Week 1 HW: Principles and Practices

First, describe a biological engineering application or tool you want to develop and why.

With a background in computational arts and interest in jewellery design, I am planning to experiment with applications of bio-inspired processes in jewellery design. This would involve thinking about a partial process of the jewellery making process- Computer Assisted Design (CAD) and 3D printing process. The narrative application is based on reducing material used in the processes.

The application is inspired by Wolffs Law for design in software such as Rhino. Areas of tension (e.g where the piece interacts with the wearer or where a gemstone is held) and desired volumes are defined and a simulation determines the structure of the design through calculating where the metal will experience the most tension.

Traditional jewellery may be designed with a strong overall structure to ensure longevity. In this application, the design creates filigree like structures which keep the strength of the support but optimise metal usage through intentional precision. In the 3d printing process, I also want to explore a more intentional use of supporting 3D printing filaments. Based on the same principles of self-assembly and calculating tension support, the scraps of supporting structure after 3D printing can be reduced by switching from the traditional lattice-patterned to a topology inspired by bone growth. The 3d printing supporting structure can be simulated alongside a finished piece, to virtually test and reduce waste in wax prototypes.

Next, describe one or more governance/policy goals related to ensuring that this application or tool contributes to an “ethical” future, like ensuring non-malfeasance (preventing harm). Break big goals down into two or more specific sub-goals.

Governance should require transparency in simulation parameters. When an AI or a simulation (like a topology optimizer in Rhino) decides to remove 40% of the metal from a gemstone setting, the designer must be able to audit why that decision was made.

Actionable Policy: Implement a “Structural Safety Buffer” protocol. The software must provide a visual heat map of stress distribution (Finite Element Analysis) that a human designer must sign off on before the file can be sent to a 3D printer.

The Ethics: This prevents “automation bias,” where a designer trusts the software’s efficiency so much they ignore common-sense structural weaknesses.

While your goal is reducing material usage (non-malfeasance toward the environment), a highly complex, filigree-like structure inspired by bone can be nearly impossible to repair using traditional jewelry methods (like soldering or resizing).

Actionable Policy: Establish “Standardized Repairability Ratings” for generative designs. If a piece is designed to be so optimized that it cannot be resized or repaired without collapsing, the tool should flag this to the consumer or designer.

Preventing a “monopoly on efficiency.” If one person owns the patent for the most efficient way to print without waste, the industry-wide goal of sustainability is slowed down.

Next, describe at least three different potential governance “actions” by considering the four aspects below (Purpose, Design, Assumptions, Risks of Failure & “Success”).

Purpose: Traditional 3D Printing may use more waste than necessary. This project proposes an inspiration from nature to reduce waste associated with 3d printing structures, with a proposal for the Royal College of Art, RapidForm 3D printing facility.

The RCA Lab adopts a Custom Slicing Profile as their factory default. Every file uploaded is automatically processed through a topology optimiser that calculates the minimum necessary “filigree” support based on the specific tension points of that piece.

The Workflow: Provide an automated script. The technician drops a student’s STL into this folder; the script runs the Wolff’s Law simulation and a print-ready file with optimised, bio-inspired supports will be created.

Who opts-in: Lab manager, internal RapidForm

Funding/Approval: This requires a “Validation Phase” funded by the RCA Research Office to prove that these organic supports are as reliable as the standard grids.

Assumption: this assumes one process will work for all models. The most effective way would be to do a comparative test.

Risks and failures: Assumes technicians will switch from standard 3D printing structures used now, which may have more resources and general information for support.

Success: The lab’s material waste will decrease.

Actor: Academic Researchers & CAD Software Developers (e.g., Rhino/Grasshopper Community)

Purpose: Currently, support structures are often proprietary “black boxes” in slicing software. This proposes an Open-Source Repository of Bio-Inspired Support Algorithms based on bone-remodeling logic.

Design: Researchers publish their “bone growth” code. This allows any designer, regardless of their budget, to use high-level waste-reduction math.

Assumptions: Assumes that “bone-growth” supports are universally better across all printers (SLA, SLS, DLP). In reality, some printers might handle these organic shapes poorly.

Risks of Failure & “Success”: * Failure: A lack of “technical support” for the open-source code could lead to failed prints that actually increase waste during the trial-and-error phase.

Success: If successful, proprietary software companies might lose their competitive edge, potentially slowing down private-sector innovation in high-end design tools. 3. Actor: Regulation

Purpose: Currently, jewelry is largely unregulated beyond metal purity. The proposal is a mandatory Structural Integrity Certification for generative designs that remove more than a set percentage (e.g., 50%) of traditional volume.

Design: Before a design can be sold, the software must output a standardized report. This requires regulators to define a “Safety Baseline” for tension and impact resistance in 3D-printed precious metals.

Assumptions: Assumes that current Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software is 100% accurate for 3D-printed crystalline structures, which can be more brittle than cast metal.

Risks of Failure & “Success”: * Failure: The test might pass, but real world 3D printing defects (like layer delamination) could cause the piece to fail, leading to more waste than with not experimenting with new methods.

Success: Safety and waste reductions can be increasingly improved with new experiments