ICoRD'13 pp 927-937 | Cite as

Approaches in Conceptual Shape Generation: Clay and CAD Modeling Compared

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

We compared the methods of modelers who modeled in clay and those who modeled in CAD. We gave special attention to the size and shape characteristics of the model, and to the differences in approach between individual modelers. Four modelers made three different objects in clay and four other modelers made the same three objects in CAD. As a measure of success of the modeling method, we used the quality of the generated model, based on a set of criteria. Generally, the overall appearance of the clay models was better than that of the CAD models. Individual modelers applied different approaches for the same shape, not only when using clay, but also during CAD modeling. The quality of the models varied greatly. We conclude that the most appropriate modeling method depends on the size and shape character of the model, and also of the preferences and skills of the subjects.

Keywords

Shape ideation Conceptual design CAD Clay modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors like to thank Stephan Maaskant and Koen Vorst for performing the experiments and gathering the data.

References

  1. 1.
    Lim Y-K, Stolterman E, Tenenberg J (2008) The anatomy of prototypes: prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas, ACM transactions on computer-human interaction, Vol. 15(2), pp 1–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grady HM (2000) Web site design: a case study in usability testing using paper prototypes. In: Proceedings of IEEE professional communication society international professional communication conference and proceedings of the 18th annual acm international conference on computer documentation: Technology & Teamwork, IEEE, Cambridge pp 39–45Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robertson BF, Radcliffe DF (2009) Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Comput Aided Des 41:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghang Lee G, Eastman CM, Taunk T, Ho C-H (2010) Usability principles and best practices for the user interface design of complex 3D architectural design and engineering tools. Int J Hum Comput Studies 68:90–104Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elkær TN (2009) Using computers to aid creativity in the early stages of design—or not! http://www.salle.url.edu/sdr/info/ ©ARC, Enginyeria i Arquitectura La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull. In: Computation the new realm of architectural design 27th eCAADe conference Proceedings, 1st edn. Cenkler Printing, Istanbul, pp 761–768
  6. 6.
    van Dijk O, van Veldhoven E (2003) Research on clay modeling, advanced modification analysis. Dynash research report, Delft University of Tecnology, Faculty of Industrial Design EngineeringGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Design EngineeringDelft University of Techno.ogyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations