JOURNAL dESIGN STUDIO
NICOLA LEONG 586066
Front Cover Image: Fractal Renders // Tom Beddard
ABPL30048 - ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO: AIR SEMESTER 1, 2014 UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE DESIGN JOURNAL // NICOLA LEONG 586066
TUTORS: HASLETT & PHILLIP GROUP: 4
PART A: CONCEPTUALISATION 5 6 A1.0 7 A1.1 9 A1.2 11 A1.3
Land Art Generator 2014 Brief Design Futuring Renewable Energy Research Land Art Generator Initiative 2012 Review Land Art Generator Initiative 2012 Review
13 15 17 19 21
A2.0 A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4
Design Computation Computation in Architecture Architectural Precedents // Toyo Ito + Cecil Balmond Architectural Precedents // Studio Fuksas Furniture Design Precedents // Joris Laarman
23 25 27 29
A3.0 A3.1 A3.2 A3.3
Composition/ Generation Generative Design Precedents // Michael Hansmeyer Generative Art // Tom Baddard Generative Installations & Sculptures // Tara Donovan
32 A6.0 33-36
Learning Outcomes Algorithmic Sketches References
PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN 39 40 41 47 48
Architectural Precedents // Skylar Tibbits Research Field // Tessellation
B2.0 B2.1 B2.2
Matrix of Iterations Successful Iterations Selection Criteria
49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67
B3.0 B3.1 B3.2 B3.3 B4.0 B4.1 B4.2 B4.3 B4.4 B4.5
Case Study 2 // Atmospheric Tessellation Reverse Engineering // Diagramming Reverse Engineering // Steps 1-6 Reverse Engineering // Failures & Final Outcome Matrix of Iterations // Definition 1 Matrix of Iterations // Definition 2 Matrix of Iterations // Definition 3 Selection Criteria Successful & Unsuccessful Iterations Algae Biofuel // Algae Propogation Processes
69 71 73 75 76 77 79 81 82 83
B5.0 B5.1 B5.2 B5.3 B5.4 B5.3 B5.4 B5.5 B5.6
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Algae Testing Colour Testing Lighting Prototype Form Exploration Fabrication & Material Selection Diagram illustrating the Pod System
Algae Pod Pavilion Proposal
Learning Objectives & Outcomes
PART C: DETAILED DESIGN 89 91 93 95 97 98 99 101 103 105 107
C1.0 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6 C1.7 C1.8 C1.9 C1.10
Design Concept // Addressing Feedback Finalised Design Proposal Elevations & Plan Diagram Diagrams Illustrating Techniques Algae Growth Diagram Pod Optimisation Shadow Studies on Pod Shapes Shadow Diagrams on Final Form Solar Radiation Diagram Envisaged Construction Process Workflow Diagram
109 111 113
C2.0 C2.1 C2.2
Tectonic Elements // Materials Constructing Detail Models Detail Models
115 117 119
C3.0 Final Model // Form C3.1 Final Model // Structure C3.2 FInal Model // Site Model
121 122 123 124
C4.0 C4.1 C4.2 C4.3
C5.0 Learning Objectives & Outcomes C5.0 Further Development
128- 131 133
Additional Lagi Brief Requirements // Design Statement Energy Production Estimate Primary Materials Environmental Impact Statement
INTRODUCTION // ABOUT ME
Hi, I’m Nicola. From a young age, I’ve always liked to make things. Despite wanting to be a dentist when I was in grade 2, because my dentist had a nintendo in the waiting room (amongst other fun things), I soon grew out of that desire and saw myself in a creative field of some sort. Tossing up between a Fine Arts degree and Architecture, I swayed toward architecture after completing a week of work experience at John Wardle when I was in Year 10. I am in 3rd year, almost at the end of the Bachelor of Environments. Before starting my masters degree, I first hope to explore other things that I have always wanted to do. That being furniture making/design and gold & silversmithing.
I think my biggest strength in architecture, is model making, because I love being hands on, working physically to create something. In the past I’ve found wrapping my head around computer programs quite a struggle, so honestly I am rather nervous about this subject, and how quickly I’ll be able to get a grasp on Rhino and Grasshopper. In my first year, I completed Virtual Environments, and that is about the extent of my Rhino knowledge. I did however use a tiny bit of Grasshopper to create the circular surfaces on my lantern design. Although I am not great with digital modelling programs at the moment, I’m keen to learn all that I can about Rhino and Grasshopper and hopefully become a pro by the end of the semester!
EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS WORK
PART A: // CONCEPTUALISATION
‘The artwork is to capture energy from nature, cleanly convert it into electricity, and transform and transmit the electrical power to a grid connection point to be supplied by the city.’  // LAND ART GENERATOR INITIATIVE 2014 BRIEF
The Land Art Generator Brief calls
for artists, architects, scientists, engineers and those from other creative disciplines to ‘design and construct a public art installation that has the added benefit of producing utility-scale clean energy generation’.  This years competition is to be held in Copenhagen, a city which is currently striving to be carbon neutral by 2025.
Each of the public art installations put forward should be able to produce clean energy on a large scale, and have the ‘potential to provide power to hundreds...of homes around the world.’  Public viewing and the opportunity for incorporated educational activites could be considered, and the design should be realistic and constructible considering current technology.
A1.0 DESIGN FUTURING
As architects and designers, we
need to bring upon change in order to sustain a bright future. ‘We human beings have reached a critical moment in our existence’, and as stated by Tony Fry, ‘we are now at a point where it can no longer be assumed that we, have a future’.  Our resources are not infinite, in fact some are becoming increasingly limited, which calls for designers to change their thinking in order to work towards a sustainable future. 
Effectively, what we have done, as a result of the perspectival limitations of our human centredness, is to treat the planet simply as an infinite resource at our disposal.  -Tony Fry
There is no simple answer to design futuring, or how we should design. Every building or structure we design uses resources, however, a change of thinking needs to occur when each of these structures are built. Every time we build something, we need to think about what we are destroying, as the pay off for creation is utimately destruction - unless the resource is renewable.  As architects we have to come up with ways to build sustainably, build to last and not to waste, to design for our future.
A1.1 RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH // ORGANIC PHOTOVOLTAIC PLASTIC SHEET (OPVC)
OPVC is a photovoltaic system which
can be â€˜printedâ€™, painted or rolled onto certain material.  Whilst they use organic polymers to absorb sunlight, much like any other solar panel, their point of difference lies in that they are a plastic sheet, and, as such, can be adhered to surfaces, fabrics, or easily manufactured into different angles and shapes.  Unlike some solar panels that need to be pitched at certain angles for optimal function, organic photovoltaic plastic sheets function well, even if on a vertical. This means it can easily be applied to wall or window surfaces, and its flex-
Organic Photovoltaic Plastic Sheet // Sourced: LAGI Field Guide to Renewable Energy 
ibility allows for it to be applied to curved and fluid surfaces as well. OPVCs are also relatively low cost, and perform well, even in low light conditions which make them desirable.  In comparison to heavy solar panels that we often see pitched on roofs, Organic Photovoltaics are light weight, thin and flexible.  According to the CSIRO, they are able to be mass produced,  which means the cost would be reduced even further, and the opportunity to use this system on a large scale is certainly a possibility.
// MAGNETIC ENERGY
energy may be generated, using magnets and magnetic force to induce motion. Magnetic energy is an emerging technology that I believe has the potential to generate a significant amount of energy. It seems to be a form of renewable energy that has been largely tested by engineers and researchers in their own homes, but is yet to be trialled commercially, or on a large scale. There are a number of DIY videos and websites floating around the internet that prove that this energy does work, and I think it is a great form of green energy that needs to be further explored.  In order to create magnetic energy, a generator must first be set up. The great thing about these generators, is that they donâ€™t produce any gases or by products that may be harmful to humans, or the environment. For continuous free energy to be created however, the constructed device must run using Perpetual Motion,  which is a motion that never fails to continue, despite not being connected to an external energy source. Arguably however, perpetual motion may not work without first being connected to a motor, to begin the initial movement.
Rather than having a device with an attached motor to start the initial motion however, the device could be moved manually and be man operated by anyone willing to create energy through simple motion. This would mean that so long as someone begins the motion, or creates motion, the generator will produce energy. So what if this set up was incorporated into an interactive installation? In this case, energy would be able to be produced, so long as a person powered the device into motion, or manually ran a magnet across copper and vice versa. Perhaps people could wear magnets and slide down a copper tube, or turn wheels to propel motion, thus creating completely free energy. I believe that with human interaction, there are a huge range of possibilities that could be explored to create an installation that is not only aesthetically pleasing, but has the potential to provide power to thousands of homes.
Magnetic energy put simply, is energy that is created when a magnet moves through or past a copper coil or tube.  The magnetic field produces energy as it has the ability to attract and repel as it turns within the generator.  In this form of energy generation, free energy will only continue to be produced, so long as there is movement between the magnet and the copper coil.  Without perpetual motion, no energy can continually be created, as it is the moving magnetic field that creates the energy, not the magnet itself. 
Magnetic Energy Generator 
A1.2 LAND ART GENERATOR INITIATIVE REVIEW INEFFICIENCY CAN BE BEAUTIFUL // LAGI 2012
The ‘Inefficiency can be beautiful’ proposal is
based around the idea that although current sustainable technology, such as solar panels, creates energy, only a small portion of the suns total energy is used, and converted into actual usable energy. The question posed in this submission is, what happens to the rest of the suns energy, and why are we letting it essentially go to waste, when we could convert it into usable electricity.  I thought the concept of this installation was rather interesting, the idea being that the beautiful display of colourful panels is representative of our ‘current inability to use all of the suns radiated energy’. As time goes on, and technology improves, maximizing the energy we extract, the colour of the panels will slowly dissipate into transparent panels.
The panels are made of semi-transparent solar panels, using Sphelars Photovoltaic cells in combination with ChroMyx film.  Sphelar photovoltaics have a high density, allowing for the installations to be configured in unconventional upright positions. They also allow for a range of transparency to be achieved within the design.  In order to produce colour upon the panels, a heat sensitive material, ChroMyx film, is embedded that changes colour due to the change in temperature. So that each panel may exude a different colour, these temperature ranges may be externally controlled.  Although seemingly pretty, the design lacks in terms of innovation, and beyond the concept, the design is simply a number of solar panels that sit on an open field. The design does not respond specifically to the site, and promoting the beauty of inefficiency frankly seems a bit backward.
Above: LAGI 2012 ‘Inefficiency Can Be Beautiful’ Competition Entry Renders
A1.3 LAND ART GENERATOR INITIATIVE REVIEW CALORIE PARK // LAGI 2012
Calorie Park is a competition entry for the 2012
Land Art Generator Initiative, on former landfill site, in New Yorks Freshkills Park. Architecture Intern Morteza Karimi proposes through her design that we convert mechanical energy into electricity. In this case, the mechanical energy would be produced through the workout of every day New Yorkers, and avid ahtletes.  The design presents a culster of pods, labelled the ‘Human Habitrail’.  Within each of these pods, is a different kind of work out equipment, which would be designed to collect the energy produced while this equipment is being used. Based on a study conducted at the University of California Berkeley, a cluster of 100 of these pods, is capable of producing 80mWh.  When these pods aren’t being utilised, solar panels have been placed in high sun exposure areas to produce electricity. The calorie park design is great in terms of form and aesthetic, the conglomeration of pods, a really interesting and unique design. The concept is argueably innovative, the idea to use a workout to produce energy, probably not done before. The response does however have its flaws. Relying on people to use the equipment and regularly have a number of people utilising the site, is perhaps a bit too hopeful. Yes, 100 pods is capable of producing a decent amount of energy, however that would rely on 100 people utilising the equipment every day. People are unreliable, and in the winter months, the prospect of people going to this park to work out is unlikely.
What also seems to be looked over, is the fact that a large portion of the energy produced would go to running the elipticals and treadmills for the process to even begin. Energy is wasted on running the machines, to in turn create energy. Although interesting, the design is not site specific, and could really be plonked anywhere. The amount of energy it is estimated to produce, if that, is short of producing the amount stated in the brief, and the concept relies too heavily on human interaction.
Above: LAGI 2012 ‘Calorie Park’ Competition Entry Renders
A2.0 DESIGN COMPUTATION EMBEDDED PROJECT PAVILION // HHD_FUN + XU WENKAI // COMPUTERISATION VS COMPUTATION
Design and its processes has definitely evolved
over the years, largely because of the seemingly inescapable use of computation in practice today. Computer Aided Design (CAD) programs are used to articulate ideas, into details that can later be used in contruction to translate a design into a built form. In saying this, computerization may then be defined as the process of using computer technology to document, and organize ideas.  Computation on the other hand, involves the use of digital design tools from the start of the
design process, through to the end. In computation, the computer is used to process information, which may be expressed as an algorithm, and increases the capacity of a designer to solve highly complex problems that may arise in the design process.  Incorporating the use of computers from the beginning of design, allows an architect to consider the design in more depth; to input the material, assess its structural capabilities, and the architectural aesthetic/form, all at the same time. Computation in design, allows a designer to visualise the finished product in its entirety, as the design is developed.
The Embedded Project adopts perhaps the very most basic use of computation, using it to generate a facade pattern. Each facade was designed using a recursion algorithm, based upon a triangular fractal pattern.  The diagram below describes the sub division of the triangle, and the generation of the surface pattern.
Above: Embedded Project Pavilion // HHD_FUN + Xu Wenkai
A2.1 DESIGN COMPUTATION COMPUTATION IN ARCHITECTURE
// IMPACT OF COMPUTATION
has greatly impacted the range of both conceivable and achievable geometries in architecture. With the introduction of programs such as Rhinocerous and the Grasshopper plug-in, it seems that the possibilities are near endless. In many cases, the program allows you to stumble across possibilites you would not have imagined otherwise, and to generate a huge number of iterations of a design in no time. The computer also has the ability to produce often unexpected results, providing inspiration to a designer, and the generation of an ideation they had not thought of themselves.  Computation however comes with the suggestion that architects are no longer designing the building, rather designing the programs and algorithms, that in turn produce an outcome.  As Mark Burry suggests, â€˜We are moving from an era where architects use software to one where they create software.â€™ 
For a hands on person like myself who likes to physically model ideas, this prospect is rather daunting, however there are great benefits to computation in architecture. With computation comes the ability to imput existing environments, design considerations and limitations into software that can greatly contribute to the performance of the building. When designing an installation for the Land Art Initative Competition, compuation in this respect, will allow us to more simply deal with complex situations, and generate a design that works to fit our considerations.  Computation in this brief will greatly assist us in achieving an effective design, in terms of environmental performance, energy production and sustainability (not limited to minimal material waste) as well as producing an impressive, sculptural, architectural and beautiful design that other artistic mediums would not be able to accomodate.
â€œThe architecture of modern times is characterized by its capacity to take advantage of the specific acheivements of that same modernity: the innovaions offered to it by presentday science and technologyâ€? -Ignasi de Sola Morales  The Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre in Kazakhstan by Foster + Partners, is a great example of a design that utilised computation to efficiently generate a number of iterations of their cable-net structure design. Part of their parametric model, was an algorithm,  that together allowed the team to come up with a lighweight, efficient, and functioning system for their wide spanning cable roof. 
Above: Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre // Foster + Partners
A2.2 PARAMETRIC DESIGN PRECEDENTS ALGORITHM BASED PATTERNING SERPENTINE GALLERY PAVILION 2002 // TOYO ITO + CECIL BALMOND + ARUP
Described as â€œone of the most exquisite and
revolutionary buildings of recent timesâ€? by The Guardian UKs architecture critic Jonathan Galancey, the 2002 Serpentine Pavilion displays an incredibly complex looking exterior.  Despite its appearance however, the pattern was actually developed from a computerised algorithm, based on the expansion of a cube as it rotated.  The idea was to take a perfect white box completely deconstruct it.  In order to do this, algorithms were fed into the computer, producing a random amalgamation of lines. After drawing one line, a pattern could be derived, and from there it was simply a process of cutting, folding and wrapping the configuration around the box. 
Using algorithms to produce a surface pattern or facade is the most basic use of computation. Algorithms and computation however have so much more to offer, allowing us to design according to endless amounts of imputs. Imputting commands means we can design the most efficient design, built to optimum sustainability and environmental considerations, as well as coming up with something that is aesthetically pleasing.
Functionality and beauty can be tired together into one, when many seem to use computation only for the generation of aesthetic forms, patterns and shapes.
Spaces were then filled in or left blank, as openings, windows and skylights, allowing light to filter through the building. Cutting away at the box has created a solid that is enclosed, and yet still very open.
But whatâ€™s remarkable about this box is how unsolid it is.  - Cecil Balmond
Above: Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2002 // Toyo Ito + Cecil Balmond
A2.3 PARAMETRIC DESIGN PRECEDENTS USING ALGORITHMS TO GENERATE A SURFACE PATTERN, TAILORED TO ITS ENVIRONMENT TERMINAL 3 AT SHENZHEN BAO’AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT // STUDIO FUKSAS
Based on the concept and image of a manta
ray, Studio Fuksas designed Terminal 3 to mimic the creature that ‘changes its own shape, undergoes variations, [and] turns into a bird’.  The roof canopy is vast and fluid, constructed with steel and glass panels. Hexagon perforations cut through the exterior facade, opening the space and allowing natural light to flow through.  The interiors are perhaps even more striking; the ceiling perforations carry a smooth stainless steel finish, that reflect off the shiny polished floor. The air conditioning services are hidden within the stylized white ‘trees’ and matching white columns support the white forest like canopy above.  From the interior, the ceiling structure almost resembles that of light shining through forest trees and the air conditioning trees and columns only add to this. Studio Fuksas have used parametric modelling tools heavily in this design, most evident in the number of perforations that run throughout the interior and exterior of the design. Although it appears they have only used these tools in order to create an aesthetically pleasing skin, the layers were actually devised to consider a number of requirements.
The size, density and slope of the openings were controlled by a parametric data model, designed to increase the solar gain of the building, natural light requirements and to provide suitable viewing angles when standing inside.  Without parametric design tools, an incredibly complex looking skin such as this, that works to calculate the best out come for these considerations, would be close to impossible to create. The interior and exterior skin, coat a complex array of steel beams which hold the building together structurally. Terminal 3 is set to facilitate approximately 45 million travellers this year, the design doubling the capacity of the airport that existed previously.  The three level building connects different areas of the terminal through voids, which allow natural light to flow into every level.  The use of natural light not only reduces lighting cost, but blurs the barrier between outside and in. Beautiful fragments of light flow into the building no matter where you are in the building creating a dynamic atmosphere within the space. A great deal of attention has also been placed on considering the flow of movement
within the building. Crowding, walking times and spatial layout were crucial within this design, as Terminal 3 spans across 1.5km.  The proposal for the Land Art Generator Competition and Air project calls for a parametrically design sculpture or installation that produces energy. Although this design does not hold a strong environmental focus, it uses parametric design to create a sculptural building, that draws visitors in from all over the world. The way they have used a parametric skin to cover struc-
Left: Under side of exterior skin
tural aspects of the building, and taken measures to hide to integrate interior services into the design is a consideration I would like to bear in mind for my design. The LAGI competition not only focusâ€™ on producing energy, but in producing a sculptural form/ artwork. As displayed in this precedent, parametric design tools can be great in developing an beautiful skin, that can also be programmed to meet requirements, in our brief, an environmental one as well.
Top: Finished Outer Skin
Above: Outer Skin during Constrction
A2.4 PARAMETRIC DESIGN PRECEDENTS FURNITURE // JORIS LAARMAN
Using the principles of nature to develop his de-
sign, Joris Laarman has created a series of furniture that uses an algorithm to translate human bone and tree growth, and its complexities into these unique designs.  The algorithm allows Laarman to reduce the amount of material used in his designs, without compromising strength or stability. ‘Using mother nature’s underlying codes’, Laarman explored proportions, function and material
allocation to produce these elastic pieces of furniture. What I found particularly interesting in this precedent, was how the algorithm was used to reduce the amount of material used in each of the designs. On a larger scale, the reduction of material is an important factor when considering the environment, material waste, and also cost. Finding a way to reduce my final design whilst still retaining its integrity is something that I hope to explore further down the track.
Left: Bone Chair- Aluminium Above: Bone Chair & Bone Rocker Bridge Table // Joris Laarman
A3.0 COMPOSITION/ GENERATION ALGORITHMIC THINKING, PARAMETRIC MODELLING & SCRIPTING CULTURES
In compositional architecture, an
underlying idea is formed, and then explored through the process of evaluating and assessing different ways in which this idea may be realised. Contrary to this, in generative architecture, a meaningful set of parameters are imputed as data into a program, and from there possibilities are explored. Often this data is defined as an algorithm, or as a set of rules. The generative approach to design, is an experimental process, the outcomes often unexpected.  Once a number of iterations have been generated from the original data, the outcomes can then be altered, tweaked and refined to create a resolved design.
An algorithm is a method or set of operations for doing something.  In computation, algorithms may be defined as clear and precise rules in which to follow, and in a generative approach, the computer follows these exact rules to generates an outcome based on them. Writing an algorithm is known as scripting. The introduction of scripting algorithms in combination with Parametric modelling, completely threw out traditional methods of thinking and designing. Parametric modelling is now incredibly popular, especially in the world of architecture.  Used widely to generate surface patterns and facades, parametrics do have its shortcomings.
“Generative design is not about designing the building – Its’ about designing the system that builds a building.” - Lars Hesellgren 
Above: Faberge Fractals // Tom Beddard
A3.1 GENERATIVE DESIGN PRECEDENTS SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS // MICHAEL HANSMEYER
// ADVANTAGES & SHORTCOMINGS OF GENERATIVE APPROACHES & PARAMETRIC MODELLING
Perhaps the biggest advantage of the genera-
tive approach to design, is the number of outcomes that may be generated from a series of initial imputs. Iteration after iteration of a design may be produced, allowing for a fast an efficient way to produce design outcomes. Although parametric models often produce an amazing 3D render, unfortunately, translating these designs into the built world is often constrained. The loss of detail when translated into built form is one downfall, as well as the plausibility of using an intricate design at an architectural scale, has its limits.  Because of this, its usually
the simpler patterns that make it to the built world, whilst the detailed and intricate remain on the computer screen.  A common arguement is that computation and generational approaches to architecture, are changing the role of, or even making redundant the role of the architect. Although the job of the architect is changing, as computation and computer aided design is growing, there will always be a role for the architect, even with the ability a computer has to generate designs. Even f an algorithm has already been plugged into the program, an architect must still evaluate each of the generations and determine which works best to fit the brief, the environment
Subdivided Columns // Micael Hansmeyer
â€œA computational approach to architecture enables the generation of the previously unseen. Forms that can longer be conceived of through traditional methods become possible. New realms open up,â€?  -Michael Hansmeyer
Architect and computer programmer, Michael Hansmeyer produced these columns by applying an algorithm to a 3 dimensional shape.  Beginning with a basic column, he transforms these structures into complex, and inticately ornamented columns, that almost appear as renders. 
The columns have been constructed through layering 1mm sheets, which fit around a stable core.  Tedious and time consuming,this seemed to be the most efficient way in which to construct the exact 3D render, without losing any of the detail. 
A3.2 GENERATIVE ART FABERGÉ FRACTALS // TOM BEDDARD
Fractal Renders // Tom Beddard
“I have a fascination with the aesthetics of detail and complexity that is the result of simple mathematical or algorithmic processes. For me the creative process is writing my own software and scripts to explore the resulting output in an interactive manner. The best outcomes are often the least expected”  - Tom Beddard
A fractal is a pattern that never ends. The pat-
tern is created by the repetition of shape that is multiplied to create another pattern. That pattern is then repeated, and thus an infinite and complex pattern is formed.  Artist Tom Beddard has explored and experimented greatly in the world of fractals, and in a series called ‘Fabergé Fractals, he has created these stunning 3D renders. Beddard uses an algorithmic method to generate his 3D fractals, ‘whereby the output of one iteration forms the input for the next’.  The patterns Beddard is able to produce through a simple process such as fractals, is fascinating,
the images, mesmerizing. In the ‘Surface Detail’ video he produced,  we are able to see the intricate patterns being revealed, and witness the growth, and the decay of the surface as it emerges from itself.  The patterns that have been created her are complex, intricate and really quite beautiful. Although they would be too complex to be built in large scale architecture, our brief calls for public art installations. On a smaller scale, more detail and intricacy can be displayed, and exploring fractals in the development of a surface pattern could be really exciting.
A3.3 GENERATIVE ART LARGE SCALE INSTALLATIONS & SCULPTURES // TARA DONOVAN
American artist, Tara Donovan is known for her
large scale generative art installations. Using every day objects, cups, drinking straws, scotch tape etc,  she transforms the object into a mesmerising mass, that often resembles a computer generated render. Like the way many algorithms used the principle of nature, Donovans art also follows a pattern. “It is not like I’m trying to simulate nature. It’s more of a mimicking of the way of nature, the way things actually grow.”  Throught repetition and careful arrangement, Donovan constructs installations and landscapes that bare little resemblence to the original object.  Diffent placement and organisa29
tion allows her to generate different structures and forms from the original object, similar to the way Tom Beddard forms amazing fractal renders from the repetition of a single shape. I thought this precedents was rather fitting to the Land Art Generator Brief, as we are to generate an installation or sculpture of our own. One of my main goals in our design would be to create something that is really amazing to look at- an artwork that draws people in and curiosity brings them to study the art closer. Education people about the installation and its energy production is a component of the brief, and I think beauty is a great way to attract people to the site, to learn more about it.
Generative Art Installations // Tara Donovan
“It’s a very organic, intuitive and observant process. I see where I wind up.”  “I think in terms of infinity—of [the materials] expanding. I’m interested in this idea of a visual, expansive field that has shifting viewpoints.”  - Tara Donovan
The LAGI 2014
brief is an interesting one, as there are little design constraints, allowing you to come up with almost any form or shape in your design- considering it has the ability to produce energy. I am really drawn to the idea of designing a public art instalatio, as the brief is really calling for something that is both aesthetic and functional. Throughout my research, I have been really drawn to interesting patterning, how parametric tools may assist you in developing an environmentally functional one, and how these pattern came about. I would like to approach the design with an open mind, and still have much further exploration to do when it comes to researching energy production and the complex processes they involve. Where possible, Iâ€™d like to incorporate existing and new energy
technologies, to maximise energy production, but also to explore the possibilities of emerging technology. Researching new technologies is always interesting, as it forces you to think outside the box, and are not influenced by the norms of how a technology should be, or be used, as there may be no built examples of this technology to reference. Overall I would like to produce a design that is innovative, and interesting enough that people would want to visit and learn more about the design and its function.
A5.0 LEARNING OUTCOMES
into computation, parametrics and generation in design has definitely opened my mind to the endless design possibilities associated with using computation in architecture. Originally aprehensive and daunted about having to design using Rhino and Grasshopper, I have been inspired and amazed at some of the precedents I have come across in my research, and my faith has been restored in computational and generational design. By seeing great examples, by
renowed architects, artists, and projects by students like ourselves, the outcome of this subject seems more achievable. Slowly getting through the Grasshopper demonstration videos, my eyes have been opened to the exciting possibilities that lie within, and am both scared and excited about coming up with my own design to the LAGI 2014 brief. Although I doubt my ability to become a wiz at Grasshopper, I hope that I can at least learn the necessary skills to enable myself to produce a design that I am proud of.
A6.0 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES * See Algorithmic Sketchbook
REFERENCES A1.0 A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 1. Fry, Tony: ‘Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice’ (Oxford: Berg), 2008, pp. 1–16 2. Ferry, Robert & Elizabeth Monoian, ‘Design Guidelines’, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014, pp 1 - 10 3. Land Art Generator Initiative, Project Description 2014 4. Ferry, Robert & Elizabeth Monoian, ‘A Field Guide to Renewable Energy Technologies’’, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014, p 14 5. Watkins, Scott: ‘Q&A: Organic Photovoltaic Printable Plastic Solar Cells’, CSIRO, 2011 6. Watkins, Scott: ‘Low Cost Energy, Using Organic Photovoltaics’, CSIRO, 2011 7. Silliven, Andy: ‘How to Buid a Magnetic Energy Generator to Save Electricity At home’, PRLOG, Press Release Distribution, 2009 8. ‘How to Build a Magnetic Generator’, Green Energy 4 Earth, 2009 9. Sandru, Ovidiu: ‘ How to Build a Free Energy Generator (Mini Romag)’, The Green Optimistic, 2008 10. Chavis, Jason: ‘What is Magnetic Flux’, Wise Geek, 2014 11. ‘Energy Stored in a Magnetic Field’, Physics / Induction, AC Circuits, and Electrical Technologies / Magnetic Fields and Maxwell Revisied’, Boundless, 2014 12. John: ‘Results of my ‘Magnetic Generator System’ Test’, Top Magnetic Generator, 2011 13. Land Art Generator Initiative Competition Entry 2012, ‘Inefficiency can be Beautiful’, Artist Team: [Young-Tack Oh, Sungwoo Mattew Choi, Taylor Tso, Jin Hwan Choi, Joshua Choi, Betty Liu, Bomin Kim], Saint Louis, USA 14. Land Art Generator Initiative Competiton Entry 2012,’Calorie Park’, Mprteza Karimi, Columbus,
A2.0 A2.1 2. Peters, Brady: ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 2013, p 10 3. Douglas C Engelbart, Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework, Summary Report, Stanford Research Institute (Menlo Park, CA), 1962, p 1. 4. Brady Peters, ‘The Smithsonian Courtyard Enclosure: Computer Programming as a Design Tool’, in Brian Lilley and Philip Beesley (eds), Expanding Bodies: Art, Cities, Environment. Proceedings of the ACADIA 2007 Conference, Riverside Press (Waterloo, Ontario), 2007. 5. Peters, Brady: ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 2013, pp 8-15 6. Mark Burry: ‘Scripting Cultures’, John Wiley & Sons (Chichester), 2010, p 8 7. Ignasi de Sola Morales: ‘Differences: Topographies of Contemporary Architecture’, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997 8. Bier, Henriette & Knight, Terry, ‘Digitally-Driven Architecture’, Footprint Delft School of Design Journal, DSD, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft University of Technology, 2010, pp 1-4 9. Foster + Partners, Projects, ‘Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre’, Facts and Figures, 2010 10. Etherington, Rose, Embedded Project by HHD_FUN, Dezeen Magazine, 2010
A2.2 1. Glancey, Jonathan: ‘They said it couldn’t be done’, The Guardian, 2007 2. Jordana, Sebastian: ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2002 / Toyo Ito + Cecil Balmond + Arup’, Archdaily, 2013 3. Worsley, Giles: ‘Opening up a box of delights’, The Telegraph, 2002
A2.3 A2.4 1. Pearson, Amy: ‘Studio Fuksas completes Terminal 3 at Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport’. Dezeen Magazine, 2013 2. Chin, Andrea: ‘Studio Fuksas Expands Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport’, Designboom, 2013 3. Peters, Brady: ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 2013, p 15 4. ‘Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport / Studio Fuksas’, Archdaily, 2014 http://www.archdaily.com/472197/shenzhen-bao-an-international-airport-studio-fuksas/ 5. Williams, Austin: ‘Air Max: Terminal 3 at Shenzhen Airport by Studio Fuksas Architetto’, The Architectural Review, 2014 6. Fairs, Marcus: ‘Joris Laarman Lab at Friedman Benda’, Dezeen Magazine, 2010
A3.0 A3.1 A3.2 1. Hansmeyer, Michael: ‘Computational Architecture’, Profile, About, 2014 2. Krish, Sivam: ‘What is Generative Design’. Generative Design Workpress 2011 3. Robert A. and Frank C. Keil: ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson, eds (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT Press), pp. 11, 12 4. ‘The Fantastic Fabergé Fractals Of Tom Beddard’, Architizer 2013 5. Cilento, Karen: ‘Subdivision/ Michael Hansmeyer’, Archdaily, 2011 6. Lek, Lawrence: ‘Interview with Michael Hansmeyer’, The White Review, 2014 7. Hansmeyer, Michael: ‘Building Unimaginable Shapes’, TEDGlobal, 2012 8. ‘What are Fractals?’, Fractal Foundation 2013 http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-are-fractals/ 9. Toor, Amar: ‘The Organic Geometry of Tom Beddard’s Faberge Fractals’, The Verge, 2013 10. Czeck, Jessica: ‘Faberge Fractals by Tom Beddard’, Visual News, 2013 11. Rybczynski, Witold: ‘Lost Amid the Algorithms’, Critque, Architect, The Magazine of the American Institute of Architects, 2013 35
A3.3 1. Janvanmol: ‘Untitled (Plastic Cups)- Tara Donovan’, Addictlab, Wordpress, 2013 2. Veronique: ‘Tara Donovan’, Neon Cactus, 2012 3. ‘Tara Donovan’, Artists Profiles, Pace Gallery 4. Solway, Diane: ‘Grand Illusion, In her home as in her art, Tara Donovan creates a world of wonders’, W Magazine, 2008
PART B: // CRITERIA DESIGN
B1.0 ARCHITECTURAL PRECEDENTS VOLTADOM // SKYLAR TIBBITS
VoltaDom is an installation that utilses tesselation to populate a glass hall way. The structure spans across a corridor, and was designed for MIT’s 150th Anniversary Celeration & FAST Art Festival.  The design is made up of hundreds of plastic vaults, that ‘intensify the depth of a doubly-curved vaulted surface’.  In order to fabricate these curved surfaces, each oculi is unrolled as a strip of material, and bolted together on the under edges of each of the vaults. 
In order to create this kind of tessellation, a series of shapes have been clumped together, with the overlaps trimmed off. Creating the installation in this way, allows each of the vaults to be unique, unlike in 2D tessellation when the pattern is often formed by the repetition of the same shape.
B1.1 RESEARCH FIELD // TESSELLATION
Tesselation is when shapes fit perfectly together,
without any cross over, overlap or gaps imbetween. The same rules apply to 3D tessellation, where each 3D shape still meets another to create a continuous pattern. 3D tessellation enables the surface of an area to be maximised, with each space being utilised to its capacity. Ensuring each piece fits together seamlessly, makes sure that no space is wasted, and having 3D components offset from a base surface allows more area to be covered.
VoltaDom // Skylar Tibbits
B2.0 MATRIX OF ITERATIONS- RENDERED VIEW
MEDIUM POPULATION, LOW HEIGHT
MEDIUM POPULATION, VARYING HEIGHTS
MEDIUM OVERLAP, SMALL POPULATION
LARGE OVERLAP, SMALL POPULATON, NO OPENING
OPEN & CLOSED CONICALS
LOW HEIGHT, PATTERNED CONICAL, SMALL POPULATION
CLOSED CONICAL, SMALL POPULATION, LARGE OVERLAP
DENSE POPULATION, LOW HEIGHT, LARGE OPENING, CLOSE PROXIMITY
DENSE POPULATION, HIGH HEIGHT, CLOSE PROXIMITY
LARGE OVERLAP, DENSE POPULATION, ONE OPENING
LARGE OVERLAP, DENSE POPULATION, NO OPENINGS, INVERTED ROUNDED CONICAL
CLOSED CONICAL, DENSE POPULATION, MEDIUM HEIGHT, MEDIUM OVERLAP
OPEN & CLOSED CONICAL, DENSE POPULATION, MEDIUM HEIGHT, MEDIUM OVERLAP
OPEN & CLOSED SPHERES
COMBINATION: SPHERES, CYLINDERS AND CONICALS
CYLINDERS & POINTED CONICALS + SPHERES & POINTED CONICALS
FULL & HALF CYLINDERS
FRAGMENTED CYLINDERS, CONICALS & SPHERES
When creating iterations, we found it really difficult
to create iterations that displayed actual 3D tessellation. We were however asked to push the script as far as we could, and managed to create some weird and whacky iterations. We changed the script by replacing the open conical shape with other shapes- the closed conical, the sphere etc, and also tried mixing more than one shape. Note: The matrix of iterations is not displayed as linework, as linework failed to properly depict each iteration.
B2.1 SUCCESSFUL ITERATIONS
This iteration reminded me of the infamous green RMIT blob in Melbourne. I really like the cloud-like structure of it, and an iteration such as this could look really cool as an inflatable perhaps. This broken up, blob like iteration instantly made me think of the â€˜Calorie Parkâ€™ submission for the LAGI 2012. The open bubble like structures could act as shelters, housing something within.
Maze-like and strange, this iteration looks like a series of sphere shaped rooms that a person would have to find their way around. The overlapping between the spheres is kind of interesting and there may be some potential to use it as some kind of maze installation.
B2.2 SELECTION CRITERIA The selection criteria in choosing our most successful iterations were ones that we thought had the most potential to be, or be developed into an artwork or installation for the LAGI brief. At this point in time, we have not decided on an energy form, so we are open to almost any kind of form, as long as it is sculptural, interesting and has the potential to be used in some form of public space.
B3.0 SELECTED PROJECT ATMOSPHERIC TESSELLATION // CHRIS KNAPP + JONATHAN NELSON + MICHAEL PARSONS
Tessellation, is an architectural lighting installation that was designed for the Wellington Lux Festival 2013.  The laser cut, plywood installation  utilises biomimicry and tessellation, to create this interesting set of geometry.  The LUX festival 2013, was a celebration of lightthe brief to create lighting installations that would light up dark alleys and passageways hidden within the city.  I believe one of the most successful outcomes
of this lighting installation, is the reflection of light across the uneven puddles on the tarmac. The structure itself is also pretty cool, and I like the varying depths and offsets of each of the shapes. 2D tessellation can be quite boring, but 3D tessellation allows a designer to create a much more interesting surface. I like the way the architects have incorporated varying levels of offset shapes, some capped, some not. I also like how the pattern has been stretched across this uneven form, which causes some areas to be more compact, and others to be stretched out.
In order to reverse engineer a project like this, we could appraoch it in a number of different ways. The pattern could be looked at as a series of triangles that have been split into three, or also as hexagons, split into triangles that have been divided into 3 again. Each corner segment also connects to form another smaller hexagon within the large hexagon. As for the form, we could quite easily recreate an undulating rectangular surface to lay this pattern on.
I believe that overall this project is really successful and difficult to flaw. Aesthetically I find it really beautiful, and would definitely go out, even in wet weather to see it. One of our main goals for the LAGI brief is to create a structure that would really draw people in to visit. People visiting the Little Mermaid Statue would hopefully see part of our design from across the bay and be interested enough to explore what lies on the other side.
B3.1 REVERSE-ENGINEERING DIAGRAMMING DESIGN PHASES // PHASES ONE & TWO
DRAWING THE BASE SURFACE
TRIANGULATING THE SURFACE
POPULATE EACH TRIANGLE WITH THREE, FOUR EDGED ELEMENTS
B3.2 REVERSE-ENGINEERING // ILLUSTRATED STEPS 1-6
STEP ONE: 2D GRID WITH TRIANGULATED CELLS
STEP TWO: POLYGON CENTRE CENTER POINT OF EACH TRIANGLE IS PLOTTED
STEP THREE: POINT COMPONENT IN X & Y DIRECTION FOLLOWING THE POLYGON CENRE
STEP FOUR: VORONOI COMPONENT PLUGGED INTO REGION INTERSECTION
STEP FIVE: SCALE COMPONENT OBJECT SCALED TO POPULATE EACH TRIANGLE WITH THREE, FOUR SIDED SHAPES
STEP SIX: LOFT COMPONENTS
B3.3 REVERSE-ENGINEERING // FAILED COMPONENTS & FINAL OUTCOME
Our Grasshopper definition included the Patch Component, however it failed to cap the holes on each component. The Cap Holes component however, successfully capped the shapes with four sides, failing to cap those with five sides. We were also found it difficult to apply our Grasshopper definition onto a curved surface, like in the Atmospheric Tessellation project. The project also had certain components flat, and others lofted- however we werenâ€™t able to recreate those varying surfaces.
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.225 Z FACTOR: 4 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.130
B4.0 MATRIX OF ITERATIONS GRASSHOPPER DEFINITION ONE // SUBDIVIDED TRIANGLES
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.325 Z FACTOR: 6 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.900
As we felt limited using only one Grasshopper definition to create 50 iterations, we decided to make 3 definitions to play around with. The first matrix of iterations is composed of a base which subdivides panels of triangles into 3 shapes, in the same way the Atmospheric Tessellation project is divided. The second definition populates the surface with hexagonal panels, and the third definition divides the surface into quads. We aimed to push the definitions to its limits, in order to create unique definitions that differed from one another.
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.450 Z FACTOR: 5 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.371
U DIVISION: 4 V DIVISION: 7 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.795 Z FACTOR: 4 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.914
U DIVISION: 1 V DIVISION: 3 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.795 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.914
TRI PANEL CONSTANT QUAD SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.8 PATCH ENABLED
TRI PANEL CONSTANT QUAD SUBDIVIDE: 1 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1
TRI PANEL CONSTANT QUAD SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): -0.432 Z FACTOR: 8 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 2 PATCH DISABLED
TRI PANEL CONSTANT QUAD SUBDIVIDE: 3 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.8 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.964
U DIVISION: 1 V DIVISION: 5 SUBDIVIDE: 1 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 2.0 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.908
TRI PANEL CONSTANT QUAD SUBDIVIDE: 2 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.853 Z FACTOR: 6 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.964 PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 5 V DIVISION: 5 SUBDIVIDE: 1 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.0 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 Z FACTOR: 2 X FACTOR: 2 Y FACTOR: 2
U DIVISION: 1 V DIVISION: 2 SUBDIVIDE: 2 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.427 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.583
TRI PANEL CONSTANT QUAD SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 2.3 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.41
TRI PANEL CONSTANT QUAD SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.189 Z FACTOR: 6 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.964 PATCH DISABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.539 Z FACTOR: 3 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.899
HEXAGON SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1 PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.000 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.908
HEXAGON SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 3.40 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.264 PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.680 Z FACTOR: 4 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.807
HEXAGON SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.097 Z FACTOR: 15 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.854 PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.555 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.807 PATCH DISABLED
HEXAGON SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.417 Z FACTOR: 6 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1.316 PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.555 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.807 PATCH ENABLED
HEXAGON SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.48 Z FACTOR: 3 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.8 PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 8 V DIVISION: 20 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.0 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.7 PARAMETER (T): 0.8
U DIVISION: 8 V DIVISION: 10 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6 Z FACTOR: 5 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 PARAMETER (T): 0.75 PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 10 V DIVISION: 15 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 7 Z FACTOR: 3 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1.3
U DIVISION: 13 V DIVISION: 15 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6 Z FACTOR: 4 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.869 PARAMETER (T): 0.1 PATCH ENABLED
U DIVISION: 5 V DIVISION: 10 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.3 Z FACTOR: 5 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.3 PARAMETER (T): 0.9, 0.7 PATCH ENABLED
U DIVISION: 6 V DIVISION: 8 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6 Z FACTOR: 6 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 PARAMETER (T): 0.75 PATCH ENABLED
U DIVISION: 13 V DIVISION: 15 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6 Z FACTOR: 4 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.869 PARAMETER (T): 0.1 PATCH ENABLED
B4.1 MATRIX OF ITERATIONS GRASSHOPPER DEFINITION TWO // HEXAGONAL PANELS
U DIVISION: 13 V DIVISION: 15 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 PARAMETER (T): 0.1, 0.3 PATCH DISABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.548 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769 PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.548 Z FACTOR: 2 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769 PATCH DISABLED
TRIANGULATED SUB PANEL SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1 PATCH ENABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.928 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769 PATCH DISABLED
TRIANGULATED SUB PANEL SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.56 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1 PATCH DISABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.928 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769 PATCH ENABLED
TRIANGULATED SUB PANEL SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.560 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.162 PATCH DISABLED
SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.241 Z FACTOR: 4 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769 LOFT COMPONENT REPLACED B EXTRUDE
U DIVISIONS: 24 V DIVISIONS: 25 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.241 Z FACTOR: 4 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.769 LOFT COMPONENT REPLACED B EXTRUDE
TRIANGULATED SUB PANEL SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 1.560 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.1635 PATCH DISABLED
TRIANGULATED SUB PANEL SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.533 Z FACTOR: 1 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 1.635 PATCH DISABLED
U DIVISION: 1 V DIVISION: 3 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.6 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.488 Z FACTOR: 2 X FACTOR: 6 PATCH ENABLED TRIANGULAR PANELS
U DIVISION: 1 V DIVISION: 3 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.488 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.846 Z FACTOR: 2 PATCH DISABLED TRIANGULAR PANELS
U DIVISION: 3 V DIVISION: 3 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.3 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 Z FACTOR: 7 PATCH ENABLED SUBDIVIDE QUAD SKEWED QUADS T: 0
REVSRF 3: REVERSE UV U DIVISION: 2 V DIVISION: 1 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.3 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 Z FACTOR: 7 PATCH ENABLED TRIANGULAR PANELS
REVSRF 3: REVERSE UV U DIVISION: 6 V DIVISION: 2 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.8 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 Z FACTOR: 7 PATCH ENABLED SUBDIVIDE QUAD SKEWED QUADS T: 0
U DIVISION: 5 V DIVISION: 8 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.488 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.846 Z FACTOR: 2 PATCH ENABLED RANDOM QUAD PANEL S: 5
B4.2 MATRIX OF ITERATIONS GRASSHOPPER DEFINITION THREE // CONSTANT QUAD SUBDIVIDE
U DIVISION: 3 V DIVISION: 5 SCALE FACTOR 1 (TOP): 0.3 SCALE FACTOR 2 (BOTTOM): 0.9 Z FACTOR: 5 PATCH DISABLED RANDOM QUAD PANEL S: 1 SUBDIVIDE QUAD
B4.3 SELECTION CRITERIA
EASE OF FABRICATION & ASSEMBLY Using Grasshopper, we were able to easily complicate an iteration, simply by adding a high valued slider to certain components. Pushing the values of U and V divisions for example, crashed the program because of its complexity, but managed to make some really interesting iterations. These iterations however would be impossible to create, and ridiculously expensive to build in real life. AESTHETICALLY PLEASING & INTERESTING We want to ensure our overall design is both interesting and beautiful, to really draw people in, and make them want to visit and come back to our pavilion. DIFFERS FROM ORIGINAL BASE PATTERN The base patterns we created were our attempts at reverse engineering the Atmospheric Tessellation Installation. We wanted to ensure we pushed these definitions far enough so that they did not look too similar to someone elseâ€™s design, and that our pavilion was an original design.
CREATION OF SUITABLE POD STRUCTURE TO HOUSE ALGAE We had to ensure the design we chose would be suitable to house algae, and have the potential to be altered to maximise sun exposure. The pods also had to be large enough to house the amount of algae and fluid needed to produce enough algal oil for a large amount of biofuel production. ABILITY TO HOUSE PIPING & SERVICES The structure has to have either enough spacing between the pods to house piping, or have the ability to run pipes upon the underside of the structure. This factor is the least important however of the selection criteria, as a piping network can always be configured around our chosen design.
B4.4 SUCCESSFUL & UNSUCCESSFUL ITERATIONS DESIGN POTENTIAL
1. Aesthetically we thought this outcome was rather pleasing. The pods would be suitable to house algae, and the underside of the structure we thought would be really nice to look at if standing underneath. 2. The zigzag pod structures of this iteration were really cool. Modern and different, we thought the surface was aesthetically pleasing, and a would be able to house algae. It would however be harder to fabricate. 3. This inverted pod structure maximises sun exposure and has the ability to house piping within the spaces between each of the pods. 4. We thought this surface looked really cool and quite mechanical looking. The pods however were too skinny and unsuitable for algae propogation, and overall would be too hard to fabricate. 65
Although many of these looked cool, we deemed them as unsuccessful, mainly because of their complexity, and inability to properly house algae. Each one of these outcomes would be too difficult to fabricate, and donâ€™t have the aesthetic quality we were looking for.
B4.5 ALGAE BIOFUEL // ALGAE PROPOGATION PROCESSES
drew this digram to clearly depict how we propose we would produce algae biofuel. Using algae for this brief is site specific, as we utilise the sites surroundings for our energy production. In order to produce algae, we would use the waste water from the local sewerage plant, and dilute this with sea water. Algae has the ability to grow in both fresh, and salt water, which enables us to recycle and/or utilise surrounding water sources. Although not necessary for algae production, we also have the option to collect and recycle CO2, produced from neighbouring workshops, eg/ the nearby welding workshop.
Once the water is pumped into our proposed algae propogation housing pavilion, algae will begin to grow. The outputs of algae production are: ALGAL OIL- that enables the extraction of biofuel BIOMASS- which consists of carbohydrates and protein, which can then be processed as bioethanol, or used as cattle feed & plant fertiliser WATER- which can be reused for algal propogation, or pumped back in the sea, as the algae purifies wastewater.
ADVANTAGES - Algae grows fast - Algae can have high biofuel yields - Algae consumes CO2 - Algae does not compete with agriculture - Algae can purify wastewater - Algal biomass can be used as an energy source - Microalgal biomass can be used for fuel, feed and fuel EXTRACTED FROM ALGAE - Oil (lipid): extraction, becomes biodiesel - Carbohydrates: fermentation becomes bio ethanol - Protein: Cattle feed or plant fertilizer POPULAR SPECIES Popular algae species ( can grow in salt water). These tend to have high oil content and are easy to grow - Chlorella sp. Most popular. The algae we were given is called Chlorella Vulgaris - Nannochloropsis sp - Tetraselmis Suecica
Our design would ideally incorporate an extraction system, or a few small ones. This extraction system would separate the algae into its three useable parts; lipids, water and biomass, on site and in less than an hour. The parts would then be directed into different pod housing components, where they can then be collected for use. The optimum temperature for growing algae, is between 5 and 28 degrees celsius. The average sun temperature in Copenhagen is 25 degrees, perfect for growing algae. During winter, when temperatures drop, algae will still grow, just at a slower rate. We have been thinking about insulation and double glazing the pods- however this will be further explored.
B5.0 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPE 1 FABRICATION & ASSEMBLY // HEXAGONAL SURFACE
Although simple, we all really liked this iteration, and the way the model
turned out. We liked that both the underside and top surface of the design was quite pleasing to look at, and that light was able to shine through the open holes. The pod shape was suitable for algae propogation, and structurally, the model was quite strong. The shape however would have to be designed better to ensure the structural stability of the pavilion, but the shape
B5.1 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPE 2 FABRICATION & ASSEMBLY // TRI PANEL SURFACE
This pod system of Z formations, turned out to look really cool. Because
the base of each pod tessellated perfectly, and tapered to a smaller shape on the top, the model itself was really flexible, and could be compressed or stretched out. If we used this pod formation, we would have to think about its structural integrity, and design it in such a way that it would be able to stand when force is pushing down on it.
B5.2 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPE 3 FABRICATION & ASSEMBLY // CONSTANT SUBDIVIDE SURFACE
This is a prototype of one of the iterations we liked. It shows a series of inverted
pods on a constant subdivided surface. We liked this iteration, as the upside down pods maximise the surface area exposed to the sun. The gaps between the pods also provide space in which we could run piping. The underside of this design however is rather uninteresting, so designing an interior skin or something alike may be desireable in this case.
B5.3 ALGAE TESTING AESTHETICS // CONCENTRATED ALGAE SAMPLE CHLORELLA VULGARIS
We were lucky enough to arrange a meeting
with Dr Greg Martin and Dr Ron Hallim, from The University of Melbourne, who have been undertaking bio algae research. They provided us with a concentrated algae sample, which we diluted to show the colour variations that would be displayed in our design. As more algae grows in each pod, the amount of algae will become more concentrated, and thus a darker green. The second picture above shows samples that we collected ourselves. These algae & water 75
samples were sourced from ponds and birdbaths around Melbourne, and are currently growing in our backyards. As the algae grows, the water samples will display a richer green colour. Hopefully the algae will have developed enough to enable us to use them in our final presentation. Our samples will be regularly monitored so that we can document the changes over a number of weeks.
B5.4 COLOUR TESTING AESTHETICS & LIGHT PENETRATION // FOOD COLOURING
Using food colouring and water, we made up different colour samples, hoping to shine light through them and see how the algae pods may look when the sun shines through them.
B5.3 LIGHTING PROTOTYPE AESTHETICS // LIGHT PENETRATION THROUGH PODS
green cellophane, and shining light through our prototypes, enabled us to visualise how our design may look as the sun shines through our algae housing pavilion. Over the next couple of weeks, we hope to start prototyping with clear perspex, filling the pods with actual algae and water, so we can shine light through them and get a more accurate depiction of how the pavillion will look. The green 77
in this test looks a bit artificial compared to what the green of the algae will actually look like, and as different pods will house different stages of algae growth, there will be more variance between the pods and the colours they will be.
B5.4 FORM EXPLORATION DEVELOPMENT
For the form of our pavilion, we wanted to design a structure
that was both open and closed. We thought that a tunnel like area within the pavilion would be experientially really interesting for visitors, for them to be able to walk through an enclosed tunnel like space and be immersed within algae pods and different shades of green. However, we also wanted there to be enough open space, so that the pavilion could act as a shelter on this public space, and so that people could freely walk or run around. Ideally parts of the structure would be low enough for children to climb on, and the form would be longitudinal and design to maximise solar gain.
B5.5 FABRICATION & MATERIAL SELECTION To create clear pods, we decided that acrylic or glass would be most appropriate. After researching both materials, we chose Acrylic Plexiglas, as it is lighter, more flexible, and seemingly more appropriate for a public installation as it is shatterproof. Acrylic is also more durable than glass, and is generally used in preference over glass for large scale clear surfaces, like in aquarium tanks. Stainless steel will be used for the structure, chosen for its strength in both compression and tension. It is also relatively light, and able to resist corrosion once treated.
B5.6 DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE POD SYSTEM
1. Pods are filled with algae 2. Algae is collected through neighbouring pipes 3. Once algae has been collected, pods are filled with sea water and waste water from nearby plant. 4. Pods are filled with water, ready to produce more algae
B6.0 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL // ALGAE POD PAVILION
Our proposal for the LAGI brief, is to design a pa-
vilion that is composed of an algae pod system, used to create biofuel. The site would be transformed into a public space and learning environment for users, who would be able to view the growth of the algae at different stages, and see the process of creating this relatively new form of energy production. We hope to keep many of the systems exposed, including much of the piping, so that all aspects of this green fuel production may be witnessed. The public would be able to see the algae growing through the glass pods, and be able to sit and climb on the ones lower down. The pavilion would be informative and aesthetically pleasing to sit under, as shards of light would be reflected through the pavilion
when the sun is out. Our pod structure is innovative within the context of contemporary design computation, as it utilizes the parametric capabilites of Grasshopper to generate a form that embodies architectural qualities, whilst still adhering to the LAGI brief. 3D tessellation allows for maximum surface area potential, the pods playing both a practical role in the design, as well as an aesthetic one. The design is unique in that we have not seen an architectural/ sculptural form of algae propogation be designed in such a way before; nor many examples of algae propogation in general. We have explored this emerging alternative fuel source, and have come up with a design that once finalised, will be designed to completely optimized performace.
B7.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES // INTERIM REVIEW FEEDBACK
Over the next few weeks, we hope to design
a better form for our pavilion. Using parametric tools, we would like to design the form in such a way that each pod gets maximised sun exposure. We would also like to fiddle around with the heights and sizes of the pods to further maximise light, taking in consideration the shadows that may be cast from one onto another. Hopefully we should be able to find a Grasshopper script that can help assist us with imputting sun levels.
and the piping system associated with this. Once we have designed our form to best suit the sun, and aesthetic needs, we could then determine the areas which would receive the least sun, and use these areas to house the extraction system, or storage pods.
The piping system will ideally be clear, with exposed pipes, so that every aspect of the process may be shown to the public. This system is something we will have to test using prototype modSince we made all of our models with card, we els, and digital drawings. The pipes will have to would also like to start prototyping using other be arranged in the most efficient way possible, materials, such as perspex. This would allow us to ensuring that they are thin enough to be housed properly visualise how our design may look, and within the structure, and do not block the light as we could seal algae & water inside our protoit shines through the structure. types. As per our interim review feedback, we also need to consider the rotation of the algae within the pods, how each pod may be drained,
B8.0 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES *Please see Algorithmic Sketchbook
REFERENCES B1.1 1. SJET, ‘MIT VoltaDom’, 2011 [www.sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html] 2. Grozdanic, Lidija, ‘VoltaDom Installation / Skylar Tibbits + SJET’, eVolo 2011
B3.0 1. Kebbell, Sam: ‘Atmospheric Tessellation’, Features, Australian Design Review, 2013 http://www.australiandesignreview.com/features/32398-atmospheric-tessellation 2. Editorial Office Design Daily: ‘Atmospheric Tessellaton: Wellington, New Zealand’, Detail Daily, The Architecture and Design Blog, 2013 http://www.detail-online.com/daily/atmospheric-tessellation-wellington-new-zealand-12712/ 3. ‘WGTN LUX 2013: Atmospheric Tessellation by Chris Knapp & Michael Parson’, Illumni, 2013 http://www.illumni.co/wgtn-lux-2013-atmospheric-tessellation-by-chris-knapp-michael-parson/
PART C: // DETAILED DESIGN
C1.0 DESIGN CONCEPT // ADDRESSING FEEDBACK FROM INTERIM PRESENTATIONS
In response to the feedback that we re-
ceived in our interim presentations, we strived to make a number of changes to our design in order to develop a much stronger proposal and better rounded design. In the interim presentation, we had not yet finalised or fully explored different forms, which we addressed by using Karamba to produce structural analysis, and Ladybug to diagram radial sun paths. Undertaking these studies allowed us to optimize our form and thus come up with something we were happy with. Another strongly reinforced piece of
feedback was that we needed to consider how people would use the site, and so we wanted to incorporate an area of the pavilion which allowed users to sit on whilst looking out across the water. Lastly we had to figure out how exactly the pavilion would be constructed, how the piping system would work, and how the pavilion would work structurally. This involved prototyping with materials other than paper, testing, researching and diagramming to come up with a real solution.
C1.1 DESIGN PROPOSAL // FINALISED CONCEPT & DESIGN
For the Land Art Generator Initiative com-
petition, we have proposed a sculptural pavilion which houses algae in an integrated manner in order to propagate algae for biofuel. The pavilion is site specific, utilising surrounding water sources to grow algae, and extracting by products that can be used and recycled locally. Each stage of the algae growing process is exposed to users of the site, providing an informative and educational resource to visitors and schools. The pavilion promotes the use of renewable energy sources, in particular growing algae for biofuel, which is a new and emerging technology which has been rarely seen within architecture. Despite acting as an educational tool, the pavilion has concurrently been designed to provide an experiential journey for users that is never the same twice, due to alage growth rates, seasonal changes and time of day. The ever-changing experience ensures a new experience every time, inviting users to visit, time and time again. The design provides a unique shelter for marketplaces, gigs and events, and an interesting view for visitors of â€˜The Little Mermaidâ€™ who may look across the water to see this undulating surface perched upon the water.
C1.2 DESIGN PROPOSAL // ELEVATIONS & PLAN DIAGRAM
THE LITTLE MERMAID
C1.3 DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATING TECHNIQUES // COLUMN & PIPE SYSTEMS
OUTPUT PIPES CARRYING ALGAE WATER FROM MATURE PODS INTO EXTRACTION TANK
BACKUP PIPE / MOVEMENT PIPE
OUTPUT P CO2 FOR PH MODIFICATION
SEA WATER TOGETHER INPUT PIPES LIPIDS
GRAVITY CLARIFIER SEPERATING OIL, WATER AND BIOMASS WITHIN COLUMN
SURROUNDING STEEL STRUCTURE
FIGURE 1: COLUMN SYSTEM WITH INTEGRATED EXTRACTION TANK AND GRAVITY GLARIFIER
WATER PUMP SYSTEM
OUTPUT PIPE CARRYING MATURE ALGAE TO EXTRACTOR
PIPE ABOVE GROUND PIPE CARRYING BIOMASS TO STORAGE TANK
R & WASTE WATER MIXED AND PUMPED THROUGH S INTO PODS
PIPE FLUSHING RECYCLED WATER BACK INTO THE SEA
PIPE CARRYING CLARIFIED ALGAL OIL TO UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
SEWERAGE WATER FROM LOCAL FACTORY
FIGURE 2: PIPING SYSTEM DIAGRAM
In order to extract biofuel from mature algae
that has grown in the pods, we have designed an integrated system within our design to clarify product which can then be stored and collected for use by others. Using the ‘Single Step Process’ (developed by OriginOil) , oil can be extracted from mature algae, and oil, water and biomass can be clarified in under an hour without the use of chemicals or complex machinery. Figure one illustrates how we have integrated an extraction tank and gravity clarifier within the structural columns of our pavilion, allowing this process to also be witnessed by users of the site. Figure 2 depicts the piping system in section,
showing how the combination of sea water and waste water are pumped into each of the pods via a set of imput pipes that run along the underside of the pavilion. The output pipes then carry mature algae into the extraction tank for seperating. Once the three by products have been clarified, pipes connected to the column run the algal oil into an underground storage tank, and the biomass through an above ground pipe into a storage tank that sits on the LAGI site. Excess water is flushed through a pipe off the edge of the site back into the sea. The process of algae propogation filters the waste water leaving it clean and safe to go back into the sea.
C1.4 DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATING TECHNIQUES // ALGAE GROWTH DIAGRAM
This diagram illustrates the average rate in which
the algae will grow within the pods. The simplified diagram shows how different stages of algae may be moved through the pods, and the colour variations that may be perceived each day as the algae matures. Although the diagram shows the algae housed in organised rows, different rates of algae may be pumped into different pods to create interesting patterns, shapes or lettering as the piping system caters for the changing arrangement of pods and the maturity of algae housed within them. Such flexibility allows for the pavilion to be altered for specific events, some areas may be filled with highly concentrated algae pods, and others completely empty.
C1.5 POD OPTIMISATION // OPTIMISING SURFACE AREA AND SUN EXPOSURE
The hexagon had the largest volume and area
of the 5 tested shapes with: Volume= 0.099080356 (+/- 3.8 e-0.8) cubic metres Culumative Area= 0.639907611 (+/- 1e-10) square metres for 6 objects
C1.6 SUN & SHADOW STUDIES // SHADOW DIAGRAMS ON DIFFERENT POD SHAPES
using the LadyBug Grasshopper plugin, we conducted shadow
studies on different shaped pods in order to see which shapes would be preferable, keeping in mind that we wanted to chose a pod type that would receive optimum sun exposure. We found that the hexagon shape projected the least amount of shadow onto neighbouring pods and the shadows that were cast werenâ€™t as heavy as the other shapes.
C1.7 SUN & SHADOW STUDIES // SHADOW DIAGRAMS ON FINAL FORM
C1.8 SUN STUDY // SOLAR RADIATION DIAGRAM
we used LadyBug to produce solar
HIGH SUN EXPOSURE
radiation diagrams which would allow us to see which areas of our pavilion would get the most sun and which areas would get the least. The areas which would get the least average sun indicates the areas which would have slower growing algae, and areas with higher sun exposure, faster growing algae. We used this sun study to optimize our form and attempt to reduce problem areas. In saying this however, part of our design intent is the aesthetic of having varied growth rates of algae and the colour variation that comes along with it, so we didnâ€™t have a huge issue with the varying sun levels. The diagram on the left shows our final form, and the average amount of sun that each pod would receive. The cooler colours indicate lower levels of solar gain, and warmer colours are indicative of areas with higher levels of solar gain.
C1.9 WORKFLOW DIAGRAM // ENVISAGED CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
OUTER SET OF PIPES
PREFABRICATED ACRYLIC PLEXIGLASS PODS
STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING
UNDERSIDE INPUT & OUTPUT PIPES
As the pavilion is made up of thousands of pods,
many of the construction processes will take place off site. The pods which are made up of a base and 6 walls will be prefabricated off site, and clipped into the structural steel framing. The outer and underside sets of pipes would then be fitted and connected to each of the pods. As the whole pavilion is quite large- the pavilion will be divided into segments for constuction and transportation ease.
Dividing the pavilion into separate vaults allows us to reduce transportation costs. Having each part already prefabricated off site also allows for the pavilion to be quickly and easily assembled on site, where the steel would be bolted and welded together, and the piping system fully installed. The segments would be connected to the columns which would also be prefabricated off site, and the piping and pump systems would be installed on site once the pavilion has been fully assembled.
PIECES OF THE PAVILION TRANSPORTED IN BITS AND ASSEMBLED ON SITE
ACRYLIC PLEXIGLASS COLUMN
STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING
C1.10 WORKFLOW DIAGRAM // ILLUSTRATING DESIGN DEFINITION
C2. 0 TECTONIC ELEMENTS // MATERIALS
The algae pavilion is primarily constructed out of three materials. The
hexagonal structure that lies on the underside and around each of the columns is made of structural steel to hold the weight of each of the water filled pods. The algae pods are prefabricated out of Acrylic PlexiGlas as opposed to glass, as it is cheaper, lighter, more durable and easier to maintain . Each acrylic pod sits within the hexagonal steel frame, which holds it in place. The clarifier columns are also fabricated out of Acrylic PlexiGlas, and the pipes are made from PVC.
C2.1 TECTONIC ELEMENTS // CONSTRUCTING DETAIL MODELS
5 3 2 6 4 1
The biggest challenge I faced when making
models out of Acrylic Plexiglas, was finding a glue that was suitable for adhering the acrylic together. The first glue that I tried was ‘Loctite Self Mixing Epoxy’ glue which was supposed to be great for gluing acrylic and ensuring a strong hold. The glue was incredibly messy and was incredibly toxic, making me feel physically sick for the following few days along with an ongoing headache- despite wearing a face mask. The second glue I tried, ‘Zap-a-gap’, was recommended to me by the head tutor of Construction Design. The glue worked wonderfully, however 10 minutes or so after the pieces had been glued, the acrylic would become cloudy, leaving a white film. Next I tried good old ‘UHU Adhesive’, using it in combination with the Zap-a-gap to create water tight edges.
The UHU sealed the gaps, however it did look a bit messy. Very similar to UHU was ‘Bostik Multi Bond’ which produced a similar result. After speaking to different staff at the Fab Lab, I purchased ‘Plastruct Plastic Weld’, a plastic solvent cement which was supposed to melt the acrylic together to form a bond. For an unknown reason, it failed to work and the bond was incredibly weak. Lastly I tried ‘Bostik Super Glue’, which worked great initially. The hold was strong and the edges were very neat, however after half an hour, large clouds appeared on the surface of the glass. In the end, Zap-a-Gap was the winning glue, however I had to scrape off the cloudy film projected on the glass the best I could after they appeared.
C2.2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS // DETAIL MODELS & CORE CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS
UNDERSIDE OF POD STRUCTURE- PIPING, STEEL FRAMING
we chose to construct a detail model of two
half pods, to show how they would sit on a curved area of the pavilion. The pods sit within a steel frame which we constructed out of painted balsa wood. Along the underside of the pods, run 2 pipes- an input and an output pipe. These pipes run along the bottom of the pipes, with connections that branch off and connect into each of the individual pods. The input pipe carries a combination of sea water and waste water into each of the pods to begin the algae growing process. Once the algae has matured, the output pipes
PODS SITTING IN STEEL STRUCTURE
carry mature algae into the extractors, which are placed above each of the clarifying columns. From there the by products are extracted and filtered to seperate into oil, water and biomass. The larger pipe that runs along the top of the steel framing, in between the pods is a pipe which may be used as a back up whilst pipes are being maintained, or for the movement of algae between pods if water needs to be moved around. The picture on the far right shows a pod filled with algae water, illustrating how the pods would look with algae growing inside it.
GRAVITY CLARIFIER COLUMN OIL, WATER, BIOMASS
ALGAE FILLED POD
C3.0 FINAL MODEL // 3D PRINTED FORM MODEL SCALE 1:1000
After discussion with our tutors, we decid-
ed that the best way to model our pavilion would be to 3D print the overall form, and use our detail and construction models to portray the individual pods. As the surface of our pavilion would be covered in over 11,000 pods, it didnâ€™t seem plausible to physically make thousands of pods by hand. We also decided to leave them off the 3D print, as at that scale, they would barely show up on the surface. 3D printing the form without the pods however, allowed the form of the pavilion to be displayed very clearly, and I think the form turned out quite nicely.
To set up the file for the 3D printer, we offset the surface by 3mm, as that was the minimum thickness requirement for this particular printer. We also cleaned up the overlaps, and used MeshLab to fix any problems we may have overlooked. The mesh was then exported into an STL (stereolithography) format for printing. I printed the file with a Desktop 3D printer, printing the form with PLA filament- a sturdy plastic material for printing. Our model came with rows and rows of plastic supporting members that I managed to slowly cut away with a knife.
C3.1 FINAL MODEL // METAL FRAME SUPPORTING STRUCTURE SCALE 1:1000
To model the supporting metal frame structure, we contoured a thin layer of hexagonal mesh, to line the underside of our 3D printed form. At this scale we werenâ€™t able to show the connections between the metal structure and the acrylic podsbut each of the pods would sit within the metal framing.
C3.2 FINAL MODEL // LAGI SITE MODEL SCALE 1:1000
We decided to model the LAGI site and its surroundings, to clearly show where and
how the pavilion would sit within its environment. As we wanted to show the factory where we would be sourcing water from, a scale of 1:1000 was the most manageable size for us to model. We also wanted to model â€˜The Little Mermaidâ€™ site, to give a sense of how our pavilion may be viewed from across the water. We chose to make the site model out of foam core and balsa, to create a clean looking model that allowed the pavilion to stand out. I think the form of our pavilion looks really good on the site, the fluid form contrasting nicely against the grid like formation of rectangle buildings that surround it.
C4.0 ADDITIONAL LAGI BRIEF REQUIREMENTS // PODPAVILION DESIGN STATEMENT
PodPavilion is an clean energy generating pavilion which
houses and propogates algae for biofuel. The striking green pavilion which is perched upon the sea resembles a wave like structure when looked at from â€˜The Little Mermaidâ€™ landmark. Viewed closely however, PodPavilion is comprised of thousands of pods and pipes, which are exposed to users, acting as an educational tool. The pavilion promotes the use of clean and green energy, providing an informative but also ever changing and exciting experience for users of the site. The open structure has been designed to sit as a sculptural form on the boundary of the site- whilst also acting as a shelter for local events.
C4.1 ENERGY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE TOTAL NUMBER OF PODS: 11709 VOLUME OF EACH POD: 76L
DAILY ALGAE PRODUCTION RATE = 11709 / 7 = 1673 pods with mature algae per day
DRIED ALGAE CULTURE: 20% lipid 40% carbohydrate 40% protein
1673 x ratio of protein, lipids and carbohydrates = 17.7338 L of lipid = 35.4676 kg protein = 35.4676 kg carbohydrates
Algae needs 7 days to mature. 1 litre of water requires 0.7g of dried algae 76L x 0.7 = 53g of dried algae: = 0.0106L of lipids = 21.2 g of carhbohydrates = 21.2 g of protein
Lipids = biodisel Carbohydrate = bio ethanol Protein = fertilizer or cattle feed Annual production = 6,472,837 L of Biodiesel = 12, 945,674 L of Bio ethanol = 12,945,674 Kg of Protein
C4.2 PRIMARY MATERIALS
STRUCTURAL STEEL ACRYLIC PLEXIGLAS PVC PIPING *Please see page 109.
Above: Local Factories, Copenhagen
C4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT & TECHNOLOGY // POD PAVILION
The environmental impact that PodPavilion has
is a positive one, as the project has been designed to recycle waste, utilise its surroundings, and generate by products that can be used locally. In terms of materiality, one of the many benefits of Acrylic PlexiGlas is its climate-friendly nature. The processes used to make PlexiGlas require less energy than the production of similar materials, and can be recycled and reused. PlexiGlas can be recycled and used to produce other resources, reducing material waste . As most of the PodPavilion is prefabricated off site, the transportation of each of the pieces would be one of the few negative impacts this project has on the environment. As the LAGI site is located close to several factories however, the impact would be very little as the majority of the pavilion could be fabricated close by. The great thing about using Algae as our renewable energy source, is that it is plentyful, and even so- only small amounts of algae are required to begin the propogation process.
Once the algae culture has begun- the first batch of mature algae can be used to sustain the following batch- and so on. Utilising waste water from the nearby waste water plant provides feed for the algae to grow off and the process of growing algae filters the water. This prevents some of the sewerage that would otherwise be released into the sea to be cleaned before being pumped back into the sea. Also collected from neighbouring factories is CO2, which can be collected and used to feed the algae, rather than being released into the atmosphere. The three by products that we are able to produce are great, and do not need to be transported far to be utilised . One third of arable land in Denmark is owned by full-time farmers, with beef cattle, pigs and meat being one of its largest exports . Biomass is one of the three main by products produced by the PodPavilion. The protein in the biomass may be used as cattle feed or plant fertiliser on local farms, contributing to the local economy.
C5.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES // FINAL PRESENTATION FEEDBACK & AREAS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
In Studio Air this semester, I have learnt a num-
ber of different skills and ways of appraoching design. Although challenging, I am now more confident using parametric modelling tools than I was at the beginning of the course, and have the basic skill set to explore these tools further on my own. Personally one of the most positive outcomes of the subject were the presentations and regular feedback we received each week. The feedback and bouncing around of ideas really allowed me to approach designing in a different manner and brought my attention to aspects of design that I had not considered. Regular mock presentations allowed me to develop an ability to create a strong case during proposals, and I think as a group we managed to pull off a well rounded and well considered final proposal. Our understanding of the brief developed through research and regular discussion with tutors and we learnt that it was essential for us to rigorously consider each element of our design in order to come up with successful solutions.
Overall I believe our final presentation feedback was quite positive, however there are areas of our design that require further development. In order to produce a stronger design response, we were encouraged to further test the arrangement of our pavilion on site, and perhaps multiply or expand our form to cover a larger portion of the site. Doing this would broaden the scope of activities and experiences that would be possible on site, and also increase the amount of biofuel we would be able to produce. Logistically, we also had to further consider and explore the storage of our by products on site, and how they may be improved aesthetically.
REFERENCES C1.3 C2.0 C4.3 1. Oilgae, Algae Oil Extraction, 2014 http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/extract/extract.html 2. Evonik Industries, PlexiGlas, ‘About PlexiGlas’, 2014 http://www.plexiglas.net/product/plexiglas/en/about/pages/default.aspx 3. Evonik Industries, PlexiGlas, ‘Environmental Protection’, 2014 http://www.plexiglas-and-energy.com/en/environmental-protection/ 4. Agriculture & Food, ‘The Danish Pig Meat Sector’, Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Copenhagen, 2014 5. Observatory of Economic Complexity, Denmark, ‘Learn More about Trade in Denmark’, 2014