Air FINAL journal Antony Maubach 328962

ANTONY PAULO MAUBACH 328962

design JOURNAL

ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO AIR SEMESTER 1 2014 THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & PLANNING

2

The following journal documents my research, design experimentations and final project for Architecture Design Studio Air - a Melbourne University 3rd year parametric design studio.

The design brief was based on the 2014 LAGI ‘Land Art Generator Initiative’ competition, an international biannual sustainable design competition. In 2014 the site was in Refshaleoen, a former industrial area in the harbour of Copenhagen, Denmark. The final project was completed in a team of 3. This journal was completed individually and all analyses and discussions presented herein are my own.

3

Thanks to my tutors Finn Warnock & Viktor Milnes.

Thanks also to my group members Nick Love & Jo de Klee, senior tutor Rosie Gunzberg & lecturer Stanislav Roudavski.

4

CONTENTS INTRODuCTION P.5 PAST WORK P.6 ARCHITECTURAL DISCOURSE + PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE P.8

PART A: CONCEPTUALISATION

A1: DESIGN FUTURING P.10 A2: DESIGN COMPUTATION P.12 A3: COMPOSITION/GENERATION

P.14 P.16 A4: CONCLUSION

P.17 A5: LEARNING OUTCOMES

A6: REFERENCES P.18

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN

B1: RESEARCH FIELD P.24 B2: CASE STUDY 1.0 P.28 B3: CASE STUDY 2.0

P.40 B4: Technique: DEVELOPMENT

P.50 B5: Technique: PROTOTYPES

P.59 B6: Technique: PROPOSAL P.74 B7: LEARNING ObjECTIVES + OUTCOMES P.102 B8: REFERENCES P.108

PART C: DETAILED DESIGN

c1: DESIGN CONCEPT P.108 C2: TECTONIC ELEMENTS P.118 C3: FINAL MODEL

P.122 C4: Additional lagi brief documents P.140 C5: LEARNING OBJECTIVEs + OUTCOMES P.164 C6: REFERENCES P.166

5

INTRO DUC TION

Antony PAULO MAUBACH BEnv (Architecture) 3rd year

I am in my 3rd year of BEnv (Architecture) at the University of Melbourne, and have previously completed a BArts (Urban Development major) at Monash University. I was born in Melbourne and spent over a year living in Austria and then the swiss alps before returning home to attend school. I am fluent in German and try to get over there as much as possible. I love travelling.

1. FOLLY + VIEWING PLATFORM, MAUBACH 2009

After high school I spent 12 months living in Berlin where I worked as a construction assistant for the artist Gregor Hildebrandt. I gained experience building large and small scale installations and learned alot through observing the design process and lifecycle of numerous art projects.

I currently works parttime as a junior urban planner in a large multidisciplinary architecture + engineering design firm. I often

works closely with in house urban designers (many of whom are trained architects), and have a strong interest in pubilc realm design including place making, sustainable development and community orientated design. As such, I keenly follow the works of architects/ urban designers such as Jan Gehl, and more locally am interested in the works of organisations such as Co Design Studio & Village Well to name a few.

6 2. COMMUNITY CENTRE, MAUBACH 2010

PAS T WORK

7

DIGITAL DESIGN EXPERIENCE

2.

I have very limited experience with computational architecture & conssiders myself a keen beginner when it comes to parametric architectural theory & design. I completed a first year computer engineering elective at Monash University where I learnt basic coding in Matlab and Excel (VBA), and also completed calculus 2 as a first year Uni Melb breadth. Both have helped so far in understanding Grasshopper.

2.

I have completed 2 first year and 2 second year architecture design studios leading up to AIR. I am familiar with AutoCAD, Sketchup, InDesign, Illustrator & Photoshop, + have a basic understanding of Rhino. I enjoy design development through sketch modelling (see 2.).

2.

I am using Grasshopper for the first time in studio AIR. Through my early algorithmic sketch experimentations I have already begun to appreciate the vast new possibilities this parametric program offers me as a designer.

I am excited to challenge myself + learn as much as possible from my fellow students and tutors.

2.

2.

8

“The rise of new digital design technologies increasingly allows users such as myself to push boundaries and actively participate in the debate. We can all contribute to architectural discourse in our own way (for example through experimentations and discussions presented in this journal) by actively engaging with and challenging architectural ideas.”

Architectural discourse + PARAMETRIC ARCHITECTURE The first studio AIR tutorial began with the question ‘what is architectural discourse?’ This ultimately lead to the question ‘what is architecture?’ As a beginner in parametric architectural theory and design it is important to first understand how and why new digital design techniques fit into and compliment the study of architecture.

Ultimately, architecture can take on a plurality of meanings depending on the context. From an anthropological perspective, architecture can be understood through Fry’s definition of design as “our ability to prefigure what we create before the act of creation... it defines one of the fundamental characteristics that make us human” (Fry, 2009, p.2). Thus, Fry’s understanding of architecture highlights a reciprocity between the ‘state of design’ and the ‘state of the world’ (natural resource depletion, unsustainability).

Schumacker defines architecture as an ‘autopoietic system’; a distinct subset of communication within a broader, all-encompassing system of societal communication. For Schumacker, completed buildings are but one aspect of the architectural communication network. This is due to the fact that “the completion of a new building is a rather rare occasion, and their immediate presence within the discourse - by being directly experienced during an architectural excusion - is so

rare as to be negligible” (Schumacker, 2011, p.3). As such, Schumacker highlights the importance of architectural communication mediums such as drawings, photographs, lectures, books and blogs, all of which depend upon and reproduce existing societal communication structures and ideas.

The aforementioned definitions move beyond a simplistic bricks and mortar understanding of architecture. For me, they highlight architecture as a language. As such, it is the intent of this language to produce meaning, rather than its ultimate functional goal (eg. habitation), that defines architecture.

Constructability and representation through more traditional architectural plan and section drawings does not necesarilly have to be the primary focus in order to contribute to the debate.

The rise of new digital design technologies increasingly allows users such as myself to push boundaries and actively participate in the debate. We can all contribute to architectural discourse in our own way (for example through experimentations and discussions presented in this journal) by actively engaging with and challenging architectural ideas.

I look forward to challenging myself and contributing to architectural discourse in my own way through this journal.

9

PART A CONCEPTUALISATION

10

A1: DESIGN FUTURING Jansen’s ‘Strandbeests’ relate strongly to Fry’s notion that the ‘state of the world’ is linked to and a product of the ‘state of design’. Jansen is in essence trying to redesign his own world, which he calls “a new nature”. His creations are able to store wind energy as air pressure, and are thus powered by their surrounding natural environment. He imagines that they will oneday survive on their own.

THEO JANSENStrandbeest (1990 ONWARDS) •ENERGY SYSTEM •INTERACTIVE •EDUCATION

The Strandbeests help stimulate the imagination and

the possibilities of reneweable energy systems. Their most valuable contribution to sustainable living practices are their inherent educational capabilities through viewer observation and participation.

This is evidenced by the fact that Strandbeests are exhibited all around the world with exhibitions including public demonstrations. Furthermore, some Strandbeests have in-built handles enabling the visiting public to ‘walk’ and feel the Strandbeest’s energy system.

11

ARCHIGRAMPLUGIN CITY (1964-66)

•ARCHITECTURAL DISCOURSE •HOW TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT •SYSTEM THINKING •CULTURAL NORMS

Archigram’s ‘Plugin City’ ties in with Schumaker’s notion of architectural communication and the autopoetic system. As Schumaker asserts, “completed buildings are but one aspect of the architectural communication network” (Schumacher, 2011, p.4). Though never built, Archigrams architectural discourse of over 900 drawings “provoked fascinating debate, combining architecture, technology and society” (Archdaily, 2014). This supports the notion that architectural discourse does not necesarilly have to be built to be succesfull.

‘Plugin City’ was a diagrematic experiment that proposed an alternative urban scenario and liberation from social consequences of modernism such as suburbia.

The crain mounted living pods depicted in ‘Plugin City’ can be “plugged in wherever their inhabitants wish” (Archdaily, 2014).

Whilst this work is of a different social and political context, it is interesting to note how Archigram playfully attempted to subvert traditional notions of the city and in particular the role of mobility and connectivity in a city. In a similar manner, I envisage to use the LAGI competition and its reference to a 2025 carbon neutral Copenhagen to investigate cultural norms associated with energy use in cities.

12

A2: Design COmputation Researching the role of computation in the overall design process of this biomimcry piece has helped me see parametric design as a “new form of logic of digital design thinking” (Oxman et al., 2014). Using programs such as Grasshopper, Kangaroo, Python and Lunchbox in conjunction with parameters inspired by nature, Matsys were able to “input precise information without risking bias from the designer” (Matsys, 2014).

The notion of ‘setting parame» Still frames of 2D animation of cell relaxation from pure voronoi network to relaxed ters’ was initially quite a foreign concept to me, and I wasn’t quite voronoi network (vorlax) sure what it all meant. However, it is quite clear through this experimentation that the designer was very much aware of the direction of the project as evidenced by the continuity from design inspiration to conception to construction.

Whilst my early experiments with Grasshopper thus far have been quite random, I am beginning to see the value of creating direction through setting parameters.

MATSYS DESIGNCHRYSALIS (III) (2012 PARIS)

•CELLULAR As discussed in the week two MORPHOLOGIES tutorial, some argue that digital design trivialises design and takes •SELF ORGANISATION it out of the hands of the designer. •SPRING NETWORK However, for me, this is but one (MOVEMENT) project that disproves this notion •VORONOI NETWORK and highlights the extreme potential of computation an an accountable design tool (rather than a tool that simply results in random geometries).

13

NOX SON-O-House (2002 NETHERLANDS) •SOUND •INTERACTIVE •INDUSTRIAL AREA •PUBLIC ART Son-O-House by Nox was initially chosen as an example because of its relevence to the LAGI competition. The public pavilion is located in a large industrial park where “visitors can sit around, eat their lunch and have meetings” (Archspace, 2014). In addition, the structure itself is interactive with 23 sensors within the building allowing visitors to participate in the composition of a musical experiment which can be heard within the structure.

Our team has been discussing incoporating interactive elements into their LAGI competition design.

However, after further research I realised ‘Son-O-House’ is in fact not a good example of computational design.

In many ways, my initial interest in this building relates more to traditional formal characterists of architecture such as location and function, which have been engrained in me through previous studios but which I want to let go of in this studio. The building has thus been analysed as a learning exercise to why it is not computational architecture.

Peters (2013) refers to ‘computerisation’ distincly from ‘computation’. ‘Computatation’ allows users to extend their abilities, imagine the unimaginable building, and go beyond a form they may have preconcieved in their mind. In contrast, ‘computerisation’ refers to the use of computers and technology to help realise ideas that are preconcieved in the mind of the designer.

The design process of Son-O-House was first developed through physical sketch modelling and later digitised.

Thus, whilst computerisation may have played a vital part in enabling it’s construction, the design process involved was infact more traditional than I first thought.

“ ‘Computatation’ allows users to extend their abilities, imagine the unimaginable building, and go beyond a form they may have preconcieved in their mind. In contrast, ‘computerisation’ refers to the use of computers and technology to help realise ideas that are preconcieved in the mind of the designer.” (Peters, 2013)

14

A3: composition / generation

Michael HanMeyersubdivided columns (2011/12)

•ORNAMENT + FORM CONTINUOUS •ENDLESS PERMUTATIONS •LASER CUT 1MM THICK SHEETS

“In each case I didn’t design the form, I designed the process that generated the form” (Hanmeyer, 2012)

Computational design, as opposed to computerisation, is defined by its ability to generate form beyond the imagination of anything the designer could themselves alone concieve or draw. Thus, todays understanding of digital design sees a shift from composition to generation, whereby the computer becomes an integral part of the generation of a design rather than simply a tool to aid 2D or 3D representation of a preconcieved idea (as with Son-O-House). As Hanmeyer stated in his 2012 TED talk, “we are moving from an era where architects use software to one where they create software.”

This notion is evident in Hanmeyer’s ‘Subdivided columns’. Here algorithms are key to the generation of the design. Algorithms are used as intelligent design agents to explore and discover endless iterations within Hanmeyer’s set parameters. “In each case I didn’t design the form, I designed the process that generated the form.”

An interesting byproduct of this type of digital fabrication is that unlike traditional architecture, the overall form and the minute detail are all fabricated as one. This throws traditional readings of form and ornamentation out the window and highlights the endless possibilities that could potentially be achieved when digital design and fabrication are eventually integrated into the mainstream construction industry.

15

KOKKUGIA FIBROUS HOUSE TEXAS- 2012

•STRANDS •FIBROUS ASSEMBLAGES •COMPOSITE FIBRE TECHNOLOGIES The generative computational methodology of Kokkugia’s experimentation is perhaps best explained by the artists own explanation of their work. “The articulation and readaing of the project is inseparable from its methodology – it is a vivid expression of the intensive algorithmic process of its becoming” (Kokkugia, 2014). It is clear that the generative nature of the computational algorithm and the design process is one and the same thing in the eyes of the artist.

“The articulation and reading of the project is inseperable from its methodology - it is a vivid expression of the intensive algorithmic process of its becoming” (Kokkugia, 2014)

» Prototype

A4: coNCLUSION 16

After researching numerous design approaches, our team has developed the following mission statement:

“A naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical energy through kinetic motion” We are interested in harvesting ocean wave (tidal) energy, since the LAGI site is located in a harbour. We are also interested in creating an interactive environment where visitors to the site will help create energy through walking/climbing over/through/under/around oscillating surfaces that could be linked to the main energy harvesting system in the water. Experientially, visitors will ‘feel the tide’.

»Wave Farm

17

» Our Team (left to right): Jo de Klee, Antony Maubach and Nick Love

A5: Learning outcomes “Setting parameters needs to be our team’s focus in the coming few weeks.”

(Antony Paulo Maubach , 2014)

At the beginning of the semester parametric architecture felt competely foreign to me. This is because the formal design processes that I have thus far become accustomed to, such as sketch modelling and sketching with a pencil, are no longer the central focus of the design process. I am now coming to understand the role of computation and algorithms in the design process, and the importance of learning to ‘steer’ these by ‘setting parameters’. I think ‘setting parameters’ needs to be our team’s focus in the coming few weeks.

18

A6: REFERENCES Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), pp. 1–16 Schumacher, Patrik (2011). The Autopoiesis of Architecture: A New Framework for Architecture (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 1-28 Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 08-15 Ferry, Robert & Elizabeth Monoian, ‘Design Guidelines’, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014. pp 1 - 10 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 1–10 Kalay, Yehuda E. (2004). Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 5-25 Rabee M, Reffat., Architectural Exploration and Creativity using Intelligent Design Agents, University of Sydney,NSW 2006, Australia Theo Jansen, ‘Beast’, accessed 20/03/14 from http://www.strandbeest.com Michael Hansmeyer, ‘Subdivided Column’, accessed 25/03/14 from http:// www.michael-hansmeyer.com Kokkugia, ‘Fibrous House’, accessed 24/03/14 from http://www.kokkugia. com/fibrous-house Arcspace, ‘Son-O-House, accessed 22/03/14, from http://www.arcspace. com/features/nox/son-o-house/ Matsys Design, CHRYSALIS (III), accessed 16/03/14 from http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/ TED, ‘Michael Hansmeyer: Building Unimaginable Spaces’, accessed 24/03/14 from http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_building_unimaginable_shapes#t-343509 ArchDaily, ‘The Plug-In City’, accessed 13/03/14 from http://www.archdaily. com/399329/ad-classics-the-plug-in-city-peter-cook-archigram/

19

20

PART B CRITERIA DESIGN

21

CRITERIA DESIGN “Options are evaluated, tested and selected.”

(AIA, 2013)

“Develop a particular technique or tectonic system using computational methods through case study analysis, parametric modelling & physical prototypes.”

(Studio AIR Course Reader, 2014)

22

LAGI INTRODUCTION

“The Land Art Generator Initiative (LAGI) brings together artists, architects, scientists, landscape architects, engineers, and others in a first of its kind collaboration. The goal of the Land Art Generator Initiative is to see to the design and construction of public art installations that uniquely combine aesthetics with utility-scale clean energy generation. The works will serve to inspire and educate while they provide renewable power to thousands of homes around the world.”

(Land Art Generator, 2014) In response to the 2014 Copenhagen LAGI design competition brief, two classmates and I have formed a design collective with the ultimate aim of submitting an informed design proposal. We intend to create a public space that promotes social interaction, education & sustainable discourse.

“We intend to create a public space that promotes social interaction, education & sustainable discourse.” (Antony Paulo Maubach, 2014)

23

1. Oscillating Playgrounf Equipment

“A NATURALLY OSCILLATING MESH SYSTEM AIDED BY HUMAN INTERACTION CREATING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH KINETIC MOTION.”

2. Jetty free to move up and down

24

B1: RESEARCH FIELD -TESSELATION

•ORNAMENT •REPEATED GEOMETRIES •CAN BE USED STRUCTURALLY, FOR EXAMPLE AS BLOCKWORK

Metamorphosis 2, M. C. Escher, woodcut, 1939/40

Tesselation is one method of designing that can be powerfully enhanced through parametric design. Grasshopper automation allows quick and easy variation of tesselated shapes in stark contrast to traditional hand drawing or CAD techniques. It will be shown that this has tremendous implications for panelisation, joinery, the use of repetitive building elements and their function in the makeup of complex surfaces. As such, it is a particularly compelling, relevent & popular area of study. Projects such as ‘Voussair Cloud’ by IwamotoScott (2008), ‘Spanish Pavillion’ by Foriegn Office Architects (Expo 2005) & ‘EXOtique’ by PROJECTiONE (2009) have utlised tesselation with succesfull design outcomes achieved and have therefore been analysed as precedence examples herein.

This chapter will first explore the potential of tesselation through Case Study 1.0 - ‘Voussair Cloud’ by IwamotoScott (2008). This study involved exploring and expanding on a grasshopper defintion provided by The University of Melburne.

Case Study 2.0; the reverse engineering of ‘Spanish Pavillion’ by Foreign Office Architects (Expo 2005), will then be shown. This project was chosen for its use of tesselated elements and is the first major grasshopper project I have conducted with a formal end form in mind, in contrast to previous experimentations. As such, this phase of the design begins to include more formal considerations such as scale, habitability and constructability (fabrication) - all in the context of the LAGI design competition.

In presenting the aforementioned studies, and subsequently developing those techniques that worked succesfully further to the design prototype and proposal stage, it will be argued that tesselation is an important part of architectural parametric design and has strong potential to be used in our team’s LAGI design competition entry- in particular in combination with panelling on a surface.

Modern parametric design is a powerful tool in this field of study since it allows repeated elements to function as both ornamental and stuctural elements, due to the precision at which individual elements can be fabricated. This means that rather than placing ornamental geometries onto a structural surface, an ornamental geometry can also be in integrated into the structural system. As such, I aim to use this precision to create a tesselated system that is both structural and ornamental.

“I aim to use this precision to create a tesselated system that is both structural and ornamental.”

(Antony Paulo Maubach, 2014)

HISTORY

25

It is perhaps important to realise that whilst tesselation is popular in modern parametric design (see aforementioned examples), it is by no means a new concept. For example, Classical Roman architecture exhibited many interiors treated with tesselated elements -often with mosaic (Smith et al., 2009, p.183). In addition, the 9th century ‘Alhambra’ Islamic palace in Grenada features tesselated decorations such as ‘muqarnas’ (stalactite ceiling decorations). Tesselation in the past was not only restricted to ornamentation, for example the repetitive placement of columns in the Alhambra can be seen as a form of structural tesselation, as can Gaudi’s repetitive curved walls seen at Park Guell (1900-1914) as well as his self supporting curved facade at Casa Mila (1906-1910) in Barcelona.

4. Muqarnas - Alhambra, Grenada, Spain, 9th Century.

5. Muqarnas - Alhambra, Grenada, Spain, 9th Century.

5. Tesselation - Alhambra, Grenada, Spain, 9th Century.

6. Park Guell, Antoni Gaudi, 1900-1914, Barcelona

7. Casa Mila, Antoni Gaudi, 1906-1910, Barcelona

26

Columns are traditionally created from heavy modular elements. This project utilises the fabrication accuracy of computational architecture to create 3D ‘petal’ elements •STRUCTURAL TESSELATION that are formed by folding wood laminate •PURE COMPRESSION along curved elements. Similarly, our de•ULTRA LIGHTWEIGHT MATERI-sign collective hopes to be able to use such AL (THIN WOOD LAMINATE) fabrication accuracy to our advantage when •VAULTS •SURFACE TENSION prototyping. Each block fits tightly against the next, allowing forces to be transferred through the structure via adjacent dished “STRUCTURAL AND faces that are cable tied together. The comMATERIAL putational strategy is based on the notion STRATEGIES ARE that the curvature of each element is deINTENTIONALLY pendent on surrounding petals.

‘VOISSOIR CLOUD’ IWAMOTOSCOTT (2008)

CONFUSED.” (Iwamotoscott, 2014)

ECEDENTS PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS PRECEDENTS PRECE

27

‘EXOTique’ PROJECTiONE (2008)

•STRUCTURAL TESSELATION • LOW BUDGET ($500 USD) •WHITE ACRYLIC + POLYSTYRENE •NON PLANAR GEOMETRY INFORMS MATERIAL CHOICE •FABRICATION FOCUS (5 DAY PROJECT) •JOINERY •PATTERNING FOR LIGHTING

‘SPANISH PAVILLION’ FOREIGN OFFICE ARCHITECTS (2005)

•FACADE COVERING • AGGREGATION OF REGULAR FIGURES •6 DIFFERENT BLOCKS •HEXAGONAL BASE •TESSELATION//BIOMIMICRY •INFLUENCED BY ISLAMIC RELIGOUS ORNAMENT

28

B2: CASE STUDY 1.0 ‘VOISSOIR CLOUD’ IWAMOTOSCOTT (2008)

DESIGN

29

Pure compression coupled with an ultra-light material system. Vaults rely on each other and the three walls to retain their pure compressive form. Each vault is comprised of a Delaunay tesselation.

Design draws from the work of Frei Otto and Antonio Gaudi, who used hanging chain models to find efficient form.

“We used both computational hanging chain models to refine and adjust the profile lines as pure catenaries, and form finding programs to determine the purely compressive vault shapes.”

MATERIAL

The three dimensional petals are formed by folding thin wood laminate along curved seams. The curve produces an inflected and dished form that relies on the internal surface tension of the wood and folded geometry of the flanges to hold its shape.

COMPUTATIONAL STRATEGY •curvature of each petal (dished shape) dependent on adjacent voids •plan curvature at each at each petal edge defined by its end points and a set of tangents with neighbouring modules based on the centroid of the adjacent void •sectional deformation proportinally related to plan curvature - amount the petal dishes in section varies proportionally with the plan curvature at each edge •petal edge plan curvature a function of the tangent offest - the more the offset, the greater the curvature •petals flatter (lesser offset) towards the base and edges where they gain density and connect to purely triangluated cells. Petals more curved (more offset) at the top to create the dimpled effect on the interior

CONSTRUCTION + FABRICATION

Batch processed from 3d Rhino model into 2D gemetry (unfolding) for laser cutting.

Cable tied together.

30

ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITE

31

32

SELECTION CRITERIA HIGH

LOW

OCCUPIABLE

•SLIDER SYSTEM

POINTS FOR BUOYS

TYPICAL

ATYPICAL

FABRICATION OSCILLATION CAPABILITY RELEVANCE TO FIELD OF STUDY

In order to assertain what iterations were succesfull, we first had to decide on a selection criteria. Since we are now working as a team of three, it is important to articulate our design direction to one another so that each team member is working towards the same goals. This meant agreeing on a selection criteria that was able to somehow describe what we as designers often feel intuitively but often do not have to communicate during the concept design phase because of the individual nature of most design studios. We realised that criteria such as ‘originality’ or ‘aethetics’ were too broad and subjective, and instead we related our selection criteria to aspects of the LAGI design that we had been developing. This included an occupiable structure that could oscillate and attach to buoys in the water in order to harvest hydrokinetic energy. The fabrication slider refers to the ability to transfer the design into a real world prototype. The typical/atypical slider (the most subjective) is linked to the expected outcomes of experiments, with expected outcomes often but not always resulting in typical forms.

SPECIES A B

PARAMETERS CHANGED

33

•angle of walls •thickness of walls •x,y,z forces (Kangaroo)

•number of base points •radius of piped edges •radius of spheres at intersection of edges •geometry of piping (smooth/

C

•height •x,y,z forces (Kangaroo)

D

•perimeter geometry •x,y,z forces (Kangaroo) •angle of walls

E

•weaverbird (mesh plugin) components

F

•hoopsnake (iterative plugin)

G

•hoopsnake (iterative plugin)

E4

B1

34

G6

35

G6

B4

36

B5

37

38

G4

How can parametric desi of an oscillating structure

ign aid in the fabrication e?

OUTCOMES

E3

How can parametric design aid in the fabrication of an oscilatting structure? This is the next challenge for our project; to use parametrics to its full potential to get the best out of our project. Throughout the iterative process is became more and more clear that the mesh structures (E3 & E4) exhibited the desired properties in accordance with our design criteria. In many ways, a mesh catenary structure is a natural response to a design that calls for oscillation. However, whilst we have experimented extensively in grasshopper to come to these final forms, one aspects of the design that is currently less developed and in need of further exploration is fabrication. In addition, the typical and expected results that have resulted from weaverbird experimentations require further work in order to create something original that is specifically tailored to the site. Whilst we have a final form that we think suits the project, we have to expect that this form will be influenced by the construction method. Since the mesh form is essentially a giant surface, my next step will be to study individual tesselated elements at a much smaller scale in order to try and create a tangible construction system that could be used to construct a prototype. This links to my previously mentioned idea of using tesselated elements that are both structural and ornamental.

39

40

B3: CASE STUDY 2.0

REVERSE ENGINEERING OF FOREIGN OFFICE ARCHITECTS SPANISH PAVILION 2005

tesselation/biomimicry

41

“The source of inspiration for the covering of the facade were the Islamic celosias, the Gothic rose windows and late-Gothic insets of the catherdals of Toledo, Seville and Segovia.”

“A gemoetrical pattern arises from the aggregation of regular figures that form a uniform design in variable scale.”

“The challange met by FOA was to find an irregular design that would create a fluid pattern without being repeditive. The skin of the building is formed by 6 different blocks, that rise from a hexagonal base (like most of the decorative elements in Gothic and Islamic art).”

(Architecture Library, 2014)

PROCESS

plane (eg

42

side length number of sides

angle between sides

1. Create basic hexagon shape (side length and angle are parametric and based on a centrepoint)

centrep

2. Offset hexagon to create inner edge (parametric)

3. Extrude hexagon (parametric)

4. Tesselate hexagon on planar surface (width and height of planar surface is parametric. So to is the number of hexagons applied to the planar surface)

5. Adjust hexagon angle (p

xy)

distance

distance

yes

distance x 43

BASE GEOMETRY

OFFSET

CAP

no

point

parametric)

EXTRUDE

6. Cap hexagons as required

APPLY GEOMETRY TO A SURFACE

distance y

7. Adjust base geometry, offset, extrude and cap parameters as required

44

8. Adjust width and height of wall surface as required (surface size is parametric)

45

46

UNEXPECTED RESULTS

47

EXTENDING THE DEFINITION 48

49

50

B4: Technique: development B2 RESULT

[ALGORORITHMIC STRATEGY]

LAGI PROJECT

51

[SELECTION CRITERIA]

HIGH

LOW

OCCUPIABLE

•SLIDER SYSTEM

POINTS FOR BUOYS

TYPICAL

ATYPICAL

FABRICATION OSCILLATION CAPABILITY RELEVANCE TO FIELD OF STUDY Explorations thus far have lead our team to develop an algorithmic strategy (see left). We aim for the overall form to be an organic oscillating mesh type structure.

This mesh will be tesselated with gometric components that will give the surface of the overall form texture and atmosphere and ultimately make it constructable. As such, the design currently operates at two distinct scales. We decided to focus on the overall form of the structure for B4, and as such this section focuses on organic mesh forms.

52

ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS IT

53

54

ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS ITERATIONS IT

55

56

OUTCOMES

Series E is developing into a succesful architectural form in accordance with our seleciton criteria. This form (for example E8) distinguishes itself due to the clear openings for the buoys, the clear entrance and exit ways and its potential as a mesh to oscillate. In addition, Particular areas of the form are beginning to resemble spaces that match our team’s ideas for the program of the space - for example an ampitheatre, jetty, swimming area & areas that promote social interaction. The next challenge is to implement our algorithmic strategy on series E by apply panelling to the surface and looking at areas at a zoomed in scale. This will help create spaces that are more atypical in accordance with our selection criteria. In addition, these technique must also be tested through fabrication.

E8

57

58

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

SiT - PROTOTYPES SKETCH MODEL EXPLORATION

59

B5: Technique: PROTOTYPES

60

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

SiT - P R O T O T Y P E - 1

1

61

B O U Y & S T R U C T U RAL SKELETON

62

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

SiT - P R O T O T Y P E - 2

2

63

BALL AND SOCKET SKELETAL SYSTEM

64

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

SiT - P R O T O T Y P E - 3

3

65

MESH DRAPE ON S T R U C T URAL S K E L E T O N

66

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

SiT - P R O T O T Y P E - 4

67

CABLE TIE MESH

68

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

SiT - P R O T O T Y P E - 5

5

69

RESIN MOULD

70

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

SiT - P R O T O T Y P E - 6

6

71

BALSA & FOAMBOARD WORKING PROTOTYPE

72

PROTOTYPE OUTCOMES

The link between the design and materiality was evident throughout the prototyping phases. The resin mould failure exemplified this notion. This type of material was inapproriate for such a tension catenary structure. Our group initially struggled with finding a way to computer fabricate something that has an oscillating quality. We tried to 3D print a ball and socket system to highlight the oscilating structural system, but after submitting our design to the fab lab we found out the following week that it could not be printed. This faillure was a learning exercise in itself and made us recognise our knowledge gap between design and fabrication as well as the fact that one should always submit printing very early.

Throughout the design phase our group discussions have often involved the aetshetic and experiential concerns of the structure, but in hindight we could have put more emphasis on fabrication. It was interesting to study the ‘Exotique’ - Projectione (2008) precedent design, which had a strong emphasis on fabrication as a core design concern. This is something we could emulate, rather than focusing on pretty renders which is typical of more standard non-computastional design studios. That being said I believe the cable tie mesh performs structurally similarly to our desired mesh in that it is semi-rigid and oscilattes, and the design direction for part C has been set. Importantly, the cable tie mesh incorporates both a mesh and tesselated elements within it’s structural form which is in line with our algorithmic strategy.

73

[SELECTION CRITERIA]

HIGH

LOW

OCCUPIABLE

•SLIDER SYSTEM

POINTS FOR BUOYS

TYPICAL

ATYPICAL

FABRICATION OSCILLATION CAPABILITY RELEVANCE TO FIELD OF STUDY

74

B6: Technique

ue: PROPOSAL

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

SPINE

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

B7: LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES Feedback from the crit included the fact that we had too broad of a focus and had too much going on. It was suggested that we could narrow this focus by concentrating on specific areas of the structure. For example by turning our attention to specific segments of the structure and designing a jetty or an amphitheater, rather than thinking of the structure as a single whole. Segmenting the mesh into functional areas could work very well with the algorithmic strategy we have in place, since different areas could be segmented and panelled differently. This will create differing characters and senses of place within the site, which will transfer to a differing experiential journey through the site. I am interested in playing with the scale of tessellated elements in different segments of the mesh. In addition, we were also encouraged to create some areas of the mesh that are solid (for example leisure area) and some that move (for example the jetty). Furthermore, we were encouraged to incorporate the structural system within the tessellated elements rather than having a seperate skeletal system to support the mesh. This could lead us to study the joinery between tessellated elements which could better utilise computational/parametric techniques.

103

B8: REFERENCES Cf. AIA National and AIA California Council, Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide (AIA 2007 [cited 28 February 2013]); available from http://www.aia.org/groups/aia/ documents/pdf/aiab083423.pdf.

(Land Art Generator, 2014) website http://www.landartgenerator.org/ accessed 03/05/14 (Iwamotoscott, 2014), accessed 04/05/14 from http://www.iwamotoscott.com/ VOUSSOIR-CLOUD (Smith et al., 2009), Architecture Classic and Early Christian’, accessed 02/05/14 from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29759/29759-h/29759-h.htm (Projectione, 2014), accessed 28/04/14 from http://www.projectione.com/exotique/ (Digitalarchfab, 2014), accessed 28/04/14 from http://digiitalarchfab.com/portal/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Spanish-Pavilion.pdf (Architecture Library, 2014), accessed 28/04/14 from http://architecture-library. blogspot.com.au/2013/12/spanish-pavilion-expo-2005-haiki-aichi.html

104

PART C DETAILED DESIGN

105

“The detailed design phase concludes the WHAT phase of the project. During this phase, all key design decisions are finalised.� (Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, p. 26)

This part focuses on the development of a realistic yet innovative design proposal.

The outcome of this stage is a fully documented and convincingly argued dsign that is critically positioned in contemporary architectural discourse.

INTERIM PRESENTATION REFLECTION 106

After stepping away from the project for a week, the strengths and weaknesses of the project as highlighted in the interim presentation began to make a lot of sense in the context of the overall design direction. Our group considered this feedback and made a list of the strengths and weaknesses of our design. We realised we could not be precious about aspects of the design that we had always liked but that were not working succesfully. As such, we used the fresh perspectives of the guest crits to help us define new challenges for the project and set up a finish line.

STRENGTHS

•SELECTION CRITERIA + GROUP DIRECTION. AS A TEAM WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS THE SAME GOALS SINCE WE HAVE ALL AGREED ON A SELECTION CRITERIA •OVERALL FORM. A WELL THOUGHT OUT GRASSHOPPER DEFINITON THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE ADAPTED TO NEW CONDITIONS (CHANGE OF LOCATION ON SITE, NEW INPUTS ETC).

•FUNCTIONALITY - PURPOSE/ OF THE SITE (COMMUNITY DRIVEN INTERACTIVE SPACE) AS WELL AS ENERGY HARVESTING SYSTEM (KINETIC ENERGY) HAS BEEN INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT THE DESIGN PROCESS.

PREVIOUS ALGORORITHMIC STRATEGY

LAGI PROJECT

NEEDS IMPROVING

•ALGORITHMIC STRATEGY. PROTOTYPE EXPERIMENTATION IN PART B HIGHLIGHTED THE REDUNDANCY OF THE TESSELATED ELEMENTS. THE TESSELATED ELEMENTS EXPLORED WERE MORE SUITED TO MASSED CONSTRUCTION (EG BLOCKWORK). NEW DIRECTION - SECTIONING •CONSTRUCTABILITY. THE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS MAKING UP THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED. THIS IS LINKED TO THE FAILURE OF THE PREVIOUS ALGORITHMIC STRATEGY. NEW DIRECTION - SECTIONING •PROGRAM. TOO MUCH PLANNED WITHOUT FULLY DEVELOPING ANY ONE SPACE. CONCENTRATE ON FEWER SPACES AND MAKE THEM WORK. NEW DIRECTION - EVENTS SPACE + JETTY (FOCUS ON THESE TWO).

•COMPUTATIONAL ACCURACY. PREVIOUS PROTOTYPES DID NOT FULLY UTILISE THE ACCURACY OF LASER CUTTING AND 3D PRINTING. WE SHOULD UTLISE THE ACCURACY OF OUR GRASSHOPPER/RHINO MODEL TO AID IN THE EXPLANATION OF HOW THE STRUCTURE WORKS. NEW DIRECTION - UTILISE LASER CUTTING AND 3D PRINTING

107

108

C1: DESIGN CONCEPT

SECTION In part B we struggled to accurately prototype our overall form. Whilst I was confident we had reached a succesfull overall form by conducting extensive grasshopper experimentations guided by specific selection criterion, a disconnect between the structural system and the oscillation requirement (energy generation system) remained. I believe this is due to the fact that we were still thinking in terms of ‘computerisation’. That is, we were using grasshopper to generate aethetically pleasing renders and forms, yet the inherent structural systems of these forms remained as imaginations in our mind rather than inherently built into and guided by the grasshopper model. For example, the use of tesselated geometric shapes such as hexagons applied to a surface was initially aesthetically appealing and resulted in some nice renders, yet had little relevance to the driving idea of osccilation and was more suited to mass construction. This disconnect was highlighted through prototyping failures.

109

NING

After discovering and consequently experimenting with sectioning tools in Rhino, it became apparent that sectioning could be used as a simple strategy to reduce our complex form into manageable and constructible elements. This new design direction recognised that the previous hexagonal tesselated elements had become redundant and were no longer required.

110

CONSTRUCTION STRATEGY

SPINE

RIBS

The guest critics at our part B presentation commented that the spine skeleton analogy was strong and that we should develop this further.

This positive feedback, in addition to our new sectioning direction and the LAGI site’s history as a former ship building area, led us to research ship building techniques and in particular their structural ‘skeletal’ systems.

We discovered ship building techniques that complimented aspects of our design, for example the use of repeated sectioned structural elements and curved timber members. Furthermore, a boat’s ‘keel’, which can be both structural as well as a hydrodynamic element, draws strong comparisons with the requirements of our structural spine from which the oscillating ribs hang. This is because the spine is a structural element from which the ribs must hang, yet it must also house the spring elements that harvest the oscillation/kinetic energy. Thus, the study of succesful yet simple shipbuilding techniques helped us to simplify our system down to something more tangible.

111

VIKING LONGSHIP source: whenonearth.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/viking-ship-museum-roskilde-woe1.jpg http://whenonearth.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/viking-ship-museum-roskilde-woe1.jpg

RIB ELEMENT

112

RIB AND SPINE DETAIL CONCEPT

SPINE

RIB ELEMENTS

RIB ALIGNMENT

SPINE DETAIL A B

B

A= Rotational joint (main spine, enables rib to swing left to right) B = Rotational Joint (individual rib, enables rib to contract + expand)

The spine is analogous to the keel of a boat, since a keel can act both as a structural element as well as a hydrodynamic element. Similarly, the spine is a structural element in that it must hold up the ribs hanging from it, yet it must also utilise and harvest the oscillation potential of the timber ribs.

113

Spine detail exploded view

Rib Alignment

Keel

The design of the rib alignment again drew parallels to ship construction. In order to create a habitable platform the ribs must align. This is similar to the planks of a ship’s curved hull that must also align and become watertight. We decided to aim for the ‘carvel-built’ method where each element butts up to the next in order to creat a smooth and safe walking platform in our structure. The required accuracy of these butt joints is something that can be complimented by the accuracy of computational design.

114

ALGORITHMIC TECHNIQUE Generate Sinuous Organic Form

Trim Entry/Exits (Anchors)

Apply an Exoskeleton

1. Relax Form (Kangaroo Mesh Relaxing)

Create Spine Line

Apply Section

3. Pipe Line Thicken to Suggest Material

Sweep with 3 sided polygon

2. Determine Width of Segments & Gaps (Populations of Curves)

Social Hull

115

1.

2.

3.

116

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS Material (1): Flexible Timber Material (thickness and materiality influences ability to flex

1. 1.5mm plywood

Initial prototype

Unroll parametric grasshopper model into Rhino to create accurate 2D cutting schedule Cutting Schedule (2). Size of each rib and direction of timber grain influences ability to flex.

Perferations (3) can also be used to control flexure (4) and lighting affects (5). ‘Carvel’ butt joints (6) are strategically located where elements meet at the floor.

3. Diamond perferations

4. Perferations controlling flexure

Cut material with laser cutter.

Steam material (6) such that it flexes adequately (hold over boiling water for one to two minutes)

Use designed spine joint to attach each rib to spine.

5. Perferations controlling lighting affects

Socio Hull

117

6. Steaming the plywood 2. Cutting schedule used for a 1:25 prototype (not to scale)

3. Circular perferations

6. Flat Butt joints

118

C2: TECTONIC ELEMENTS SPINE SPECIES // 1 •SINGULAR ELEMENT •ROPES AS VERTICAL SUPPORT IN ADDITION TO SELF STRENGTH OF TIMBER •TIMBER FLEXES WITH APPLIED PERPENDICULAR FORCE •SPRINGS + SOLANOIDS TRANSLATE ROPE EXPANSION + CONTRACTION INTO ELECTRIC CURRENT •SPRING + SOLANOID HOUSED IN RECTANGULAR CASING •SYSTEM LACKS HANGING CONNECTION TO MAIN HORIZONTAL SPINE

SPINE SPECIES // 2

•SINGULAR ELEMENT THAT CAN BE ARRAYED •ROPES AS VERTICAL SUPPORT IN ADDITION TO SELF STRENGTH OF TIMBER •TIMBER FLEXES WITH APPLIED PERPENDICULAR FORCE •SPRINGS + SOLANOIDS TRANSLATE ROPE EXPANSION + CONTRACTION INTO ELECTRIC CURRENT •SPRING + SOLANOID HOUSED WITHIN CURVED TRIANGULAR SPINE •TRIANGULAR SPINE FORM ALLUDES TO KEEL/BOAT INSPIRATION •SPINE INCORPORATES CONNECTION TO MAIN HORZONTAL STEEL SPINE THUS ENABLING ARRAYED ELEMENTS TO HANG SIDE BY SIDE •SYSTEM LACKS COLUMN CONNECTION TO GROUND

SPINE DEVELOPMENT SPINE DEVELOPMENT SPINE DEVELOPMENT SP

119

SPINE SPECIES // 3

•SINGULAR ELEMENT THAT CAN BE ARRAYED •ROPES AS VERTICAL SUPPORT IN ADDITION TO SELF STRENGTH OF TIMBER •TIMBER FLEXES WITH APPLIED PERPENDICULAR FORCE •SPRINGS + SOLANOIDS TRANSLATE ROPE EXPANSION + CONTRACTION INTO ELECTRIC CURRENT •SPRING + SOLANOID HOUSED WITHIN CURVED TRIANGULAR SPINE •TRIANGULAR SPINE FORM ALLUDES TO KEEL/BOAT INSPIRATION •SPINE INCORPORATES CONNECTION TO MAIN HORZONTAL STEEL SPINE THUS ENABLING ARRAYED ELEMENTS TO HANG SIDE BY SIDE •STRUCTURAL COLUMNS INCORPORATED INTO ARRAYED SYSTEM

PLAN

ELEVATION

120

121

C3 FINAL MODELS

122

FINAL MODEL // 1

•WORKING PROTOTYPE •FLEXIBLE AEROPLY •3D PRINTED PLASTIC SPINE WITH WORKING SPRINGS + ROPE - EXPAND + CONTRACT SYSTEM •1:10 SCALE

123

124

ETAILS DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS DETAILS DETAI

125

126

FINAL MODEL // 2

•POP RIVETTED SPINE SYSTEM IS A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF MODEL 1 SPINE •MODEL 2 HIGHLIGHTS THE ABILITY OF THE ARRAYED UNDULATING RIBS OF VARYING DIAMETERS TO CONJOIN TO CREATE THE OVERALL DESIGNED FORM •PERFERATIONS HELP CONTROL CURVATURE + INTERNAL LIGHTING AFFECTS •1:25 SCALE

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

FINAL MODEL // 3

•3D PRINTED FINAL FORM ON LAGI (COPENHAGEN) SITE •MODEL 1 AND MODEL 2 SHOW CONSTRUCTABILITY OF DESIGN. MODEL 3 SHOWS FINAL FORM OF DESIGN •1:250 SCALE

135

136

137

138

139

140

LAGI DESIGN COMPETITON

C4

FINAL SUBMISSION

141

DESIGN INTENT SOCIO HULL COPENHAGEN SOCIO HULL is an interactive oscillating space that harvests the kinetic energy of visitors in addition to fostering their creative sustainable ideas. SOCIO HULL recognises that the long-term rise of sustainable technologies and practice is inherently linked to education and the strength of community networks (social capital). As such, community engagement is SOCIO HULL’s guiding principle.

Visitors experience the structure through a series of sectioned ribs, which oscillate much like a sway bridge. Composed of architecturally formed recycled plywood timber, these ribs reference the historical significance of the area as a former shipyard. The ribs conjoin to form a structure that initially presents itself as a serious of mysterious passageways fit for the adventurous adult of child alike. These passageways then propagate into a series of habitable nodes that programmatically function as educational & event spaces. The energy of visitors is harvested as both tangible electrical energy and metaphorically through the energy of idea generation. SOCIO HULL is envisioned as a space for a variety of formal events including public lectures and discussions, music concerts (for example Distortion Music Festival) and markets, in addition to everyday leisure activities. SOCIO HULL aims to support Copenhagen’s long-term commitment to sustainability (carbon neutral by 2025) through providing an ongoing, flexible events based relationship with the city.

The oscillating structure utilises the structural properties of locally sourced recycled timber sheeting. The natural tendency of this material to flex when subjected to perpendicular forces compliments the requirements of an oscillating platform system. The rope and spring system used to harvest the kinetic energy are the lungs that allow the ribs to breathe and in doing so animate the whole system.

142

TECHNOLOGY USED - KINETIC

In harnessing the kinetic energy that humans transfer onto the suspended timber ribs, SOCIO HULL adopts the use of ‘permanent magnet linear generators’ (PMLG). The generators use a neodymium magnet within a copper solenoid which transfers kinetic energy into a changing current (flux) that inturn outputs a voltage.

This system has been fully integrated into each rib through the spine connection joint (model 1). In establishing this parametric ‘spine and rib’ energy generating system, a vast range of organic , circular-sectioned-based energy generating structures can feasibly be constructed through different rib configurations. This means that different architectural forms can easily be established to suit different sites.

In estimating SOCIO HULL’s energy generating capability, we assume that every visitor will interact with 25% of the structure’s 400 ribs, with two PMLG’s affixed to each rib. One PMLG produces approximately 100W when activated, which can vary depending on the frequency and magnitude of force applied. As a result, SOCIO HULL has the potential to generate 20kWH of power per visitor to the site, which is four times the average amount used by one person per day in Copenhagen (as specified by City of Copenhagen, ‘Copenhageners Energy Consumption’, 2008).

PRIMARY MATERIALS USED

•3,000 square metres of recycled plywood timber (400 ribs, on average 7.5 square metres of timber per rib) • Structural steel spine (290 metres in total for the whole structure) •800 Steel springs, two per rib (energy harvesting components) •800 Copper solenoids, two per rib (energy harvesting components) •800 Neodymium magnets, two per rib (energy harvesting components) •Generator Housing (reclaimed steel)

environmental Impact statement

SOCIO HULL’s design has low embodied energy due to the use of reclaimed timber. This timber is sourced from local building sites and shipyards, thus reducing carbon emissions from transportation of materials.

The structure harvests human kinetic energy and converts it into electricity. This electricity is then used to power all services associated with the site (for example lighting for evening events), with excess energy being directed back to the grid. As such, the overall system results in no net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

A sustainability plan encompassing all public events at the site will be implemented, which will result in efficient public transport access to the site during events (via a ferry service to the structure’s jetty) as well as a rubbish recycling system. In line with the site’s community engagement principles, composting systems will be established onsite as a means to both recycle waste as well as educate the public about sustainable practices. This will compliement the existing community garden at the site that will be retained.

143

CPH COPENHAGEN

Socio Hull.

144

CPH

Site Context.

ANTONY / JOSEPH / NICK Events & festivale - Ship Building.

145

146

KEY SYSTEM ASPECTS

OCCUPIABLE

JETTY

SOCIAL HUB OSCILLATION

Design Intent.

SOCIO HULL CPH.

147

EDUCATION

LEISURE

MULTI PURPOSE EVENTS SPACE ENERGY SYSTEM

148

Arrayed Spine.

Hull.

The Parts.

SOCIO HULL CPH.

Oscillating Ribs.

149

OCCUPIABLE. EXPERIENTIAL. SOCIAL PLATFORM. ENERGY GENERATORS.

150

Permanent Magnet Linear Generators.

Spine.

Recycled ply.

Power Generation.

FARADAYS LAW.

151

Spine Section.

400 ribs.

Two coils per ribs.

20KW/H Per visitor to the site.

152

Oscillation Diagram.

Section.

SOCIO HULL CPH.

153

154

GENERATOR JETT

Y/EN

TRA

NCE

EVENTS

CIRC ULAT ION VIEW

Copenhagen

UND ED

Socio Hull.

ND E D GROU NCE A /ENTR

CPH

GRO

155

156

CPH Copenhagen

Socio Hull.

157

158

CPH Copenhagen

Socio Hull.

159

160

CPH

Socio Hull Team.

Copenhagen JOSEPH DE KLEE // ANTONY PAULO M

.

161

THANKS

MAUBACH // NICK LOVE

162

DESIGN JOURNEY Algorithmic Strategy

Social Interaction

Ocean Wave Power (Oscillation)

Copenhagen Carbon neutral by 2025

Jetty//Dock

INITIAL IDEAS

Events//Music //Art//Talks

Mission Statement: “A naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical energy through kinetic motion.”

“Experientially, visitors will feel the tide.”

CONCEPTUALISATION (PART A)

Education

Swimming Area

Public Lectures/ Discussions

Buoys (Oscillation)

Entry/Exit/People

LEGEND

Sectioning

= dead end

Organic Mesh Tesselation Hexagon Sectioning

Timber Ribs

Springs (Oscillation)

‘SOCIO HULL’

Events Space

DETAILED DESIGN (PART C) + FINAL PRESENTATION

‘SiT’Social Interactive Terminal

CRITERIA DESIGN (PART B) + INTERIM PRESENTATION

)

163

164

C5: LEARNING OBJECTIVES + OUTCOMES Overall, the final crit feedback was very positive. The sectioning technique was seen as a success and I think we used the accuracy of 3D printing and laser cutting to its full potential in our final models. Most important to this success was the fact that our design intent throughout the semester followed a very logical path showing lots of experimentations yet recognised dead ends (for example tessellation) and points at which we needed to alter out strategy to reach our goals. I think our group was very aware of our design direction throughout the semester, and as such our experimentations continually resulted in progress rather than disjointed random ideas. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that alongside the grasshopper experimentations we were always thinking about what the forms would be like experientially. Would we want to inhabit them? What atmosphere would they create? Did they suit our programmatic ideas for the site? Did they suit our energy generating strategy? This awareness has a lot to do with the fact that we sat down as a group and made a thorough ‘selection criteria’ for our experimentations. This was a very powerful and positive thing for the direction of our project, and ensured everyone in the team was putting their energy in the same direction.

The success of our design included the creation of a unique rib and spine system that harvests energy, yet is at the same time habitable and experientially interesting. However, there are always aspects of a project that in hindsight could be improved. For me, these potential improvements are related to the overall scale of the structure on the site, and the butt joints at the bottom of each rib.

Scale: I think the final structure was slightly too large and perhaps overpowered the site. This could be remedied by scaling down the structure to 60-70% of its current size. This would not be problematic for the program of the building, since we could essentially keep the events space and the jetty a similar size and just scale down the circulation/entrance ways. Making the circulation/entrance ways (the ‘arms’ that come out of the events space) very long was part of our strategy to harvest a maximum amount of energy, since visitors would be forced to activate more ribs. As such, scaling down the structure would, from a functional perspective, only influence the power generating capability of the structure.

Rib butt joints: It is evident when looking at a section through the building (see page 152) that we have not fully resolved the butt joints in some areas of our model. Whilst we have shown that the connection works in our prototype species development and in some renders, a more successful model would have every butt joint completely resolved such that the building works everywhere. An attempt to resolve this is shown on page 166.

Conclusion: The central goal of this course has been to introduce students to the approaches of digital architectural design – understood as a significant driver of change in the architectural profession. Before beginning this subject I don’t think I fully understood or comprehended the potential of grasshopper/computation to positively change and enhance the way I design. Through creating this project I have definitely come to understand and appreciate the role of computational architecture.

There is one quote that keeps coming back to me. In part A I researched Michael Hanmeyer’s work, who stated that “ I didn’t design the form, I designed the process that generated the form.” This rang true for me in the latter parts of the semester in relation to our own project. It took a few weeks of experimenting in grasshopper for me to fully put my faith in the algorithm to do the generating, and I was very much still coming in with preconceived ideas of how I wanted forms to turn out. After lots of early experimenting I realised that there is huge potential to create forms that I couldn’t have previously imagined or drawn, and I could infact control the direction of the design by setting parameters. It wasn’t all just random results. The process of learning to ‘steer’ these results in a direction of my choosing was initially daunting but I could to see the potential of it. After reaching this point I invested myself much more in the notion of designing with algorithms. This process eventually culminated in in-depth experimentations and eventual forms that were driven by our choice of algorithmic technique and selection criteria – our parameters. I felt we had a lot of control over the final form of our project and were very aware of the algorithmic choices we had made that resulted in it.

165

Parametrics: There were many interesting discussions in class throughout the semester surrounding the pros and cons of parametric design. First and foremost I have come to the conclusion that the notion of parametric design vs. traditional design methods is nowhere near as (or should not be as) polarised as many make it out to be. The statements of some well known theorists, for example Patrick Schumacker who says that parametricism is “not merely a useful tool, but the enabler of a new kind of architecture,” seems to perpetuate this polarising ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality. Through our project I have learnt first hand the benefits of parametric design. These benefits have included learning to guide the computer to generate complicated organic forms I would not otherwise be able to imagine on my own, being able to design at completelly different but complimentary scales and then incorporate them into the one model (for example panelling small geometric patterns onto pre-existing surfaces of a larger overall form as in part B), and being able to apply systems thinking to a design in order to automate key aspects (for example rib thickness in part C) thus vastly decreasing the time required to adapt the model to different spatial circumstances. However, I do not believe that architecture needs to be completelly redefined or rethought because of new technologies. Computational techniques should be used where appropriate to enhance what we can do, yet I do not feel the need to say it is the ‘best’ or ‘only’ way, or that it is the ‘future’ of design. I can definitely see myself using grasshopper and computational techniques for future projects, yet I will not suggest it is the only way to design and I think some projects may call for other methods.

Whilst paramtertic architecture can result in radical new forms, this does not and should not be the sole purpose of using it, for it risks then being driven by taste rather than problem solving. “Parametricism may be one answer—although exactly to what question remains unclear—but it’s certainly not the answer.” (Rybczynski, 2013).

166

Improvement of rib butt joints after final presentation feedback. The base of each rib has been moved closer to the next.This was changed very easily by altering input values in Grasshopper. This is a great example of the benefits of designing parametrically and the efficiency with which slight changes can be made.

167

C6: REFERENCES

THE END THANKS.