Serpentine Pavilion Proposal by MaxJizhehan

Studio 1 CPU+AI 2020

Max Jizhe Han Jack Seymour Connor Forecast

How can a generative design method be used to create timber gridshells which enhance public space?

Portfolio Contents

1 - Project Introduction Design Statement Key Facts and Geometry CPU + AI Atelier Brief Atelier Workshops

2 - Design Methodology Why Choose a Design Methodology? Introduction to Generative Design The Design Space + Designing Measures Evolutionary Design Learning From Nature + The Problem of Learning Design Optimisation + Inorganic Speciation Design Optimisation With Genetic Algorithms

3 - Serpentine Pavilion Brief Serpentine Pavilion Brief Site Location Time & Weather Constraints Key Brief Themes Previous Pavilion Analysis Lessons From Previous Pavilions Sylvia Lavin on the Contemporary Pavilion 3

4 - Timber Gridshells What Are Timber Gridshells? Why Use Gridshells For Public Space? Comparison to Lightweight Structures Comparison Between Gridshell Materials The Mannheim Gridshell The Savill Building Gridshell Our Gridshell Attributes Example Gridshell Parameters

5 - Public Space Jan Gehl - Life Between Buildings Kevin Lynch - The Image of the City Christopher Alexander - A Pattern Language Comparing Effective to Ineffective Public Space Foster + Partners - City Centre DC Pavilion Spatial Arrangement Gridshell Enhancing Public Space Scenarios

6 - Design Exploration Interior Render Design Parameters Creation Process Abstraction Diagram Descriptive Geometry - Parameters Descriptive Geometry - Measures Design Space Exploration Design Space Exploration - Success and Failures Extreme Design Space Exploration Focussed Design Space Exploration Detailed Design Space Exploration

7 - Pavilion Drawings

8 - Performance Analysis Aerial Render Public Space Quality Natural Lighting Structural Performance Kit of Parts + Pavilion Weight

9 - Technical Detailing Exploded Pavilion Perspective Section 2 Lath to Node Detail Gridshell to Foundation Detail Dusk Render

External Day Render Site + Floor Plans Site Iso Perspective Section 1 Context Elevation

Project Introduction

Design Statement Key Facts + Geometry CPU + AI Atelier Brief Atelier Workshops

Project Introduction

Design Statement This portfolio covers the output of the Studio 1 module in the CPU+AI design atelier. The subject of research for this year is generative design, a process of using algorithms to rapidly iterate through designs through the definition of key design goals. This portfolio exhibits our process of learning about generative design and testing what we have learned by designing a Serpentine Pavilion. The Serpentine Pavilion is an indulgence, a public place for people to visit and enjoy. Therefore, we want to create a geometry which frames a quality public space. To do this we have identified that lightweight structures are an appropriate technology because they can be used for covering the areas of public space which need to be covered, as well as using their form to enhance other features of space, some of which are: by creating a contrast 5

in light and volume from the edge to the centre of a space, creating activity pockets around the edge of a space, and by coming a landmark in a city. Most lightweight structures are built out of steel. However, if construction is to reduce itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s embodied carbon we, as designers, need to find an alternative. Therefore, we have decided to test timber gridshell technologies. There are a few existing examples of timber gridshells which vary in scale that have been built since the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Prominent examples have been the works of Frei Otto and Ted Happold. How can we utilise the structural properties of timber gridshells to enhance public space? It is with this design problem that we will be learning about and testing a generative design methodology.

Project Introduction

Key Facts + Geometric Description Our pavilion uses the structural properties of timber gridshells to enhance public space. The key element of the geometry is the shell. A four-layer lattice of 80x50mm larch laths have been post-formed by being laid out flat and then raised until theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re braced in place at pre-calculated anchor points. This formation method means the laths relax into the most efficient form, based on the length of the laths and the position of the anchor points. The position of the anchor points are where the shell touches the ground, meaning the remaining area of the shell arches over, leaving openings in the space. These anchor points have been tested and evaluated to determine which positions works most efficiently with the structure and which manipulate the geometry to form the most effective public space.

Internally the space can be divided into two key areas: a lowered amphitheatre and a raised, more intimate, series of pockets. An amphitheatre space has been designed because it creates a hospitable edge zone, allowing visitors to sit and feel comfortable whilst looking over a central open space. The roof has been panellised with opaque plywood and transparent ETFE. Opaque panels fade into transparent panels as the shell gets higher, creating a contrast in light from the edge zone to the open space. The overall effect is a gradient of scenarios throughout the pavilion, from intimate and comfortable to open and exposed.

Height: 9m Length: 40m Longest Span: 31m Internal Area: 722m2 Entrances: 5 Pavilion Weight: 97375.9kg

Lath Dimensions: 80x50mm Larch Lath Length: 4234.2m Plywood Panels: 992 ETFE Panels: 439 Steel Nodes: 1045 Steel Foundation Brackets: 68

Project Introduction

CPU + AI Atelier Brief Year Theme

Studio 1 Brief

Perhaps the greatest opportunity for artificial intelligence in design practice today is its ability to leverage another, much older form of intelligence - natural intelligence. Designers have always been inspired by the forms of nature, and their abilities to solve diffcult problems in novel and beautiful ways. However, up to this point our inspiration from nature has been limited to ‘bio-mimicry’, or the reproduction of nature’s physical forms in new designs. Can we go a step further and actually design like nature?

While learning the skills necessary to fullfill the years agenda, the brief for ST1 will be to design a proposal for the Serpentine Pavilion in London.

This term we will explore how we can use new technology to leverage nature’s design methods to create new design workfows:

Components:

1. Instead of designing objects, we will learn to design systems which encode the full range of possibilities of a particular design concept. 2. We will then learn methods for measuring and quantifying the performance of these systems so that each design can be evaluated automatically by the computer. 3. Finally, we will create automated evolutionary processes which will allow the computer to search through our design systems to fnd novel and high-performing designs. Studio 1’s brief will be to use generative design to design a serpentine pavilion. Studio 2 + 3 will focus on one of three scales, taking the knowledge and research from studio 1 and applying it to a new design project.

By using generative design as a formal basis for your design explorations you are asked to engage with the notion of public space, the social opportunities that public space can provide and the type of values that are associated with good public spaces.

1. Design space - create a model that parametrizes the design problem and defines all possible solutions that can be searched by the algorithm. You should be clear in your choice of parameters, and develop a good intuition for how your model navigates the trade-offs of bias/variance and complexity/continuity. 2. Design evaluation - define the objectives and constraints of your model. You should be clear about how these measures relate to the requirements of the design problem, how you value your design, and how you communicate these values to the search algorithm. 3. Design evolution - using the tools covered, run your model through a series of optimization ‘experiments’ to derive novel and high-performing solutions to your design problem. You should be clear about how you are specifying the algorithm’s parameters before each experiment, how you are analyzing and learning

Generative Design Theory

Design Output Serpentine Pavilion

S1 Office Occopancy

Building

Urban Design

S2 S3 7

Project Introduction

Atelier Workshops Throughout the semester we have been doing education workshops which have trained us supplementary skills for the generative design module. The outputs of these workshops have been independent to the Serpentine Pavilion brief but the skills are extremely helpful. We have documented some of the outputs of the workshops here.

Jellyfish House

Grasshopper The jellyfish house exercise helped us train our basic skills in Rhino and Grasshopper, which could be applied to the project later.

Grasshopper is a plug-in for Rhino and is the most common generative design tool, we been training to use grasshopper for modelling in various ways which has been paramount to the project.

Mesh Modelling

Python

Mesh modelling helped us to understand a better way to create organic geometry in 3D modelling software.

Well understand python could help us explore grasshopper more without the boundary of component.

Design Explorer With the help of Design Explorer, Biomorpher and Octopus, which are extensions for Grasshopper. We could generate and evaluate huge number of iterations from pre-setted perimeters. Which becoming the major tool we will use in the project .

Biomorpher

Octopus

Design Methodology

Why Choose a Design Methodology? Introduction to Generative Design The Design Space + Designing Measures Evolutionary Design Learning From Nature + The Problem of Learning Design Optimisation + Inorganic Speciation Design Optimisation With Genetic Algorithms

We want to test MANY POSSIBILITIES for our design in order to create a pavilion using as FEW ASSUMPTIONS as possible. With this in mind we will use a GENERATIVE DESIGN method.

Design Methodology

Why Choose a Design Methodology? Design methodologies are the systems and processes used to translate ideas/data into designs. In architecture the most talked about design methodology is Iterative design, which has been adopted heavily by companies like OMA, MVRDV and BIG. Establishing a consistent design methodology allows these companies to maintain quality without having

a distinct style. Every design company will have a slightly different methodology but larger companies are more likely to formalist their own. Smaller practices are more likely to have an unwritten step of steps which they employ to design. Some of the key reasons to choose a design methodology are:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Design Methodology is understood as a concrete course of action for the design of technical systems that derives its knowledge from design science and cognitive psychology, and from practical experience in different domains. It includes plans of action that link working steps and design phases according to content and organisation.â&#x20AC;? (Pahl et al. 2007)

Rigorously Improve design

Instil a Design Philosophy

Consistent Quality Control

Reduce Design Times 11

Design Methodology

Introduction to Generative Design Generative design is the process of using algorithms to rapidly iterate through designs through the definition of key design goals. The design goals a paramaterised and used create thousands of different design options with supplementary analysis. This leads to a more efficient process and design, and may discover options that were not possible using human methods. Though powerful, it is important to consider generative design as a tool - the final results are still to be weighed up and determined by the designer. The generative design my process may not be suitable for design processes involving abstract goals that cannot be quantified/parameterised.

Generative design has been used to inform opinions on complex design problems, these include; curved surface analysis, floor plan optimisation, material cost analysis and sequencing Generative design is and will continue to be used as a design, testing and evaluating tool, especially as projects increase in complexity. Deeper understanding of briefs and the build environment may open up more projects to the use of Generative design - leading to a more efficient environment.

Research and Data Constraints and Goals

Generate

Evaluate

Evolve

Design Solution An example from Autodesk using a generative design process to organise internal space spaces. Each option is a different mixture of parameters which is then tested against established design measures. 12

Design Methodology

The Design Space

Designing Measures

What is it? The boundary of possibilities in which a species of results exist. In parametric design the design space is the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; which holds all the possible iterations of a given parametric model.

Connection to generative design? A generative design strategy will generate a population of solutions which are bound by the design

space. It is the role of the designer to control the bounds of the design space and then use a method to evaluate the population in order to produce a solution.

Problem? The parameters of the design space and evaluation are controlled by the designer. Some times the problem might be so complex that the inputs are not detailed enough, meaning the solution might not be accurate in reality.

Max Z

In order for an algorithm to evaluate the species of results, measures are required to test the fitness against. The measures are controlled by the designer and are specific to the goal of the design. Measures can be divided into two categories: objectives and constraints.

Connection to generative design?

The design space and measures are the control in

Measure = Max X,Y,Z

Max Y

= Some Possible Results Within Design Space

What is it?

Max Z

generative design. It is these rules within which generative design takes place.

Problem? The computer has no intuition at all â&#x20AC;&#x201D; it cannot reason about design the way we can. Therefore, the computer can only explore the design space based on strict numeric measures that can be deterministically computed from the model, which might difficult for the designer to grasp.

Max Z

Max Y

Result

Design Methodology

Evolutionary Design Software Evolutionary Design is an approach to incrementally grow a system while observing growth patterns and focusing on normalizing and optimizing the growth. When the software industry was born in the 60s it was easy to make a plan for a project. The requirements were clear, well documented and not a lot could change. The development speed was slow and steady, one could predict the delivery time. But after a while when software started to spread around, the complexity of the project grew more and more. It wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t possible anymore to know all the requirements and we started having specializations on areas (testing, programming, compiling, etc), but also on system areas (storage, back end, etc). Waterfall could have worked until the systems grew too complex and nobody could have an overview on the whole thing. With waterfall we create a fixed plan and then we implement it, knowing

that everything works well on each stage. But when complexity was too much, the software industry invented the incremental and iterative approach. We build a part of the system with a concrete deployable result. This is one way of reducing complexity. But then the problem is that we need to envision the future additions to the existing system, so we need to build the current part of the system with the future developments in mind. As architecture becomes more driven by the integration of form generation, manufacturing and assembly, the methodologies which capture and control these criteria become increasingly complex. Considering environmental factors and sustainability in the context of structural stability and efficiency falls out of the realm of being accomplished through manual design methods and can be even beyond that of digital, procedural techniques.

http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/architectural-evolutionary-system-based-on-geneticalgorithms.html

Design Methodology

Learning From Nature

The Problem of Learning Specific algorithm types are best suited to solving complex design based problems that contain hundreds to millions of possibilities. These are called ‘search algorithms’. Unlike neural networks, they do not require knowledge of how the design system works to solve the design problem. The default search algorithm randomly inputs values to key

DNA

parameters to generate different outputs, but with method there is no guarantee to find the best solution. Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are capable of adjusting there search range based on heuristic (“rule of thumb”) definitions that narrow to an optimal result.

GENOME

HEURISTICS

GENETIC ALGORITHM

SEARCH ALGORITHM

NUERAL NETWORK

SPECIES

MUTATION

PHENOTYPE

OPTIMISATION

SYSTEM

Neural Networks

SYSTEM

Search Algorithms

SYSTEM

Genetic Algorithms

Design Methodology

Design Optimisation

Inorganic Speciation Optimization Problem

MATERIAL

LEGS

WEIGHT

Discrete Values

Continuous Values

Permutation Sequences

Input Parameters

Traditional Architectural Process

Supermanoeuvre

max

Objective Functions

Deformation min

TYPOLOGY

Constraint Functions

AREA

MATERIAL PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

TYPOLOGICAL DRIVERS

ALGORITHMIC PROCESS

p p

FORM

GENETIC FORM

Direct Analysis

Gradient descent

Exhaustive Enumeration

Deterministic Methods 16

Heuristic Solutions

Monte Carlo Sampling

Stochastic Metaheuristic Gradient Descent Search

Stochastic Methods 16

Design Methodology

Design Optimisation With Genetic Algorithms “Genetic Algorithms (GAs), a computational technique based on the principles of evolution.” - Eleftheria Fasoulaki (MIT) The original ideas come from research in evolutionary biology but John Holland invented GA’s for optimisation in the 1960s. Genetic Algorithms have mostly been applied to architecture in various types of optimisation and form generation.

Start Population

Fitness Evaluation PTW Architects - Watercube. GA’s optimisation of steel cross section sizes.

New Population

Selection

Crossover

Mutation

Accept New Population

Replace Existing Population

Test Against Goal Condition

If No

If Yes

Optimised 17

In order to use a generative design method we need to realise conflicting PARAMETERS of a timber GRIDSHELL, which we can then vary to MEASURE the quality of PUBLIC SPACE created.

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Serpentine Pavilion Brief Site Location Time & Weather Constraints Key Brief Themes Previous Pavilion Analysis Lessons From Previous Pavilions Sylvia Lavin on the Contemporary Pavilion

We need to study the Galleryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brief in order to establish DESIGN DRIVERS, realise the CONSTRAINTS and the CRITICAL RELEVANCE of designing a pavilion.

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Serpentine Pavilion Brief The Serpentine Pavilion is a pavilion constructed in the gardens of the Serpentine Gallery. Each pavilion is exhibited for four months annually and aims to be “a global platform for experimental projects by some of the world’s greatest architects”. With some exceptions, the pavilions are usually the first works of the architects’ in the UK. Sometimes the pavilions are collaborations between architects and artists, for example the design of Herzog & De Meuron and Ai Weiwei in 2012.

The pavilions can occupy the lawn in front of the main entrance to the gallery and must not disrupt the existing trees on the site. Existing pathways run through the site, which cannot be disrupted, however new paths may be created.

300m2

300m

Cafe

Events

A Magnet for People

Internal Area

Town Square

1750m2

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Site Location The Serpentine Gallery is an art gallery located in Kensington Gardens, London. Established in 1970, the gallery exhibits a variety of international artworks as well as the annual Serpentine Pavilion. The Gallery accommodates 1,208,531 visitors a year, making it the 13th most visited free attraction in the UK according to Visit England. In 1987 the building was grade II listed.

Kensington Gardens is 270 acres park directly adjacent to Hyde park. Kensington Gardens were once the private gardens of Kensington Palace. Together, the parks make up the largest public park in London. The Gallery is located south of the central lake, 150m from the Serpentine Bridge and 800m from the nearest underground station.

St. Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Tate Modern

Serpentine Gallery Design Museum

V&A Museum Tate Britain

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Time + Weather Constraints Due to being a temporary exhibition the pavilion will need to be constructed and demolished over a few months. We will aim to make the pavilion simple to assemble and disassemble in order for it, or itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parts, to be reused in another location. So much consumption of labour and materials cannot be expending just for the pavilion to be used once. A strategy for doing this might be for large parts

JAN

DEMOLITION

of the pavilion to be prefabricated off site. The pavilion will only be fully accessible from June to October, this means that it will not have to bare snow loads. However, with it being the UK, it will have to withstand heavy amounts of rain. Temperature varies quite a lot between June and October so this should be taken into account when defining interior/exterior spaces.

JUN

CONSTRUCTION

OCT

OCCUPATION

DEC

DECOMISSION

AVG. RAINFALL 84mm 38mm JULY

AUG

SEPT

AVG.TEMPERATURE o

19 C

5C JULY

AUG

SEPT

Site 23

Paths Interactive Buttons!

Trees

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Key Brief Themes The Serpentine Pavilion brief is extremely vague except for the requirement to host a cafe and events. Other than those programmatic features there arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t any other directions which drive the themes behind the geometries. The gallery has however released a education pack in which they communicate some things which should be considered when designing pavilions, accompanied with other key phrases which are often used when describing the designs, we have concluded these three themes:

Extend the Boundaries of Architectural Practice

Rights to the City + Public Space

Socially and Ecologically Engaged

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Previous Pavilion Analysis

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Lessons From Previous Pavilions We have broken down the conceptual drivers for the previous Serpentine pavilions into four categories. These catagories seem vague but each pavilion has put a large emphasis on one, or two of thee themes. Due to the temporal nature of the pavilions the designs are generally lightweight in structure but many give the illusion of weight, for example the Herzog and de Meuron pavilion with Ai Weiwei. An example of a project which focusses on geometry is the BIG pavilion in 2016, which uses standard blocks arranged to create a stimulating geometry.

Geometry

Materiality

Circulation Strategy Conclusion

Physical Context 26

Nature

Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve also grouped the circulation strategies of the pavilions into four categories. The circulation strategy of the pavilion is important because they are all meant to be public spaces. The pavilions which perform as the most effective public spaces are the ones which have limited numbers of edges and harder edges which define the space. 26

Serpentine Pavilion Brief

Sylvia Lavin on the Contemporary Pavilion In order to have a critical understanding of what is meant by a pavilion, we have studied a text by Sylvia Lavin called Vanishing Point. Lavin’s key point in the text is that the pavilion is dead because architects use them as exhibitions rather than testing grounds for architectural ideas. She also argues that pavilions used to be practical, useful and serve a purpose,

which, supposedly, they no longer do. An example of a pavilion that is a prototype for further built projects is Le corbusier’s Pavilion de L’Esprit Nouveau, 1925. Which went on to inform numerous of his future projects From reading this theory on pavilions it seems obvious that our pavilion should not be a monument but rather a model for a future real world condition.

Previously

Contemporary Pavillon de l’esprit nouveau, 1925 (above). Villa Savoye, 1931 (below). Both by Le Corbusier.

ARCHITECT +

THEORY

ARCHITECT

PAVILION

PROJECT

PAVILION

PROJECT

The pavilion needs to be an effective PUBLIC SPACE which considers the TIME it will be occupied and the WEATHER conditions of London. The design also needs to be a TEST to inform a future permanent project.

Timber Gridshells

What Are Timber Gridshells? Why Use Gridshells For Public Space? Comparison to Lightweight Structures Comparison Between Gridshell Materials The Mannheim Gridshell The Savill Building Gridshell Our Gridshell Attributes Example Gridshell Parameters

What are the PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES of timber gridshells and how can their GEOMETRY be used to ENHANCE PUBLIC SPACE?

Timber Gridshells

What Are Timber Gridshells? Gridshells are structural systems based on the naturally occurring shell form. It is essentially a shell with holes cut out and the structure concentrated into strips. Gridshells are very light and structurally efficient. Gridshells can be made of steel, concrete or for this project: timber. Timber gridshells are made of long continues pieces, called laths. The laths are laid out flat and then raised or lowered until

theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re braced in place. The bracing can be done in various ways including steel cables, plywood panelling or an extra layer of laths to triangulate the grid. Timber is an effective material for gridshells because it is inherently flexible, can be sourced sustainably and can span long distances. The first timber gridshell is the Mannheim Pavilion, built in 1975 by Frei Otto and Ted Happold.

4 2

Timber Laths

Lath Layering

Sections of timber which are joined into unlimited lengths. The X value is always larger than or equal to the Y value.

Double layering the laths increases the bend and loading strength.

Nodes

Bracing

Fixes laths in place and prevents excess rotation by increasing the shell stiffness.

Triangulates the structure and provides in-plane shear strength.

Shell Edge

Panelling

Stiffens the shell when formed. Can be elevated or on the ground and make in various ways as long as continuous. 31

3 1

Another form of triangulation for stiffening the shell. Can be used to seal the interior space and carry rain, snow and wind 31

Timber Gridshells

Why Use Gridshells For Public Space? There are instances in which public spaces need covering, mostly in order to cover the space from the weather. Some times the spaces need to be covered in order to clearly define the space and signify it’s importance within in the hierarchy of the street scape. For example bus or tram stops can be covered to simultaneously shelter from the rain and

mark where the bus stop is. Shopping centres in towns are often covered for similar reasons, as well as shopping arcades, which are more internal spaces. Gridshells are a great option for covering areas of public spaces for the following reasons:

Sustainably Sourced

Lightweight Structure

Large Spans

Flexible Geometries

Weather Protection

Gridshells can be made of timber which can be sourced from sustainable forests across the UK. Timber construction also has far less embodied carbon than other materials.

Gridshells are a form of lightweight structure meaning that they have a low material to area ratio.

Large spans mean that gridshells don’t require supports which would obstruct the centre of a space, leaving the space unimpeded for people, programme and infrastructure.

Generally public space isn’t an even geometry, a gridshell has a flexible form which means it could inhabit an unusual form which more rigid forms of construction couldn’t.

Primerily the shell will be needed to protect the space from the weather (especially in Manchester). Gridhsells can be covered with transluscent or opaque materials.

Timber Gridshells

Comparison to Lightweight Structures

Structure

Manufacture

Geometry Free

The role of structure is to support live loads down to the ground, which means that any dead loads are waste. A lightweight structure has a small ratio between the dead load and the live loads of the structure. Which means a lightweight structure is as efficient as possible. Different lightweight systems have different attributes. For example a tensile structure (like a tent) is extremely lighteight but cannot loaded or be penalised. Gridshells can be loaded at different points are rigid. Frei Otto is the pioneer of

lightweight structures, his work “lightweight, open to nature, democratic, low-cost, and sometimes even temporary.” Otto also built the first ever timber gridshell, the Mannheim Gridshell, along with Ted Happold (Buro Happold). Buckminster Fuller also researched lightweight structures with his work on geodesic domes and tensegrity structures. There are many contemporary examples of lightweight structures, for example the Millennium Dome in London, a tensile structure by RSH + Partners and Buro Happold.

Square Net Restricted

Triangular Net Free

Textile Restricted

Metal Sheet Frei Otto - Munich Olympic Stadium 33

Schlaich, J. and Schlaich, M. (n.d.) ‘Lightweight Structures.’ MIT. 33

Timber Gridshells

Comparison Between Gridshell Materials Gridshells can be made of any material that can handle loads under compression. True gridshells need to be bent into formation, this means that rigid materials such as steel are not true gridshells. Rigid materials can be used by approximating the shape of the stiffened gridshell then manufacturing beams and connecting into the given form. Materials that can double curve are especially good for grid shells, this is why timber is the traditional material of choice. More contemporary

materials such as glass fibre reinforced cement have been used because they are lighter and stronger than timber, however the material is less sustainable to source. Bamboo is often used in east Asian countries as a construction material. It is extremely sustainable to source because it grows so quickly but itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shape makes it difficult to join to make long lengths of. As an alternate method it is possible to join the bamboo pieces by strapping them together at both ends.

Steel

Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymers

Timber

Bamboo

Steel is very strong which means it is great for structures that appear to be gridshells however due to their rigidity they do not constitute true gridshell structures, which need to be flexible in order to be formed. Steel also has high levels of embodied carbon, making it have a high impact on global warming.

Are extremely lightweight in flexible. This example shows an elastic membrane acting as the bracing structure. However the material is carbon intensive to manufacture and isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t strong enough to hold loads other than itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own weight.

Timber is the typical gridshell material because it is inherently strong and most types are flexible. One the structures are stiffened they can bare loads such as insulation and glazing. Timber can be sustainable sourced in the UK and has low embodied carbon. A downside is that sections need to be joined to create the long laths required.

Bamboo is very strong, flexible and light. It is uncommon, but possible, to source in the UK. A key benefit to bamboo is that new plants can grow to a usable size in as little as 3 years, which is extremely fast compared to trees, making it very sustainable to source.

Timber Gridshells

The Mannheim Gridshell Span = 80m x 60m Layers = 4 Lath Size = 50mm x 50mm Wood = Hemlock Bracing = Twin 6mm Cables Every 6 Nodes Edge = Concrete Ring Beam

Bolted Threaded Bar Node

Grid Dimensions and Edge Structure

Sheer Blocks Supporting Laths

Concrete Ring Beam Stiffening Shell 35

Timber Gridshells

The Savill Building Gridshell Span = 90m x 24m Layers = 4 Lath Size = 80mm x 50mm Wood = Larch Bracing = Plywood Panelling Edge = Steel Perimeter Tube Structural Analysis Model

Positioning Laths Through Pipes

Flat Gridshell

Steel Perimiter Tube and Tapered Laths

Erected Gridshell 36

Timber Gridshells

Our Gridshell Attributes Having researched the structural properties of gridshells we have selected the attributes which will be non-variable in our design process. We decided to make them non variable because we know that these attributes are tried and tested

and therefore work. Most of the attributes are similar to the Savill Building Gridshell (page before). The span and scale of the Savill Shell makes it an appropriate reference for our design.

50mm

80mm

80x50mm Larch Laths

Larch can be sourced the UK, is aesthetically pleasing and has suitable structural properties for grid shells. Sections will be finger jointed with adhesive, similar to the Savill Building Gridshell.

4 2

3 1

4 Layers of Laths on a 1m Grid

The shell will initially be formed using two layers on a 1m grid, which will then be covered by another two layers post forming. The extra two layers will increase the loading capabilities of the roof.

Concealed Threaded Nodes

To connect the laths vertically steel threaded rods will be inserted from below with a minimal fastening. A more substantial fastening will attach above which will attach and support the panels.

Timber Stiffening Edge

The gridshell will be raised a minimum of 2m above the ground by a pre-cast concrete retaining wall. The wall will bare the whole load of the roof and will stiffen the shell the whole way along the perimeter.

Triangulated Panels for Bracing

Triangulated panels will simultaneous enclose the space and brace the grid shell. The panels will be a gradient of transparent to opaque from the edge to centre of the shell.

Timber Gridshells

Example Gridshell Parameters Having selected the fixed attributes of the gridshell we have selected the parameters which will change to articulate the geometry. We then plan to vary these parameters and measure the differences, based on the quality of public space. We recognise that most of the parameters are in plan. This is because the physical attributes such as the lath size, which could be a parameter, are fixed. We have fixed them because based on our research we know those dimensions work at this scale. Varying the form in plan will make a big difference to the internal spaces.

1 6 2

Perimeter Shape

No. Perimeter Anchor Points

Perimeter Anchor Points Position

Size of Anchor Point Groupings 38

Vertical Force / Lath Length

No. Internal Anchor Points

Internal Anchor Points Position 38

Timber gridshells are an appropriate mechanism for creating and enhancing public space because they are: LIGHTWEIGHT, SUSTAINABLY SOURCED, HAVE LARGE SPANS, FLEXIBLE GEOMETRIES and PROVIDE WEATHER PROTECTION.

Public Space

Jan Gehl - Life Between Buildings Kevin Lynch - The Image of the City Christopher Alexander - A Pattern Language Comparing Effective to Ineffective Public Space Foster + Partners - City Centre DC Pavilion Spatial Arrangement Gridshell Enhancing Public Space Scenarios

Before generating forms with the GRIDSHELL we need to know what ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS to create in order to MEASURE what makes an an EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPACE.

Public Space

Jan Gehl - Life Between Buildings In order to understand what makes effective public spaces one of the books we studied was Jan Gehlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Life Between Buildings. The whole book focusses on pedestrian life and the positive impact human-centric town planning can have on communities and inhabitants. We have taken three of the most appropriate theories which can be informed by the geometry of our gridshell.

Max 25m

? 1 - Against monofunctional spaces

2 - Contrast in scale Between the Approach and the Space

3 - Introduce objects along the edge zone to increase the staying effect 42

“The rejection of monofunctional areas is a prerequisite for the integration of various types of people and activities”

“Walking along the edge of a space gives two varied experiences instead of one”

“The quality of experiencing a large space is greatly enriched when the approach occurs through a small space” “Preferred stopping zones also are found along the borders of the spaces or at the edges of spaces within the space.”

“the city’s town hall square is a totally public space”

“Kevin Lynch gives spatial dimensions of around 25 meters as immediately comfortable and well dimensioned in a social context.” 43

“Streets based on the linear pattern of human movement and squares based on the eye’s ability to survey an area”

“Another quality desirable for stationary activities is the opportunity to be partly hidden in half shade, while at the same time having a fine view of the space.”

Jan Gehl’s Key Quotes in Life Between Buildings “The obvious explanation for the popularity of edge zones is that placement at the edge of a space provides the best opportunities for surveying it”

“Standing people tend to congregate around the edges of the square.”

“If the edge fails, then the space never becomes lively.” 43

Public Space

Kevin Lynch - The Image of the City The Image of the City generally focusses on the overall form (image) that constitutes a city. The majority of the parts of the image are made up of public spaces, which means the chapter called City Form applies heavily to the form of public space. The four main features from this chapter which are relevant to our gridshell are:

Nodes

Landmark

Form Simplicity

Visual Scope

“Nodes are the strategic foci into which the observer can enter, typically either junctions of paths, or concentrations of some characteristic.”

“A landmark is not necessarily a large object, it may be a door knob as well as a dome. Its location is crucial: if large or tall, the spatial setting must allow it to be seen; if small, there are certain zones that receive more perceptual attention than others: floor surfaces, or nearby facades at, or slightly below, eye-level.”

“Clarity and simplicity of visible form in the geometrical sense, limitation of parts as the clarity of a grid system, a rectangle, a dome). Forms of this nature are much more easily incorporated in the image, and there is evidence that observers will distort complex facts to simple forms, even at some perceptual and practical cost. When an element is not simultaneously visible as a whole, its shape may be a topological distortion of a simple form and yet be quite understandable.”

“Qualities which increase the range and penetration of vision, either actually or symbolically. These include transparencies; overlaps; vistas and panoramas which increase the depth of vision; articulating elements which visually explain a space; con-cavity which exposes farther objects to view; or the use of characteristic detail to hint at the proximity of another element.”

Public Space

Christopher Alexander - A Pattern Language A Pattern language is an encyclopedia of different design ‘best practices’, called patterns. In total there are 253 patterns, which when strung together, form the language. The patterns vary in scale from city formation to construction detailing. Each pattern systematically proposes a problem and acts to solve it. The book aims to non professional designers the opportunity to design using the language.

Paths and Goals

Activity Pockets

Stair Seats

Intimacy Gradient

“To lay out paths, first place goals at natural points of interest. Then connect the goals to one another to form the paths. The paths may be straight, or gently curving between goals: their paving should swell around the goal.”

“The life of a public space forms naturally around it’s edge. If the edge fails, then the spaces never become lively... The various pockets of activity around the edge should be next to paths and entrances so that people pass right by them as they pass through.”

“In any public place where people loiter, add a few steps at the edge where stairs come down or where there is a change of level. Make these raised areas immediately accessible from below, so that people may congregate and sit to watch the goings-on.”

“In any building or public space people need a gradient of settings, which have different degrees of intimacy... When there is a gradient of this kind people can give each encounter different shades of meaning, by choosing it’s position on the gradient very carefully.”

Public Space

Comparing Effective to Ineffective Public Space We have diagrammed the key features which differentiate an effective from an ineffective town square. The main feature is eliminating physical obstructions across the space, for example roads. This won’t be a problem for our pavilion seeing as we don’t have a road going through the site.

Secondly, and further to Jan Gehl’s analysis, the square needs to have lots of visibility across the terrain, only minimal obstructions should go over eye level. Thirdly the square should have a defined edge which has seating and places to stay against it, this realm is called the edge zone.

Ineffective

Effective

Space dominated by roads and parking

Poor entrances and visually inaccessible

Lack of gathering points

Lack of effective places to sit

Hard edge with no places to stay or sit

Paths linking surrounding elements

Unprogrammed objects to interact with

A central open space

Quality, durable fixed seating

Formal edges zones which accommodate staying

Public Space

Foster + Partners - City Centre DC Paths and Goals

Stair Seats

Against Monofunctional Spaces

Form Simplicity

Introduce objects along the edge zone

Visual Scope

Contrast in scale between the approach and the space

Intimacy Gradient

Node 47

Activity Pockets

Landmark 47

Public Space

Pavilion Spatial Arrangement

? Access Points

Main Open Space

The access points in to the pavilion need to have clear visual scope across the pavilion. The points need to be tight in order to have a comparison in scale between the approach and the space.

An open, central space will occupy the centre of the pavilion. The space will be used for events, talks and will be left free for spontaneous activity.

Edge Zone

Flexible Furniture

A solid edge zone will provide amphitheatre-like seating around the periphery of the space. The seating will be positioned so visitors can look across the open space.

Ample and varied seating will be arrayed around the edge zones of the open space which can be changed/removed depending on the programme of the day.

Public Space

Gridshell Enhancing Public Space Scenarios

Solid perimeter walls which clearly define the boundary to the space

Covered space for technical requirements of the vendor units

Minimal structural obstructions in order to allow maximum views

A roof which blocks the interior space from the rain, allowing the space to be used more often

Varied roof heights in order to create a gradient of spatial experiences

Different light levels within the space to make the edges feel comfortable and secure

Visiting the Serpentine Pavilion is purely a leisure activity, an optional indulgence for visitors to enjoy. The gridshell should facilitate and frame the SPATIAL ARRANGEMENT and PROGRAMMATIC PROVISION needed to offer something that will ATTRACT PEOPLE, give them PLACES TO STAY and INTERACT with one another.

Design Exploration

Interior Render Design Parameters Creation Process Abstraction Diagram Descriptive Geometry - Parameters Descriptive Geometry - Measures Design Space Exploration Design Space Exploration - Success and Failures Extreme Design Space Exploration Focussed Design Space Exploration Detailed Design Space Exploration

We will test the generative design methodology we have been learning in the CPU+AI atelier by applying it to the DESIGN PROBLEM of enhancing public space with timber gridshells. In order to design the pavilion we need to EXPLORE THE DESIGN SPACE. This will give us the scope to explore a vast range of iterations which will lead to a better understanding of what can be OPTIMISED using genetic algorithms.

Design Exploration

Design Parameters Creation

CONNECT RANDOMLY INTERPOLATE RANDOM POINTS GENERATED GENERATED ON SITEPOINTS

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

CHOOSE GRID SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE

CHOOSE GRID SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE

NO. OF PERIMETER ANCHORS

OVERLAY GRID ON CURVE CHOOSE GRID SIZETO FIND INTERSECTION

ANCHOR DIVIDESPECIFY PERIMETRE TO SET ANCHOR SIZE POINTS

NO. OFGRID POINTS: 5-9 CHOOSE SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR GRID SIZE: 0.75 - 1.25m SIZE

NO.NO. OFOF PERIMETER POINTS: 3 - 6 ANCHORS

SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE

NO. OF CENTRAL ANCHORS

NO. OF PERIMETER ANCHORS

NO. OF ANCHORS x FORCE CONSTANT

NO. OF CENTRAL ANCHORS

NO. OF PERIMETER ANCHORS CONNECT RANDOMLY A GENERATED POINTS NO. OF CENTRAL ANCHORS CHOOSE GRID SIZE B

SET SOLID/ TRANSPARENT RATIO

NO. OF ANCHORS x FORCE CONSTANT

SET SOLID/ TRANSPARENT RATIO

NO. OF ANCHORS x FORCE CONSTANT SPECIFY ANCHOR C SIZE SET SOLID/ TRANSPARENT RATIO NO. OF PERIMETER D ANCHORS

A CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

A B C

NO. OF RANDOMLY SETPERIMETER ANCHOR SIZE AND ANCHORS ALLOCATE POINTS FROM GRID

NO. OFOF CENTRAL NO. POINTS: 3 - 6 ANCHORS CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS NO. OF ANCHORS x F FORCE CONSTANT CHOOSE GRID SIZE

G SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE

NO. OF PERIMETER ANCHORS

NO. OF CENTRAL ANCHORS

NO. OF ANCHORS x FORCE CONSTANT

NO. OF ANCHORS x SET FORCE STRENGTH TO NONFORCE CONSTANT ANCHOR POINTS

SET SOLID/ DEFINE HEIGHT RANGE FOR SOLID TRANSPARENT RATIO AND TRANSLUSCENT PANELS

NO. OF PERMITER POINTS x 10

NO. OF CENTRAL RANDOMLY GENERATE CENTRAL ANCHORS ANCHOR POINTS

NO. OFOF ANCHORS NO. POINTS: 0 -x2 FORCE CONSTANT

SET SOLID/ TRANSPARENT RATIO

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

A A

RATIO: 20 : 30 : 50 54

Design Exploration

Process Abstraction Diagram

DEFINITE SITE BOUNDRY

START

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

CHOOSE GRID SIZE

GENERATE CURVE

CONSTRUCT LATHS

NO. OF PERIMETER ANCHORS

NO. OF CENTRAL ANCHORS

E Yes

PLACE ANCHOR POINTS

ANCHORS ON ENTRY PATHS?

DELETE ANCHOR POINTS

SET FORCE ON STRUCTURE

NO. OF PERIMETER ANCHORS

NO. OF CENTRAL ANCHORS

Yes

ANCHORS ON ENTRY PATHS?

DELETE ANCHOR POINTS

SET FORCE ON STRUCTURE

NO. OF ANCHORS x FORCE CONSTANT

SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE

PLACE ANCHOR POINTS

SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE

RUN KANGAROO FORM FINDING

BEND RATIO

TOTAL LATH LENGTH

SET SOLID/ TRANSPARENT RATIO

INTERNAL AREA (m2>1.8m)

FOOTPRINT AREA (m2)

LOSS IN AREA (%)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m)

VOLUME (m3)

OPEN PERIMETRE (%)

MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m3)

NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m)

ALLOCATE PANEL TRANSPARENCY

Design Exploration

Descriptive Geometry - Parameters

(4) (5)

(3)

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

CHOOSE GRID SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE

NO. OF PERIMETER ANCHORS

NO. OF CENTRAL ANCHORS

NO. OF ANCHORS x FORCE CONSTANT

SET SOLID/ TRANSPARENT RATIO

(6)

A C

(2)

(1)

All parameters except D and E we either a fixed value or randomly generated using a seed value. This is because D and E gave the most variation to the outcome of the pavilion while the others would have more nuanced effects. 56

Design Exploration

Descriptive Geometry - Measures

(3)

BEND RATIO

TOTAL LATH LENGTH

INTERNAL AREA (m2>1.8m)

FOOTPRINT AREA (m2)

LOSS IN AREA (%)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m)

VOLUME (m3)

OPEN PERIMETRE (%)

MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m3)

(4)

(2)

1 3

4 2

(6)

NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m)

(5)

(1) 9

The most signifcant measure is the bend ratio. If this value is to be lower that 3:1, the material properties of larch would mean that the form if that iteration is not possible. We used this as a means of evaluating whether to analyse an iteration further or discard. 57

CONNECT RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CHOOSE GRID SIZE A A GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS SPECIFY ANCHOR CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE B GRIDCHOOSE

C B Design Exploration SIZE

Design Space Exploration SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER D C C ANCHORS SIZE

E F G

SIZE

2 LOSS (%) BEND HEIGHT (m) VOLUME (m FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM LENGTH AREA 5(m2>1.8m) 6 IN(mAREA 7 2 RATIOTOTAL 4 3 LATHINTERNAL

3 2 HEIGHT LENGTH VOLUME (m ) OPEN PERI LOSS (%) BEND AREA FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM 5(m2>1.8m) 6 IN(mAREA 2 RATIOTOTAL 8 (m) 4 3 LATHINTERNAL thousands of iterations to7 further analyses ourselves. This is aided

Through running the design exploration script, we were left with

by online services that graphically display the iterations and the relationship between their parameters and measures.

3 2 VOLUME (mOPEN ) 9 PERIMETRE AREA (%) MIN. EXCA HEIGHT LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM LOSS (%) BEND 7 5(m2>1.8m) 6IN(mAREA 2 RATIOTOTAL 3 LATHINTERNAL 8 (m) 4

NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF PERIMETER 2 3 (%) NO. ENTRA FOOTPRINT AREA (mAREA ) MAXIMUM MIN. EXCAVATION VOL VOLUME (mOPEN AREA (m2>1.8m) ) 9 PERIMETRE LOSS IN (%) HEIGHT (m) LATHINTERNAL LENGTH BEND RATIOTOTAL 5 10 8 4 7 6 2 3 D D 1 ANCHORS ANCHORS ANCHORS

2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO.2OF CENTRAL NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m (m3) LOSS (%) (%) NO. ENTRANCE FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT VOLUME AREA ) 9 PERIMETRE 5(m2>1.8m) TOTAL LENGTH 10EXCAVATION 6IN(mAREA 7 4 8 (m)(m3OPEN 3 LATHINTERNAL E E ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 2 HEIGHT MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) LOSS (%) VOLUME ) 9 PERIMETRE (%) NO. ENTRANCE FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM SET SOLID/NO. OF ANCHORS 10EXCAVATION INTERNAL 5(m2>1.8m) 6IN(mAREA 7 4 x AREA 8 (m)(m3OPEN NO.3OF x ANCHORS F F TRANSPARENT RATIO FORCE CONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT

3 2 VOLUME (mOPEN ) 9 PERIMETRE HEIGHT (m) (%) NO. ENTRANCE MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (>2.1m) (m3) LOSS IN (%) AREA (mAREA ) MAXIMUM 5 10 7 6 8 SET SOLID/ SET4SOLID/FOOTPRINT G TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO

3 (%) NO. ENTRANCE VOLUME ) 9 PERIMETRE MIN. VOLUME (>2.1m) (m3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOSS6IN AREA (%) 10EXCAVATION 7 8 (m)(mOPEN

3 MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) (%) NO. ENTRANCE VOLUME ) 9 PERIMETRE MAXIMUM HEIGHT 10EXCAVATION 7 8 (m)(mOPEN

MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) (%) NO. ENTRANCE VOLUME ) 9 PERIMETRE 10EXCAVATION 8 (m3OPEN

MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) OPEN (%) NO. ENTRANCE 10EXCAVATION 9 PERIMETRE

NO. ENTRANCE MIN. VOLUME (>2.1m) (m3) 10EXCAVATION

10 58

NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m)

CONNECT RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CHOOSE GRID SIZE A A GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS

SPECIFY ANCHOR Design Exploration CHOOSE GRIDCHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE C

SIZE

1 1

2 LOSS (%) BEND HEIGHT (m) VOLUME (m FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM LENGTH AREA 5(m2>1.8m) 6 IN(mAREA 7 2 RATIOTOTAL 4 3 LATHINTERNAL

2 HEIGHT LENGTH VOLUME (m3OPEN ) PERI LOSS (%) BEND AREA FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM 5(m2>1.8m) 6 IN(mAREA 2 RATIOTOTAL 7 8 (m) 4 3 LATHINTERNAL

Design Space Exploration - Success and Failures D

SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER C C 1 SIZE ANCHORS SIZE

F G

2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO.2OF CENTRAL NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m (m3) LOSS (%) (%) NO. ENTRANCE FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT VOLUME AREA ) 9 PERIMETRE 5(m2>1.8m) TOTAL LENGTH 10EXCAVATION 6IN(mAREA 7 4 8 (m)(m3OPEN 3 LATHINTERNAL E E ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 2 HEIGHT (m) MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) LOSS IN (%) VOLUME (m3OPEN ) 9 PERIMETRE (%) NO. ENTRANCE FOOTPRINT AREA (mAREA ) MAXIMUM SET SOLID/NO. OF ANCHORS 10 INTERNAL AREA (m2>1.8m) 5 6 7 4 8 NO. OF x ANCHORS x 3 F F TRANSPARENT RATIO FORCE CONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT

The amount of failures was a result of both iterations failing the bend ration analysis (being lower than 3:1) and through failure of the script at specific parameter values. By evaluating our script further we could make it more robust and reduce the amount of script errors. 59

3 2 VOLUME (mOPEN ) 9 PERIMETRE AREA (%) MIN. EXCA HEIGHT LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA ) MAXIMUM LOSS (%) BEND 7 5(m2>1.8m) 6IN(mAREA 2 RATIOTOTAL 3 LATHINTERNAL 8 (m) 4

3 (%) NO. ENTRANCE VOLUME ) 9 PERIMETRE MIN. VOLUME (>2.1m) (m3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOSS6IN AREA (%) 10EXCAVATION 7 8 (m)(mOPEN

3 MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) (%) NO. ENTRANCE VOLUME ) 9 PERIMETRE MAXIMUM HEIGHT 10EXCAVATION 7 8 (m)(mOPEN

MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) (%) NO. ENTRANCE VOLUME ) 9 PERIMETRE 10EXCAVATION 8 (m3OPEN

MIN. VOLUME(>2.1m) (m3) OPEN (%) NO. ENTRANCE 10EXCAVATION 9 PERIMETRE

NO. ENTRANCE MIN. VOLUME (>2.1m) (m3) 10EXCAVATION

NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 59

Design Exploration

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CHOOSE SIZEA A GRIDCONNECT GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS

SPECIFY ANCHOR CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE B B GRIDCHOOSE SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER C C SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF PERIMETER PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA LOSS(m IN (%) 7 MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 8 4 AREA 62)AREABEND D D 1 ANCHORS INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT LOS ANCHORS ANCHORS 1 2RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 4 AREA

A F

CONNECT RANDOMLY NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS xE CENTRAL MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 62)AREABEND 4 AREA 8 2 CENTRAL E 2 2 GENERATED POINTS FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) MAX INTERNAL (m 5 >1.8m)AREA 4 AREA 1 6 )AREABEN 2RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 1 RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT SET SOLID/ 10 INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA 62)AREABEND CHOOSE GRIDCONNECT SIZEOF 8 NO. ANCHORS NO. OF x3 ANCHORS x4 A A 2 2 F F LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO MAXIMUM VOL FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 6 7RATIOHEIGH 2 4 3 TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT BEND 2 TOT 1 3 SPECIFY ANCHOR VOLUME MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) AREA 10 62)AREABEND 8 4 GRIDFOOTPRINT SET SOLID/ SET CHOOSE GRIDCHOOSE SIZESOLID/ SIZE5 B B 2 2 MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE TOTAL LATH LENGTH VOLUME LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) G G 5 6 2 1 7 8 4 3 SIZE TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENG INTE 1

Focussed Design Space Exploration - Extremes Maximum Area

B G C D Minimum Area

E A F B G C D

Maximum Height

E F G

1 1

FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) MAX INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 4 AREA 62)AREABEN 1

LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH MAXIMUM HEIGH VOL FOOTPRINT INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA 62)AREABEND 4 AREA 1 2RATIO TOT

MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE VOLUME LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT 62)AREABEND 8 4 AREA INTE 1 2RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENG

VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 62)AREABEND 8 4 AREA TOTAL INTERNAL ( FOO RATIO 2 1 4 AREA 3LATH LENGTH

3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY 10 8 6 AREABEND 5 ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO 7RATIOHEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 8 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS TOTAL INTERNAL ( FOO BEND 2 1 4 AREA 3LATH LENGTH

3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 8 6 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m 5 >1.8m)AREA LOSS(m IN (%) 7 HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 8 4 6 D D 1 ANCHORS INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT LOS BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH ANCHORS ANCHORS 1 4 AREA

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE VOLUME (m3) OPEN9 10 8 7 CENTRAL CONNECT RANDOMLY 2 2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 TOTAL LATH LENGTH 10 6 7 4 8 3 2 E E 2 2 GENERATED POINTS FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) INTERNAL (m 5 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 4 AREA 1 6 )AREAMAX ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) OPEN9 PERIMETRE 10 8 RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CONNECT 3 2 2 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) SET SOLID/ 10 INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 6 CHOOSE GRID SIZE 7RATIOHEIGHT 4 8 NO. OF ANCHORS NO. OF x ANCHORS x 3 A A 2 2 F F LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND MAXIMUM VOL FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 6 7 HEIGH 2 4 3 TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) 9 3 2 AREA SPECIFY ANCHOR VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN (%) ) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) 5 10 7RATIOHEIGHT 6 8 4 SET SOLID/ SET SOLID/ CHOOSE GRID CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE B B 2 2 MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPE TOTAL LATH LENGTH VOLUME LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) G G 5 6 2 1 7 HEIGHT 8 4 3 SIZE TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 10 ANCHOR 3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY 10 8 6 AREABEND 5 NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO 7 HEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 8 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE VOLUME (m3) OPEN9 10 8 7 CENTRAL 2 2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 TOTAL LATH LENGTH 10 6 7 HEIGHT 4 8 3 2 E E ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) OPEN9 PERIMETRE 10 8 3 2 2 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) SET SOLID/ NO. OF ANCHORS 10 INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 6 7 HEIGHT 4 8 NO. OF x ANCHORS x 3 F F TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) 9 3 2 AREA VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN (%) ) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) 5 10 7 HEIGHT 6 8 4 SET SOLID/ SET SOLID/ G G TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 10 3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 10 8 6 AREAMAXIMUM 5

MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 HEIGHT 8

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) VOLUME 10 8 (m3) OPEN9PERIMETRE

Design Exploration

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CHOOSE SIZEA A GRIDCONNECT GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS

SPECIFY ANCHOR CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE B B GRIDCHOOSE SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER C C SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF PERIMETER PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA LOSS(m IN (%) 7 HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 8 4 AREA 62)AREAMAXIMUM D D 1 ANCHORS ANCHORS ANCHORS INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT LOS BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 1 4 AREA

A F

CONNECT RANDOMLY 2 NO. OF NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF ANCHORS xE CENTRAL MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 6 4 8 2 E 2 2 GENERATED POINTS FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) INTERNAL (m 5 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH ANCHORS ANCHORS 4 AREA 1 6 )AREAMAX FORCE CONSTANT BEN 1 3 3 2 2 CONNECT RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) VOLUME (m ) OPEN PERIMETRE (%) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) SET SOLID/ 10 INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 6 9 7 8 NO. OF x3 ANCHORS x4 CHOOSE SIZEOF A A F GRIDNO. F ANCHORS LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH HEIGH VOL FOOTPRINT INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 62)AREAMAXIMUM 4 AREA TRANSPARENTGENERATED RATIOCONSTANT FORCE FORCE CONSTANT BEND 2 RATIO TOT 1 3 SPECIFY ANCHOR VOLUME HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) AREA 10 62)AREAMAXIMUM 8 4 GRIDFOOTPRINT SET SOLID/ SET CHOOSE GRIDCHOOSE SIZESOLID/ SIZE5 B B 2 2 G G HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE VOLUME LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m 5 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM 6 1 8 4 SIZE TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENG INTE 1 3 3 OPEN PERIMETRE (%) VOLUME MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) HEIGHT (m) (m ) NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 9 8 6 AREAMAXIMUM 5 ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO 7 HEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 8 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA ( FOO BEND RATIO 2 1 4 3 3 3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m ) OPEN9 10 7 HEIGHT 8 6 PERIMETER NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF 2 2 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) LOSS IN AREA (%) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH BEND RATIO 5 10 8 4 7 6 2 3 D D 1 2 ANCHORS ANCHORS ANCHORS INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA LOS TOTAL LATH LENGTH BEND RATIO 5 3 1 2 4 3 3 OPEN PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) (%) VOLUME (m ) 10 9 8 7 CENTRAL CONNECT RANDOMLY NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS xE CENTRAL MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 62)AREAMAXIMUM 4 AREA 8 2 E 2 2 GENERATED POINTS FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) INTERNAL (m 5 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 4 AREA 1 6 )AREAMAX 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) OPEN9 PERIMETRE 10 8 RANDOMLY 3 2 2 CONNECT RANDOMLY CONNECT NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) SET SOLID/ 10 INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 6 7 HEIGHT 4 8 NO. OF ANCHORS NO. OF x ANCHORS x 3 CHOOSE GRID SIZEA A F F 2 2 LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO MAXIMUM VOL FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 6 7 HEIGH 2 4 3 TRANSPARENTGENERATED RATIO FORCE CONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) 9 3 2 AREA VOLUME MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) SPECIFY ANCHOR FOOTPRINT AREA ) 5 10 6 8 4 SET SOLID/ SET SOLID/ CHOOSE GRID CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE B B 2 2 G G MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPE TOTAL LATH LENGTH VOLUME LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) 5 6 2 1 7 HEIGHT 8 4 3 SIZE TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 10 3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS (%) 7 10 8 6 AREAMAXIMUM 5 SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR IN NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO 7 HEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 8 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

Focussed Design Space Exploration - Extremes Minimum Height

B G C D Maximum Area Loss

E A F B G C D

Maximum Area Loss

E F G

1 1

FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 4 AREA 62)AREAMAX BEN 1

LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH HEIGH VOL FOOTPRINT INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA 62)AREAMAXIMUM 4 AREA BEND RATIO TOT 1 2

HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE VOLUME LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT 62)AREAMAXIMUM 8 4 AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENG INTE 1

VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA PERIMETRE MIN HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 62)AREAMAXIMUM 8 4 AREA INTERNAL ( FOO BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 1 4 AREA

3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 HEIGHT 8 6 PERIMETER NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF 2 2 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m 5 >1.8m)AREA LOSS(m IN (%) 7 HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 8 4 6 D D 1 ANCHORS ANCHORS ANCHORS 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) VOLUME 10 8 (m3) OPEN9PERIMETRE 7 CENTRAL 2 2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 6 7 HEIGHT 4 8 2 E E ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) OPEN9 PERIMETRE 10 8 3 2 2 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) SET SOLID/ NO. OF ANCHORS 10 INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 6 7 HEIGHT 8 NO. OF x3 ANCHORS x4 F F TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) 9 3 2 VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) 5 10 7 HEIGHT 6 8 4 SET SOLID/ SET SOLID/ G G TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 10 3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 10 8 6 AREAMAXIMUM 5

3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 HEIGHT 8

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) VOLUME 10 8 (m3) OPEN9PERIMETRE

Design Exploration

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CHOOSE SIZEA A GRIDCONNECT GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS

SPECIFY ANCHOR CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE B B GRIDCHOOSE SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER C C SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF PERIMETER 2 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA LOSS(m IN (%) 7 HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 8 4 6 D D 1 2 ANCHORS ANCHORS ANCHORS INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA LOS TOTAL LATH LENGTH BEND RATIO 5 3 1 2 4

A F

CONNECT RANDOMLY NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS xE CENTRAL MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 62)AREAMAXIMUM 4 AREA 8 2 CENTRAL E 2 2 GENERATED POINTS FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) MAX INTERNAL (m 5 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 4 AREA 1 6 )AREABEN 1 3 RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT SET SOLID/ 10 INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA 62)AREAMAXIMUM 8 NO. ANCHORS NO. OF x3 ANCHORS x4 CHOOSE GRIDCONNECT SIZEOF A A F F 2 2 LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO MAXIMUM VOL FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 6 7 HEIGH 2 4 3 TRANSPARENTGENERATED RATIO FORCE CONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT BEND RATIO TOT

Focussed Design Space Exploration - Extremes Maximum Lath Length

B G C D Minimum Lath Length

E A F B G C D

Maximum Openness

E F G

FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 4 AREA 62)AREAMAX BEN 1

1 1

LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH HEIGH VOL FOOTPRINT INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA 62)AREAMAXIMUM 4 AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOT 1

HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE VOLUME LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT 62)AREAMAXIMUM 8 4 AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENG INTE 1

VOLUME INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA PERIMETRE MIN HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 62)AREAMAXIMUM 8 4 AREA TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA ( FOO BEND RATIO 2 1 4 3

VOLUME HEIGHT (m) (m ) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) SPECIFY ANCHOR AREA 5 10 62)AREAMAXIMUM 8 4 GRIDFOOTPRINT SET SOLID/ SET CHOOSE GRIDCHOOSE SIZESOLID/ SIZE B B 2 2 G G MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE TOTAL LATH LENGTH VOLUME LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) 5 6 2 1 7 8 4 3 SIZE TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENG INTE 1 3 3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) HEIGHT (m) (m ) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 10 8 6 AREAMAXIMUM 5 ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO 7RATIOHEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 8 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS TOTAL INTERNAL ( FOO BEND 2 1 4 AREA 3LATH LENGTH 3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 HEIGHT 8 6 PERIMETER NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF 2 2 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m 5 >1.8m)AREA LOSS(m IN (%) 7 HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 8 4 6 D D 1 ANCHORS INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT LOS TOTAL BEND RATIO ANCHORS ANCHORS 3LATH LENGTH 1 2 4 AREA 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) VOLUME 10 8 (m3) OPEN9PERIMETRE 7 CENTRAL CONNECT RANDOMLY 2 2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 10 6 7RATIOHEIGHT 4 8 2 E E 2 2 GENERATED POINTS FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) MAX INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) BEND TOTAL LATH LENGTH 5 4 1 6 2 3 ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) OPEN9 PERIMETRE 10 8 RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CONNECT 3 2 2 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) SET SOLID/ 10 INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 6 CHOOSE GRIDNO. SIZEOF 7 8 ANCHORS NO. OF x3 ANCHORS x4 A A 2 2 F F LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO MAXIMUM VOL FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 6 7 HEIGH 2 4 3 TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) 9 3 2 AREA SPECIFY ANCHOR VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN (%) ) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) 5 10 7RATIOHEIGHT 6 8 4 GRID SIZE SET SOLID/ SET CHOOSE GRIDCHOOSE SIZESOLID/ B B 2 2 MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPE TOTAL LATH LENGTH VOLUME LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) G G 5 6 2 1 7 HEIGHT 8 4 3 SIZE TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 10 3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR 10 8 6 AREABEND 5 NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO 7 HEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 8 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS 3

3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 HEIGHT 8

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) VOLUME 10 8 (m3) OPEN9PERIMETRE

Design Exploration

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY CHOOSE SIZEA A GRIDCONNECT GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS

Focussed Design Space Exploration - Extremes Minimum Openness

SPECIFY ANCHOR CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE B B GRIDCHOOSE SIZE

SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER C C SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

A F

C D E A F B G C D Minimum Volume

E F G

LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH MAXIMUM HEIGH VOL FOOTPRINT INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA 62)AREABEND 4 AREA 1 2RATIO TOT

B G

Maximum Volume

FOOTPRINT LOSS(m IN (%) MAX INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 4 AREA 62)AREABEN 1

MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE VOLUME LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH INTERNAL (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT 62)AREABEND 8 4 AREA INTE 1 2RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENG

RANDOMLY CONNECT RANDOMLY 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT SET SOLID/ 10 INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA 62)AREABEND CHOOSE GRIDCONNECT SIZEOF 8 NO. ANCHORS NO. OF x3 ANCHORS x4 A A 2 2 F F LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO MAXIMUM VOL FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) TOTAL LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 6 2 4 3 TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT BEND 7 TOT 1 2RATIOHEIGH

3 SPECIFY ANCHOR VOLUME MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) AREA 10 62)AREABEND 8 4 GRIDFOOTPRINT SET SOLID/ SET CHOOSE GRIDCHOOSE SIZESOLID/ SIZE5 B B 2 2 MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE TOTAL LATH LENGTH VOLUME LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) G G 5 6 2 1 4 3 SIZE BEND 7 RATIO TOTAL8LATH LENG INTE TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO

3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY 10 8 6 AREABEND 5 ANCHOR NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) RATIO 7RATIOHEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS TOTAL8 LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA ( FOO BEND 2 1 4PERIMETRE 3

3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 8 6 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m 5 >1.8m)AREA LOSS(m IN (%) 7 HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL3LATH LENGTH 4 6 D D 1 2 INTERNAL AREA (m10 FOOTPRINT LOS LATH LENGTH BEND 2 RATIO TOTAL8 5>1.8m)AREA 3 1 4PERIMETRE ANCHORS ANCHORS ANCHORS

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE CONNECT RANDOMLY VOLUME (m3) OPEN9 10 8 7 CENTRAL 2 2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 TOTAL LATH LENGTH 10 6 7 4 8 3 2 2 2 E E GENERATED POINTS FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) MAX INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) BEND RATIO TOTAL LATH LENGTH 5 4 1 6 2 3 ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) OPEN9 PERIMETRE 10 8 RANDOMLY RANDOMLY CONNECT 3 2 2 CHOOSE GRIDCONNECT SIZE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) SET SOLID/ A A 10 INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 6 4 NO. OF ANCHORS NO. OF x ANCHORS x 3 2 LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 7 RATIO TOTAL8 HEIGH VOL FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM LATH LENGTH INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA F F GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS 1 6 2 4 3 TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) 9 SPECIFY ANCHOR 3 2 AREA VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN (%) ) FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) 5 10 6 CHOOSE GRID CHOOSE SIZE GRID SIZE 4 B B SET SOLID/ SET SOLID/ HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPE TOTAL8 LATH LENGTH VOLUME LOSS(m IN (%) 7 BEND 7 INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA FOOTPRINT 62)AREAMAXIMUM 2RATIOHEIGHT 1 8 4 3 SIZE G G TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 10 ANCHOR 3 SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY NO. OF PERIMETER PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN AREAMAXIMUM (%) 7 10 8 6 5 2 2 C C VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) PERIMETRE MIN MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) LOSS IN AREA (%) BEND RATIO 7 HEIGHT 5 1 6 2 3 8 4 SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 8 NO. OF CENTRAL 6 NO. OF PERIMETER NO. OF PERIMETER 2 2 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION NO. VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) LOSS IN AREA (%) MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 TOTAL LATH LENGTH BEND RATIO 5 10 8 4 7 6 2 3 D D 1 ANCHORS ANCHORS ANCHORS

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE VOLUME (m3) OPEN9 10 8 7 2 2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF ANCHORS x MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS IN AREA (%) NO. ENTRANCE (>3 PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT AREA (m ) MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 VOLUME INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5 TOTAL LATH LENGTH 10 6 7 HEIGHT 4 8 3 2 E E ANCHORS ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) OPEN9 PERIMETRE 10 8 3 2 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) VOLUME PERIMETRE FOOTPRINT ) AREAMAXIMUM SET SOLID/ NO. OF ANCHORS 10 INTERNAL AREA (m25 >1.8m)AREA 6 4 8 NO. OF x ANCHORS x 3 F F TRANSPARENTFORCE RATIOCONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT 3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. 10 EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) 9 3 2 AREA VOLUME MAXIMUM HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) PERIMETRE MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m LOSS(m IN (%) 7 ) FOOTPRINT AREA ) 5 10 6 8 4 SET SOLID/ SET SOLID/ G G TRANSPARENTTRANSPARENT RATIO RATIO NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) 10 3 PERIMETRE VOLUME MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) HEIGHT (m) (m3) OPEN9 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) LOSS IN (%) 7 10 8 6 AREAMAXIMUM 5

3 MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) PERIMETRE NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) VOLUME MAXIMUM (m) (m3) OPEN9 10 7 HEIGHT 8

3 NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m) MIN. (%) EXCAVATION VOLUME (m ) VOLUME 10 8 (m3) OPEN9PERIMETRE

CONNECT RANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS

CONNECT RANDOMLY CHOOSE GRID A SIZE CONNECT ARANDOMLY GENERATED POINTS GENERATED POINTS

Design Exploration SPECIFY ANCHOR C

1 1

CHOOSE GRID B SIZECHOOSE GRID SIZE

BEND RATIO 2

2 2 ) IN AREA LOSS INTERNAL AREA >1.8m) 5AREA (m TOTAL LATH 4 (mFOOTPRINT 6 (%) MAXIMUM 3 LENGTH

2 2 LOSS (m) (m ) IN AREA TOTAL LATH INTERNAL 4 AREA (mFOOTPRINT >1.8m) 5AREA (m 6 (%) MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME 3 LENGTH

‘True’ bendVOLUME ration 2 2 (m) range TOTAL LATH (m LOSS INTERNAL 4 AREA (mFOOTPRINT >1.8m) 5AREA (m ) IN AREA 6 (%) MAXIMUM 7HEIGHT 83) 3 LENGTH

Detailed Design Space Exploration Chosen Output D C C 1 2 3 4 SIZE

NO. OF PERIMETER SPECIFY ANCHOR SPECIFY ANCHOR SIZE SIZE ANCHORS

E F G

NO. OF CENTRAL D ANCHORS

NO. OF PERIMETERNO. OF PERIMETERBEND RATIO 2 D 1 ANCHORS ANCHORS

2 (m83) INTERNAL AREA (m >1.8m) 5AREA LOSS (m) TOTAL LATH LENGTH FOOTPRINT (m2) IN AREA 6 (%) MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME

2 (m2) IN AREA (m83) INTERNAL 4 AREA (mFOOTPRINT >1.8m) 5 AREA LOSS (m) TOTAL LATH 6 (%) MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME 3 LENGTH

2 2 NO. OF CENTRAL NO. OF ANCHORS xNO. OF CENTRAL LOSS FOOTPRINT ) IN AREA (m) (m INTERNAL 4 AREA (m >1.8m) 5AREA (m TOTAL LATH 6 (%) MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME 83) 3 LENGTH 2 E E ANCHORS FORCE CONSTANT ANCHORS 2 (m) (m (m2) IN AREA SET SOLID/ INTERNAL >1.8m) 5AREA LOSS 6 (%) MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME 4AREA (mFOOTPRINT 83) NO. OF ANCHORS xNO. OF ANCHORS x 3 F F TRANSPARENT RATIO FORCE CONSTANT FORCE CONSTANT

(m (m) FOOTPRINT (m2) IN AREA 5AREA LOSS 6 (%) MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME 83) SET SOLID/ SET SOLID/4 G TRANSPARENT RATIO TRANSPARENT RATIO

We chose an iteration that had measures that lied close to the middle of the extremes as we found that high/low values in certain areas meant that other measure were heavily compromised. The empirical data was combined with subjective opinion on what we thought was the best location on the site as well as entrance positions.

BEND RATIO

OPEN PERIMETRE (%) EXCA MIN. 9

OPEN PERIMETRE (%) MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME ( NO. ENTRA 10 9

MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) NO. ENTRANCE OPEN PERIMETRE (%) 9 10

NO. ENTRANCE MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) OPEN PERIMETRE (%) 10 9

NO. ENTRANCE OPEN PERIMETRE (%) EXCAVATION MIN. VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) 10 9

OPEN PERIMETRE (%) EXCAVATION MIN. VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) NO. ENTRANCE 10 9

(m (m) LOSS IN AREA 83) 6 (%) MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME

(m MAXIMUM7HEIGHTVOLUME (m) 83)

VOLUME (m 83)

NO. ENTRANCE MIN. VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) OPEN PERIMETRE (%) EXCAVATION 10 9

NO. ENTRANCE MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) 10

OPEN PER

MIN. EXCAVATION VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) OPEN PERIMETRE (%) NO. ENTRANCE 10 9

NO. ENTRANCE MIN. VOLUME (m3) (>2.1m) OPEN PERIMETRE (%) EXCAVATION 10 9

NO. ENTRANCE (>2.1m)

Having explored the design space we have concluded with ONE SERPENTINE PAVILION.

Pavilion Drawings

External Day Render Site + Floor Plans Site Iso Perspective Section 1 Context Elevation

Pavilion Drawings

Site + Floor Plans

Interactive Buttons!

Annotation N

Site Plan

Floor Plan 68

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m 68

Pavilion Drawings

Site Iso

Interactive Buttons!

Full Pavilion

Gridshell

Landscape 69

Pavilion Drawings

Perspective Section 1

Pavilion Drawings

Context Elevation

0m 71

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m 71

Performance Analysis

Aerial Render Public Space Quality Natural Lighting Structural Performance Kit of Parts + Pavilion Weight

Performance Analysis

Public Space Quality A Solid Perimeter Walls B Covered Cafe Space C Long Spanning Structure D Panelling Roof E Height Difference From Edge to the Centre F Transparent Panels That Increase With Height F

C D

E B

Performance Analysis

Natural Lighting Running sunlight analysis for the occupational period of the pavilion illustrates our intention of creating a transition of lighting between the the edge zones and centre of the space.

Hours of sunlight exposure over pavilions occupation period 2176 1960 1632 1320 1088 816 544 272 0 75

Performance Analysis

Structural Performance Using the Karamba extension for Grasshopper we ran structural testing on the relaxed form. Due to the fact that there is minimal load on top of the roof, the structural analysis has been done under the gridshells own weight. The displacement analysis shows how the shell would act under considerable load and the axial stress shows the twisting force about points on the lath.

Displacement

Axial Stress

Performance Analysis

Kit of Parts

Total Material Weight = 29,941kg 77

Technical Detailing

Exploded Pavilion Perspective Section 2 Lath to Node Detail Gridshell to Foundation Detail Dusk Render

Technical Detailing

Exploded Pavilion

Bolting pins

Bracing elements

Translucent panels

Solid panels

Timber laths

Foundation fixing elements Strip foundation

Pavilion Drawings

Perspective Section 2

Technical Detailing

Lath to Node Detail

Panel locking bolt Panel joint cover

Bracing transom Transluscent panel (ETFE) Fitting guide Solid panel (Timber)

Spacer w/ threaded interior

Y plane larch timber lath (80x50mm)

X plane larch timber lath (80x50mm) Washer

Lath locking bolt

Technical Detailing

Gridshell to Foundation Detail

Lath locking bolt

Lath support spacer

Lath anchor bracket Locking pin

Foundation anchor bracket

In-situ cast anchor bolts

600x500mm strip foundation

THANK YOU