Digital Design and Manufacturing – A New Era of Representation Larry Barrow Mississippi State University Anijo Mathew Mississippi State University Introduction The realization of architecture, the building of the physical artifact requires numerous collaborative participates, all of which must be part of a communication network in order to realize the vision (Barrow, 2000). Thus, architecture is inherently a public and social act by its’ innate purpose and necessity of physicality. The term “architecture” is a noun attributed to the year 1555 AD; defined by Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary as “the art and science of designing and building habitable structures.” All efforts to communicate a design idea prior to physical realization, that is construction, are all forms of representation. Herein lies the fundamental problem, the designer(s) must en-vision, and communicate that which is to BE ... physical, yet is NOT... physical. In the emerging context of architecture, the term “design” is becoming increasingly broad. Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines the term “design” as a verb attributed to the 14th century defined as “to conceive or execute a plan.” Pollalis and Banos argued as early as 1987 that design includes construction where they coined the term “design construct.” Collaborative Design-Build-Maintain project delivery methods and integrative teams are now blurring traditional role boundaries, and visualization strategies, where we now see new innovative methods of “product” and “process” design increasingly amalgamated (Pollalis and Banos 1987). Further, the topic of “design” and “visualization” is becoming increasingly complex as we move into an era of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Project Life-Cycle Management (PLM) where ideation, representation, simulation, making, maintenance and recycling are becoming interwoven in associated geometric models and linked informational databases (Barrow 2005). For the sake of our conversation, we will frame the discussion on “design” to focus on the primary intent of academic studio, that is, the early phases of design ideation and representation. The Problem Heretofore, most agree the computer has been a hindrance to creativity, sensitivity, tactility and experiential phenomenology (McCann 2004). The design process remains a humanistic intuitive process of complex explorations and respective decisions facilitated by representation and visualization strategies. The complexity of engaging the computer hardware interface via keyboard and mouse, as well as the innate numerical binary structure of software applications, have not been compatible to the fluidic flow of human hand-to-eye interaction. Hence counter intuitive interfaces have resulted in long learning curves, at best and often, refusal by many designers to engage the computer in conceptual ideation. Resultantly, the computer has often been a barrier to the many complex issues necessary for consideration of design creativity and sensitivity. Further, it could be argued that the use of 2D digital drawings have often resulted in less thoughtful construction detailing. So the use of the computer has often been problematic relative to “design” and the communication of “making.”

The Claim Only recently have we seen the emergence of digital design tools migrating into the design studio; this is attributed to the evolving human-computer-interface (HCI) that now allows an increasingly fluidic means of creative design ideation and digital representation. We are now in a renaissance of design freedom and exploratory form searching with unprecedented visualization and form generation opportunities. In response, we, the authors, have begun to provide a formal language for our research and pedagogy in the area of digital design and manufacturing (Mathew and Barrow 2004). In this paper we will share our recent findings, in terms of pedagogy and practice relative to digital design and “making.” Background Technology has transformed many processes and often requires new terms and reference frameworks; this likewise is the case relative to design communication. Design communication is a complex process with many levels of information that ultimately includes a plethora of participates. Additional complexity in the current context is introduced with an expanding array of representational methods with digital design tools. In our pedagogy and research we have attempted to describe a language framework for dissemination of information and communication of digital design strategies. The primary components of our framework have been based on the Human-Computer-Interface (HCI) relative to digital design tools, i.e. Hardware (HW), Software (SW) and Input/Output (I/O) methods and strategies. The following sections will provide a brief overview. Hardware and Input Systems There are numerous emerging visualization HW/SW systems; for the sake of this discussion we will focus on those most pertinent to our pedagogy in design studio and digital design courses. In the area of HW, we have seen the physical devices migrate recently from relatively slow processing desktop Personal Computers (PC) to laptops with increasing speed and graphic capability. Both these HW devices are similar in HCI Input in that they typically rely on a traditional keyboard and mouse interface. The laptop PC, relative to the desktop PC, offers limited improvement in HCI via a small “touch-pad” that allows finger tactility for interactive “mouse moves” and “interactive taps.” A third type of HW system we are investigating is the addition of an external Wacom touch sensitive pad, of various sizes, to either the desktop PC or laptop PC, resulting in a hybrid system. A fourth type of HW system we are exploring is the tablet PC which uses an integrated Wacom touch sensitive screen. The following is a recap of current studio related HW PC Input typologies.

Digital Design Hardware and Input Typologies

Typ

e

Typology Intu

itive

Rat

iona

l

HCI Input Interface 1 Desktop (DT) PC X Keyboard + Mouse 2 Laptop PC X Keyboard + Touchpad and/or Mouse 3 DT/Laptop + External Wacom Pad X Keyboard + Touchpad and/or Mouse + Wacom Pad 4 Tablet PC (Internal Wacom Pad) X Keyboard + Touchpad and/or Touch Screen

Table 1: Digital Design Hardware and Input Typologies

Our pedagogy has pursued investigation of teaching/learning strategies and the relative outcome in design process and representation/visualization strategies using these various HW systems. An additional crucial component of this research is software (SW) and Output options which will be the subject of the following section. Software and Output There are numerous emerging representation/visualization SW systems. Similar to our discussion in Hardware, we will focus on those SW’s most pertinent to our pedagogy in the design process. In the area of SW, we have seen the algorithmic interfaces devices migrate slowly from 2D rational/rigid keyboard-text command systems (i.e. 2D AutoCAD) to increasingly intuitive interface systems with Input/Output (I/O) methods that are much more compatible to the designer in the early stages of design exploration. Output types include various forms of digital and physical output. The following is a recap of current studio related SW typologies.

Digital Design Software Typologies

Typ

e

Typology Intu

itive

Rat

iona

l

2D / 3D Software Applications 1 Conceptual Design X Alias Sketchbook, Architectural Studio, Photoshop, SketchUp, etc. 2 Free-Form X Rhino, Form-Z, AutoCAD 3D, etc. 3 3D Object Oriented X ArchiCAD, Revit, MicroStation, Architectural Desktop, etc 4 Viz-Presentation X 3D Studio Max / Viz, Maya, SoftImage, etc. 5 Simulation X 3D Studio Max, Catia, Unigraphics, etc. 6 CADCAM X Rhino, Catia, Unigraphics, SolidWorks, Pro-E, Inventor, etc.

Table 2: Digital Design Software Typologies In our pedagogy and research we have developed a language for communication of “types” of representations relative to digital output (Mathew and Barrow 2004). These may be either digital (pixels/images) or physical models via CADCAM or both. The following is a recap of current studio related digital design representation types. A discussion of “dimensions” (D) relative to 0-7D will follow this section as an augmenting compliment to the following chart.

Digital Design Representation/Visualization (Viz) Typologies

Type Typology Digital Output

1 Low

2D fluidic “free-hand” diagrams, low resolution rendered images (no texture mapping), digital mass models and/or CADCAM generated physical mass models. Includes 2D, 3D or 4D outputs (i.e. intentionally sketchy, loose, & “uncertain”).

2 Mid

Hypermedia using a combination of digital and traditional media combinations or a combination of digital media. Inclusion of more design issues; inclusive of both quasi-photo realistic images and CADCAM generated physical models. Includes 2D, 3D or 4D output.

3 High

Photo realistic images and/or CADCAM generated physical models which depict a high level of detail or representational realism for issues of design. Includes 2D, 3D, 4D or 5D output (i.e. intentionally detailed & “certain”).

Table 3: Digital Design Representation/Visualization (Viz) Typologies (Mathew & Barrow – 2004) Dimensional “Thinking” – 0D to 7D In our recent pedagogy and research we have developed a language for the communication of representational “thinking” relative to technology and “dimensions” (D). For the sake of clarity, and design communication, we have distinguished between levels of intuitive visioning; that is, the “art” of architecture, and the “science” of architecture” relative to technology. For our conversation, we must establish a common ground of understanding relative the term “technology.” Often technology is thought to be HW+SW. However, our research in related fields of manufacturing (i.e. automotive and aerospace industries) provides a broader definition of technology that is relevant to our discussion. As early as 1986, Zeleny defined technology to be inclusive of three interdependent, co-determinant, and equally important components; 1) Hardware – physical device(s), 2) Software – algorithmic codification language(s), and 3) Humanware – people and the “reasons” for using the HW+SW (i.e. the computer) (Noori 1997). This definition is critical as it points to the purpose of computing and places a high value on the “human.” Technology includes people, and in our case, the “designer;” with this said, we embark on our journey through “Dimensions.” 0D – Path-finding and Visioning Architecture requires a multitude of collaborative participants for the realization of the vision. Even the field of “management” needs its visionaries, dreamers and aesthete; Leavitt defines the “managing” process and leadership as follows:

1 ) Path-finders 2 ) Problem-solvers 3 ) Implementers Inherently, path-finding is intuitive and thus, much more nebulous than its’ other two counter-parts, so path-finding is much more difficult to define and communicate, but incontrovertibly real and critical. Path-finding then, is about mission, innovation, vision. Secondly, problem-solving is about doing and thinking - rationalizing. Third, implementing is about action, about getting things done, making things happen, and doing. Path-finding (i.e. purpose, mission, direction) is highly personal and subjective, with no distinct answers; where there are answers, they emerge from within the self more than from external factors. This is the ephemeral land of values, beliefs and aesthetics (Tushman 1989).

In architecture we interpolate these general principals to be as follows: 1 ) Path-finding = Designers 2 ) Problem-solving = Rationalist – Architectural, Engineering, Building Consultants 3 ) Implementing = Builders, Craftsmen, Machines (CADCAM) The architect's role as “thinker”, is to generate and develop “possibilities” and “visions” in the form of design alternatives. It is the development of skill in the first area, Path-finding/Visioning, we pursue in the design studio.

In our recent pedagogy, and in our Design Research & Informatics Lab (DRIL), we have developed a language for communication of the design process relative to “dimensions.” While details maybe argued, it is the overall arching framework that we find of value to express types of “thinking” and “progression” in the design process in the emerging “digital design” process. Representative examples of 0D - 7D work will follow as an augmenting compliment to the following chart.

Digital Design Representation – Dimension (D) Typologies

Type Typ

olog

y

Description

1 0D

THINKING: Non-physical mystical Human “THINKING,” the humanistic intuitive ideation of thought, creativity and expressive design values processed in the “designers” mind relative to questions and issues. This is the ephemeral land of values, beliefs and aesthetics. Path-finding- this is about mission, innovation, vision. Internalized, non-physical “ideas” that are personal to the creator/designer.

2 1D WORDS: Text written in an “attempt” to express/represent and/or capture the “essence” of the designers’ idea(s) and intent. Can be in paper/pencil or digital media.

3 2D DIAGRAMS: Two-Dimensional graphic diagrams that attempt to analyze, express and evolve the “designer(s)” idea(s) and intentions. Can be in traditional paper/pencil media or digital media.

4 3D

MODELS: Three-Dimensional models that attempt to analyze, express and evolve the “designer(s)” idea(s) and intentions. Can be in traditional physical media, digital media and/or physical CADCAM output.

5 4D

ANIMATION: Three-Dimensional models that are “experienced” using “animation” whereby the viewers eye (i.e. the camera) moves to represent dynamic movement through space and/or model object components are transformed in a manner to express sequential assemblage or the dynamic “nature” of the “design” in an attempt to analyze, express and evolve the “designer(s)” idea(s) and intentions as well as the users experience of the form and space. Generally attempts to increase awareness of the spaces in terms of sequence and experience. Digital media required.

6 5D

SIMULATION: Four-Dimensional models that are linked to databases where additional layers of information are revealed which assist in explaining, experiencing, or analyzing the design thus evolving the “designer(s)” idea(s) and intentions and the users experience of the form and space. May provide “newtonian” properties of the objects, as well as simulate many types of attributes or factors (i.e. structural loads, cost, scheduling, energy, day-lighting (sun), acoustics, wind, sun, etc.). Requires digital media and linked digital databases.

7 6D

FABRICATION : The linkage of 3D output to a CADCAM machine to print, rout, cut, mold and/or “make” in some manner, either as scaled “representations,” or full scale “actual” output of the “designed” object(s). Requires digital media, linked databases and “machines.” Resulting Output takes digital data and outputs full-scale (1:1) “physical” artifacts.

8 7D REALIZATION: The culmination of construction, manufacturing, and assemblage of the “designed” artifact. Requires digital media, linked databases and “machines.”

Table 4: Digital Design Dimension (D) Typologies The above denoted D’s are by no means a linear process, only two of the D’s can be fixed in the sequence; that is 0D and 7D. “Thinking” begins the process, and “realization” ends the process. the intermittent phases, i.e. 1D through 6D - “design explorations and communications” are interwoven in a dynamic “iterative” manner that is non-linear, iterative and results in an interactive design-make process. The following diagram attempts to depict the interrelationship of the “D’s.”

Fig. 1 Digital Design Dimension (D) Typologies For the purposes of this discussion, we have framed the topic to focus on “design” ideation, exploration, and communication as related to the early stages of design, that is, what we do in “studio.” Further discussion of construction and manufacturing is beyond the scope of this paper. The following are examples of studio work from our research and teaching that reflect the use of the computer in the earlier phases of the design and representation process. 0D - 4D Examples

Student: Alison Wade – Graduate Student - Interior Designer / Artist Course: Digital Design I – Fall 2004 Instructors: Barrow and Mathew Project: Free-Form Expression

Energy takes form

ever growing

WIND whisper…pulse of the Earth

0D – Thinking 1D - Words

Table 5: Dimensional Thinking – Student example 1

2D – Diagrams Input: HW = Laptop + Wacom Pad & Stylus Pen SW = Photoshop Output = Image

2D + 3D: Diagram + Model Input: HW = Laptop + Wacom Pad & Stylus Pen SW = Photoshop + Rhino Output = Image

3D – Model (CADCAM – Physical) Input: HW = Laptop + Wacom Pad + ZCorp 3D Printer SW = Rhino + ZCorp Output = Physical ZCorp Model

4D – Animation (Digital) Input: HW = Laptop + Wacom Pad SW = Rhino + 3D Studio Max Output = Digital Animation

Student: Shaima Al Arayedh – Graduate Student: Architect Course: Digital Design II – Spring 2005 Instructors: Barrow and Mathew Project: Architecture Competition – Nazca 2005 – Observatory in Nazca, Peru

Above Ground

Ecological considerations

Spherical Shape

Could be ...planet, spaceship, balloon

0D – Thinking 1D - Words

2D – Diagrams (Digital) Input: HW = Laptop + Wacom Pad & Stylus Pen SW = Photoshop Output = Image

2D – Diagrams (Paper + Pen) Input: HW = Paper + Pencil (Scanned) SW = Photoshop Output = Image

2D – Diagrams (Paper + Pen) ----> 3D: Model (Digital) – SW = Rhino

3D: Model (Digital) Input: HW = Laptop / “Wacom” Pad SW = Rhino Output = Image

3D: Model (CADCAM – Physical) Input: HW = Laptop / “Touch” Pad + ZCorp 3D Printer SW = Rhino + ZCorp Output = Physical ZCorp Model

Table 6: Dimensional Thinking – Student example 2 The above 0D - 4D examples are a sampling of our student’s work where we introduced the Wacom Stylus Pad, and congruent software, for “free-hand” drawing and exploratory modeling. Generally, we found various reactions to the HW/SW options. Alison adapted to the Wacom pad and used it for all her work; Shaima on the other hand never found the Wacom pad to meet her need for tactility. However, she found the 3D modeling environment, with the ability to seamlessly interface to other digital media (i.e. CADCAM) to be empowering in her search for form and structure. Generally, the students, and we as instructors, found the ability to bridge “design” information from various levels of “progression” to be of great benefit. However, the skills and approaches varied per the aptitude and attitude of each student, as well as their specific knowledge and comfort with the digital Hardware and Software applications. Also to be noted at this juncture, 5D has not been included in the Digital Design courses as we feel this level of digital investigation is beyond the capacity of most students, primarily due to time constraint necessary to learn advanced software, and probably not necessary, for most “conceptual” designers. Relative to 4D (i.e. animations), “walk through simulations allow the designer to move perspectivally through a sequence of spaces in an emerging design…movement is part of the experience, causing elements to realign and alter visually in relation to other elements” (McCann

4D – Animation (Digital) Input: HW = Laptop + “Touch” Pad SW = Rhino + 3D Studio Max + PhotoShop Output = Digital HyperMedia

4D – Animation (Digital) Input: HW = Laptop + “Touch” Pad SW = Rhino + 3D Studio Max Output = Digital Animation

2004). There are different qualities of walkthroughs from desktop-based animations to Virtual Reality models that allow the user to interact with the space. We feel that 4D “high-viz” presentation and “5D” simulation output requires significant computing skill building efforts (i.e. a long learning curve) and often results in “specialization.” We continue to discuss the complex issues of digital design and CADCAM in our research and pedagogy as well as our curriculum. Generally stated, we find the above “digital design” pedagogy to be an on-going area of complexity that offers both opportunities and dilemmas, hence we remain excited, while cautious, about the introduction of digital design strategies in the early phases of design and studio. 5D – Simulation Some of our Graduate Students are sure they do not want to be “designers” and they prefer “specialization” in architectural “presentation” or “simulation.” Architects have traditionally used animations and walk-throughs to present their designs. The problem with traditional animation techniques is that the computer only does what the animator asks the computer to do. Dynamic simulations, on the other hand, create objects that can react to forces like gravity and wind, because the objects are embedded with Newtonian properties of material and mass. These “Dynamic Objects” (DO) hold within themselves a defined complexity of intelligence and character which is absent in other digital objects. Thus, by not keying qualities of the object itself, the designer now affords the space an order of unpredictability – abstracting the experience of being in a real space (Mathew 2005). Student: Mythilli Bagavandas - Graduate Student - Architect Course: Directed Individual Studies – Fall 2003 Instructor: Mathew Project: Photo-realistic Simulation

5D – Photorealistic Simulation Input: HW = Desktop PC / Mouse + Keyboard SW = 3D Studio Max Output = Image (a tribute to Tadao Ando)

5D – Photorealistic Simulation Input: HW = Desktop PC / Mouse + Keyboard SW = 3D Studio Max Output = Image (Mexican Colors)

Table 7: Dimensional Thinking – Student example 3

Student: Mythilli Bagavandas - Graduate Student - Architect Course: Directed Individual Studies – Fall 2003 Instructor: Mathew Project: Dynamic Simulation

5D – Simulation Input: HW = Desktop PC / Mouse + Keyboard SW = 3D Studio Max Output = “Wind” Simulation

5D – Simulation Input: HW = Desktop PC / Mouse + Keyboard SW = 3D Studio Max Output = “Gravity” Simulation

Table 8: Dimensional Thinking – Student example 4 6D - 7D: Fabrication and Realization Fabrication (CADCAM) is relevant in this context in that the designer can, having modeled an “idea” in the 3D virtual environment, with the assistance of other experts, output a physical model for construction (Barrow, 2000). The process involves the use of fabrication machinery output using Automated Construction (Barrow 2004), however, further discussion of these processes are beyond the scope of this paper. The construction process is likewise using an increasing amount of 3D digital data to generate full-scale artifacts as part of the construction process, but again, further discussion of construction fabrication and/or the “realization” of architecture are well beyond the scope of this paper. Conclusion We have reviewed the concept of “0D→7D” relative to the digital design process and the “realization” of architecture. We have expanded the concept of design exploration strategies beyond the concept of 3D or 4D representations to include 0D, 1D and 2D, i.e. that is the critical need for human intervention and “thinking” in the use of the computer. Also, we have established a framework of discussion relative to visual 4D “representation” verses 5D “simulation” whereby associative physical phenomena can be modeled to simulate physical and experiential phenomenology. We now see the emergence of stylus driven “touch-screen” PC tablet hardware, coupled with free-hand sketch software, now providing new “visualization” digital processes that are transforming design ideation allowing the transformation of 0D “mental visioning” to 1D, 2D visualization and

3D geometry digital data. It is now possible to convert complex 2D/3D digital geometry into physical form through CADCAM output (i.e. 3D Printing, Laser Cutting and CNC Routing). Current computing technology is now infusing the creative design process providing enhancing design creativity while allowing visual, physical tactile feedback, via CADCAM physical output, to the designer and collaborative participates in the early phases of the design process. We see multiple means of integrating the computer into “ones” way of “thinking and doing.” There are many ways to design and each digital user will have to find their way based on their current computing skills and what works for them. We believe that it is as important to teach the “conceptual” use of computers for the purpose of design, as it is to teach the use of the pencil to draw. Just as with hard media, digital media is used in different methods dependent on the user’s aptitude, skill level and individual preference for working. The design process, and related communication, is being transformed in the emerging arena of the creative use of technology in architecture. REFERENCES: Barrow, Larry R. Architecture – Little “d” and Big “D” Design. Proceedings of Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC) Research Conference 2005. Barrow, Larry R. Cybernetic Architecture – Process and Form – The Impact of Information Technology. Dissertation. Harvard Design School. Cambridge, MA, 2000. Barrow, Larry R. Elitism, IT and the Modern Architect – Opportunity or Dilemma. Automation in Construction 13 (2004) 131-145. Journal publication by Elsevier B. V. – doi: 10.1016/j.autocon.2003.09.001. www.elsevier.com, September, 2003. McCann, Rachel. On the Hither Side of Depth: A Pedagogy of Engagement. 2003-05 EAAE Prize: Writings in Architectural Education, 2004. Mathew, Anijo. The Use of Interactive Dynamic Simulations for the Purpose of Architectural Presentation. Proceedings of Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC) Research Conference, 2005. Mathew, Anijo and Barrow, Larry. Digital Design Methodology and Terminology: Evolving a Formal Language Framework for Pedagogy and Practice. 2003-05 EAAE Prize: Writings in Architectural Education, 2004. Noori, Hamid. Managing the Dynamics of New Technology - Issues in Manufacturing Management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1997. Pollalis, Spiro N. and Banos, J. Yannis. A Framework For The Design Process. Number LCT – 87-2 Laboratory for Construction. Graduate School of Design, November, 1987. Tushman, Michael L., Editor, The Management of Organizations: Strategies, Tactics, Analyses. Graduate School of Business - Columbia University, Charles O'Rielly - Graduate School of Business - University of California, Berkley, David A. Nadler - Delta Consulting Group, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988.