Tube Bending

Armed with a website and a phone number, we began the research on having the tube framework bent up. First try, http://www.eatonleonard.com . This company actually design and build the machines that create the complex tube bending. After picking the brain of the engineer at Eaton Leonard, it was apparent that to get a concrete estimation of cost and time for this project we would need a new contact at a company that actually bends tube.

The first company contacted was Steico Industries. Mostly geared towards industrial projects (HVAC, refinery tubing, etc), we were still able to gain some knowledge in the art (and extreme cost) of tube bending tube. Pricing is based on a number of parameters. First and foremost, is the number of bends in the tube. From there, the bends are broken down further. Sequential bends that don’t leave 2 to 3 times the diameter of the bend in a straight length of tube will cost more than bends that are spaced apart from each other. Tubes that have multiple multiple bends with varying radius’s will cost more than tubes that have the same radius bends through-out. And, on that note, every time a new radius is introduced to the tube, the operator must re-tool the machine with new code. Which, adds to the fee. If all the tubes vary in design, each tube will have its own retooling fee. As you can see, the more complex the project, the greater the cost (obviously). It is very possible to have multiple fees per pipe, as well as a fee for each pipe.

After the shock of the potential cost wore off, the contact at Steico got us in contact with a company that deals with one-off and prototype projects at a more reasonable cost. It comes down to the machine. Steico’s is designed for fast and simple bends. Bends that are common in industrial designs. The new company, All Tube (http://www.alltube.com/services_category.cfm?CID=568) uses different machines which are capable of much more complex bends. Though we haven’t been able to get in contact with anybody at this company we have high hopes of getting an estimate, both time involved and price, for our tube frame work.

Color Schemes?

Here are several color schemes that are based off clothing from the line.

Collaboration…

With never having to really “collaborate”  in previous studios, not necessarily the mechanics of the process to the MSU studio are hindering but rather mindset. It is not an intentional, malicious case against the idea, only bad habits are hard to break. Slowly, people are getting around to it.

For example between two different groups, they talked about an idea that one group had and discussed the parameters surrounding them. This process was met with constructive criticism and proceeded well. A healthy collaborative design process was shown here, as discussed in several articles read in a packet.

But in the end, people took the design ideas and tried to develop it further within their separate groups. While this brings a healthy diversity, certain parameters can be going in divergent paths, thus hindering the process of coming to a final resultant.

One would have to admit there has been a strong effort to listen to one another and build off of that. Coordination and true collaboration are just getting held up in the growing pains of this new, collaborative effort.

{it}eration of {fab}ric structure…*w.d.y.t*

these are some iterations of the accordian (fab)ric structure… I focused on an integration of (fab)ric and structure as well as (fab)ric [orient]ation, {den}sity and shape… I gained a lot of information into how this could be {fab}ricated as well some trouble spots that we need to keep our eyes on as we work into more para’N'meters…? (W)hat (D)o (Y)ou {T]hink…{?}.,.

Large Scale Sections

71 [wo]man hours

Rhinocam_continued

Our thoughts when we started our variations in Rhinocam with the first model the Rhino history group worked on was in what way would what we do help move the project model forward in relation to how we set it up in Rhinocam.  We came to the conclusion that based on how we divided the model up into later constructable parts that was 3D surface based and parts that were more 2D based, the rhinocam would fulfill different roles in what could be achieved in each part.

For the 2D part, which was described as the vertical (as seen in yellow) and horizontal parts (as seen in wire frame ) where only outlines needed to be cut, Rhinocam toolpath would alter the cut edges in the way that different toolpaths would create different types of edges that could relate to how we would piece the parts together, possibly using friction to hold the parts in place better. For the Horizontal parts especially, different toolbits were used and compared. As seen here:

Looking at close-ups of the resulting edge styles, it was found that while a pair might be the same they still differ in the edge styles and sizes with other pairs.  We tested all the available bits on the program, but looking at milling it with the CNC here, we would probably be limited to only the ones we have. So we also kept in mind the different variations could be outsourced to somewhere else when its not viable here.

With the 3D part which was named the Invisible Wall, ( as seen here in red and white) : lies a greater possiblity for the variety of surface treatements by Rhinocam, as opposed to edge condition with the 2D parts. But it also poses another matter that was addressed previously about how to do an undercut. Since it was not possible to do so with the CNC here, another possibility to make it work and make the turn-over on the milling table as easy as possible, was if a mirrored cut of the upper surface was made to support the already cut upper surface as the CNC is cutting the underside. For the beginning of this Rhinocam, however, it was decided that we do just one side of the surface first.

So this is as far as we’ve gotten in terms of determining rhinocam’s role in the project.

Then we thought of taking the project further in relation to bringing the model back to Rhino to further make additional iterations from the resulting variation we came up with. While we are not sure yet of how this will be accomplished partly because we are not sure of how to deal with the changes in Rhinocam and what aspects we would change in Rhino based on those changes. If we were to utilize the 2D parts with altered edges, we would only be able to work with the edges themselves and would have to make drastic changes to make any difference because of the small scale of the edge. Using the Invisible wall would be the one that makes the most sense since it’s a workable sized surface, but since we as a whole Rhino group are not sure what form this invisible wall would take–whether it’s something tangible or not even used in the end, we are a little unsure about dealing with this path.

As we played with the different layering of the toolpath on the surface using a basic milling bit type, though, one of the variation that came up was of the diamond-shaped pattern (as seen here) that we thought would be a good path to pursue.Thinking about it in relation to its modular qualities we decided it would have the most potential. Further thoughts include figuring out a way in relation to the available milling bits to make the pattern indentation a larger scaling and spacing so as to reduce redundancy and possibly cost, and also making the pattern more prominent. This includes one possible way to modify the surface to relate to the length of the milling bit. So from here, I think we at least have somewhat of an idea for our next step in testing the milling as well as bringing it back into Rhino.

The Lastest HISTORIES

Here are the most recent developments. Starting real simply and using the record history to manipulate these surfaces creating some dynamic interaction. More will be posted later. Plan to incorporate a full fabric scheme with structure. This is it for now, and its only sample. Nate French is doing stupendous work and plans to blog a little later.

RhinoCam- Tool Paths

We then divided up the categories.  I played with the 3d surface invisible wall and the vertical dividers.  After changing the stepover, plunge, angle of cut, speed, cut path, etc…  we came up with several iterations of the differences that can come out from small changes.   With the 3d surface by changing the depth of the Hor. Roughing, then changing the parallel finishing path, we came up with some diamond looking shapes.  Also, by using two parallel finishing paths we came up with a scallopped look.

Overall we thought with some modifications to toolpaths-some questions for Bill/Monika- we could modify or create a modular system that could begin to take on a different pattern/texture by only modifying a single path or adding another path.

Here are a few options for the tool path for how we cut the vertical members.  Nothing fancy.  It changes the edge condition slightly which overall could be interesting.

RhinoCam

It was a great adventure in starting to learn RhinoCam.  First of all I grabbed the file from Ron/Nate and began preparing it. 

Then with the little knowledge of RhinoCam I had, I sat and pondered about the best way to break this up or if we needed to in order to CNC it.   Overall it would be difficult(near impossible to CNC it like it is, so I broke it up into 4 categories:  Horizontal and Vertical Members, Invisible Wall Curve, and the Fabric.  I then questioned my decisions,wondering if I was going down the right path, wondering if it would work or not.

The fabric and invisible wall(made of fabric) do not necessarily need to be CNC’d or we could but the complexity would take the machine 18 hrs and up to complete.   After getting some help from Bill, I was able to understand the process better and split the categories into their own seperate Rhino Files.   From there was the complexities of understanding the tools, machine, program etc… to create different tool paths and finishes.  For instance understanding the tool bit length and vibration factor which may limit certain design implication with finished surfaces. 

Tool path examples to come.

41st0ry_r3c0r[)3[)*

*says: ‘History Recorded’ for those non-leet speakers

Here’s the rundown – using the logics Ron set up, I applied it to the curve / sloped wall of my original schematic.  Process (images below) -

1. since the wall is curved and all teh extrusions are in the same direction, they become more parallel towards the sharp portion of the curve.  another way we could explore porosity.

2. creating openings within the framework, both ‘entry’ and ‘viewing’ (since ‘door’ and ‘window’ are too restricting).

3. due to the sloped wall again, this detail shot shows some interesting conditions of extending the threshold further into the space than the regular wall, creating hierarchy and looking sweet.

4. problematic condition, dealing with member thickness.  a) pulling on backside of ‘fin’ still impacts front grid association and breaks history. b) creating a dual grid and extruding inward on both can create varying thickness, but a gap develops.  c) copying the original grid to the other side of the extrusion contains no association and can’t alter the ‘fins’.

Going to work on that thickness issue and see if something doesn’t present itself.