of the first prototype. To allow for the solidity and rigidity of the model, folding sections were not provided for between the planes. Instead, a folding hinge (above) would connect two forms and provide movement. Nevertheless, this didn’t provide the effect desired.


Making movement ‘dynamic’After the initial prototype, I found that the movement my model allowed was only very basic. Primarily, it allowed the model to be flexible (to a degree) but it really demonstrated no visual effect. The challenge from here on in was to make this movement ‘dynamic,’ or ‘wow’ without compromising the form of the model and the original direction of the concept.

Incorporating the system experiemented with previously, I pared back the movement to only take effect in one direction. As the designer, my decision was to retain some rigidity because I believe it was essential to the given system.

The ‘shards’ were the ‘jagged’ elements. They could be any random shape or form, as long as they illustrated clearly the effect of the movement. The initial prototype attached these to the form as additional elements, but in the resultant model they are indelibly part of the form.


PROTOTYPE TWO: In order to allow for flexibility in the system, folding planes were added between the notches. Despite the system prototype having radial folds, this model had straight folds. This allowed for movement in more than one direction, whilst retaining a visible form.

The folds also shaped the shards, which appeared from the top of the model as the wearer flexed their arm in a horizontal or vertical direction. As can be seen, the pieces are still relatively large, but once the folds are accounted for the model shrinks significantly.

The dynamic movement is accounted for in the inward-folding shards, arising with the expansion of the model.

Nonetheless, it was found that so many folds accounted for a great deal too much flexibility. The model’s essential form was difficult to maintain and the dynamic movement was hard to demonstrate. To add to the problem, I had made the model too small to wear!

PROTOTYPE THREE: This time, the dynamic movement was revealed by the manual tearing away of the model, to reveal the jagged inside that lay beneath the surface.

The form has remained almost the same as the original conception, but having been relocated to the chest, different aspects and perspectives of the model could be appreciated. The bulging chest may contain pent-up anger or overwhelming emotion, to be revealed when the skin is removed.

AND THE FINAL MODEL: is essentially the same as prototype three, however incorporates greater panelling density and a thicker (3mm) boxboard to ensure the model remains rigid where required to do so.

CLOCKWISE, FROM TOP LEFT: Prototype two incorporated exterior shards, hinged from the top of the model. The model was to be worn over the arm.

The third prototype retained the essential form but altered the position on the body. It was now to be worn over the chest. The shards were hidden inside the model, which was to be opened manually by pulling at either side.

The second prototype with original shards.


The model consists of three elements: the x plane, the y plane, and the folding plane. The x plane is illustrated in blue, the y plane in red, the folding plane in yellow. The folding plane is formed by the central pieces of the y plane, including an added folding ‘shard’ element.

Each plane is connected through intersecting notches; the width of which corresponds with the width of the material. As such, most notches are 3mm wide, however the central notches of the x plane are 1mm wide to compensate for the thinner, more pliable 1mm boxboard used for the folding plane.


MODULE 3Fabrication

The second skin project has given me the opportunity to expand my understanding of the increasingly digital world we live in. My approach to design shows a marked difference between the very first design conceptions and the final model. Whilst design is always ultimately at the control of the human mind, digital technology is developing in such a way that it is impossible to ignore the influence it has on modern design. Technology has certainly offered me an alternative view on design, a perspective I am likely to carry with me throughout my career.

The project itself was a challenge...a massive challenge every step of the way. We hit the ground running from week one, and for me it seemed like we were running blind. A quick introduction to the system through our study object informed us about some of the challenges we were to face, before the design process began. I, like many other students, had entered the subject with some pre-conceptions about how I would like my model to look. This was very much premature: we were yet to receive our design brief nor were we familiar with Rhinoceros. The challenge was to break down our preconvcieved ideas and begin from scratch. What does it mean to have personal space? How can this be physically represented? It would be foolish to think these were questions that could be easily answered at the start of the assignment. For me, presenting the final product achieved in week twelve was the first time I felt comfortable answering them.

We were presented with challenging feedback, criticism, and advice; sometimes it was hard to take, but it emphasised a key aspect of design. Design is not linear. Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the drawing board, to retreat back to square one and reconsider your approach. I certainly experienced this throughout the process. However, I think ultimately the result was better for it.


Every time a student presents a new idea, there is always a degree of uncertainty about whether the prototype will live up to the brief. The risk associated with starting from scratch is that there is always potential to go wrong just as seriously as you did with the previous conception.

Nevertheless, we have the tools available to us to maximise the standard of our work, and to push our own design boundaries; to challenge what good design is to the individual. Ultimately, the best design arises when we let go of our reservations and let the design process take us on a journey of discovery.

Technology is no longer an added extra to design. It isn’t something used simply to represent design. Technology is a key part of design in today’s world. It is the machine that allows us to test our limits, and to create inspirational results we never thought possible. I believe the second skin project has achieved that in me. Even when it all seemed impossible, I rose to the challenge and delivered a result I can be truly proud of.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hasley Nine Bridges Golf Club House Image 2013, [Homepage of Forbo Flooring], [Online]. Available: http://www.archidea.com/en/archive/2012-10-01/article/haesley-golf-club-house [2013, 28/10].

Lazika Pier Sculpture by J. Mayer H. Architects Image 2013, 28/2/2013-last update [Homepage of It’s Liquid], [Online]. Available: http://www.itsliquid.com/j-m-h-architects-lazika.html [2013, 28/10].

N.H. Architecture Flinders Street Station Proposal, Western Concourse Impression 2013, [Homepage of N.H. Architecture via Major Projects Victoria], [Online]. Available: http://vote.majorprojects.vic.gov.au/entrant/nh-architecture [2013, 28/10].

Alda, F. 2011, Metropol Parasol Image [Homepage of Yatzer], [Online]. Available: http://www.yatzer.com/Metropol-Parasol-The-World-s-Largest-Wooden-Structure-J-MAYER-H-Architects [2013, 28/10].

Iwamoto, L 2009, Digital fabrications: architectural and material techniques, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, Selected Extracts

Kolarevic, B, 2003 “Digital Production” in Architecture in the Digital Age - Design and Manufacturing , Spon Press, London, pp30-54

Mayer H., J. 2011, Metropol Parasol Elevation [Homepage of Yatzer], [Online]. Available: http://www.yatzer.com/Metropol-Parasol-The-World-s-Largest-Wooden-Structure-J-MAYER-H-Architects [2013, 28/10].

module4 maxwellbracher 636699

Documents

section system

notch system

skins emphasised form

iconic roof form

waffle design

interactive design

final model

sevilles metropol parasol