# Darren’s Design Lab: project build guide Prepared for Darren. Status: new independent student project, not prior employment or completed fabrication work. The website includes starter models and calculation drafts. Your next work is to measure, rebuild, verify, revise, and explain the design yourself. ## The project question ### Updated interactive portfolio The portfolio now has a personal overview, Projects & Physics, Stone Lab, Room Preview and Job Gallery. The five model points explain top area, sink removal, waterfall ends, density, and mass/weight. Changing dimensions or material updates the quantities and room model. Save a baseline to compare revisions; export the current inputs and assumptions as a JSON report. The current website starts with marble density 2699 kg/m3, from Polycor's marble-countertop EPD. Granite uses 2654 kg/m3 from its granite-countertop EPD. These are aggregate references, not supplier-confirmed values for your slab. The worked example below intentionally retains the original rounded density 2700 kg/m3; enter that as a custom density to reproduce its numbers. With marble 2699, the same 0.1158 m3 assembly has mass 312.5442 kg. Weight is a force: W = m g. At standard gravity 9.80665 m/s2, the marble example weighs approximately 3065.01 N (3.065 kN). A change in gravity changes force but not mass. The Moon example uses approximately 1.62 m/s2. These quantity estimates do not assess structural support or handling. The kitchen is a schematic visual scene with a nominal 6.0 x 5.2 m footprint. Stone patterns are procedural approximations. Cabinets, sink hardware, lights, and stools are visual context and excluded from the stone quantity estimates. Finish and vein-tone controls affect appearance, not density. Reference sources: - https://www.polycor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EPD_Marble-Countertops.pdf - https://www.polycor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EPD_Granite-Countertops-2.pdf - https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?gn - https://www.nist.gov/how-do-you-measure-it/how-do-you-measure-strength-gravity ### Engineering question How can a measured stone island be represented in a parametric CAD model and translated into a transparent material estimate? How do joint details, cutouts, rotation restrictions, and slab dimensions change the answer? The family-business photographs and shop drawings are references. They are not evidence that you designed or built those installations. Photographs also do not establish whether the material is granite, marble, quartzite, or engineered quartz. Confirm material identification before selecting technical properties. ## Start with one real measurement record Ask the business to select a project you may study or an approved offcut you can measure. Use an anonymized project code. Record the source and date of every input; distinguish field measurements, drawing transcriptions, supplier specifications, and assumptions. Record: top length/depth, actual stone thickness, finished edge build-up, total height, cutout geometry and location, corner radii, sink manufacturer's template, panel dimensions, joint type, seams, overhangs, slab dimensions, edge trim, kerf, vein direction, visible defects, and any dimensional tolerances supplied by the shop. Record your measuring tool's resolution and repeated readings. A measurement's resolution alone is not its total uncertainty. The supplied IMG_1430 and IMG_1453 shop sheets contain handwritten dimensions. Reconcile each applicable fraction, unit, and note with the shop before treating it as authoritative. Do not infer size from a photo. Keep customer names, addresses, and phone numbers out of your portfolio. ## Practice example: reproducible starting values These are invented study dimensions, not dimensions transcribed from a customer job: | Parameter | Example | Meaning | | --- | ---: | --- | | Top length L | 2400 mm | Full outer blank | | Top depth D | 1000 mm | Full outer blank | | Overall height H | 900 mm | Ground to top surface | | Thickness t | 30 mm | Uniform actual material thickness | | Sink opening S x C | 700 x 400 mm | Centered, rectangular, square corners | | Density rho | 2700 kg/m3 | Illustrative assumption; verify actual stone | | Slab | 3200 x 1600 mm | Example stock, not supplier-confirmed | | Edge trim | 20 mm per side | Study allowance | | Kerf / part gap | 5 mm | Simplified layout clearance | | Two end panels | D x (H-t) | Square butt joints beneath top | ## Rebuild in Fusion 1. Start a new design in millimeters. Create named user parameters for L, D, H, t, S, and C. Save your own source file with a date and version. 2. Sketch the top rectangle, fully constrain its size and location, and extrude it by t. Locate its underside at H-t in the assembly. 3. Sketch the centered S x C rectangle and cut through the top. Verify its center and clearances. A real sink uses its manufacturer's exact profile and corner radii; the practice rectangle is only a simplification. 4. Create separate end-panel components, each t x D x (H-t), beneath the two short ends. Use joints or positioning constraints. Avoid overlapping volumes. State that this practice assembly uses butt joints; do not label it a mitered waterfall assembly. 5. Apply named parameters so a change in L, t, or H updates the components. Inspect the timeline and constraints for failures. Change one value and record the result. 6. Assign an explicitly documented density if comparing mass. Check the CAD volume against the hand calculation below before trusting a material library label. 7. Create a drawing with plan, front, and side views, units, dimensions, cutout position, component list, and revision. Mark it as a student study pending fabricator review. 8. Save the native editable Fusion file and a neutral solid export if available in your installed version. The supplied STL/OBJ are mesh references, not editable Fusion feature histories or manufacturing-ready solids. The DXF supplies flat outlines on TOP_OUTLINE, SINK_OPENING, END_A and END_B layers, in millimeters. The two end panels are laid out beside the top for separate sketches; they are not located in assembled position in the DXF. Verify imported units. You can also redraw from the parameters to demonstrate your own CAD process. In AutoCAD, add dimensions and a title/revision block, then check that the imported outer top measures 2400 mm. ## Hand calculation and independent check Convert lengths to meters before using these formulas: - Top blank area: A_blank_top = L D = 2.4 x 1.0 = 2.400 m2. - Opening area: A_cutout = S C = 0.7 x 0.4 = 0.280 m2. - Net top area: A_top = L D - S C = 2.120 m2. - End panels: A_ends = 2 D (H-t) = 2 x 1.0 x 0.870 = 1.740 m2. - Full-blank area: A_blank = 2.400 + 1.740 = 4.140 m2. - Finished material area: A_net = 2.120 + 1.740 = 3.860 m2. - Net volume: V = A_net t = 3.860 x 0.030 = 0.115800 m3. - Estimated mass: m = rho V = 2700 x 0.115800 = 312.660 kg. - Top mass: 171.720 kg. Two end panels together: 140.940 kg. The same assembly's mesh has three closed parts. Model volume should match 115800000 mm3, before any real edge profiles, radii, chamfers, seams, reinforcement, adhesives or hardware. Two slabs in the found layout provide 2 x 3.2 x 1.6 = 10.240 m2 of purchased gross area. Blank yield = 4.140 / 10.240 = 40.4297%. Finished-stone yield = 3.860 / 10.240 = 37.6953%. These are different metrics; label them. Remaining area includes trim, kerf and potential reusable remnants. Do not claim it was disposed of or saved. An area-only lower bound uses the usable slab area after trim: ceil(4.140 / (3.160 x 1.560)) = 1 slab. That bound does not show feasibility. In the default case, the 2400 x 1000 top leaves too little side or end space for either 1000 x 870 end panel. The example shelf search finds two slabs. For arbitrary inputs, it does not prove the minimum possible number. ## Sensitivity study you can do Make a second version with t = 20 mm and all other inputs unchanged. The end-panel height becomes 880 mm to preserve the 900 mm overall height. Recalculate; do not simply multiply the 30 mm mass by 2/3 because the end panels changed height. Expected A_net = 3.880 m2, V = 0.077600 m3, m = 209.520 kg. This comparison demonstrates quantity sensitivity only. It does not establish whether the thinner design is suitable or safe. For a measured uncertainty exercise, vary one recorded dimension through your justified measurement interval while holding others fixed; plot the resulting mass range. Separately vary density across the supplier's supported interval. Explain why natural-material variation and measurement error are different sources of uncertainty. Avoid selecting a density interval without evidence. ## Compare layouts and validate The web tool evaluates all orders of the three rectangular blanks and all allowed 90-degree rotations with a shelf-packing heuristic. It includes a gap between parts and edge trim. It does not consider arbitrary-angle nesting, shape nesting, full manufacturing cut sequences, slab defects, vein matching, edge finishing allowances, miter geometry, tool access, seam decisions, or remnant economics. A found layout is a candidate, not an approved cut plan. Compare: rotations allowed vs grain direction locked. Then ask a fabricator to mark an actual slab photograph or drawing, explain a rejected orientation, and identify any missing allowance. Record feedback verbatim only with permission. Make one revision in response and retain both versions. If comparing shop time, record how you timed the same task before and after. If comparing material use, use the same job and slab constraints. Report the result only when measured; a predicted improvement is not a demonstrated saving. Stone density and mass estimates do not constitute lifting guidance or a support design. ## A four-week path (adapt to your actual deadline) 1. Week 1: select an approved project; collect measurements and clarify the shop drawing. Write a half-page problem statement and requirements. 2. Week 2: build and dimension your original Fusion model. Save version 1, hand calculations, and CAD volume comparison. 3. Week 3: compare two configurations, document layout assumptions, and obtain fabricator feedback. Save version 2 and explain the changes. 4. Week 4: assemble one concise case study: problem, your role, inputs, model, calculations, test, revision, outcome, limitations, reflection. Rehearse a two-minute explanation without reading notes. ## Two optional extensions Remnant-to-product: measure an approved offcut, propose two nonstructural products, create CAD models and cardboard/3D-printed scale mockups, and collect usability feedback. Document the geometric reason one design uses the offcut more effectively. Label this proposed until completed. SafeguardSenior: use your existing social media/research role to develop a source-tracked scam-awareness explainer. Use official sources, fictional examples, and anonymous feedback from consenting reviewers. Define a small comprehension task before testing, compare wording revisions, and report the sample size and limits. This is a proposed communication/usability study, not a claim that you built an AI detector or prevented losses. ## Evidence log (copy these fields for each session) Date | Time spent | Question | Input and source | Your action | Artifact/version | Check performed | Result | Feedback | Next change | Help received Track your contribution, your mom's or fabricator's input, and AI/tool assistance. A reviewer should be able to distinguish what you personally measured, modeled, checked, and learned from supplied scaffolding. ## Application and resume use Right now: **Independent Stone-Fabrication Design Project — In Development**. Describe only the tasks you have actually begun. After you do those duties for the business, a clear role title is **3D Modeling & Technical Design Assistant**. Use it only if the business agrees that it accurately reflects your responsibilities. Avoid calling yourself an engineer or claiming employment you did not have. After completing and verifying the work, build a resume bullet from this structure: "Modeled [actual assembly] in Fusion; checked [actual quantities] against [method]; compared [actual alternatives] under [constraints]; revised [detail] after [review]." Fill it from your evidence log. There is no need to invent an award, percentage improvement, or customer outcome. For SafeguardSenior, **Assistant Social Media & Research Coordinator** is a clear description of the role you provided. Add only verified dates, tasks, output counts, and results. Your own draft also mentions rugby, camp volunteering, music production, and drafting/woodworking/electronics coursework. Confirm dates, responsibilities, and specific examples. The strongest narrative may combine a design decision from the stone project with a separate example of teamwork or community service. You do not need to make every activity sound like engineering. UBC's current personal-profile guidance emphasizes engagement/accomplishment, leadership, substance, and voice; it asks for specific learning and your own words. It also states that neither referee should be a friend, family member, or paid agent, and current high-school applicants need one school official. Your mom can provide project feedback, but arrange an eligible non-family reference who actually knows your work. Never assume someone will open a portfolio link; explain the essential experience in the application itself. Check the live application for your cycle's prompts, limits, and submission rules. Official sources checked October 17, 2026 (Vancouver): - https://you.ubc.ca/applying-ubc/how-to-apply/personal-profile/ - https://engineering.ubc.ca/admissions/undergraduate/how-to-apply Target intake confirmed: UBC Vancouver, September 2028, the 2028/29 Winter Session. Use the four-week sequence as an initial pilot, then extend the work through additional measured cases and documented revisions. Plan to have evidence ready before the application period preceding September 2028; verify the official opening date and deadlines when that cycle is published. A portfolio cannot guarantee admission or replace required courses and academic performance. ## October 2026 audit and reconstruction checklist The current website includes calculation-guide.html (step-by-step algebra, force diagrams and a 12-step Fusion/AutoCAD checklist) and audit.html (all 14 project gap lists). downloads/portfolio-audit.json contains the complete evidence review; downloads/audited-components.csv contains 90 retained arithmetic records. Fixed drawing/support pages use g=9.81 m/s2; interactive tools use standard 9.80665 m/s2. Fixed quantities are gross, per-piece estimates before openings, not complete job totals. Four Project1 masses are separately assumed estimates; 28 fixed rows still need mass inputs. No actual installation capacity is verified. Rebuild checklist: log input/source/revision; set mm; close and dimension the outline; independently compare area; extrude actual thickness; confirm opening templates/positions; separate physical parts/materials; compare CAD volume and mass; draw assumed or measured supports; make a dimensioned drawing; retain your native CAD file; record review and one revision. Use genuine screenshots from your own work. Reflection questions after completing a component: Which input was difficult to resolve? What explained any CAD/hand-calculation difference? Which parameter mattered most? What remains unverified?