RoboDraw

Response to 2 Manufacturing systems and strategies

Manufacture systems could be represented in the frame of axis defined by two factors: productivity and flexibility. All the selections about manufacture method based on calibrating one point in the frame are determined by three considerations, the prime cost for individual product, total volume and differentiation and similarity between each product. The production process might contain many hybrids that linkedcells are assembled as approach to produce products with low volume but high variation, some of the cells could be segregated for specific requirements. Corresponding with approaches, industrial robots differentiates in precision, speed available area and load. Besides, the article also summary the strategies integrating all aspects of production environment. Group technology focuses on manufacturing approach identifies and exploits the underlying similarity of parts and manufacture process. It deals with the discrepancy by efficiently storing and retrieving information about recurring process. FMS allows more efficient use of capital equipment, reduces work in process and direct labor costs and floor space. It avoids costly idle inventories by avoiding unnecessary stockpiling of material to be used in a manufacturing process. In conclusion, all the strategies integrate all aspects of environment and relative domains to calculate the most rational producing process which could not be achieved by not utilizing facilities. Moreover, since the robots contain sensors to gain feedback, it is possible for the machine to measure critical parameter or movement route to ensure the quality of final products. 

models protoypes archetypes response

This article answers why the construction of the Temple Sagrada Familia has been take so long. At first I read this like an interesting story, but when I really think about it, I feel a little scary.

The author first talks about 3d print. When I first heard of this technology, I just thought it is a easier/ expensive way to make models. However soon after that when I knew that human organs can be print, and fatal weapons can be printed, I realized that it is not as simple as a printer. That night I literally dreamed that a 3d printer printed another 3d printer and then their entire “family”, and then they printed organs and weapons for themselves, and then I woke up. It was a scary dream, but not a ridiculous dream. It is good 3d print sometimes make modeling easier, and it could be really nice if the technology could save lives. Being able to print pistols is not a terrible thing, many people know how to make weapons, but being able to produce machines or themselves is something new. The number of machines and product could increase exponentially.

I am having an unconventional studio this semester, we make organic forms, using maya. The process of fabricating Passion façade makes me rethink the point of making irregular shapes. When designing for studio project, my default setting is that don’t worry about how it will be made, the technology now is very strong, and anything can be made. That assumption is probably wrong, In the column complete image I can still see parallel cut mark left by the fabrication process. I think I will ask my instructor how the organic form be physically produced next studio time.

Project_004 Modelscope

Response to 1 Pandora and the Modern Scale Machine

Architectures use scale model machine as a mechanism to test whether their works within reference standards, such as established principles. The standards could be the fundamental resource for the architectural speculation process. Besides, through models architectural manners, which connects with individual understanding of invisible things, are measured and tested. However, the constraints of model are its discrepancy from reality and deconstructivism’s reluctance of analysis. 

The references standard varies. The randomness in Gaudi’s work covers up his reliance with well established rationalism and catholicism. Tatlin’s work has metaphor meanings of collective will, mental projection, social body and central axis, which are derived from communism. The ideological structure of Lissitzky is related with reconstruction program’s denial of the necessary of emotion in architecture. For Kahn, the the less controllable shadow contradicts with his perceived belief of scientist, religion and the solution itself. While Libeskind’s shattering in reference standards is against any established orders, it seems he is trying to reconstruct the standards by utilizing scale models. 

The limitations of imagination are its imprecision, engineering deficiency and inaccessible of tests. Models give architecture an access to find the problems and explore the most appropriate solution by trying various possible ways, even expand understanding of the reference standards . Meanwhile robotic fabrication could lead the repetition more efficient and precise.

Manufacturing systems and strategies response

I think the article does a good job introducing general knowledge of manufacturing systems. I think the most interesting part is the diagram that has flexibility as x axis and productivity as y axis.

I have been studied in both the University of Minnesota and the University of Michigan, and both schools have good fabrication labs. During these years of physical modeling, I feel that making decision of which tool or which combination of tools to use is always hard. There is always another way to produce the product that is more time consuming but less labor intensive or vice versa. The diagram in the article shows exactly why. We as architecture students are very likely to model something repetitively, which is a very important characteristic of architecture. Meanwhile, we model for ourselves as opposed to factories manufacture for their  large number of customers, so we model repetitively but not that repetitively. In the diagram, rigid multi-machine system works best if productivity is the goal, while CNC single machine system is more accurate and precise. But neither of those are likely to be what we are frequently doing. Then we have to make decisions based on precision required, time, money, labor, etc.

Another thing come to my mind is that machines are replacing human labors increasingly. But the best cars and the best watches are still hand made. In theory, cars and watches are not high-tech products, so it makes more sense if machines now do better jobs assemble cars and watches. I think this is because human have experiences, a experienced worker know what the sound of the engine should be, a experienced watch maker knows what is wrong by just listening to the tick tack. a trained worker’s hands know if the bolt is too tight or too loose. Watches and cars are special items as well. They are old inventions, but not likely to be replaced by anything like CD players went distinct. Watches and cars have cultural meanings,  they represent taste, wealth, career, class, and even more.

Robo Fabulous Assignment 4

Response to Readings

Architectural Model and the Machine / Pandora and the Modern Scale Machine

The question of invisible things is singular to humans on an existential level and therefore requires certain mediums of understanding. To conceive these abstractions, according to Albert Smith, we have "imposed certain standards"upon them; each method varying with the individual. In other words, people make models to understand conceptual ideas. He begins with Gaudi, one of the most widely appreciated architect of models. What is fascinating to me about Guadi is his ties to Catholicism and its influence on his work. He wished to isolate the verity of ideas, believing that "beauty is the radiance of truth".

The romanticism of this reason is made apparent by Smith's contrast to Tatlin, a communist who sacrificed creativity for utility. He then goes down the line, breaking down rules with each "model-maker" until he arrives at Libeskind. Listening to a Libeskind lecture in Columbus, I was struck with the speed at which he changed topics and the connections he strung through the confusion. Smith also grasped this, calling Libeskind's work a, "narrative without a beginning or an end". Comparing this to Tatlin and Gaudi, Libeskind has a certain anarchic disregard for rules. A truly fascinating result of this is how he has acquired freedom, but also is challenged with the responsibility of this freedom. What rules can he follow?

This can be a question to all 21st century designers; with limitless resources we can create quite literally anything. But where does that leave us? Is there sense in what we are building? Do we need sense?


Manufacturing Systems and Strategies

This text delves into the specifics of digital fabrication, presenting a useful guide to scales of production of machines and specialists, the focus of firms on fabrication versus assembly, and machines specific to certain volumes of output or medium. Due to fluctuations in demand, it is clear that all of these specific systems need to work with some degree of flexibility. Robots themselves vary enormously between their physical construction and how they are programmed or controlled. This allows us to utilize their consistency and precision the most to our advantage.


Models, Prototypes, and Archetypes

Mark Burry addresses digital fabrication inout modern time with regard to its historical roots. Additive construction is a concept he is particularly interested in, with particular regard to Gaudi's Sagrada Familia. Scaled models have become standard since Gaudi's structural studies, and design schools are now considering it a mandatory resource to have 3D printers and laser cutters on hand.

He exaggerates the difference between a model and a prototype, a model being a representation of an idea and the prototype as a sort of manifestation of something existing that can be built upon. This distinction I find particularly interesting as it almost corresponds exactly to the difference between a hypothesis and a thesis. As designers we must use the same tools as scientists, yet we have the means to create our hypothesized realities.


Integrating Robotic Fabrication in the Design Process

Architects must choose a certain level of abstraction when handling physical models, thus allowing them to understand something on a level which induces creative thinking. Proportions become clearer and easier to grasp, and direct sensual feedback. This seems like a small sacrifice as most designers rely on their imagination to fill in for sensual details and spatial understanding while staring at their computer screens for hours on end.

As autonomous as robots may seem in the design process, each of the robots movements is controlled by a command that was given to it by the designer. Even simple moves that are programmed into a single button were wired by humans. The interaction between the two are fascinating, as man has fabricated a better version of himself for more fabrication. The concept of the whole thing when you get into it is rather lazy.


Authoring Robotic Processes

Now seems to be the best time to get involved in Robotics in architecture and construction. Because the pioneers of fabrication in the 1990s ran trail and error (expensively and slowly), we today, even on an educational scale, may utilize robots for their precision and sometimes for their speed. Considering the use of robots has been incorporated in manufacturing since the industrial boom of the 1920s, it seems to me that architecture is yet again almost 100 years behind other crafts. Although it must be said that the use of robots on a contraction site (besides a crane) can make the building process very interesting. The use of quadcoptors mentioned by Kohler and Willmann I think is a very interesting tool, as they can operate freely on almost all axes in airspace. This may very well result in something we haven't seen before in design, especially in the topic of building waste. The use of bulky scaffolding and imposing cranes can finally be questioned.


Changing Building Sites

During the Industrial Revolution, many things were growing at a rapid rate; whether it was production of goods, population, or materials, the rest of the economic world had to find a way to keep up. Automation started perhaps with Henry Ford's production line and carried into building construction, eventually leading to prefabricated pieces for the building process. The repercussions of this in the current climate for design and construction is the loss of customization. Having custom designed goods or places has always been a sign of prosperity or value. The cost,time, and materiality which comes as special requirements of making has always been valued as a trade. Could a robot begin to automate customization? Besides the intensive collaboration between robot, management, and building, this would be fairly easy to do. Maybe then there will be value placed not on the construction of a thing but its properties of form.


Retooling for Mass Markets in the 21st Century

Really bizarre: I read Changing Building Sites immediately before this and somehow pulled ideas of customization and the Ford assembly line before even reading Retooling

Its interesting to reflect on our century as an "Asian" one. In the past 80 years or so, China and Japan, among others, have taken a more active role in the collective markets and populations of the world. While Building Sites defines the current time as more of a "Robot" Century, Verebes here digs a bit deeper into the why of prefabricated building and the standard mold of high-rise residential towers that have been popping up throughout China's expanding cities.

The Jetsons example is a strong yet classic one for housing; with the population rising, how can we streamline processes to allow for efficient expansion? Thinking along these lines, maybe the standardization critiqued in Building Sites isn't such a negative thing. With functioning modernist examples in place in Singapore and Beijing, maybe we should be looking into what about the standardization is productive instead of trusting the placement of the program or losing the glamor of custom design.

Models are not Centers for Ants

Models are not Centers for Ants

In one of the funniest scenes in Zoolander, Derek Zoolander, due to his limited mental capacity, misunderstands a scale model of the Center for Kids Who Can’t Read Good as being the building itself. Which leads to his frustrated exclamation “How can we be expected to teach children to learn how to read...if they can’t even fit inside the building?” While silly at face value, when building models, most architects are really building Centers for Ants. In Architecture Model as Machine, the author refers to the architectural model as a small-scale model machine. Machines make things happen. They are not there to sit quietly and look pretty (although looking pretty is a plus). They are there to get in the trenches (sometimes literally) and get things done. In this way the author argues that models are not merely there to represent the soon-to-be building but rather are just as influenced by the cultural milieu of the time and as socially, politically, economically and even spiritually engaged.

It is within this framework that he introduces the different architects in the chapter. Gaudi came from a time where the sciences were seen as the mechanism with which to understand and marvel at God’s work. Although the resulting buildings were quite distinctive, the intellectual framework that they arose from were fitting for their time. Tatlin and El Lissitzky, on the other hand, physically represent the upheaval and uncertainty of the new communist regime and the overturning of centuries of customs and socioeconomic organization through their models. For this, they conceive of different ways to approach the model so as to convey this new world order. In a more personal approach than the preceding architects, Kahn explores his spiritual uncertainties via the model. Finally, Libeskind embodies the anarchic pluralism of his own time in his modeling practice.

RoboFabulous: LiteBrite

Project003_Long Exposure Photos&Geometry

Linear

P to P

Spline

Geometry

Response to Pandora and the Modern Scale Model Machine

The modern scale model machine is continuously developing based on the constraints of its context. Gaudi's model machine developed through his inspiration of natural forms. Tatlin and Lissitzky responded to the Marxist state. Kahn consulted and questioned his reference standards and Libeskind deconstructed the reference standards of his time. With the help of the scale model, architects and designers are able to better comprehend their intentions and manifest the culture of their time.

Response to Pandora and the modern scale model machine

Louis Kahn explored the order of his reference standard through his scale models. He said, Architecture is the manifestation in form of the order of our experience. It is the model of our consciousness. The architecture of each culture is a model of that culture's world , not of the world's shape. Consistently, through different scales of models, from detailed structure to the plan level to the site model, Kahn searched and displayed the diverse qualities and orders on various scales. Model is not only a representation of the architecture, but architecture itself is the model of that culture's world. He built a sequence of consecutive world from model to architecture. He opened the Pandora box of architecture and selectively took out the orders under his control.

Model of Mikveh Israel Synagogue, Louis Kahn

Philadelphia 200 year Exhibition, Louis Kahn

Structure Model of Richards Medical Laboratories, Louis Kahn

Compare of orders in different scales and details

Memorial to the Six Million Jewish Martyrs, Louis Kahn

Pandora and the modern scale model machine

The Greek word techne is often translated as craftsmen, engineers and artists. Today these are three disciplines, but it is still quite often that an architect/artist employs craft/ engineer way to advance the design. In the article Pandora and the modern scale model machine, the craft/ engineer device is called scale model machine. The author illustrates examples of how architects utilize scale model machine to identify/ address the difficulties in the design process from the perspective of Antonio Gaudi, Vladimir Tatli,, El Lissitzky, Louis Kahn and Daniel Libeskind.

Gaudi uses scale model to study geometry in a engineer way. When talking about geometry, people always think about those straight edges, perfect or even symmetrical shapes that doesn’t exist in the nature. But Gaudi’s string model, for example, creates perfect arch complex simply out of gravity; and more than that, that scale model also visualize gravity. This is a great example of addressing engineer problem, generating shape and visualizing design by using scale model machine.

Tatlin’s 3^rd international tower helps exploring disciplines that are very broad and unclear. Because astrology, alchemy and the sophisticated human body are abstract and impossible to model, this machine sensually describes a scale by the spiral shape, represents the long process of exploring science, the infinite small spiral tip and infinite cone bottom. This is successful in terms of modeling the intangibles.

Kahn’s use of scale model may seem universal in current architectural field. Simulate is basically how he uses scale model machine to develop the Memorial to sex million Jewish martyrs. The model as a material and sensual tester proves Kahn wrong.

Even more than a tool to help architects develop their designs, scale models are becoming more of a tool to communicate with other architects. The information a scale model conveys is transferring from measurable to invisible. Even though, architects learn from both the processing of making the model and studying the finished model. With the help of technology, architects can now hire robots to make scale models. These robotic arms are similar to what human can do except that their elbows are more flexible, strengths are bigger, and more patient and efficient. The robots now build scale models exactly the way humans do so that architects learn by watching the robots work as well.