Studio 1 - Designing the Serpentine Pavilion 2020

the

SERPENTINE PAVILION 2020 S HAM BHAV I J O S H I M.Arch Year 2 CPU & A[i] Studio 1

“The Serpentine gallery is an international site for the presentation of not just individual art but also architectural design with very extensive, educational public programs involving artists, thinkers, writers, film-makers and so on”

Julia Peyton-Jones (former co-director of the Serpentine Gallery) in her interview titled ‘Think the Unthinkable’

2

thesis statement Tackling the changing climate is now a top priority set by many organizations. 38% of the world’s carbon emissions are a result of the architecture and construction industry.

Creating carbon neutral neighbourhoods and reducing the operational energy of buildings can be two important ways in which embodied carbon and carbon emissions can be controlled, treated and reduced.

With a large public footfall and an open educational platform, the project of Serpentine pavilion 2020 provides an ideal opportunity to create awareness on sustainable construction practices. It is vital that a project brief considers the factor of limitting embodied carbon.

Pavilions in the 70’s were designed with an approach of architectural experimentation of spaces.

This thesis aims to utilize the Serpentine pavilion project as an architectural methodology experiment to design a carbon neutral pavilion using the theory of treeconomics.

In simple terms, the thesis aims to design the Serpentine pavilion with the same amount of volume of material as much as the embodied carbon present in the trees surrounding the site. As an architectural spatial exploration, this thesis intends to design a pavilion that highlights the problem of climate change and the importance of inclusion, awareness and development of site context in designing carbon neutral neighbourhoods.

3

scope of thesis A flowchart explaining the journey of thesis from addressing the wider problem to transforming it into an architectural design output created using a set of theorotical and architectural theories

Cause

CLIMATE CHANGE

Reducing operational energy

Strategies

Use of biodiversity in site context as a potential resource in creating carbon neutral neighbourhoods

Construction Industry

Carbon emissions

Theory

Sustainable construction practices

Reducing embodied carbon

Theory of Treeconomics Theorotical Methodology

Architectural problem

SERPENTINE PAVILION

Carbon storage value of trees

Architectural methodology

Total embodied carbon

Constraints

Generative Design Process

Design Parameters

Material A Energy used to produce that value of carbon

Volumes of ‘x’ materials created by that energy

Material B Material ‘n’

Iterative Design Explorations

Material Limitations

Wider problem

Performance Evaluation

Set of Permissible Solutions

FINAL DESIGN OUTPUT Embodied carbon content of pavilion

Embodied carbon content of trees on site

4

Contents

01 02 03 04 05

Introducing CPU atelier brief and learning workshops conducted in semester 3

CPU Studios Studio 1 brief Jellyfish House

....07 ....08 ....09

Explaining the program requirements, site opportunities and its analysis

The Serpentine galleries Programme Site Analysis

....13 ....20 ....21

Elaborating the wider architectural problem of thesis, its scope and inferences

Treeconomics Energy Calculations

....24 ....30

Study of the problem specific precedents and the way their designs are approached

Future Space Pavilion Elytra Filament Pavilion MPavilion

....36 ....37 ....38

Theorotical Perspective on the methodology of generative design

thesis

Generative Design Theories Design Optimization

....41 ....44

06 07 08 09 10

A process of narrowing down the wider architectural problem into design idea

Design Approach Defining Parameters Idea Development

....48 ....51 ....54

Iterative analysis of parameters of the design, their flexibility , constraints and outputs

Iterations Design Outcome

....56 ....59

A synopsis of the final design outcome and its suitability within the site context

Technical Drawings Detailing

....61 ....XX

Visualization of the design outcome and the essence of the space it creates

Views References

....XX ....69

Data tables of trees’ embodied carbon storage calculations

Appendix I Appendix II

....71 ....72

5

CHAPTER

01

CPU Studios Studio 1 brief Jellyfish House

6

1.1 CPU Studios

As a part of Studio 1 learnings, CPU atelier conducted workshops & tutorials for students to understand better the technology and softwares essential for generative design processes

Briefly explaining the extent, scope and content of Studio 1, 2 and 3 and the workshops and tutorials conducted during Studio 1 Studio 1, 2 and 3 of Complexity, Planning and Urbanism (CPU) involves exploring the process of how design systems are created, developed, analysed and thrive.

Modern technology enables us to harness developments in machine learning, optimization, and other artificial intelligence technologies. It provides us to leverage the power of computing to solve complex problems in new, innovative ways.

Studio 1

RHINO

GRASSHOPPER

Rhino 3D tutorials encouraged understanding modelling of 2D curves to 3D surfaces and solids using commands of lofting, projecting, etc.

In aid with Rhino, Grasshopper tutorials taught the basic scripting knowledge and commands necessary for design optimization.

Studio 1 aims to understand the methodology of generative design processess.

In architectural field, the inspiration from nature has mostly been limited to ‘biomimicry’ or abstraction and reproduction of nature’s physical forms.

Grasshopper tutorial by Sam Bland

It aims at understanding the process of natural intelligence - the basic element of nature’s design is the species, a kind of model which encodes all of the unique properties and abilities of its individual members.

Studio 1

Studio 2

Studio 3

Studio 1 is an independent design project with a continuous methodology. The methods and design drivers from Studio 1 will be carried forward to Studio 2. Studio 2 and 3 will function as a whole, but the prior will involve analysis using the design methods and drivers from ST1 and the later will involve producing high performance output of design achieved using the analysis of ST2

OCTOPUS Octopus is a plugin used for Multi-Objective Evolutionary Optimization. The workshops focused on use of Octopus in producing a range of optimized trade-off solutions between the extremes of each goals in design.

DESIGN EXPLORER

DE is an open source tool for exploring design spaces. It lets you visualize & filter groups of iterations – sets of variety of possible design solutions. Colibri allows Grasshopper users to easily turn their Grasshopper definitions into Design Explorer – compatible design spaces.

BIOMORPHER

PYTHON

Biomorpher uses metaheuristic algorithms in Grasshopper to judge performance criteria and create evolutionary design exploration can be guided through choice alone. The workshops helped understand evolution of a design geometry into variety of iterations.

Python tutorials taught the basics of coding and encouraged to create our own codes and not simply rely on the available algorithms obtained from variety of plugins.

Python workshop by Solon Solomou

Biomorpher workshop by Sam Bland

7

1.2 STUdio 1 brief An overview of the project, its application and using generative design as a method to design the Serpentine pavilion.

CPU / AI

ST1 Aims

Atelier Agenda

Proposal for the Serpentine Pavilion in London, (for the summer from June to October) engaging with the social opportunities that public space can provide.

Studio 1 aims to learn about the generative design process using variety of softwares and plugins as tools while designing the Serpentine pavilion.

It aims to test the design project of Serpentine pavilion against the architectural design drivers required in creating a generative design.

The basic tool of nature’s design is evolution, which is an iterative process by which species are able to adapt and improve based on interaction with other species and their environment.

To understand how any project (in this case, the Serpentine Pavilion) can be designed keeping in mind the affect of climate change and how it affects materiality and construction of Serpentine Pavilion.

Context of Serpentine Pavilion, as well as its defining conditions, should be understood and encoded before generating generative models can be used to design.

1. Design systems which encode the full range of possibilities of a design concept.

2. Methods for measuring and quantifying the performance of these systems so that each design can be evaluated automatically by the computer.

The design profession has not evolved since computers were first introduced to the design world since 1960s.

Currently design methodology is based on their tools and media available but not the actual space or the construction of it. This is a medium for projective representation ‘to erase differences with engineers and does not enhance the architect’s understanding of occupation and space.

Computation as design methodology can could expand notions of what is meant by ‘environment’ and the architect’s understanding of design.

Artificial intelligence allows the ability to use process complex data and using concepts in natural intelligence. Computer’s processing capacity should be able to simulate any mental tool through programmed algorithms and represent data describing dynamic relations of data, containing nonstatic representations of space such as social and spatial phenomena.

3. Generate automated evolutionary processes which will allow to search through the design systems to find novel and high-performing designs.

8

1.3 Jellyfish House As an introduction to parametric modelling the primary task of Studio 1 included modelling the structure of Jellyfish House in Rhino.

As seen alongside, I modelled the structure using universal steel sections as stanchions and beams, with horzizontal mild steel purlins used for flooring and walling. The detailing of unique shaped voronoi cladding was created by Grasshopper scripts.

This task helped deepen the understanding of the tools that Rhino possesses. This will further aid the generative design process modelling of the Serpentine pavilion in Rhino.

Elevation 1

Isometric View

Elevation 2

Form Development

Roof Plan

Longitudinal Section

9

1.4 Jellyfish House As an introduction to parametric modelling the primary task of Studio 1 included modelling the structure of Jellyfish House in Rhino.

Sectional Isometric 1

Sectional Isometric 2

Exploded Isometric

10

“The Serpentine pavilion with its international influence, provides a chance to create awareness in the construction industry and the visiting population. This project aims to highlight, the need for sustainable architectural practices in future at all levels. The project utilises the theory of treeconomics and aims at establishing the link between contextual landscape and the architectural intervention�

11

CHAPTER

02

The Serpentine galleries Programme Site Analysis

12

2.1 Serpentine - brief history An array of maps showing landscape development at Hyde Park and Kensington gardens •

The Serpentine Gallery was established in 1970 and is housed in a Grade II listed former tea pavilion built in 1933–34 by the architect James Grey West

•

In 2013 the Serpentine Sackler Gallery, with an extension designed by Zaha Hadid Architects, was opened to the public, giving new life to The Magazine, a Grade II listed former gunpowder store built in 1805.

1536 - Kensington gardens was the western section of Hyde Park, which had been created by Henry VIII to use as a hunting ground 1637 - Hyde park opened to the public and quickly became popular, particularly for May Day parades 1728 - Kensington gardens eparated from the remainder of Hyde Park at the request of Queen Caroline and designed by Henry Wise and Charles Bridgeman in order to form a landscape garden 1726-1731 - Bridgeman created the Serpentine between 1726 and 1731 by damming the eastern outflow of the River Westbourne from Hyde Park 1805 - A powder magazine (now the Serpentine Sackler Gallery) was built north of the Serpentine 1851 - The Great Exhibition of 1851 was held in the park, for which The Crystal Palace, designed by Joseph Paxton, was erected

The 1733 Charles Bridgeman plan

1872 - The Albert memorial was opened in July 1872 by Queen Victoria, with the statue of Albert ceremonially “seated” in 1876 1977 - As part of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee, a Jubilee Exhibition was set up 2007 - Hyde Park has played host to the annual Winter Wonderland event, which features numerous Christmas-themed markets, along with various rides and attractions, alongside bars and restaurants

Plan by Joshua Rhodes 1769

Ordanance Survey 1867

13

2.2 Context

towards Paddington ground

towards Madame Tussauds

MARBLE ARCH

towards Paddington station towards Oxford Circus PADDINGTON STATION WELLINGTON ARCH

towards Ravenscourt park SERPENTINE SACKLER GALLERY

towards Piccadilly circus

SERPENTINE GALLERY

KENSINGTON PALACE ALBERT MEMORIAL

BUCKINGHAM PALACE

towards Hammersmith ROYAL ALBERT HALL

towards National History Museum

towards South Kensington

towards London Victoria 14

2.3 The Serpentine Introduction to the Serpentine galleries, the idea of Serpentine pavilion and their operatives.

Donations Sponsorships Foundations Trusts Individuals Place Hire Govt Sources

Free Access Technological Innovation

The Serpentine Gallery

Gallery

83%

17%

PREVIOUS PAVILIONS (2000-2019)

2020 ?

2019 Junya Ishigami 2018 Frida Escobedo

Annual Operating Income

2017 Diébédo Francis Kéré 2016 Bjarke Ingels 2015 Selgas Cano

THE SERPENTINE GALLERIES

2014 Smiljan Radic Restaurant

The Serpentine Gallery

2013 Sou Fujimoto 2012 Ai WeiWei and Herzog & De Meuron

The Serpentine Sackler Gallery

2011 Peter Zumthor 2010 Jean Nouvel

Ways of Engagement

Collaborative Work

2009 SANAA 2008 Frank Gehry 2007 Olaffur Eliasson and Kjetil Thorsen 2006 Rem Koolhaas

Projects

Exhibition Live Events

Architecture

Art

Design

2004 MVRDV (unbuilt)

The Serpentine Sackler Gallery • •

The Serpentine Galleries are two contemporary art galleries in Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, Central London.

Comprising the Serpentine Gallery and the Serpentine Sackler Gallery, they are within five minutes’ walk of each other, linked by the bridge over the Serpentine Lake.

2005 Alvaro Siza & Eduardo Souto de Moura

2003 Oscar Niemeyer Education Podcasts Programmes

Digital

Fashion

2002 Toyo Ito with Cecil Balmond 2001 Daniel Libeskind with Cecil Balmond 2000 Zaha Hadid 15

2.4 previous Serpentine pavilions A summary and comparison of some of the previous Serpentine Pavilions based on the factors like their preliminary idea, materials used, extent of dimensional spread of the pavilion, and design representations

Year

2000

2001

2002

2005

2008

2009

2011

2012

2013

2016

2019

Zaha Hadid

Daniel Libeskind with Cecil Balmond

Toyo Ito with Cecil Balmond

Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura

Frank Gehry

SANAA

Peter Zumthor

Ai WeiWei and Herzog & De Meuron

Sou Fujimoto

Bjarke Ingels

Junya Ishigami

Preliminary Idea

A tent-like structure that was supported by a triangulated framework

Created from sheer metallic planes and assembled in a dynamic sequence— similar to origami-like operations and rigid metal facade

The pattern is based on the incremental scaling and rotation of a series of inscribed squares

Paying homage to the existing neoclassical building by creating a rectangular grid which has been distorted to created curvaceous forms

The glass canopies of the pavilion implode within a wellarticulated framework and provide a hybrid between the gallery and the amphitheatre

A flat piece of highlyreflective aluminum supported by delicate columns aimed to look like smoke, cloud or water

A play on solids and voids, an enclosed garden meant to act as an intimate space

An archaeological approac of 12 uniquely designed columns that pay homage to the 11 previous pavilions at Serpentine and one to represent itself.

“The Cloud” was an irregularly-shaped semi-transparent blob composed of light grid modules, interrogating the relationship between humans and nature

“The Unzipped Wall” plays with space by transforming from a single line of tubular “bricks” at its top to an expansive space with a cafe and public space below

With inspiration from roofs the pavilion arranged slates to create a single canopy roof that appeared to emerge from the ground of the surrounding park

Dimensions

• •

30 X 20 X 5m 600m2

• •

• •

17.5 X 17.5 X 6.7m 310m2

• •

32 X 17 X 6m 544m2

• •

38.5 X 30 X 16m 550m2

• •

42 X 32 X 4m 557m2

• •

20.5 X 6.8 X5m 390m2

• •

22.4 X 22.4 X 2.6m 435m2

• •

24 X 24 X 8m 357m2

• •

27 X 12 X 14m 273m2

• •

33.8 X 23.5 X 5m 350m2

•

• Al panels Structure made with steel columns • Wooden floor • Steel columns Textile fabric Triangular surfaces

• • • • •

Ply-wood floor Steel columns Steel beams White Al plates Glass

•

Timber beams: glued wood Roof panels of polycarbonate Solar lights

•

Steel columns hidden behind wood Timber beams Glass panels

•

Thin Stainless steel columns Concrete floor Aluminium plates

• • •

Timber structure Painted panels Landscaped garden

•

Cork-lined columns Cladding Water pool Glass

•

400X800mm steel frames Acrylic steps and platforms

•

Interlocking fibreglass “bricks” Fibreglass frames

•

Pin-ended steel columns Orthogonal mesh Cumbrian Slate tiles

Previous Pavilions

Architects

27 X 16 X 5m 400m2

Design Process

Materials

• •

• •

• •

• •

• • •

•

•

• •

16

2.5 The Site The site sits adjacent to the Serpentine Gallery at the east end of Kensington gardens and is accessible by cars, bikes and by walking through Hyde park.

Pedestrian Pathways Road Trees Site

Site Area: ~1700 m2 Area of Pavilion: 300 m2

Access points to site Parking

17

2.7 Site photos I visited the site to understand how the place looks the rest of the year when the pavilion doesn’t exist, and to see the scale of the space and how people interact with it

A

B

C

A

D B E

C

D

E

18

2.8 Programme The Serpentine Pavilion hosts temporary spaces and events throughout the summer. These have been taken into account to design the spatial requirements of the pavilion.

Public Space

Events and Hires

10:00 am

11:00 pm

Late mornings

Late afternoons

Early Evenings

Late Evenings

Community lunch and idea sharing

Family events

Seminars, talks

Performance/ Space Hire events

Few recurring events every year

Recipes for Change

Architecture Family Pack and Programmes

A series of lunchtime picnic talks, with community groups sharing food and ideas for building social change

Sponsored by COS, this programme gives children and their families the chance to explore the Serpentine Pavilion from playful and original perspectives

COS X Serpentine Park Nights The Serpentine’s annual programme of talks, screenings and performances conceived specially for the Pavilion

London Kitchen Cafe A cafe is located inside the Pavilion throughout the summer serving refreshing drinks and light dishes for people while relaxing in the park

19

2.9 DEMOGRAPHICS 12.8 million visitors

Understanding the overall public footfall, rainfall, sunlight patterns, wind, etc at Kensington gardens and Hyde Park annually

104 tree species 37.5% tree cover Warmest month - July Coldest month - Jan Max avg. temp - 18.7o C Min avg. temp - 4.9o C Fig 14: Annual weather chart for London Fig 13: Wind Rose diagram shows how many hours per year the wind blows from the indicated direction

Fig 17: The graph shows the monthly number of sunny, partly cloudy, overcast and precipitation days

Fig 16: Avg temperatures against wind speeds observed during that month

20

2.10 Surrounding landscape Understanding the tree species around site. This will help to further draw inferences to initiate the approach.

London Plane

Distribution of Tree Species

35%

37%

Sweet Chestnut

5%

6%

4%

13% London Plane

Sweet Chestnut

Horse Chestnut

Lime

Oak

Maple, Ash, Birch, etc

Distribution of Tree Species in Hyde Park

Distribution of Tree Species 9%

Lime

21%

6%

13% 8%

Hawthorn

43% London Plane

Sweet Chestnut

Horse Chestnut

Lime

Oak

Maple, Ash, Birch, etc

Distribution of Tree Species in Kensington Gardens

Distribution of Tree Species around Site Hawthorn

Small Leaf Lime

London Plane

Sweet Chestnut

Common lime

21

2.11 Daylight analysis Shadow and sunlight study of the site and its surroundings. This will help to further draw inferences to initiate the approach

June

July

September

October

August

Mean area receiving maximum sunlight from June to October

22

The urban forest brings a dynamic aspect to the hard city, providing a range of benefits like flood protection, pollution filtration, carbon storage, space for recreation and habitat for wildlife. In most landscapes the benefits provided by such ‘natural capital’ is often poorly understood.

Economic valuation of our natural capital can help to mitigate for development, inform land use change and reduce any potential impact through planned intervention to avoid a net loss of natural capital.

Such information can be used to help make better management decisions.

23

CHAPTER

03

Treeconomics Energy Calculations

24

issues addressed Cause

CLIMATE CHANGE

Reducing operational energy

Strategies

Use of biodiversity in site context as a potential resource in creating carbon neutral neighbourhoods

Construction Industry

Carbon emissions

Theory

Sustainable construction practices

It elaborates the idea of Treeconomics, it’s relevance and importance in tackling climate change and designing carbon neutral spaces.

Reducing embodied carbon

Theory of Treeconomics Theorotical Methodology

Architectural problem

SERPENTINE PAVILION

Carbon storage value of trees

Architectural methodology

Total embodied carbon

Constraints

Generative Design Process

Design Parameters

Material A Energy used to produce that value of carbon

Volumes of ‘x’ materials created by that energy

Material B Material ‘n’

Iterative Design Explorations

Material Limitations

Wider problem

This section of work talks about the larger problem of climate change and the corresponding causes and effcts addressed in this thesis.

Performance Evaluation

Set of Permissible Solutions

FINAL DESIGN OUTPUT Embodied carbon content of pavilion

Embodied carbon content of trees on site

25

3.1 awareness 38% of the carbon emissions in the world come from Construction Industry

A wider understanding of the wider architectural problem of raising carbon emissions in construction industry and the initiatives taken to tackle it After the declaration of a climate emergency, the RIBA has set RIBA Chartered Practices a challenge of achieving the following reductions:

• Climate awareness as a subject has been well explored in art and installations but is yet to find a place in architectural spaces • Most of these installations only offer sentimental experience Reduce operational energy demand by at least 75%, before UK offsetting

Reduce embodied carbon by at least 50-70%, before UK offsetting

a visual and

• Only a few installations can be called architectural spaces and providing a spatial experience that makes one realise issues of climate crisis • There is a lot of potential to nderstand the climatic impacts of the construction industry and use the phenomena of the Serpentine Pavilion to create awareness

The UN Sustainibility Goals

• Modern computational tools and techniques can help save resources, energy, material and time Reduce potable water use by at least 40%

Achieve all core health and wellbeing targets

Baseline regulatory minimum

Business as Usual Worst Case Climate Change Outcomes

RIBA 2020 targets

RIBA 2030 targets

Post occupancy evaluation and strategies for finetuning existing buildings

Enhanced biodiversity and more green cover than before development on a site

Best Practice Trajectory

RIBA 2025 targets

Satisfactory Trajectory

2020

Minimum Trajectory

2025

Unsustainable Practice

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge Trajectories

26

3.2 Treeconomics:concept Treeconomics is the idea of looking at trees at biodiversity as an asset of economical value and low maintenance carbon storing mechanisms

Each tree has a carbon storage value

The carbon storage value varies from species to species of trees

The carbon storage value determines the amount of carbon emissions the tree can purify

On an average, life span of larger species is a several hundred years

Any tree keeps storing carbon till the end of its life span

What is the definition of

Urban Forest?

“The ecosystem containing all of the trees, plants and associated animals in the urban environment, both in and around dense human settlements�

1 London Plan tree

For eg: The adult species of London Plane tree can annually store carbon equivalent to

10 London Plane trees

Understanding the structure, function and value of trees within urban parks can enable people to become more engaged with their environment.Without this understanding, parks are at risk of being an undervalued, invisible asset.

The current ten-year management plan focuses on the need for a strategy for sustainably managing the trees, for their ecology, conservation and heritage contributions (LUC, 2005).

Economic valuation of our natural capital can help to mitigate for development, inform land use change and reduce any potential impact through planned intervention to avoid a net loss of natural capital. Such information can be used to help make better management decisions

39% carbon emissions of a single family home

Sulphur dioxide removal equivalent of upto 1 automobile

Carbon emissions produced by 25m2 of a domestic building

Carbon emissions produced by 20m2 of a non-domestic building

27

3.3 hyde park trees Understanding the trees in Hyde Park as an economical and environmental asset, to further utilize it for carbon neutral development

Step 1

Step 2

Site proposed for a residential development

Amount of clean air produced by trees on site after carbon sequestration

Step 3 Carbon emissions created while construction of development

Value of Pollutants removed and quantity per annum within Hyde park This graph shows that majority of the pollution paticles like NO2, ozone and SO2 are cleaned from the atmosphere by the trees in Hyde Park

Value of Pollutants removed and quantity per annum within Hyde park The species of London Plane is responsible for most of the carbon sequestration (natural process of carbon storage) in Hyde Park throughout the year

Step 4 Carbon sequestration cycle continued during and after development, reducing overall carbon emissions on site

Monthly pollution removal Step 5

Step 6

Controlled operational emissions of development nullyifying the carbon emissions created during construction

Carbon neutral neighbourhood achieved when operational carbon of development is nullified by trees on site and additional carbon sequestration continues

This bar graph shows that most of the pollution removal takes place post Spring and during summer from May to September.

Percentage Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) class by most significant species The comparative chart shows the diameters of tree trunks (DBH) against their population in Hyde Park. Majority of newly planted trees have a 7+ DBH while the existing trees are in a range of 15 to 30 DBH

28

Energy calculations Cause

CLIMATE CHANGE

Reducing operational energy

Strategies

Use of biodiversity in site context as a potential resource in creating carbon neutral neighbourhoods

Construction Industry

Carbon emissions

Theory

Sustainable construction practices

With aid to the theory of treeconomics, the total volume of material used in the pavilion should be less than or eual to the amount of carbon embodied in the trees surrounding the site Reducing embodied carbon

Theory of Treeconomics Theorotical Methodology

Architectural problem

SERPENTINE PAVILION

Carbon storage value of trees

Architectural methodology

Total embodied carbon

Constraints

Generative Design Process

Design Parameters

Material A Energy used to produce that value of carbon

Volumes of ‘x’ materials created by that energy

Material B Material ‘n’

Iterative Design Explorations

Material Limitations

Wider problem

This section describes the calculations undergone while defining the main constraint parameter of design that is the limit of material volume to be used.

Performance Evaluation

Set of Permissible Solutions

FINAL DESIGN OUTPUT Embodied carbon content of pavilion

Embodied carbon content of trees on site

29

3.4 carbon storage Calculating the amount of carbon stored in the trees surrounding the Serpentine pavilion site.

Carbon value calculated will give the amount of embodied carbon stored in one year by the trees surrounding the site.

This will set a constraint factor to the amount of energy to be used for the pavilion and also set the maximum volume of material that can be used.

Species Total no. of Trees in

London Plane

Horse Chestnut

Lime

Sweet Chestnut

Kensington Garden

307

408

1358

195

246

664

3178

Hyde Park

1174

127

413

190

159

1111

3174

Total

1481

385

535

405

1771

1775

6352

Oak

Others

Total Trees

Total Tree Distribution in Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park

Carbon Storage in Tonnes Number Carbon storage per Tree (in kg) No. of tree (on Site) Distribution of Tree Species around Site Hawthorn

Small Leaf Lime

London Plane

Sweet Chestnut

Common lime

Carbon storage in Tree (in kg)

3595.20

842.51

857.62

141.84

382.08

479.29

1481

535

385

405

1771

1775

2727.55

1574.79

368.42

943.41

484.26

270.02

6

11

24

1

0

1 Grand Total

14565.30

17322.69

11622.24

368.42

0

Embodied carbon calculation of trees surrounding the site

The trees around the site store approximately 45 tonnes of carbon per year and roughly more than 18 tonnes during summer from June to October (during the period when the pavilion is installed)

270.02

44148.67

kg

~ 45 tonnes (annually)

30

3.5 embobied energy Deriving a comparative chart of construction materials against their respective embodied energy and carbon values This is an important step which culminates into a major constraint of the design i.e. the volume of material to be used.

The maths behind embodied carbon calculationsFor eg: Q. Calculations for CONCRETE BLOCKS of Medium Density Step 1: Carrying forward the total amount of carbon storage calculated previously Step 2: From material library (see Appendix 1) • noting down the different construction materials • their value of Embodied Energy and • their Density and • the Embodied Carbon value Step 3: Calculating Mass of Concrete blocks for 45 T of CO2 from its carbon content Hence,

Step 4: Calculating Embodied Energy value for the equivalent mass of Concrete Blocks for 45 T of CO2

= 45 tonnes = 45000 kg of carbon

= 0.67 MJ/kg = 1450 kg / m3 = 0.07 CO2 / kg

for 0.07 of CO2

0.67 MJ/kg

for 45000 kg of CO2 = 0.67 X 45000 = 3285 kg

= Energy MJ/kg X 3285 = 0.67 MJ/kg X 3285 = 2200.95 MJ/kg

Step 5: Calculating Volume of Concrete Blocks for 45 T of CO2

Volume = V

Conclusion:

=

Mass Density 3285 1450

= 2.27 m3

Material Aggregate Glass fibre insulation (glass wool) Rockwool (slab) Slate Concrete block (Medium densiFor Eg: ty) Flax insulation Expanded Polystyrene insulation Gypsum plaster Terrazzo tiles Aerated block Concrete (1:1.5:3) Polyurethane insulation (rigid foam) Marble Bricks (common) Timber (general) Plasterboard Medium-density fibreboard Plywood Clay tile Ceramic tiles Glass Mineral fibre roofing tile Vinyl flooring PVC (general) Steel (general, av. recycled content) Iron (general) Lead (incl 61% recycled) Copper (average incl. 37% recycled) Aluminium (general & incl 33% recycled) Stainless steel Cement mortar (1:3) Vitrified clay pipe (DN 500) Glue laminated timber Ceramic sanitary ware Wallpaper Paint - Water-borne Paint - Solvent-borne Wool carpet Bitumen (general)

Energy Carbon [MJ/kg] [kg CO2/kg]

Material density [kg/m3]

Energy [MJ/kg] as per site trees (K*C)

Energy [MJ/ Tonne] as per site trees (G/1000)

Mass of Material Mass of Volume to material volume material in Energy ratio in Tonnes [m3] (K/E) kg (D*45000) (G/J) (K/1000)

0.08

0.00

2240

17.93

0.02

0.22

0.10

28

1.35

12

1701000.00

1701.00

60.75

16.8 0.1–1.0

1.05 0.006–0.058

24 1600

793800.00 792.00

793.80 0.79

0.67

0.07

1450

2200.95

39.5 88.6 1.8 1.4 3.5 1.11

1.7 2.55 0.12 0.12 0.3 0.16

30 15–30 1120 1750 750 2400

101.5

3.48

2 3 8.5 6.75 11 15 6.5 12 15 37 65.64 77.2

216.00

185.92

5062.50

60750.00

336

47.25 1.44

1968.75 0.90

47250.00 1440.00

403.2 880

2.20

3.29

2.27

3285.00

971.5

3021750.00 10166850.00 9720.00 7560.00 47250.00 7942.05

3021.75 10166.85 9.72 7.56 47.25 7.94

76.50 114.75 5.40 5.40 13.50 7.16

2550.00 5100.00 4.82 3.09 18.00 2.98

76500.00 114750.00 5400.00 5400.00 13500.00 7155.00

1185 1993.5 2016 2450 2625 2664

30

15894900.00

15894.90

156.60

5220.00

156600.00

3045

0.12 0.24 0.46 0.38 0.72 1.07 0.45 0.74 0.85 2.7 2.92 2.41

2500 1700 480–720 800 680–760 540–700 1900 2000 2500 1850 1200 1380

10440.00 32400.00 175950.00 115425.00 356400.00 722250.00 131625.00 399600.00 573750.00 4495500.00 8625096.00 8372340.00

10.44 32.40 175.95 115.43 356.40 722.25 131.63 399.60 573.75 4495.50 8625.10 8372.34

5.22 10.80 20.70 17.10 32.40 48.15 20.25 33.30 38.25 121.50 131.40 108.45

2.09 6.35 34.50 21.38 45.00 77.66 10.66 16.65 15.30 65.68 109.50 78.59

5220.00 10800.00 20700.00 17100.00 32400.00 48150.00 20250.00 33300.00 38250.00 121500.00 131400.00 108450.00

5000 5100 5100 5400 7920 9300 12350 24000 37500 68450 78768 106536

20.1

1.37

7800

1239165.00

1239.17

61.65

7.90

61650.00

156780

25 25.21

1.91 1.57

7870 11340

2148750.00 1781086.50

2148.75 1781.09

85.95 70.65

10.92 6.23

85950.00 70650.00

196750 285881.4

42

2.6

8600

4914000.00

4914.00

117.00

13.60

117000.00

361200

155

8.24

2700

57474000.00

57474.00

370.80

137.33

370800.00

418500

56.7 1.33 7.9 12 29 36.4 59 97 106 51

6.15 0.21 0.52 0.87 1.51 1.93 2.12 3.13 5.53 0.38–0.43

7850

15691725.00 12448.80 184860.00 469800.00 1970550.00 3161340.00 5628600.00 13662450.00 26378100.00 929475.00

15691.73 12.45 184.86 469.80 1970.55 3161.34 5628.60 13662.45 26378.10 929.48

276.75 9.36 23.40 39.15 67.95 86.85 95.40 140.85 248.85 18.23

35.25

276750.00 9360.00 23400.00 39150.00 67950.00 86850.00 95400.00 140850.00 248850.00 18225.00

445095

2200.95 MJ / kg of energy is required for creating 2.27 m3 of Concrete Blocks bearing the embodied carbon value of 45 tonnes

31

3.6 material massing

Volume of respective materials created having the CO2 content of 45 tonnes:

Elimination of high energy materials and retaining a set of buildable materials from the previous list The choice of materials depends on the ratio of Energy used to create/treat/ generate that material to the amount of volume created by that energy.

The ratio is inversely proportional.

Hence,

the material is not fit to use and can be eliminated if the volume generated is low and the energy invested to create it is high.

Slate

Marble

Concrete Block

Concrete

Terrazzo Tiles

Brick

Steel

0.90 m3

2.09 m3

2.27 m3

2.98 m3

2.98 m3

6.35 m3

7.90 m3

* Aluminium as a material is eliminated due to high energy required during making process. Hence, even if the material has high carbon storage value, it is not sustainable.

Aerated Block 18.00 m3

Conclusion:

As a sustainable alternative among the materials mentioned alongside, Timber and Plywood are chosen as ideal materials for the construction of this pavilion

Plaster Board 21.38 m3

Timber

MDF

Plywood

34.50 m3

45.00 m3

77.66 m3

Material

Slate

Concrete block (Medium density)

Energy MJ/Tonne

0.79

2.20

7.56

47.25

7.94

10.44

32.40

175.95

115.43

356.40

722.25

573.75

1239.17

57474.00

Mass of material in Tonnes

1.44

3.29

5.40

13.50

7.16

5.22

10.80

20.70

17.10

32.40

48.15

38.25

61.65

370.80

Material volume m3

0.90

2.27

3.09

18.00

2.98

2.09

6.35

34.50

21.38

45.00

77.66

15.30

7.90

137.33

Terrazzo tiles

Aerated block

Concrete

Marble

Brick

Timber

Plaster board

MDF

Plywood

Glass

Steel

Aluminium

32

After the results obtained from treeconomics calculations, it was necessary to understand the materiality of the pavilion with respect to any similar previous explorations and pavilion design precedents in order to understand the structural systems, their scope and opportunities offered with each material used. Precedent study also helped in understanding the design abstraction steps involved in recreating the essence of forest like pavilion.

33

CHAPTER

04

Precedent Studies Future Space Pavilion Elytra Filament Pavilion MPavilion

34

4.1 FUTURE SPACE PAVILION (2018) The project explores the potential of the material presence of wood in a non-typical “building” environment as a structure that should transmit a spatial experience. Ar. Peter Pichler designed this pyramidal pavilion as three separate wings gradually changing in height by simply stacking and rotating different lengths of wood sticks using 1,600 wooden beams.

Fig 1: Horizontal Section at +0.10 m

Fig 5: Horizontal Section at +0.10 m

Fig 2: Horizontal Section at +0.80 m

Fig 6: Horizontal Section at +2.20 m

Fig 3: Horizontal Section at +1.50 m

Roof Plan

Fig 4: Horizontal Section at +2.20 m

The symmetrical structure is inspired by the extraordinary quality of the Renaissance proportions of the courtyard of Ca’ Granda and plays with the fundamental elements of Renaissance style: symmetry, proportion and geometry.

Fig 7: Horizontal Section at +2.20 m

35

4.2 Elytra Filament Pavilion (2016) The cellular canopy grows from an onsite fabrication nucleus, and it does so in response to patterns of inhabitation of the garden over time, driven by real time sensing data. The pavilion’s capacity to be locally produced, to expand and to contract over time provides a vision of future inner city green areas with responsive semi-outdoor spaces that enable a broader spectrum of public activities

Fig 11: Modular assembly of each spaceframe

Small Aperture

Medium Aperture

Temperature Mapping

Public Movement Mapping

Pressure Mapping

Large Aperture

Fig.8

Fig.9 Carbon filament weaving- Stage 1

Carbon edge reinforcement

Genetic Carbon

Structurally Differentiated Carbon

Stage 2

Glass Scaffolding

Stage 3

Generic Carbon

Glass Enclosure

Carbon edge reinforcement

Fig 10: Carbon filament weaving- Stage 1

36

4.3 M Pavilion (2015) The MPavilion by Amanda Levete explores patterns of foliage, shadows and thresholds using computational tools. A rigid in nature, triangular base grid is explored to support a fluid yet geometric form of canopy.

Stage 1

Lines of the panel are rotated at 120 and 240 degrees to form a uniform shape. Intersecting edges are to be converted to curves and circles established at centres of the curves, each of these elements are referred as ‘petal’

Stage 2

Stage 4

All intersecting lines trimmed to form one surface with various structural support elements

Stage 5

All lines filleted together and surface created joining the outer curves

Lines are drawn at 22.5 degrees with the petal centroid as the point of rotation. Surface lines exceeding the petals are trimmed off.

Stage 3

Stage 6

Six small petals are rotated at 60 degree angle to make one bigger sized petal

Circular pattern is duplicated thrice onto the bigger petal and the lines exceeding the petal are trimmed off.

1. Structure 2. Circulation area / Attractor point 3. Circulation Pattern

1. Shelter 2. Transitional space / Threshold 3. Inner-Outer Zones, Boundaries

Fig.12

37

CHAPTER

05

Generative Design Theories Design Optimization

38

Theorotical perspective Cause

CLIMATE CHANGE

Reducing operational energy

Strategies

Use of biodiversity in site context as a potential resource in creating carbon neutral neighbourhoods

Construction Industry

Carbon emissions

Theory

Sustainable construction practices

Reducing embodied carbon

Theory of Treeconomics Theorotical Methodology

The theories highlight the limitations of manual design approach vs. a computational approach to design. They also talk about how design parameters are defined for a computational design approach, how they are modelling using the aid of softwares and other selection techniques.

The section concludes with the evolution of the idea of a pavilion.

Architectural problem

SERPENTINE PAVILION

Carbon storage value of trees

Architectural methodology

Total embodied carbon

Constraints

Generative Design Process

Design Parameters

Material A Energy used to produce that value of carbon

Volumes of ‘x’ materials created by that energy

Material B Material ‘n’

Iterative Design Explorations

Material Limitations

Wider problem

This section explains the process of design of generative and evolutionary systems in design.

Performance Evaluation

Set of Permissible Solutions

FINAL DESIGN OUTPUT Embodied carbon content of pavilion

Embodied carbon content of trees on site

39

5.1 the design space Generative design is a technology that mimics nature’s evolutionary approach to design.

It starts with the design goals of a project and then explores all of the possible permutations of a solution to find the best option.

Using cloud computing, generative design software quickly cycles through thousands or even millions of design choices, testing configurations and learning from each iteration what works and what doesn’t.

This process lets designers generate brand new options, beyond what a human alone could create, to arrive at the most effective design.

Input Layer

Hidden Layer

Output Layer

X1 X2

Out1

X3

Out2

Create Initial Population

Crossover to produce children

Satisfy stop criterion

Outn

X5

Roulette selection of parents

Calculate fitness of individuals

Out3

X4

Start

Mutation of children

Calculate fitness of children

New generation by ‘Elitism’ END

Xn

Basic Model for Artificial Neural Network

Basic Model for Genetic Network(GA)

40

5.2 learning from nature Population

3-dimensional

The three physical dimensions are responsible for free movement along three independent directions within its physical space. We can think of the dimensions of

any system as its ‘degrees within the system.

Evaluation Decode

2-dimensional

Reproduction and mutation occur

NO

YES

1-dimensional

Mutation creates variation

Unfavourable mutations selected against

Is termination criteria met?

0-dimensional

Replace old population with offsprings

Selection Encode

Humans have always seen a keen interest about how design occurs in nature. We have been studying process of natural evolution resulting in a final design solutions. From nature, we can learn similar strategies in the design processes that we undertake and expand the limits of design.

Cross-over

Mutations

Survival Optimal set

Favourable mutations likely to survive

Favourable mutations reproduce

of freedom’, which define the realm of possibilities

In 1859, Charles Darwin, in his book On the Origin of Species, talks that the key to nature’s design is the evolutionary process. Members of the same species share common characteristics i.e. of reproduction.

Main steps of the optimization process using genetic algorithms

Evolutionary process in nature

The reproductive process continuously improves the species through adaptation and interaction with other species and its environment in a process called

‘natural selection’.

NO Satisfy conditions?

Sampling

?

Selection

Species compete within limited resources and only the ones, which are well-adapted to their environment, remain

Breeding

The surviving population reproduces for creating new offsprings which share some of their characteristics

Selection and Breeding are two main operators focused primarily on exploitation in the evolutionary process

Mutation

In this process, random changes are seen in some of the offspring’s characteristics

Standard

Unexpected yet high performing

Expressionistic

In the desire to explore things never done before, designs end up on one of the extremes — either reinforcing normative design at the expense of novelty, or pushing for expressive form at the expense of performance.

Novelty vs. Performance

Mutation explores designs that support development of species’ diversity, helping them adapt in the constantly changing environment

Exploitation vs. Exploration

Input Data Design Targets Input Variables

Generation

Constraint Functions

YES

Simulation

Optimize Results

Creating Database

Outputs generated

Objective Functions

In the desire to explore things never done before, designs end up on one of the extremes — either reinforcing normative design at the expense of novelty, or pushing for expressive form at the expense of performance.

Process of Optimization 41

5.3 the design space Design of systems encode the full range of formal possibilities for a particular design concept.

In architectural design, such flexible systems are typically defined through parametric modelling software such as Grasshopper, which uses a set of parameters to drive a series of geometric operations that produce the final form.

Genotype

Phenotype

Complex variables that will affect design output

Idea

Output form achieved by application of complex variables

Design 1

Abstraction

Modifying rules

Formalization and (starting) parameters

Z parameter

Rule Algorithm

Xp

Bias ara

Source Code

me

ter

r ete

Design 2

m

Y

ra pa

Output obtained by not fully describe the possibilities obtained by design variables

Too flexible output providing much larger design space than necessary

Designer Balance

modifies source code or parameters

Interpretation by the computer

Variance

Design 3 Output

Designer Judges the output

Parametric model with 3 inputs as 3-dimensional design space

Continuity Continuity refers to the internal consistency and structure of the design space

Complexity Complexity refers to the potential of a design space to create unpredictable results beyond our own intuition

42

5.4 design optimization INPUT PARAMETERS

The design space model is composed of geometric operations and produces formal design options, for the purposes of optimization it can be thought of as an abstract function that incorporates all of the objective and constraint functions that describe any given design

OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS

CONSTRAINT FUCTIONS ==

Every optimization problem is defined by three main components: (1) a vector of input data hich describes every possible design in the system (2) a set of one or more objective functions that describe the goals of the system

Heuristic solution example

(3) an optional set of constraint functions which determine the feasibility of any design

Discrete Values

usually represented by integers

Maximise

Exactly equal

maximum value function

=<

Continuous Values

defines continuous parameters

Minimize

Less than a value

minimum value function

<= 2

5

3

Permutation Sequences

fixing the number of elements

Single - objective

Greater than a value

problem defined by one objective

OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES

Problem: Given are a set of cities in USA, and the goal is to find the shortest route that visits each city once before returning to the starting city Solution: With 10 cities, there are 3,628,800 possible routes With Heuristic strategy, we apply the route parameter of closest city unvisited This gives the shortest route with a halt at each city

Direct Analysis

Gradient Descent

Exhaustive Enumeration

DETEMINISTIC METHODS

Heuristic Solution

Monte Carlo Random Sampling

Stochastic Gradient Descent

Metaheuristics

STOCHASTIC METHODS 43

CHAPTER

06

Design Approach Defining Parameters Idea Development

44

Approach & METHODOLOGY Cause

CLIMATE CHANGE

Reducing operational energy

Strategies

Use of biodiversity in site context as a potential resource in creating carbon neutral neighbourhoods

Construction Industry

Carbon emissions

Theory

Sustainable construction practices

A synopsis of framework used generate variety of outputs.

Step by step methodology explaining the input parameters of design, their scope, aim and expected result.

Reducing embodied carbon

Theory of Treeconomics Theorotical Methodology

Architectural problem

SERPENTINE PAVILION

Carbon storage value of trees

Architectural methodology

Total embodied carbon

Constraints

Generative Design Process

Design Parameters

Material A Energy used to produce that value of carbon

Volumes of ‘x’ materials created by that energy

Material B Material ‘n’

Iterative Design Explorations

Material Limitations

Wider problem

This section explains the selection and application methodology of the appropriate architectural design parameters based on the design approach.

Performance Evaluation

Set of Permissible Solutions

FINAL DESIGN OUTPUT Embodied carbon content of pavilion

Embodied carbon content of trees on site

45

6.1 APPROACH The idea of the user experience of the pavilion is to highlight the trees surrounding the site and to create awareness of their ability of carbon embodiment.

The funnel shaped forms channelize and focus the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision towards a sustainable solution of how architectural structures can be carbon negative in future.

Viewing a Group of Trees

Viewing a Single Tree

Viewing Two Trees

46

6.2 SITE EXTENTS This explains the process of establishing a base site surface to start with the methodology

Site offset

Creating base set of points for further methodology

Buildable space for pavilion Offset from trees

47

6.3 Methodology A step by step procedure followed to establish the input variables in order to achieve variation in iterations

*Click on the image above to play the video

STEP 1: Generating a random set of points on the central space of site

*Click on the image above to play the video

STEP 2: Picking one point at a time to test the visibility range.

(The point acts as a viewpoint of a person standing inside the pavilion)

*Click on the image above to play the video

STEP 3: Testing visibility range of each viewpoint to see which trees are viewed from each point

*If videos do not work, check additional files submitted with portfolio

48

6.3 Methodology A step by step procedure followed to establish the input variables in order to achieve variation in iterations

*Click on the image above to play the video

STEP 4: Setting up an input parameter to detect 4 to 8 axis lines at one time to generate iterations

*Click on the image above to play the video

STEP 5: Creating Funnel massing along the axis lines to create the focus effect

*Click on the image above to play the video

STEP 3: Testing visibility range of each viewpoint to see which trees are viewed from each point

*If videos do not work, check additional files submitted with portfolio

49

6.4 GENERATIVE PROCESS Following diagram explains the process of generative design carried out in the design of the pavilion. It expresses the Input Parameters generating variety of iterations and the output parameters measured from them

Randomized Point Cloud Floor Area of Pavilion [m2] Randomized Point Volume of Structure [m3]

No. of Axes Lines

Extent of Axis Lines

Mass of Timber [kg]

Randomized Axis Lines

Energy required to generate the material of the structure [mJ] Generating Taper Solids on Axes

Randomizing Heights of Tapers

INPUT PARAMETERS

Embodied Carbon Value [Tonnes] Generating 2916 iterations based on the combinations created by input parameters

PROCESS

OUTPUT PARAMETERS 50

6.5 EXPLORATION A summary of 2916 iterations achieved by 6 steps of input parameters explained previously

INPUT PARAMETERS

OUTPUT PARAMETERS

GENERATED ITERATIONS

51

CHAPTER

07

Iterations Design Outcome

52

Approach & Iterations Cause

CLIMATE CHANGE

Reducing operational energy

Strategies

Use of biodiversity in site context as a potential resource in creating carbon neutral neighbourhoods

Construction Industry

Carbon emissions

Theory

Sustainable construction practices

The design space as a whole is given architectural parameters like height, width and length of the massing required on site. A number of iterations are generated based on the input parameters. Based on the outputs, iterations are compared against their feasibility and constraints.

Reducing embodied carbon

Theory of Treeconomics Theorotical Methodology

Architectural problem

SERPENTINE PAVILION

Carbon storage value of trees

Architectural methodology

Total embodied carbon

Constraints

Generative Design Process

Design Parameters

Material A Energy used to produce that value of carbon

Volumes of ‘x’ materials created by that energy

Material B Material ‘n’

Iterative Design Explorations

Material Limitations

Wider problem

This section explains the selection and application of the appropriate architectural design parameters based on the design approach.

Performance Evaluation

Set of Permissible Solutions

FINAL DESIGN OUTPUT Embodied carbon content of pavilion

Embodied carbon content of trees on site

53

7.1 EXTREME OUTCOMES of INPUTS An exploration of extreme outcomes of the iteration process

OUTCOMES BASED ON EXTREME INPUTS

Maximized

Minimized

INPUT VALUES

Outcomes:

PointCloudRandomizer: PointRandomizer: AxisExtent: NoofAxisLines: AxisLinesRandomizer: Taper 1: Taper 2: HeightRandomizer:

10 10 15 8 50 5 5 10

0 0 12 6 25 3 3 5

10 10 12 6 25 3 3 5

0 0 10 4 0 3 2 10

54

7.2 EXTREME OUTCOMES of OUTPUTS An exploration of extreme outcomes of the iteration process

OUTCOMES BASED ON EXTREME OUTPUTS

Maximized

Minimized

OUTPUT VALUES

Outcomes:

Floor Area(m2): Vol. of Structure(m3): Mass of Timber(kg): Energy Required(MJ): CO2 generated(Tonnes):

1256.858213 601.123037 432808.58664 3678900 50.918657

820.061863 413.21834 297517.2048 2528900 35.007

743.2219 416.063476 299565.70272 2546300 35.243024

605.110357 195.051789 140437.28808 1193700 16.522034

55

7.3 OPTIMIZED OUTCOMES An exploration of outcomes of the iteration process generated by setting specific constraints to input and output parameters

OUTCOMES BASED ON CONSTRAINTS

(of Axis Lines, Minimal Size of Taper, Floor Area Achieved and Embodied CO2 Value less than 45 Tonnes)

OUTPUT VALUES

INPUT VALUES

Outcomes:

PointCloudRandomizer: PointRandomizer: AxisExtent: NoofAxisLines: AxisLinesRandomizer: Taper 1: Taper 2: HeightRandomizer:

Point Cloud Randomizer : 0 Point Randomizer : 0 Axis Extent : 12 No of Axis Lines : 4 Axis Lines Randomizer : 25 Taper1 : 2 Taper2 : 2 Height Randomizer : 5

Point Cloud Randomizer : 0 Point Randomizer : 0 Axis Extent : 10 No of Axis Lines : 4 Axis Lines Randomizer : 0 Taper1 : 2 Taper2 : 3 Height Randomizer : 0

Floor Area(m2): Vol. of Structure(m3): Mass of Timber(kg): Energy Required(MJ): CO2 generated(Tonnes):

Floor Area[m2] : 755.970642 Volume of Structure[m3] : 319.122984 Mass of Timber[kg] : 229768.54848 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1953000 CO2 [Tonnes] : 27.031594

Floor Area[m2] : 777.165162 Volume of Structure[m3] : 372.831065 Mass of Timber[kg] : 268438.3668 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2281700 CO2 [Tonnes] : 31.580984

Point Cloud Randomizer : 0 Point Randomizer : 10 Axis Extent : 10 No of Axis Lines : 4 Axis Lines Randomizer : 50 Taper1 : 2 Taper2 : 3 Height Randomizer : 10 Floor Area[m2] : 641.732834 Volume of Structure[m3] : 326.990534 Mass of Timber[kg] : 235433.18448 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2001200 CO2 [Tonnes] : 27.698022

Point Cloud Randomizer : 10 Point Randomizer : 0 Axis Extent : 15 No of Axis Lines : 6 Axis Lines Randomizer : 25 Taper1 : 3 Taper2 : 3 Height Randomizer : 5 Floor Area[m2] : 666.526411 Volume of Structure[m3] : 334.835697 Mass of Timber[kg] : 241081.70184 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2049200 CO2 [Tonnes] : 28.362553

56

7.4 FEW FAVOuRABLE outputs A limited set of outputs shortlisted based on input and output parameters and their practicality consideration

Floor Area[m2] : 881.370439 Volume of Structure[m3] : 416.44875 Mass of Timber[kg] : 299843.1 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2548700 CO2 [Tonnes] : 35.275659

Floor Area[m2] : 755.970642 Volume of Structure[m3] : 359.977838 Mass of Timber[kg] : 259184.04336 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2203100 CO2 [Tonnes] : 30.49224

Floor Area[m2] : 859.827508 Volume of Structure[m3] : 413.33299 Mass of Timber[kg] : 297599.7528 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2529600 CO2 [Tonnes] : 35.011736

Floor Area[m2] : 806.462381 Volume of Structure[m3] : 393.920421 Mass of Timber[kg] : 283622.70312 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2410800 CO2 [Tonnes] : 33.367377

Floor Area[m2] : -999 Volume of Structure[m3] : 306.71514 Mass of Timber[kg] : 220834.9008 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1877100 CO2 [Tonnes] : 25.980577

Floor Area[m2] : -999 Volume of Structure[m3] : 372.759774 Mass of Timber[kg] : 268387.03728 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2281300 CO2 [Tonnes] : 31.574946

Floor Area[m2] : -999 Volume of Structure[m3] : 306.71514 Mass of Timber[kg] : 220834.9008 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1877100 CO2 [Tonnes] : 25.980577

Floor Area[m2] : 821.543564 Volume of Structure[m3] : 404.66957 Mass of Timber[kg] : 291362.0904 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2476600 CO2 [Tonnes] : 34.277893

Floor Area[m2] : 552.541492 Volume of Structure[m3] : 286.430052 Mass of Timber[kg] : 206229.63744 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1753000 CO2 [Tonnes] : 24.26231

Floor Area[m2] : 552.541492 Volume of Structure[m3] : 286.430052 Mass of Timber[kg] : 206229.63744 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1753000 CO2 [Tonnes] : 24.26231

Floor Area[m2] : 1226.569062 Volume of Structure[m3] : 582.971428 Mass of Timber[kg] : 419739.42816 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 3567800 CO2 [Tonnes] : 49.381109

Floor Area[m2] : -999 Volume of Structure[m3] : 367.657439 Mass of Timber[kg] : 264713.35608 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2250100 CO2 [Tonnes] : 31.142748

Floor Area[m2] : 801.253246 Volume of Structure[m3] : 366.994598 Mass of Timber[kg] : 264236.11056 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2246000 CO2 [Tonnes] : 31.086601

Floor Area[m2] : 881.370439 Volume of Structure[m3] : 416.44875 Mass of Timber[kg] : 299843.1 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2548700 CO2 [Tonnes] : 35.275659

Floor Area[m2] : 768.648909 Volume of Structure[m3] : 311.725265 Mass of Timber[kg] : 224442.1908 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1907800 CO2 [Tonnes] : 26.404964

Floor Area[m2] : 740.371103 Volume of Structure[m3] : 353.873899 Mass of Timber[kg] : 254789.20728 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2165700 CO2 [Tonnes] : 29.975201

Floor Area[m2] : 622.899549 Volume of Structure[m3] : 307.744211 Mass of Timber[kg] : 221575.83192 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1883400 CO2 [Tonnes] : 26.067745

Floor Area[m2] : -999 Volume of Structure[m3] : 368.799546 Mass of Timber[kg] : 265535.67312 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2257100 CO2 [Tonnes] : 31.239491

Floor Area[m2] : 888.112517 Volume of Structure[m3] : 315.251516 Mass of Timber[kg] : 226981.09152 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 1929300 CO2 [Tonnes] : 26.703658

Floor Area[m2] : 755.970642 Volume of Structure[m3] : 359.977838 Mass of Timber[kg] : 259184.04336 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2203100 CO2 [Tonnes] : 30.49224

Floor Area[m2] : 845.455337 Volume of Structure[m3] : 391.113978 Mass of Timber[kg] : 281602.06416 Energy Req for structure[mJ] : 2393600 CO2 [Tonnes] : 33.129655

57

7.5 FINAL design outcome

Perspective view of design outcome

Pavilion footprint and lines of vision looking at trees 58

CHAPTER

09

Views References

59

60

61

62

9.1 References Online References: 1. SERPENTINE PAVILION 2018 DESIGNED BY FRIDA ESCOBEDO. (2018). [ebook] Available at: https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/files/pressreleases/pavilion_2018_press_pack_final_0.pdf [Accessed 10 Nov. 2019].

2. SERPENTINE PAVILION 2019 DESIGNED BY JUNYA ISHIGAMI. (2019). [ebook] Available at: 6. https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/files/pressreleases/pavilion_2019_press_pack_final_0.pdf [Accessed 2 Dec. 2019].

3. SERPENTINE AUGMENTED ARCHITECTURE BRIEF. (2019). [ebook] Available at: 4. https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/files/press-releases/short_ version_serpentine_augmented_architecture_brief_for_press_.pdf [Accessed 8 Nov. 2019].

4. SERPENTINE PAVILION 2014 Designed by Smiljan Radić. (2014). [ebook] Available at: https://www.serpentinegalleries.org/sites/default/files/ press-releases/2014-06-23PavilionPressPackwithSponsors-%20Final. pdf [Accessed 18 Dec. 2019].

5. The Royal Parks. (2020). Hyde Park. [online] Available at: https://www. royalparks.org.uk/parks/hyde-park [Accessed 24 Nov. 2019].

6. Web.archive.org. (2020). Kensington Gardens. [online] Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20100527231143/http:/www.royalparks. org.uk/parks/kensington_gardens/ [Accessed 5 Dec. 2019].

7. Serpentine Galleries. (2020). COS x Serpentine Park Nights 2019: Shawanda Corbett, Blackbird in Mississippi. [online] Available at: https:// www.serpentinegalleries.org/exhibitions-events/cos-x-serpentinegalleries-park-nights-2019-shawanda-corbett-blackbird [Accessed 2 Dec. 2019].

8. Architonic. (2020). Future Space Pavilion by Peter Pichler Architecture | Installations. [online] Available at: https://www.architonic.com/en/ project/peter-pichler-architecture-future-space-pavilion/20011879 [Accessed 1 Dec. 2019].

9. Frearson, A. (2020). Peter Pichler builds pyramid pavilion using 1,600 wooden beams. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen. com/2018/04/16/peter-pichler-wooden-pyramid-pavilion-milandesign-week/ [Accessed 1 Dec. 2019].

10. Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.3, Fig.4, Fig.5, Fig.6, Fig.7 - Say, A. (2020). Future Space Pavilion by Peter Pichler Architecture - Parametric Architecture. [online] Parametric Architecture. Available at: https://parametric-architecture. com/future-space-pavilion-by-peter-pichler-architecture/ [Accessed 1

Dec. 2019].

11. Timber Beam Calculator. (2020). Calculation Results - Timber Beam Calculator. [online] Available at: https://www.timberbeamcalculator. co.uk/results2/timber-beam-calculator?orderby=depth [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].

12. Nhbccampaigns.co.uk. (2020). NHBC Standards 2010. [online] Available at: http://nhbccampaigns.co.uk/landingpages/techzone/previous_ versions/2010/Part6/section4/appendix.htm [Accessed 30 Nov. 2019].

13. Tt-acm.github.io. (2020). Design Explorer 2. [online] Available at: https:// tt-acm.github.io/DesignExplorer/ [Accessed 30 Nov. 2019].

14. MPen Design. (2020). MPen Design. [online] Available at: https://www. mpendesign.com/ [Accessed 30 Nov. 2019].

15. Fig.8, Fig.9, Fig.10 - Achimmenges.net. (2020). Elytra Filament Pavilion, Victoria & Albert Museum | achimmenges.net. [online] Available at: http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5922 [Accessed 29 Nov. 2019].

16. Fig.11 - Detail-online.com. (2020). Honourable mention DETAIL structure 2016: Elytra Filament Pavilion, London, United Kingdom – Achim Menges with Moritz Dörstelmann, Jan Knippers and Thomas Auer. [online] Available at: https://www.detail-online.com/article/honourablemention-detail-structure-2016-elytra-filament-pavilion-london-unitedkingdom-achim-m/ [Accessed 29 Nov. 2019].

17. HYDE PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN. (2016). [ebook] Available at: http:// hyde-park-landscape-management-plan.pdf [Accessed 29 Nov. 2019].

18. Kensington Gardens Tree Strategy. (2014). [ebook] Available at: http:// Kensington-Gardens-Tree-Strategy-2014-Report-lowres.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

19. ONE KENSINGTON GARDENS. (2020). [ebook] Available at: http:// KRD130829-en-brochure-1.pdf [Accessed 18 No. 2019].

20. Treeconomics: How to put a fair price tag on urban forests. (2018). [ebook] Available at: http://New-Scientist-Article.pdf [Accessed 30 Nov. 2019].

21. RIBA 2030 CLIMATE CHALLENGE. (2019). [ebook] Available at: http://RIBA2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf [Accessed 29 Nov. 2019].

22. Vanishing Point. (n.d.). [ebook] Available at: http://Silvia_Lavin_Pavillions. pdf [Accessed 29 Nov. 2019].

23. Strength Graded Timber and Span Tables. (n.d.). [ebook] Available at: http://Span_Table_2019.pdf [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].

24. HYDE PARK TREE BENEFITS. (2017). [ebook] Available at: http:// TreeconomicsHydeParkReport.pdf [Accessed 30 Nov. 2019].

25. Fig.12 - Mairs, J. (2020). Amanda Levete’s forest-like MPavilion opens in Melbourne. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen. com/2015/10/05/amanda-levete-architects-mpavilion-queen-victoriagardens-melbourne-australia-fibreglass-forest-petals/ [Accessed 14 Dec. 2019].

26. Fig.13, Fig.16, Fig.17 - meteoblue. (2020). Climate London. [online] Available at: https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/historyclimate/ climatemodelled/london_united-kingdom_2643743 [Accessed 19 Oct. 2019].

27. Fig.14, Fig.15 - En.climate-data.org. (2020). London climate: Average Temperature, weather by month, London weather averages - ClimateData.org. [online] Available at: https://en.climate-data.org/europe/ united-kingdom/england/london-1/#climate-graph [Accessed 19 Oct. 2019].

Books: 1. Agkathidis, A. (2015). Generative design. London: Laurence King Publishing.

2. BERNSTEIN, P. (2018). ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN | DATA. [Place of publication not identified]: BIRKHAUSER. 3. Menges, A. (2015). Material synthesis: fusing the physical and the computational. London: John Wiley & Sons.

4. Di Mari, A. (2014). Conditional design: an introduction to elemental architecture. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.

5. Terzidis, K. (2006). Algorithmic architecture. Oxford: Architectural Press.

6. Jabi, W. (2013). Parametric design for architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing.

7. Krauel, J. (2010). Contemporary digital architecture, design & techniques.

Barcelona: Links.

8. Terzidis, K. (2020). Permutation Design: Buildings, Texts and Contexts.

1st ed. Routledge.

9. Menges, A. (2011). Computational design thinking. Chichester: Wiley.

63