Amelia Rose Smith_Generating Decay

STUDiO AiR

AMELiA SMiTH 697917 Sm1_2016 Tutor JULiAN RUTTEN

Figure 2. Student work, exploring infilrated plaster 3D print out. Exploring L-systems, computation in generative growth.

P. 2

Contents

PART A: CONCEPTUALiSATiON

7

A.2. DESiGN COMPUTATiON

12

A.3. COMPOSiTiON/GENERATiON

16

A.4. CONCLUSiON

20

A.5. LEARNiNG OUTCOMES

24

A.1. DESiGN FUTURiNG

PART B: CRiTERiA DESiGN B.1. RESEARCH FiELD

9

27 28

B.2. CASE STUDY 1.O ADRANA LASCH

33

B.3. CASE STUDY 2.O L-Systems

43

B.4. TECHNiQUE DEVELOPMENT

48

B.5. PROTOTYPES

54

B.6. TECHNiQUE PROPOSAL

58

B.7. LEARNiNG OUTCOMES

62

PART C: DETAiLED DESiGN C1. DESiGN CONCEPT

65 66

C.2. TECTONiC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES

74

EXPLODED ASSEMBLY DiAGRAM

82

C.3. FiNAL DETAiL MODEL

84

FiNAL COMMENTS

106

REFERENCES 108 P. 3

Fig 3. My brother (age 2) and myself (age 4).

P. 4

iNTRODUCTION Growing up I always wanted to be a fairy, but failing that a writer or an artist- people who in my eyes had the ability to create magic.

Throughout high school I became really involved in issues of social inequity, I started the Melbourne Girls College Social Justice team in year 10, we were very active in raising awareness of the social inequity on our doorstep in Richmond as well as having fundraisers for NGOs like Oxfam and government initiatives like Close-the-Gap.

it has triggered within the architectural/ design discourse.

Technically speaking my knowledge is fairly narrow; I am competent in Rhino, Photoshop, InDesign, and I have a beginner’s grasp on Grasshopper- however I have hardly used them in my design projects to date, mainly because a lack of competence had a significant adverse affect on my ability to produce creative designs within the set time frames.

In 2014 I got accepted into Melbourne Uni in an Arts undergraduate with the long term aim of becoming an international lawyer and pursuing my passion for social issues. Architecture had always been an interest of mine but not something that I considered studying until I took Designing Environments as a breadth subject in first year.

I became absolutely fascinated in the design process as a way of finding solutions to complex problems through the combination of theoretical, pragmatic and creative processes explored in designing spaces. It also became obvious to me early on that architecture could be used as a really powerful tool for social equity; affecting many different groups of peopleusers, communities, environments, and culture.

The architecture that interests me the most at the moment is centred around communal spaces; schools, stadiums, public buildings, pavilions, all of which have the potential to positively effect change in their communities of users, and the environment at the macro level.

In terms of digital architecture both my theoretical and technical knowledge is limited however, I think that it is essential for current and future architectural practice to learn about how it can be incorporated into the design workflow, and how contemporary practices are utilising digital technologies and the effect that has had on current design practice and the debate

P. 5

“The Gherkin” Foster + Partners

P. 6

PART A CONCEPTUALiSATiON

P. 7

P. 8

A.1. DESiGN FUTURiNG CASE STUDY 1.0 Precedent 1.1 Kokkugia; AADRL Swarm Printing; Temporal Ice Construction The Instant City project demonstrates the kind of outcomes that could result from utilising UAVs to apply algorithmic designs to address site issues such as varying temperature, isolated locations, limited local materials and temporal conditions.

The use of UAVs is integral to the designer’s ability to adjust the design in real-time to the site analysis data of varying site conditions.

The UAVs effectiveness comes from their ‘swarm’ programming; algorithms are used to enable to UAVs to directly interact with each other and thus create woven structures.

The combination of drone technology, 3D printing and the use of ‘instant ice’ material demonstrates the potential for innovative ‘critical design’ (Dunne and Raby 2013, p.35). This kind of computational approach combined with smart materials demonstrates the possibility of new sustainable solutions to the issues of increasingly variable site conditions caused by climate change (Fry 2009) and the immanent exhaustion of finite resources.

This project was a prototype, not realised (yet) in physical form. As such, the question of feasibility and inhabitability in volumetric space remains. The drone research projects of Kokkugia emphasise the need for a new architectural discourse to engage with the new methods and needs of the 21st century and indeed avoid the ‘de-futuring’ process (Fry 2009, p.3). This project explores an architectural process that revolves around the question of a material’s temporal constraints and how these limitations can become a part of a design solution through the linkage of construction techniques, material fabrication and a dynamic design process.

P. 9

CASE STUDY 2.0 Precedent 1.2 Zaha Hadid Architects; Guangzhou Opera House, Guangzhou, China The significance of this architectural work

by Zaha Hadid Architects lies in the way it brings the environmental processes of its natural context to the highly urbanised city of Guangzhou. The buildings, shaped like ‘angular pebbles’ act as analogical testaments to the fluvial processes of erosion, differentiated topology and geology.

Hadid links the building to the natural world through the built grammar of smoothly transitioned internal forms echoed in the harmonious conjuncture between the materiality of the GFRC (glass-fibre reinforced gypsum units) panels and felt-red chairs, or of the slender exposed steel joints and the translucent glass roof.

The opera house is a moment of celebration between the ancient cultural traditions of China and the commercially industrialized form of its modern cities.

Although the building is not necessarily radical in terms of construction processes or theoretical grounding, being situated in one of the fastest growing industrial cities in the world it acts as a thought-provoking reminder of the intrinsic aesthetic beauty of nature.

P. 10

P. 11

A.2. DESiGN COMPUTATiON

Computation has the potential to redefine architectural practice by progressing the main mode of communication from representational to generative. In Kalay’s (2004) definition of the design process problem analysis, solution synthesis and subsequent evaluation are identified as essential components.

However, the introduction of math based new technologies from 1990 to now such as computers, robotics, and CNC (Freiberger 2007), allows the architect to expand the previous parameters inherent in analogue design such as the disconnect between the architectural idea and the architecture in its realized form (Kalay 2004).

In other words the constraints that define the ‘solution space’ (Kalay 2004, p.17) widen thus exploding the solution space and challenging Kalay’s assertion that the design process is limited to a ‘problem-solution’ based paradigm.

Increasing the speed of form generation and iteration by using computational processes pragmatically enables form exploration, particularly with complex geometries, as demonstrated by Foster+Partners London City Hall (Fig. 1, 2 & 3). This in conjunction with the use of integrated material systems (Oxman and Oxman 2014) for example, the Silk Pavilion project

by MIT Media Press (Fig. 4-8) which incorporated the use of CNC deposited silk fibers over an aluminum structural frame in conjunction with live silkworms to create a pavilion with specified material densities and shape demonstrates the design potential of computational technology; to encourage collaboration with other fields of knowledge such as engineering, biology, mathematics, and sociology.

It is this kind of interdisciplinary approach Fry (2009) claims is essential to addressing the complex array of worldwide ecological, social and economic issues that have the potential to de-future us as a species.

Fig 1. London City Hall at night (photo) Fig 2. London City Hall; interior staircase Fig 3. Drawing of the pavilion’s final form.

Fig 4. Detail (photo) of CNC structure.

Fig 5. Photo; final pavilion in situ

P. 12

Fig.7 Drawing of the structure of the Pavilion, with the apertures and fibers included.

Fig.8 Detail of the surface, a silkworm lays silk thread down over the CNC deposited fiber.

P. 13

Computation which allows for complex problem optimization (Freiberger 2007) reformulates the architectural design approach with prescriptive Vitruvianesque rules or formulas specific to the computational syntax which at the level of architectural process leads to more direct design; the processes of design and construction are shifted closer together (Oxman and Oxman 2014).

The ‘digital chain’ (Oxman and Oxman 2014, p.2) phenomenon, describes the interdependent nature of new dynamic, multipurpose materials, computational generative capacity, precision use of mesh algorithms to form complex geometry, and repetitive details.

The Silk Pavilion by the MIT Media Lab is a poignant example of the design outcomes generated through the processes outlined in the ‘digital chain’ (Oxman and Oxman 2014, p.2).

The changing nature of modern material systems affects both the design and construction industries by further expanding the solution space so that the divisive line between design and construction is blurred (Dunne and Raby 2013).

The Digital Rustication project by Manto (Fig. 9) is an example of how modern material systems in conjunction with computational design and robotics can reengage with ancient methods of detailing in construction. This is one of the key elements of computation that differentiates it from being a new “modernism”, it is not necessarily a rejection of the past, but rather a method for preserving the future.

Lastly, it is important to discuss the difference between computation and computerization. Computational design as a process is born from the use of algorithmic thinking to create computer generated forms, or data trees, or patterns etc.; it is essentially a generative process (Oxman and Oxman 2014). In comparison the term “computerization” defined as; the use of computers to aid in the already established design process, for example CAD drawings,

P. 14

based on preconceived plans or rendered Rhino models, retain representation as the only mode of communication in practice (Kalay 2004). The difference between these two approaches is fundamental to the development of the architectural discipline.

Fig. 9 Manto; ‘Digital Rustification’ new material systems work with digital fabrication to create ancient effects, Fig. 10 Designers of the Mediated Matter team remove the lave laid by the silkworms.

Fig. 11 The top of the Pavilion, illustrating the silkworms of work.

P. 15

A.3. COMPOSiTiON/GENERATiON Contemporary architectural theory has reached a point of a radical redefinition of its own ontology (Fry 2009) in relation to the fundamental shift away from design as a form of composition towards design as a generative process, this has been essentially through computation.

This is both affected by and effecting architectural practice, for example within large architectural firms such as Foster+Partners and Herzog & de Meuron computational innovations and algorithmic thinking such as parametric modeling are reparameterizing the design process by enabling real-time material performance analysis, more efficient construction methods, an analytical understanding of dynamic tectonic processes affecting the project in situ, the analysis of the changeable ecological factors of specific sites and the potential effect of building a structure on these factors, and an ongoing interactive analysis of building performance including the emotional affect of the building on its users (Peters 2013).

consumerism responsible for the impending economic, environmental and ultimately societal collapse (Žižek 2010).

The Beijing International Airport by Foster+Partners illustrates in its geometric aesthetic, the scale of the building and the speed of its construction, the affect that computation has had on contemporary architectural practice and construction methods.

The big business model of these firms where a specialised computational design team work as essentially internal computational consultants- in the case of Foster+Partners the SMG (specialist modeling group)- prompts the question of whether the designs produced by firms structured in this way are actually engaging in computational or whether they are using a hybrid between computerization and computational techniques. The internalgroup model also raises the question of sustainability and ‘critical design’ (Dunne and Raby 2013, p.30), whether superstructures like the Beijing International Airport or branded commercial buildings like the ‘178 Prada Aoyama’ by Herzog & de Meuron (Figure. ) can ever positively contribute to sustainability when they remain as physical representations of the culture of mass production, and rampant

P. 16

Fig. 1 “The Gherkin” multiple geometries.

Fig. 2 Aerodynamic wind analysis.

Fig. 3 Effect of the building’s form on wind.

Fig. 4 Iterations; the effect of computation.

Fig. 5 Beijing International (aerial photo).

Fig. 6 Beijing International; Interior photo Fig. 7 Prada Tokyo; the luxury aesthetic?

P. 17

Fig. 8 Facit Homes precedent project.

Fig. 9 Digital fabrication for residential Fig. 10 MOS Digital meets residential.

Fig. 11 MOS computatioal patterning in residential rennovations.

Fig. 12 The Author’s attempt at brainstorming her understanding of the effect on design workflows.

P. 18

Alternative approaches to incorporation of computation in practice is to encourage the student generation of architects to become algorithmically fluent architects. MOS and Facit Homes (Peters 2013, p.11) are examples of firms that not only integrate computation within the design workflow, for example (Figure) but use computational techniques as an inseparable element of the architectural design process (Figure). These kind of integrated practices avoid the isolation of individual software developers, and indeed the isolation of knowledge that scripting culture has precipitated across the architectural profession (Peters 2013). Forums such as the Grasshopper online forum and the increase in free digital publications also helps to mediate the challenges of learning algorithmic processes (Issa n.d.). The term ‘algorithmic thinking’ (Oxman and Oxman 2014, p.3) within architecture doesn’t simply mean the ability to use algorithmic tools or generate scripts, but rather it refers to the architect’s ability to interpret the results of algorithmic generation, know how to modify these results in order to explore better options, and then to be able to cerebrate more balanced design potentials.

P. 19

A.4. CONCLUSiON The introduction of computation to the architectural design process has begun to affect the fundamental design approach of contemporary architecture (Oxman and Oxman 2014). Computation within the design process has already demonstrated key features unique to algorithmic design; greater ability to simulate building performance, dynamic buildings, more complex (but inherently logical) structures, and the migration of architectural design away from the representational to the generated.

As a collaborative studio, our focus is on the building potential of drone technology (Figure4.). The use of drones has had an impact on the form of structures that we will be designing. Currently the main use of drones in construction has been in conjunction with cable-beam structures. The parameters that the technology creates has lead me to consider forms that use drapery techniques over skeletal structural systems.

With this in mind one of the research areas that I want to incorporate into my design is biomimicry. I feel that this area can be explored through an integrated approach of both function and aesthetic, for example the Fallen Star project by the AA DLAB Visiting School (London) created parameters and rules based on natural processes to mimic organic growth, the parameters of these rules were then adapted to become interactive with the user and thus the designs function is fundamentally linked to its form (Figure 1.).

The other research area that I want to pursue is tessellation. I feel that biomimicry and tessellation could be used in conjunction with one another. Tessellation could give the design a formal, geometric grounding, whilst maintaining a link to the organic as seen in the Voussoir Cloud project by Iwamoto Scott and Buro Happold (2008). In the Voussoir Cloud project, the form of the individual elements are ‘like petals’ (Iwamoto and Scott 2008), each individual petal was computationally designed to give the design structural integrity which if it isn’t literally biomimicry, has a very strong metaphorical connection to the organic (Fig. 3).

P. 20

Fig. 1. AA DLAB biomimetic projects Fig. 2. Voussoir, photo of the light effect of the petals.

Fig. 3. Voussoir, photo of the exterior for of the petals.

Fig. 4 Kokkugia drone research; photo inside the lab of a drone constructed cable-beam structure.

P. 21

THE BRiEF

SiTE

The site that I will be exploring is located next to the Main City Trail, just past the Collingwood Children’s Farm (Figure…).

The oak tree and the incredible organic system that it contains is the centre of my interest on site. I want to engage passers by- especially children- in the complex beauty of the natural cyclic processes of birth, growth and death.

Currently, the activities of people on site are revolve around the main City Trail that links the Abbotsford Convent to the Collingwood Children’s Farm, the Merri Creek and the Yarra River. People using the path tend to be walkers, joggers, cyclists or are simply strolling from one point to the other. Lots of children pass through my site, generally on their way to or from the children’s farm or from the Early Learning Centre. Half of the children I observed wandered off the path to engage with the oak tree. They played games around the tree and at its base, with older children climbing up the extremely steep hill that separates the urban street scape of Abbotsford with the natural system of the river.

The existing materiality of the site is made up of natural materials such as soil, grass, the oak tree, logs. I want to look at extending and blending with these materials, rather than imposing a foreign material system on the site.

Fig. 1. Author photo of the oak tree on site.

P. 22

CLiENTS AND S

My site lies at the pr key stakeholder grou who are responsible City Trail and surroun Children’s farm coop houses near to my si Trail and car park for the Convent who also car park as key acces The client group that interested in are chil tailor my design in su it specifically caters children in terms of f accessibility.

Fig. 2 Client group that I will design for.

STAKEHOLDERS

raxis point of several ups; local council for maintaining the nds, the Collingwood perative who own the ite and need the City r their patrons, and o use the path and ss points. t I am most ldren. I want to uch a way that to the needs of form as well as

PROGRAM

In their piece on Speculative Design, Dunne et.al (2013) call on the design profession to take responsibility for challenging the ‘prevailing values and their underlying assumptions’ (Dunne and Raby 2013, p.44) of the societies we inhabit. I believe that through this kind of critiquing process alternative approaches to the current culture of consumerism can be generated. In this way my architectural project will be a ‘political act’ (Dutton and Mann 1996, p.1) as well as an element in the amelioration of environmental collapse.

In order to do this, I want to provoke in children an appreciation and understanding of the complexity and fragility of organic systems and our reliance on them. My design will interact with its users, demonstrating how they have the potential to either encourage or denigrate these processes essential to life.

The use of biodegradable materials such as timber, paper, wool, and cotton simultaneously with research areas of biomimicry and tessellation will enable my design to physically illustrate generative and degenerative organic systems.

Fig. 3 Celular structure of a plant.

P. 23

A.5. LEARNiNG OUTCOMES

I had always been vaguely aware that there was incredible potential in design computation, however I didn’t have any understanding of the theoretical dialogue surrounding it or indeed any kind of precedents of its use, or even a good understanding of how burgeoning software and material technologies could work together in creating new architectural concepts.

Using this knowledge there are several aspects of my own ‘projects’ that I would re-examine at several stages (conceptual, ongoing, model/ proof of concept fabrication) using algorithmic programing software such as Grasshopper.

Grasshopper also opens the door to a more critical engagement with design potentials, and this kind of analytical thinking encourages more radical designs that take the user out of their comfort zone and asks them to critically engage with the world around them.

P. 24

P. 25

P. 26

PART B CRiTERiA DESiGN

P. 27

B.1. RESEARCH FiELD The research areas that intrigue me the most and in my opinion are the most suited to both my site and client are Tessellation and Biomimicry. Throughout my project I aim to use computation to explore the opportunities that could be generated through the convergence of these design fields.

What is Biomimicry (or biomimetics)?

Within the architectural/design discourse, biomimicry is defined as an approach that investigates the generative, adaptive structures, systems and elements of nature to form design solutions. The use of biomimicry in design ranges from being simply a platform for inspiration to providing imitable case-studies that determine the parameters or ‘rules’ of specific design solutions.

What is Tessellation?

Tessellation is a mathematically based form of patterning. The design significance of tessellation is the ability to directly translate patterns into algorithmic form, thus increasing its compatibility with the computational design process.

Conceptual Design Implications of Biomimicry Biomimicry as an approach has the potential to effect innovation and exploration in design solutions for numerous complex problems. Biomimetics in architectural projects has influenced several key areas, for example in Kieran Timberlake’s Smart Wrap exhibition buildings, biomimicry inspires the structural concept of a multifunctional building skin, which similar to an animal’s skin has the ability to interact with the environment around it whilst maintaining its thinness . Other projects such as the Liquid Crystal Glass House by Michael Silver and the Chromogenic Dwelling by Thom Faulders demonstrate the influence that Biomimetics, in conjunction with the use of adaptive materials, has had on architectural forms. Similarly, the La Defense office block by UN Studio (2004) uses biological

P. 28

technique of structural colour to create a building façade that interacts with its surrounding environment through dynamically changing its colour. The other significant and often overlooked element of the architectural process that biomimicry could inform is material mutability (Kolarevic and Klinger 2008). Projects like the de Young Museum by Herzog and de Meuron are examples of the innovative results given by the consideration of the biological decay of materials (and therefore buildings) as an essential element of the design process, resulting designed rather than degenerative decay (Kolarevic and Klinger, 2008).

Conceptual Design Implications of Tessellation Tessellation used to inform parametric modeling makes the complex geometries of Foster+Partners London City Hall (discussed in A.2.), Federation Square by LAB Architects and many more computationally designed building façades possible. Tessellation achieves this through a formulaic division of a holistic surface into many segments.

The variety of achievable forms through tessellation is possibly infinite, patterns of tessellation such as Voronoi tessellation used in the C-wall projects by Andrew Kudless , Pinwheel Aperiodic tiling used throughout the façade of Federation Square

by LAB Architects , and Weaire-Phelan structures used as a basis of the bubble façade of the National Aquatics Centre by PTW Architects are all examples of specific types of tessellation codified in algorithmic form (Definition of ‘Algorithm’ 1999).

Although tessellation is a powerful tool used for surface effects, it is not necessarily an aesthetic element. In the de Young Museum by Herzog and de Meuron the parameters of the environment surrounding the site defined the form of the tessellated surface.

P. 29

Conceptual Design Implications of the Convergence of Tessellation with Biomimicry Throughout my project I aim to use Biomimicry as an approach to the design process. Biomimetics is most useful in giving the project an aim as well as inspiration regarding its structure and generative systems. Tessellation is the technique that I will use as a computational method to achieve the biomimetic solution. The convergence of these two research fields I believe will provoke the opportunities for ‘bodily confrontations’ (Pallasmaa 2013). I aim for my project to have a significant experiential effect, encouraging the transition from a user experience to an interactive experience.

Fabrication; Concept meets Reality The VoltaDom concept project by Skylar Tibitis , is an exemplar of how computationally designed tessellated surfaces are easily fabricated with digital technologies such as a CNC router, because of their panel qualities. These qualities enable the CNC cut panels to be virtually rolled out as a surface and then erected and bolted together. The example projects listed above also demonstrate the ease of fabrication of tessellated surfaces.

Biomimicry however being less easily replicated with conventional computational processes is not as easily fabricated, these limitations are mitigated to certain extents by the emergence of new material systems and technology. For example, the adaptive building skins of Michael Silver’s Liquid Crystal Glass house and Thom Faulders’ Chromogenic Dwelling exploit new material systems based on electric currents that enable dynamic changes based on ‘external and internal stimuli’ (Kolarevic and Klinger 2008, p.9). The usage of computational design to achieve biomimetic design solutions through tessellated surfaces (or spaces) in my project will require the use of digital fabrication devices such as 3D printers, CNC routers and Laser Cutters.

P. 30

P. 31

Fig.2 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 1

Fig.1 Project Images Aranda Lasch- The Morning Line

Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.1 Number Breps= 10

Fig.5 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 4

Fig.6 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 5

Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.4 Number Breps= 10

Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.5 Number Breps= 10

P. 32

Fig.9 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 8

Fig.10 Dodecahedron S Iteration 9

Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.8 Number Breps= 10

Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedro Number Breps= 10

B.2. CASE STUDY 1.O ADRANA LASCH

Fig.3 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 2

Fig.4 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 3

Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.2 Number Breps= 10

Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.3 Number Breps= 10

Fig.7 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 6 Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.6 Number Breps= 10

Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled;

Fig.8 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 7 Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -0.7 Number Breps= 10

Fig.11 Dodecahedron Spiraled (Sin(x)) Scaled; Iteration 10 Count=10 No.Points= 3 Scale of dodecahedron= -1 Number Breps= 10

on= -0.9

P. 33

SPiRAL ARRAY PATTERN

Figure 12 to 16 demonstrates the experimentation with the form of the Sin(x) spiral I used to array the scaled BREP geometry.

The most interesting form I found was Fig.16, which occured when the number of division points on the curve equalled 10, and the vector scale input to the sin(x) function was 3. Fig.16 is the underlying pattern of the next series of iterations.

Fig.14 Spiral; Count=10, Number=9

Fig.17 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=10

P. 34

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

Fig.20 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=40

Fig.18 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=20

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

Fig.12 Spiral; Count=10, Number=1

Fig.13 Spiral; Count=10, Number=6

Fig.16 Spiral; Count=10, Number=3

Fig.15 Spiral; Count=10, Number=15

)

Fig.19 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=30

Fig.21 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=50

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

Fig.22 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=60

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

P. 35

SCATTERED GEOMETRiES/TEMPORAL CLUSTERiNG

Fig.26 Shape; (Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1) Scale=-0.4, Number=100

Fig.25 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=90

Fig. 35 Orientated BREPs G=8

Fig. 27 10th generation of CODE BREPs

P. 36

Fig. 28 9th generation of CODE BREPs

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

Fig. 34 Orientated BREPs G=4

Fig. 29 5th Gen CODE BREPs

Fig. 33 O

Fig

Fig.24 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=80

Orientated BREPs G=2

g. 30 2nd Gen BREPs

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

Fig. 32 Initial BREPs

Fig.23 Shape; Scale=-0.4, Number=70

(Arr.Spir; C=10, N=1)

Reflecting on the first series of scaled iterations, I found that a scale factor equal to -0.4 produced the most differentiated and physical impression of attachment and weight between the original BREP and the scaled BREPs. The scaling and attachment of the BREPS creates the visual impression of stones or pebbles, deposited by natural processes.

Exploring the visual quality of scattered forms across a planar surface was the guiding aim in this series of iterations.

The results appear almost random and therefore more organic, increasing the resembelance of the forms to pebbles, however the pattern for scattering is computationally determined by the spiral in Fig.16.

The aspect of Biomimetics that I wanted to explore with these iterations of my design was the interplay between temporal scales and generative processes. To explore this within grasshopper I incorporated a small Python code that organized an initial group of three BREPs by orientating them and then welding the geometries together. Incorporating the code meant that I was able to produce more organic stacked geometries.

Fig. 31 Initial BREPs

P. 37

SELECTiON CRiTERiA

I started exploring tessellation patterns, however found that my interest lay more in biomimicry and the production of temporal or generative forms. This informed my exploration focuses on arraying the geometries in scattered, visually organic patterns, and using variable input parameters- such as number sliders- to generate a multiplicity of forms that mimicked a growth cycle.

The aims of my exploration were; a) to explore arrangement patterns that mimic natural shapes, b) to replicate the temporal process of accumulation through the orientation, scaling and stacking of forms and c) to incorporate Bezier curves onto the surfaces in order to create greater differentiation between the BREPs. A successful iteration therefore had to have: - A visually random, organic arrangement of multiple shapes.

- A form that resembles an accumulative group of item, orientated in a complex manner.

- Qualities that differentiate the geometries from one another.

The four most successful iterations were figures; 36, 37, 38, 39. Figure 36, although not having a bezier curve on its surfaces nonethe less orientated and welded the geometries so that each BREP looked slightly rotated. Figures 37-39 demonstrated the temporal affect of accumulation by an increase in the number of geometries scaled and orientated. Figures 38 and 39 although slightly unrealistic in their form have BREPs with surfaces distinct from each other through the use of Bezier curves. Figure 37 is successful because it illustrates clearly the initial stages of an accumulative process, prompting the question of “what next?�.

P. 38

Fig. 37 Second iteration using orientated geometries and distinct Bezier curves.

Fig. 38 6th Iteration of orientation Code and Bezier curves.

P. 39

DESiGN POTENTiAL

Throughout these explorations I found that with a solid understanding of maths algorithmic functions can enhance the computational design process by mimicking the organic organisation of forms through the use of parametric modeling programs such as Grasshopper.

The base shape of my explorations, the dodecahedron is a very interesting form that has great potential for future design work. It can be generated through a series of algorithmic rules and is in its form close to a sphere, however relatively easy to digitally fabricated with additive techniques such as 3D printers because of its planar surfaces.

Another area to explore further from these explorations is the potential to combine simple coding sequences, either with VB Script, Python or Processing, into my grasshopper explorations in order to simplify complicated operations or to perform repetitive functions that would otherwise have to be manually wired in Grasshopper.

Fig.39 10th Iteration of orientated and welded geometries, and Bezier curve.

P. 40

P. 41

PRECEDENT PROJECTS

Case Study 1.0 illustrated to me that out of my two research areas of interest biomimicry was the area that I wanted to explore further.

The particular areas of interest within biomimicry that I wanted to explore were generative systems and temporal effects. In Lecture 3 (Elias, 2016) we were shown a brief overview of Lindenmayer-Systemsor L-Systems- I found that the forms generated by these systems were not only literally mimicking the natural form of branching plants but also had the potential for exploring biomimicry and generative design.

As Dunne and Raby discuss, the potential in exploring L-Systems would have been to simply copying the visual forms of nature, however in order for the design to be genuinely computational the aspect of L-Systems and biomimicry I aim to explore is the cyclic nature of growth and decay.

Architectural precedent projects were limited for L-Systems, to offset this I chose to explore three separate projects with similar aims; the use the formal logic of L-Systems in order to generate form finding results. Figure 40 was taken from the article by Rajaa Issa on Lindenmayer systems on the Grasshopper forum (2009), the article gave a brief overview of the formal logic of L-Systems and generic VB Scipt components that could be modified to generate forms. Figure 41 show the Project: L-Systems by the artist and software engineer Daniel Jones (2007) which used Processing to generate organic forms, and

P. 42

L-Systems by Bradley Elias (2012) this precedent was invaluable for the generation of ideas around making the form physical as Elias also investigated L-Systems through the use of 3D printing and other digital fabrication techniques.

Fig.43 Bradley Elias’ L-System R

Rules generated in GH.

B.3. CASE STUDY 2.O L-Systems

Fig. 40 Issa’s Fractal L-Systems

Fig.41 Jones (2007) L-Systems, uses Processing to generate forms

Fig.42 Bradley Elias (2012) L-Systems

Fig.44 2nd Iteration of Elias’ Rules using GH.

Fig.45 3rd Iteration of Elias’ rules.

P. 43

DiAGRAMMiNGTHE TECHNiQUE

_00

Before experimenting in Grasshopper, the initial stage of Case Study 2.0 was to understand the formal (mathematical) grammar of the Lindenmayer system itself, I read Lindenmayer’s paper on L-systems in Models for multicellular development: Characterization, inference and complexity of L-systems (1986), and sketched out by hand the logic of how the L-System formulas generated their distinctive forms.

_01

Reading through the lecture slides from Week 3 closely enabled me to identify Elias’ adjusted L-Systems formulas and begin to model in Grasshopper the first stages of Elias’ project. Understanding data flow through the system was essential in generating multiple line types and producing a “loopable” system.

_02

In order to generate m of the formal rules and L-System involved sett “axiom”-origin line- an a series of vector math components and line c form the basic structur project style L-System Figures 43-45 demonst and the successful dra 3rd iteration of the Elia technique.

Potential Development

In terms of using these definition generative L-System formula that and potentially the ability to prod greater authorship over the desig precedents. In comparison, the Eli authorship of the design outcome clumping of branches and over-co design, the scale and the complex of branches needs to feel inclusiv

P. 44

multiple iterations d thus progress the ting an arbitrary nd then using h, orientation components to re of the Elias in Grasshopper. trate this process awing up to the as’ L-System

_03

The generation of fractal l-systems, explored in the precedent project by Issa (2009) used the grammar of L-Systems closer to those set out in Lindenmayer’s paper (1986). To generate L-Systems that had a fractal form and whose variables were controllable through a series of number sliders and panels a VB Script component was invaluable. The script allowed for the constants X and F to be set in a recursive function, whilst the variables +,- and [] were defined they could be adjusted in the Grasshopper modeling space, Figure 46-49 illustrate the exponential growth of the L-Systems in each generation. At the 5th iteration, the computer started to significantly

_04

Learning how to read and use the VB Script code encouraged me to look further at the Processing script from Jones L-System project on Erase. net. Unlike the 2D fractal L-System, Jones’ project generated forms in 3D by introducing z-axis variables, and produced more organic looking forms by introducing ‘chaos’ (Jones 2007) variables within the script that randomly adjusted the orientation and rotation of the branches.

ns in generating forms for the design brief (A.4.02) I aim to design my own “grammar” or rules in order to create a t specifically addresses my project’s design criteria. This process will give me greater control over branch rotations, duced distinct rotation between each branch. Greater control over the direction of the branching system will give me gn, and avoid the lack of control over form generation which was a major limitation I found exploring the scripting ias precedent, by allowing control over x, y and z axis rotations through the use of sliders allowed for greater e. Further technique development will aim to increase authorship over branch rotation and length, thus avoiding the omplexity illustrated in Figure 55. In order to achieve the design aims of encouraging tactile engagement with the xity of the branches need to be designed with a focus on the client; children, thus the heights of branches and number ve and temporal rather than imposing or monumental.

P. 45

_05

I found that although using scripting components such as VB Script was very effective in generating multiple generations quickly and with a specified form, it was also very static.

The process was more like learning a language rather than the visual scripting used in Grasshopper that makes the scripting process feel more intuitive and design orientated. Also I found that there wasn’t much control over the forms when the number of iterations increased. _06 In Grasshopper I created a mash up of the Jones and Elias precedent projects by setting an axiom line in Rhino, referencing it into grasshopper then using the Tree Explode component to generate different levels of the data structure in order to be able to reference different types of lines, as in Elias’ project, where Type A, B and C each have different rules as to the type of branches that they generate and different angles that they rotate around. Figures 50-55 demonstrate from the 2nd iteration the evolution of one iteration.

_07

Case Study 1.0 demonstrated the potential in an exploration of arrangement systems and the scattering of forms, I used mathematically based but organically occurring patterns from nature such as the golden spiral, based on Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio, to create the reference curves around which the 2D forms of the fractal L-Systems from Issa’s precedent in order to create 3-dimendional spatial installations, as demonstrated by Figure 56.

P. 46

P. 47

B.4. TECHNiQUE DEVELOPMENT Design Aims In order to create a the parameters necessary to guide the technical development from Case Study 2.0, a formalized selection criteria based on the Project Brief and Design Aims is required.

Design Aims: _01 As discussed by Dunne and Raby (2013), and Fry (2009) critical design is essential in addressing and engaging with the vital issues of sustainability and human behaviors that lead to ‘de-futuring’ (Fry 2009, p.9). My design project aims to use this discourse as the basis of its design approach, achieving critical design through engaging the client (children) physically in a computationally generated architectural design that is engineered to fail. _02 Interaction between the client, the site and the architectural form is the process through which the architectural process will actualize these design aims. In order to achieve an interactive form, client accessibility, and attractiveness will inform the key parameters and define selection criteria of possible forms. _03 The third design aim of the project is to engage the client in the discourse surrounding critical design and resource management through a focus on the key organic cyclic processes of decay and generation.

Technique Development Developed rules to govern my L-System; A:A+2*B, B:B+2*C, C:C+2*D, D:D+2*A. -Explored the placement, number, type and shape of the axiom branch considering the site (Oak Tree X) and the need for the form to be accessible for the client.

-Explored the use of vector products to differentiate each branch’s rotation.

-Explored the use of vector multiplication to generate two of the same type of branches from previous rules, for example to execute the formula, A: A+2*B, each A branch has to produce itself as well as two B branches, this is achieved through multiplying the rotational vector input of the ‘rotate’ component the integer 2.

P. 48

-In order for the technique to successfully execute its rules and produce four different types of branches I had to manipulate the data structures within the definition. This was done by a series of ‘explode tree’ and ‘entwine tree’ functions, which generated separate data branches for each branch Type (A, B, C or D) and allowed the rotation, move and draw functions to be applied specifically to each type. After the data was manipulated and the lines were drawn the resultant lines were then input in the ‘entwine tree function’ that combined the data structures and produced flattened lists of lines.

The iterations shown in Figure… and on the next spread demonstrate the successful implementation solely in Grasshopper of my adjusted L-System.

Fig. 57 Axiom= one vertical line

Fig.58 Two Axioms, mirrored

Fig.59 4 Axioms, perpindicular

P. 49

B.4.02 SELECTiON CRiTERiA

Attractive for the client: - Ability to distinguish individual branches from each other visually.

- Branches need to be vertically differentiated from each other, in order to be accessible from heights between 100-152cm.

Encourage Interaction: -Branches need to be horizontally differentiated in order to be easily interacted with.

-Branches can’t be clustered together, they must have at least 10 clearly separate branches- the value ‘10’ comes from analysing the movements of the client group throughout the site and determining the potential number of users at any one time (this data is set out in the project brief) Encourage Critical Thought: -The form should provoke questions in regards to fragility, the failure of systems, cyclic processes of generation and decay and the human impact on natural systems.

Successful Iterations The iterations that best met the selection criteria were A1_8, A4_3, A4_10 and A4_11 (Figures 60-63). Each of these iterations had branches which were vertically differentiated from one another, as well as horizontally spaced, allowing for greater engagement with the structure by the client. The form of the A4 iteration series, with their mirrored axioms creating slightly draped structures are the most visually reminiscent of fragile drapery, and allow for a greater interaction from the ground upwards.

Potential Direction The form of the structure although provoking an awareness of generative systems is not in and of itself a form that could decay or grow. Rather, it will rely on the interactions between branches and clients in conjunction with mutable material systems to be able to fully engage the client in a critical discourse around the process of decay.

P. 50

N= 4 A

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46

B

l=8, x=59, y=51, z=58

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=11, y=2, z=13

Fig.60 Iteration A1_8, the braches are expansive, upwards and outwards, this expansion is very important to encourage interaction between the client and the form.

Mirrored Axioms around z-axis.

N= 5 A

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32

B

l=8, x=180, y=51, z=-119

C

l=9, x=-5, y=-10, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=-10

Fig.61 Iteration A4_3, this iteration is based on four axioms, which are mirrored around the z-axis in order to create a form that is draped, rather than expanding.

Fig.62 A4_10 The difference between this iteration and Fig.60 is merely the reversal of B Branch z-axis vector rotation, this iteration is z=120, the branches at the top are splayed outwards.

N= 5 A

l=5, x=45, y=-10, z=45

B

l=8, x=75.5, y=51, z=120

C

l=9, x=5, y=45, z=-61

D

l=5, x=50, y=90, z=-10

Fig.63 A4_11 This iteration not only meet all of the selection criteria, it also aesthetically is reminiscent of a canopy- linking it closely with the algorithmic rules used to design it.

N= 5 A

l=5, x=45, y=-10, z=45

B

l=8, x=75.5, y=51, z=-120

C

l=9, x=5, y=45, z=-61

D

l=5, x=50, y=90, z=-10

P. 51

B.4.03 iTERATiONS

Parameters: Type; A, B, C, D Length= l units X-axis rotation= x Y-axis rotation= y Z-axis rotation= z Generation (N)= a

N= 1 A

l=6, x=69, y=41, z=0

B

l=8, x=59, y=49, z=0

N= 2 A

l=6, x=48, y=41, z=-5

B

l=8, x=59, y=49, z=36

C

l=12, x=86, y-10, z=28

N= 4 A

N= 4 A

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 6 A

B

B

B

B

B

l=10, x=48, y=41, z=-28 l=5, x=59, y=49, z=49

C

l=5, x=86, y-10, z=87

D

l=5, x=17, y=22, z=60

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=59, y=51, z=58

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=11, y=2, z=13

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=59, y=51, z=58

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=11, y=2, z=13

l=5, x=80, y=10, z=-46 l=8, x=87, y=93, z=58

C

l=9, x=91, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=1, y=-10, z=13

l=5, x=80, y=10, z=-46 l=8, x=87, y=93, z=58

C

l=9, x=91, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=1, y=-10, z=13

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 6 A

N= 6 A

B

B

B

B

B

l=5, x=48, y=57, z=19 l=8, x=94, y=84, z=58

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=-8, y=-4, z=13

l=5, x=48, y=27, z=9 l=8, x=94, y=84, z=58

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=68, y=79, z=90

l=5, x=48, y=27, z=9 l=8, x=94, y=84, z=58

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=68, y=79, z=50

l=5, x=48, y=27, z=9 l=8, x=94, y=84, z=58

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=68, y=79, z=50

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 7 A

N= 8 A

B

B

B

B

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=39

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=-8, y=-4, z=13

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=39

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=60, y=180z=102

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=39

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=60, y=180z=-10

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=39

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=60, y=180z=-10

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

B

B

B

B

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=142

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=60, y=180z=-10

N= 6

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=142

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=142, y=180 z=180

N= 7

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=142

C

l=9, x=-10, y=64, z=39

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=89

N= 8

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=142

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=9 l=8, x=94, y=138, z=58

C

l=9, x=59, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=68, y=79, z=50

Species change b changing axiom.

Two, rather than used to generate This is to increas and variation of and to avoid the becoming indisti

Axioms placed perpendicular.

N= 1

C

l=9, x=-10, y=64, z=39

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=89

Rotated View 30* N= 8

N= 5 A

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32

B

l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=142

C

l=9, x=-5, y=26, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=-10 z=2

N= 5 A

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32

B

l=8, x=180, y=51, z=-119

C

l=9, x=-5, y=10, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=-10

P. 52

Mirrored Axioms around z-axis.

N= 5

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

B

B

B

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32 l=8, x=138, y=51, z=-119

C

l=9, x=-5, y=10, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=-10

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32 l=8, x=10, y=51, z=-119

C

l=9, x=-5, y=10, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=-10

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32 l=8, x=75, y=51, z=-119

C

l=9, x=-5, y=10, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=-10

based on . n one axiom are e the L-system. se the area the L-system e branches from inguishable.

N= 3 A

N= 4 A

N= 4 A

N= 4 A

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

N= 7 A

N= 8 A

B

B

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46

C

C

l=8, x=94, y=51, z=58

D

D

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

l=6, x=48, y=41, z=-5 l=8, x=59, y=49, z=36 l=12, x=86, y-10, z=28 l=8, x=17, y=22, z=23

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=94, y=51, z=58 l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39 l=5, x=-8, y=-4, z=13

l=6, x=48, y=41, z=-10 l=8, x=59, y=49, z=74 l=12, x=86, y-10, z=28 l=8, x=17, y=22, z=23

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46

B C

C

D

D

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=89

l=8, x=94, y=109, z=58

l=8, x=94, y=138, z=58

l=9, x=180, y=64, z=39

l=9, x=180, y=64, z=39

l=5, x=68, y=180, z=129

l=5, x=68, y=180, z=129

l=8, x=94, y=51, z=39

l=8, x=94, y=51, z=39

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

l=5, x=60, y=180z=-10

l=5, x=60, y=180z=-10

B

D

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=9

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46

B

l=9, x=-10, y=64, z=39

l=5, x=48, y=102, z=9

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46

N= 4 A

C

l=5, x=-8, y=-4, z=13

N= 4 A

N= 4 A

l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=142

D

D

l=5, x=68, y=180, z=129

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=-46

C

D

l=5, x=68, y=180, z=129

l=5, x=60, y=180z=-10

B

C

l=9, x=180, y-10, z=39

D

Axiom (2) N= 5 A

C

l=9, x=59, y-10, z=39

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

Previous iteration rotated.

l=5, x=17, y=22, z=23

B

l=8, x=94, y=138, z=58

C

D

l=17, x=17, y=22, z=23

B

l=8, x=94, y=138, z=58

l=8, x=94, y=51, z=39

D

N= 6 A

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=9

B

l=5, x=86, y-10, z=28

N= 6 A

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=9

l=5, x=48, y=2, z=-46

C

l=12, x=86, y-10, z=28

l=5, x=-8, y=-4, z=13

B

l=5, x=59, y=49, z=74

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

N= 6 A

l=5, x=48, y=41, z=-10

l=4, x=59, y=49, z=74

l=8, x=94, y=51, z=58

N= 6 A

N= 2 A

l=10, x=48, y=41, z=-10

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32 l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=142

C

l=9, x=-5, y=64, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=89

N= 5 A

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32

B

l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=142

C

l=9, x=-5, y=64, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=89

l=5, x=-81, y=2, z=-46 l=8, x=128, y=51, z=39

C

l=9, x=95, y-10, z=39

D

l=5, x=60, y=180z=-10

N= 5 A

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32

B

l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=12

C

l=9, x=-5, y=64, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=89

4 Axioms

D

“A structure to be interacted with� (Design Aims) Past N=5 the form becomes too complicated to easily identify singular barnches to play with.

However <5 is not complex enough to mimic organic complexity.

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

N= 5 A

B

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

N= 6 A

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32

B

l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=142

C

l=9, x=-5, y=26, z=-61 l=5, x=51, y=-10 z=2

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32 l=8, x=75, y=51, z=-119

C

l=9, x=54, y=-10, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=-10

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32 l=8, x=75, y=51, z=-119

C

l=9, x=5, y=45, z=-61

D

l=5, x=50, y=90, z=-10

The original axiom, plus three new axioms. These are suspended 20 units above the world plane and are parallel to each other.

N= 3

l=5, x=45, y=-10, z=45 l=8, x=75.5, y=51, z=120 l=9, x=5, y=45, z=-61 l=5, x=50, y=90, z=-10

N= 5 A

l=5, x=-48, y=2, z=32

B

l=8, x=-94, y=51, z=12

C

l=9, x=-5, y=64, z=-61

D

l=5, x=51, y=44, z=89

l=5, x=45, y=-10, z=45 l=8, x=75.5, y=51, z=-120 l=9, x=5, y=45, z=-61 l=5, x=50, y=90, z=-10

P. 53

B.5. PROTOTYPES

Selection Criteria Attractive for the client: - Ability to distinguish individual branches from each other visually.

- Branches need to be vertically differentiated from each other, in order to be accessible from heights between 100152cm.

Encourage Interaction: -Branches need to be horizontally differentiated in order to be easily interacted with.

-Branches can’t be clustered together, they must have at least 10 clearly separate branches- the value ‘10’ comes from analysing the movements of the client group throughout the site and determining the potential number of users at any one time (this data is set out in the project brief) Encourage Critical Thought: -The form should provoke questions in regards to fragility, the failure of systems, cyclic processes of generation and decay and the human impact on natural systems

Aims of Prototypes These prototypes were designed as potential solutions to the question of interactivity within the design, as such they had to retain the rules of the L-System as well as integrate and interactive system of generation and decay.

because of the planar quality of each surface but also because they are able to be produced via additive digital fabrication techniques easily whilst retaining an extent of differentiation between the angles of connective branches unlike other, less complicated solid shapes such as triangles.

Fig.64 Type A,B,C

The interactive potential between member and joints is significant, especially for the client group of children, for whom playing with shapes and connections is encouraged within early learning education. This series of images demonstrates the potential use of these prototypes within the design, the joints have been cut into at each surface to create a series of shapes that correspond to the shapes of each type of branch. Figure x demonstrates connecting a triangular member to the joint.

The connection between the joint and the members are quite strong, they can support their own weight as demonstrated in the series of figures 76-86. However a more in depth look at connection options such as adding magnets or locking mechanisms could increase the structural integrity and strength of the structure.

Actualization In order to achive these aims and meet the selection criteria I developed a series of joint and member segments. Each member segment represents a different type of branch from the L-System; A, B, C or D, segments are differentiated by their shape; rectangular, circular, polygon (hexagon) and triangle as shown in Figure 64. The joints were hard to design because they had to allow for 360 degrees of rotation, which I wasn’t able to fabricate. Instead I looked at using dodecahedrons as the shape of the joints. I chose this shape

Fig.69-74 Demon

P. 54

C,D Branches

Fig.65 Connections

Fig.67 The dodecahedron joints

Fig.66 I 3D printed 3 of each type

Fig.68 Scale

nstrate the interactive generation of structure using the joint and member system, the L-System rules can still be applied

P. 55

PROTOTYPiNG/iNTERACTiONS

P. 56

P. 57

B.6. TECHNiQUE PROPOSAL

Fig.87 Iteration of L-System Form

Conceptual Meets Technical The conceptual focus on critical design as an architectural approach which has the potential to prompt greater awareness in the fragility and cyclic nature of natural systems, is integrally linked to the parametrically designed L-systems in order to create interactive installation space.

Fabrication and Placement Insitu The studio’s focus on the use of drones enables an innovative and novel approach to the construction methods applied on site.

The initial structure will be erected by a swarm of drones, programmed to connect the branch elements into the joints and create the first iteration of the interactive form. As the clients interact with the installation its form will be reprogrammed, through the client’s arbitrary decisions. Creating different shapes for each type of branch however retains an amount of authorship over the forms that are possible to generate by the client.

Another use of the drones could be to subtract braches from the form, speeding the process of ‘decay’, or conversely to increase the number of branches on site thus ‘growing’ the form.

Fig

P. 58

Fig.88-90 the interaction, generation and decay of the architectural system

g.92. The site, and Oak Tree X, basic render in Rhino; key areas of interest are the path (red) and its proximity to site

P. 59

Material and Colour In order to meet the design aims and conceptual grounding in sustainability and ecological preservation. The material system is essential to the successful linkage between the form of L-systems, interaction with generative and degenerative processes and engagement with the client and site.

In order to successfully achieve this our material systems could potentially use organic products that can be designed to have a specific temporal life span, after which they will decay and feed the natural systems of and around the oak tree. Another option could be to use recycled material or products that would otherwise be considered rubbish.

An innovative alternative could be the use of bioplastics- biodegradable plastics made from biological or plastic products- with digital fabrication techniques. Could a bioplastic be 3D printed, laser-cut or CNC routed.

One of the key selection criteria is the attractiveness of the design for the client, in order to design a structure that is stands out from its environment and encourages children to interact, the choice of colour for the design is very important. Through research into educational literature around the psychology of the affect of colour on learning the most effective colours for engaging with children, maintaining their attention and inducing creativity are; yellow and red. Colour is also a potential way of distinguishing each branch type from one another; type A is red, B is yellow and so forth.

Fig.96 Rhino Render of Oak Tree X with one of the final iterations from B4 superimposed onto it, also visible is the access path

P. 60

Fig.93 Colour schemes

Fig.95 Colour scheme #2

P. 61

B.7. LEARNiNG OUTCOMES

On starting this subject I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know how to use Grasshopper, and my skill in Rhino was fairly rudimentary. Throughout the course of the semester I have genuinely attempted to engage with computational design and parametric modelling, both in terms of the discourse surrounding it and applying it in practise. Technically my ability to design using parametric modelling has greatly increased from where it was even in week 4, however it was still extremely difficult to create a definition within grasshopper that strongly linked with the conceptual approach taken as well as to define and design to the parameters set out in the project brief. One of the limitations in using grasshopper I found was that it was difficult to maintain design aims whilst being immersed in computational processes.

Designing from scratch in grasshopper is still a highly intimidating prospect however I feel that I have a strong grasp on the fundamental ideas in terms of data structure and flow. In addition to this, finding resources to assist with learning the program- such as the grasshopper3d.com forum and other internet resources- alleviate some of the problems encountered when designing in grasshopper.

Looking at L-Systems, gave me the opportunity to challenge myself to learn fairly complex data manipulation in Grasshopper, as well as exploring other coding programs such as Processing and VB Script. Looking at these traditional scripting environments helped me to understand the use of mathematical principles in algorithmic design, which in turn helped me understand the processes behind data manipulation better, and even gave me a better understanding of how to use Rhino effectively. I feel that also slightly tangent to what we were meant to be researching, investigating L-Systems as a generative form finding device strengthened my computational

P. 62

design process. My attempt to use a computational design approach by designing an architectural form defined by formulas and parameters taken from a selection criteria based on project aims, has generated the most stringent design outcome I have personally ever produced. I found that far from hindering the achievement of conceptual aims, by emphasising numeric parameters, computational design potentially strengthens the design process.

Fig.97 The Prototype joints with different shapes for each branch system

Fig.98 One of the successful iterations of my L-System

P. 63

P. 64

PART C DETAiLED DESiGN

P. 65

C1. DESiGN CONCEPT The intent driving the design concept is to create an architectural installation which would encourage the interaction between children (the client) and the architectural form over an extended temporal scale in order to engage children with the concept of growth and decay in relation to natural systems. The design will be located in the heart of the Abbotsford activity precinct, at the site of Oak Tree X which sits along the path that connects the Abbotsford convent, the Collingwood Children’s farm and the Early Learning Centre (Figure 3). The design was generated using computational techniques in order to define an adaptive L-System at an appropriate scale for children aged 5-10 (Figure 2), in order to make the design dynamic and explore the adaptive qualities of parametric designing the main mode of construction will be through the implementation of drones. The design concept revolves around three key aspects; critical design, interactivity and generation and decay.

Firstly, critical design defined as; the aim of the design is to provoke the reconsideration of a particular issue or idea (Dunne and Raby 2013), defined the design approach throughout this project. The concept is ambitious in relation to how it aims to make children active participants in the conversation regarding de-futuring processes (Fry 2009). The success of the design revolves around its ability to emphasise the depletion and destruction of resources, and the possibility of failure in a system.

Through research into precedents such as the Silk Pavilion project by MIT Media Press, 2013 (Figure 1) and Kieran Timberlake’s Smart Wrap exhibition buildings, the conceptual aims of the designs are most effectively conveyed by the interactions between the user and the architectural form, thus the design will be interactive in order to convey its conceptual basis.

Giving the client partial control over the growth and decay of the architectural form is intended to reflect to the client the need for us as individual’s to acknowledge our accountability in destroying or renewing elements of the systems with which we interact.

P. 66

Based on the research on Biomimicry undertaken in Part B, this design explores the organic processes of generation and decay, in order to critique established attitudes towards the use of resources and involve the client physically in the destruction and renewal of these elements.

Client and Site From the feedback we received at the interim presentations in week 9, it became apparent that the particularities and nuances of the chosen site; Oak Tree X, needed to be clearly engaged with through the construction of selection criteria that used specific parameters set by the interaction between the site, the form and the client. The key reasons that the site was chosen were; its location along the path that connects the Abbotsford activity precinct, its already established connection to the client, the way the tree as an organic object epitomises the complexities associated with natural systems, and the tangible patterns of growth and decay already present in the life cycle of the Oak. As mentioned above, the client group that this design is aimed at are children aged between 5 and 10, who are already established users of the Collingwood children’s farm, the Abbotsford convent and the Early Learning Centre.

P. 67

TECHNiQUE

2. Generation 1

1. Axioms

3. Generation 2

7. Option 2

6. Option 1

10. Growth_Summer

Axiom Pseudo Code: Axiom_ ABB A_ A + 2*B B_ B + 2*C C_ + 2*D D_ D + 2*A Parameters: Length (l); A,B,C,D Angle (x); A,B,C,D Angle (y); A,B,C,D Angle (z); A,B,C,D

P. 68

11. Summer_Option 1

Generation 3

Generation 2

Generation 1

Generation 4 Entwine

Explode Move

End Points

Rotate 3D

2Pt Line

Explode A Branches

Length (l) Vector

8. Option 3

Multiply UnitVector (x)

Vector Product

Spring

B Branches C Branches D Branches

Interaction_Dro

Interaction_Clie

Interaction_Sit Panel: True False False True

P

4. Generation 3

5. Generation 4

The Grasshopper definition is a dynamic variant of a Fractal L-System and follows a “Pseudo Code”, a set of specific input rules that determine the generation of new branches (see the diagram illustrating the technique).

The initial form is grown from Axiom branches, according to the adapted L-System definition, until the 4th generation.

The installation is then interacted with across a period of four months (the span of a natural season) by the client, drones and environmental factors of the site.

At the end of this four-month period the fleet of drones- stationed insitu- analyse the impacts that human, ecological and drone interactions have had on the structure of the form, specifically, the drones will analyse the amount of each type of branch left intact.

9. Option 4

12. Growth_Autumn

Summer

Timer

one

ent

te

Cull Pattern

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Winter

Timer

Interaction_Drone

Option 1

Interaction_Client

Option 2

Interaction_Site Panel: True False False True

The aim of this technique was to generate a grasshopper definition that could be a proof of concept for combining a critical design approach with a computational design approach, thus separating computational design from the notion of “computerization” (Kalay 2004). Computational design is redefining architectural practice by using parametric tools such as Grasshopper to generate design responses that respond to issues of societal significance.

This technique was developed to demonstrate the way that generating a design through parametric techniques could strengthen our architectural installation by allowing for the visual exploration of a generative, organic system with the potential for failure.

Cull Pattern

Option 3 Option 4

The data collected will determine the form of the growth process, using a series of Timers and Cull Pattern components. For example Option One is that there are less than 1/2 of the original branches left intact, the growth from this option then set by the Autumn component that reads the number of branches left and their placements and generates season-appropriate growth- such as more growth to the North of Oak Tree X because of the decrease in insolation levelsthe grown form is then interacted with over the course of the Autumn-Winter season.

Autumn

P. 69

MAKiNG THE TECHNiQUE PHYSiCAL

Branches to model

Jo

Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3 Generation 4 Cull Pattern

End Points

Ref. BREP

A Branches

Cull Points

B Branches C Branches D Branches

Pipe

Type A Type B Type C Type D

P. 70

Move Vector

Branch Type Forms

oints

Orient

Joint_Branches Connected

One of the most challenging aspects of the design process was deciding on how to make a very abstract form have a physical presence. The first steps in generating the physical form were considering the connection nodes between branches, the branches themselves were simply piped along a Polygon component according to the particular branch type, ie. Type A; Hexagonal. The aim was to continue using grasshopper as the platform through which to test spatiality and appearance of the potential form.

The diagram on the facing page illustrates the basic workflow in Grasshopper, the nodes were modelled by referencing a BREP into Grasshopper, then the start and end points of the branches were extracted and organized according to the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Typeâ&#x20AC;? of branch. This was important because the difference in the shape of the branches is a key element of engaging the client in the concept of physical limits.

P. 71

CONSTRUCTiON DiAGRAM

Initial Form

Interactions People Site Drones

Client

Passers-by Tree Growth Weather Climate

Interference Algorithm

Flight Path Selected Cull Pattern: Less than 1/2 Less than 1/3 Greater than 1/3 Greater than 1/2 Data Sent

Option 1 Option 2 Option3 Option4 Option 5

Fabrication of Elements 3D Printed Insitu

FOUR MONTHS (ONE SEASON)

P. 72

Elements Attached to Per Drone: 1xNode 4xBranches = >500g

Drone Fleet Construction

o Drones SUMMER AUTUMN WINTER

SPRING

A key focus of this studio was to incorporate drones into the design, both to inform the form, material and actual architectural outcomes, as well as to consider the consequences of using drones for construction, for instance using drones means making inaccessible areas accessible, and no (limited) manual labor necessary.

Throughout the design stages thus far, ie. the definition of the concept and technique generation, the concept of time has had a large but unarticulated role in the direction of the project. Using drones allows this project to explore an interaction between a parametrically adaptive structure and the temporal element of the changing seasons. Drones are an integral element in the continuation of the design across its life cycle, their need to be programmed allows them to implement the original master design without the need for the designers to be continually active and designing once the initial form has been constructed and the drones programmed.

The diagram on the facing page lays out the envisaged construction process across one 4 month cycle. Firstly, the initial form is constructed by the drones, under the supervision of the architects, the seasonal cycle timer starts once the last piece is in place. Secondly the

installation is interacted with by three main parties; people, the Oak Tree X, and the drones. Including the drones in the interaction process across the four months fulfills two purposes; it ensures that the installation had been interacted with, and it encourages the client to begin to interact with the design by demonstrating that the elements can break or be moved. Thirdly, at stages across this four month period the drones analyse how many branches of each type are left intact, at the end of the four month period this data is translated into the Cull Pattern component which determines which regeneration option to construction. Because the method of fabrication is via 3D printing insitu if there is a need to fabricate more materials this is easily and quickly achievable with minimum human involvement. Depending on which option is selected, the droneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s flight path will necessarily be different, however because the options are predetermined by the design these flights paths are programmable ahead of time, meaning that they do not have to be set every time construction or deconstruction occurs.

Drone implementation details; 500-750g weight carrying ability, 3-5 minutes GPS locator, connection bracket.

The use of point charged line systems that can be integrated into a GPS system allow the flight paths to be mapped out accordingly dependent upon the obstacles.

P. 73

C.2. TECTONiC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES To physically demonstrate the veracity of the technique defined in Grasshopper, a series of prototypes were made and tested.

Each set of prototypes led to a series of adjustments of the prototype, some of which were anticipated.

All of these adjustments were easily made because of the parametric nature of the computational design approach.

For example, the use of new construction technologies, in this instance the Up! 3D printer, completely removed the line between design and construction, enabling the design process to continue throughout the â&#x20AC;&#x153;constructionâ&#x20AC;? phase.

Designing through prototyping enabled the key premise of the design conceptinteractivity- to be tested, explored and generated a selection criterion to optimize the form for increased interaction with the clients.

Throughout the prototyping-testingadjusting process, it was found that both scale and colour had significant impacts on the level of interaction from the clients.

Because of the use of parametric modeling platforms such as Grasshopper, and the ability to quickly fabricate 1:1 prototypes using 3D printers, we were able to easily experiment with and adjust both the scale and colour of the branch/node elements.

The exploration of digital modes of fabrication significantly affected the design process by producing outcomes that were cheap, quick and easy to fabricate thus allowing in-depth research to be undertaken as to the ability of the structural elements; branches and nodes, to emotionally, intellectually and physically engage the client through interaction.

P. 74

P. 75

FABRiCATiON DOCUMENTATiON

BRANCH TYPES In order to generate elements that were of a scale and shape that would encourage interaction from our client group, 5-10 year olds, as well as facilitate with the mode of fabrication (3D Printing), the Branch Types were designed based on basic, platonic profile shapes; triangle, square, hexagon, and circle.

Type A Branch Form

NODES One of the largest impacts on the design outcomes of the prototyping process was the design of the node elements. The challenge of making a shape that was easily fabricated, allowed for easy connections between elements, and had faces that could mimic to an extent the full 360* degree rotation of a sphere significantly narrowed the design parameters of the node elements.

The shape that was ultimately designed and used in this project was a dodecahedron. This shape was decided on because of its semblance to a sphere, the planarity of its faces, and the easily understandable visual simplicity of the shape as a whole. The planarity of its faces was a key reason that the dodecahedron was chosen, because of the shape of the intrinsically planar branch elements having a node element with planar faces was necessary in order to facilitate the fabrication of connection elements.

P. 76

Potential colour scheme to differenti each branch type.

A_B Joint

Type B Branch Form

Type C Branch Form

Type D Branch Form

iate

B_C Joint

C_D Joint D_A Joint

P. 77

FABRiCATiON DOCUMENTATiON

CONNECTiONS

Potential Connection Strategy

Throughout the digital design and fabrication processes there was an investigation of mechanical, physical and material connections, however the physical connections were found to be the most ideal type of connections for increasing physical interaction with the form.

JOiNT CONNECTiONS As trials were produced and diagrams for assembly drawn, it became obvious that based on the limited number of angles of the faces of a dodecahedron, the angles of the branches would have to be limited, this was taken into the Grasshopper definition with Number Slider components and the form was redesigned significantly through the change in angles.

The angle changes were further defined by associating a specific set of angles for each Branch Type.

BRANCHiNG CONNECTiONS

After several considerations the most elegant solution to creating branch to branch connections was a found to be a physical connection.

These connections were also chosen because they encourage physical interaction with the objects.

P. 78

A_B Branch Angles

Male_Male Branch

Male_Female Branch

Inter-Branch Connections

These diagrams illustrate the limitation on the angle of the form.

Although it seems very restrictive (only 4 options) once the x, y, and z axes are considered there are actually numerous possibilities from the apparently limited rotations.

B_C Branch

C_D Branch

D_A Branch

P. 79

P. 80

PROTOTYPES The images on the facing page shows a selected range of the prototyping work that was carried out for C.2. The images demonstrate the different sizes (or scales) that were design and fabricated throughout the printing process.

3D Printing as a Construction Method Before this studio I personally had never 3D printed before and therefore had some very idealistic assumptions about the smoothness and speed of the printing process. One of the things that I will take away from the fabrication work done with the 3D printers across a period of 5 weeks is the incredible potential of additive construction technology in enabling really innovative and almost artistic forms to become physical realities. There seems to be so much potential in the field of additive printing; from expanding material types to the sheer size of the printers available.

Like any machine however, there is a necessary amount of maintenance required and glitches, mishaps and

failures happen all the time. However, this does not have to be seen as wholly negative, the mishaps and failures tend to push the designer to further adjusting and optimizing the form that they are trying to construct, it retains a certain level of pragmatism that could otherwise be lost in the digital space.

ADJUSTMENTS Throughout the prototyping process there were multiple adjustments made to the digital file (what was being printed) besides the change of size.

For example, the dodecahedron node elements had to be orientated so that

they had a blank face on the face that sat on the printer bed, and if the orientation wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t flush then the node would lose a couple of millimeters off the face and not peel off the print bed easily, requiring a reprint.

CLiENT iNTERACTiON Client Interaction The experiments that were done with clients early on were fairly basic in their approach, really the veracity of the design concept was what was being explored. In the early test, four subjects; two male and two female, were given the branch and node elements separated and asked to play with them. There were no further instructions given and the children werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t told how to play with them or construct a shape. The results were very encouraging, each child seemed engaged with the elements, and intently moving, connecting and constructing their own shapes. At the end of a ten-minute period they were asked to stop their play and talk about what they had been doing. Each child had produced a very different design outcome, however all of the children identified the form that they

had constructed as being an organic, metabolic organism; a tree, a spider, and a human. A possible conclusion to be drawn from this early experiment was that the design was successful in engaging emotionally, physically and intellectually the client in thinking further about natural systems.

The impact on the prototyping process of this experiment was threefold, the shapes of the branches and nodes were kept the same as they had been demonstrated to achieve the desired result, the scale of the model was adjusted and made smaller, and differentiating branch types through assigned colours was introduced into the prototyping process.

Further research was conducted and compiled into a separate research paper, which has been included in this digital submission.

P. 81

EXPLODED ASSEMBLY DiAGRAM

The diagram was drawn by taking the isolated section of the overall form from the Fabrication section of the journal and making it with the final prototype branch/ node elements.

Generation 1

The initial branch/node of the assembly diagram is an A to B node, exclusions were made purposefully to enhance the clarity of the diagram. The rules that define the growth of an A to B node is that A=A + 2*B, the A branches are the Orange hexagonal branches.

Generation 2

Following the L-System definition; from each B Branch there is a B to C node, which produces B+2*C, the B branches are differentiated by their shape; triangular, and their colour; red.

Generation 3

Continuing the growth of the definition, from each of the B to C nodes there should follow C to D nodes, however for the purpose of clarity not every A, B, C, or D branch connection has been included.

Generation 4

Generation 4 is left unfinished, the D to A nodes are not even attached to the form, this is to decrease confusion as to the end point of the diagram.

P. 82

P. 83

C.3. FiNAL DETAiL MODEL

The final detail model (see photograph on facing page) is the manifestation of the design concept at a one to one scale, in its form it shows the Grasshopper generated L-System definition, as well the series of adjustments made in response to the prototyping process.

This section of the digital design was chosen as the detail to be modeled because it clearly shows the four generations of the L-System at the point of the first Axiom.

P. 84

P. 85

P. 86

P. 87

ATTACHMENTS TO OAK TREE X

Step 1.

Carve a section into the trunk.

Step 2.

Drill a 30mm diameter hole.

Ste Step 2 co

An aspect that hadn’t been fully resolved in week 12 was how the drones would attach the initial axioms on site. The installation was designed so as to surround the tree but not touch it, and therefore have less of an impact on Oak Tree X. Through further research into methods of attaching brackets to established trees, a specially designed bracket called a Garnier Limb (see the figures on the facing page) was found.

The significance of this ‘artificial limb’ is that it doesn’t damage the tree or become corrupted through the tree’s natural growth process, the bracket is designed mainly for building treehouses and is capable of carrying huge loads; up to 3 tonnes (when the force is applied 6cm away from the tree trunk). The envisaged installation of the bracket is illustrated by the photographs on the facing page, the Axiom branch will have to be able to connect to the bracket, and will therefore have to be circular.

P. 88

The Garnier Limb, a screw in bracket that is generally made out of metal and can be attached to OakTreeX without damaging the treeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth.

ep 3. ompleted.

Step 4.

Using a wrench drill the Garnier Limb into the precut hole.

Step 5.

The Garnier Limb attached.

Step 6.

The redesigned axiom to attach to the bracket.

P. 89

DRONE CONSTRUCTiON

Now that the attachment of the installation to the tree has been defined, the question remained over how the drones would actually attach the elements on site.

Throughout the final presentations we were encouraged to be futuristic and not to let the restrictions of current technology curtail the design. The reimagining after the final presentations led to a redefinition of the construction technique; initially the installation was to be pre-fabricated and put together by the designers and then attached to the drones which would carry these sections to the tree and attach them to the brackets.

However, the design will be constructed in the near future, when drone flight paths are more accurate and swarm construction is a realistic construction program. The architectural structure will be installed by hundreds of drones, each carrying a single branch/node element based on current flight time of 3 minutes to the tree and then back again the construction of the Initial stage of the installation would take 50 working drones (with 50 ready to fly when the first 50 need to recharge) 5 hours to construct.

Interaction Algorithm

Data Retrieval

Interaction from clien and site

iNCREASED DRONE iNTERACTiON

Another key element of the drone implementation that the critiques were in agreement over was the need to involve the drones more in the lifecycle of the installation. On review of the design concept, the most interesting and relevant way to further incorporate the use of drones would be to engage them in the interaction with the installation. This interaction is defined by the designers as the “Interaction Algorithm”, a mathematically defined set of instructions that uses the drones’ daily analysis of the amount of branches left (thus analyzing both the client and site interactions with the form), and using a set of less than functions review the collected numeric data to determine whether the drones’ need to interact with the Oak Tree X. If the algorithm finds that an interaction moment is necessary 10 flight paths, predefined to collide with the installation would be enacted so as to increase the rate of decay of the installation.

P. 90

If x>10 If x>50 If x<10 If x<1,

Flight Path B Less flight paths needed because no drone interaction is needed.

Rules;

0, No action (Code=0) 0, Grow (Code=1) 0, Destroy 10 (Code=10) Destroy 50 (Code=11)

Code 0 Code 1

Flight Path A

Code 10

Flight Path B

Code 11

nt

Flight Path C Flight Path D

Flight Path A:

Northern side of OakTreeX has been interacted with, causing >50 branch/node elements to be destroyed...

Grow; Type B branches, angles provide more cover for the Northern aspect of site through the hot summer

Flight Path C More flight paths are needed because of increased interactions.

Flight Path D The medium amounts of flight paths are needed because of the limited interactions needed.

P. 91

RENDERS

RENDERS The potential impacts of this are explored in the Rendered images on the following pages.

Needed to show with a series of rendered images the final outcome of the design process, increase the complexity of the form, increase the points of interaction with the client, with drones, with the environment surrounding the site Oak Tree X.

P. 92

P. 93

P. 94

AXiOM CONSTRUCTiON

P. 95

DRONE FLEET (50 DRONES)

P. 96

FINAL PLACEMENT OF NODES

P. 97

DRONE FLEET PLACiNG G1 BRANCHES

P. 98

G1 BRANCHES iNSiTU

P. 99

DRONES PLACiNG G2 BRANCHES

P. 100

P. 101

P. 102

P. 103

P. 104

P. 105

FiNAL COMMENTS At the beginning of the semester I had a vague awareness of the potential significance of computational design within architectural practice, however I had never personally used much design software and was intimidated by the apparent complexities of the digital tools. The readings across the semester, especially across weeks 1-3 captured my attention with their combined vision of the potential for design to be redefined by generative rather than compositional modes of practice. I wanted to engage with the ideas set out in the early readings to steer my design process across the semester, from brief formation through to physical prototyping.

The brief that I defined in Part A, 4.02, clearly demonstrated a strong engagement with the concept of critical design, and generative design practice, by aiming to explore the adaptive potential of the digital tools and fabrication process through the intellectual engagement of children with the fundamental social issue of sustainability and failing natural systems.

Throughout the first five weeks of semester I focused most of my energy into grasping the technical knowledge necessary to be able to more freely play with the almost infinite possibilities within the grasshopper platform. The progression of skill level using these parametric tools is evident from the Algorithmic Sketchbook; the first entries are very simple exercises in familiarizing myself with the software, which develops into the exploration of L-Systems and goes on a tangent into scripting (using VB Script, Python and RhinoScript), before returning to Grasshopper to further develop the visual code.

I found the analytical diagramming one of the hardest elements of the subject to do well, and it wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t until Part C that I felt like I had landed on a visually clear and effective way of conveying the intricacies that I was wanting to relate to the reader, for example the difference between my Part B diagramming and Part C is stark.

Throughout this semester my skill level across multiple digital modeling softwares

P. 106

increased dramatically, going from the Rhino model I did for Earth last year to the complex and adaptive models that I created with Grasshopper/Rhino and then printed under my own steam across a period of weeks.

Central to my design concept was the notion of interaction as a form of physical engagement with architecture and the intellectual stimulation that that generates.

Therefore, the consideration of the relationship between architecture and air was of integral importance to the success of the physical design.

Although at times it was harder to design through the approach of critical design and the necessary self-awareness that it entails, it ultimately led to a much more thorough interrogation of each aspect of the design, and encouraged the extensive use of design criteria to find optimized solutions.

To conclude, there was a significant development of both my critical engagement with contemporary architectural practice, and my technical ability using parametric tools and digital modes of fabrication, this journal reflects this engagement and illustrates visually the development of design thinking and dexterity with the digital tools of the future.

P. 107

REFERENCES AADRL Swarm Printing: Temporal Ice Construction. http://www.kokkugia.com/filter/teaching/AADRL-swarm-printingtemporal-ice-construction (accessed March 05, 2016).

Architecture: Guangzhou Opera House. http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/guangzhou-opera-house/ (accessed March 06, 2016).

Association, Australian Bioplastics. Bioplastics. http://bioplastics.org.au/ (accessed April 12, 2016).

“Definition of ‘Algorithm’.” In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, edited by Robert A Wilson and Frank C Keli, 11-12. London: MIT Press, 1999.

Dunne, Anthony, and Fiona Raby. “Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.” (MIT Press) 2013: 1-9; 33-45.

Dutton, Thomas A, and Liam Hurst Mann, . Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practices.

Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Žižek, Slavoj. Living In The End Times. Verso Books, 2010.

Freiberger, Marianne. “Perfect buildings: the maths of modern architecture .” +Plus magazine: living mathematics . March 1, 2007. https://plus.maths.org/content/perfect-buildings-maths-modern-architecture (accessed March 12, 2016).

Fry, Tony. Design Futuring; sustainability, ethics and new practice. Oxford: Berg, 2009.

Issa, Rajaa. Essential Mathematics for Computational Design. 2nd Edition. Robert McNeel & Associates.

—. Generative Algorithms: Lindenmayer-System (L-System). May 18, 2009. http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/ blogs/generative-algorithms (accessed April 03, 2016).

Iwamoto, Lisa, and Craig Scott. IwamotoScott Architecture. 2008. http://www.iwamotoscott.com/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD (accessed March 20, 2016).

Jones, Daniel. Visual Projects: L-Systems. 2007. http://www.erase.net (accessed April 01, 2016).

Kalay, Yehuda E. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design .

Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2004.

Kolarevic, Branko, and Kevin R. Klinger, . Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture. New York; London: Routledge, 2008.

Lindenmayer, Astrid. “Models for multicellular development: Characterization, inference and complexity of L-systems.” In Trends, Techniques, and Problems in Theoretical Computer Science, 138-168. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1986.

Manto, Andrew James. “Digital Rustication: robotic hot knife carving.” Monograph. http://monograph.io/manto/ digital-rustication (accessed March 14, 2016).

MIT Media Lab. Silk Pavillion. 2013. http://matter.media.mit.edu/environments/details/silk-pavillion (accessed March 13, 2016).

Oxman, Rivka, and Robert Oxman. “Introduction: Vitruvius Digitalis.” In Theories of the Digital in Architecture, edited by Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, 1-10. London and New York: Routledge, 2014.

Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Eyes of the Skin. [electronic resource] : Architecture and the Senses. . Hoboken : Wiley, 2013, 2013.

Peters, Brady. “Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’.” Architectural Design 83, no. 2 (2013): 0815.

Peters, Brady. “’Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’.” Architectural Design 83, no. 2 (2013): 56-61.

P. 108