Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DENIZ UNER
CO-CO
DESIGN FOR MODULARITY
DENIZ UNER
Contents
Abstract
How this book is organized?
7
9
Chapter 1 / Theory
Design Argumentation
Good Taste Vs Good Design
CO-CO Collect & Connect
Design for Modularity
Family Chart
14
18
28
30
37
Chapter 2 / Concept
Design Process
Surveys
Early Concepts / Kulma Table
Early Concepts / Scenario
Early Concepts / Corner Joint
Early Concepts / Modules
A Basic Image
Material Thinking
Splitting up the Structure
A Half Leg
Checking all the Possibilities
41
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
62
66
Chapter 3 / Making it
Making It
Making it Wood
Making it Wood&Metal
Making it Wood
CO-CO Structure
CO-CO Final Prototypes
Final thoughts
References
Image Credits
Notes
Acknowledgements
77
78
81
93
100
104
112
114
116
117
118
Abstract
THEORY
10
11
There are better ways to design than putting a lot of effort into making something look special.
Special is generally less useful than normal, and less rewarding in the long term.
J.Morrison
12
13
Design Argumentation
14
15
Design Argumentation
16
17
considered beautiful is rather a universal perception whereas taste is something learned in the early
ages and it is difficult to try to change it. (Design
Journal,2012)
1- Symposium by Plato.Original Phrase is : Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth,
not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be
immortal, if mortal man may
(*) Referring to design being highly overrated was meant that designer becoming the superior actor in creating surroundings for daily life is slighty questionable.
18
2, 3- La Distinction by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (19302002), based on Bourdieus empirical research on French culture. Taken from studies conducted
by Bourdieu in 1963 and concluded in 1967-68, the book was originally published in France in 1979.
4 - Fiona MacCarthy on the influence of Bauhaus, Books, The Guardian, 17 November 2007
19
The idea of todays world is already recognizable, its shape still unclear and hazy (5)
Designis onlydesignif it
communicatesknowledge (Enzo Mari)
A collaborative mindset of a designer, meaning that
designer being willing to share the knowledge of
making things, like Mari did is an interesting one. By
modular components to be put together by the user
to set the actual needs whether it be regarding to
use or just aesthetics. This would save the designer
from making decisions those associate to personal
preferences which could be subjective both in use
and aesthetical levels. Design output could offer a
system of self-supporting pre-fabricated components to be gathered and brought together by the
user itself. Even slight adjustments that create slight
differences in appearance would give more freedom
to the user and enable them communicate the
aesthetics via objects.
5- Gropius (1923 // As Gropius saw it in 1923, the idea of todays world is already recognisable, its shape still unclear and hazy. The impulse behind the
Bauhaus, which was more a philosophy of life than a teaching institution, was to give modernity a precise physical form. // Fiona MacCarthy (2007)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Co-Co : Collect&Connect
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Co-Co L1
There is one type of leg and two sizes for each. Both
legs can be adjusted in at least two positions, also
the width of the table or bench can be extended with
an extension pieces. It is also possible to use these
legs in both directions. For example, they can be
on the sides or on the front which enables creating
different looks and different sizes.(Sizes decided for
this system can vary,I considered offering table and
bench with most standard sizes. Although it could
be possible to make higher or lower tables, benches
as well as other structures)There is two sizes of
identical wooden leg namely coco-L1 with the size
of 30X70(h)cm for making tables and coco-L2 lower
wooden leg with the size of 27x45(h)cm for
making benches. Both legs can be doubled,
reversed horizontally flipped and fixed together
with screws directly to the cross beams.
Both structures can be extended both in width and
length. In width extensions starting with 60 cm ensures a 90 cm width table. For the cross bars starts
from 110cm making 125 cm tables at minimum, till it
can extend up to 200 cm with middle support having
the same detail for connections and using the same
leg adjusted to middle if length of the table of bench
requires vertical support.
140x60x72(h)
160x60x72(h)
180x60x72(h)
140x105x72(h)
160x105x72(h)
180x105x72(h)
140x80x72(h)
160x80x72(h)
180x80x72(h)
Co-Co L2
120x38x45(h)
140x38x45(h)
160x38x45(h)
120x38x45(h)
140x38x45(h)
160x38x45(h)
80x120x45(h)
80x100x45(h)
80x80x45(h)
36
37
CONCEPT
38
39
Design Process
40
36
41
Surveys
It is beautiful
It is interesting
It is what i need
Other
05
10
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
Desk / Table
Bed
Other
0
42
25
43
44
45
dining tables and 72-75cm for a work desk. This chart leaded to a generalization of the heights for a set of
table structures. There are three main sizes that I decided to work on; 45-55, 55-60, 65-70.According to the
drawing, I cited mainly 5 group of height. Numbers starting with age 4-5 with the heights of 44-48cm as junior
size and turns to stay stable around the age 17 (being young adults) with the height of 67-72cm for the elbow
heights. Thinking about the height as humans evolves using several pieces of furniture were crucial to
understand where to start designing.
47
48
49
Since Corner joint concept was a start up stretching exercise to better see things in a bigger scale,
I sketched down another table structure concept
which focuses more on the pieces. This was a stage
where I took everything down in pieces, laid down
the main elements and mark them later to be combined and organized into more concrete elements.
Several pieces coming together mainly are table
tops, legs and additional elements that are no longer
considered separate items but every single item as
one elements contributing to a structure.
For example, main beam, legs, end connectors,
connectors and table tops support are the components of the structure. Each one representing one
constructive element, given different colors so to
overview a broad image of the pieces in a
modular and basic schema. Then, primitively
thinking focusing more on how many components
makes the structure.
50
51
A Basic Image
To make this selection of gathering of each component easier, a basic image that stands out suggesting a basic structural preference was needed. As a
kind of step back from small pieces to the big picture, thinking of an identical and whether a primitive
look; a look that has certain constructive elements
and should be used when re-organising the pieces
to figure out the organisation of reuniting.
Then combining this image with the data that was
gathered from the research, a selection of the
several heights were picked using the first scenario
prepared. Primary sizes decided were pictured with
a strong visual image so that the size and overall
52
52
53
Material Thinking
At this stage if one needs to make a rather subjective decision regarding to the primary elements of
the structure, as a driving force this would be the
wooden part. Because it gives a certain character to
furniture and the connection underlines the
difference between the sizes.
54
55
51
+
1
I continued with wooden leg & metal beam idea but in a half structure. Half wooden leg attached to metal
beam in several shapes.3 different form for wooden legs with different heights so to have a variation in terms
of making different tables such as low tables, narrow tables and wide tables.
If we think of everything sort of in a mirrored way, symmetrically legs would come together in same symmetric
rhythm. With this in mind, if we have a cross bar or beam that splits the legs into same two kinds, we would
get three different table with same beam. In a way playing out with the wooden legs we would have different
tables if we enlarge the surface needed we would need extensions with different sizes. Thereby idea can
evolve into a bigger system of legs.
56
57
However, there is another way to apply the same thinking for the wooden legs which gives more exciting and
simple as well unique joinery.
58
59
59
If we think of a form that splits the structure into half with a non-symmetrical self standing form given to the
leg, we could have the possibility of adjusting the width of tables in to more narrow or wider. Besides, this leg
system would look as simple as the first sketch when its fixed.
60
61
A Half Leg
Fig.16 : Start up mock up to see the thickness and feel the basic form for
the half leg.
Fig.17: First scaled mock up for checking the length of half leg.
Fig 18: 1-1 Scaled wooden mock-ups showing three main adjustment positions for the width of table.
62
63
A Half Leg
64
65
66
67
Fig.20 : Co-Co Table Concept Step 1, Low setting & high setting
68
Fig.21: Co-Co Table Concept Step 1, Storage, bench, table, wide table
69
Fig.22 : Co-Co Table Concept Step 2 , Seating with arms, storage, bench, table
70
Fig.23 : Co-Co Table Concept > Three level sizes are 45cm, 60cm, 70cm
71
Fig.24 : Co-Co Table Concept Step 3 > Reduces sizes are 45cm, 70cm with extention pieces for wider structures
72
73
MAKING IT
74
75
Making it
76
77
78
79
Second step was defining a metal joint to tighten these wooden legs and attaching them to cross bar and
thinking of the metal pieces that would connect the wooden pieces with cross bar. Several metal joints were
tried out starting with simple L profiles with several thicknesses. Then, to make the connection as tight as
possible and to maintain a good hold for wooden legs, further trials were made with metal flat bars. Varying
sizes were 4mm metal flat bars first. Eventually these metal parts got thicker and thicker to make sure of a
strong connection between metal and wooden parts.
80
81
82
Step 2: More specified form for metal to connect wooden legs was applied.
83
84
Step 4: Metal & Wood structure with two crossbars, which would allow making wider tables (Ref.P.70&71: Checking the Possibilities > Step 3)
85
Step 5: Metal pieces getting bigger and thicker (from 4mm to 6mm flat bars bended). Several sizes and shapes tried out.
86
87
Step 6: Metal piece at final stage, two more variations which in the end were both eliminated.
88
89
Following the metal pieces, another step taken was the detail for the wooden leg connection. In the first
examples I tried several details to get strong connection between the wooden legs. I thought this would make
the adjustment of the wooden legs more tight enabling a better holding of the pieces. After everal types of
sliding details I also decided to eliminate these details because in the end, flat finishes were better to make it
easier to assemble.
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
CO-CO L1 : TABLE
CO-CO L2 : BENCH
2
4
2
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
1/ Co-Co L1/700x300mm
2/ Furniture bolts(M6x90mm)
3/ Cross beams (1200x97mm)
4/ Barrel nuts (M6x20mm)
5/ 1400x610mm Birch Wood table top
6/ Middle Support
100
1/ Co-Co L2 (450x25mm)
2/ Furniture bolts(M6x90mm)
3/ Cross beams (1000x97mm)
4/ Barrel nuts (M6x20mm)
5/ 1200x380mm Birch Wood seating
6/ Middle support
101
102
Co-Co L2 (450x25mm) with cross bars from 800x800mm, 1000x1000mm or 1400-1600mm to make 1600mm or 1800mm lenghts.
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Final Thoughts
112
113
References
Design Journal (2012); Vol.15,Issue2,PP 185-202,Good Taste Vs. Good Design:A Tug of War in the Light of
Bling.Despina Christoforidou, Elin Olander,Anders Warell, Lisbeth Svengren Holm
115
Image Credits
Notes
116
117
Acknowledgements
Tutor
Heikki Ruoho
Supervisors
Jouko Jarvisalo
Martin Relander
Writing Support
Hanna Karkku
Technical Support
Markus Koistinen
Martin Hackenberg
Matti Kauppinen
Mikko Ristimki
Manne Kuva
Teemu Mntyl
Arto Sillanp
Photographs
Martina Babiov
Friends
Aslihan Oguz
Daniel Moralez
Doonyapol Srichan
Hye jin Ahn
Jarkko Kurronen
Jy Park
Martina Babiov
Saku Kmrinen
Sarang Ganoo
Sara Multanen
Sini Herttonen
Stina Kouri
Veera Sievnen
And also my family
118
119