Sound Meditation Shelter

MUSIC MEDITATION SHELTER Shape A Shelter, Shape The Sound 2020-HS1-ARC70001/ARC70003 Design Research Studio A and B Semester I, 2020 Unit Convenor: Dr. Ian Woodcock Studio Leader: Pantea Alambeigi

Glenferrie Placemaking Project

Phally Chhay

Mr. Phally Chhay Master of Architecture

ABSTRACT This project focus on how sound influences the shape in architecture and I have learned a lot of using grasshopper as a platform of sound simulation. As mentioned in the design brief of Glenferrie Placemaking and Data collection and analysis, I and my group have chosen Central Garden as our site since it has very nice nature environment but lack interesting project to make it more lively and attractive.

PROBLEM STATEMENT After Data Collection and Analysis: • Central Garden is too quiet and it lacks some interesting sound or music that triggers people to stay and engage more activities • Several areas in the garden has been necglected without any activities • Activities only exist at the kid playground and nearby

SCOPE OF STUDY

The design will focus on the Central Garden since and we will focus on creating acoustic shelter that will use grasshopper - ladybug to run the simulation and later the design will be developed and adjusted accordingly to the simulation and creative solution from our

OBJECTIVES

• Propose sound music exploritory project through Glenferrie Placemaking project • Create two different acoustic music experiences within the project design to heal the mind • Activate the center space of the Central Garden for more potential activities • Attract more people and activities to the nearby areas within the garden

CONTENTS:

I. SITE SELECTION................................................................................................................1

1.1 Site Location......................................................................................................1

1.2 Site Analysis.......................................................................................................2

1.3 Sound Scape......................................................................................................3 II. PRECEDENTS....................................................................................................................4

2.1 Acoustic Shells by Flanagan Lawrence...............................................................4

2.2 Summer House by Barkow Leibinger.................................................................5 III. DESIGN PROCESS............................................................................................................6

3.1 Design Iteration & Simulation (Phase 1)...........................................................6

3.2 Design Iteration & Simulation (Phase 2)............................................................7

3.3 Design Approach (Phase 1)................................................................................8

3.4 Design Approach (Phase 2)................................................................................9 IV. DESIGN CONCEPT & INTENSE.........................................................................................10 V. DESIGN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................11

5.1 Shape Development..........................................................................................11

5.2 Shape Development influenced by parameters................................................12 VI. DESIGN PROPOSAL.........................................................................................................13

6.1 1st Design Prposal.............................................................................................13

6.2 Proposed Material.............................................................................................14

6.3 Proposed Structure............................................................................................15 VII. FINAL SOUND PARAMETER SIMULATION......................................................................16 VIII. COLOR ITERATIONS.......................................................................................................17

8.1 Proposed Color Choices.....................................................................................17

8.2 Surrounding Materials & Textures Influences The Design.................................18

IX. FEEDBACK FROM REVIEWERS........................................................................................19 X. TESTING 1ST PROPOSAL SIMULATION............................................................................20

11.1 Universal Thermal Climate Index For Summer (1st Proposal)........................20

11.2 Wind-rose For Winter (1st Proposal)..............................................................21

11.3 Radiation & Shawdow Range Analysis (1st Proposal).....................................22

11.4 UTCI Winter (1st Proposal)..............................................................................23 XI. DESIGN SOLUTION INFLUENCED BY SIMULATION RESULT.............................................24

12.1 1st Iteration....................................................................................................24

12.2 2nd Iteration...................................................................................................25

12.3 Final Iteation...................................................................................................26 XII. FINAL DESIGN SIMULATION VERIFICATION...................................................................27

13.1 UTCI (Final Design)..........................................................................................27

13.2 Radiation Analysis (Final Design)....................................................................28

13.3 Hour of Receiving Direct Sunlight & Shawdow Range (Final Design)..............29 XIII. TWO DIFFERENT ACOUSTIC EXPEREINCES...................................................................30 XIV. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING..........................................................................................31 XV. FINAL RENDER...............................................................................................................32

16.1 View From The South......................................................................................32

16.2 View From The Entrance.................................................................................33

16.3 Bird’s Eye View.................................................................................................34

16.4 Close Up View..................................................................................................35 XVI. BOARD DESIGN.............................................................................................................36 References

I. SITE SELECTION 1.1 Site Location Reasons: • Accessible from Train & Tram • Huge green space for gathering • Identity of calm nature • Under utilised spaces Glenfferrie Station

Central Garden

Swinburne Univer1

1.2 Site Analysis Reasons (Center of the Garden): • Activate the Center of the space • Attract more people • Encourage more activites to nearby spaces

Chosen spot

Active spots

Existing Trees

No Activity No Activity

Site Lodge

2

1.3 Sound Scape Different color respresenting different sound sources: • The center (light white) itself is the center of the garden • The red color is the sound from the train but become less red showing the less volume since it is blocked by the tress • Light Blue represent the background sound of wind blow all over the garden • The light green represents the sound from the bird dispersed all over the place • The dark purple is the sound of active human activities • The light purple are the sound of people passing through

3

II. PRECEDENTS 2.1 Acoustic Shells by Flanagan Lawrence The shells blend in well with the nature and create two different experiences for the visitors.

One shell faces the town creating bandstand. The acoustic shape reflect the music to the people sitting in the garden. The other shell faces the sea for people sitting and listening to the sound of the sea or for the performers of the promenade.

4

Image Source: Unknown (n.d.). Acoustic shells, 2014. Archdaily.

Retrieved from: https://www.archdaily.com/535388/acoustic-shells-flanagan-lawrence

2.2 Serpentine Summer House by Barkow Leibinger The structure of creating loops of riboons is a self generating form that is created by coiling material in the hand round and round and stacking material upon itself. The form consists of four band structures that made of plywoods with steel structures frame.

Summer Pavillion is for international architectural experiment. It creates the panemic view in the garden for the visitors to see different surroundings in the artificial mountain.

Image Source: Iwan, B. & Ina, R. (n.d.). Serpentine summer house, 2016. Archdaily.

Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/790032/serpentine-summer-house-barkow-leibinger 5

III. DESIGN PROCESS 3.1 Design Iteration & Simulation (Phase I) Starting with the S shape as initial design and using grasshopper as simulation interface, we have developed the design from a retilinear “S” to a Percular “S” shape. We have tried to experiment puttig the sound source inside the tunnel.

Iterations

Carity (C80)

Sound Simulation

(dB) 30

6

A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level (dBA)

Reverberation Milliseconds Time

80

2.5

15

66.25

1.9

0

52.5

1.3

-15

38.75

0.7

-30

25

0.1

3.2 Design Iteration & Simulation (Phase II) Later, we have the idea of having two sound expriences within the “S� shape below by opening up some space as semi-enclosed and fully-open space. After running the simulation, it is potential to create those two acoustic expriences.

Iterations

Carity (C80)

Sound Simulation

A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level (dBA)

(dB)

Reverberation Milliseconds Time

30

80

2.5

15

66.25

1.9

0

52.5

1.3

-15

38.75

0.7

-30

25

0.1

7

3.3 Design Approach (Phase I)

Rectilinear “S”

Shelter “S” (some opening)

Curved “s” with Vertical Palettes

(Shelter) 8

Curved “S” (some open-

Semi-opened “S” & Fully opened “S”

(Shelter)

3.4 Design Approach (Phase II)

“S” shape with organic vertical Pallettes

“S” shape with simple vertical Pallettes

Chosen organic “S” Concept

“S” shape with simple vertical curved Pallettes

9

IV. DESIGN CONCEPT & INTENSE

Central garden is a very calming and relaxing identity but it has no significant attraction that can invite more visitors.

Our proposal is to: • activate the space & attract more people to encourage more activities • preserving identity of the calming nature • Creating sound meditation project Scope of proposal: • Create two acoustic experiences within the 2 spiral of two parameters: reverberation & clarity and music of sea and wind blow will be played or pschological meantal heal of relaxation and mediation

Reverberation

10

Clarity

V. DESIGN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Shape Development

Initial idea

2 panels were removed to create Center space

1st roof design

Roof as tunnel

11

5.2 Shape Development Influenced by parameters Design Elements A circular panel with sound reflective is added to create reflective space(reverberation space).

Curved Roof enSound reflective panels & platform

Reverberation

Clarity

Wall partition panels

Organic Benches

Base

12

VI. DESIGN CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 6.1 1st Design Proposal

Roof & Entrance Organic cured solid material depicting principle entrance

Sound Absorbing Space Perforated plywood with insulation (Clarity)

Sound Reflective Space Plywood with sound relfective paints (Reverberation)

Organic Bench Blend in with the shape for unity

Reasons for choosing plywood: • Great Architectural look • Bendable for organic shape • Perforated plywood is good absorbing material • Ensuring unity look for both spaces 13

6.2 Proposed Material Plywood will be best materials since it fit the natural and environmental color at the selected site. In addition, the perforated panel can be a very sound absorbing materials and it can also ensure same architectural look for both circular spaces of the project.

Perforated Panel

Pattern Choices

Peforated with acoustic insulation

Source: Murano. (n.d.). Perforated. Murano perforated acoustic panel features, nd. Murano Acoustic

Retrieved from: https://muranoacoustics.com.au/perforated-wood-acoustic-panels/ 14

Panel Section

6.3 Proposed Structure We decide to choose this structure since it does not have heavy construction. Only the base channels are built and screw to the ground and it can be easily later removed without any damage to the central garden.

Channel Base Support

Steel Frame

Channel Detail

Model Making 15

VII. FINAL SOUND PARAMETER SIMULATION Accoring to the simulation, the proposed design does create 2 different sound experiences based on reverberation and clarity parameters. The same sound music will be play in the 2 spaces but the visitor will experience two different perception feeling of music.

Clarity (C80)

A-Weighted Sound Pressure

(dB)

Reverberation zone

16

Clarity zone

(dBA)(dBA)

Reverberation Time

Milliseconds

30

70

2.1

15

61.25

1.62

10

52.5

1.15

0

43.75

0.67

-10

Reverberation zone

Clarity zone

35

Reverberation zone

Clarity zone

0.2

VIII. COLOR ITERATIONS 8.1 Proposed Color Choices After testing many iterations, there are the possibbles color; however, we decide to choose the yellow orange gradient to be our final option since the color blend well with the nature

17

8.2 Surrounding Materials & Texture Influence the Design Color & MateThe texture and color of the tree themselves provide the yellow and orange gradient that exist in the nature. The green grass will be a very good background that the orange and yellow gradient will be placed.

The different tones color of the yellow leaves, the texture of the tree roots and trunks, color of the surrounding objects allow the orange yellow gradient blends well into the environment.

Surrounding Nature

Facilities

Chosen Color & Material 18

Textures

IX. FEEDBACK FROM REVIEWERS • vey interesting and has a lot of potentials but no human or dimensions next to the diagrams • high level of visual communication and good process • Good job on analysis your study that led you to the final result • Dark narrow spaces and corners that are not useful • It seems that the site and programs are being ignored as it is symmetrical • What is the criteria for color selection? (Look for more integration with landscape) • Suggestion for precedents of Murmurwall, Future city lab

All these feedbacks will be improved in the next phase of the design simulation and solutions

Renders showing dark corners and spaces from the first propos19

X. TESTING 1ST PROPOSAL SIMULATION 11.1 Universal Thermal Climate Index For Summer (1st Proposal) During summer the diagram shows that it is comfortable through the whole hot week in average.

The red color (28 C) is the moderate heat stress. However, the diagram indicate Melbourne has cold stress (all blue). Therefore, we will scope down to work on solving problem of the design during winter.

Average UTCI extreme Hot week 10th Feb - 16th Feb, 7am - 9pm 20

Average UTCI typical Summer week 27th Jan - 2nd Feb, 7am - 9pm

11.2 Wind-rose For Winter (1st Proposal) Wind Rose Wind Temperature Winter months - June to August 7am - 9pm

Wind Rose Wind Speed Winter months - June to August 7am - 9pm

Reoriented

Cold wind pass through solution N

N 21

11.3 Radiation & Shawdow Range Analysis (1st Proposal) According to both Radiation analysis and Hours of receiving direct light & shawdow, our design has received enough sunlight on the north part but certain areas of the south part seem to be too dark because it has not enough sunlight coming through. Both of the diagrams show darker blue at the southern area than the northern area. Then we have to find solution to solve this issue in the next approach.

Radiation Analysis Winter months - June to August 7am - 9pm 22

Hours of Receiving Direct Light & Shadow Range 21st of June 7am - 9pm

11.4 UTCI Winter (1st Proposal) As indicated in the digrams, the design has comfortable environmentduring typical cold winter and also the extreme cold winter week, the temperature is also not too cold (light blue).

Average UTCI Typical cold Winter week (Mid June) – 7am – 9pm

Average UTCI Extreme cold Winter week (Mid July) – 7am – 9pm 23

XI. DESIGN SOLUTION INFLUENCED BY SIMULATION RESULT 12.1 1st Iteration 1st Iteration

Acrylic Skylight - more sunlight Curve oval sun reflective boards (Southern part)

Sun reflective borad facing north to reflect light to the dark area below

Southern panels - peforated Northern Panels - Lower

1st Proposal Sun reflective borad facing down when having enough sunlight 24

12.2 2nd Iteration 2nd Iteration

Acrylic Skylight - more sunlight Some parts - removed to allow more sunlight (replaced by steel skeletal frame ) Northern Panels - removed to reduce dark corners Southern panels - removed to keep architectural look consistency 1st Proposal

25

12.3 Final Iteration

1st Iteration New design update Sun reflective boards are added to catch the light and relect back to the lower parts for better lighting

2nd Iteration Birdeye view from the southern part 26

XII. FINAL DESIGN SIMULATION VERIFICATION 13.1 UTCI (Final Design) The comparison of the two diagrams illustrate the final prposal has improved a better environment around the design because during the cold witner week, it turns to be hotter (more orange) which means it is more comfortable than the previous simulation result (1st proposal) 1st Proposal

Average UTCI (Original) Typical cold Winter week (Mid June) – 7am – 9pm

Final proposal

Average UTCI (FINAL) Typical cold Winter week (Mid June) – 7am – 9pm 27

13.2 Radiation Analysis (Final Design) As illustrated in radiation analysis of both proposals, the final proposal has better result of lighter blue radiation which means it is not as cold as the 1st proposal.

1st Proposal

Radiation Analysis (Original) Extreme Winter Week – Mid July 7am - 9pm 28

Final proposal

Radiation Analysis (FINAL) Extreme Winter Week – Mid July 7am - 9pm

13.3 Hour of Receiving Direct Sunlight & Shawdow Range (Final Design) The final proposal diagram shows that the result has turned purple instead of dark blue as the first proposal. This simply means the design has improved in term receiving better light.

1st Proposal

Hours of Receiving Direct Light & Shadow Range Original 21st of June 7am - 9pm

Final proposal

Hours of Receiving Direct Light & Shadow Range FINAL 21st of June 7am - 9pm

29

XIII. TWO DIFFERENT ACOUSTIC EXPERIENCES

Reflective Space

Absorbing Space

Section 30

B

XIV.ARCHTIECTURAL DRAWING

East View

South View 5m

10m

1m

5m

10m

A

A

B

1m

1m

5m

10m

1m

Section A-A 1m

5m

10m

Top View

West View

North View

5m

10m

Section B-B 1m

5m

10m

Bird’s Eye View 31

XV. FINAL RENDER 16.1 View From The South

32

16.2 View From The Entrance

33

16.3 Bird’s Eye View

34

16.3 Close Up Views

Perforated Panels

Sound Absorbing Panels

Oval sun-reflective curved

View under Sun reflectiveBoard 35

XVI. BOARD DESIGN

36

References Archdaily. (2016). Serpentine summer house.

Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/790032/serpentine-summer-house-bar kow-leibinger Chris Mackey. (2014, September 8). Ladybug comfort tutorials - outdoor comfort: UTCI

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwErNMWeQVw Chris Mackey. (2014, September 14). Getting started with ladybug - Wind Rose Basics.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G27WWkqlKxA Rhino Grashopper. (2018, November 20). Ladybug grasshopper tutorial.

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaNSy9-LEpc&t=91s Saieh, N. (2014). Acoustic shells.

Retrieved from: https://www.archdaily.com/535388/acoustic-shells-flanagan-lawrence Image Reference: Iwan, B. & Ina, R. (n.d.). Serpentine summer house, 2016. Archdaily.

Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/790032/serpentine-summer-house-barkow-leibinger Murano. (n.d.). Perforated. Murano perforated acoustic panel features, nd. Murano Acoustic

Retrieved from: https://muranoacoustics.com.au/perforated-wood-acoustic-panels/ Unknown (n.d.). Acoustic shells, 2014. Archdaily.

Retrieved from: https://www.archdaily.com/535388/acoustic-shells-flanagan-lawrence