Conclusions Three observations can be concluded

Conclusions Three observations can be concluded from the success and deficiencies of the QPC workshop. The first one is that material and fabrication constraints have to be precisely modeled before the design stage. An in-depth study of the material and fabrication limitation is the key factor for realizing design freedom while promising practical solutions. As for the QPC workshop, these constraints come from the standard EPS block sizes, machine movement limits, machine size limits, and the conflict between 3D convex object fabrication and the 2 dimensional movement of the cutting machine. A good understanding of these objective constraints and their inter-relationship eventually leads to a exact figure of maximum fabrication size limit, and thus informs the students with a rational point cloud density in the very early design phrase. The second observation is that it SAR 405 is possible to achieve economical efficiency and heuristic design exploration simultaneously in the same interactive design computation model. As for the QPC workshop, the economical efficiency refers to smart management of budget, time limit and material usage, while heuristic design exploration refers to freely altering design development with subjective design intention. The QPC tool set allows the designer to quickly explore different design configurations without sacrificing strictly defined economical efficiency, which is the fundamental advantage of quantum design paradigm compared to automation oriented modeling paradigm. The third observation is the severe tolerance problem in the built up pavilion. The tolerance problem comes from the imprecise production of single EPS voronoi objects. To fulfill the ambition of producing 3D convex objects with a limited 2D hotwire cutter, a physical rotation table is used in this workshop, which requires manual alignments of hotwire to intersection projection lines. Unlike a CNC procedure, this manual workflow is very sensitive to the skill and fatigue of the students. The biggest tolerance discovered in the final model is 2cm, which is far beyond the 2mm cutting tolerance promised by a true CNC hotwire cutting procedure. Although the tolerance problem was later fixed by adding additional layer of EPS slabs or sanding off extra material, the danger of combining CNC and manual workflow for a precise production is obvious, and should be avoided for precision sensitive projects.
Acknowledgements The QPC workshop was generously financed by the School of Architecture & Urban Planning, Nanjing University, China. Professor Wowo Ding, Guohua Ji and Dr. Ziyu Tong made valuable contribution to the success of QPC workshop in terms of workshop management, realization project selection and fabrication support. The student participants include: Mo Chen, Zhijie Dong, Zejing Song, Ye Tian, Han Wang, Xing Wang, Yang Yang, Fang Huang, Mengyuan Duan, Xiaoxuan Hu, Zhifeng Xie, Zhouya Shen, Aurora de Liefde, Carlos Abel Saenz, Donald, Pattinama, James Yapi, Ismael Quevedo Medina, Matthijs la Roi, Wouter Kroon. The realization design was originally developed by Matthijs la Roi, Yang Yang, Xie Zhifeng, who also hold the credit for Figs. 1,2 and 5.
Introduction
Arbitrary, comparative tests 5.5.8.5 Dimensional changes of both types of specimens are to be measured after three specimens have been exposed to each of the following exposure conditions: The percentage volumetric and linear change obtained shall be reported for each exposure and each specimen. The results are to be expressed as a “plus %” when there has been expansion and as a “minus %” when there has been shrinkage (Table 1). So for somewhat wet foam and a high level of solar radiation falling on a building one allows 14% of expansion. With other words for a 5m×3m×4in. thick insulation (1.5m3) foam and uniform expansion of the thickness, and two dimensions, each is allowed to move 60mm. If this was real case, nobody could use such a material in the construction.