Paul Morgan Architects | Kevin Gao

RMIT University

Practice Research Elective

Modelling for a HAB

Kevin Gao

Semester 2 2021

Contents

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP

1.1 Process Diagrams 1.2 SAB Reference Board 1.3 Sea of Ice Compositions 1.4 Ameba Iterations 1.5 Blender Erosion

2.0 CFD ITERATIONS

2.1-5 CFD Scheme 7 2.6-10 CFD Non-cantilever (7B) 2.10-15 CFD Cantilever (7B) 2.16-20 CFD Scheme Comparisons 2.21 CFD Matrix summary

3.0 MID SEMESTER REFLECTION 4.0 SCHEME 8 MODELLING 5.0 BLENDER EROSION 6.0 RETOPOLOGY 7.0 FINAL REFLECTION

7.1 Process Diagram 3 7.2 Extended Reflection

2

1.0 Semester One Recap

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.1 Process Diagram ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Prevailing winds

Bushfire attack

TECHNIQUES

KINETICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT FLOWS/ INTENSITIES

PRODUCTION AND ASSEMBLY

Load optimisation structure Double-skin

Wind modeling/ computational fluid dynamics

Bushfire modeling/ computational fluid dynamics

PATTERNS IN NATURE

mapping liminous intensity

Cavernous voids Topography - Sand dunes - Rocky shelf - Grottoes

Plant forms Vegetation

Sun path Biophilic design

Embryological design: endless variations (Lynn)

View lines Interior patterns in Nature 4

1.1 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.1 Process Diagram

Process diagram 2 by Paul Morgan

5

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.2 SAB reference board

St Andrews Beach reference board

6

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.3 Sea of Ice bluff body composition

Design domain drawing by Paul Morgan

Caspar David Friedrich, Sea of Ice

7

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.3 Sea of Ice bluff body composition

Precedent: Early Melbourne Polytechnic Student Centre Modelling

Panel Variant

option 05

option 06

option 07 8

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

Drawings by Peter Felicetti

Non-design domain Design domain Load cases

Design domains modelled in rhino Ameba test with 30 steps 9

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 01 Step 5

Step 10

Step 20

Step 30

Northwest view

Southwest view

North elevation

West elevaiton

10

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 02 Domain Notes

- 3 non-design slabs, 1.5

offset from boudnary

- single lateral load on south surfaces

Step 10

Step 20

Step 30

Northwest view

Southwest view

North elevation

West elevation

West section

11

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 03 Step 25 Domain Notes

- 3 non-design slabs, 1.5

offset from boudnary

Step 50

Step 70

Northwest view

- single lateral load on south

surfaces, smaller area

(highlighted in red)

- Tested with Ameba v2.0 - (higher step count)

Southwest view

North elevation

West elevation

West section

12

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 04 Step 25 Domain Notes

- 3 non-design slabs, 1.5

offset from boudnary

Step 50

Northwest view

- single lateral load on south

surfaces, smaller area

(highlighted in red)

- support as 2 north-south

strips Non-design domain

Southwest view

Design domain

North elevation

Load cases Supports

West elevation

West section

13

MODELLING 1.0DOMAIN SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4b Spiral Array Design Domains

Northeast view

Northwest view

South elevation

East elevation

North elevation

C

A

B

Site view lines diagram A 120° Water view B Vegetation view C Mid-level East glazing 14

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4b Spiral Array Design Domains

DESCRIPTION Slabs are segmented in a spiral array, stepping down via ‘split levels’ Slab domains includes the pool.

Pool is required to be at least 1100 higher than adjacent ground line. This can be either achieved with conventional pool fence or with raised slab which would be part of form finding

15

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 01 Domain Notes

- floor slabs as non-design

domains

- single lateral load on south surfaces

- floor plate corners as support points

- ameba version 1.0

Step 10

Step 30

Step 55

Northeast view

Northwest view

South elevation

East elevation

North elevation

16

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 02 Domain Notes

- floor slabs as non-design

domains

- Included basement slab as design domain

- floor plate surfaces as support

- ameba version 2.0.1

Step 10

Step 20

Step 41

Northeast view

Northwest view

South elevation

East elevation

North elevation

17

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 03 Domain Notes

- floor slabs as non-design

domains

- single vertical load (gravity) on top surfaces

- ameba version 2.0.1

Step 25

Step 50

Step 75

Step 100

Northeast view

- floor plate corners as support points

Northwest view

South elevation

East elevation

North elevation

18

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 04 Domain Notes

- floor slabs as non-design

domains

- Narrower slabs, 1500mm inset from slab boundary

- ameba version 2.0.1

Step 10

Step 30

Step 60

Northeast view

- single lateral load on south surfaces - floor plate surfaces as support

Northwest view

South elevation

East elevation

North elevation

19

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 05 Step 15

Domain Notes

- added tube as non-design domain

- ameba version 2.0.1

Step 30

Step 60

Northeast view

- floor slabs as non-design domains - single lateral load on south surfaces - floor plate surfaces as support points

Northwest view

South elevation

tube as non-design domain

East elevation

North elevation

20

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 06 Step 15

Domain Notes

- single lateral load on north surfaces

- narrower slabs, 1500mm inset from slab boundary

- ameba version 2.0.1

Step 60

Northeast view

- floor slabs as non-design domains

- floor plate surfaces as support

Northwest view

South elevation

East elevation

North elevation

21

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.4 Ameba Iterations

ITERATION 07 Domain Notes

- floor slabs as non-design

domains

- two load cases, lateral

load on south surfaces,

vertical load on top

surfaces

- floor plate corners as

support points

- ameba version 1.0

Step 15

Step 30

Step 60

Northeast view

Northwest view

South elevation

Load cases lateral and vertical combined

East elevation

North elevation

22

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.5 Blender Erosion Iterations

BLENDER CFD EROSION SIMULATION CONCEPTUALISATION This workflow aims to connect the results generated by CFD software into the modeling method through the 3D software Blender. Specifically, capturing the effect of geological erosion from wind and coastal forces.

One observation found when using the BESO method through Ameba is that the subtractive method of structural optimisation is limited in translating load forces from wind pressure gathered from the current CFD software (Autodesk Flow Design).

The logic of wind erosion is the idea of subtracting mass from exposed surfaces. The current approach with Ameba is that it adds reinforcement to the surfaces that has been given load to support, and subtracts any redundant mass to be structurally efficient. Hence, many of the calculations revolves around the internal structure which may not be the focus of this current streamlined form finding stage of the project.

While the workflow with Ameba will be improved with subdomains and multiple load cases, this experiment with blender could bring a possible alternative to form finding with erosion.

1. Gather curves generated in CFD software, extrude curves into solids

2. Impose extruded curves over the bluff body, use a boolean difference function to subtract mass in the shape of the curves. Repeat steps to simulate the effect of wind erosion on a geological mass.

23

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.5 Blender Erosion Iterations

This workflow could be adopted with using Blender’s fluid particle system to mimic CFD simulations, whilst it lacks physics accuracy and data compared to many CFD softwares, it is capable of translating particles into curves and into mesh geometry.

1. Wind tunnel simulation over a tear drop bluff body, wind velocity can be controlled and visualised

2. Fluid/wind particles converted into curves

The curves are then converted into extruded mesh geometries, and retopologised into a single topology, used as a cutting object for the bluff body Using boolean difference function to “erode” the bluff body, with the mesh generated by wind particles as the cutting object.

3. Curves are given a thickness when extruded into geometry

4. Output Result

4. Remeshed into one single geometry

Blender wind particles imposed over eroded bluff body 24

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.5 Blender Erosion Iterations

Erosion simulation applied to slabs

Possible factors to test

eddies/turbulence

effect of neighbouring building

multi directional wind (SAB striations)

Wind flow, particles imposed over eroded body

25

1.0 SEMESTER 1 RECAP 1.6 Scheme 6D

26

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.1 Wind analysis

Initial CFD Test with ‘bluff body’

28

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.1 CFD Test of Scheme 7 - North Wind

29

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.2 CFD Test of Scheme 7 - South Wind

30

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.3 CFD Test of Scheme 7 - Southeast Wind

31

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.4 CFD Test of Scheme 7 - Southwest Wind

32

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.5 CFD Test of Scheme 7 - West Wind

33

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.6 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Non-cantilever - North Wind

34

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.7 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Non-cantilever - South Wind

35

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.8 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Non-cantilever - Southeast Wind

36

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.9 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Non-cantilever - Southwest Wind

37

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.10 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Non-cantilever - West Wind

38

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.11 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Cantilever - North Wind

39

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.12 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Cantilever - South Wind

40

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.13 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Cantilever - Southeast Wind

41

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.14 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Cantilever - Southwest Wind

42

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.15 CFD Test of Scheme 7B Cantilever - West Wind

43

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.16 CFD Test Comparisons - North Wind Scheme 7

7B Non-Cantilever

7B Cantilever

44

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.17 CFD Test Comparisons - South Wind Scheme 7

7B Non-Cantilever

7B Cantilever

45

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.18 CFD Test Comparisons - Southeast Wind Scheme 7

7B Non-Cantilever

7B Cantilever

46

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.19 CFD Test Comparisons - Southwest Wind Scheme 7

7B Non-Cantilever

7B Cantilever

47

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.20 CFD Test Comparisons - West Wind Scheme 7

7B Non-Cantilever

7B Cantilever

48

2.0 CFD Wind Modelling 2.21 CFD matrix summary

49

2.0 CFD Iterations 2.22 Bushfire assessor’s report

Bushfire assessor’s report provided by Mal Wright - Living Rural

Fire threat factors - Ground fuel - Air temperature - Wind speed - Humidity Comes down to Material combustibility and modification of defendable space, comprised of an inner and outer zone Actions can be taken to mitigate the effects of combustibility contact, by modifying existing vegetation.

Discussion were made in suggesting using CFD as a basis for simulating bushfire threat. With wind paths representing the spread of bushfire.

50

3.0 Mid Sem Reflection

4.0 Reflection 4.1 Software packages, hand of the architect

To each have their own type of skillsets. Software packages tend to lean on the technical side of working, and certain workflows such as procedural or parametric, the process becomes iterative and selective.

Whereas the figurative drawings were more controlled, and reveals the most in terms of understanding the fundamentals in design.

Application of CFD The use of CFD software aided in revealing the inverse relation between wind velocity and pressure. Hypothesis were conducted on the various results between design schemes, based from the “longer path or “equal transit” theory.

Further tests with CFD would need to involve the modelling of foliage for more accurate representation of the wind effected from the site.

Feedback loop of Process / Iterations / Design There is a ‘feedback loop’ in designing whereby the process requires continual re-adjusting which are proceeded from the outcomes of other relevant processes. Such that each process is always a continuation within various design stages.

In this case, multiple schemes are developed simultaneously Which is why I’m mainly interested to choose this elective for the second time, rarely does students have the opportunity to work on a project beyond a single semester. Within practice, projects would certainly need years of development. And working in a practice environment allows you to be aware of multiple phases in architectural production, typically the schematics and design development is only a minor portion of the overall duration of the project.

sketches and drawings by Paul Morgan

There will be instances where not all the ideas will be carried through to the entire process timeline. Though that is part of the experimental research and development. And as part of this phase of design, its beneficial to start off with lots of ideas and work down and refining them to a point, perhaps more so than to introducing new ideas midway through, which aren’t as rich or deeply integrated as previous ideas.

52

4.0 HAB Model Progress

4.0 HAB Model Progress 4.1 Scheme 7

54

4.0 HAB Model Progress 4.2 Scheme 8 - Week 10

55

4.0 HAB Model Progress 4.3 Scheme 8 - Week 12

56

5.0 Blender Erosion

5.0 Blender Erosion 5.1 Process images

Wind path simulation in blender

Converting paths to mesh, use as boolean cutting object

Different wind directions were captured, varying in horizontal and vertical rotation, usually with 15 degrees difference

Paths are trimmed in proximity to the envelope, thickness of mesh extrusions varies from each path

58

5.0 Erosion Iterations 5.2 Iteration 1

Iteration notes Horizontal north wind (simulation didn't manage to capture the entire envelope but still had interesting effect) Reason for the accidental opening due to the bad mesh topology Iteration 1 suggests how openings or windows can be created

59

5.0 Erosion Iterations 5.3 Iteration 2

Iteration notes Horizontal north wind Fixed the initial mesh topology which allows the simulation to include the full envelope

60

5.0 Erosion Iterations 5.4 Iteration 3

Iteration notes Northern horizontal wind with 15 degrees of vertical incline Interesting corner treatment of the front envelope Podium erosion creates potential placement of windows

61

5.0 Erosion Iterations 5.5 Iteration 4

Iteration notes NNW wind (-15 degrees from north, this matches the rotation of module B) Striated erosion occurring at roof surfaces, which are less desired due to structural difficulties

62

5.0 Erosion Iterations 5.6 Iteration 5

Iteration notes Tested on the southern horizontal wind While irrelevant to the schematic design, the erosion formed provocative interior spaces

63

5.0 Erosion Iterations 5.7 Iteration 6 - Crosscutting hybrid

Hybrid 01: Upper module horizontal, lower module 15d diagonal

Hybrid 02: Upper module 15d diagonal, lower module horizontal

Applying crosscutting methods found in geophysical conditions

Hybrid 01: Upper module horizontal, lower module 15d diagonal

Hybrid 02: Upper module 15d diagonal, lower module horizontal 64

5.0 Erosion Iterations 5.8 Iteration 7 - Crosscutting hybrid

Erosion directions Module A: Horizontally parallel (NE45d) and 13.5 degrees incline Module B: Horizontally parallel with module (NW15d) and 15 degrees incline Module D: Offset horizontally (NW15d) and 15 degrees incline Podium: 15 degrees incline (B variant opposite direction)

Cross cutting diagram B

65

3.0 Erosion Iterations 3.8 Combining iterations to base model

Initial attempts at combining generated erosion outcome with base rhino model.

Images shown, had eroded mesh roughly placed on top of base scheme 8 envelope from week 12.

66

6.0 Retopology

6.0 Retopology 6.1 Introduction

Generated erosion output from blender, voxelised mesh

Retopologised mesh, choosing striated lines over holes

Retopology is the process of simplifying the topology of a mesh to make it cleaner and easier to work with.

In general 3D modelling and animation industry, this process is essential for manipulating/deforming geometry, which happens when the geometry is animated.

In the context of this research elective, a clean topology allows for efficient adjustments, as the model is easier to iterate with. Following from the erosion simulation, the generated outcome will need to be retopologised for upcoming stages, such as applying wall thickness, precise openings, and 3D printing.

Current method of retopology is manual, each vertecies of the polysurface is hand placed, using the eroded voxel mesh as a base reference. While it is time consuming and can be automated, having manual control, enables selecting desired qualities from the erosion model. i.e. striated lines, instead of holes.

68

6.0 Retopology 6.2 Scheme 8 Week 13

Applying retopologised striations onto revised scheme 8 Observation made from retopology was that surfaces were much smoother than voxelised mesh, this is due to having low-poly topology then subdivided to have more smoother faces, which has the appearance of streamlined.

69

6.0 Retopology 6.2 Scheme 8 Week 13

Side task: Locate openings drawn in floor plans by Paul Morgan in the Model.

Experimenting with tubes from previous semester, to create oportuinites of void spaces.

Scheme 8 Intermeidate floor plan by Paul Morgan

70

6.0 Retopology 6.3 Digital Sculpting Method

Blender erosion iteration 05

Digitally sculpted envelope

Retopologised from sculpt

Sculpting Method

The development for West of envelope striations took a slight different approach, as there wasn’t a specific blender iteration that can be directly adapted into the base model.

Loosely based off of erosion iteration 05, the mesh has been sculpted in blender (similar to zbrush workflow) the sculpting process is essentially eyeballed, from reference images of iteration 05. Then I’ve applied mesh retopology on top of the sculpt.

71

6.0 Retopology 6.4 Scheme 8 Week 14

East podium and pool wall has been applied with striations West and Southwest envelope has been further developed, including the new striation method Two striation options of East podium A: striation running up B: striation running down Option A Version

Option B Version

72

7.0 Reflection

7.0 Reflection 7.1 Process Diagram 3

Process diagram 3 by Paul Morgan

Abstract vs representation

Design breakthroughs are highlighted with the star symbol in the diagram.

The primary being the erosion simulation in Blender. Where originally it was planned that the form finding process would predominately determined by CFD and ameba, Blender was effective at generating striation patterns, and interesting erosion forms by applying pseudogeophysics to a 3D particle simulation.

The current direction for what the form would look like is to not be one or the other, naturalistic or industrial. But it should fall into its own category of abstractions, as the result of hybridising different procedures and workflow.

The third process diagram draws out the two main stream of generative and figurative across the 3 week period. The two streams have been gradually coinciding together in developing these concepts and workflow,

Gathered from the discussions within the office, model sometimes looks machine-like, with form somewhat resembling of a streamlined vehicle.

Since the blender erosion, the model takes on the resemblance of geological rocks. While these representations aren't the direct intent of the process, it had still inevitably landed on these appearances as they share characteristics and conditions.

74

7.0 Reflection 7.2 Extended Reflection

My experience with PRE focused heavily on experimentation with design process.

It was an opportunity of applying both conceptual narrative and generative areas in design on a real life project.

The elective was immensely helpful at opening my perception of the industry.

Particularly within the crossing of fields in the work environment. In the office, I worked with Paul Morgan, who had a keen fascination in streamlined and kinetic formal languages, Peter Felicetti who has an ongoing PHD research on structural design, related to the project.

Collaborating within a cross-disciplinary team, allowed for interesting ideas to move across to new context. It is this hybridising of fields that breeds room for discoveries that could be read as accidental. I’m pleased that I was able to incorporate my existing proficiency of modelling and simulation in Blender into an entirely new domain of schematic design, which ended up as breakthroughs in the process timeline (as seen in process diagram 3).

It was also a worthwhile challenge for me to explain procedural and generative concepts to different disciplines. Terms such as ‘retopology’ or ‘voxel’ would often appear standard in a digital modelling background, but as fields overlap, terms would take on different meanings. The term ‘topology’ in modelling refers to the distribution of edges in a mesh geometry, but it can be used to describe qualities in landscape design. The elective had given me a chance to reconfigure my existing set of knowledge to a much broader and diverse context, which is achieved through the use of language, in writing, presentation and discourse.

In the past, I had a seemingly unending path of deciding which area I want to specialize or becoming a generalist in, being concerned of having to settle in one place. However, this elective opened up to me, knowing that these skills are applicable to multiple fields and can be dynamically transferred and experimented upon.

75