First stage of evaluation - According to the design evaluation criteria:
Additional evaluation:
- Ceremony and social functionality: 5/10 in comparison to the estimated 9/10 [Design Evaluation Criteria > Evaluation Matrix >
Design no.4 ].
The reason: At the current stage the elements of the teapot are not precise enough and at times force has to be applied to make them connect/turn/fit etc.
Also, the current material, plastic, does not look aesthetically pleasing. Despite that, it shows to be functional and perfect for future mass-production. - Easy to clean: 7/10 in comparison to the estimated 8/10.
The reason: The first prototype is not to scale, therefore the access to all surfaces is much more limited when compared to the real size of the final product. - No over-extraction: 3/10 in comparison to the estimated 7/10
The reason: As the elements are not as precise, the fitting is not ideal - not watertight. This way, the water comes through the holes in the bottom of the body - the extraction cannot be stopped and the material cannot hold temperatures required for tea brewing. - Multiple infusions: 3/10 in comparison to the estimated 7/10
The reason: The issue is the same as in the previous point - the teapot is not completely watertight at the moment. - Different types of tea: 7/10 in comparison to the estimated 9/10
The reason: The size of the teapot does not provide a realistic of how successfully it is applicable to different tea types. - Aesthetics: 6/10 in comparison to the estimated 8/10
The reason: The plastic material of the teapot is probably not the best in terms of beauty, yet it is very practical.
Additional evaluation:
- From the first prototype it is clear that the majority of concerns come from the precision of the CATIA design, the expansion of the material during printing and the possible inaccuracy of the printer. All elements have to fit in a manner that allows movement, yet enables the teapot to stay watertight. In the first design this has not been achieved, only in the second (due to the helix technique).
- The material used can be very practical if we assume that 3D printing will be widely spread in the future. Plastic is easy to work with. It is also light and available in transparent versions. However, it cannot resist high temperatures.
Here I compare the performance of the first and second prototype:
- Ceremony and social functionality: 9/10 in comparison to the first prototype’s 5/10
Reason: The teapot is more accurate and is printed to scale. This leads to a better performance and more attractive appearance. - Easy to clean: 8/10 in comparison to the first prototype’s 7/10.
Reason: The second prototype is bigger in size and therefore its surfaces are bigger too – easier to access. - No over-extraction: 6/10 in comparison to the first prototype’s 3/10
Reason: The elements of the second prototype are not suitable for the temperatures required for brewing. This can be remedied by printing glass or choosing other heat-proof materials. - Multiple infusions: 6/10 in comparison to the first prototype’s 3/10
Reason: As in the previous point, the accuracy is greater and provides more stability for the structure. It can be improved in the future. - Different types of tea: 9/10 in comparison to the first prototype’s 7/10
Reason: With the real size of the teapot, there is a better understanding of how applicable it is to different types of tea – size of leaves in comparison to the holes, how long can the structure hold water etc. - Aesthetics: 8/10 in comparison to the first prototype’s 6/10
Reason: The colour and quality of the plastic are better. There are also no flaws caused by the printer.
To get an overall review, I refer back to the initial evaluation matrix for comparison (the figures are the same as previously indicated under Design 4). The assumption is that the teapot can handle high temperatures (as the desired material is glass). The plastic of the 3D printer is not suitable for high temperatures.
In addition to the outlined criteria, I would like to add some further criteria which I found essential during the design process, but have not considered previously. These are functional attributes that are examined in the Modelling and Analysis section.
The presented comparisons and evaluations are just personal estimations. This could be perfected and reviewed by continuously repeating the design loop and altering the design/material etc.