Air Journal Part A Kennard Irawan 559136 Studio 16 Anna + Zach
Content PAge Content Page Kennard Irawan A1. Design Futuring Project 01 Project 02 A2. Design Computation Precedent 01 Precedent 02 A3. Computation/ Generation Precedent 01 Precedent 02 A4. Conclusion A5. Learning Outcomes A6. Appendix
3 4-7 9-13 15-20 21 22 23
Part B. Criteria Design 28-33 Precedent 1: Canton Tower Precedent 2: Great Court at British Museum B1. Research Field B2. Case Study 1.0 34-39 B3. Case Study 2.0 40-45 B4. Technique Development 46-47 B5. Technique: Prototypes 48-49 B6. Technique: Proposal 50-51 B7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes 52-53 B8. Appendix- Algorithmic Journal 54-59 Bibliography Algorithmic sketches Part C. Detailed Design 60-61 C1. Design Concept 62-67 C2. Tectonic Elements 68-73 C3. Final Model 74-75 C4. Additional Lagi Requirements 76-77 C5. Learning Objectives and Outcomes 78-79 C6. Post-Presentation changes 80-83 C7. Appendix 84-87 Bibliography Sketches
Kennard Irawan Kennard Irawan Third Year Architecture Student Melbourne University Age 21 Male
Hi! My name is Kennard, currently a Third Year undergraduate studying in Melbourne University taking Bachelor of Environments, majoring in Architecture. Bandung, Indonesia, is my hometown, although I have lived for a few years during my childhood in Singapore. Only in the past two years have i lived in Melbourne as I undertake my undergraduate degree. My interest in Architecture stems from my interest in different cultures that lead to different Architecture styles and also experiencing a blend of these architecture styles while growing up. Bandung is an old city located in the mountain ranges of West Java, still preserving many old buildings left there since Dutch colonyleft . These buildings are peppered across the city and are incorporated within the cityscape itself, lending its style of architecture to the more modern city that it resides in. As a result I have grown acustomed to seeing a blend of old and new building types erected side by side on the same street.
My childhood in Singapore saw me spend a lot of time in one of the worlds most developed cities, where tall buildings are in abundance. The city layout there contrasts that of the one in Indonesia heavily as land is very limited in Singapore. Moving to Melbourne has since reconciled these differences as it blends the old and the new together with taller, newer buildings standing out in the city hub amongst the much smaller yet more venerable buildings. I must admit however, that I had not expected to take Architecture as a major in university, and this has left me with limited experience with softwares and digital designing. However the past year had been a pleasure and I look forward to pushing myself further to acquire the knowledge and skills required in this field in my pursuit for knowledge, skills and fresh experiences in university.
What is design futuring? It is important to understand this question when designing because it defines how designers should think about their designs. When thinking about their designs, a designer should think about the sustainable. A sustainable design means that it can be used for a prolonged period of time, and can be used indefinitely. When i say this i dont mean to say that a design will be used and replicated repeatedly, but rather that a set of ideas favourable to the users that form the design will be passed on. Not the technology and the technique, but what is being pursued within the concept of a design. The concept of a design is the initial point starting point of a design, in other words, the purpose of a design. Why else is a design being pursued if not to serve a purpose? The purpose of a design can be varied, and most people have different purposes when designing but at the end of the day I personally believe that designs go through a weeding process. Designs that are useful to us will be passed down, and designs that are not useful will be left behind as mere ideas. When a design is still a mere idea, it is not useful other than to serve as a goal. But through our pursuit of the idea, we can discover new things that may help shape the design into being, and bring it out from the stage of just an idea to that of a physical being that we can use, and, for better or worse, let it affect our lives.
Because what this eventually boils down to, is how the design affects our lives. A design can affect our lives through our interaction with it, and vice-versa. A design can affect our lives through how closely it is embedded within our lives, and how much we interact with it. But a design should net us positive effects to be sustainable. Design futuring talks about the environmentaliy sustainable aspect of designing. A design, if it isnt sustainable, will someday be rejected by society. It talks abt the unpredictablitiy of the future, and how we should design for the potential changes that could take place in our society. We as designers, should make designs that can adapt to these changes in society. A sustainable design takes environmental impact into account because it envelopes us and heavily influences how we live our lives. We as humans have been able to alter our enviornment to suit our needs, providing us with comfort a society that is built upon that change. However, alter our landscape has led to devastating changes in our environment. Keeping in mind the idea that designs can affect our lives, us as designers have the power to remedy the negative impact caused by people in the past, and improve the quality of life of our children.
We should use this power to help our future generation as it is what is most sustainable as a people. Designs that are not useful to us should be weeded out because although they are designs, if they are not sustainable, they will eventually fall out of favour, and thus useless designs that may look aesthetically pleasing, but do not have any other purpose, are a waste of resource if they are developed.
Design Futuring Precedent 1:
Nature Broadwalk at Lincoln Park Zoo
Nature Broadwalk at Lincoln Park Zoo June 2010 Studio Gang Architects Chicago, U.S.A. In the day this installation functions as a popular venue for outdoor and yoga classes, but at night, this installation lights up the area and gives significance to the water features in the Lincoln zoo. This beatiful installation designed by The Studio Gang architects is currently located in the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago. the design is based off the shape of a turtle shell, giving it the mini domes that makes up the surface of the installation. The shape of the turtle shell is design to give it extra hard protection through the use of its hard material and geometry. Through biomiicry, Studio Gang Architects made use of the gemoetry present on turtle shells to retaining its hardness by utilizing the domes. Domes are a natural structure often seen in nature, often used in biomimicry for its innate ability to withstand compression forces, and is often seen in nature in the form of caves structures and shells.
The art installation provides the surrounding landscape with an experience that is unique to itself. Its hollow structure allows for public use through shelter from elements as well as providing an aesthetically pleasing installation to the area. The experience that one would feel when walking through this structure would be a co-existence with nature as it is located between a pond and foliage, while at the same time, under the shelter of human contruction that is in itself inspired by nature. In addition to its functions for the people in the area, the installation also serves to improve water quality and provide natural habitat for local wildlife. Without need for stronger materials thanks to its geometric design, This installation is created using prefabricated, bent wooden members and fiberglass for the domes that give it its curved surface. This is what I am looking for in terms of structures that use biomimicry. This structure is abe to make use of strong forms to compensate the use of weaker and lighter materials, and I feel that it is where Biomimicry shines.
Design Futuring Precedent 2: SWING
Swing November 2012 Moradavaga Platforma das Artes, Guimarães, Portugal First exhibited for the Pop Up Culture program promoted by Guimarães 2012 – European Capital of Culture, this installation is there to promote the rich industrial heritage of the city by producing electricity through interaction with the installation. This installation makes use of the swings that allow human interaction, and through this interaction generate electricity by attaching it to dynamos using ropes and wheels. This electricity is then converted into light that shines throught the platform underneath. The installation also plays on the use of mechanical sounds generated to reflect on the industrial heritage of the area. Essentially an electric generator, this design can be used to create electricity in areas that are often frequented by moving traffic and does not stay for long periods of time. It does, however, require the user or users to continuously interact with the installation using some form of movement.
The art installation provides the users with a chance to “experience” a part of the industrial heritage of Guimarães in modern times through the interaction and use of dynamos (man-powered electricity), traditionally used materials in the industrial sector such as hemp rope, wheels, bicycle chains and dynamos give it the feel industrial that the city might have once had that is not unavailable to most. The ability to generate small amounts of energy without complex machinery while at the same time providing interaction makes this installation remarkable in the sense that it provides the users with reward while using the installation itself. With more modern technology and materials available, this method of harnessing energy should be able to be done at a larger scale using variations of interaction with the model. I really like how this design makes use of energy generation to connect people with their past, and that generates sentimental values that make them want to continue to use it just for the experience.
Humans have come a long way when it comes to designing, and designing itself is a complex process that requires more than just intelligence. As our technology advance through the ages, we have come from designing with the material itself in the form of stone masonry, to drawings, resulting in drawings, such as the case for architectures, and now we have a new form of technology at our disposal. For decades computers have been improving to better serve us in our daily lives, all but using algorithms and simple yet numerous calculations. Designers have been using computers to design through the use of computerisation, mostly because the computer is able to handle so much data and calculations much more accurate and faster than most people can. However, this is limited to the ideas and data already preconcieved by the designer, and does not generate anything new itself. Yet as information technology continues to improve, a new function appears that is now available to be used for designing in the form of computaional designing.
By understanding how models are expressed by algorithms, computational design can be used as a tool that allows the designer to generate results beyond the scope of our imagination as it allows for the generation of details at a scale so minute that is only possible for us to generate through the use of computational design. The use of algorithms allow for the designer to generate details that would otherwise forever be a door closed from us. Yet as useful as it is, it is but a tool that, without the designer, would remain only a tool. It unlocks the potential that allows us to design things beyond the scope of our imagination, but it does not design for us. Even so, the realization of the design outcome is still limited by the capability of human production even though the designing itself is unconstrained.
DEsign Computation Precedent 1: Fibulae
Fibulae Sept 29- Oct 2011 Marc Fones+ TheVeryMany Irene Neuwirthâ€™s Pop up store, 57 Walker Street, NYC Fibulae is the shop display used in Irene Neuwirthâ€™s Pop up store in NYC. The elegance and luxurious design showcases the jewelries on display in the store, amplifying and complimenting the vibrant colours of the precious stones embedded within. The use of compuational design here was very extensive, as it is shown here to be of almost random, yet functional shapes for the current design. The intricate details involved in the design created through computional design is truly a master piece as it requires the extensive use of computation design and knowledge of the materials involved in addition to how it will be realized. Though many would say that this is not a practical design, it would be hard to deny that the combined use of organic shapes and reflective material embraces the idea of jewelry as a being of delicate luxury.
The display provides multiple stands that stems from the main form of the design. This makes the displays even more precious and prominent as they would be showcased individually in its own casing as opposed to those in a regular jewelry store, giving it a sense of rarity. Through the use of computational design, TheVeryMany has shown that the use of organic shapes may prove to be more powerful that that of inorganic shapes that we see in our everyday lives. This shape is essentially a tube with more tubes stemming out of it, yet this simple idea is one that is achieved with the help of computation design and not our minds alone even though the original concept may have already been there.
DEsign Computation Precedent 2:
Honeycomb Morphologies 2004 MATSYS London, UK Honeycomb Morphologies is a research done by MATSYS for developing materials that integrates design with performance well. Nature has allowed for evolution to occur so that beneficial traits of an organism will be passed down. The structural system of a honeycomb is the result of the evolution of bees over millions of years that is now seen by us to be structurally strong and efficient for construction. The research itself is a generative design created through computation designing. The reseult is that it has morphed the original shape of the honeycomb, but not the driving force behind it, which is the hexagonal chambers that make up the structure. This concept that then be adapted and its shape changed, applied to future projects as needed, such as a sphere or a cylinder.
As someone that is interested in biomimicry, this project has shown how computational design can help realize the driving forces behind nature and give it a form. The use of materials such as this can help future progress when it comes to realizing designs as the organic shapes present here is highly adaptable.
Technology has taken us to a crossroads in time when it is compltely assimilated with our daily lives. From our cars to the cityscape, advancement in technology has taken a part in their creation. Designing through computation has been a part of our lives only recently, but their impact is huge compared to the time they have been around. Computerization makes use of algorithms, mathematical calculations that allows us to create patterns and shapes. The uses of computerization for design is still being explored, but as of now it seems that computerization has freed designing process of limitations that it used to possess. We now have a tool that allows us to further complicate yet at the same time simplify our design process. These are all the result of using algorithms for designing. By using algorithms, we create â€œpatternsâ€? that the computer can then use to generate designs.
These algorithms are still determined by the designer however, and the design is still mostly controlled by the designer. However, the generation of the design is now done through the use of algorithms that were input by the designers. The use of computation has also sped up the process of design generation through instant visual input and ease of fabrication. These forms of feedback allow the designer to change the design by altering the algorithm to get closer to the final desired result.
Composition/ Generation Precedent 3: London City Hall
London City Hall 1998-2002 Foster + Partners London, UK The London City Hall was designed by Foster+Partners with the help of computation design. The use of computation design allowed them to come up with ways to design for minimize energy consumption by minimizing cooling through innate shading of the building itself, decreasing surface area exposed to sunlight, and providing offices with natural ventilation. Through the use of algorithms, the surface of the building is designed to minimize the amount of light that comes in through the glass windows. The glass panels are fabricated through triangulation that allows for curved surfaces to be manufactured through â€œfoldingâ€? so that that surface is curved. Use of computation allows the designers to quickly tst out multiple designs within a short span of time to speed up the design process.
Use of computation allows the designers to quickly test out multiple designs within a short span of time to speed up the design process. The models can also be done through computation, and printed to minimize manual labor. What really made me fascinated by this building is how the use of computation helped the performance of the building. The use of computation for designing has not always been a seen as useful by some as the designs usually generate in some redundant geometry ont he outer surface that could very well be shaped differently and still make no difference to the overall design. However this building has shown me that perhaps if used correctly, the use of computation can be used to achieve designs that would not be achieved otherwise.
Composition/ Generation Precedent 4: Urban Adapter
Urban Adapter 2009 Rocker-Lange Architects Hong Kong The Urban Adapter is urban furniture designed by Rocker-Lange Architects for the urban space in Hong Kong. The Urban Adapter is named thus because it is designed to adapt to different environmentss in Hong Kong cityscape. Rocker-Lange Architects used an algorithm that makes it possible to design seating space just about anywhere. This algorithm makes it so that the design is able to farbicate seats despite presence of obstacles, while mantaining a coherent structure and similar aesthetics. This manner of farbication allows the designers to alter the shape of the design within the virtual realm, and then refabricate as a different shape but using the same binding mathematical principals.
This results in similar looking structures that can be adapted to different circumstances like the way this Urban Adapter is made. The design itself is not difficult to fabricate as it is made of contours of wood panels joined together by a spine that runs down the center. The benefit of algorithms truly shines here when it is shown to respond to the obstacles that could have prevented it from being a smooth, flowing seat. When most seating arrangements would break and continue on the other side of a pillar, Urban adapter would flowand bend along with the pillar, forming seats around it. Computerization allows for the creation, design and fabrication through the use of computerization to simplfy and at the same time make the design itself more intricate and detailed even with a change in scale.
Technology is now being employed as a tool for the designing process. In the past, design ideas are presented on paper, projecting an idea that is meant to be built in the real world onto paper, a two dimensional plane. This is then translated back into the three dimensional plane when it is fabricated and constructed in the real world. Computation design plays a large part in the process of designing as it generates outcomes in the virtual world for the designer. The outcome can then be reviewed and altered throughout the design process, different from the past when ideas are fabricated first and then reviewed before moving back to the design process. When designing through computation, design outcomes can be seen and tested in the virtual world, reducing the time spent fabricating ideas. Computation itself is programmed through the use of algorithms, and the outcomes are defined by the inputs used by the designer to get the desired result.
Algorithms are mathematical calculations, sequences that are then carried out by the computer to get a certain outcome desired by the designer. The details generated by the algorithms are infinite even if there is a change in scale due to them being generated by algorithms. This is what makes them so powerful, because they are able to generate ideas and outcomes to such a detail that are not thought by the designer themselves, as they can only have a general idea of the final outcome before and during the design process. However, the fabrication of these designs into the real world is still limited to our current methods of fabrication. The fabrication process makes designing with computing a curious process as although it may be able to generate outcomes, they still do not generate the final result, and the designer has to understand and material they will be working with to truly finish the product.
My opinion of computational design is that it is a fantastic tool that opens up doors that allow for new possibilities for designing. The generation of outcomes by the computer is powerful as it means that the designer can alter different inputs in the designing and get different results. This form of feedback allows the designer to quickly change the design and generate more ideas closer to the desired result. However, this also means that many people will use this form of technology to generate ideas for them and to get results that “look good”. This way of using this technology is not tapping into the full potential of computational design, and makes most of the designs look the same because they all look “weird” with “organic shapes” with “broken surface”. This view of parametric design is not uncommon amongst the general population, and is the result of a lack of understanding of process behind it.
Parametric design can and should be used to realize designs that help with the performance of a design whenever possible, not just the facade of the design, and with the improvement in fabrication technology, respond to its surrounding to further boost its performance through materials that can adapt to its surroundings, whether it is mechanical or programmed. However, the designs should be done so that it remains withing the realms of our fabrication capabilities. This is because although the design may be desired, it is still for nothing if it cannot be fabricated into the real world.
11 Irene Neuwirth () [accessed 20 March 2014]. Bridgette Meinhold, Studio Gang’s Curvaceous Wood Pavilion at Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo Read more: Studio Gang’s Curvaceious Wood Pavilion at Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building (10 October 2011) [accessed 13 March 2014]. Foster + Partners () [accessed 27 March 2014]. MATSYS (June 18th, 2009) [accessed 20 March 2014]. SWING () [accessed 13 March 2014]. URBAN ADAPTER BY ROCKER-LANGE ARCHITECTS (13 January 2013) [accessed 27 March 2014].
What is Structure? Structure is when smller parts come are arranged in a way to work together to create a system of functioning elements. Structure exists in our daily lives. Indeed, we will not be able to function as we are ourselves a structure made of smaller parts such as cells, and these are governed by our DNA. From early civilizations, as humans, we create structures to manipulate our surroundings in the form of housing. From earlier housings in the form of huts and sheds to the The pyramids, Great wall of China, temples in Ancient Greece and Rome, and even the stonehenge may have once served a purpose. However structures are not limited only the buildings. Objects in our daily lives such as stairs, table, chairs, beds, in fact almost anything and every we create are structures. We use our knowledge of forces, such as tensile forces and compressive forces when we make structures to better coordinate and arrange the materials that make up the structure, and are capability to build are based on our knowledge and understanding of material and strucutral arrangements of parts.
Nature itself is made up of structures, and it would be fair to assume people got their initial nderstanding of structure through observing nature. The leaves of a tree, rocks that make up mountains, and the bubbles that form on water surfaces. These structures may seem mundane to us, but they all confirm to certain laws that we can imitate and use in our designs to create objects that function similar to these structures. My fascination in biomimicry is tied very closely to structure. This is because biomimicry uses laws and principles in nature that would inevitably lead to certain forms of structures, and these structures then function accordingly. Strucutre thus governs function of a system, because the structure has to be built certain way in order for it to behave in a certain manner. Everything we make then, should be built in a way so that it behaves the way we want it to. Understanding structure is the key to every functioning design.
Canton Tower 2010 Information Based Architects Guangdong, China The Canton Tower is a 600m tall sturcture created by two ellipses rotating, one at the bottom and one against each other, with columns running along up the tower, following the rotation.
This tower is an example of the uses of computational design that allows designers to create complex structures that would be to difficult without using the computer.
The structure of the Canton Tower is one that can be easiy envisioned ut difficult to realize due to the twisting at the waist. It is essentially a circle of pipes rotated in the centre of the tower to give it the torsion.
The use of computational design opens up new opporunities in the world of fabrication, where understanding how the structure of these designs is crucial to making realizing the design, while at the same time give it aesthetic properties through the material and structure of the fabrication.
A column lattice is created in the facade to hold up the structure as well as give it additional strength, but as it is rotated, it is more difficult to calculate the exact strength of this pillar lattice
It can also be assumed that open-lattice structures such as these are more viable for construction now as computational design helps to calculate structural limitations.
The open-lattice structure is made from 3300 parts, all diffrerent from each other, due to the rotation.
Great Court At The British Museum 1994-2000 Foster + Partners London, UK The roofing of the Great Court at the British Museum is made of a triangulated mesh of glass with metal frame that holds the glass in place and give the roof its form.
This essentially creates a continuous arch that runs from the center to the sides of the building. The frame must then be able to support this arch and span across the roof.
The dome consist of a dome and the glass mesh, that runs across the whole structure, while the dome sits into the mesh and pushes it down, morphing the shape of the roof
The pattern of the frame is made of crisscrossing metal frames spanning from the center to the sides, while circles that originate from the center act as bracing.
Triangulation can be used to panel curved surfaces into multifaceted structures that bend along with the surface, creating small, flat planes on a curved surface that makes it possible to fabricate using rigid materials. If triangulated small enough, can potentially make panels so small that it smooths the curve. However, the down side is that they still are not completely smooth curves as they are made of panels.
Case Study 1.0
Arch Triangulated Panel A Surface = Lofted Arch U Division = 13 V Division =13
Arch Triangulated Panel A Surface = Lofted Arch U Division = 13 V Division =13
Arch Triangulated Panel A Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13
Arch Triangulated Panel A Polygon Surface = Lofted Arch U Division = 13 V Division =13 Radius= 0.6
Arch Triangulated Panel B Polygon Surface = Lofted Arch U Division = 13 V Division =13 Radius= 0.6
Arch Triangulated Panel C Polygon Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13 Radius= 0.6
Arch Random Quad Panel Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13 Random Seed= 6.8
Arch Triangulated Panel A Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13 Random Seed= 6.8
Arch Staggerred Grid Panel Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13 Random Seed= 6.8
Arch Grid Panel Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13 Random Seed= 6.8
Arch Triangulated Panel B Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13 Random Seed= 6.8
Arch Triangulated Panel B Surface = Lofted Arches U Division = 13 V Division =13 Random Seed= 6.8
Case Study 1.0
Diamond Grid Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Braced 1 Direction Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Braced 2 Directions Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Diamond Grid Structure Pipe Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10 Ends = Round
Braced 1 Direction Structure Pipe Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10 Ends = Round
Braced 2 Directions Structure Pipe Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10 Ends = Round
Diamond Grid Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Hexagon Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Column 2D Truss Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Diamond Grid Structure Pipe Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10 Ends = Round
Hexagon Structure Pipe Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10 Ends = Round
Column 2D Truss Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10 Ends= Round
Case Study 1.0 Hexagon Panel Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Triangular Panel A Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Random Quad Panel Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Grid Panel Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Triangular Panel B Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Triangular Panel C Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
Skewed Grid Structure Surface = Lofted Column U Division = 10 V Division =10
B2. The use of structure to create geometry and form is rather difficult as structure requires a pre-existing form to build the structure for. However I understand that form can be influenced by structure, such as in the case of panelling, new ridges and edges are formed that did not exist in the initial form in consideration of fabrication.
This arch is made of â€†elements that are twisted and as a result create an interesting structure that would be twisting in nature. The initial concept was to have tensile elements that stretch, and this outcome fits that because of the thinning elements. However, it does not seem possible to fabricate.
This column structure is shaped in a way that ridges are created that were not previously in the column. This creates possible forms that, in a way, are created during the fabrication process instead of the usual ideation process.
This column structure is made of hexagons, and it is seen here that although hexagons are not circular, the lines formed by the hexagon could potentially create a rigid structure while maintaining a smooth curve
This column structure is made of voronoi curves on a column, resulting in a mesh of intersecting pipes that may or may not form rigid structures. The idea of voronoi generally points towards rigid strucutre due to the bracing created byt he intersecting curves.
Case Study 2.0
Bird Nest National Stadium for 2008 Olympic Games 2000-2008 Herzog de Meuron Beijing, China The Bird Nest is a paramateric design realized by Herzog de Meuron for the Olympic games in 2008. It is famous for its criss-crossing, load bearing structure that makes up the bowl shape of the stadium. These lines support the stadium even though the structures that it is composed of move chaotically across the “surface” of the bowl, moving from the stadium opening at the top to the bottom of the structure.
These structures create “columns” that move diagonally, and as they form joints as they intersect , directs the load down through these structures. The form creates natural bracing with the multiple joints, and prevents lateral movment. This form of architecture is available with our current form of technology. We are now able to make simulations of constructions such as these using computational designs. In addition our advancement interms of materials and construction also lead to the creation of this architecture.
Material is extremely important for constructing this architecture because it allows for this form of structure to be able to be supported by the criss-crossing lattice The aesthetics of the building is also born through these criss-crossing structures. They inspire amazement because of how they are formed, while at the same time being a structural component to the building.
Case Study 2.0
Case Study 2.0 Lofting the three circles together to form the surface that the lines are going to run along
Divide the circles that form the opening of the structure. Jitter allows us to jumble up data. Do this for either one or both of the circles.
Using geodesic curves that run between two points on a surface means that the ine is going to be as short as possible along the curve.
Give the geodesic curves some form of geometry would give it the structure.
This design outcome was chosen because of the aesthetic look that it provides. The evenly spaced branches give the design a sense of balance, and the branches themselves can be designed to form curves or spaced out as needed. Additional field point or lines can be used to alter the shape of the structure to make it align itself to specific directions.
This design outcome was chosen because it showed me the potential of our design to form platforms. The branches can stem from the centre of structure to form the platform.
This design outcome was chosen because of the shape that looks like a dish. it gives this design the potential to function like a rain collector or place solar panel on the surface. The iteration also shows that it is possible to make our design sit on the floor without the â€œstemâ€?. It also shows how the density can affect aesthetics of the design, making it look like a whole surface instead of branches.
This design outcome was chosen because of the aesthetic look that it provides. The sparce branches show that it could potentially be used to form cage like structures. However, the elements of the structure itself should be made thick to support the sturcture.
B5. We have made a few prototypes for the presentation, as a representation of the model and also for the testing out material that we intend to build the structure wtih, which is metal. the prototype has shown us a few things, in partiuclar the design flaws and the way the material works. We can use these new found flaws to better our design. The design flaw found in this prototype is the lack of foundation to hold the structure. In the prototype, the elements are stuck into a piece of foam board, and tie up together with rings as part of the design. The lack of support on the area where the structure fits into the ground allows the elements to move about freely. This can be remedied with additional structures in the lower areas, to hold them in place, such as more foam board (or in the case of the actual deisgn, concrete or metal brackets) so that the element does not swivel.
The additional design flaw is the use of rings in the inside of the structure. Our initial idea was to use the rings on the inside of the model so that it the metal elements appear smooth from the outside. However, we did not consider how it would be tied down together, and though the use of brackets to tie the elements to the ring somehwat keeps the structure in place, it does not make the strucutre as rigid as planned. Bracings would have to be used in the rings, or on the elements itself to maintain a rigid structure. The use of material choice here was not good as well, as although the wires are made of metal, it does not fully reflect the capabilites of a hollow pipe-like structure. The wire is also very soft, meaning that it bends very easily. However, the prototype has shown us a few things that work, such as the aesthetics of the model that uses multiple elements to form the structure and the form of the model.
With our prototype, we have decided to stick to using metal as a material as it has high tensile capacity while also having the abiity to sustain compressive forces. However, we might have to change the material that we make the model with due to consideration of scale, rigidity of the structure, and potential changes to the shape of the elements and structure.
Our groupâ€™s initial research field is structure, and so our design plan for the model was to create a self supporting form made of structural elements. The design brief was to create a sculpture in Copenhagen, Denmark that would generate electricity. Our idea is to use wind energy to power turbines that will be positioned in the centre of the circles. The branches then create shade for people in addition to providing structural support for the design. We had to keep in mind local cultures and landmarks of the surrounding, and undersand that wind energy was the most optimal because of lack of prolonged sunlight for most parts of the year in Copenhagen, and that although it is situated by water, electricity generated by water waves is not enough. On the other hand, wind energy is available throughout the year, and can the scupture can be used by the people as wind energy is generated above ground level.
B6. The circles provide the area where the turbine will sit in, while keeping people out for safety reasons. The strucutr will act as a cage to bar the turbines in, while at the same time branching out to support itself. These branchesare also meant to create an aesthetic look projected by the shadows and the strucutral elements as they will be contrasting each other. The branches also give the potential for shade as cover sheeting can be placed on them during rainy days. Mostly, this design will be a meeting spot for people as it will act as an iconic landmark in the area. One of our objectives is to allow for people to meet underneath these structures, and so it should be open and free for all. With the open plan in this sculpture, people can move about freely or choose to relax underneath the branches. We also want to have a bicycle track surrounding the sculpture to celebrate the healthy cycling culture in present in Denmark. It provides the locals an area to cycle around with their families or friends, or just to enjoy the scenery. The landscape around the sculpture will be modified to generate a more natural look that would evoke a sense of nature to the users inside the structures and also to onlookers.
LEarning Objective/Outcome Learning objectives: This project has taught challenged us to think in new ways that allows us to use Rhino and Grasshopper more effectively. Because the projects requires us to make our own algorithms and definitions, we have to have at least some understanding of the inputs, what each input can accomplish and how they interact with each other. The subject has pushed us to know these functions and to use them in a way to achieve a form that we like. Grasshopper has also allowed for the achievement of designs that would have been impossible without it. The use of field lines and other similar functions has led to creation of designs beyond our imagination other than the general idea of the things that shoud determine the design and what it should be composed of.
This to me is invaluable because it shows that the program can be used to be part of the design process as a generator, while we as designers guide this process toward the final outcome. Use of the program also simplifies the process of fabrication, while at the same time gives us the extra job of having to figure out exactly how the outcome would be realized and fabricated. Our choice when choosing structure as our main area of study for Part B was because we understand that designing the structure of a design is inevitable during every design process and understanding it is crucial to realizing the design as it is a core part of every design. In synch with our choice of research field, we had to reeverse engineer functioning projects that have been realied, and these are the Bird nest and the Canton Tower.
The lack of given definition for our research field was seen by me as the idea that structure is generally not seen as part of form generation, but I wanted to challenge that notion because I believe in the idea that the form is realized by the structure, and the structural limitations are thus design limitations. As a result, designs should be achieved with the structural form in mind. Our precedents were looking at how the strucutre is held up to create form, and not focusing ont he form of the building itself. However, we wished to create the form wit the design brief in mind, and with the understanding that we are not creating a building, but a structure. As an architect this was rather difficult to start because we kept going back to architectural terms such as roofs, ground floor, columns, etc. I now realized that using usch terms limits our ideation because it restricts us to architectural understanding and
B7. not of public sculptures that were meant to generate electricity, and as a result we had to change our mindset when designing the sculpture. As a designer, I have learnt to use computational designing as a tool to enrich my ideas through continuous feedback that is readily available whenever I make a virtual change in the design. I have already realized the potential of computational design as it is able to generate forms and outcomes determined only by sets of rules that we input, in the end making us the designers at the very core of the design.
The input given to us during the presentation was that we were not using the design efficiently to better fir the design brief. We were encouraged to make the energy generation as an integral part of the structure as opposed to merely installing them at the core of the structures. This presents itself as a challenge as we will have to make it so that the structure that is crucial to holding up the design would be presented to parts that are less strucurally capabe of holding withstanding outside compressive or tensile forces and also to consider allowing wind forces to infiltrate itself into the structure. One of the suggestions was to install these at the end of the elements and allow it to capture wind, and this may be the direction that we will be looking towards, while also keeping in mind that we have to maximize wind energy generation by making such parts face the wind on the outside rather than in the middle of the main structure.
We will also be looking at changing the form and material choices with these feedback, and do more prototype that to better understand how these changes would affect the design.
Bibliography Bibliography Page “Canton Tower / Information Based Architecture.” . Arch Daily, 19 Nov. 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/89849/canton-tower-information-based-architecture/>. Bogdan, Profir. “The Chinese National Stadium in Beijing – The Bird’s Nest Stadium [ Read More at www.homesthetics.net/the-chinese-national-stadium-in-beijing-the-birds-nest-stadium/ © Homesthetics - Inspiring ideas for your home.].” . homeaesthetics.net, 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.homesthetics.net/the-chinese-national-stadium-in-beijing-the-birds-nest-stadium/>. Kolarevik, Branko, and Kevin R. Klinger. “Maufacturing/ Material/ Effects.” Manufacturing/ Material/ Effects. : , 2008. . Print. “Projects / Great Court at the British Museum London, UK 1994 - 2000.” . Foster + Partners, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/great-court-at-the-british-museum/>.
Appendix: Algorithmic sketch
Appendix: Algorithmic sketch
Part C. Detailed design
Wind Pavillion Our project is caled the wind pavillion. It is an artwork composed of multiple structures that, in addition to beautifying landscape, also harness wind energy to as a clean and sustainable energy source. The Wind pavillion is located in refshaleĂ¸en in the city of Copenhagen. It sits on an island that used to be an industrial site, and the site itself sits on the river. Surrounding the site itself is multiple pubic strucutres that cater towards the younger generation and with the great scenery the river provides, would be a used quite frequently by the people of Copenhagen. The Wind Pavillion features multiple metal â€œtreesâ€? that branch towards the more pervalent wind directions wiht wind turbine at its tip. The branches differ in height to prevent wind one branch from blocking wind for branchinges at the back.
These trees are situated randomly on site, with public seating at its base for visitors to use. Its wide space allows visitors to stroll or jog at their leisure, and to indulge in relaxing activites such as picnics, reading, outdoor activities and cycling on the path around the site. One would feel a sense of peace and seclusion from everyday life as it is situated on a river looking onto the city, making a it sanctuary from the common busy lives in the city. In addition to being a bonus to the people in Copenhagen, its generation of clean and sustainable energy synchronizes will with the direction at which Denmark is heading towards in terms of energy production. Wind generation in this area will provide favourable results because the pervalent wind comes mostly from the river, with less structures to block the incoming wind.
Design Concept Positioning of wind energy generator The positioning of our energy generator was seen as being isolated from the rest of the design because there is only a weak relationship between the generator and the design itself. We liked our design idea, but to remedy this, w had to look into the fundamentals of our design and see how we can change this. Our initial design was meant to look like a tree, branching out from a centre outwards from where the turbine would be. However, this is inefficient and so we looked at how we can position our energy generator better so that it can generate more energy. It was suggested that we place the energy genrator on the tip of the branches so that the wind will not be obstructed by the structure itself.
The group decided to follow this suggestion and look at how we can achieve this. We realised that we do not like the aesthetic look of using vertical wind turbines on the tip, and so decided to go for horizontal wind turbines instead.
Thus we designed it so that there would be holes at the back of each tunnel so that wind may blow through. This design would have had structural problems due to lack of tensile support where we inserted a hole into the structure itself.
This proved a challenge in itself because it now meant that it only took in wind from one direction instead of from all sides that a vertical wind turbine would allow.
This idea was replaced by a suggestion to place the turbine on the top of the strucutre instead of inside it. The second piece of advice we recieved was to funnel wind together.
This was one of the points that we deemed to outweigh the potential energy generation as we are making an artwork first and foremost, and generating energy second. We started off with this idea by putting the turbine in the branch itself, in doing so make each structure hollow at the top so that it may allow wind to enter. By using a virtual wind tunnel, as was suggested, we understood that there needed to be an outflow of wind so that the wind goes through the tunnel.
The first piece of advice we judged to be a good piece of advice because it fits in fine with where our project was headed. The placement of turbine on top of the structure instead of within the structure itself meant that there would be less structural problems; the structures would not look too bulky; and also we would have more freedom as to what kind of turbine we can install, and also for potential funnels.
C1. The second piece of advice was to include a form of funnel for the design. We thought it was a good idea as it was the point of the design, but at the time of the advice did not know how. At this point, we decided to go with a idea to work with first. a simple structure, turbine on the top that sits in a tunnel. We decided to work with a horizontal windturbine that will be boosted by a funnel. The design of a wind turbine would be predetermined by the design of an existing company. This gives us the ability to theoretically calculate the potential amount of energy we can harvest from these turbines as different companies have different efficiency and blade diameter. Leaving aside the design of the turbine, we decided to look at funnel shapes. The group looked at a few different funnel shapes, and through multiple tests using different tunnel shapes, we concluded that a tunnel that is short would be best as it decreases drag along
the inner surface of the funnel, and also so there is less existing air pressure within the funnel. This transforms our wind tunnel into more of a ring due to its short length. The group also looked at how the wind pressure decreases behind the ring, and decided that by decreasing air pressure behind the ring, we can accelerate the wind blowing, keeping in mind that air moves from high pressure to low pressure to equalize. Through trial and error, we decided to go for a half ring made of an arc going full circle. But rather than smooth, we decided to make it so that it is pointed at the peak to maximize the change in air flow behind the ring itself. The other factor in the ring was its size. A ring with a larger radius allowed in more wind and had less pressure than a ring with smaller radius. We settled on 2m radius, effectively giving us a 4m diameter wind turbine. We settled for that size because it was
large enough to actually produce substantial energy, but small enough to mount on the of a cantilever structure without placing too much strain. This was a big problem because they are moving according to the wind and as such a lot of movement will be created. A placement and support for the turbine and the ring are designed a lot more easily once we know the size of the turbine and the general shape we wanted. Other final details for the energy generation component sees that we place the turbine right at the edge of the structure, and the ring supported using additional structures. The structure holding up the turbine is also tilted down slightly at the top as we noticed that wind rises slightly before reaching the turbine.
Wind energy generator With the feedback during the interim presentation, we understand that our wind energy generator was seen to be inefficiently placed, and we can greatly increase the amount of energy harnessed if we alter this. Our problem is now that we are using horizontal wind turbines instead of vertical ones. Where vertical wind turbines allowed it to harness wind from any direction, the horizontal wind turbine is a lot more limited for only allowing wind from a certain direction. Because of that, we had to look into how to make the most of the wind available to the site and use it most efficiently. We were advised to look into using ladybug for accurate weather data and we used the windrose function of ladybug.
With this additional information in hand, we gather that most of the wind comes from the west and so we can orient our design to face the west to capture more of this favourable wind, and this is easily done by introducing additional field lines that makes it so that the branches are facing the wind. These field lines are what creates the basic direction of the structures, and they would be most efficient as they would be directly facing the direction with the strongest wind for the longest duration. At the same time, it fans out slightly, which allows it to capture wind from the other relatively strong wind directions so energy is constantly being generated instead of relying on only one direction. An over-reliance on only one direction leads to no energy being generated if there is no wind from that direction, and leads to fluctuations. This can be offset with the use of batteries that can store energy if there is more output than it is being used.
We decided to look at potential turbines for our project as we want it to be as realistic as possible. Turbine choice is important when looking at the wind speed because we are evaluating wind speed and its potential impact on our project. A turbine with a high minimum wind speed threshold would lead to less energy being created, but at the same time theoretically offer more durability to the turbine. At the same time blade span of the turbine is determinant to harnessed energy as a bigger span allows it to capture more wind that makes it rotate faster, but is more prone to damage due to the high speed. With these in mind, we have a choose a suitable turbine that would fit our site based on the wind speed offered on site while generating as much energy as possible.
Kestrel E400N We looked at a few companies but in the end choose to use the Kestrel E400N because of its turbine blade span of 4m diameter and, minimum wind speed of 4m/s. Its overspeed protection is automated, which reduces maintenence. It can also be plugged into the grid or to a battery, which gives us extra flexibiity. These features of the turbine suits our site because the site does not have very strong winds for the majority of the time. The 4m/s minimum wind speed means that although it will not be able to generate energy when the wind is weak, the turbine will be more duable. For the odd moments when the wind picks up and gets too strong, there is the automatic overspeed protection that make the turbine blades less wind resistance, taking less damage from stronger winds.
Wind Funnel to Main Structure
Wind Funnel Support Bracing Wind Funnel Support
The design is made of multiple “trees”, that in turn, is made of multiple “branches”. Each branch has a main metal component that curves sideways holds up the turbine at the very tip. The core construction element is the metal structure that make up these individual branches. Each of the metal structures spans between 22-43 meters long at 250mm diameter each, reaching a height of maximum 24 meters before it starts to curve. These structures will be made of mild structural steel, prefabricated and assembled on site. They should be cut at lengths of 12 or 16meters but if possible, customize the cut lengths so there is as little segments as possible. The prefebarication process will be done using cold form CNC rolling to bend these metal structures, and using chamfered joints for seamless finish. The finish of the structure will be coated with EDP primer, and additional metal copper and gloss for paint on the outer layer. EDP prime stands for Electro Depost Primer, and is applied electrically to cover the whole surface and prevent unwanted rust as it goes into small crevices that spray painting will not be able to reach. EDP primer revents rust on the mild steel, but allows the copper paint to rust on the surface.
Main Core Structure: Metal Structure
The core construction element is considered to be our metal strucutre that hold up the turbine. Through consultation with a steel manufacturing company, we understand that welding is the best option for a large structure that requires rigid joints.
These strucutres would also have to be CNC rolled into the form to create the profile we want. Using this form of technology allows us to roll these pipes to most logical shapes accurately as they are computer generated data. We were also provided samples of metal pipes by the manufacturer for different materials. With these materials we can then understand its use and its overall suitability for this project.
Materials used in the structures of this project would have to have enough tensile strength to prevent bending, but also work in compression due to the heavy weight of the material. The material should also not rust, though this can be offset by using finishings such as paint to make it waterproof, or a coat of other metals so that there is a layer of rust on top of the metal we want, greatly slowing the rusting process.
The conclusion we have come to for material choice is to use mild steel as our structural steel. Mild steel works both in tensile and compression. Its tensile properties give it the abilty to resist strong winds and bending in casse of movement. While its ability to hold up heavy loads allows it to carry the structure up to the height we want as the material itself is heavy.
Steel is also well know to resist wear due to its hard surfacce, and we can make use of this property in case we choose to use paint rather than a coating of other metal. Paint would have to be reapplied and maintenance would be higher than a layer of other metal.
In the end, we choose to have copper paint as a finish as it would eventually rust and give that green-ish look. We want this aesthetic property as it ties in with the buildings in Copenhagen, and also its it would give testament to the longvetiy of the artwork.
Project Walkthrough Video
LAGI brief Requirements Our Project Our project is a piece of artwork that can generate electricity. It is made of multiple structures that resemble “trees” and curves towards the wind. These “trees” branch out and on the tip of each branch is a wind turbine for energy generation. At the base of these trees are seating areas or planting boxes. The space around the site is free to use for the public as a recreational space, with access to the site from both the river and bicycle path and carpark. Users of the site can use the site for usual recreational activities such as reading, strolling, jogging, etc. while additional features can be installed on site if the public wishes, such as for barbeque pits and additional bicycle paths cutting into the site itself. The Technology The project makes use of horizontal wind turbines that are 4m in diameter, but due to the weak wind in Copenhagen, a small ring is placed in front of it that acts to funnel and accelerate the wind going past the wind turbine. Estimated kWh With 8 “branches” on each “tree”, and with 40 of these “trees” on the site, I estimate 1848GWh generated per year, powering roughly 656 houses a year based average energy consumption in Copenhagen. Material Dimension Branch Lengths: 22-43 meters Tube Diameters: 250mm Mild Structural Steel EDP primer coating Finish: Paint- Metal Copper, Gloss
Environmental Impact Statement The project will consist of multiple turbines set up on site that will also act as public artwork. These structures will be made exsitu but assembled on site. They will be attached to the electric grid and increase clean energy generated for the city. The production of these structures will be the major carbon emission, in addition to future maintenance, but will be offset by the clean energy produced. A few considerations to look into would be the danger it has towards local wildlife with the construction of such structures, especially birds. The construction itself will need to be maintained as wildlife start to impose themselves on the structure, making nests, gathering on the structures, disrupting flight paths, etc. One solution to this is to deter the birds from crowding the project as it poses as a hazard to them, and this can be done by startling the birds and discourage their visit. This project looks to target the energy problems the world is currently facing, and to help Denmark achieve its carbon neutral goal, while at the same time beautify a currently unused site in the city of Copenhagen. One of the issues it will face is the public response to such an artwork being built on the site. The project has already considered one of the issues that it may not blend into the local architecture well with such distinct forms, and our response is to use copper rust finishing on the surface of these structures to help it blend in with the local architecture colour as it is often seen on the roofs of buildings in the city. The other issue it will face is vandalism, a problem that another local artwork, the mermaid, is also in danger of. The project should be patrolled for the safety of the citizens as well, as it would be a public recreation area. Should the need arise, fencing and life buoys should also be placed around the site to prevent people from falling into the water.
Learning Objective/Outcome One of the feedbacks given during the presentation was that the structures looked too “minimalistic” and can be further developed. we lacked architectural design features that designates and differentiates space on the site. This feedback was suggested by the tutor and was brought up during the previous tutorial when we were shown a way to make a more radical looking design.
ing some seclusion close to the river and further from the carpark.. Whereas the east side of the site is closer to the carpark and more accisible to the public. Users can designate this site for barbeques or gatherings. In between these structures are also wide spaces that can be paved for bicycle paths that go around these structures. Plant boxes can be planted on some of the seating areas as an alternative to provide some variety and additional environmentally friendly bonus.
This feedback was considered and disputed in the group, but in the end we did try to implement this extra feedback into our design, but with less success. The problem was that during that tutorial our design has not been oriented towards the wind yet, and it looked more spectacular as it branched. This alternative focuses more on the designing and aesthetic aspect, and was given a high degree of thought, but with the implementation of wind direction into the design, it looked less pectacular and cumbersome as it adds a lot more additional structures to the design when using the proximity input. We decided to use the proximity input as bracing for the structures to create that branching effect as well as bracing between structures. However, the aesthetics of our design remained looking minimalist as we decide to prioritize energy generation over additional braching between the structures.
One other feedback given during the presentation was one that I feel is related strongly with our project and I think should be implmented. The feedback was that there could be differing heights amongst the structures. This has been considered and is implemented, but is similar though different from our original idea.
The other feedback was that the we lacked architectural design features that designates and differentiates space on the site.
However this would create an autonomous increase in height across the site, and might be percieved as boring nonetheless.
I feel like this is a good feedback that looked at something our project lacked. Our project is meant to be an open space that allows users to use the space as they wish, and we think that actively designing features that alters this would change our project. However, if we were to add additional features based on these feedbacks, looking at the existing design, I find that there are already certain areas on the site that already do this. The area on the west of the site is more crowded and there are more “trees” there. This provides more shade and should be used for people that just want to relax on site, provid-
Even so, the increase in energy generation is reason enough that it should be incorporated in our design.
Our current design makes use of random heights for the strucutres within a certain domain that ensures enough wind strength at that altitude. However, wind is generally stronger at higher altitudes, and we can increase energy output if the height of the structures was to increase slowly from the west to the north-east of the site. This can tie in somewhat with the feedback of creating space and pushes our case for additional energy generation as an artwork.
This studio has allowed me to define my own brief based on the general requirements of the subject. I was able to decide what I want to do with my project, and create my own brief based on that to give myself some groundwork and boundaries to work with as it is more difficult to start if there are no boundaries at all. The boundaries themselves are taken from the subject and lagi requirements, and my own preferences for creating an artwork. This set of rules is then translated in the rules I set for my design in Grasshopper and Rhino. Visual programming has allowed me to make changes depending on any given situation that arises as long as I know what it is about the design that has to be atered. This is because it can give me feedback in a short span of time that I can then use to reevluate any further changes that should be taken. This allows for further parametric design capabilities as parametric design is based on a set of rules that is initially set. However, the feedback given visually is there for further changes. This subject has definitely pushed me to learn and understand more about 3D media that generates parametric modelling, analytic diagramming and digital farbication as we looked at diagrams given by the virtual wind tunnel that gives us feedback on how we can make our design perform better, in addition to preparing files for 3D printing. This design project has broadened my knowedge of architecture in terms of how they are conceptualized. So far I have understood that ideation of a design comes first, understanding the featuers that we want our design to possess and embody, and only after that, the main body of the architecture is created and smaller features are designed and fleshed out. However after using grasshopper, I have come to terms that this design process is not necessarily held true in all forms of design, and sometimes things maye change. I actually do personally prefer this way of designing where the design is derived from a set of rules and regulated by the design concept that we want. This was
C5. of designing is very efficient in a way that it is infinitely possible, but at the same time only one or very few outcomes are possible. I say this because design is infinitely possible and anything is possible as long as it can be fabricated. However, this is restricted by the rules we set for it, and this acts like a checklist that filters out the design outcomes that do not fulfill our criteria. At the end of the day, only the outcomes that have not been filtered out by the checklist is left, and we can pick from the remaining few possibilities and refine them. The use of computer for designing is also a first for me as I learn to adapt to its advantages and drawbacks. I find that the use of computational design greatly increases the speed of designing as it gives us constant feedback through visual representation in the virtual realm. In addition, the ability to set parameters and get the output from these set parameters gives interesting results. It is possible to roughly visualize how the output will look based on the input parameters, but it is still difficult if not impossible to correctly â€œseeâ€? how the parameters will fit together before the inputs are computed. However, after a few weeks of using grasshopper, I have developed a limited understanding of grasshopper enough for me to create and manipulate my design for this project. The project itself has given me multiple opportunities in the form of challenges and obstacles in the process of its creation. This come partly due to my limited skills in grasshopper, but also because of how the project is envisioned to be by the group. It is most challenging right after the interim presntation when we had to go through a major overhaul of the design, and we were not satsified with the existing definition at the time. We had to then come up with a more refined definition, one that is more compatible with our design idea, and allows us to alter elements of the design as we wished.
In retrospect, it is astounding how we had to remake our definition because our design has changed. The concept remained the same, but because we changed want we wanted the design to embody, our definition had to be changed as well, and this proves how tightly design and definition go hand in hand. Computational design is a tool that, I feel, can be a double edged sword. This is a tool that many would want to learn to use, but once we have mastered it, it is important to remember that we are still the designers and the program is but a tool to help us realize this. We should understand that designs do not have to look complicated to be sophisticated, consider the actual realization of the design and how people might feel towards a bizzare-looking design compared to a simpler looking one. For the most part, most people I know prefer a design that does not go overboard with overcomplicating its features, while keeping things interesting, and I tend to hold this to be true for the majority of the public. With that in mind, I try to make the design as interesting as possible while not featuring too many details that may overcomplicate a design. Computational design is also more detached to the actual construction of the design itself and it requires extra steps to understand the tectonics of the design. The final construction of the design has to be conceptualized but may be difficult if the form of the design is too complicated. Our design is not too complicated and is comprised of only a few elements that make up the whole design as we thought of the materials and how the structure is going to be built as we designed it, as our research field was structure, and we had to look into the structural side of the design. However I have seen designs that might be more complicated to create, and this might be partly because the construction phase was not considered beforehand during the design phase. This complicates matters as it means that the design and the material construction might not be compatible, and might have to be redesigned as a result.
In retrospect this project has also taught me to think about the whole design process as a whole rather than compartmentalizing them individually as I usually would. The design brief is also something that I am not used to, having to think about how energy is generated. It is technically just an additional requirement that is part of the brief, but also tied to how the public views it. During the final presentation, one of the feedbacks we recieved was that the design is also a form of architecture as much as it is an artwork for energy generator. This made me reconsider whether our choice of priority was the right one, but decided that we made our decisions based on our condition at the time. Despite this, I think our design is the result of our priority at the time and our choice to focus on efficiency of design and energy generation rather than for space allocation and designating space for the users. All in all, I feel that this project has helped me grow and expand my horizons as a designer as I practice with computational design and work with a brief that requires me to look at energy generation while at the same time be in harmony with the public users and think about the actual construction and performance of the design in real life.
post-presentation changes Proposal to change height of turbine on site
Height change for additional wind and also to provide changes in space.
Proposal for playground areaClimbing structure No more than 2.5m tall Soft Padding underneath for safety Bars no more than 40mm diameter Multiple variations Activity for younger users on site
C6. Proposal for Site change
Additional shelter for users incase of bad weather. Waterproof Canvas to be stretched on additional metal structure to provide roofing Changes to positioning of turbines and strucutre to make them more individualistic. Also unifies the site as this covers more area, and seem to interweave with each other more. The negative side to it is that there will be less energy generated from this, but we will be using a suggestion from the feedback given from the presentation to make it look more artistic and architecture, and less of a utility based wind farm.
Post-presentation changes Proposal for Site Changes
Additional space and path ways added to the site as suggested during the feedback. These spaces are what we feel would entice peope to the site and give additional use to the site rather than just a park with wind turbines. The pathways are designed to be linked to certain landmarks in Copenhagen, and points from the center of the site to these landmarks. Entrances are from the bottom right, coming from the carpark, and also from the small brown rectangle at the left that is a jetty. A fountain is located at the very center of the site, and from there, the playground is right beside the fountain, marked as beige. The blue indicate outdoor badminton courts due to the popularity of the sport in the country and the small space required to play it. A barbeque area is indicated as the green triangular space near the entrance from the parking lot for convenience of the people moving barbeque supplies, and a vegetable patch is set up near it as the brown rectangle. Public toilets are also situated here for users. The light green part of the site will be made emtpy so that users will have more space to enjoy the view from the riverside.
Appendix- Bibliography Bibliography Page Land Art Generator Initiative, Land ARt Generator Initiative Competition 2014 (2014) <http://landartgenerator. org/competition2014.html> [accessed 8 June 2014]. Lazar Rosenblat, Wind Power Calculator (2011) <http://windpower.generatorguide.net/wind-speed-power.html> [accessed 23 May 2014]. Online Innovations, e400n (2012) <http://www.kestrelwind.co.za/content.asp?PageID=61> [accessed 25 May 2014].
Published on Mar 13, 2014