Laser Cut 3D Heart

For this assignment, we were tasked with designing and manufacturing at least a 3-part laser-cut press-fit assembly. I decided to stay on theme and try to make the same shape as my last project, just with a different method.

1. Plywood (we used 1/8 in thickness)
2. Laser cutter
3. Fusion 360

The idea was to design something akin to the 3D heart shown above, but broken down into more of a skeleton so that it could be press-fit together and potentially wrapped to resemble the 3D version.

I chose to use a combination of half lap (on the sides) and finger (in the middle) joints to press-fit the pieces together. When deciding on measurements, I created the initial base first, then based the measurements of the other pieces on the aforementioned model by overlaying an image of a sliced 3D heart and tracing it.

The parts were then sent to a laser cutter to be manufactured in the makerspace.

Even after setting the kerf setting in Fusion, some of the pieces were a little tight, so I had to hammer the pieces together a little. Additionally, after fitting the pieces together, I realized that there was still space between the pieces, which meant something was wrong, and turns out some measurements were off. So I had to go back and fix the measurements and print a second iteration.

The finished model came out very clean, and I was pretty satisfied with it. Some pieces in the second iteration came out better fitting than the first one, but I still had to hammer some of them. I think if I had some more time, I would've liked to mess with the kerf settings a little more to make it even better fitting so that I wouldn't need to use the hammer at all. Plus maybe trying to wrap the entire model to see if it successfully makes a nice 3D form to possibly be used as a decoration.

I think the reading was a change of pace from what we usually think the design process is like. The passage talked about building from the bottom up, which means not starting from an initial design but rather building and adapting as you go along. As engineers, we are taught the design cycle, which utilizes designing using a top-down method: starting with a concept, building a prototype, testing and analyzing, then repeating until we have a working design. The reading acknowledges that “in some ways, bottom-up processes seem antithetical to the traditional notion of design”, but that the two aren’t mutually exclusive; however, the example it cites is that we adapt to weather changes all the time and are still living life. Yet, to me, the comparison scale between the weather and structures we trust our lives with is significantly different. I do believe that this way of thinking could be beneficial in other capacities, like the lesson it teaches in adaptability, and can be useful when applied to sudden changes. I personally didn’t apply this bottom-up approach in my design, but I did have to adapt to changes presented to me, like the difference in plywood thickness and the errors in measurements it led to.