Issuu on Google+

AIR JOURNAL PA R T S A - C RENEE JACOVIDES 585430 STUDIO 01 CAM + ROSIE


“ I

a l w a y s

t r y

t o

t h i n k

i n

G R E G LY N N , 2 0 0 5 , I N D E X M A G A Z I N E

c u r v e s ”


CONTENTS A.1

DESIGN FUTURING

8

A.2

DESIGN COMPUTATION

14

A.3

COMPOSITION / GENERATION

24

A.4 CONCLUSION 33 A.5

LEARNING OUTCOMES

35

A.6 APPENDIX 36 REFERENCES 42 B.1

RESEARCH FIELD

44

B.2

CASE STUDY 1.0

52

B.3

CASE STUDY 2.0

68

B.4

TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

82

B.5

TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPES

96

B.6

TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

122

B.7

LEARNING OUTCOMES

132

B.8

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

134

REFERENCES 140 C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT

142

C.2

TECTONIC ELEMENTS

156

C.3

FINAL MODEL

176

C.4

PROPOSAL & LAGI

186

FINAL 189 C.5

LEARNING OUTCOMES

204

DESIGN POTENTIAL 210

4

REFERENCES 214


5


6


R E N E E

Third year architecture student, living mainly North-West Melbourne and partially in my home town of Portarlington still - ergo I live in my car. I spent the majority of my later schooling in the Geelong area, living in my sleepy coastal town. Though picturesque on occasion, the location was quite dreary for one on the cusp of university - and thus I now find myself having mainly resided in this glorious city Melbourne for the last two years. I have always been enthralled and absorbed by architecture. When asked ‘what made you choose your course?’ I (ashamedly) answer with a stereotypical ‘I’ve never really wanted to do anything else’. Although I really should refine this stock-standard response, the essence remains true - architecture has always held me. I find that the last two years of study have lulled me happily further into what will be a life-long love affair within the field. I am engrossed by architectural history, the classical antiquities and orders of architecture, the complex language of the built environment whose principles have remained steadfast - being realized in the moderns and now today. Parametric design and technologically aided construction methods are an area I wish to further delve into. For the past seven months I have been working at a small firm based in Pascoe Vale - JayWarden Architects. My experience in this position has seen me become quite fluent in Revit Architecture, as we solely operate in this program.

Other than this I have experience in Adobe Suite, AutoCad, and Rhinoceros (from Virtual Environments). My experience in the professional field has been rewarding in understanding the position of the domestic architectural field in Melbourne, particularly aspects involving planning and documentation. Having completed studios over the last two years I have also loved discovering the potential of form, the necessity for good planning and the follow through of a design process from ideation to construction. I am constantly intrigued by new potential in materials and technologies that have been opened to me through studying the B-ENVS, and wish to challenge myself further in my knowledge and ability to incorporate these current strides into my thinking and design flavour. I want to begin developing my own design style. Unique, yet open and constantly evolving. I see Studio: Air as a valuable means to engross myself within this unexplored territory that is parametric design. Outside of the field I am engaged with theology - I read and think a lot. I am also a keen singer and avid coffee drinker. I love perusing the city and shopping - a little too much! In my downtime you will probably find me watching sci fi. Yes, I am a mix of everything. Hello!

7


A.1 DESIGN FUTURING In an appropriate beginning for this semester’s studio, an introduction to the current state of ‘design’ and the necessity for its adaptation in the world of today was presented in this week’s theory and lecture. It is an interesting angle to consider - the ‘redesigning of design’ if you will - and many palpable reasons exist substantiating the need to alter thinking and techniques on a global scale of all relevant fields, not just architecture. I found Tony Fry’s presentation of Design Futuring [01] particularly challenging to even my student ways and goals, with the reading really delineating the ecologically critical situation which current global actions further inflate. The notion that “we must generate the will and the means to mobilize approporate technologies at the scale needed to make a difference” is not new, but is definitely reinforced as imperative in this early stage of the course and in Fry’s text [02]. This is important to consider whilst at the beginning of a new architectural journey - a point where we are now in week 01 of Studio Air with the brief of the LandArtGenerator Initiative [03]. Designing in order to develop, prosper and sustain the future is crucial, and I wish to integrate this thinking into every upcoming stage in the process.

An integrated, environmentally aware architecture must be ignited as a norm - and computerised techniques may be classed as the vehicle to attain such heights. Through the selection of the following precedents I have attempted to elucidate how designing via computation allows integrated, multi-discplinary thinking to come to fruition. Although not totally focused on an energy renewal standpoint at this phase of the course, they exemplify how we can deduce dynamic, constructible and energy responsive architecture digitally - and thus enable design futuring.

The trivialisation of design due to its being widely ‘able’ to be performed through modern means [04] is also an issue worth considering at this conception stage of our projects. Taking the role of ‘architect’ or ‘designer’ means so much more today than ever, with diminishment of this responsibility seeing a global polluting of cheap, convenient, inconsiderate ‘solutions’ to date. The reading stressed this, as well as other coursework we have been exposed to this week. The fact that underpins design futuring is that architects must be multidisciplined thinkers, well versed in construction, ecologically dictated and attentive to all aspects of performance whenever entering into the design of a new ‘solution’.

8

[01] [02] [03] [04]

Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p.1-16 Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p.5 Robert Ferry & Elizabeth Monoian, Design Guidelines, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014. pp 1 - 10 Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p.7


PART A: CONCEPTUALIZATION WEEK 01 2014-03-06 - 2014-03-13

9


A.1. P R O J E C T

0 1 PUBLIC ART >> UNIT 2 (AA SCHOOL), DRIFTWOOD PAVILION

01

I was drawn to further analyse the inception, design process and construction behind this project, mainly because the form is quite exciting for an architectural sculpture. I have also chosen it due to the fact that it was the contemplated and painstaking work of second & third year students at the prolific AA school - at a level professionally and developmentally similar to our own in this subject. As mentioned, this project struck me due to the year of its creation, significantly the fact that it was pioneering in an annual series of its kind conducted by the AA School. As such, the project would have spearheaded and expanded upon a facet of architectural design that was still only slowly being revealed at this point. Not only to the public, whose captivation and interest, as can be assumed, was perceivable through the very uniqueness and plasticity of the form. The public art would have also operated to encourage and direct students in the design field at AA (and presumably other London institutions), thus expanding upon the architecture of the future. The purpose of the project in a site related context is somewhat ubiquitous. The site seems to have served as a platform for exhibition - the flatness and convenience of the site resulting in a model that is not particularly dictated by tis placement, besides spatially. The arrangement, with an enclosure of historical, tripartite villas that make the AA’s Bedford Square is quite noteworthy though. The deliberate placement of the sculpture into this context creates a deep contrast and suggests advancement from a stagnant time. Nonetheless the contribution to the users and urban site would have been primarily aesthetic, with the captivating nature of this large sculpture forming a gathering point - a place to drift to during moments of leisure. The design may also be assumed to have performed an educational contribution for the students at the AA School. Contributions to the field of ideas and ways of thinking: the artwork underlines the necessary direction of architects and the practice itself into the realm of three-

10

[01] DE ZEEN Magazine, ‘Driftwood Pavilion by AA Unit 2 opens’, July 2009 <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/07/03/driftwood- pavilion-by-aa-unit-2-opens/>


dimensional design and parametric modelling. It also highlights the reality that an institution of architecture that has existed since 1847 can still thrive and strive at the forefront of the field whilst other European counterparts (ie. the prolific Ecole des Beaux Arts) disintegrated within the modern era. The sculpture can be viewed in this light as a statement of educational longevity and architectural revival. The continuation of the physical assemblage’s use & appreciation must be viewed in accordance with its short-lived brief - the deliberate temporariness of the architectural sculpture was always inherent to the design of a ‘summer pavilion’. This does not inhibit the appreciation and ongoing nature of the project itself though. Through soft media formats, particularly the A-A website and other feature blogs, the project is given license to live on. The continuation of the physical assemblage’s use & appreciation must be viewed in accordance with its short-lived brief - the deliberate temporariness of the architectural sculpture was always inherent to the design of a ‘summer pavilion’. However, this does not inhibit the appreciation and ongoing nature of the project itself. Through soft media formats, particularly the A-A website and other feature blogs, the project is given license to live on. This is a crucial element of this and similar projects that must be considered when designing anything today. In a globalised and online society, it can well be said that a majority the audience will never encounter the physical production of things designed. Designs must be able to interact and engage with users through soft media communication - a platform that this project addresses reasonably well. Although a statement piece of parametric design within its historical built context, there are a number of drawbacks to an artwork of this type that need to be addressed, in order to hopefully diverge from replicating the issues in our Land Art Generator response. One principal matter is that of pure form as a generator for art/architecture. This sculpture relies on form to give it interest and inherent meaning. However, form alone as architecture is difficult to justify in the design realm today. The sheer amount of material in this assemblage is morally questionable, especially when considered within the context of Tony’ Fry’s ‘Design Futuring’ article, stressing a need to design for future’s future. The functional purpose of the piece is also quite limited. Although attaining the outlines of the summer pavilion program brief, creating sculptural, form-based work in this manner alone cannot be encouraged in pursuing the brief for the Land Art Generator Initiative. Having said this, there is a sense of fluidness and elegance in this type of parametric approach that serves as an ideal precedent to help inform one aspect of our ensuing design process - indeed being the final resolution of form. On observing closer images of the construction detail, the approach to panelling the form is also an aspect to consider and possibly adopt when it comes to generating a response to the brief in grasshopper. It is a fairly straightforward employment of material and geometry, but utilized in such a way to attain a complex and free-form result.

[01]

[02]

[01] [02] [03] DE ZEEN Magazine, ‘Driftwood Pavilion by AA Unit 2 opens’, July 2009 <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/07/03/driftwood-pavilion-by-aa-unit-2- opens/>

11


P R O J E C T

0 2

INVOLVING ENERGY RESPONSE >> JOHN GRADE CAPACITOR (FLASHSPUN HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE FABRIC, LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES, WOOD, AND MIXED MEDIA)

[01]

I have chosen to analyse this project by Seattle artist John Grade, due not only to its sculptural form again, but the fact that it is operating through a series of inputs and outputs - responding to climatic patterns in the area of the John Michael Kohler Arts Center in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The sculpture features a moving skeletal frame, with each panelled column of the design being able to separately coil and retract apart from the others, giving the effect of ‘breathing’. It responds to monitors installed on the roof at the Kohler Arts Centre that measure climate, heat, wind speed and other similar factors instantaneously. The program then compares this to historical climate data and averages for the area, triggering movement within the sculpture. The project expands upon future possibilities, mainly by expressing how even something as menial as weather data can be exploited in order to produce a dynamic effect. It detracts from the typical notion that architecture or sculpture in an (artistic context) must be static and defined initially. Although the result here is very minor in terms of larger issues of ‘sustain-ability’, ecology and widespread public reaction - as also denoted in ‘Designing Futuring’ - the potential to adapt the design idea into something more useful and engaging on a wider level for ‘change’ remains inherent to the project. The very fact that weather data can be translated in this way to produce physical reaction and feedback could possibly be employed to endorse widespread change in a culture, with the parametric design producing a favourable response with new data input. The installation piece contributed to its gallery site - patently as a statement work drawing viewers widely for its own reception. The gallery context must be considered here - attesting to the indoor and ‘less robust’ quality of this technology. In adapting a similar idea to our Land Art Generator Initiative brief, further investigation must be undertaken due to such a dissimilarity in site, purpose and context.

12

[01] Kevin Holmes, ‘Kinetic Sculpture Moves And Changes According To The Weather’, September 2013, < http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/kinetic- sculpture-moves-and-changes-according-to-the-weather>


A.1.

[01]

[02]

Nonetheless, the main driver behind this piece would have been to inspire the general Wisconsin public in the realm of parametric innovation, and educate their interest about weather issues and the geographical location in which they reside. As with the driftwood pavilion, the context of this project was for temporary exhibition purposes. Nonetheless, the principles divulged from analysing the previous project can also apply here. Through the form of soft digital presentation in various blogs and Grade’s own website portfolio, the project is allowed to live on - and continue ‘breathing’ if you will - influencing new design such as my own. In terms of contributions to the field of ideas, you firstly have the generation of a new architectural form, boasting individual materiality, ideation and construction techniques - able to be explored, drawn upon and analysed in depth. The sculptural piece may also be said to contribute technologically to design thinking- presenting a method of translating energy into a form of mechanical coiling & retracting, along with lighting differentiations. It is a new way of wiring, a new way of constructing and a new way of programmatically controlling parametric forms that had not conceived (or brought to fruition) before John Grade.

[03]

Grade’s piece will continue being appreciated in accordance with its recognition from major design and forward thinking publications/blogs. As mentioned above, the method of inspiration must now be through virtual means, due to the temporary essence of the gallery commission. The design however is an examplar of parametric precedent and technological innovation - brought about in an uniquely artistic way that can inspire students and professioinals in the design community at large. Sculptural works like this are the fuel for dialogue in topics regarding 3d-modelled form, and organic design, of which are slowly spearheading the architectural industry in a time of change. We must also stop and analyse the deliberate immersion of this piece in the public sphere - it can inspire people to change their ecological viewpoints (wind/climate data) and their opinion towards architecture as defined by historical models. I see potential in this style of data transmitting - resulting in a physical, dynamic output from a construction that may otherwise be perceived as stagnant. The power of movement and change in a sculpture with ‘architectural meaning’ in a public realm can have great power to absorb an audience. Hopefully, through further thinking on this project, the notion can be adapted to suit the Land Art Generator brief.

[01] [02] [03] Kevin Holmes, ‘Kinetic Sculpture Moves And Changes According To The Weather’, September 2013, < http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/ kinetic-sculpture-moves-and-changes-according-to-the-weather>

13


A . 2 D E S I G N C O M P U TAT I O N To begin this week’s analysis for A.2, I would like to mention Kostas Terzidis’ 2006 postulations introduced in the lecture, that “the dominant mode of utilizing computers in architecture today is that of computerization; entities or processes that are already conceptualized in the designer’s mind are entered, manipulated, or stored on a computer system. In contrast, computation or computing, as a computer-based design tool, is generally limited” [01] Through conducting the following research into precedents and academic hypothesis, I have come to understand the reasons behind this thinking, and recognize the direction that our upcoming proposal must follow. The readings this week introduced the various phases of digital design over the last 20 years [02], as well as denoting the impact of virtual methods on the design process and the meaning of design in general [03]. Deriving from these articles, it is patent that computerized and now computational methods in architecture do impact the way we design, the way we limit/liberate our formal, material and constructional thinking and the way we represent solutions. In the discussion of changes, the role of parametrics in architecture based on variable networks of algorithms is particularly important in the context of this subject and the road on which the field is heading today. Recognition and engagement with computational processes shift the possibility of design towards a realm where human preconception and understanding are extended beyond their natural, creative limits. The role of computation in generating design based on evidence and new performance roles is also quite applicable today. In an age where sustainability and eco-considerate solutions are pertinent in a fragile world, the use of computerised techniques is allowing for design that can perform new roles (ie. energy creation) and represent evidence in an informative manner to raise awareness on current issues. A final point I discovered to be superior in the situation of computational design today is the contemporary intention for multi-disciplinary thinking in parametric architecture. Computation allows for the merging of fields and the production of design that is effective, efficient and purposeful - going beyond traditional fascinations with aesthetic form. Construction and ecological thinking are being integrated into our systems, and this is a positive step for design futuring - as I have previously communicated in A.1.

14

[01] [02] [03]

Terzidis, Kostas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006), p. xi Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014), p. 1 Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), p.2


PART A: CONCEPTUALIZATION WEEK 02 2014-03-14 - 2014-03-20

15


A.2. P R O J E C T

0 1

[01]

I have selected the Georges Restaurant at the uppermost floor of the Centre Pompidou as a pioneering precedent for computerised form generation towards the end of the 90s - a crucial decade for the emergence of digital design as highlighted by Oxman & Oxman[02]. The project encapsulates a growing fascination with form that mimicked, organic, freeform shapes during this decade, which continues to be driving paradigm for digital design in our current age. It was experimenting with a typology for form in this gallery/hospitality context and even materiality in the realization of computerized architecture - employing brushed aluminium as an exterior finish with a thin rubber interior ‘skin’.

COMPUTERISED >> JACOB + MACFARLANE GEORGES RESTAURANT 1998-2000 CENTRE GEORGES POMPIDOU, PARIS

In this case, computing would have affected the design process in both a constraining, yet liberating sense. The variable volumes’ appearance, composition and intricacy would have been dictated by the level of 3D-modelling skill at the architect’s disposal, and programming capability of the NURBS software. It is for this reason that a computerised designation can be assigned - as the architects would have held a preconceived idea of the sculptural forms in light of these limitations. Sketch drawings before the beginning of the digital modelling process substantiate this claim, showing a level of design output relative to programmatic restrictions. Nonetheless, in the same conditions the design computing represents a level of new found freedom in the realm of architecture, with NURBS software widening the scope of possible solutions beyond standard of CAD and manual drawing.

16

[01] [02]

Jacob + Macfarlane, Georges Restaurant, 1998, <http://www.jakobmacfarlane.com/en/project/georges/> Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014), p. 1


[01]

[02]

As mentioned, the project represented an age of crucial change within design and construction expanding on prejudged notions of what was physically attainable - form utilised to determine the architectural aesthetic, as well as the base structural framework. It symbolises a captivation with form though, which is somewhat disparaged by Frampton in this week’s article, indicating a direction in design culture toward a lesser understanding of the “poetics of construction” [05] . I believe, through research into precedents within the BENVS to this point, that this fascination has only just married with more in-depth structural thinking in the last decade, as parametric design becomes further constructed and normalized. In this case, computerisation has not really contributed to evidence and performance oriented designing, as no pre-set parameters have seemingly been set to inform the design’s configuration or ideation. It is merely the ground breaking accomplishment of the volumes that is notable in this precedent for 1998. In the context of our oncoming design for the brief of the LAGI, this precedent has been relevant in enlightening me towards a phase of digital architecture which will have to be fulfilled early on in our design process. The creation of a base form or volume must occur before more experimentation in grasshopper computation can be applied, as evidenced in the following precedents of A.2. The Georges Restaurant concept cannot be merely replicated on its own - but we must approach our contemporary design with a goal to exploit current thinking in parametric design - going beyond human limits of complexity and ingenuity.

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05]

Jacob + Macfarlane, Georges Restaurant, 1998, <http://www.jakobmacfarlane.com/en/project/georges/> B. Macfarlane, Making Ideas, in B. Kolarevic (ed.), Architecture in the Digital Age, (London: Spon Press, 2005), pp. 186-7 Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014), p. 6

17


18

[01] Matsys, Zero / Fold Screen, 2010, <http://matsysdesign.com/category/projects/zerofold-screen/>


A.2.

P R O J E C T I came across the Matsys design studio last week while conducting research and thought it would be appropriate to look further into their projects and research areas. The Zero Fold Screen project is hung between floor and ceiling in the existing gallery foyer of the University of Calgary, Canada. The design of the piece boasts an undulating yet intricate form, composed of ply board panels and revolving around these six rod supports. The design is an example of (primarily) computerised techniques in order to bring about form. A notable aspect is the deliberate intention in this piece to reduce material waste, Matsys rebuking ‘top-down’ parametric architecture with little consideration of waste. Form was generated according to a set of material limitations, incorporating a well composed nesting technique to leave only 3% squander - another reason for selecting this precedent above others.

0 2

MAINLY COMPUTERISED >> MATSYS ZERO/FOLD SCREEN 2010 KASIAN GALLERY, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY CANADA

I have chosen this project because it represents an almost a stagnant point in digital design, with varying iterations being produced globally in an almost production line stance. The project stems around ideas of material tectonics and structural shifts that Oxman & Oxman speak of in relation to the ‘first decade’ of digital design after Post-Folding [01]. Clearly the generation of a preconceived lofted, organic shape - Zero Fold Screen exemplifies a base approach to computational techniques in panelling the form intricately and with a dynamic precision. Aside from this predominant assumption of form before digital work occurred, the design would have also possessed the externally imposed constraints alluded to Kalay’s piece - particularly in the realm of site specifics like cost, sizing & functionality [02]. It is with these limitations in mind that a computerized approach rather than computational approach was adapted.

[03]

The project is an exemplar of where digital design is currently in terms of feasible construction and applications of longevity in an architectural sense. As Oxman & Oxman expand on, this type of parametric structure represents the crucial realizing of research

[01] [02] [03]

Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014), p. 5 Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), p.2 Matsys, Zero / Fold Screen, 2010, <http://matsysdesign.com/category/projects/zerofold-screen/>

19


A.2.

[01]

[02]

since the early 1990s - and though not at the forefront of digital mimetic, intricate experimentation today - provides scope on the current role of permanent, computed design in the real world. The exploration of new form and material assembly, with a strong ecological bias informing the final design: this is what Zero / Fold Screen typifies. The range of conceivable geometry (within the limits of computerised design) expands practicable construction only as far as the human capacity to imagine form, and as far as that humanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s skill / and nurb operations will respond to the attainment of an imagined form. This project and similar counterparts present the opportunity to further investigate, through computerised methods, new material structures when designing free-form architectural pieces. They also engage by public exposure, allowing parametric techniques to become widely accepted and integrated into preceding architectural ideas

20

[01] [02]

Matsys, Zero / Fold Screen, 2010, <http://matsysdesign.com/category/projects/zerofold-screen/>


P R O J E C T

0 3 TOWARDS COMPUTATIONAL >> STUDIO ROLAND SNOOKS KAZAKHSTAN SYMBOL 2013 ASTANA, KAZAKHSTAN

[01]

This project by Studio Roland Snooks communicates the idea of architecture not as something entirely requisite for habitation, but as a more sculptural, three-dimensional symbol of statement. In this case, an architectural and parametric proposal adapted as an emblem of national progression at the Kazakhstan expo of 2017. The undertaking is also crucial in the consideration of our upcoming design process in accordance with LAGI. The Kazakhstan Symbol employs a scheme of metallic piezoelectric rods to generate wind energy through their swaying movement [02]. It is therefore an important precedent for computational design processes, as well as for energy generation in looking to design futuring. Computing has had a clear effect on the design process for this project - signifying a movement in digital architectural culture of hybrid approaches that are more reliant on algorithmic creativity as opposed to wholly preconceived form. As described by the studio, the “horizontal turbulent cloud” materializes itself from a complex network of computationally engendered ‘hairs’ [03] , corroborating the very fact that the realization of this design - the entire architectural boasting of the eco-sculpture - is reliant on computing to go beyond human representational limits.

This piece is also pertinent as it expresses ongoing change within the industry. First - the ability to draw elaborate, yet aesthetic design from mathematically based algorithmic scripts as a new norm within design. Second - the incorporation of environmentally driven purposes, construction and materiality. The structure’s composition is innovative in its exploratory use of materials. Though not betraying a structural framework in the renderings available, it can also be deemed structurally pioneering in the fact that it moves - unveiling an age of self supporting, yet ‘airy’ architecture. Computation has impacted on the range of conceivable geometries here in two separate ways. First, computerised techniques allowing a foundational lofted form to come into being (as explored in the Georges Restaurant) and secondly computation as a means of consolidating the hair ‘tendrils’ of the design - a factor near impossible to procure without algorithmic devices.. Further the ability for comuptational techniques to unravel geometry in a way that is constructible also influences the forms created in this typology of design.

[01] [02] [03] Studio Roland Snooks, Kazakhstan Symbol, 2013, <http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/kaz-symbol/ >

21


A.2.

Computation surely contributes to performance based design in this enterprise - as it will for our LAGI project. By performance based design in this case I am referring to computerised architecture not merely in the pursuit of flowing, unique and beautiful form, but equipped with the deliberate intentions to perform a task functionally. Here - the architecture aligns with what was purported by Oxman and Oxman in their reference to environmentally responsive form [01] , with the architecture inputting a set natural energy and outputting with an artificial energy that can be utilised. The performance quality is an integral function of the design and can really only be integrated into a composition like this through the aid of computerisation. Computation, in the context of the Kazakhstan Symbol, presents the unique opportunity for environmentally aware design that is able to meet the new demands of a changing world. This being said, it is able to fuel the continuation of research into formal experimentation, whilst serve as a platform for material innovation to structurally and efficiently amalgamate with parametric layouts. In relation to preceeding architectural theory, I think computation, specifically an algorithmic approach, gives a new meaning to the job descriptor of architect. Through computational methods and expertise in new softwares, we are able to take a firm stance on current questions of style, sustainability and construction, offering advanced solutions to architectural design problems.

22

[02]

[01] Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014), p. 6 [02] Studio Roland Snooks, Kazakhstan Symbol, 2013, <http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/kaz-symbol/ >


P R O J E C T

[03]

0 3

[04]

[03] [04] Studio Roland Snooks, Kazakhstan Symbol, 2013, <http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/kaz-symbol/ >

23


A . 3 C O M P O S I T I O N / G E N E R AT I O Shifts in architectural culture - they are visible throughout history. The rediscovery of Vitruvius’ De Architectura in the 15th century for example set in motion an era of new architectural thinking, based on Classical precedent and order, causing an eventual global ripcurrent in architecture[01]. The same may be likened to the mass production of steel with the onset of the industrial revolution, changing the way architects thought about structural design [02]. As the past has shown, there is a perceptible response in architectural culture with new innovation, technology and theory - and parametric/ algorithmic design is a contemporary example to add to the record.

Construction considerate and performance based design is also more available through such processes - seeing a new mix of inter-disciplinary design with environmental, structural, artistic, and scientific orientations coming to interplay [04]. Though, as Hansmeyer highlighted, there is still a disconnect between the self generative virtual forms resulting from this movement and actual realization[05], we are seeing this gap slowly bridged as more design trials materialize - proven in the following precedents.

Spanning on from A.2’s delineation of groundbreaking digital aids for architecture (ie. CAD, 3DM), which have transformed representation throughout the industry, the most recent shift goes beyond depicting form to “sketching by algorithm” [03]. As Brady Peter’s outlined, algorithmic thinking and computation allow the ‘augmentation of the designer’s intellect’ to produce responsive results beyond normal human creative ability. Such is confirmed through the ideas of Michael Hansmeyer, who communicates that architecture now is moving to a stage where we do not design objects, but the process for creating objects [04]. Research into algorithmic design and (in some cases) the physical production of these experiments, sees a movement occurring in architecture which discredits direct design of the ‘space’ and favours the design of the computational process. Through algorithmic technology, form generation can now be explored with a clean slate - no preconception is necessary and limitation is boundless.

24

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05]

Eugene Dwyer et al, Vitruvius, in Grove Art Online Database <http://www.oxfordartonline.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/subscriber/article/grove/art/T089908?q=vitruvius&search=quic k&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit> [accessed 22 March 2014] William Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900 (London & New York: Phaidon,1982), pp. 22-23 Brady Peters, “Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought”, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2, p.10 Robert Ferry & Elizabeth Monoian, A Field Guide to Renewable Energy Technologies, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014. pp 1 - 71 ‘Michael Hansmeyer: Building Unimaginable Shapes’, TED, TEDGLOBAL, June 2012, <http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_building_unimaginable_shapes>


ON

PART A: CONCEPTUALIZATION WEEK 03 2014-03-21 - 2014-03-27

25


A.3 P R O J E C T

0 1

EMERGENCE x FABRICATION / RESPONIVE DESIGN>> ACHIM MENGES HYGROSCOPE (BIOMIMETIC MORPHOGENESIS. IN COLLABORATION WITH STEFFEN REICHERT, WOOD SCULPTURE, PERMANENT COLLECTION, CENTRE POMPIDOU, PARIS, 2012)

The project by Achim Menges via commission for the Centre Pompidou embraces the idea of algorithmic design for the prupose of small-scale, fabricated installation. The computational structure is specifically drawn from the process of ‘ontogenetic development’[01], the algorithm producing a network of linear growth patterns emerging in cellular arrangements. The virtual process also saw the form generate in response to climatically instable regions within the glass container it occupies - all of these inputs going into the design formula to create a relevant and complex shape. I have chosen this project not only due to its embodiment of ‘the computational design process going beyong human capacity’, but due to the unique combination of this with advanced experiments in dynamic, climate responsive materials. It is a paramount precedent to analyse as it utilises only basic wood, a simple and environmentally viable construction material, as “a climate-responsive, natural composite”[02]. Through computational calculation of the wood grain and thickness its anisotropic and hygroscopic qualities[03] are able to be employed to produce open and closing movement in the form in reaction to the chamber’s changing humidity. This is important as a beginning step to understand how parametric design can be merged with dynamic performance/energy response technologies without the use of mechanical methods. Nature is readily able to respond to fluctuations in surrounding nature - and this can be captured architecturally. Though contained through a set of spatial limitations in the glass chamber - the sculptural piece coincides with the shift perceived today from composition to generation. As the tesselation and cell like layout is a “custom scripted process of computational morphogenesis”[04] it positions the architecture beyond mere composition and into this contemporary field of emergence. Additionally - the fact that it realizes the intricacies of computational generation and is able to be fabricated pushes it along this line, going beyond mere stagnant virtual experimentation so upheld by current parametric ‘digerati’ [05].

26

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05]

Prof. Achim Menges (collaboration with Steffen Reichert), HygroScope: Meteorosensitive Morphology, 2012, <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5083> Prof. Achim Menges (collaboration with Steffen Reichert), HygroScope: Meteorosensitive Morphology, 2012, <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5083> Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014), p. 4


27 [01] Prof. Achim Menges (collaboration with Steffen Reichert), HygroScope: Meteorosensitive Morphology, 2012, <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5083>


A.3.

[01]

[02]

28

[01] [04]

Prof. Achim Menges (collaboration with Steffen Reichert), HygroScope: Meteorosensitive Morphology, 2012, <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5083>


P R O J E C T

0 1

The advantages to this approach to design are quite extensive, as I have hopefully highlighted up to this point. It opens up new formal design processes for architects and extends the scope of the field. We are now able to be regarded with minds for computation and scripting, rather than minds for straight-forward ‘arranging’. The skills of the architect are fully welcomed and allowed to flourish. Another benefit is the intersection between practices, research and technology. As aforementioned, bringing together scientific theory, artistic notions, new technologies and the fruits of other disciplines is a byproduct of computational architecture. Disadvantages clearly reign in the factors of scale and fabrication. Although this piece has developed an intellegent system of interlocking fabrication withoiut the need for excessive use of material other than natural wood, it is limited in the scale it can be produced. Such limits are dictated by the size of ‘sheets’ and the laser cutting machines able to achieve such precise shapes. Another drawback in this particular piece is its function. Besides operating on a level of installation, Hygroscope’s climatic response is primarily observable within its humidity controlled chamber. It cannot be removed from this artificial environment - which may be viewed as a hindrance in light of our LAGI brief and upcoming design. Nonetheless, the project is an insight into the possibilities of generative algorthmic architecture derived from basic organic materials, fabricated to respond to energy variation. It is relevant to showase the future of architectural installations in an exhibition sense. It is also a pertinent conception point to explore this type of emergent architecture before moving on to more technologically focused aggregations as precedents.

29


A.3. P R O J E C T

0 2 EMERGENCE x FABRICATION >> MARC FORNES LABRYS FRISAE (2011, ART BASEL MIAMI, INDOOR PAVILLION, PYTHON SCRIPTED FORM)

[01]

30

[01]

Marc Fornes as THEVERYMANY, Labrys Frisae Indoor Pavilion, 2011 < http://theverymany.com/constructs/11-art-basel-miami/


[01]

[02]

Marc Fornes’ work seems apt to feature at this stage in the course, leading the way in larger scale installation works with a heavily scripted prescription. I have followed Fornes’ work since beginning the B-ENVS and find his computational methods to produce intriguing, elaborate and enjoyable forms that are able to be realized, unlike many of his counterparts. In this piece, an indoor pavilion for art basel in Miami, computational methods are embraced to manufacture artwork in buildable, strip pieces. The sculpture explores mainly aesthetic factors, with Fornes having gone through many iterations of pattern and materiality changes before attaining this final result. It redefines even the current status of digital fabrication techniques underscoring the possibility for really lively, labyrinthine, curvy shapes from these very ‘robotic’ tools. The work also directly inserts these unimaginable conceptions into the public realm, allowing those not directly involved in the industry to experience its shifting situation. Ergo, this public pavilion structure, along with Fornes’ other installations, allows spectators to be exposed to generative processes, and hopefully favour them within architecture itself. The algorithm itself is clearly derived from natural principles, as can be observed in Fig [02], with a branching system emerging in an almost fractal sense and reaching a pinnacle in the wider edge egresses. The perforations themselves also abide by algorithm, most likely changing in breadth, position and frequency dependent on where they are calibrated on the emergent surfaces. The point being made here: that the design signifies our scripting cultural preference today towards forms that are not realistic without computation of a generative fashion. [01] [02]

Additionally, that these forms are able to be yet be created with the restriction of surrounding environments (i.e. indoor concrete columns) quite easily. To speak of advantages again, they coincide with many of the same benefits that other parametric precedents I have spoken of boast. The design adopts techniques from nature to give it a complexity and fascination with small effort from the programmer. It is also produced n such a way as to make construction manageable (unlike Michael Hansmeyer’s columns for example). Another superior element is the fact that it is structural as substantiated in Fig [01] where Fornes is standing on top of his installation. This could be stated as a product of building from organic principles - as these patterns in nature generally involve a strong structural capacity. The disadvantages of this specific type of installation architecture can only really be articulated in the context of our upcoming project - and therefore may be unwarranted. The first - that it does not engage beyond its form and experinmental nature. Another, that it serves no other purpose besides its aesthetic presence/showcasing the algorithmic design skills of the architecture studio. It is a superb exemplar of emergent form and innovative fabrication - and if this is all it is to achieve then it has met. In relation to what we as a studio should be drawing from a project like Labrys Frisae, the list lies with its roots in the aforementioned benefits. We should be aiming for designs that captivate a public audience, as all of Marc Fornes’ pieces do. We should also be aiming for the forms that are only attainble by utilising nature as a precedent, and generative emergence as a fundamental law.

Marc Fornes as THEVERYMANY, Labrys Frisae Indoor Pavilion, 2011 < http://theverymany.com/constructs/11-art-basel-miami/

31


Computation offers an infinite number of possibilities in architecture, possibilities for complexity and innovation that we have never been able to grasp before. It is the way forward in a rapidly changing, globalised society, and has/is shifting the realm of architecture - along with the role of the ‘architect’ - substantially. Through the introduction this studio has offered me since the beginning of the semester, via a combination of lecture/ tutor communication, theory and independent research, I discern now just how monumental the role computation currenty plays in the field of design, and how this role will strengthen with the contemporary leaning of the architectural sphere. Part A of this course has been an advantageous preliminary foundation to understand computation and the issues/advantages behind it. In summary, I wish to reiterate the key themes dealt with which will be crucial to the forwarding of our proposal in the next two stages of the course. Firstly, the delineation of the current ‘problems’ that dominate the way ‘designers design’ accentuated in Tony Fry’s introduction to Design Futuring [01] transmitted the need for integrated, environmentally aware design which is dictated by ‘future’ considerations. This is a critical factor that goes on beyond the AIR studio, but to date this course has importantly unveiled how computation will be the ‘integration means’. The second major factor underpinned was the difference between computerisation and computation, and the way the field of digital architecture has evolved over the last two decades, branching in either of these directions or finding a hybrid between both methods. A final, crucial topic covered within the course thus far has been the precedent provided in nature, and the favouring of algorthims that produce generative design [02]. Architects designing the programmatic process rather than the direct arrangement of volumes has been emphasised, and I can comprehend the favouring of this current direction [03].

32

[01] [02] [03]

In thinking of how I am to apply these areas to my coming design approach, I hope to head towards a composite between these ideas and techniques advocated within the Studio, towards ideas that I also now agree with as the necessary orientation for the field of architecture. I, and my Studio Group, will aim for a combination between a pre-conceived design and an algorithmically emergent design. I believe this will be necessary in terms of considering fabrication, structural performance and just in general function with the public. It will also be pre-conceived in the fact that we must incorporate a means to generate energy, rather than based on pure form. Nonetheless, I aim to experiment as much as possible in the computational strategies I employ with my group - both to develop my own skills and realize a design that goes beyond our human capacity.

A.4

In saying this, the integration factor will also be something we endeavour to tackle. A design process constantly permeated with thinking about materiality, the environmental process, the structure and the interaction with the public will be our approach. It is necessary to take on these approaches I have outlined and design in this way due to the state of our world, the need for a change in behaviour and thought publically, and the need to design achitecture that endorses such change. Both the public (as integrated computation becomes widely seen in the built environment) and all fields of design can benefit by accepting this. Designs can become more responsive, more exciting, more precise and more considerate of their users/occupants. Environmental thinking can become first principle, without the compromise of “good” architecture.

Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), pp. 1–16 Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014), p. 12

‘Michael Hansmeyer: Building Unimaginable Shapes’, TED, TEDGLOBAL, June 2012, <http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_building_unimaginable_shapes>


T O

C O N C L U D E . .

[01] Michael Hansmeyer, Grotto, 2013, <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/digital_grotesque.html?screenSize=1&color=1#3>

33


[01] Renee Jacovides, 2012. Lantern for Virtual Environments: â&#x20AC;&#x153;I can discern now the amount of time that could have been saved by basing the actual composing of the model within grasshopper, as well as the precision and new variations that could have been attained through working algorithmically.â&#x20AC;?

34


A.5 L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E S Through conducting this research and analytical journal up to this point, the scope of computational possibility and the current leaning of architecture has become apparent to me, where I was not particularly informed before. The introduction to design’s current denotation and status, and the need for design futuring in an ecologically degrading world during the first week of coursework was an abrupt, yet necessary foundation point. Through research into parametric architecture at this initial stage the feasibility to design digital forms integrated with other purposes (ie. environmental, gestural) was unveiled,/ This early scrutiny substantiated the need to embrace computerized techniques to address this demand for change in the way we build and purpose architecture. A.2. was also a vital learning step in delineating and juxtaposing computerized architecture and computational architecture. Where experience in the B-ENVS to date has focused on the former and not specifically distinguished between the two approaches, this point in the AIR program was especially informative, challenging preconceptions and advocating for a newer, more intricate method of algorithmic architecture. This was further endorsed through undertaking the investigations involved in A.3. I found that further delving into the process of generative computation, based more solely on natural principles of emergence and growth, was an interesting topic and imperative to comprehend the direction of computational architecture at this stage in 2014. Through examining built projects and theory on generation, the benefits of drawing from ‘natural’ factors for aesthetic, structural and innovation purposes has become palpable. I feel that the information I have been exposed to, as well as the commencement with my grasshoppper knowledge, would have been helpful in some of my pervious design projects. Particularly, my lantern for Virtual Environments in 2012 - which involved very small, repetitive ‘scale’ like geometry. I can discern now the amount of time that could have been saved by basing the actual composing of the model within grasshopper, as well as the precision and new variations that could have been attained through working algorithmically. More valuably however, would have been the superior aesthetic, experimental form that I could have aquired when compared to highly preconveived volume that was actually produced. In other design studios of second year computational methods would have been convenient in understanding complex triangulated geometry that I envisioned, and would have assisted in going beyond my architectural imaginings.

35


WEEK 01

A.6 APPENDIX

36

Week 01’s task invovled the simple introduction to grasshopper, with the goal being to create a lofted volume in the program. My process went about creating various curves, changing their points/shapes in Rhino and then translating them into lofted forms in Grasshopper. I also attempted to go beyond the task by applying divided points to the surface, and then ‘triangulating’ these surfaces to create a volume which could be physically developed. I ran into issues here due to a lack of skill, but in essence the process represented an understanding of the need to physically construct freeform volumes from their computerized mediums, and stepped forward towards this objective. It also ties into many of the themes explored and arguments I have made in the journal to this point, particularly those revolving around computational, algorithmic designing rather than a clear envisioning of the stages and end results. Populating a grid of points on the surface, and triangulating this into base surfaces for contouring, was a procedure I did not have direct control over or imagined precisely.

A L G O R I

[01] I HAVE INCLUDED THIS IMAGE AS IT WAS MY FIRST LOFT. FORMED FROM THREE CURVES REFERENCED SEPARATELY INTO GRASSHOPPER. IT WAS A VERY INITIAL STEP, ALTHOUGH I LATER REGRETTED NOT ATTEMPTING TO CREATE THE ENTIRE FORM IN GRASSHOPPER FROM A SINGLE CURVE.


T H M I C

S K E T C H E S

[02] AFTER MANY ITERATIONS, THIS WAS MY FINAL LOFT. I EXPERIMENTED WITH THE SETTINGS IN GRASSHOPPER, CREATING A CLOSED LOFT WITH A ‘TUBULAR’ CENTRE.

[03] THE FINAL OUTCOME OF MY WEEK ONE EXPERIMENTATION. I POPULATED THE GEOMETRY WITH A SET OF DIVIDED POINTS, AND THEN MAPPED A SURFACE BETWEEN EACH OF THE POINTS CREATING A TRIANGULARED BASE FROM WHICH TO FURTHER DEVELOP PANELS FOR PHYSICAL PRODUCTION.

37


WEEK 02

A L G O R I T H M I C S K E T C H E S

38

The task of Week 02 was to create a form of curved, strip geometry like that of the AA Students ‘Driftwood Pavilion” (as seen in A.1: Project 01). I was quite happy with the furthering of my grasshopper skills over the course of this second week, mainly due to the fact I was able to tackle the deficiency of the previous week’s work - in that I created this interesting, variable loft entirely in grasshopper with only one curve as a main reference. The loft was formed through an oriented curve on perp frames, whilst I also incorporated a distance to point feature into the surface, allowing it to change in thickness depending on the location of point in rhino. I extended the task by further contouring the loft, and unrolling the strips in the XY plane in order to proceed the process towards a design able to be constructed. These sketches really communicate my own knowledge being developed at this stage, particularly sketch [01] and [03], substantiating individually driven and creative problem solving within the program. The results of this week coincide with the notion I have purported in Part A, that computation allows for the physical realization of intricate, organic geometry. It also explores the idea of an integrated architecture, tying in consideration for its construction all throughout the design process.

[01] THIS WAS THE LOFT I FIRST GENERATED MORE SOLELY WITHIN GRASSHOPPER, AS I HAD NOT DONE IN THE PREVIOUS WEEK’S WORK. THE LOFT WAS ATTAINED BY ORIENTING A CURVE THROUGH PERP FRAMES, WITH THE DISTANCE TO POINT COMPONENT MAKING THE SURFACE ADAPTABLE. I INCLUDED THIS SKETCH BECAUSE I FOUND IT REALLY HELPED DEVELOP MY UNDERSTANDING ON HOW TO CREATE GEOMETRY IN GRASSHOPPER WITH LESS OF A RELIANCE ON RHINO.


A.6 APPENDIX

[03] THIS WAS MY FINAL RESULT AND COMPLETION OF THE SET TASK. THE GEOMETRY I CREATED ACTUALLY HELD NO DEFORMITIES, KINKS, OR OVERLAPPING - WHICH WAS SOMETHING QUITE SATISFYING.

[03] I HAVE INCLUDED THIS SKETCH AS IT COMMUNICATES MY EXTENSION UPON THE SET TASK FOR WEEK 02. I WANTED TO EXPLORE HOW THE LOFT I HAD CREATED WOULD BE UNROLLED SIMPLY, AND HEAD TOWARDS THE ‘NESTING’ STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THE SKETCH SHOWS CONTOURS IN THE XY PLANE SPREAD OUT FOR LASER-CUTTING.

39


WEEK 03

A.6 APPENDIX

Week three’s task was very open, and required ‘the patterning of a 3D form’. I made it my direct aim in this week’s experimentation to stretch far beyond the required task and tutorial assignments. The first series of sketches demonstrate my investigation into different ways of developing patterns on a surface from 2D geometry. I have alo included the second series of sketches which show a completely ‘generative’ and unimagined approach to this process - an adaptable circular pattern based on a monochromatic image, which varied according to areas of light and dark. I then extruded the curves of this result and created a surface combined with the loft - far beyond the task. In these images I believe my understanding of mapping geometry to surface is expressed, and extended upon with more complicated patterns and variables in the design. It also underpins a creative leaning towards panelling forms and creating intriguing, plastic surfaces in my architectural style. These designs all correspond with arguments made throughout Part A of the journal. I believe in these instances I was designing the algorithm rather than the entire whole. The second series of sketches also accentuates the ability of computational design methods to go beyond my predetermined notions and create more random, adaptable products.

A L G O R I

[01] GEOGISIC CURVES APPLIED TO A GRIDSHELL SURFACE. THE COMPLETION OF THE BASE TASK.

[02] OCTAGONAL PATTERNED OVER TH VARIATIONS WERE NEED AND MAKE IT PROPORTI

[05] MY VARIABLE, CIRCLE PATTERN APPLIED TO THE LOFT. THE CIRCLES WERE DERIVED FROM AN ALGORITHM WHICH RESPONDED TO THE LIGHT AND DARK AREAS IN A MONOCHROMATIC IMAGE. AS SUCH, THE RESULTS WERE QUITE ARBITRARY, AND MY SKILL IN ALGORITHMIC CREATION WAS QUITE STRENGTHENED.

40


T H M I C

‘INTERSECTED’ GEOMETRY HE SAME SURFACE. MANY DED TO CONNECT THE PATTERN IONATELY PLEASING.

S K E T C H E S

[03] TRIANGULAR ‘SUBTRACTED’ PATTERN MAPPED TO SURFACE. I PARTICULARLY LIKED THE APPEARANCE OF THIS RESULT, AND WILL EXPLORE THIS TYPE OF TRIANGULAR GEOMETRY FURTHER.

[04] I CREATED A MORE TUBULAR LOFT AND APPLIED THE OCTAGONAL PATTERN TO THIS FORM AT A DIFFERENT SCALE. AGAIN MANY DEFORMITIES IN THE ‘MAPPING’ NEEDED TO BE RESOLVED, AND MY UNDERSTANDING GREW ACCORDINGLY.

[06] GOING BEYOND THE TASK, I EXTRUDED THE CURVES FROM THIS PATTERN IN BOTH Y AND Z AXIS, AND COMBINED THE SURFACES WITH THE ORIGINAL LOFT. THIS SAW AN ORIENTATION TOWARDS A FACADAL SYSTEM WHICH COULD BE DEVELOPED TO A LEVEL OF FABRICATION.

41


PA R T A R E F E R E N C E S Prof. Achim Menges (collaboration with Steffen Reichert), HygroScope: Meteorosensitive Morphology, 2012, <http://www.achimmenges. net/?p=5083> B. Macfarlane, Making Ideas, in B. Kolarevic (ed.), Architecture in the Digital Age, (London: Spon Press, 2005), pp. 182-197 Brady Peters, “Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought”, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2, pp.08-15 DE ZEEN Magazine, Driftwood Pavilion by AA Unit 2 opens, July 2009 <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/07/03/driftwood-pavilion-by-aaunit-2-opens/> Eugene Dwyer et al, Vitruvius, in Grove Art Online Database <http://www.oxfordartonline.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/subscriber/ article/grove/art/T089908?q=vitruvius&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit> [accessed 22 March 2014] Jacob + Macfarlane, Georges Restaurant, 1998, <http://www.jakobmacfarlane.com/en/project/georges/> Kevin Holmes, ‘Kinetic Sculpture Moves And Changes According To The Weather’, September 2013, <http://thecreatorsproject.vice. com/blog/kinetic-sculpture-moves-and-changes-according-to-the-weather> Kostas Terzidis, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006) Marc Fornes as THEVERYMANY, Labrys Frisae Indoor Pavilion, 2011 < http://theverymany.com/constructs/11-art-basel-miami/ Matsys, Zero / Fold Screen, 2010, <http://matsysdesign.com/category/projects/zerofold-screen/> Michael Hansmeyer: Building Unimaginable Shapes, TED, TEDGLOBAL, June 2012, <http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_ building_unimaginable_shapes> Michael Hansmeyer, Grotto, 2013, <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/digital_grotesque.html?screenSize=1&color=1#3> Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman eds., Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routeledge, 2014),pp. 1-10 Robert Ferry & Elizabeth Monoian, Design Guidelines, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014. pp 1 - 10 Studio Roland Snooks, Kazakhstan Symbol, 2013, <http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/kaz-symbol/ > Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), pp. 1–16 William Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900 (London & New York: Phaidon,1982), pp. 22-23 Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), p.2

42


43


B . 1 R E S E A R C H F I E L D

T E S S

tes • sel • la • tion noun 01 a : mosaic b : a covering of an infinite geometric plane without gaps or overlaps by congruent plane figures of one type or a few types 02 a : an act of tessellating : the state of being tessellated [01] With the commencement of this next stage of the design process and our own skill development, our group has collectively chosen to research into the field of tesselation as a computational technique. We feel this is appropriately aligned with the precedents each of us have individually researched to this point, and the speculative outcome we wish to achieve. We hope, through choosing an ‘practical, honest’ technique like tesselation, that we will be able to concentrate computational progress and learning, whilst bringing in our own particular design capabilities fostered so far throughout our degrees, in order to reach that “integration factor” between the arbitrary and the preordained, which I delineated in Part A’s reflection. In looking at this week’s threory, a number of helpful postulations were posed and explained in the realm of computerized parameters, and this is an ideal inception point for this more computational and design focused stage that is Part B. Woodbury’s outline of terms utilized in design, and consequently translated to computer science [02] assists us in incorporating these technological skills into our “regular design vocabulary”. One idea which heavily resonated, particularly as we dawn on exploring tesselation, was the hypothesis, “Drawing is a skill. Combining multiple orthographic and perspective sketches to reveal the implications of a design idea is strategy” [03] Looking forward to B.2, B.3 & B.4, with the generation of multiple iterations refining our technique, I believe this concept will be strongly substantiated within our work. The approach of constantly revised, experimented with ‘strategy; is vital when working parametrically.

44

[01] [02] [03]

Merriam-Webster.com, “Tesselation”, n.d, <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tessellation> [accessed 2 April 2014] Robert F. Woodbury, ‘How Designers Use Parameters’, in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, ed. by Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 159 Robert F. Woodbury, ‘How Designers Use Parameters’, in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, ed. by Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 155.


E L A T I O N

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN WEEK 4 2014-03-28 - 2014-04-03

45


46

[01]

Iwamoto Scott, One Kearny Lobby, 2010, <http://www.iwamotoscott.com/filter/INTERIORS/ONE-KEARNY-LOBBY> [accessed 2 April 2014]


B.1 R E S E A R C H P R O J E C T 0 1 TESSELATED INTERIOR >> IWAMOTO SCOTT ONE KEARNY LOBBY

(2010, INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT FOR ONE KEARNY, SAN FRANCISCO) In examining the following precedents I wish to research further into the tesselation system of our choice, and how tesselation can vary in parametrics, adaptations depending on the function and type of the project, along with the fabrication materials able to be employed. The project is appealing in this light, in that it demonstrates a simple system of tesselation quintessentially - with a repeated element forming a pattern - but possesses an interest and variation in lengths for each cell - dependent on the interior ceiling bounds. This aspect of the design is appealing, in the sense that it can be variable whilst still upholding the essence of a tesselated order, and the cells need not be exactly replicated in all dimensions. Iwamoto Scott’s project demonstrates the design potential for a tesselated pattern of simple cells - creating individual volumes. Easy fabrication/unrolling would have been a component of this design, whilst a major factor would have been the need to house lighting and electrical circuitry. The tesselation provides a means for accomodating the ‘lighting purpose’ of the sculptural roof easily within its design, an aspect applicable for the LAGI brief. Wiring to solar cells and other elements needed to generate an energy-producing scheme could be encolsed per se. This project however spans the tip of what tesselated surfaces attain, particularly in the context of our brief, in that the timber material is quite elemental and may actually inhibit the energy-generation capacity of the design. It is an exemplar of basic fabrication forms that have been built, but to employ a system of this sort with our desired material the concept may better be achieved with framed cells, rather than solid sheet material.

[01] [02]

[02]

Iwamoto Scott, One Kearny Lobby, 2010, <http://www.iwamotoscott.com/filter/INTERIORS/ONE-KEARNY-LOBBY> [accessed 2 April 2014] Architizer, Imawoto Scott Architecture - One Kearny: Lightfold, 2010, <http://architizer.com/projects/one-kearny-lightfold/> [accessed 2 April 2014]

47


R E S E A R C H P R O J E C T KINETIC, TESSELATED INSTALLATION>> BEHNAZ BABAZADEH FERMID

(2011, THESIS PROJECT, PARSONS NEW SCHOOL FOR DESIGN)

[01]

The tesselated sculpture that is Behnaz Babazadeh’s final thesis for the Parsons New School for Design is another illustration of the material system being used in conjunction with an energy source, and the engagement with physical movement in an installation piece. Here, the research principles are heading toward our group’s hopeful agenda in terms of materials, and the way we tesselate/arrange the material into a functional form. Perhaps living out the definition of “tesselated” further than the previous project, Fermid’s repeating of the basic patten unit at approximately similar scales still produces an interesting surface and overall result. This is patently due to its overt ‘breathing’ in-and-out, but also through the conjunction of light and deliberate revealing of a structure underneath - distinguishing it largely from the One Kearny lobby. It is a prime example to explore this other aspect to tesselation - that it can be applied to an internal frame structure and need not be adjacently connected. Additionally, that static, tesselated cells of a polymer material can be utilized for the biomimetic movement of a lofted form. It is only a further advance to have the material cells move themselves - as we would like to explore. The project is also interesting in terms of fabrication - with simple bolts connecting the warped plastic sheeting to the ribbon-like structure underneath, and cells surrounding. For an indoor project this is acceptable, but a more robust system would require developing for LAGI. Nonetheless, Fermid demonstrates a large benefit of tesselating architecture parametrically: that once a single technique has been established for fabrication and connections, it can usually be repeated just as easily as the pattern can be.

48

[01] [02]

Behnaz Babazadeh, Fermid | Kinetic Sculpture, 2011, <http://makingtoys.net/2011/05/16/fermid-kinetic-sculpture/> [accessed 2 April 2014] Design Playgrounds, Fermid by Behnaz Babazadeh, n.d <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/fermid-by-behnaz-babazadeh/> [accessed 2 April 2014]


B.1 0 3 // 0 4

[01]

[02]

TESSELATED INSTALLATION>> SKYLAR TIBBITS AND MARC FORNES TESSELION (2008, ADAPTIVE QUADRILATERAL FLAT PANELIZATION, PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY)

[01] [02]

‘Tesselion’, as the name would suggest, attempts to explore the possibilities and capabilities of tesselation as a system for parametrics and engage with it in a public art sense. I have brought attention to this project due to the robust nature of the the sheet metal - generating both a structure and an intricate pattern simultaneously. The collaboration with Tibbits and Fornes - both experts in the field of parametrics - accounts for the dissimilarity in this project to others. Whilst formed of a rigid, linear repeated pattern, the organic, free-form nature of the original design is still expressed - without needing to give way to more malleable plastic fabrication as Fornes typically favours. Examining the connection closely, and the layout of the single pattern component - the project it suitable for the brief of LAGI and Studio Air’s aims. A fixed surface would be benefecial, a simple matter of incorporating appropaiate solar cell technology. Notable is also the double-sided nature of the rectangular disk, creating variation. A system combining structure like Tesselion may be adopted if primary goals with EAPs are not attainable. Finally, this public art piece melds well the notions of bottom-up and top-down design, with this middle-ground an ideal aim for us, as outlined in Part A of the journal.

Marc Fornes & THEVERYMANY, 08 Tesselion, collaboration with Skylar Tibbits, 2008, <http://theverymany.com/with/08tesselion/> [accessed 2 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, Tesselion by Sklar Tibbits, 13 August 2008, <http://www.dezeen.com/2008/08/13/tesselion-by-skylar-tibbits/> [accessed 2 April 2014]

49


[01]

[02]

SILICON INSULATION LAYER CONDUCTIVE POWDER 5x PRESTRETCHED ACRYLIC POLYMER FILM CONDUCTIVE POWDER ACRYLIC FRAME 5.000 V POWER CONNECTION [03]

50

[05]

[04]

[06]


B.1 M A T E R I A L S Y S T E M Over the past four weeks of course-time, my group and I have been extensively fascinated by Electro Active Polymers (EAPs), particularly those being pioneered by Manuel Kretzer and the Switzerland based ‘Materiability Research Network’ [01]. We have also been keen to work with solar energyrenewable techology, particularly thin solar membranes such as photovoltaic plastic sheeting, or dye sensitized thin photovoltaic film. This is due to their maleability, their ability to be stretched over a frame. We wish to either propose an incorporated system, though not developed at this time (technology currently being explored by companies like Bayer’s Articificial Muscle Incorporated [02]). If this is not plausible, we may introduce a hybrid material approach, working with the very similar materials to tesselate a pattern - with some cells producing the dynamic movement that many precedents studied to this point in Studio Air have possessed. We understand Electro Active Polymers to be polymers that change size, shape or volume when an electrical current is being passed through them. Out of the established ‘Ionic EAPs’ and ‘Electronic EAPs’, the latter is more responsize and able to operate in dry conditions, acting in accordance with several kilovolts of energy being passed through [03]. As denoted by the Materiability Research Network, “The central element of DE actuators consists of a thin elastomeric film (e.g. silicone or acrylic), which is coated on both sides with or sandwiched between two compliant electrodes. In this configuration, the polymer acts as a dielectric in a compliant capacitor” [04] The film must be as thin as possible, and be well stretched to achieve any result. Production at this stage is manual, and a system to pass current through the opposing edges of an EAP cell will require finetuning. Our group will further research into possibly reharnessing the energy from the movement of the cells for supplementary use, [01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06] [07]

and even utilizing the mechanical-like function of the EAPs to produce further electrical energy. In looking at thin solar cell films, either dye-sensitized or organic photovoltaic plastic sheet [05] would be appropriate for the energy production and design intent we wish to pursue. It can be easily fabricated into variable shapes - making it ideal for tesselation. Functioning well under low light conditions is also a positive aspect for the context of Copenhagen [05]. The material is produced in a roll of continuous substrate material, making it efficient and cheaper to fabricate than other PV technologies. Also known as the Gratzel cell after its founders Michael Gratzel and Brian O’Regan, dye sentized solar cells work quite similarly to the unrollable solar cell film. Liquid electrolite exists within the DSSC, making it: “a nanostructured photoelectrochemical device, consisting of a highly porous film of titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles, coated with a monolayer of dye that is sensitive to visible light.” [06] The cells, much like the sheeting, work well in low light and operate by transforming sunlight into electrical energy through the interaction between photons and electrons within the dyes, creating a current [07]. Due to the flexible nature of either of these PV materials, they will make for an ideal candidate for conjunction with EAPs in a sculptural piece. IMAGES OPPOSITE [01] Manuel Kretzer, ‘ShapeShift’, June 2012, <http:// materiability.com/shapeshift/> [Accessed 2 April 2014] [02] Manuel Kretzer, ‘ShapeShift’, June 2012, <http:// materiability.com/shapeshift/> [Accessed 2 April 2014] [03] Materiability Research Network, ‘Electro Active Polymers’, Feb 2013, <http://materiability.com/electroactive-polymers/>, [Accessed 3 April 2014] [04] Responsive Design Studio, Phototropia, April 2012, Master of Advanced Studies class at the Chair for CAAD, <http:// responsivedesignstudio.blogspot.com.au/> [Accessed 3 April 2014] [05] Brit Ligett, ‘New Photosensitizing Dyes create More Efficient Solar Panels, Inhabitat, March 2011, < http://inhabitat.com/newphotosensitizing-dyes-create-more-efficient-solar-panels/> [Accessed 3 April 2014] [06] Tools For Green Living, ‘Polymer Solar Cell Technology Records Its Highest Power Conversion Efficiency’, 2013, <http://toolsforgreenliving. com/2013/06/polymer-solar-cell-technology-records-its-highest-powerconversion-efficiency.html> [Accessed 3 April 2014]

Materiability Research Network, ‘Electro Active Polymers’, Feb 2013, <http://materiability.com/electroactive-polymers/>, [Accessed 3 April 2014] Artificial Muscle Incorporated, ‘Our Technology’, 2012, <http://www.artificialmuscle.com/technology.php > [Accessed 3 April 2014] Materiability Research Network, ‘Electro Active Polymers’, Feb 2013, <http://materiability.com/electroactive-polymers/>, [Accessed 3 April 2014] Christa Jordi, “Biomimetic Airship driven by dielectric elastomer actuators,” 2011, PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, 15, in Materiability Research Network, ‘Electro Active Polymers’, Feb 2013, <http://materiability.com/electroactive-polymers/>, [Accessed 3 April 2014] Robert Ferry & Elizabeth Monoian, ‘A Field Guide to Renewable Energy Technologies’’, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014. p 14 Materiability Research Network, ‘Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells’, Sep 2013, <http://materiability.com/dye-solar-cells/>, [Accessed 3 April 2014] Brit Ligett, ‘New Photosensitizing Dyes create More Efficient Solar Panels, Inhabitat, March 2011, < http://inhabitat.com/new-photosensitizing-dyes-create- more-efficient-solar-panels/> [Accessed 3 April 2014]

51


B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

V O U S S

[01]

52

[01]

ArchiVenue, ‘Voussoir Cloud’ by IwamotoScott with Buro Happold’, September 2009, <http://www.archivenue.com/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott-with- buro-happold/> [Accessed 3 April 2014]


I O R

C L O U D

TESSELATED CASE STUDY>> IWAMOTO SCOTT & HAPPOLD VOUSSIOR CLOUD (2008, SCI-ARC GALLERY, LOS ANGELES)

In commencing this week’s case study 1.0, the decision to analyze Tesselation and Voussior Cloud as our particular project out of the research fields was derived from group analysis of our own styles of designing, our own comfort/skill levels in grasshopper and the (barely) envisioned product we wish to finally produce together. The Iwamoto Scott and Happold Voussier Cloud project appealed to our sensibilities, not only due to its beauty in the carefully detailed pattern, but due to its algorithm with a major dependence on voronoi. Though we do not wish to employ Voronoi towards our final design outcome, it is a solid platform from which to model interesting and variable iterations, and specifically drive our learning of the program by embracing such a universal system. Through the following matrix our group has attempted to get the maximum variation and potential from the algorithm provided. Results were quite divergent from the Voussior Cloud in some cases, and this was appropriate in morphing the design for ourselves.

[01]

ArchiVenue, ‘Voussoir Cloud’ by IwamotoScott with Buro Happold’, September 2009, <http://www.archivenue.com/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott-with- buro-happold/> [Accessed 3 April 2014]

53


54

O input into WBLaplace Again

Sphere: Radius Enlarged

WbLapLace: L=2 Wb Thicken (from LapLace) Boolean: flse flse fsle true flse

Explode PreExisting Surface

Explode (Offset) Normal Loft from Vertices

As Before, Change to Height

Extrude: Vector = Attractor Pt

Offset: H = 7.80, W = 0.686 Explode - Loft with Edges

Create Brep - From Offset

Cull-Faces – Medges – EdgeSrf – Cull-faces

Loft - PreExisting Popgeo – Sphere

As Before, Arbitraty changes to Number Sliders

Offset - Original Surface

Cull-Faces: Deconstruct Mesh Surface Grid

Cull Faces – Previous MESH Cull Faces – Previous MESH Cull Faces – From Final Mesh Boolean– true false Boolean– false false true false DeMesh – SrfGrid – Map Srf true true true From TriGrid – Con – Map Srf

SPECIES 01

Offset: Distance = 1.6 Extrude: Z-Plane, Height = Attractor Point - Positioned at Divide Srfs - Edges - Edge Srf 7.80 units, Cell Width= 0.686 centre of BRep

Cull Faces: F=1

Z-Value = 6

Move:

B.2 C A S E S T U D Y 1 . 0

SPECIES 02


Attractor Point: Dist to Point. Scale (R-Int): -0.470 Move= 0.392, Pt at 0,0 3,0 00 Move (In Z): - 6.0 Geometry Moved in Trans Vec MeshUV: U=3, V=3

Voronoi: Radius = 2.0 Trimmed Mesh: Preview Off

Attractor Pt: Moved Arbitratily

Loft Styles: Straight, Rebuild Point Attractor: Moved Arbitrarily

Crv (R-Int) = 1.5, Z( Move)= 8.2

Voronoi: -Radius = 3.0 -Added 14 new referenced Pts

Loft (from new Rhino Curves) Extrude (in Z Vector): 5 Units TrimSolid - With new Loft Extrude (in Z-Vector): 6 Units

Srf Diff (Boundary Offset Crvs) Offset Curve (from scaled Scale (R-Int): 1.0 Loft Styles: Developable, Align DeBrep - Explode Tree - Faces geometry) = 0.25 Sections SurfDiff : 01,05,08,10,14,15,17 BoundarySrf: from Offset

Voronoi: Radius = 6.0

Attractor Point:: Moved Arbitrarily

Extrude Trimmed Mesh: 10.0 WarpWeft: Trimmed Mesh Trimmed Mesh: Preview On Trimmed Mesh: Preview Off

Original Mesh: Preview Off

FORMED NEW SPECIES

Voronoi: 12 Pts Removed Surf Diff: 00,01,03,05

Loft Styles: - Developable Mesh Edges: Preview On Scale (R-Int): 0.67

Loft Styles: - Rebuild Curve Voronoi: - Radius = 1.5

SPECIES 03 SPECIES 04

55


56

O input into WBLaplace Again

Sphere: Radius Enlarged

WbLapLace: L=2 Wb Thicken (from LapLace) Boolean: flse flse fsle true flse

Explode PreExisting Surface

Explode (Offset) Normal Loft from Vertices

As Before, Change to Height

Extrude: Vector = Attractor Pt

Offset: H = 7.80, W = 0.686 Explode - Loft with Edges

Create Brep - From Offset

Cull-Faces – Medges – EdgeSrf – Cull-faces

Loft - PreExisting Popgeo – Sphere

As Before, Arbitraty changes to Number Sliders

Offset - Original Surface

Cull-Faces: Deconstruct Mesh Surface Grid

Cull Faces – Previous MESH Cull Faces – Previous MESH Cull Faces – From Final Mesh Boolean– true false Boolean– false false true false DeMesh – SrfGrid – Map Srf true true true From TriGrid – Con – Map Srf

SPECIES 01

Offset: Distance = 1.6 Extrude: Z-Plane, Height = Attractor Point - Positioned at Divide Srfs - Edges - Edge Srf 7.80 units, Cell Width= 0.686 centre of BRep

Cull Faces: F=1

Z-Value = 6

Move:

B.2 C A S E S T U D Y 1 . 0

SPECIES 02


Attractor Point: Dist to Point. Scale (R-Int): -0.470 Move= 0.392, Pt at 0,0 3,0 00 Move (In Z): - 6.0 Geometry Moved in Trans Vec MeshUV: U=3, V=3

Voronoi: Radius = 2.0 Trimmed Mesh: Preview Off

Attractor Pt: Moved Arbitratily

Loft Styles: Straight, Rebuild Point Attractor: Moved Arbitrarily

Crv (R-Int) = 1.5, Z( Move)= 8.2

Voronoi: -Radius = 3.0 -Added 14 new referenced Pts

Loft (from new Rhino Curves) Extrude (in Z Vector): 5 Units TrimSolid - With new Loft Extrude (in Z-Vector): 6 Units

Srf Diff (Boundary Offset Crvs) Offset Curve (from scaled Scale (R-Int): 1.0 Loft Styles: Developable, Align DeBrep - Explode Tree - Faces geometry) = 0.25 Sections SurfDiff : 01,05,08,10,14,15,17 BoundarySrf: from Offset

Voronoi: Radius = 6.0

Attractor Point:: Moved Arbitrarily

Extrude Trimmed Mesh: 10.0 WarpWeft: Trimmed Mesh Trimmed Mesh: Preview On Trimmed Mesh: Preview Off

Original Mesh: Preview Off

FORMED NEW SPECIES

Voronoi: 12 Pts Removed Surf Diff: 00,01,03,05

Loft Styles: - Developable Mesh Edges: Preview On Scale (R-Int): 0.67

Loft Styles: - Rebuild Curve Voronoi: - Radius = 1.5

SPECIES 03 SPECIES 04

57


[01]

[02]

[03]

[04]

58


C A S E

S T U D Y

1 . 0

B.2

These final four iterations (one from each species) have been selected due to the following assessment criteria: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

ABIDES BY BASIC TESSELATION PRINCIPLES CAN BE UNROLLED / DEVEOPABLE POTENTIAL IS VISUALLY INTERESTING COMPARED TO OTHERS HAS STRAYED FAR FROM ORIGINAL ALGORITHM CAN INCORPORATE PREFERENCED MATERIALS CAN BE ENHANCED FURTHER IN GRASSHOPPER

We considered these four outcomes to be more successful than the others, in that they are each quite different to the original mesh produced by the Voussior Cloud algorithm in grasshopper, and they have each undergone a substantial amount of adaptation and addition to the parametric programmatic sequence. They also underscore the complete computational process at work in this exercise, as each of these outcomes was not pre-conceived by us as architects of the form/algorithm. The entire task alludes to Kalay’s account of ‘Solution Synthesis’, where the synthesis of design solutions informed by contextual limitations is beginning[01].

[01]

Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), p.11

59


C A S E

S T U D Y

1 . 0

Selection 01 (Compiled by Bohemia) is interesting in that it has formed dynamic, origami-like folds in the mesh extended through CullFaces and Deconstructing the Mesh. It is aesthetically interesting, and possesses a freeform nature despite its angular curves. The iteration also appealed to us due to the materiality that could be applied - quite resonant of the material system we have chosen. It is also open to changes and adaptations in materiality, considering we are at an early stage in choosing both design and our energy-production methods. The individual cell could be altered in size and tesselated over a structured form, or potentially the geometric principles could be applied to create an entire form on its own (though this would not be substantiating tesselation as a design driver). In looking closely at the assessment criteria, the algorithmic processes undertaken to attain this outcome strayed far from the original definition provided. This is substantiated both programmatically and aesthetically. Displayed opposite is a sample of a 3D wall panel by manufacturing company VIRTUELL. Though not tesselated, the folded appearance is quite similar and a system like this offers a range of architectural possibilities. There is the potential to take this panelling down a sculptural path, something that could be milled out of a solid material, or formed of a malleable plastic...

60

[01] Virtuell, 3D Wall Panel, archiproducts, n.d <http://www.archiproducts.com/en/products/71608/3d-wall-panel-virtuell-materialinnovativi.html> [opposite] [accessed 12 April 2014]


B.2

61


62


C A S E

S T U D Y

1 . 0

B.2

Selection 02 (Compiled by Amy) underwent only some changes, but is an exemplar of the completely fluctuating nature of an algorithm when modified even minutely. The extruded, lofted surfaces of the cells are quite repetitious, and could be multiplied to form an interesting pattern. The individually stretched meshes of the design resonates with many of the ‘responsive, breathing’ type precedents analyzed in the journal in Part A, and accords with this aspiration of our group. to incorporate movement in the structure. Although EAPs could not easily be embraced in a design of this ‘highly structured’ nature, other ‘dynamic’ materials could be applied to the tesselation technique. The option offers developable potential, with each cell requiring its own fabrication and connection to the next. There are also a number of devices in grasshopper that could be employed (at our current, evolving skill level) to add new intrigue and interest to the tesselation type. A precedent to demonstrate the potential we envision behind this tesselation technique comes in Iris Van Herpen’s structural fashion pieces from his 2013 Haute Couture Collection. Herpen’s parametric designs are adapted to fit onto a very fluctuating, voluminous form (the human body) and they represent the capabilities of tesselation to retain both boxy, geometric characteristics, whilst still producing a fluid result. A system similar to this could potentially be employed with a moving metal, plastic, or fibrous wood...

[01] Iris Van Herpen, Extract from 2013 Haute Couture Collection, Elle, 2013 <http://www.elle.com/runway/haute-couture/spring-2013-couture/iris-van-herpen/ [opposite] collection/#slide-2> [accessed 12 April 2014]

63


B.2

Selection 03 (Compiled by myself) was the result of a number of new additions to the algorithm. Attractor points and major adaptations to the mesh and original voronoi were encompassed here to achieve this product. I believe it is successful in that is is quite contrastive to the original design, and is an example of ‘irregular’ tesselation. In terms of fabricating the design it is plausible, although the flexible sheet material qualities may be difficult to orient to such a twisted pattern. I would like to have expanded this further by replacing the voronoi with another pattern. In terms of fabricating the design it is plausible, although the flexible sheet material qualities may be difficult to orient to such a twisted pattern. I would like to have expanded this further by replacing the voronoi with another pattern. In terms of physical precedents to parallel this option, and serve as a guide for real world utilisation of the technique, Doris Kim Sung’s ‘Bloom’ is a prime exemplar. A breathable metal offers quite a dynamic option, with direct connections to energy production. The system encompassed with Bloom could be adapted to suit the technique arrived at in our iterations. An interesting feat would be for the twisted segments in our iteration to grow inwards and outwards, depending on environmental conditions.

64

[01] FastCoDesign, ‘A shape shifting, heat sensitive metal lets buildings breathe’ by Doris Kim Sung, November 2012 <http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671279/ [opposite] a-shape-shifting-heat-sensitive-metal-lets-buildings-breathe> [Accessed 12 April 2014]


C A S E

S T U D Y

1 . 0

65


66


C A S E

S T U D Y

1 . 0

B.2

Selection 04 (Compiled by myself) was also significant. The species was produced from the preceeding species, evolving into this eventual design. Although not a series of the same, repeated element, the iteration still explores the intricacy that can be achieved through a patterned combination of surfaces, frames and curves. The Trimmed Surface aspecf of this iteration was also key to understanding how to gain some aspect of control over the compuational desin. The differentiation in the design is interesting - some cells covered and some left as frames free of volume. It would be simple enough to fabricate and - as demonstrated here when developed into a connected system. Organic form can yet be attained, through differing levels and trimmed-surface techniques.. This iteration communicated Kalay’s ideas that design is yet a purposeful activity despite of computational processes [02] as I had some control over the result of this version of the species. In employing the design for the real world exploitation, I imagine the structure to be capped in solar film on some cells, and half open for an architectural effect. The work of Berlin based architect Patrick Bedarf in his ‘Foam’ studies in grasshopper are a relevant parallel for this proposed system. Although leading down a biomimicry path, the capped/un-capped effect is the main notion here.z To clarify however, our group wishes to avoid voronoi patterning wherever possible.

[01] Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), p.5 [02] [opposite] Angine, ‘[FOAM] - 3d Voronoi’ by Patrick Bedarf, January 2010 <http://www.a-ngine.com/2009/12/foam-3d-voronoi.html> [Accessed 12 April 2014]

67


B . 3 C A S E S T U D Y 2 . 0

O R N A & C O

In continuing with this week’s algorithmic and journal tasks, simultaneously engaging in thought and discussion about the direction of our group project (ideation, materiality and fabrication wise), the key issues emphasised in the theory for Wk.5 have been both riveting and instructive. As underscored within the lecture, Kolarevic’s & Klinger’s reading[01], and also Farshid & Moussavi’s words, the case for ornament has been confronted over numerable movements within architectural discourse and practice, spanning the lengths of utter disparagement (opinions held by Adolf Loos, or expressed in the International Style) to complete endorsement, as expressed through the renowned convictions of John Ruskin and Gottfried Semper [02]. Understanding the role of ornament in terms of computational design today has been crucial to this week, and will indeed be a pivotal essence that must characterise our work from this point onwards. The three methods highlighted by Farshid & Moussavi in particular the idea of ‘affect’ amalgamating both decorative ornament and structure into one [03] - are strategies that I wish to adopt in my grasshopper modelling and iterations. Moreover, the notions forming the computational foundation of Herzog and De Meuron’s architectural prowess are relevant to consider as we continue group work and coming towards a viable solution. As accentuated by Peters, “[their] computational design team is thus very much a part ofthe practice’s overall conceptual approach to design” [04] . I translate the ornamental factors of H&D buildings here as something which is inherently conceived as architecture before entering digital format, but realized and brought to fruition through computation. This is exceptional practice to adopt, not just for this subject, but in the wider field.

68

[01] [02] [03] [04]

Branko Kolarevic and Kevin R. Klinger, eds, Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture (New York; London: Routledge, 2008), p. 11 Farshid Moussavi and Michael Kubo, eds, The Function of Ornament, (Barcelona: Actar, 2006), p. 6 Farshid Moussavi and Michael Kubo, eds, The Function of Ornament, (Barcelona: Actar, 2006), p. 10 Brady Peters, ‘Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’. Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2, p. 61


M E N T M P U T A T I O N

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN WEEK 5 2014-04-04 - 2014-04-10

69


[01]

70 [02]

[01]

ArchiVenue, ‘Voussoir Cloud’ by IwamotoScott with Buro Happold’, September 2009, <http://www.archivenue.com/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott-with- buro-happold/> [Accessed 3 April 2014]


B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0 D R A G O N S K I N P A V I L I O N TESSELLATED CASE STUDY 2.0>> COLLAB OF EMMI KESKISARJA, PEKKA TYNKKYNEN, KRISTOF CROLLA, AND SEBASTIEN DELAGRANGE DRAGON SKIN PROJECT

(2012, HONG KING AND SHENZHEN BI-CITY BIENALLE OF URBANISM / ARCHITECTURE) This week’s project was the Dragon Skin Pavilion, which we discovered through case study examples on the LMS. The project stemmed and flourished from a student workshop between Finnish architects and architecture students, unknowlingly expanding algorithmically and developmentally until it reached an exhibitable level for fabrication[01]. It is a standing feat proving that ‘unexpected’ nature of computation which has been alluded to in this journal thus far - the finalities of formal outcome and success in these results unable to be preconceived, but sometimes producing products far exceeding original ideals. The project utilised a system of post-formable plywood to create the seamless curve in the tesselated ‘scales’ of the dragon skin, with the aid of heat and rounded formwork enabling the (exceptionally manual) production of this experimental material.[03] In terms of materiality, and its experimental nature, the project encapculates many of the notions regarding ornament circulating this week’s theory. Particularly, the surmising of Farshid Moussavi is applicable, with the project living out his three classifications of ‘depth’, ‘material’ and ‘affect’ and substantiating an interconnection between these groupings [03]. Structure is inherent in the way these very individual, and expressive ‘scales’ secure one another in a compressive manner. ‘Skin’ is explored, without compromise (but rather enhancement) to internal framework, with an inherent ornament coming forth as a result.

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05]

In this way, it might be deemed triumphant in attaining the consolidated architecture also similar to that of Herzog & De Meuron, where structural thinking is inherent and “decoration is not what [it’s] trying to achieve” [04] It is also an exemplar of a favourable design result for the context of our project. As underscored in the lecture the direction our group will be heading towards will ‘integrate material and geometry into a performing ornament’ [05] , and this project is a valuable precedent to corroborate for its realised affluence in this area.

IMAGES OPPOSITE [01] Dragon Skin Project, Dragon Skin: A Post Formable Plywood Experiment, Keskisarja, Tynkkynen, Crolla & Delagrange, 2012, <http:// dragonskinproject.com/> [Accessed 09 April 2014] [02] DigitalArchFab, Arch433, IIT College of Architecture DigIITal Arch + Fab Portal, n.d, <http://digiitalarchfab.com/arch433/wp-content/ uploads/2012/08/Night-shot-Overall.jpg> [Accessed 09 April 2014]

Dragon Skin Project, Dragon Skin: A Post Formable Plywood Experiment, Keskisarja, Tynkkynen, Crolla & Delagrange, 2012, <http://dragonskinproject. com/> [Accessed 09 April 2014] Farshid Moussavi and Michael Kubo, eds, ‘The Function of Ornament’, (Barcelona: Actar, 2006), p10 Brady Peters, ‘Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’. Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2, p. 60 Dr. Stanislav Roudavski, 05. MATERIALITY/PATTERNING (Lecture Slides), University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3 April, 2014, <https://app.lms.unimelb.edu. au/bbcswebdav/courses/ABPL30048_2014_SM1/Lectures/L05%20Materiality%20-%20Patterns/L05%20materiality-Patterning.pdf> [viewed 3 April 2014]

71


B.3 C A S E AT T E M P T 0 1 - S T E P 0 1

S T U D Y STEP ONE DELINEATES ITERATIONS IN THE FORMATION OF A BASE ‘SCALE’ TO TESSELATE WITHIN RHINO

AT T E M P T 0 1 - S T E P 0 2 STEP TWO COMMUNICATES THE CREATION OF A TRIMMED SPHERICAL SURFACE WITHIN RHINO AND GH. POINTS WERE THEN PROJECTED ONTO THIS SURFACE

AT T E M P T 0 1 - S T E P 0 3 THE NEXT STEP 03 INDICATES EARLY EXPERIMENTATION WITH THE ORIENT COMPONENT IN ORDER TO TESSELATE THE SURFACE.

AT T E M P T 0 1 - S T E P 0 4 STEP 04 DELINEATES I T E R A T I O N S THROUGH ADOPTION OF THE PANELLING TOOLS PLUGIN AND EXPERIMENTS, WORKING WITH A ‘SCALED’ OFFSET GRID (TWO GRIDS ALTOGETHER).

72

2 . 0


INITIAL PSEUDO CODE BREAK DOWN -CREATE TRAPEZIUM LIKE SCALES -ADD CURVATURE TO TWO SIDES -CREATE A TRIMMED BREP -APPLY POINTS TO SURFACE (MAINLY LINEAR IN SPAN) -PANELISE SURFACE WITH TRIANGLES -ALTER ALGORITHM UNTIL THEY INTERSECT -THEN FIND INTERSECTION POINTS? OR TRIM SURFACES WITH EACH OTHER...

AT T E M P T 0 1 - S T E P 0 5 STEP 05 SHOWS THE FINAL WORKING COMPONENT IN THE PTMORPH3D TOOL, AND FURTHER FINESSING TO GET THE OVERLAPPING OF TESSELATED SCALES.

73


C A S E

AT T E M P T 0 1 - F I N A L R E S U LT

74

S T U D Y

2 . 0


B.3

75


B.3 C A S E

S T U D Y

AT T E M P T 0 2 - S T E P 0 1 STEP 01 SHOWS THE CREATION OF A LOFT IN RHINO AND GRASSHOPPER TO EMULATE THE DRAGONSKIN PROJECT FORM.

AT T E M P T 0 2 - S T E P 0 2 STEP 02 DENOTES THE CREATION OF THE TESSELATED ELEMENT IN RHINO WITH A POLYLINE, AND THE ARRAY OF THIS GEOMETRY IN GRASSHOPPER

AT T E M P T 0 2 - S T E P 0 3 STEP 03 DELINEATES EARLY EXPERIMENTS WITH TRIANGULATING THE SURFACE. THESE ATTEMPTS DID NOT PRODUCE THE ‘OVERLAPPING’ EFFECT DESIRED.

76

2 . 0


INITIAL PSEUDO CODE BREAK DOWN -CREATE A LOFT FROM RHINO CURVES -CREATE TRIANGULAR GEOMETRY TO TESSELATE -ARRAY THE GEOMETRY IN A LINEAR FASHION -TRIANGULATE THE SURFACE USING MORPH TO SURFACE COMPONENT -FINESSE ALGORITHM TO PRODUCE OVERLAPS AND EXTRUDED SCALES.

AT T E M P T 0 2 - S T E P 0 4 STEP 04 MORPH TO SURFACE COMPONENT BEING ENGAGED. V A R I O U S ADJUSTMENT OF GEOMETRY AND UVs, ETC.

AT T E M P T 0 2 - S T E P 0 5

STEP 05 IS THE FINAL MORPHED TO SURFACE ARRAY, WITH THE GEOMETRY MIRRORED IN THE CORRECT DIRECTION.

77


B.3

AT T E M P T 0 2 - F I N A L R E S U LT

78


C A S E

S T U D Y

2 . 0

79


B.3 D I A G R A M M A T I C S T E P S

80

AT T E M P T 0 1

AT T E M P T 0 2

-CREATE CURVED EDGES IN RHINO FOR BASE ‘SCALE’ TESSELATION -EDGESURF TO CREATE A MESH -ROTATEAX 0.4567o IN X AXIS

-CREATE CURVES FOR LOFT (APPROX FOUR CURVES) IN RHINO, ARRANGE ACCORDINGLY -REFERENCE CURVES IN GRASSHOPPER AND LOFT ACCORDINGLY.

-CREATE A SPHERE IN RHINO -CREATE TWO ARCS & EXTRUDE AS SOLIDS -ARRANGE ARCS & TRIM SURFACE THROUGH TRIM SOLID COMPONENT

--CREATE A V-SHAPED POLYLINE IN RHINO -LOFT POLYLINE IN GRASSHOPPER -ARRAY GEOMETRY THROUGH A LINEAR ARRAY IN X AND Y DIRECTIONS

-CREATE RECTANGULAR SURFACE UNDER SPHEREICAL SURF -SUBDIVIDE POINTS -PROJECT IN Z VECTOR ONTO THE SPHERICAL GEOMETRY

--MIRROR GEOMETRY IN XY PLANE -CREATE BOUNDING BOX AND CONNECT TO ‘REFERENCE’ IN SURFACE MORPH -CONNECT MIRRORED GEOMETRY WIRE TO SURFACEBOX COMPONENT

-OFFSET GRID BY SCALING *1.1 -RUN PTMORPH3D COMPONENT FROM PANELLING TOOLS

--DECONSTRUCT BOX (UNION BOX) -DECONSTRUCT DOMAIN TO GAIN ‘W’ VALUE FOR SURFACE MORPH

-CREATE ATTRACTOR POINT TO SCALE GEOMETRY -TRIM SOLID WITH A BOX TO STRAIGHT EDGE AT BOTTOM OF PAVILION.

-DECONSTRUCT DOMAIN2 FOR LOFTED SURFACE TO GAIN UVs FOR SURFACE MORPH


[01]

[02]

[03]

[04]

[05]

[06]

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]

ATTEMPT ONE - FINAL DETAILS Dragon Skin Project, Dragon Skin: A Post Formable Plywood Experiment, Keskisarja, Tynkkynen, Crolla & Delagrange, 2012, <http://dragonskinproject. com/> [Accessed 09 April 2014] (2013), 2, p. 60 ATTEMPT TWO - FINAL DETAILS

81


B . 4 T E C H N I Q U E D E V E L O P M E N T This week saw the continuation of a tesselated technique, spanning from B.3’s reverse engineering case study. The final definition chosen as a group emphasising the surfacemorph component to apply geometry to lofts - was utilised as a base for designing an additional 60 iterations. The aim in developing these iterations was to arrive at a culmination quite distinct and innovative in comparison to the original definition’s results. We believe that this was attained in each of the three ‘versions’ or iterations. A final goal this week was to expand on design potential for at least two of these iterations according to our revised selection criteria. This will allow us to ease into the process of designing concepts, prototypes and models, as required over the Non-Teaching Period.

82


PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN WEEK 6 2014-04-11 - 2014-04-17

83


84 Point at -80.148,-73.558,0.000, Triangle Angle

Extrude: D=X, F=0.6

Srf= PtFaces (F) x 2

IntCrv Extremes, RuleSrf b/w

ArrDirec (X)= 1.2 -Arr El (X)=9 X-Tremez Points from SrfMrph

Point at 27.680,-7.204,0.000

Rule Srf b/w Extrude: D=Z, F=3 Trim: S= Extrusion in Z

Pt= 25.906,15.802,1.234.

Trim Solid

Add attractor point to ArrLinear ArrDirec (Y)= 6.6. ArrEl (Y)=7

Offset IntCrv (#3), 0.2, -0.1

-Trimmed Geometry: Extr to pt

Extrude (Z), F=1

Attractor point for Vec D

Extruded Geometry: Preview

Diamond (lunchbox):

Adjust Geometry:

Linear Array (Y): F=3.0

ArrLinear (X), N=15

New Loft

ArrLinear (X), N=15

xB (B) = 1.5

Rotated: 0.5*pi in XY

Rotated: 0.5*pi in XY

Extr(SrfMorph: D=Y, F=1.0

Arrayed, scaled Geom in (Y)

Arrayed, scaled Geom in (Y)

B.4

I T E R AT I O N S V 0 1


PtFaces from SrfMorph HEX grid (lunchbox): srf = Rule Srf

Pipe: IntCrvs (#1 & #3),

Lunchbox 2D TRUSS: B/w interpolated crvs (#1 & #3)

Trim Solid component

Extr Loft b/w intCrv:D=Y, F=0.5

Extrude Srf Morph: D=Y, F=0.5

Loft b/w low Extreme to 0.33

Exteme Points removed from

ArrLin(Y): AttrPt 49.756,-4.211,0.0004.211,0.000

Adjusted original geometry

PtonCrv = 0.33, Int Curve: both

Att Pt at 43.284,31.581,0.000

XTREMEZ: Trim and Mirror CIR x 2: P=L & P=H Rule Srf b/w

Remove array rotation

AxB (B) = 1.8, PtonCrv = 0.34

Scale Factor (G)

Mirror Geometry in XY

Original Geometry Adapted

T E C H N I Q U E D E V E L O P M E N T

85


86 Cull Boolean: True/True/False

Join with Iteration 10

Array Linear: X=0, N=14 Array Linear: N=19

ArrLinear X=0.65, N=11

Array Linear: N=7

Remove Mirror Component

Set New Brep

New Brep Set

Cull Boolean: True, True, False

Array Linear, N=20

Array Linear: X=1, N=4

Array Linear, N=16

Array Linear, X=0.9, N=7

Extrude along Z, Z=0.09

Previous Brep (Iteration 2)

Array Linear, N=20

Cull Srf Morph: T/T/F/F/F

Array Linear N=10

Brep as Above, Extr as above

Array Linear, X=2.3, N=7 Array Linear, N=16

Array Linear, X=1.4, N=12

Array as Above Join SrfMrph & Culled Pattern

Set New Brep

Extrude in Z, Z=0.3

Original Brep

Arr Linear. X=1.2, N=11

2Array Linear: N=16

Array Linear: X=1.4, N=8

New Brep Set

Offset distance, D=0.4

Array Linear, N=11

Array Linear: N=19

Mirror Component, Added back

Array Linear, X=2.0, N=10

Array Linear: X=5.7, N=9

As Before

B.4

I T E R AT I O N S V 0 2


Cull from Culled: T/T/F/F Scale Cull: F=1.2

Array Linear: X=0, N=9 Array Linear: N=19

DBrep from SrfMorph, Offst 0.5 DeBrep of Offset, Loft edges

As Above Only Loft edges of DeBrep

Arr Linear: N=14

New Brep Set

ArrLin X=0.6, N=7,ArrLin: N=14

Take Out mirror

Array Linear, N=20

ArrLin, X=0, N=14,ArrLin, N=19

Arr Lin: X=0, N=7

DeBrep from Srf Morph Offset Faces, D=0.3

Array Linear, X=1, N=4

Set New Brep

New Brep Set

Cull Boolean: T/F/T/F

Rotated: 0.5*pi in XY

Brep as above, Array as Above

Loft Srf Morph & Domain U

Array as Above

Brep as above

T E C H N I Q U E D E V E L O P M E N T

87


88 U=16, V=18

From final “SrfMorph” HEXAGONAL Structure U=20, V=3, Adjust Shape=0.8

Same as Above

, “Array Linear” Y Factor = 8.0

Redrawn in Rhino U=18, V=2

Factor=3 (changed from 0)

Domain Offst: for B, +&- = 0.160

“Array Linear” Y Factor = 4.0,

New tessellation curves Same as Above

“Array Linear” Y Direction

Array Linear: X=4.0

Redrawn in Rhino

From Final Srf Morph:

from Rhino Geometry..

Base loft curves changed

New Tesselation Curves

Type=T/T/F-Pipe: Radius=0.2

DIAMOND PANELS

Center = 3.5

“Array Linear” Y, Count=5

Array Linear: F=1.8

Mesh Dual

Redrawn with Rhino...

Array Linear in X

From Final ‘SrfMorph’

New Tesselation Curves

B.4

I T E R AT I O N S V 0 3


From final Srf Morph: DIAGRID Mesh Pipe: Radius=0.2

Array Linear” Y Factor = 0,

Array Linear: X Factor = 1.8

“Array Linear” X direction, F= 4

Array Linear: F=4.0

Scale Factor, F=0.5

Array Linear in Y

Panel Frame

Mirror Component removed

From final “SrfMorph”

U=18, V=2

, Count=20 (from 15)

Redrawn in Rhino...

Skewed Quads

“Array Linear” Y direction

New Tesselation Curves

Array Linear” X Factor = 2.0

“Array Linear” Y Factor = 3.0

Redrawn in Rhino...

New Tesselation Curves

T E C H N I Q U E D E V E L O P M E N T

89


B.4

90


S U C C E S S F U L I T E R A T I O N S Once again the most successful iteraitons have been selected according to a set of selection criteria. This criteria underwent some rethinking from B.1: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ABIDES BY BASIC TESSELATION PRINCIPLES CAN BE UNROLLED / DEVEOPABLE POTENTIAL IS VISUALLY INTERESTING COMPARED TO OTHERS HAS STRAYED FAR FROM ORIGINAL ALGORITHM CAN INCORPORATE PREFERENCED MATERIALS CAN BE ENHANCED FURTHER IN GRASSHOPPER ABILITY TO GENERATE ENERGY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

The aesthetic advantages of these models could become crucial to the structural or generative performance of the sculpture. Also notable is the fluid, organic nature of the form being tesselated in the final two iterations, which we also considered superior and a starting point for the look of our entire project.

We decided to revise our selection criteria, and the outcomes we consider as heading in the direction of an ideal solution, as the past few weeks have had us assessing what is possible in terms of construction and energy production, what is required under the LAGI brief, and correlating that with what we collectively want to design. In this process Kalay’s search techniques are seen at work in our own design process “involv[ing] two steps: (1) producing candidate solutions for consideration, and (2) choosing the “right” solution for further con­sideration and development” [01]. As we begin B.5, the second aspect of this postulation is being engaged with. These iterations were deemed effective starting points for the coming maturation of our design process. They were also deemed a thorough exemplar of Moussavi, Farshid and Kubo’s notion of “affect” , whereby “interplay between depth (form, structure...) and a specific material...produces the ornament” [02].

[01] [02]

Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), p. 18 Farshid Moussavi and Michael Kubo, eds, The Function of Ornament, (Barcelona: Actar, 2006), p. 11

91


S U C C E S S Although originally designed by myself with the utilisation of EAPs as an underlying driver, the structural piping and trapezoid panelling of this iteration seemed an attainable option. In line with our desire for a dynamic, somewhat kinetic structure, the panneling style offered the potential to move in its strucutral bounds. The free nature of the truss piping system would also enable changes in form in the panel itself. Panels could move to be oriented towards the sun if capturing solar energy, or the wind to harness the movement itself.

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH>> DIGITAL TECTONICS RESEARCH STUDIO (MAA – IAAC) HYGROPAVILION

In conducting research with a system of this sort in mind we came across this project ‘HygroPavilion’ on the Materiability Research Network [01]. Although not built, but thoroughly tested and prototyped, the pavilion employed woven hemp fibre panels which expanded and contracted dependant on the humidity levels in the immediate atmosphere. This system, though not readily offering a solution for energy production, seems ideal to allevitate the complexity of engaging with ElectroActive Polymers. It would be easy to fabricate, and still offer an interactive result.

02

03

92

[01] [02][03] [04]

(2012,/13 INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED ARCHITECTURE OF CATALONIA, PARAMETIZED HEMP FIBRE COMPOENTS)

04

Materiability Research Network, HygroPavilion, Digital Tectonics Research Studio (MAA – IAAC) 2012,/13, <http://materiability.com/hygro-pavilion/> [Accessed 20 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, Energy Roof Perugia by Coop Himmelb(l)au, 21 August 2010, <http://www.dezeen.com/2010/01/21/energy-roof-perugia-by-coop- himmelblau/> [accessed 20 April 2014]


F U L

I T E R A T I O N S

B.4

01

02

03

Personally, I deem this iteration to be the least developable out of the three selected - or rather the option which seems most stagnant and out-of-line with our direction to this point. Nonetheless, it does offer some interesting alternatives and the appearance is highly intriguing. Very resonant of textured patterns achievable with a CNC miller, the design would have to be reconfigured to actually meet the conditions of the LAGI brief and produce energy. The idea of ornament inherent to the structure is highly evident in this case however, and could become expressive of the notions behind Herzog and De Meuronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to computation, as underpinned by Peters [04] .

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH>> COOP HIMMELB(I)au ENERGY ROOF - PERUGIA

(2010, Tri-layered roof: solar panels, structural layer, laminated glazing and translucent pneumatic cushions)

[01] [02] [03] [04]

The project pictured by Coop Himmelb(l)au for an energy generating roof in Perugia, Italy [04] seemed somewhat similar in appearance with a number of stip-like panels being arranged in a comparable manner to the iteration concerned here. The design encompassed solar panels, wind energy and aesthetic choices in the lower glass cladding, to create something unique, yet pragmatic. The proposal serves as a projection of how this iteration could be expanded upon to form a workable outcome.

Materiability Research Network, HygroPavilion, Digital Tectonics Research Studio (MAA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; IAAC) 2012,/13, <http://materiability.com/hygro-pavilion/> [Accessed 20 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, Energy Roof Perugia by Coop Himmelb(l)au, 21 August 2010, <http://www.dezeen.com/2010/01/21/energy-roof-perugia-by-coop- himmelblau/> [accessed 20 April 2014]

93


B.4

S U C C E S S F U L

I T E

[01]

In this final iteration being examined we decided to expand upon it for the next stage of our development, primarily because we saw the most potential in differential pannelling experiments, and the ability to adapt the tesselation through computational methods to suit the most appropriate form of energy capture. It also allowed us two forseeable options - one where tesselation informed structure inherently, and one where a structural organization was applied as a secondary element. Both pathways are worth exploring in the next phase of the design process. We came across this precedent â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Skyfallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; [02] at this stage in the design process, and it has really nformed our immediate development. We resolved that practically, this iteration would be most suited to a wind system, similar to the one employed by Skyfall. Engaging with moving panels somehow, strategically designed to capture the most amount of wind, and transfer that to a generator of sorts, would be the next stage of progression for a design such as this.

94

[01] [02]

Land Art Generator Initiative, Skyfill, Stephen Mueller and Ersela Kripa, 2012, <http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/5xyf1l7z/ > [Accessed 20 April 2014]


E R A T I O N S INDEPENDENT RESEARCH>> STEPHEN MUELLER, ERSELA KRIPA FOR LAGI 2012 COMPETITION SKYFILL (2012, NEW YORK SITE, RESPONSIVE KITES ON A FLEXIGRID SYSTEM)

[01]

[02]

[01] [02]

Land Art Generator Initiative, Skyfill, Stephen Mueller and Ersela Kripa, 2012, <http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/5xyf1l7z/ > [Accessed 20 April 2014] Iteration no. 43. Intersecting triangular panelling.

95


B . 5 T E C H N I Q U E P R O T O T Y P E S

96


PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN NTP WEEK 2014-04-18 - 2014-04-24

97


REFLECTIONS AND DIRECTION >>

Before we started prototyping and developing a final design for the interim proposal in week 07, a few unknowns had to be resolved, and some options for potential establishment be settled. In terms of the grasshopper modelling, the iterations had progressed with the undisclosed intention to incorporate Electro Active Polymers into the design - or some other form of moving, free, kinetic panelling. As we continued on through the Non-teaching Period, we began to realistically assess the production of this idea, and realized we would not be able to fabricate in given time, cost and skill constraints. As such, a portion of the prototypes were formed with this ‘type’ of panelling in mind, whilst the greater portion were assembled with alternative tesselation and materials being considered. Another objective we set for ourselves was the experimentation with/designing of a structural system which was able to be demonstrated at the presentation (be it ever crudely). We tested a number of selections, some with the tesselation working in a structural manner, and some with a steel structure as a separate system. Additionally, we took on the feedback left for us by Cam on the wiki after an initial upload of B.4’s progress. “you need to also keep thinking about what is going to inform the form itself. Of the ones you have here, the last form seems most suggestive - particularly where there are layers in the form, rather than being discrete panels they begin to overlap and interlock - which is also suggestive of interesting fabrication methods, like an armadillo/exoskeleton” We tried to take this on and create a form / design that was heavily influenced by the site. I guess in conducting this, the ‘bottom-up’ techniques endorsed in many of the theoretical readings up to this point were not being followed. Nonetheless, the direction of this design process mirrors those of Herzog and De Meuron [01], with computation and pre-conceived design ‘meeting-in-the-middle’.

98

[01] Brady Peters, ‘Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’. Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2, p. 61 [02] Prototyping fabrication process: photograph of tesselated ‘cut outs’, Wk. NTP. [Opposite]

B.5


I N I T I A L R E F L E C T I O N / D I R E C T I O N

[02]

99


SITE

100

[01]


S I T E

TOURIST LOCATIONS

A N A L Y S I S B.5

1. THE LITTLE MERMAID, 2. LANGELINIE, 3. KASTELLET, 4. GEFION FOUNTAIN, 5. ROSENBORG CASTLE, 6. NYHAEVN, 7. THE NETTO BOATS, 8. THE ROUND TOWER, 9. STORK FOUNDAIN, 10. CHRISTIANSBORG PALACE. 11. TIVOLI GARDENS, 12. EXPERIMENTARIUM CITY

WIND

PRIMARY WINDS EXISTING WIND TURBINES

SUN VIEWS BLOCKAGES FROM VIEWS SUNPATH DIAGRAMS

TRANSIT PATHS BIKES

As has been made clear throughout the progression of our design process until now, we wanted the design to be heavily drawn from the site, responsive to the surrounding conditions/the people of Copenhagen. We believe that a site analysis is crucial to any architectural design process, as confirmed by Kalay in her delineation of “case based design” [02]. Taking the site context as a constraint, but also liberating oneself from constraint through deeper understanding of the systems at work is inherent to success in design. We conducted site analysis, embracing the information available to us on the Lagi site, along with wider research on Copenhagen. Through this, the obvious environmental forces on the site worthy of exploiting for power generation were identified. Wind was a crucial element here understanding its concentration, direction and heights.

[01] Google Maps, Map of Copenhagen, 2014, <https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Copenhagen/@55.6712674,12.5608388,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1! [Opposite] 1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8 > [accessed 10 April 2014] [02] Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), p. 23

101


B.5

In drawing from feedback left for us on the Wiki, we decided to take to hand-drawing and create a base form to tesselate and begin prototyping. The form was produced by diagramming the conditions relative to the site - paprticularly the wind concentration and the sun path towards the south. We then appropriated a form from these diagrams, and attmpted to model it in rhino/grasshopper. The form we intended to produce would emerge from the site, would draw people around its organic, curvaceous outline, and engage with them in this way. >> Looking back at this form before submission of part B, our focus at this stage was still on the tesselation for our computational innovation and algorithmic development, rather than the form itself. I believe that this aspect of our designing has to undergo a large change, so it is more informed by arbitraty - yet relevant - computational processes.

102


S I T E F O R M

A N A L Y S I S F I N D I N G

&

103


B.5

F A B L A B I T E R A T I O N S

[01]

[02]

[03]

[05]

[06]

[07]

[04]

[08]

104

[01] - [07] Iterations for the prototypes sent to Fab Lab. Iterations 06 and 07 were actually fabricatable and sent off for cutting. [08] Nesting for unrolled geometry - utilising the smallest amount viable of the 600 x 900 sheet.


Developing some prototypes for the fab-lab, the design itself underwent a number of iterations. These were governed by various mandates - ie. if we could unroll the design, if it could be supported, if it was the most efficient use of material/funds, if it was innovative and computationally active. The material choice at this stage was also unclarified. The fab-lab prototypes were formulated with the aim of embracing a moving triangulated panel - probably made out of the humidity-reliant hemp fabric researched in the HygroPavilion [01].

[02]

Nonetheless, the prototypes were a viable method to stimulate our thinking about how the structure might work together. Some quick, hand drawn possibilities are displayed on the right, representing our planning system. Whether the prototypes would adequately communicate what we were resolving was also another issue to be considered. Nesting was undertaken at this stage, with material wastage and re-use motives in mind. We deliberately nested out unrolled fab-lab geometry in a way that would allow use use of the materials in the future - for this and other subjects.

[01] [02] [03]

[03]

Materiability Research Network, HygroPavilion, Digital Tectonics Research Studio (MAA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; IAAC) 2012,/13, <http://materiability.com/hygro-pavilion/> [Accessed 20 April 2014] Panelling option one - rotating scales around a steel structure. Panelling option two - fixed scales to a structure, yet able to freely move at its edges. .

105


P R O T O T Y P E

[01]

[02]

106

[03]

[01] [02] [03]

Prototype 01 - various photos.

0 1


B.5 The first prototype made furing the Non-Teaching period by hand - both in terms of the structure and the panelling. This was due to early issues with unrolling doublycurved surfaces in Rhino, yet still wanting to produce a prototype to test our ideas. We learnt a lot from this prototype, particularly in the way of the structural system. Creating a small scale model proved quite difficult - manipulating wire and soldering in order to produce rigid joints - and may not be the ideal option for our final presentation models. 3D-printing was accentuated as a more exemplary method of fabrication through this prototypeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s failures. It also revealed to us a need to rethink the triangular tesselation, as the small scale details and actual operation of the design would require individual scales, rather than those connected in this manner.

107


B.5 F A B

L A B

P R O T O T

[02]

[01]

[03]

The first Fab-Lab prototype was an experiment in the triangulation methods. It was originally intended to have loose panelling on a frame, however the delicateness of the cardboard joints did not enable this solution. It was, however, a good means for determining that a structure - properly tesselated in grasshopper and tested with plugins like kangaroo - could support itself without a wire/steel framing.

108

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]

Triangulated prototype, various angles Waffle prototype - detail. Triangulated prototype, overall view. Waffle prototype - various views.


T Y P E S

[04]

[05]

[06]

The second Fab-Lab prototype was meant as a delineation of the ;bumpyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; form we were trying to attain, whilst also a simultaneous testing of structure. Here, a waffle system tested the use of interpolated curves through the tesselated points - both longitudinally and laterally - as the basis for a structural grid . It was not a complete success - with the form warping into a more linear fashion - but revealed to us some form of information.

109


S U B S E Q U E N

CLAY MODELLING With these three early prototypes, we decided to produce a large number of more â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;experimentalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; panels to try and attain the effect we envisioned. These prototypes were very unpolished, but highly advantageous in assessing the fabrication feasability of our design direction. They ranged from loose to connected on a structural system, from planar to highly complex and three dimensional. It was a useful exercise in determining the energy generation system and kinetic language we proposed (as expanded upon in B.6).

110

LOOSE, TETRAHEDRAL


N T

T E S S E L A T I O N P R O T O T Y P I N G

B.5

STRUCTURALLY CONNECTED, TETRAHEDRAL

PLANAR SURFACE, PERFORATED

111


S U B S E Q U E N

PLANAR SURFACE, PERFORATED TRIANGULATING

CONNECTED, PLANAR SCALES, WIRE STRUCTURAL FRAME

112


N T

T E S S E L A T I O N P R O T O T Y P I N G

B.5

CONNECTED, PLANAR SCALES, WIRE STRUCTURAL FRAME [CONT.]

CONNECTED, TETRAHEDRAL, TESSELATION INFORMING STRUCTURE

113


F A B R I C A T I N G

114 [05]


B.5 The photos displayed on this spread donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t adequately represent the model making process of our multiple prototypes. Nonethetless, the process of fabricating the models itself is important to the design process, and this was demonstrated in the difficulties we encountered.

[01]

We found with the various models, none of the manufacturing process went as planned. Small ammendments had to be made in order to create models which somewhat resembled the desired designs. Yet, with this, certain qualities were lost which were sometimes crucial to the entire computational system itself. An example might be in the black-card, triangulated prototype (Prototype 03), where the joints in the unrolled fab-lab geometry were not enabling â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;looseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; panels, and breaking often. Accordingly, through the fabrication of these prototypes, the decision to alter our grasshopper model was fitting, and we conducted this change before the interim proposal. But more ultimately, the decision regarding how we were going to produce the final model at the end of semester critiques was questioned. I believe, at this stage, we will be 3D printing a small prototype in order to attain the detail that is crucial to conveying our design.

[02]

[03]

[04]

[01] [02] [03] [05] [04]

Hand-Made Prototype 01 - Wire frame being built. Hand-Made Prototype 01 - Triangular strip panels, in order from 1-5 Mid-fabrication of Prototype 03 (Triangulated, fab lab model) Adjusting intersecting cut-outs for the waffle Prototype 02 (Fab-Lab model)

115


B.5 P R O T O T Y P E

T E S T

COMPRESS

WIND

TWIST

SUN 116


T I N G

MORPH

FLIP/ SQUEEZE/PULL

CROP With our primary prototypes for the first portion of the Non-Teaching period we conducted numerous tests. They allowed us to ascertain the advantages, disadvantages, and possibilities for our final design. Specifically helpful was a comprehending of the issues behind the structural propositions exercised by these prototypes. The panelling networks were also able to be tested under wind conditions - our most likely form of energy generation at this point - and expressed a need to be adapted to allow further movement.

117


B.5

TWIST

118

SUN/PUSH

COMP/WIND

CROP/MODEL


SUN

TWIST/COMP

SQUEEZE/CROP

119


In observing our progress and needed re-orientation after completing prototypes, subsequent tests, fabrication processes and 3D-modelling in grasshopper, I reiterate our selection criteria as a grounds for assessment:

7. This is not being adequately addressed in the prototypes, and will rely upon strong architectural deliberation, in regards to how we can better make the artwork more interactive and intellectually stimulating.

ABIDES BY BASIC TESSELATION PRINCIPLES CAN BE UNROLLED / DEVEOPABLE POTENTIAL IS VISUALLY INTERESTING COMPARED TO OTHERS HAS STRAYED FAR FROM ORIGINAL ALGORITHM CAN INCORPORATE PREFERENCED MATERIALS CAN BE ENHANCED FURTHER IN GRASSHOPPER ABILITY TO GENERATE ENERGY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

We also re-visited the most important points of the LAGI bried we needed to address:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

1: Most of our prototypes, especially the earliest ones and the fab-lab cut, triangulated model, abide by basic tesselation properties. The few exceptions to this ground rule would be where structure is explored (ie. the waffled prototype), stretching from our iterations designed in B.4 and the complexity of our designed algorithm altogether. 2. We struggled in creating unrollable geometry. Most surfaces were doubly curved when baked in Rhino, and had to be unrolled (sometimes incorrectly) exploiting the ‘smash’ command. This needs revision in the next stage of our design. 3. We endeavoured in all our models to produce aesthetic intrigue and inherent ornament. 4. Although this criteria point may be less relevant now, as we are working less with iterations and more with a final algorithm, it is notable that each of the grasshopper models embraced significant dissimilarities and additions when it came to the algorithmic formula. 5. Some of our prototypes were more successful on this point than others. Yet our approach towards material selection at this stage was fluctuating. 6. Relevant to all.

120

1. CONTEXT CONNECTION TO SURROUNDING CONTEXT & CREATING PUBLIC SPACE

2. BE CHALLENGED

PUBLIC PROGRAMMING; LEARNING & EXPERIENCING ENERGY, CAPTURE & CONVERSION

3. SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIVE MODULES Registering that we needed to quickly accomplish a solution for the Interim Proposal, we decided at this point to engage with wind power, and somehow incorporate rotating motion into the design - in line with current generator technology.

B.5


O B S E R V A T I O N S

121


B . 6 T E C H N I Q U E : P R O P O S A L

122


PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN NTP WEEK 2014-04-25 - 2014-05-01

123


124


125


R E F I N

[01]

[02]

[03]

Our final proposal encompassed a movable, rotating panel system ,with differential sclaes on a numer of axis. These scales would rotate in the wind, and then be connected through their supporting steel piped frame, to generators buried in the ground. The public artwork would in this way achieve a strong sense of dynamism & interactivity - whilst producing energy for the Copenhagen grid in line with the Lagi brief. Correspondingly, we designed and tested a number of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;finalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; detailed prototypes to best demonstrate this proposal. The form of the structure was not altered in the proposal, and easily surmisable. Most significantly in the testing was the experimentation of each set of panels with a wind source (hairdryer). We found that the third option worked quite successfully.

126

[01] [02] [03]

Refined Prototype 03 - Overall View. Refined Prototype 02 - Tetrahedral Panelling Refined Prototype 01 - Planar Panelling


N E D

SUN

P R O T O T Y P E S B.6 & T E S T I N G

WIND

CONNECTION

127


M A T E R I A L

[01]

[03]

[05]

128

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05] [06]

P R O P O S A L

[02]

[04]

[06]

Hemp Architecture, Architecture Defined by Hemp, Hemp Architecture, n.d <http://www.hemparchitecture.com/#/theory/> [Accessed 30 April 2014] Bend Pro, Tube Bending, Bend Pro: Services, 2011 <http://www.bendpro.com.au/tube-bending.html> [Accessed 04 May 2014] Hemp Architecture, Research: Hemp Stalks / Hemp Composites, Hemp Architecture, n.d <http://www.hemparchitecture.com/> [Accessed 30 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, ‘Arboskin Pavilion made from bioplastic by ITKE’, 9 November 2013, <http://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/09/arboskin-spiky-pavilion-with- facademade-from-bioplastics-by-itke/> [accessed 30 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, ‘California Duo create World’s First 3D-Printed Architecture’, 21 August 2013, <http://www.dezeen.com/2013/08/21/california-duo- create-worlds-first-3d-printed-architecture/> [accessed 30 April 2014]


B.6 OUR FINAL MATERIAL DETERMINED FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGN WAS INDEED LIGHT, COMPOSITE HEMP-PLASTIC FIBRE [IMG 01] SCALES, CONNECTED TO A CURVED, FIXED STEEL PIPE STRUCTURE. We chose to embrace the material as it is a sustainable choice and growing in popularity We also mentioned working with hemp stalks as a structural solution, however I believe steel will be utilised due to its longevity and high construction performance. The ‘hollow’ in the steel piping would be exploited in order to contain the rotating mechanics for each rotating scale, and join its operation to a larger, collective generator. As alluded to within the presentation, the exact mechanics of this system had not been resolved upon within our group, yet we will concentrate our time over the coming few weeks into testing and developing a workable 1:1 prototype. The final two images in the series opposite denote precedents entailing the use of ‘bioplastics’ in real-world architecture. As disclosed in our presentation, this is a secondary solution being considered if our ultimate Hemp endeavours rebound.

[01]

[01]

Drawing of a possible detail of the mechanical system (to be finalized), allowing rotation of the Hemp Scale.

129


B.6 P R O P O S A L

130


Our proposal features a sinuous, vigorous form, emerging from the physical site, with defining features of layout and function drawn from the immediate environmental and cultural context. The design extends our definition considerably, and explores the possibilities of algorithmic computation in concentration towards our chosen technique of tesselation. It’s technical achievements include its aesthetic qualities, working operational aspect... Its arbitrary morphing of sequential panels in a way that produces size differentiation, and the complexity so championed in much of the theory explored during Part A of the design process. The proposed sculpture embraces a curvaceous pathway, drawing visitors around the sculpture as it moves and performs its objective of energy generation in a unique, beautiful manner. In doing so, it would engage with the public, stimulating their thinking about design futuring and their impact in the world in terms of energy use. It would draw people in, upholding the architecturally pivotal expressions made by the sculpture, getting them involved and intrigued. The ‘enclosure-nature’ of the form itself would produce a civic focal point of sorts In detail. the joinery for each panel rotates around a steel frame without limiting the surrounding scales’ motion or capacity to move, whilst also maintaining safety, with movable panels kept clear of visitors. A lightweight “kite-like” hemp-composite material for generating energy through wind power, with a complimenting light-weight plastic frame, is the resolved system. Through this proposal, our own goal to produce something interactive and responsive is being met. The design also meets and exceeds the LAGI brief as well as serving as the means for our energy production. This approach is comparable to others’ when considering the site’s industrial location in an area of strong wind convergence - proven through the presence of the Middelgrunden in the same vicinity as the Refshaleøen site. Certain unresolved aspects to our proposal need addressing still, yet we are confident that over Part C of the design process, and with much testing (both physical and computationally), most deficiencies will be reconciled.

131


B . 7 L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S A N D As Part B draws to a close, it is relevant to consider what we the learning objectives that we are departing with from this vital, second stage of development, and what specific direction is needed in the furthering of our design proposal. We received quite harsh, yet constructive feedback, from Dr. Roudavski during our crit, which I have recorded in list format: 1. The panels would need to be tested, to ascertain how/ if they would move effectively 2. Computational methods must be utilised to input wind data of Copenhagen into the model, and determine where the wind panels should be placed. 3. Due to the design being low to the ground, there will not be enough wind to make the panels move. How can it work efficiently? Perhaps vibration is a better option rather than turning on the pipe. 4. The form is mediocre. To quote “You have managed to do what every student does in this subject, and that is to create a curvilinear structure” void of significance and input. 5. Put constraints into grasshopper file: both in terms of developing the form and the panelling. Need to develop the computational approach MUCH more strongly. In response to this feedback - most of which we concur with unequivocally - an objective for our proposal would be to address each of these issues singularly and completely, to produce a more functional design. Certainly, the form needs to be redesigned and henceforth justified according to site conditions, through the embracing of more conditional, parameters in the algorithm. The definition must also be developed to enable more random, computationally based tesselation patterns - which cannot be designed outside of grasshopper itself. I hold that the system itself can be thought out/manipulated to work, and we hope to endeavour down this path of rotating scales. In looking at the learning objectives for this studio, it is patent to see where some are being brought to fruition in my own personal performance, and others are still to be confronted. Certainly, the research tasks we have been asked to conduct - both through physical prototyping

132

and grasshopper testing - have been helpful in furthering my knowledge of parametric architecture (through computational methods) where it was lacking previously. I found that Case Study 2.0 really advanced my pogress in this way, and represents how, through Studio Air, I am learning to create, manipulate and “design” architecturally through the use of parametric mediums. To analyse the objectives more thoroughly: 1. We have tackled the interpretation of a brief certainly throughout Part B - with the development of our own criteria, and LAGI criteria, corroborating this process. 2.& 3. Case studies 1.0 and 2.0 highly demonstrate skills being developed in computational, 3D-media, and the ability to produce a range of possibilities (iterations). 4. This objective was addressed in the prototyping tests performed during the NTP. Athough needing further refinement, I gather we are beginning to understand the nature of architecture’s relationship to its atmosphere. 5. This has been somewhat fulfilled through the Interim Presentations. And the arguments put forth in this journal endorsing our design. 6. In particular, the analysis of precedents is assisting in developing a plethora of capabilities and architectural measures needed for contemporary design. 7. This is certainly being achieved, though in a foundational sense. Where I had no grasshopper knowledge previously, I now find myself flourishing in the program. 8. Again represented through our design iterations - particularly B.4. And the surrounding discussion regarding advantages, disarvantages etc. Understanding that these learning objectives are being met, and my skills being inevitably refined, I am looking forward to the next and final stage of the design process.


OUTCOMES

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN WEEK 07 2014-04-25 - 2014-05-01

133


B . 8 A L G O R I T H M I C S K E T C H E S

FIELDS

In this exercise, i was experimeting with different iterations in field fundamentals. I decided to go further in the activity by adapting the final iteration into a solid. It was relevant in understanding voronoi tesselation, however we wanted to avoid the voronoi component at all costs.

134


W. 4

RECURSIVE

Spanning on from the tutorial on recursive geometry, i tried to create some fractal-derived geometry that differed from what we were originally shown. The designs i created were quite crystalized in nature, and highly relied on the hoopsnake plugin.

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN WEEKS 04 - 07 2014-04- - 2014-04-08

135


A L G O R I T H M I C S K E T C H E S

EVALUATING FIELDS

These iterations explored different types of graphs to denote the appearance of the form, generated through the evaluation of fields. Going further by exploring the Pipe component to create an architectural form which could be fabricated

136


W. 5

137


A L G O R I T H M I C

GRAPH CONTROLLING

Merging the voronoi component with graph controllers, allowing the creation of very complex and variable patterns. I connected the graph to the Voronoi Radius input to go further in the task, producing the more dense pattern shown on the left here. I also mapped the pattern to a sphere to try and extend the task.

138

S K E T C


H E S

ITERATIONS FROM CHALLENGE 05

W. 5

ALGORITHMIC

I started the algorithmic task with a definition of origami patterning I downloaded on the grashopper 3D website. I went through a number of iterations attempting to push the definition to the limit, and explore our material system.

139


PA R T B R E F E R E N C E S Angine, ‘[FOAM] - 3d Voronoi’ by Patrick Bedarf, January 2010 <http://www.a-ngine.com/2009/12/foam-3d-voronoi.html> [Accessed 12 April 2014] Architizer, Imawoto Scott Architecture - One Kearny: Lightfold, 2010, <http://architizer.com/projects/one-kearny-lightfold/> [accessed 2 April 2014] Artificial Muscle Incorporated, ‘Our Technology’, 2012, <http://www.artificialmuscle.com/technology.php > [Accessed 3 April 2014] Behnaz Babazadeh, Fermid | Kinetic Sculpture, 2011, <http://makingtoys.net/2011/05/16/fermid-kinetic-sculpture/> [accessed 2 April 2014] Bend Pro, Tube Bending, Bend Pro: Services, 2011 <http://www.bendpro.com.au/tube-bending.html> [Accessed 04 May 2014] Brady Peters, ‘Realising the Architectural Intent: Computation at Herzog & De Meuron’. Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2, pp. 56-61 Branko Kolarevic and Kevin R. Klinger, eds, Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture (New York; London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 6–24 Brit Ligett, ‘New Photosensitizing Dyes create More Efficient Solar Panels’, Inhabitat, March 2011, < http://inhabitat.com/newphotosensitizing-dyes-create-more-efficient-solar-panels/> [Accessed 3 April 2014] Christa Jordi, “Biomimetic Airship driven by dielectric elastomer actuators,” 2011, PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, 15, in Materiability Research Network, ‘Electro Active Polymers’, Feb 2013, <http://materiability.com/electroactivepolymers/>, [Accessed 3 April 2014] Design Playgrounds, Fermid by Behnaz Babazadeh, n.d <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/fermid-by-behnaz-babazadeh/> [accessed 2 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, ‘Arboskin Pavilion made from bioplastic by ITKE’, 9 November 2013, <http://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/09/ arboskin-spiky-pavilion-with-facademade-from-bioplastics-by-itke/> [accessed 30 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, ‘California Duo create World’s First 3D-Printed Architecture’, 21 August 2013, <http://www.dezeen. com/2013/08/21/california-duo-create-worlds-first-3d-printed-architecture/> [accessed 30 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, ‘Energy Roof Perugia by Coop Himmelb(l)au’, 21 August 2010, <http://www.dezeen.com/2010/01/21/energyroof-perugia-by-coop-himmelblau/> [accessed 20 April 2014] De Zeen Magazine, ‘Tesselion by Sklar Tibbits’, 13 August 2008, <http://www.dezeen.com/2008/08/13/tesselion-by-skylar-tibbits/> [accessed 2 April 2014] DigitalArchFab, Arch433, IIT College of Architecture DigIITal Arch + Fab Portal, n.d, <http://digiitalarchfab.com/arch433/wp-content/ uploads/2012/08/Night-shot-Overall.jpg> [Accessed 09 April 2014] Dragon Skin Project, Dragon Skin: A Post Formable Plywood Experiment, Keskisarja, Tynkkynen, Crolla & Delagrange, 2012, <http:// dragonskinproject.com/> [Accessed 09 April 2014]

140


Farshid Moussavi and Michael Kubo, eds, The Function of Ornament, (Barcelona: Actar, 2006), pp.5-14 FastCoDesign, ‘A shape shifting, heat sensitive metal lets buildings breathe’ by Doris Kim Sung, November 2012 <http://www. fastcodesign.com/1671279/a-shape-shifting-heat-sensitive-metal-lets-buildings-breathe> [Accessed 12 April 2014] Hemp Architecture, Architecture Defined by Hemp, Hemp Architecture, n.d <http://www.hemparchitecture.com/#/theory/> [Accessed 30 April 2014] Hemp Architecture, Research: Hemp Stalks / Hemp Composites, Hemp Architecture, n.d <http://www.hemparchitecture.com/> [Accessed 30 April 2014] Iris Van Herpen, Extract from 2013 Haute Couture Collection, Elle, 2013 <http://www.elle.com/runway/haute-couture/spring-2013couture/iris-van-herpen/collection/#slide-2> [accessed 12 April 2014] Iwamoto Scott, One Kearny Lobby, 2010, <http://www.iwamotoscott.com/filter/INTERIORS/ONE-KEARNY-LOBBY> [accessed 2 April 2014] Manuel Kretzer, ‘ShapeShift’, June 2012, <http://materiability.com/shapeshift/> Marc Fornes & THEVERYMANY, 08 Tesselion, collaboration with Skylar Tibbits, 2008, <http://theverymany.com/with/08tesselion/> [accessed 2 April 2014] Materiability Research Network, ‘Electro Active Polymers’, Feb 2013, <http://materiability.com/electroactive-polymers/>, [Accessed 3 April 2014] Materiability Research Network, HygroPavilion, Digital Tectonics Research Studio (MAA – IAAC) 2012,/13, <http://materiability.com/ hygro-pavilion/> [Accessed 20 April 2014] Merriam-Webster.com, “Tesselation”, n.d, <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tessellation> [accessed 2 April 2014] Responsive Design Studio, Phototropia, April 2012, Master of Advanced Studies class at the Chair for CAAD, <http:// responsivedesignstudio.blogspot.com.au/> [Accessed 3 April 2014] Robert Ferry & Elizabeth Monoian, ‘A Field Guide to Renewable Energy Technologies’’, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014. pp 13 - 14 Robert F. Woodbury, ‘How Designers Use Parameters’, in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, ed. by Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 153–170 Dr. Stanislav Roudavski, 05. MATERIALITY/PATTERNING (Lecture Slides), University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3 April, 2014, <https:// app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/courses/ABPL30048_2014_SM1/Lectures/L05%20Materiality%20-%20Patterns/L05%20 materiality-Patterning.pdf> [viewed 3 April 2014] Tools For Green Living, ‘Polymer Solar Cell Technology Records Its Highest Power Conversion Efficiency’, 2013, <http://toolsforgreenliving. com/2013/06/polymer-solar-cell-technology-records-its-highest-power-conversion-efficiency.html> [Accessed 3 April 2014] Virtuell, 3D Wall Panel, archiproducts, n.d <http://www.archiproducts.com/en/products/71608/3d-wall-panel-virtuell-materialinnovativi. html> [accessed 12 April 2014] Yehuda. E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2004), pp. 1-25

141


C.1 DESIGN CONCEPT This week’s lecture [01] introduced to us James Timberlake’s outlook on architecture in a prototyping age . Expanding on the theories begun by Reyner Banham in the 1960s [02] , Timberlake’s notions regarding architectural form vs. performance were engaging and challenging. The idea that, in the twenty-first century, performance in architecture has perhaps surpassed aesthetics and form in their more trivial realm. And furthermore, emphasising the monumental role mockups/prototyping must play in the design process of the twenty first century. Timberlake’s proposition, that “we use prototypes to fail early, and to fail often.. to reduce risk and refine the design” [03] is certainly something to take on board into this final stage of our designs, and into practice generally. I hope that we, as a group, can fashion a working prototype that is able to be tested in this manner. To relevantly summarise Dr. Roudavski in regards to the interim presentations, “What was missing...was the demonstration of evidence that the vision is actually materializable, that it will bring the certain benefits you are hoping for” [04]. Our head lecturer’s cricism is sound, and evokes up more specific questions of ‘What our design is based on?’, ‘How can we apply the types of principles spoken of by Timberlake?’ and ‘What kind of prototypes can we build, with the intent to verify our ideas?’. We hope to take these questions on board and address them in the design finalization period.

142

[01] [02] [03] [04]

Dr. Stanislav Roudavski, 08. Thinking Ahead: Architecture in the Prototyping Age (Lecture), ABPL30048: Design Studio Air, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 8 May, 2014, <http://content.lecture.unimelb.edu.au:8080/ess/echo/presentation/579a2809-a82a-49ca-81f5-d79d8253117d> [viewed 5 June 2014] Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (London, Architectural Press, 1960), pp. 1-338 James Timberlake, in Dr. Stanislav Roudavski, 08. Thinking Ahead: Architecture in the Prototyping Age (Lecture), ABPL30048:Design Studio Air, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 8 May, 2014, <http://content.lecture.unimelb.edu.au:8080/ess/echo/presentation/579a2809-a82a-49ca-81f5-d79d8253117d> [viewed 5 June 2014] Dr. Stanislav Roudavski, 08. Thinking Ahead: Architecture in the Prototyping Age (Lecture), ABPL30048: Design Studio Air, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 8 May, 2014, <http://content.lecture.unimelb.edu.au:8080/ess/echo/presentation/579a2809-a82a-49ca-81f5-d79d


PART C: DETAILED DESIGN WEEK 08 2014-05-02 - 2014-05-08

143


C.1

ERT DE I AMAZING S G N S N H E R E

I

144


F E E D B A C K

R E S P O N S E

Reiterating Dr. Stanislav Rousavski’s feedback from our interim presentation: 1. The panels would need to be tested, to ascertain how/if they would move effectively 2. Computational methods must be utilised to input wind data of Copenhagen into the model, and determine where the wind panels should be placed. 3. Due to the design being low to the ground, there will not be enough wind to make the panels move. How can it work efficiently? 4. The form is mediocre. To quote “You have managed to do what every student does in this subject, and that is to create a curvilinear structure” void of significance and input. 5. Put constraints into grasshopper file: both in terms of developing the form and the panelling. Need to develop the computational approach much more strongly. I also include email correspondence from this period of the course from our senior tutor Rosie Gunzburg, which has heavily influenced the vision we will now take: “with only 4 weeks to go it is probably best to pick one area of your design to really focus on and develop (whether this be energy production, fabrication etc).” [01] Reviewing this feedback, we as a group have decided to change our design proposal and completely re-evaluate the form of our design, focusing on creating a mega-structure which would draw people in towards the site and work efficiently with the wind. We have decided to focus on and refine the rotating panel system, as recommended by our tutor, to mainly to stretch our abilities and prove, through a well thought system & prototyping, that we can realize the idea to effectively capture wind energy. We are drawing away from tesselation as our computational technique, and instead utilizing our computational skills in the areas of wind analysis. We hope to create the most appropropriate form through such methods, and use the computational tools to fulfill our rotating panel system.

[01]

Rosie Gunzberg, in conversation with ABPL30048: Design Studio Air: Studios 1 & 2, Studio Air - Last Four Weeks (email), The University of Melbourne Melbourne, May 05, 2014.

145


Designs must not exceed 125 meters in height. A MEGASTRUCTURE;

Sculptural form that has the ability to stimulate and challenge the mind of visitors to the site THOUGHT PROVOKING // EDUCATIONAL;

Be designed specifically to the constraints of the design site at Refshaleøen.

Capture energy from nature, convert it into electricity. Not create greenhouse gas emissions and not pollute its surroiundings.

Be pragmatic and constructable, and employ technology that can be scalable and tested.

146

SITE INFORMED // WIND OPTIMISED;

CONSTRUCTABLE // SYSTEMATICALLY SOUNDl


F I N A L I S I N G : T H E D E S I G N C O N C E P T

C.1

Looking over the LAGI 2014 competition brief once again, we took the liberty of accentuating the most crucial points, and some lesser points that we, as designers, have the discretion to underscore in our proposal. We have chosen to seriously take on the cultural aspect in this final stage of the design. Our iterations from this point aim to include an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;interactive stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; where pedestrian visitors / cyclists can become involved in the energy-production system. This will be almost as much a point in the final design as the mega-structure itself. We also aim to coherently sort out the system of rotating panels, and create a structure that could be structurally stable. Through consultation with various engineers in our contact circles we will refine the design. Here, computation will be utilised to optimise a form for the wind panel system, and efficiently orient the panels to the structure in our 3D-model.

[01] Visit Copenhagen, Bike Copenhagen, 2014, <http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/bikecopenhagen>

147


F I N A L I S I N G : T H E T E C H N I Q U E In reference to our current technique, the computational tools at our disposal are aligning themselves to become more integral to the definition of an appropriate form, rather than the energy-production system itself. As we are coming to a position in the design process this week where we are strenuously thinking and manually sorting out the complex workings of the rotating process we find ourselves more perplexed as to what is the most appropriate form it should adorn. We hope to extend our technique by looking into new plug ins which can help us properly analyse the site’s wind conditions and define an appropriate basis for our sculptural configuration. Plug ins we want to explore include Geco + Ecotect and Ladybug. I also hope to improve the technique by figuring out how to sufficiently align the panels to the curves they sit upon, following the curve’s direction and angle, rather than situated in a single direction - completely unresponsive to the ‘curvilinear nature’ of the curve.

148


C.1 GENERAL TECHNIQUE -CREATE FIELD (PROPELLER) CURVES, USING ATTRACTOR AND DETRACTOR POINTS TO DEFINE THE MOST APPROPROPRIATE FORM FOR WIND GENERATION ON-SITE

-CREATE CURVES PERPENDICULAR TO THESE CURVES, AS THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE

-PIPE SAID CURVES -VARIABLE DIAMETERS, SMALLER FOR ‘PROPELLER’ PIPES AND LARGER FOR STRUCTURAL PIPES.

-SPLIT ‘PROPELLER’ CURVES INTO SEGMENTS OF 50 -CREATE PLANES AT THESE POINTS -ORIENT PROPELLER GEOMETRY TO THE PLANES ALONG THESE CURVES

-CREATE DETRACTOR POINTS AND REMOVE UNNECESSARY PROPELLERS

149


C.1

S T R U C T U R E CONSTRUCTION PROCESS -USING 3D-MODEL AS AID, HAVE CURVED STEEL, BEARINGS, PROPELLERS AND FINAL FIXINGS CUSTOM MADE FROM VARIOUS PROVIDERS. -CONDUCT SCALE PROTOTYPE,ON-SITE TESTS -EXCAVATE SITE FOR FOOTINGS (MAY NEED TO BEAR BEYOND THE PIER) -POUR IMMENSE PAD FOOTINGS, WITH CAST-IN STEEL FIXING SUPPORT, TO ENABLE THE INITIAL CONNECTION WITH CURVED STEEL PIPES

-UTILISING CRANES, LIFT STEEL SUPPORT PIPING INTO PLACE -WIRE GENERATORS IN POSITION AND TO THE GRID -CRANE ‘PROPELLER PIPING’ INTO POSITION, AND FIX TO STRUCTURAL STEEL -’WEAVE’ THROUGH PROPELLER SYSTEM, ATTACHING TO PIPING -POTENTIALLY FIX TENSION CABLES BETWEEN PIPES FOR STRUCTURAL SUPPORT -FINAL FINISHES (PAINTING, GALVANISING) APPLIED TO STRUCTURE -LAY CONCRETE PATHWAYS AND NEATEN

150

/ S O R T I

At this point in week 08, we feel that the system is achievable, both in reality and in a modelled sense for our studio prototypes. We have begun construction on a detail model, ideally encompassing two ‘propellers’ to test how the system would turn, demonstrating this in tandem with the structure. We are also brainstorming and testing - through research and enquiry methods - what type of propeller would be suitable. As can be derived from the diagrams (right), a number of the ‘triangular’ iterations we were initially aiming for have been eradicated from our consideration due to their incompatability with wind generation. Accordingly, a more congruent propeller must be devised. Along with the rotation of the propellers, a secure structural design is necessary to resolve within the next week of the design process, applicable to whatever form we so choose to array our wind system upon. In delineating the possible construction process (left), this has become clear.


N G

T H E

S Y S T E M

SEAM HOLDING SEAM HOLDING PIECES OF PROPELLER FINS PLASTIC OR STEEL TOGETHER TOGETHER DISTANCE MAINTAINED DISTANCE MAINTAINED TO TO ENSURE ENDS DO ENSURE ENDS DONT TOUCH WHEN ROTATING NOT INTERSECT. BALL BEARING, ROTATING SCALE BALL BEARING, TO ROTATE INNER TUBE ROTATING SCALE THE COMPONENT AROUNDPROPELLER WHOLE SKELETAL STRUCTURE

OUTER TUBE ROTATING IN SECTIONS OUTER PIPING, REMAINS HELD STRONG IN NON MOVING PLANES STILL, STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.

SURMISED SYSTEM DIAGRAM - WEEK 08

MULTI-ROTATION

PLANAR, TRIANGULAR

FOLDED, TRIANGULAR

3-DIMENSIONAL, CONE-LIKE

DISCOVERED FAIL - though interesting, wind panel must have one fixed direction to operate properly.

DISCOVERED FAIL - there is nothing for the wind to push, it creates equilibrium.

DISCOVERED FAIL - as before, equilibrium generated, and wind will just brush past.

DISCOVERED FAIL - issues with weight. The form is, in general, not aerodynamic

151


C.1

GRAPH SAMPLERS EMP TO RAISE HEIGHT DRAST TRIMMING CENTRAL CURV

152


D E S I G N W

E

E

K

0

8

P R O P O S A L -

T

O

T

U

T

O

R

S

0 2

Additionally, we completely rewrote our algorithm and formed a new design this week, responding to some of the main feedback issues drawn out at the preliminary critique. I believe our main drawback with this design iteration was our interpretation of ‘computational’, backed by a notion that merely being envisaged through grasshopper terms a design computational. A revision of the theories examined in this journal to date is in order.

TRYING TO CREATE AN ‘ARCHITECTURALLY APT’ FORM. IMAGE SAMPLER USED TO GENERATE POINTS.

USING FIELD FORCES TO EXPLORE GENERATATING CURVES AROUND POINTS.

PLOYED TICALLY. VES.

PIPING STRUCTURE AND CULLING CURVES DEPENDING ON THEIR LENGTH.

153


D E S I G N W

E

E

K

0

8

[01]

[02]

[03]

154

[01] [02] [03]

Front View, Design, Proposal Iteration 02 Upper Perspective View, Proposal Iteration 02 Side Detail, Proposal Iteration 02

P R O P O S A L -

T

O

T

U

T

O

R

S

0 2


C.1 Although we abandoned this design due to its radically absurd appearance and inappropriate form for the site wind conditions, it indeed helped us to define our technique for the system we have developed. We departed from the design after realising we couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t prove that it would work effectively with weather conditions, and our computational algorithm made no allowance for this aspect of the architecture. It was also a preliminary investigation into a panel system which would or would not work. In this failed case, the latter was fulfilled. Panels were intersecting one another and the structure due to the complex curves. The panels, as discussed earlier, also would not operate with the wind.

155


C.2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS

156


PART C: DETAILED DESIGN WEEK 09 2014-05-09 - 2014-05-15

157


C.2

158

S

SUMMER 0m ABOVE SEA LEVEL

SUMMER 20m ABOVE SEA LEVEL

SUMMER 70m ABOVE SEA LEVEL

WINTER 0m ABOVE SEA LEVEL

WINTER 70m ABOVE SEA LEVEL

WINTER 100m ABOVE SEA LEVEL

SUMMER 100m


I T E : ABOVE SEA LEVEL

W I N D

A N A L Y S I S After consulting with our tutors last week, we realized the immediate need to analyse the site through computational methods. First looking into the Geco plug in for grasshopper, with Ecotect and WinAir, we attempted to perform site analysis in grasshopper. However, these efforts proved too difficult for our knowledge, and the memory of all the computers at our disposal. We decided to collectively move our focus to the Autodesk Vasari platform, as an alternative computational means of analysing the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wind patterns. The exercise was exceedingly useful, allowing us to visually and technically discern what was occurring on the site. The program allowed us insights into the summer and (stronger) winter winds, at all relevant heights, as seen in the diagrams here.

159


C.2

160


V A R I A B L E F O R M S : W I N D A N A L Y S I S

We then decided to test different forms on the site, to ascertain which would encounter the most wind and how our megastructure should be positioned on site. As shown, experimentation was first performed using flat planes at different situations on the site, to see where on the site was most suitable. After finding the south-western corner of the site encountering the most natural wind from the harbour, we then took the investigation further through different angles with the basic forms, gaining a thorough notion of what needed to be created.

161


F O R M As aforementioned, we wanted to employ techniques we had learnt from the course in the creation of our form. Though able to be modified, and the system applicable to many configurations, we decided on this monumental shape -developed from field curves and graph mappersas the base for our sculpture. The development is as follows.

162

F I N D I N G


C.2

[01]

[02]

[03]

[04]

GROUP RESEARCH>> DOUG SESLAM SUPER-TURBINE SYSTEM (Existing multi-rotor turbine system)

[01] [02] [03] [04] [05]

[05]

About this point we came into contact with the work of engineer Doug Seslam, a US based inventor who has devised a complex order of multi-rotating turbines around one shaft, which he designates the ‘super turbine’. The project gave us insight into how our proposal could actually be built, and reassurance in these fullscale tested successes. Although we have devised our system separately, and only encountered Seslam after beginning our detail model, the built aspects of both schemes are quite similar. Using ball bearings as connectors, the rotation from each propeller is shared and transferred into a generator at the shaft apse. Seslam’s numerical figures will also assist in calculating our energy output.

Doug Seslam, Seslam-Superturbine, Seslam Innovations, n.d - ongoing, <http://www.selsam.com/>

163


C.2

Under the direction of our tutors, we tried to make our design ‘more computational’ using Victor Milnes’ technical videos to try and incorporate a solar aspect into our design and maximise energy generation . Engaging with the plug-in ‘Ladybug’, we were able to perform solar analysis on forms we generated in response to our Vasari explorations, but continuing our previoius grasshopper technique. The Ladybug components permitted us to find portions of the forms which received the most solar radiation, and accordingly extrude ‘polygons’ to capture more of the solar radiation. At this point (we are denoting it week 9.5!), we determined to make a composite sculpture encompassing two systems. A gradation from wind energy at the highest section of the structure, to solar where radiation was most pertinent, was the idea determined. The solar would be a trussed sub-structure, placed atop of the piped structure. Despite this, we were advised to forget the scheme and return to polishing our wind system. It was sound guidance, as I believe our computational skills, and general understanding of solar, would not have been adequate to produce the desired outcome in less than a week. Nonetheless, the exploration process was quite lengthy and insightful, therefore I have included some iterations here.

164


S I D E W I T H

N O T E : O U R S O L A R

FORM 01 - SUCCESS

FORM 02 - LESS SUCCESS

B L I P

FORM 03 - SUCCESS, + CULL

165


C.2 T E S T I N G : F I N A L

166

F O R

[01]

[04]

[07]

[02]

[05]

[08]

[03]

[06]

[09]

[01][02][03] Form 01 tested at approximately 0m, 50m and 100m [04][05][06] Form 02 tested at approximately 0m, 50m and 100m [07][08][09] Form 03 tested at approximately 0m, 50m and 100m


M S

W I T H

P R O P E L L E R S

Finally, we were able to import some of our designs into Vasari, testing how each of them worked with the wind. We tested many initial failures with forms not appropiate for the wind conditions. The coloured imagery demonstrates the most successful option, with a form we â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;discoveredâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; using some of the computational methods from Studio Air so far (as mentioned in the previous few pages). It was successful over the majority of the heights.

167


R E F I N I N G T H E S Y S T E M / D E T A I L M O D E L

Coming to week 9.75 (yes...), we found ourselves needing to re-define the propeller system into something aerodynamic, yet also creative. Consulting with an engineer and a mechanical engineer, we learnt that wind propellers must be angled, with the ‘faces’ of the propellers able to be ‘pushed’ by oncoming wind. The drawings here describe the lengthy process tackled by our group as we tried to settle on a propeller type. In finalizing the design, a more traditional style was chosen to adorn our sculpture, yet still characterized by an architectural flair - some eyecatching individuality which was an aim.

168


C.2

MORE TRADITIONAL ANOTHER FAIL - as the fins on the propeller are not angled, the wind will pass directly through, rathr than pushing and creating the rotational force needed.

169


C.2 D E T A I L

170

M O D E L :

C O N


N S T R U C T I O N

P R O C E S S

171


D E T A I L

172

M O D E L :

C O N S


T R U C T I O N

P R O C E S S C.2

173


C.2

The final detail model attempts to communicate the materiality of our design - the steel piping and fibreglass propeller constituents which define the bulk of our system. Employing kinetic rotation and proving how one propeller can be connected to one another through subsequent rotation, the model conveys a clear sense of how the sculpture would be built. Although we confronted many issues with this model,and it took approximately three weeks to construct, we were pleased with the end result and the information it was able to relay. As underpinned in the final presentation, the proposal would be built with ball bearings, to radically reduce the friction that the detail model carries.

174


D E T A I L

M O D E L

[01]

[02]

[01] [02]

Final detail model, side view Final detail model, top view

175


C.3 FINAL MODEL The lecture brought up a myriad of questions which are necessary to address in our final presentation. To recount some of the most relevant for our work: “ -How does computing define your project? -What in your project was only achieveable through parametric modelling? -How do you integrate energy, materials and geometry into a performing pattern? -How do you use computing to analyse performance and synthesise design decisions? -How do you use computation to extract numerical and visual evidence that is not obtainable with paper-based workflows? ” [01] As, by this stage, we had nearly formalised the presentation and project, we found we were addressing the majority of the concerns. But perhaps one area which became ‘hazy’ was the influence of scripting culture on our design, and the way in which we were articulating it. Certainly, the computational process has been hefty and ongoing, and substantiates Mark Burry’s claim that, “scripting [is] a driving force for 21st-century architectural thinking” [02]. Burry also mentions in his piece, the fact that computational ‘first-timer’ students possess an overwhelming sense of doubt - “this could well be too difficult and beyond me, and how would I use it anyway?” [03] - and this has also proved true over the semester. If I have gathered anything from the lecture/literature for this second-last week of the course, it is that we must communicate clearly and confidently how scripting is vital in our design, and design futuring. It is also pertinent we do not take shortcuts, but see the computational process through to the end, and in so do our skills, project and Studio Air’s philosophy justice.

[01]

176 [02] [03]

Stanislav Roudavski, 12. Final Submission: Critical Design Narrative (Lecture), ABPL30048: Design Studio Air, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 22 May, 2014, <https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/courses/ABPL30048_2014_SM1/Lectures/L10%20Narrative/L10%20Narrative.pdf> [viewed 9 June 2014] Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), p.17 Mark Burry, Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), p.27


PART C: DETAILED DESIGN WEEK 10 2014-05-16 - 2014-05-22

177


C.3

178

ATTEMPTED 3D-PRINT AT SCOTTS

INTERACTIVE SECTION - BY HAND

3D PRIN

Failed attempt to 3D-print the propellers at Scotts on Swanston Street. The inaccuracy of the machine was at fault in this case, with University printers proving far superior.

Construction of the interactive section made by hand. Wire was measured (from Rhino) and curved until it approximated the design. Triangular panels from card were nailed, and threaded onto the system

Receivin We were peeling b extracted


F I N A L M O D E L F A B R I C A T I O N

P R O C E S S

NTED PROPELLERS, FAB LAB

FINAL RESULT - PROPELLERS

FINAL THREADING TOGETHER

ng our 3D printed propellers from FabLab. e able to print 110 propellers in two layers, back the polymer support material as we d each.

A small hole was maintained in each of the propellers, allowing us to blow on the threaded system and see movement.

Final outcome required strenuous threading together of polymer wire, 3D-printed propellers and Box Board structural supports.

179


C.3

180


F I N A L

M O D E L

181


C.3 F I N A L

182

M O D E L


183


F I N A L

PROPOSED SYSTEM

184

R E S O L V E D S Y S T E M


C.3 EXPLODED

ANGLED FINS OF PROPELLER X 3. 35 DEGREE ANGLE ACROSS THE INNER PIPE SHAFT

WELDED PLATES TO INNER PIPE SHAFT, SANDWHICH PROPELLERS FOR BOLTING

SMALL GENERATORS R O T A T I O N TRANSFERRED TO GENERATORS, HOUSED AT PIPE INTERSECTIONS.

INNER SHAFT PIPES FULLY ROTATE AS A PROPELLER TENSION CABLE TRANSFERS ROTATION TO GENERATORS

BALL BEARINGS, ALLOW FULL ROTATION OF INNER PIPE SHAFT, WHILST TRANSFERRING ROTATION THROUGH STRUCTURAL PIPES (VIA TENSION CABLE) TO GENERATORS STRUCTURAL PIPES RUN IN ‘ARCHES’ PERPENDICULAR TO PROPELLER PIPES. HOUSE GENERATORS AT EACH INTERSECTION.

185


C.4 PROPOSAL & LAGI RE

186


QUIREMENTS

PART C: DETAILED DESIGN WEEK 11 2014-05-23 - 2014-05-29

187


FIN

188


NAL

189


190


191


192


A P O G E E C.4 DESIGN DESCRIPTION Apogee is unique, powerful and interactive. It is a piece of art, a mega structure, designed to harness the wealth of the wind power of Copenhagen’s turbulent harbor in a poetic and inventive way. Apogee grasps at the public’s attention and takes visitors on a journey through its monumental peaks allowing them to observe this singular means of capturing wind power. Utilising computational methods of wind analysis the individually rotating, yet connected propellers have been applied to the structure for maximum output. The rotation within the steel pipes connects to the generator, which are housed at their structural intersections, and eventually join back to the grid. The idea behind Apogee was to create a public art piece that would stand out in the landscape of the city. Apogee is a kinetic, moving architecture, which seizes awareness, and realizes the potential for wind generation and in an explorative way. As well as the main tunnel ‘mega-structure’ of turbines, across the site is a smaller and interactive version of this system for the purposes of engaging visitors with the site. The triangular panels of this smaller interactive section can be spun around the shaft from below, acting as an educational tool to explain to the public how the spinning multi-turbine system works in a simplified manner. As well as this, the higher part of the structure can be connected at one apse to bicycles, which then spin a portion of the rotating panels to generate a small amount of energy. As our main structure requires a large surface area to optimize wind generation and in turn prevents significant amounts of wind from reaching the opposite end of the site, the interactive section is pertinent. The design of the propeller has been aerodynamically considered to harness the wind. The propellers would be ideally made from fibreglass, a light weight material that can be easily molded to the ideal form. The interactive system operates in the same manner. Though not producing copious amounts of energy, the intent is to educate and involve the visitors and residents of Copenhagen in Apogee’s operation and energy principles. These interactive panels would be additionally be fabriacted from colourful fiberglass, creating an engaging and ‘fun’ design.

MAIN STRUCTURE

INTERACTIVE

193


TECHNOLOGY USED

Apogee encompasses energy generation through wind power, yet in an inventive and exciting manner. The system developed for Apogee is unconventional, embracing a multirotor propeller network, with each propeller otating separately, yet connected in tandem to its adjoining neighbour. Transferrence of the wind-generated movement through reinforced tension cables within the steel piped structure creates the rotation required to operate small generators. At each ‘intersection’ between a larger structural pipe and the ‘propeller pipes’ is a generator, enabling the sculpture to act efficiently, with a maximum of six propellers per shaft. The shape of the propeller is the outcome of engineered research into areodynamic forms, with angled fins permitting the wind to easily act with force upon the rotors. As alluded to, the interactive section of Apogee would function similarly, however kinetic forces rather than wind, would power this modest portion of the site. With Apogee, a system was essentially invented, and applied to a suitable, visually enticing form - tested for wind efficiency. Nonetheless, the technological design could be applied to any form desired.

194


195


0

196


C.4 A P O G E E

PRIMARY MATERIALS

FIBREGLASS PROPELLERS lightweight, economical, typical propeller material. Enable multicoloured options.

[01]

STEEL PIPING - structural and non-structural. [02]

TENSION CABLE - rotating within the structure itself. [03]

CONCRETE - substantial footings would be required, possibly piles.

[04]

STEEL PIPING USE THROUGHOUT: 3,460m - 800mm diameter (APOGEE main structure) 1,580m - 80mm diameter (Interactive - ‘play’ pipes) 1,474m - 200mm diameter (Interactive - ‘bike’ pipes)

[01] Bedford Glass Fibre, Bespoke GPR Glass fibre mouldings, n.d <http://www.bedfordglassfibre.com/> [Accessed 10 June 2014] [02] Qiancheng Steep Pipe Groupco, Structural Steel Pipe, n.d <http://www.steelpipechn.com/Structural-Steel-Pipe.html> [Accessed 10 June 2014] [03] Ronstan, Steel Cable for Tensile Structures, archiexpo.com, n.d http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/ronstan/steel-cables-tensile-structure-5804-164076.html> [Accessed 10 June 2014] [04] Texturelib, Grey Clean Concrete Texture, 2013 <http://texturelib.com/texture/?path=/Textures/concrete/clean/concrete_clean_0035 > [accessed 10 June 2014]

197


C.4

198

A P O G E E

/

I N T E R A C T


T I V E

S E C T I O N

199


A P O G E E

SIMPLE, ROUNDED & HOLLOW TRIANGULAR SHAPE FOR ‘INTERACTIVE PANELS’. CANNOT CAUSE HARM, AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE AERODYNAMIC.

BIKE STATIONS (PICTURED) ENABLE VISITORS TO ‘CONNECT’ THEIR CYCLES TO THE SYSTEM AND ROTATE A PORTION OF THE HIGHER INTERACTIVE STRUCTURE.

200


C.4

201


ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL ENERGY

Average energy consumption per person/per year=643 watts Average wind speed in Copenhagen=24km/hr Doug Selsam [01] Wind Turbine – 7 rotors, each turbine 2.1336m diameter // At 1524m elevation Averages 6000 watts @ 52km/hr wind speed Average wind turbine Generates 2000kW/hr = 17, 531.62kW/yr CALCULATIONS 6000/52 ≈ W(W/m) (x24) ( ÷ 7 ) (x115) x (365 x 24) = total energy generated per year for 115 turbines = 398,531.86 kW OR enough for 619 people for one year The estimated amount of energy generated from this system would be 3,450 kWatts per year per turbine, making a total of 398,531KWatts for 115 turbines. On average this could be enough power for 68 people per year and with the help of Apogee’s interactive system we aim to inform the public of carbon neutral options and interactive methods of generating energy. >>OUTPUT OF 398,531 kW<<

202

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Apogee’s inventive, multi-rotor wind system offers something unique to the landscape of Copenhagen, and accords with the city’s agenda for Carbon-Neutrality by 2020. With enough energy produced annually to meet the power requirements of just under 620 people, and outputting no emissions, Apogee offers much more to the environment than just these figures. The sculpture is a civic statement, raising awareness for carbon neutrality and environmental energy generation, contextually appropriate near the Middelgrunden Wind Farm. Besides this, it encourages creativity when approaching sustainable technologies and energy production, crucial to design futuring [02] in this model city. In every effort to inform and engage with the public on this front, the interactive section of Apogee serves to better Copenhagen’s environment through user enlightenment, practically inviting visitors to become involved in renewable energy thinking and projects emerging today. In consideration of both the practical and principle outputs of the sculpture, it is a paradigm response to the environmental necessities of the LAGI competition.

[01] Doug Seslam, Seslam-Superturbine, Seslam Innovations, n.d - ongoing, <http://www.selsam.com/> [02] Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p.5


A P O G E E

C.4

203


C.5 LEARNING OBJECTIVE

204

PART C: DETAILED DESIGN WEEK 12 & ONGOING 2014-05-30 - SEM END


ES & OUTCOMES As we come to the final chapter of this journal, and the semester’s learning, I find myself satisfied with surplus of new skills, ideologies and technological methods I have attempted to embrace with all my strength. I take pride in the amount of knowledge & experience I singlehandedly aquired, and the sincere exertion that we as a group applied to this studio and the refinement of our idea. Our effort was full fledged and genuine, inspired by a desire to learn and work hard. At the same time, I acknowledge openly that a number of intricacies were not resolved for our final project, and some of the computational skills I wanted to polish were perhaps overlooked with the timeconsuming and mentally straining prospect of putting a proposal together. In listing our feedback from the final crit, this is clear: -By investing so much time into inventing a new way of harvesting wind, the form was neglected. -The form is “kinda ugly”. -Wind energy has (supposedly) been built to its ‘greatest potential’, the group should have opted for an existing system and integrated it. -The educational aspect should have been accentuated, the way people interact with the structure and the way it looks. -Smaller propellers could be inserted in absent areas of the form to harness secondary wind patterns. -Elaborate on the journey more - make some parts noisier than others, some parts more explorative of the site. -The visual presentation should have incorporated colour, as it was so integral to the design. Scaling issues were also mentioned. The criticism we received at our final critique was warranted and relevant, though on some fronts I might defend our design. In inventing a system we were attempting to respond to the studio’s brief in a creative fashion, and our design process naturally led us down the pathway to discovering a more ‘engineered’ architecture. Our engagement with computational techniques and the production of our own technique to further/fulfill our design goals was a target very much reached in our final outcome, and the group interfaced with a number of computational programs to verifiably test our design. Though a technological system was created, the form we decided to populate was also highly considered - and despite any viewer’s personal qualm regarding the aesthetic - our primary design intent was achieved. We veered away from the mediocre and proposed both a mechanical system and architectural expression for Copenhagen which would gain public attention, procure visitors, create energy and produce eminent awareness - possibly even global dialogue - for inventiveness in renewable energy technology.

205


C.5 L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S & OUTCOMES To discuss the studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s learning objectives again: 1. Our final project extrapolated on all aspects of the LAGI bried, accentuating aspects to invoke a more individual, creative response as our group saw fit. A personal brief and goals were delineated, with these objectives only enabled by the digital technologies at our disposal. 2. This objective was met in our computational testing of forms and the development of our algorithm. As validated in our tested iterations, the parametric modelling/algorithmic design frameworks enabled us to produce a number of variable design options, with the potential to expand on the design even further still. 3. In engaging with a number of programs, we were able to develop a myriad of new skills in the realm of computation and general computerized design that were foreign to us previously. Within Grasshopper, plug-ins were widely explored to optimize design performance. Other programs, including Vasari, Ecotect, WinAir, Revit and Adobe Suite, were also media featured in the development of our project. 4. I believe that we had an advantage here, as we went beyond the figrative and literally explored architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship with the wind. Nonetheless, our project employed computational and physical prototyping to ascertain real-life performance and energy generative capacities. The relationship between the form of sustainable architecture created with the environment was highly dissected. 5. Even now, this objective is being fulfilled as I review and defend our project. Studio Air allowed us to foster the critical skills needed to engage with academic dialogue regarding computational design, and respond to that in the persuasive, rigorous and positive light needed in the industry. 6. Multiple methods of analysis were fundamental to our design development, as has been expressed already in the journal. Objective 7. develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming; 7. The course introduced to me the vast sphere of computational programming, data structures and geometrical output. Though we covered the tip of an iceburg of knowledge, I am now exposed and familiar with the principles. 8. As seen through our design iterations, and algorithmic sketchbook, the objective was realized.

206


207


C O N C L U S I O N As indicated, the personal learning objectives of this studio were all achieved through the progress of our project, from ideation stage, to computational composition, to the final result. In particular, the design process affected my understanding of computation, including the unrestrained geometries which can be attained, the convenience and speed at which progress can be made, the precision available, and the means for actually deducing a computational formula through the grasshopper medium. My understanding of computation as a design tool for unrestricted, yet analytically-characterized, relevant architecture has been enriched, with a desire to continue the refinement of my skills something I carry out of the studio. I feel, though my skills are rudimentary still, that I am able to manipulate and write in algorithmic form to deduce concepts which will aid designs, and this is something I will take into my future in the industry. The use of computation to support the design of working elements has also been addressed through the project, with 3D-printing and laster cutting techniques - complemented by manual labour - embraced to create tectonic assemblies. I do concede that the final design could have posessed a wholly different approach to form and architectural experience, and that the system we generated could be applicable to a variety of differing concepts. Although, we inherently wished to develop the design further, other subject commitments and study impeded our path prior to submission. Nonetheless, in performing some research, I again encountered some more ethereal wind projects, such as Atelier DNAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hypothetical â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Windstalkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; [01], in which a forest of wind stalks move dynamically to generate energy. After group discussion we determined that the project may take on such a disposition in its progression [01]

208

Atelier DNA, Windstalk, ADNA, 2010, <http://atelierdna.com/masdarwindstalk/>

&


D E S I G N

P O T E N T I A L

C.5

209


D E S I G N

210

P O T E N T I A L


C.5

For the progression of the design, and in response to the feedback, we propose the reconfiguration of the form, and slight restructuring of the technological system, to create a more ethereal, interesting design. Propeller shafts would follow the flow of the wind, able to move freely in a dynamic and unseen manner. The design would rarely be stagnant, but ever kinetic and evolving in terms of shape and movement. Smaller, interactive propellers would again be incorporated, with this user-experience and educational aspect accentuated as an equally primary function of Apogee, as with the previous project. Propeller shafts could potentially be moored in the ocean, adding a new level of engagement with the site and city. The existing scheme and computational technique could amply be transferred to a model such as this, and the notion is strongly shadowed by the design progression outlined in this journal. We, as a group, hope to advance the idea independently after the studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s completion.

211


212


ROSIE, CAM, ZAHAS, STUDIO 01, THANK YOU S I N C E R E LY. THIS IS THE END.

213


PA R T C R E F E R E N C E S Atelier DNA, Windstalk, ADNA, 2010, <http://atelierdna.com/masdarwindstalk/> Banham, Reyner, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (London: Architectural Press, 1960), pp. 1-338 Bedford Glass Fibre, Bespoke GPR Glass fibre mouldings, n.d <http://www.bedfordglassfibre.com/> [Accessed 10 June 2014] Burry, Mark. Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), pp. 8-71 Fry, Tony, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), pp. 1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;16 Qiancheng Steep Pipe Groupco, Structural Steel Pipe, n.d <http://www.steelpipechn.com/Structural-Steel-Pipe.html> [Accessed 10 June 2014] Ronstan, Steel Cable for Tensile Structures, archiexpo.com, n.d http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/ronstan/steel-cablestensile-structure-5804-164076.html> [Accessed 10 June 2014] Rosie Gunzberg, in conversation with ABPL30048: Design Studio Air: Studios 1 & 2, Studio Air - Last Four Weeks (email), The University of Melbourne Melbourne, May 05, 2014. Roudavski, Stanislav, 08. Thinking Ahead: Architecture in the Prototyping Age (Lecture), ABPL30048: Design Studio Air, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 8 May, 2014, <http://content.lecture.unimelb.edu.au:8080/ess/echo/ presentation/579a2809-a82a-49ca-81f5-d79d8253117d> [viewed 5 June 2014] Roudavski, Stanislav, 12. Final Submission: Critical Design Narrative (Lecture), ABPL30048: Design Studio Air, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 22 May, 2014, <https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/courses/ABPL30048_2014_SM1/ Lectures/L10%20Narrative/L10%20Narrative.pdf> [viewed 9 June 2014] Seslam, Doug, Seslam-Superturbine, Seslam Innovations, n.d - ongoing, <http://www.selsam.com/> Texturelib, Grey Clean Concrete Texture, 2013 <http://texturelib.com/texture/?path=/Textures/concrete/clean/concrete_ clean_0035 > [accessed 10 June 2014] Timberlake, James, in Roudavski, Stanislav, 08. Thinking Ahead: Architecture in the Prototyping Age (Lecture), ABPL30048:Design Studio Air, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 8 May, 2014, <http://content.lecture.unimelb.edu. au:8080/ess/echo/presentation/579a2809-a82a-49ca-81f5-d79d8253117d> [viewed 5 June 2014] Visit Copenhagen, Bike Copenhagen, 2014, <http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/bikecopenhagen>

214


215


216


217


Jacovides_Renee_585430_Part A-C