SUE WANG 542054
PART A: EOI 1: CASE FOR INNOVATION
PART B: EOI 2: DESIGN APPROACH
PART C: PROJECT PROPOSAL
WHO AM I? I am Sue Wang, 3rd year environments student majoring in Architecture. My hobbies include drawing, drawing and also reading. I have very little experince in regards to computer designing whether it be Photoshop or Rhino and I am keen to learn any new techniques that will help me in the future.
WHAT HAVE I DONE? To the right you can see my lovely first year Virtual Environments project. The brief was the create a working lanturn which could be worn and light up, and was to be based on the natural process.
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS - 2011 SEMESTER 1 COMBUSTION The lanturn was to be based on a natural process, and I chose to focus on combustion. Combustion I related to fire, focusing me lanturn on flames, engulfing a person. The lanturn was to be located on the arm engulfing it in flames. Fire, has the attributes of wild and uncotrollable. However, in my project I explored flames/fire in a controllable manner, making the flames spiral up in a symmetrical and systematic manner.
EOI I: CASE FOR INNOVATION
Case for Innovation
CONTENTS ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE - RHINO WEEK 1
- RHINO WEEK 2
- RHINO WEEK 3
BEIJING NATIONAL AQUATIC CENTRE PTW ARCHITECTS, CSCEC, CCDI, ARUP BEIJING, CHINA 2007
Beijing National Aquatic Centre was originally conceived as a swimming competition ground for the 2008 Summer Olympics held in Beijing, China. It has since been transformed to a water theme park, still retaining the theme of water.
“The project demonstrates in a stunning way, how the deliberate morphing of molecular science, architecture and phenomenology can create an airy and misty atmosphere for a personal experience of water leisure” — Quote from the Jury report of the Official Awards 9th International Architecture Exhibition – METAMORPH, Venice Biennale
The structure of the Beijing National Aquatic Centre is based on the nat¬ural form of bubbles which was made possible through the use of the Weaire- Phelan structure. A complex 3-Diemen¬tional structure that represents ide¬alized form of equal sized bubbles. Weaire-Phelan structure is a solution to create computer simulated foam structures. The original problem was how can space be partitioned into cells of equal volume with the least area of surface between them, known as the Kelvin problem. The original solution based on the bitruncated cubic honeycomb (Kelvin Structure) a convex uniform honeycomb formed through truncated octahedron a fourteen sided polyhedron with six square faces and eight hexagonal faces, which for the longest time was perceived as the only and best solution until the Weaire-Phelan structure was discovered. The Weaire-Phelan structure used two finds of cells rather than the one cell type, the first an irregular dodecahedron with pentagonal faces with tetrahedral symmetry. The second is a tetrakaidecahedron, containing two hexagonal and twelve pentagonal faces being of antiprismatic symmetry. In both solutions all faces are curved to mimic the appearance of foam.
Over time we as humans have slowly started to discover new, better and more efficient solutions to problems which is this not what we are trying to achieve? Solutions to problems achieved in the most efficient manner. This building could only have been made through the use of digital de¬signing technologies. Digital fabrication allows for easy organization of each bubble segment and the precise mea-surement of each individual section which would not have been possible through the use of traditional methods. The precise measurement is also highly important the sheer number and variety in bubble size means by tradi¬tional methods would take a long time to calculate to perfection and also to make individualized in form, however, through digital fabrication it can be easily achieved. The Aquatic Centre appears to be made from many individualized curved panels of glass, it however is made using Ethylene tet¬rafluoroethylene (EFTE) a type of plastic, a material rarely seen in Architecture even in modern times. The plastic allows for a light¬er alternative to glass and also has to extra benefit of easily being able to be fabricat¬ed to the precise dimension specifications.
Architecture as a Discourse
READING BETWEEN THE LINES GIJS VAN VARENBERGH LIMBURG, BELGIUM 2011 While it is intended to be a sculpture rather than architecture it still employs a new way of thinking and causes one to think what defines architecture. Designed to be in the form of a church, emulating the church spire, dome, cross and arches as seen as common church elements. It borrows architectural ele¬ments in the form of scale and ground plan. However, it does not fulfil the ba¬sic requirements of architecture unable to provide a basic shelter, through the sculpture being completely transpar¬ent. Nor does it provide the basic clas¬sical function of a church being too small in size for people to congregate under, and also the lack of solidity of the building. However, it does control how the light is shown through the building, similar to how traditional churches control light through the usage of stain glassed windows and positioning of windows, creating an atmospheric environment.
The sculpture is based on the idea to al¬ways be able to see the neighbouring sur¬rounding environment and seen through its transparency. In order to provide a unique visual experience of experiment, reflec¬tion, a physical involvement with the end result and the input of the viewer; and also to provide a unique visual ex¬perience of experiment, reflection, a physical involvement with the end result and the input of the viewer. Never before has there ever been some¬thing created to be transparent in this manner, especially without glass. While not explicitly stated, the church must have some elements of digital fabrication spe¬cifically for each individual steel panel and column pre-emptively calculated to perfection with the use of digital technol¬ogy and especially the exact placement of each steel layer, one wrong dimen¬sion could ruin the integrity of the piece.
While the building is classified as a sculp¬ture it quite clearly pushes the bound¬aries of how we define architecture. Is it art? A habitable living space? Or is even just the form able to classify Read¬ing Between the Lines as architecture?
The church has become â€œan transparent object of art" -
CHURCH OF SAINT-PIERRE LE CORBUSIER FIRMINY, FRANCE 2006
The Church of Saint Pierre was the last major project made by Modernist Charles-Edouard Jeanneret (Le Corbusier), completed after his death in 2006. Corbusier is well known for his five points of architecture, the pilotis, free façade, open plan, roof top garden and horizontal windows, that marked a new age for architecture, Modernism. The church uses some of Corbusier’s five points of architecture, mostly the usage of pilotis, free façade and an open floor plan; it also uses Corbusier’s signatures of ramps as the main method of movement throughout the building. It was originally designed as church however due to the local political issues, decreed that state funded projects could not be used for religious purposes and was thus converted into a cultural venue. While it’s outwards and inward appearance does not match that of a traditional church it does hold the key features used in traditional churches, the top two floors of the building is a large open plan that allows for mass congregation, which is necessary for churches to allow for large seating areas for people to hear the word of God. This large open plan can only have been achieved with the new technologies of the time of an open plan and a free facade; pilotis is used to support the building and the free façade is used in order to open up the space of the building, thus allowing for large open spaces. While the church seemingly does not hold the traditional dome and spire, it has actually been reinterpreted by Corbusier, the main building form seems to mimic that of a traditional spire and when looking inside the building, a dome like form appears inside similar to that of traditional churches. The church uses interesting technologies to control
external light into different forms inside the building, creating waves of light or holes of light creating an effect of a star lit night. Controlling of light has been used throughout history in churches as a manner of creating mystical atmosphere inside the church, using minimal light in order to darken the room and to feel the presence of God himself or using stain glass windows as a manner of communicating to the masses. The Church of Saint-Pierre is the same, using minimal lighting to create atmosphere similar to that of traditional churches darkening the room as to solely make the mass concentrate on the priest’s words. This thus brings up the issues of what is a church and should they all be the same? Most churches of the baroque or gothic period all follow the same formula all following the same plan, and same key techniques, only slightly altering the stain glass windows or outside façade. Yet the Church of Saint-Pierre is clearly different to majority of churches, and if no one had told me it was originally a church I would not have believed to be so. Despite its appearance, however, it does hold all the key functional aspects of a church, making the Church of Saint-Pierre and interesting approach to the problem that is a church. This building is a contrast to Reading Between the Lines, Reading between the Lines, holds the appearance of a classical church yet cannot be used functionally like a church. In contrast the Church of Saint-Pierre in appearance does not seem like a traditional church but can function as a church allowing for a large space for people to congregate to. However, both can control light in a unique manner creating an atmospheric environment to mimic that of a traditional church.
RHINO GRASSHOPPER ORGANISED SPACES The first trial with Rhino Grasshopper was to form a line of cubes that arrayed around a centre point. The cubes also must go from larger to smaller, however an extra chanllenged was made to make it so the faces of the cubes were just touching, that is so there were no gaps between the cubes The first step was to make the cubes and set it to a curve. Then array the curves unto line evenly spaced. Then to array the line into eight parts even spaced to form a circular formation. Then to make the cubes arrange into large to small from the centre to the ends of the lines. The next and hardest step was to make the cubes to be “just“ touching, However, in the end I could not make the cube faces to just touch. I found many sources saying to try tessaltion, however that would
lead to an entirely different form and still didn’t make the cubes to be just touching. I find the cause for this is most likely due to the way the cubes were arranged on the line, making them evenly spaced, therefore limiting the control of the placement of the cubes. A solutio may have been to removed the cubes on the line then setting points of the surface of the cubes to then making the points on the surface meet. This experiment was an interesting trial of Rhino Grasshopper to test the capabilities of the program. Discovering the basics of the program, finding how to make the most basic shapes and how they can be arranged and ordered. This can be useful in designing the Gateway, to make a design through the ordering of shapes.
Case for Innovation
EXPERIMENT 1 End result of the cubes following the lines to form a vortex like appearance. The cubes range from smaller to larger extending out from the centre point. Each cube significantly smaller than the previous
Arrangement of arrayed cubes on a series of lines, all cubes and equal distance apart and same sized. Top: Wireframe of cubes arrayed on a line Bottom: Rendered with no lines
Architecture as a Discourse
Andrea Graziano, Alessio Erioli, Davide del Giudice, Mirco Bianchini and Alessandro Zomparelli MIGZ Festival, Moscow 2011
Convoluted Inferences, was formed through the experimental Rhino Plug-In, Weaver Bird. WeaverBird is a topologi¬cal editor, focusing on creating hard to draw shapes that go beyond the estab¬lished tilling patterns. The project itself was an experiment to test the realms of the program, testing morphology, organ¬isation and how patterns can have dy-namic behavioural effects and how the interact with their surrounding environ¬ment to create an “organic complexity.” “WeaverBird gives architects more lows them to create complex join in orderly ways, yet in
geometric control and alsurface structures that arbitrary configurations.”
WeaverBird refers to the real life animal the Weaver Bird, where the male weaver bird creates intricate nests to attract a mate. WeaeverBird hopes to emulate the “or¬ganic complexity“of their nest, cre¬ating a repeating pattern that is hard to hand create and complex surface structures that join in an orderly way.
Case for Innovation
The main usage of digital techniques is to fabricate designs that are hard or near impossible to create through traditional means. This project highlights one of the key results that can be achieved through digital design, and that is the ability to create precise infinite and continuous surface from any mesh. Through traditional techniques it’s hard to draw a constant and precise repeating pattern especially that of the complexity Convoluted Inferences exhibits, therefore demonstrating the ability of computation design, in its ease of helpfulness in regards to people. A new advantage WeaverBird brings to digital design is the ability to create com¬plex tiling patterns that had were hard to achieve even by digital techniques and also the ability to be able to control the position of the tiling on the surface, allowing for greater interaction with the piece while during its conceptual phase. While through digital design we can create precise uniform patterns and achieve complex forms not available through traditional methods. Programs still cannot cal¬culate human error and the environment surrounding the project. While it may seem ridiculous to consider human error, the transfer over from digital to physical will have drastic changes, we as humans cannot make things as precise as a computer can, therefore the transfer over will not work as exact as the digital design. While there are ways of prefabricating materials it is still not perfect, but closer to in situ construction. Also digital design creates designs in perfect condions and do not con¬sider the local climate and surrounding environments, and is something we ourselves must consider when designing using digital methods, especial¬ly since the surrounding environment can have a large impact on the de¬sign. Therefore while digital computation is great at creating uniform com¬plex designs, it still cannot take calculate external factors into the designs.
Case for Innovation
The HongKong Shenzhen Border Station is an en¬try to a competition regarding the new design of the HongKong Shenzhen Border Station. The Entry to the contest uses new computing technique and program known as GECO, a prototype plug-in for Rhino. GECO is a computing device that allows us¬ers to “export complex geometries to evaluate the design performance of the project.” In using the GECO program, the architects were able to cre¬ate a building that interacted with its surrounding elements. Especially concerning itself with sunlight, how to maximize sunlight and how to control it. Computation design is a new tool in which Archi¬tects have in expressing their art. Digital design is able to test the parameters on a digital medium without wasting resources, also able to create a re¬peating pattern along a surface, creating a uniform and preShenzhen Border Station cise pattern that otherwise cannot be repro¬duced SPAN (Matias Del Campo and Sanby hand or produced less precise. There are, howdra Manninger with Federico La ever, limitations to digital design, in using de¬sign Piccirella and Filippo Nassetti) we thus further limit ourselves in analysing and unHongKong, China 2011 derstanding both the site and the design itself. The main issue concerned with digital design is that the programs are making our lives easier, making it so that we think less about our design choices and rely more on the programs to do our work for us. This is not nec¬essarily true; we still put a lot of cognitive effort into our designs through digital design. We are still aware of what we are doing, how each element affects and in¬teracts with another element and we still place a high importance on thoughtful/conscious design (planning each and every move we make) however, we no lon¬ger start considering the surrounding environment and how our design might interact with the surrounding site. GECO is a program devised to combat this prob¬lem, we can now analyse our site through the use of digital technologies, making this a huge leap forward for digital design. But this still raises the question of how much cognitive effort we place in our designs and if we are just relying too heav¬ily on digital computation to do the work for us.
“GECO allows the user to export complex geometries, evaluate the design’s performance in Ecotect, and import the results back into Grasshopper, without reworking the model repeatedly.”
RHINO GRASSHOPPER PAVILLION - PATTERNING An exploration on the lofting capabilities of Rhino Grasshopper. Creating a pavillion consisting of interweaving and interjoing pipes. The first one was a basic lofting of three semi circle curves in a straight line. The end result was a basic pavillion in which the vertical and horizontal pipes interracted at straight angles, forming evenly spaced quadranal shapes between the veritcal and horizontal pipes. The second was a more experimental to see how the interjoining pipes would interact if the pavillion was curved and in a circular or spiral formation. The end result formed a less evenly spaced product, the pipes were more irregular and and more curvy, formatng a topological map sort of formation. This was trialled twice, once just one arc and one spines, the other was trialled wiht two arcs at 90 degree angles from each other. The singular arc had a lot less pipes than the pavillion with two arcs, which resulted in more pipes in the seconds creating a more uniform organisation of pipes, and less empy space.
Case for Innovation
End result of the experimentation, ending with a form that seems silimar to the Beijing Birdâ€™s Nest. I would have preferred to end up with a result that was similar to the first being more unified, however, the way the surface loops around causes much of the pframe pipes to intersect forming this end result.
First trial The first trial had only one arc spine which left some spaces lacking horizontal lines resulting in just vertical pipes.
Also nearing the top of the pavillion the pipes start to mimic the topograpical lines on a map.
Issues appeared in lofting, where the curves were selected incorrectly causing the surface to intersct at some points.
MERCEDES-BENZ MUSEUM UN STUDIO’S STUTTGARD, GERMANY 2006 The Mercedes-Benz Museum is recently built parametric building designed for the Mercedes-Benz company in order to show case their cars. The main form of the building is three overlapping circles layers over eight floors in a twisting spiral, the main bulk of the building forming a double helix. This double helix formation is based on the “Mobius Strip” and is an abstract design on the Mercedes-Benz Logo. The “Mobius Strip” is a 180 degree loop forming a continuous closed surface, the main concept behind the Mobius strip
is to traverse both sides of the strip without ever having to cross over the edge. The concept of the Mobius strip fits the concept of a museum perfectly, a museum is made for viewing, and the Mobius strip’s base concept is maximising space allowing for easy movement. Movement naturally plays a large role in museums, as it is required for people to move around the building looking at the sights. It’s also necessary to control the flow of movement in order to prevent customers from walking in the same area multiple times.
"The only solution was to control the geometry of the building as completely as possible using the latest computer technology...... Digitally controlling the geometry made it possible to incorporate any kind of change quickly and efficiently, immediately knowing the effects of that change on all other aspects of the building." - Ben van Berkel, UN Studio's co-founder and director.
Architecture was created as a means to resolve a problem and parametric modelling is just another method we use to solve the problem. Traditional designs and some computational designs are rigid and are mostly based on just adding and erasing, however, with parametric design it isn’t about adding or erasing elements but also about relating and repairing; making it much more flexible than previous design methods, allowing for more control over the design of the building. The design of the MercedesBenz Museum was parametrically designed and according to the head architect of the building would not have been possible without the use parametric techniques. In using parametric modelling allowed for the reduction of the "labyrinth" into a single diagram or map, showing the capacities of parametric modelling which allowed for the easy
control of the building, able to control the design of the building at every point. And if there were any problems it was able to be easily rectified or if any changes were made it can be shown in relation to its surrounding elements and how it affects the design as a whole. Essentially parametric designing prevents “talkitecture” where people just discuss architecture* its theories and how we should approach problems, never actually picking up a pen and paper and designing. Never actually engaging in the problem, finding or working a way to the solution, therefore we as designers must always engage in the problem. Parametric designing allows for a deeper engagement than some computational and traditional designs allow for, able to continually rectify the problem without just adding new things and erasing the old.
* I feel this is awfully ironic since here we are sitting here discussing/reading architecture instead of engaging in it…
CARPENTER CENTRE PIERRE HUYGHE CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS DATE: UNKNOWN The Carpenter Centre Puppet Theatre was created in honour of Le Corbusier, whose only North American contribution was the Carpenter Centre at Harvard, where the puppet theatre is located inside of. As a reflection of Corbusier's work the naturally corresponds
The main feature of the theatre is the ramp, a corresponding theme in all of Corbusierâ€™s work. This project was parametrically designed in order to highlight how parametric design can be used to solve problems regarding limitation in space and the surrounding environment.
Using parametric design in this project demonstrates the flexibility of parametric design as it can relate and consider its surrounding environment; in order to create a design that does not conflict with the existing surroundings but rather interacts and compliments it. This was heavily important for the theatre since it was to be placed under a existing structure, that was not allowed touch the existing structure either (so as to not damage the existing,) thus need to find a way to be self supporting, fit precisely under the existing building and not distract from the existing. Therefore using parametric design was able to figure out how it was able to sit under the building precisely without damaging the existing and for it to be self supporting. This was achieved through the patterning of elongated diamond patterns, parametric design helped to formulate exactly how the panels would fit together and to make sure they would not separate (unless needed to.) The tight fit of the diamonds allowed for structural integrity and this was achieved through parametric design in order to create a design most efficiently and effectively.
The parametric design allows for an interesting computational take on Corbusierâ€™s key ideas, making something of this time using the ideas of the old. The main issue concerned with parametric design is that there is no unification of style seen in the past where if one person developed a style it would be quickly adopted by all and replicated. However this has changed and there is no longer a unification in style, this is the cause of globalisation and new technologies. While globalisation may make it seem that it would be easier for a unified style to appear this is not the case, as globalisation allows for seeing anotherâ€™s work and altering it making it their own and more innovative and everything differs based on our own personal experiential and the cultural that influences us, each time creating something new. New technologies allows for the abilities to try new things and the alternation of the old. While there is no unity in appearance we do hold the same sentimental values of striving towards innovation to always try to make new things to be innovative and this is expressed through our work.
RHINO GRASSHOPPER ORIGAMI This week’s task was to form an object that is defined purely by triangles that is inspired by the Japanese art of paper folding “origami.” Triangles are used being the only shape that no matter how much is modified always makes a surface completely flat. Any more points or curves on the surface and the form can be bended slightly; therefore using triangles on grasshopper it can simulate the appearance of origami. Triangles are also used in most computational designs as a means to create the closest appearance of a circular or smooth surface; this due to triangles being the only shape with the least amount of sides. An example of this is the Aami Park in Melbourne Asutralia, as triangle panels are used form the appearnce of a rounded shape. For better smoothness of the shape much smaller triangle panels would be used, however this park was built to demonstrate the capabilities of computational designs.
MELBOURNE RECTNGULAR STADIUM (AAMI PARK)
Cox Architects and Planners Melbourne, Australia 2010
Revisitng week 2 computation design and using the set curves changed the surface from a pipped surface to that of a rigid, origami like surface. Since the original pavillion was made up of eight curves it allowed me to play around with the length of the pavillion and how long each triangle panel is. The left demonstartes an elongated triangles, the points chosen at polar ends and a middle arc to add more depth to the pavillion. The right shows a slightly shorter but also highlights the triangular patterns on the pavillion.
This final origami was actually made on mistake I accidently reselected the second arc as the third arc resulting in the jagged line ending in sharp triangles. This was then joined with a shorter version of the two above pavilions, this could lead to an interesting design of repeating patterns altering between jagged and smooth ever repeating. The final end result it through the combination of two different baked experiments that were positioned together through the sharing of a similar arc to create this interesting experiment.
CONCLUSION In designing for the Wyndham City Gateway Project, the design will be formed through the usage of parametric modelling from Rhino Grasshopper. Parametric Design is about innovation, change and flexibility, which naturally should be a reflection of us as a society, and open minded society, open to change and searching for new and improved solutions, constantly moving forward. All the research up until now has been to allow for the freedom of the mind and to understand the fundamentals of parametric design. It is necessary to understand the fundamentals and theories behind parametric design in order to make conscious designs and to not just do whatever looks good. The design shall always be evolving and changing until the final design to demonstrate how necessary change is to find the best possible solution to the problem and to always try new things. Therefore the Wyndham City Gateway Project will be a reflection of our present like so much architecture before us has been; to reflect us as a society of innovation, cutting edge, connectivity and technology. So that when people of the future look back at the project, I want them to see how it is we were as a society and this project shall be a symbol of our present.
Case for Innovation
LEARNING OUTCOMES At the beginning of the semester I held a negative view towards computational design not from a bad experience with Virtual but just to me it always felt lazy, that people were using it as a quick solution to their homework. Especially since many of those people donâ€™t know how to draw (which I always felt was a fundamental skill needed for architecture.) However, through these past few weeks I have learned that computational design is also another tool we can use to further improve our designs able to accomplish things we canâ€™t do. Some people think computational design may limit our designing capabilities; however, it can also make our designs more flexible and fluid. Giving us another means to express our creativity, and through computation designs create buildings that previously could not been done so. While yes I do sometimes feel people use computational design as a lazy method for designing, (arguable as there are many people I know who last minute their designs by using CAD or Rhino.) I now have a better appreciation for computational and parametric designs. For virtual environments it was more about developing the basics of Rhino, making a form transferring it to Rhino and applying a pattern and texture to the form then finally creating the end result. However, through these past few weeks Rhino and Grasshopper has shown far more capabilities than what was demonstrated during Virtual Environments. Grasshopper allows you to control every aspect of the design, and thus see it in relation to other aspects of the design. This knowledge if I had earlier would have made my old work not so rigid and would most likely be more fluid and free in form, creating a patterned work that was not so predictable and more interesting.
Case for Innovation
EOI II: DESIGN APPROACH
CONTENTS DESIGN FOCUS
CASE STUDY 1.0
CASE STUDY 2.0
LEARNING OBJECTIVES | OUTCOMES
- DEVELOPMENT - PROTOTYPES
TESSELATION Panelisation, Repetitive Elements (Heterogenous) defining the whole (Homogenous), breaking up of complex surfaces by repeating elements. Studio Air | LMS: Case Study 1.0
My chosen area of interest for the rest of semester is tesselation. Tessellation is generally regarded as the tiling of planes, using one or more different geometric shapes, that just touch (as in they have no gaps or do not overlap.)
Below, is an example of a flat (2D) tessellation, it folows the rules stated earlier, of different geometric shapes that do not overlap or have gaps. The different geometries allow for a variety of forms to be shown on the tessellation.
Tessellation, can be found everywhere, whether it be in artworks, like that of M. C. Escher, in architecture (as a form of inspiration) or even in everyday floor tiling.
The cernamic tiling demonstatres how tesselation can be used in different ways , the tilies or all differently coloured to form an extra layer of complexity in patterning to the tessellating form.
Fig. 2.1: Ceramic Tiling Tessellation
SOFTLAB ST PATRICK’S CATHOLIC SCHOOL 2011
Fig 2.2: Polyp. Lux, SOFTlab
Fig 2.3: Polyp. Lux Lights, SOFTlab Polyp. Lux is an installation hung at St. Patrickâ€™s Catholic school in New York City designed by SOFTlab. Ployp. Lux plays with light, each panel has LED lights attached to it, giving a spatial experience to those who walk under it. The form was created through gravitational forces, pulling the original surface with panels down, making the ones as the bottom larger and tighter packed while those at the top thinner and more spaced out. The panels were constructed through the use of Mylar panels,
these give the installation its flexibility and complement the usage of gravitational fields, pulling the form down. The shapes are all tessellating only touching at the points, these points connected through the usage of little joints. The tessellation of these panels is interesting since they morph, closer to the vault theyâ€™re larger and nearer to the ceiling they are smaller, lighter and thinner. This plays with people as thinner should be hung not the one that hangs.
VOUSSOIR CLOUD IWAMOTO SCOTT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE GALLERY, LOS ANGELES 2008 The Voussoir Cloud iuses tessellation as part of its surface expression. Gaps between the petals of the â€˜cloudâ€™ create sensorial effects of light and shadows. Tessellation is also incorporated as an important part of the structure as petals are packed tighter together at the base of the vaults, in order to act as members of compression. Voussoir Cloud explores the structural paradigm of pure compression coupled with an ultra-light material system. The design fills the gallery with a system of vaults to be experienced both from within and from above. The edges of the vaults are delimited by the entry soffit and the two long gallery walls. Spatially, they migrate to form greater density at these edges. Structurally, the vaults rely on each other and the three walls to retain their pure compressive form. The fourteen segmented pieces also resolve to make a series of five columns that support the interior and back edge. Voussoir Cloud attempts to defamiliarize both structure and the wood material to create conflicted readings of normative architectural typologies. It is a light, porous surface made of compressive elements that creates atmosphere with these luminous wood pieces, and uses this to gain sensorial effects.
Fig 2.5: VoltaDom, Skylar Tibbits
VOLTADOM SKYLAR TIBBITS MIT CAMPUS, MASSACHUSETTS 2011
 <http://www.evolo.us/architecture/voltadom-installation-skylar-tibbits-sjet/> <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits/>
VoltaDom‘s by Skylar Tibbits is an installation for MIT 150th Anniversary Celebration and FAST Arts Festival, installed at between the corridor of MIT’s building 56 & 66. VoltaDom is lined on the concrete and glass hallway, allowing for the light to seep through the oculi of the “vaults” which when out with the thickened “coned” surface creates a dramatic effect of shadows and light. The aim of VoltaDom was to emulate historic cathedrals, inspired by their vaulted ceilings. The reason for revisiting vaulted cathedral ceilings was to find a contemporary equivalent testing various assembly and fabrication techniques to find an innovative equivalent.
VoltaDom also hopes to expand the notion of architectural “surface panel,” by not just panalising a surface with simple two dimensional shapes, but rather giving it depth and volume. Demonstrated as the “panels” are all curved and meet at points rather than just stay linear. This is achieved through the “intensifying” the depth of the double curved surface, making it more dramatic, however limitations were placed in order to make the VoltaDom easy to construct and fabricate. This is done through turning the curved vaults into strips and assembled through the simplicity of “rolling.” Seen above, they are held together through the usage of bolts that keep the strips in theor intended form.
Case Study 1.0
VOLTADOM | MATRIX ITERATIONS
TECHNIQUES Number of Points of Instertion
Radius of Oculus
Attractor Points [Cones]
number = 6
v min = 0.0
number = 13
v min = 0.2
number = 20
v min = 0.4
top left, bottom right
number = 28
v min = 0.7
top left, bottom right, centre
number = 35
v min = 0.9
Attractor Points [Oculus]
Attractor Points [Density]
hexagons & sqaures
Case Study 1.0
VOLTADOM | MATRIX
Number of Points of Instertion
Radius of Oculus
Attractor Points [Cones]
VoltaDom is a originally constructed from tightly packed voronoi cones on a plane. The number of points inserted means the number of cones inserted is different as well, too small a number and there would be gaps, too large and they would be packed too tightly thus the most uniform collection was chosen.
Radius of oculus uniformly changes the radius of all the cones to equal sizes, the larger the radius the larger the occulus becomes. Too large an oculus the integrity of the cones is lost and start overlapping.
The cones were placed on a regular grid, and through the usgae of attractor points, from the point leading out the voronoi cones would become larger, this while aestheticly pleasing, loses its tessellating form.
Attractor Points [Oculus]
The voroniâ€™s were changed In this trial the oculus size into polygons, differ- was changed based on ing in the number of side. an atrractor point. The closer the voronoi was The resulting form creat- to the attractor point the ed interesting forms, how- smaller the oculus size was. ever were unuseable, due to the fact the shapes This lead to overlapping at overlapped one another. the larger the oculus sizes are.
Attractor Points [Density]
The last trial was density in which attractors used to gather the cones closer together, while this was aesthetic in appearance, it lost itâ€™s tesselating form and focus was reverted back to the other iterations.
Height After trialling of the different forms the voronoi cones could take, they were given height so as to give the cones volume and shape. Using same theories as before height can be altered using attractor points and the can grdually become smaller or taller.
Case Study 1.0
Fig. 2.6: Tesseliom, skylarTibbits
TESSELION SKYLAR TIBBITS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSLYVANIA 2008 "Tesselion is a full scale prototype installation showing the possibilities for constructing doubly curved surfaces from flat sheet material" - Skylar Tibbits
Tesselion was an installation at the Philadelphia University Architecture and Design building. A building that demonstrates a usage of planar quadrilateral meshes a growing interest in the architectural community, as they can make the construction of seemingly complex surfaces easier. Tesselion was built to demonstrate the capabilities of using quadrilateral meshes and their ease of construction, used to answer the problems of creating flat panelisation of free form surfaces, thus making construction more efficient and economically friendly.
Tesselion sets out to create a form that is a solution to the problem that is construction of complex forms that are derived from flat sheets of surface. Tibbits attempt is successful, creating a form that winds around and curves, pushing the materiallity of the original material to itâ€™s limits. The success of this project demonstatre how we can make the most of our materials. The usage of quadrilaterial panels also vastly complements this project, creating a form through cuts out of a planar surface and curving them into something much more complex.
Case Study 2.0
REVERSE ENGINEERING First step was to form the surface the panels would be based on, a simple curved surface was made, through three different curves that were then lofted.
STEP 1: Curves Lofted
STEP 2: Panellisation
Second step, was the panellisation of quadrangular shapes, that would follow along the surface. This was easily achieved through the use of Grasshopper plug-in LunchBox which has preset panelling tools., using the Quad tool. Next was to create the fenestrations (small holes) on the surface in each individual quadrant. This was the hardest task and was only achieved through the mapping of small rectangles at the corners of each quadrant. There are probably other methods which we will try in the near future. Lastly, the fenestrations were culled using repulsor points so as to mimic tessellation.
STEP 3: Fenestration Mapping
- Curvature form of the grasshopper definition - Rectangluar panels follow the surface and are still touching - Panels are planar and can modified - Fenestration was successfully implemented onto the surface, mirrioring the original.
STEP 4: Culled using Repulsor Points
- Fenestration not an exact replica of the original, the original most likely follows a rule while ours was relatively random.
Case Study 2.0
M. C. ESCHER SKY AND WATER I MC ESCHER 1938
M. C. Escher is an artist well know for his tessellating works. Sky and Water I is one such work and is a large basis for our parametic design in creating a morhping tesselating form. The main focus of the wood cut is the bird and the fish representing the sky and the water, slowly combing together and contrasting through imagery and colour usage. This work shows clear tesselation as the fish and bird while ever nearing never overlap each other, however they slowly do not touch and their gaps between each other become larger, yet the shape of the fish or bird is still visible between the spacing of the shapes.
Escherâ€™s work depicts the morhping, of a bird (the sky) into a fish (the water) and vice versa. Not only the bird and the fish slowly morph into each other they slowly change from detailed to more abstract, the abstract fitting in closer to the neighbouring shapes. Positive and negeative space is used creating a large contrast. between the two figures. The empty space between the fish or the bird demonstrate how shapes not used can also add a layer of complexity to a work, demonstrating to not focus on just the positive space to to consider the negative as well, combing together to bring harmony in the work.
Technique: Development Fig 2.7 Sky and Water I, M.C. Escher
MORPHING TESSELLATION Our emphasis during the semester was “morhping tessellation”, to form a structure whose geometery would gradually alter into another form. This inspiration came from M.C Escher’s tessellating latterns. On the net we found an example of one titled “Islamic Stars,“ which appropriately demonstrated the formation of circluar polygons into stars. Using this definition we gathered a basic understanding of how to create a morphing tessellation and played with the controls, altering the rate in which the shapes changed and the shapes they themselves turned into.
Through reverse engineering, the process to create a morphing tessellation was discovered. The pattern itself was created onto a square grid, divided into twelve points the points were selected and joined together to form a star like shape, the numberof points could be easil changed, numbers divisible by four generally produced the best shapes. The morphing tessellation could be controlled using the graph mapper function, altering the degree and rate of change between the shapes. Varying between a sharp change and a smooth gradual change.
Different Iterations of Graph Mapper
EXTRUSION After experimenting with the planar definition it was time to make the definition have volume and we experimented with extrusion.
We used two types of extrusion, straight extrusion and a extrude to point, the extrude to point created a interesting pattern from the top view, however would be very complicated to fabricate and the straight extrusion, while easier to fabricate would be very plain.
SURFACE FORMATION CURVES
MAP TO SURFACE
SURFACE DEFORMATION surface relatively uniform, stars evenly places, stars also follow the curves of the surface, bending along with the surface,
Large deformation at neck, making it narrow, the curves are closer and thus the stars are deformed with the surface, making then elongated.
Not as obvious but surfce made wider, causing stars to become larger and expanded into comparision to the previous.
One curved rised higher than the rest, causing the stars to expand and stretch.
After the experimentation with the morphing tessellating pattern the next step was to transfer it unto a surface. Using the Map to Surface tool. A surface was created through three different curves that were lofted on grasshopper. Control points on the curves where kept one as the changing of the curves changed the surface shape and consequently also changed the shape of the tesselation. The closer the curves were the shapes were more squished and elongated,
conversely the further apart the curves were the wider and larger they became. Through testing of the curves and surface, it is concluded that when two curves a near the star definition becomes more squashed, conversely the further the two curves are the wider and larger a star panel becomes. Using this we can form an interesting surface for the star to be on that deforms the stars which can add an extra layer of diversity to the deifintion.
DIVIDE INTO SUBSURFACES
MAKE PLANAR GRID
With the first iteration, while it transferred out original planar tessellating pattern unto our desired sturface it could not be developed further. This was due to the fact the panels themselves were no longer planar and could not be modified with extrusion and capping. We therefore needed to find a new solution. afterwards and we could no longer achieve extrusions or any other modifications as the panels were no longer planar, therefore we needed to find a new solution.
In our second iteration we set out to create planar surfaces that chould be further developed and modified. The solution was rather than mapping the pattern unto the surface last but rather integrate the surface and the pattern together. First through the formation of the surface, dividing the surface into a grid and using that grid as a basis to form the tessellating shapes. However, while these from a far seem to be tessellating and are planar, the shapes do not actually touch and no longer are tessellating. The solution is only at the fabrication stage, to move the unrolled surfaces together and join them as a singular and ignore that the shapes no longer touch.
MATRIX | FABRICATION ITERATIONS
TECHNIQUES Number of Panels
The basis of this matrix was to experiment the limits of our definition and what we can do to fabricate our tessellating pattern. The first demonstrates the number of panels used, too many and there wouldnâ€™t be a large differentiation between the shapes. Graph Mapper is used to control the number of panels and the rate in which they morph. Rib structure is used through the extrusion of the edges of the surface. Those capped give an extra finish to the design. Underneath rib structure, in which the shapes would be bolted onto. Viewed from above the structure canâ€™t be seen however for motorist travelling under the rib support would be highly visible, this may add aesthetic appeal to some. Notching, can also be used, however, these may potentially ruin the integrity of the tessellating structure, but may be one of the cleanest method.
TESSELLATING STRUCTURE Eventual model that is to be fabricated, in the form of a tunnel. This demonstrates the form of the strcuture, how it will be places and shows how the shapes alter ever so slightly in the next shape.
The model was held together through the usage of tabs to hold the two strips of paper together and intact. They not only held together two strips to create one component but were also used between each length of strip, to create one interconnecting surface.
Last the caps were placed on top of the two connecting strips, they were held in place through the tabs that were connected to the strips. In real life these pieces would be weilded together.
Our model was fabricated through the usage of paper; the choice for this was so we could have tabs that would join the tessellation together. The definition was unrolled into multiple long strigs (so as to prevent individually making each shape) connected to each other through tabs the hexagon surfaces holding them together.
The hardest decision we had to make concerning fabrication was deciding how we were to fabricate the model in real life, since if they were cut planar then the pieces would all fall out and would no longer be tessellating. We therefore came up with three solutions:
1. Extrude the surface and create tabs connecting them 2. A rib structure in which the tessellating shapes would be bolted unto them 3. A notch system, where they would be connected using different types of clips.
For simplicityâ€™s sake we eventually decided to fabricate a tab system model, which was to be constructed from paper (similar to our virtual models.) The extra advantage of a extruded model with tabs was that it gave our tessellating pattern an extra depth and the use of paper made our model surprising stiff and solid. In order to keep the integrity
fo the tessellating pattern, we needed to place wedges between each shape in order from them to keep their patter. In the future we would like to replace the paper hexagon plates with plastic ones as a means to experiment further with light and shadows, and also to see how a notched system would par against the tab system.
FABRICATION An unexpected result from our model that was a result of fabricating with tabs was the continuous nature of each tessellation strip. This was caused as a result of making the tessellation explode into long strips. Thus making the final result to be long and continuous, causing the connections between each shape to be quite delicate and thin, whilst also maintaining structural integrity.
Sun Movement Example of shadows at different times of day, emulated through the use of flash lights. DEpending on where the light source is the shadows are deformed or show clear tessellation.
The main advantage of our design is its morphing tessellating shapes, and the altering use of surface and holes, that allows for interesting shadows to be formed. After the fabrication of our model, we experiment with lighting and shadows to see what shadows could be formed from our model.
TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPESMO Tessellating Structure Stephanie Choy 540190, John Duong 540254, Sue Wang 542054 Melbourne, Australia 2013
â€œThe installation will enhance the physical environment through the introduction of a visual arts component. It will have longevity in its appeal, encouraging ongoing interest in the Western Interchange by encouraging further reflection about the installation beyond a first glance.â€?
- Western Gateway Design Project
This form of tessellation proposed for Wyndham is advantageous due to the nature in which it is to be constructed. The design is to be constructed from long thin strips, these strips thus make it easier to transport to location, and due to the length of the strips little joinery will be needed for construction cutting costs.
The delicate nature of the connects between each panel is also advantageous as an aesthetic appeal, as it will inspire awe in those that past as they wonder how such a delicate structure is able to hold its own on the ground. The delicate connections if seen at a distance will also seem to make the structure to be floating and lightweight.
LEARNING OUTCOMES The main criticism towards our design during the mid-semester presentation was that our model was too simple and needed to be more complex and needed to play with the tessellating shapes more, what we would do with it the shapes. Reflection on the comments the panel made, our team has decided to further push the shapes we could potentially create through the tessellating pattern. Using an image sampler to make the morphing more random, changing the extrusion heights so some are thicker than others, making the shapes not all similar in size, making them go small to large or vice vera. Changing the surface the tessellation lies on, rather than just a simple arch or tunnel and as demonstrated earlier; how the deformation of a surface from a traditional arch can simultaneously deform the tessellating shapes and what sort of shadow effect that can create. Over the next few weeks our team hopes to create a better, more innovative and complex model than what was shown in week 8.
Through the past few weeks I have new found respect for parametric modeling in specific to those who use Grasshopper. Over the past few weeks through trying to create an original design in grasshopper and failing miserably multiple times, wishing we could â€œjust do this on Rhinoâ€? instead. However this only reinforced the idea that parametric design is a new tool for architects to use in designing,.Creating innovative and complex forms that often times can only be created through parametic deisgning. The main influencer of this belief was through the reverse engineering where we had to recreate an already established design. Our own reverse engineer while aestheticallty close, does not still have the complexity found in the original, and we could not get closer than what we had. While through the past few weeks I have learnt many grasshopper techniques and can control many parameters, and am much for familiar with Grasshopper. However there is still much to learn in Grasshopper and I feel as though I have only scratched the surface.
Tessellating Structure Stephanie Choy 540190, John Duong 540254, Sue Wang 542054 Melbourne, Australia 2013
CONTENTS DESIGN CONCEPT
LEARNING OBJECTIVE | OUTCOMES
ADVANCEMENT Following the mid semester presentation and review the critique that was given to us, we proceeded in making our design more complex than what was previous presenting. The panellists commented on the simplicity of our design and how we haven’t dug deep into what we can achieve with our morphing tessellation. They were mostly disappointed through the loss of complexity the original “Islamic Stars” pattern into a simpler one, which we chose to do as a result of having an easier model to fabricate.
Following their critique we have resolved to make our design more interesting through exploration of form and surface treatments. We also were commented on the lack of integration with the site at which point we had not focused on due to the focus of transferring the original flat definition unto an undulating surface, which was much harder than expected. We have now chosen to look closely at the site and how that may affect our design choices and what limitations it may place upon us.
TESSELLATION GROWTH ICONIC CHANGE
Tessellation is the technique chosen to encapsulate this design intent. The morphÂŹing panels represent the idea of gradual change and growth. The patterns of the panels that comprise of the installation embody a linear transition from rounded to deformed shapes, illustrating the ever-expanding radial growth of suburÂŹban Melbourne. Tessellation is also advantageous in its use of negative and positive through the formation of interesting shadows when shone upon, that change along with the tessellating structure and as similarly as the sun goes through its daily path, able to distort the shadows. Also the panel to panel construction make transport and construction of the material and installation easier than other designs.
DESIGN INTENT After the Interim Presentation we considered the critique given to us, in our choice to represent our tessellating pattern in a “tunnel” like structure; stated as “over done” and “clichéd.” We resolved to create a new form for our pattern; that would be more interesting and fully exploit the benefits of our design. It therefore must still keep the linearity developed (as a result of our fabrication technique) in our previous design and still express the interesting shadow pattern when shone upon. We therefore settled on a long, elongated wall form for our design, which while simple in appearance could efficiently demonstrate the linearity of our design, and could inflict feelings of movement through its linearity combined with the morphing tessellation.
Intended placement of the design is to be at site A, where there will be maximum visibility from the motorists, as it is placed were the most traffic flow will be between travelling Melbourne to Geelong and vice versa. It’s key to invoke a sense of “welcoming” and “monumentalising” to the passing by motorists, and identified as a “sign” as the first landmark when reaching Wyndham. As a sign it must also direct people along the right path, thus the design must also incorporate this, as well as using the site to it’s maximum.
“[The Western Gateway should] provide the first indication of arrival into metropolitan Melbourne.” “The Western Gateway installation should provide an entry statement and arrival experience.”
FORM FINDING After the Interim Presentation we considered the critique given to us, in our choice to represent our tessellating pattern in a “tunnel” like structure; stated as “over done” and “clichéd.” We resolved to create a new form for our pattern; that would be more interesting and fully exploit the benefits of our design. It therefore must still keep the linearity developed (as a result of our fabrication technique) in our previous design and still express the interesting shadow pattern when shone upon. We therefore settled on a long, elongated wall form for our design, which while simple in appearance could efficiently demonstrate the linearity of our design, and could inflict feelings of movement through its linearity combined with the morphing tessellation.
The Gateway design elicits a sense of dynamism and motion by following the direction of the citybound traffic. The form of the proposed Gateway design would sit naturally within the site boundaries, allowing for visibility through both sides of the road. The two lofted lines were manipulated through control points in order to create an undulating, double curved, ribbon-like structure. This will further reinforce a sense of dynamism and motion when passing by the gateway design. The image to the (left) is an abstraction of a graph depicting Wyndhamâ€™s population growth. The height variance was translated onto the form of the structure, gradually growing from small to large in a dramatic motion. The final form therefore expresses growth, dynamism and direction. Form Finding
PANEL DETERMINATION 10x4 Panels
A Graph mapper is used to determine the frequency of change between the panels. There is seeminly little change between the different iterations. however that is also good as a sharp change would lose the grdual change we wanted in our design,
We tested different number of panels upon the surface, first 10x4 which showed little chnage between the panels and also has far too few panels. Next we tried 20x6 which actuarately showed a slow change between shapes and the number or panels didnâ€™t dwarf nor exaggerate the size of the panels.
We lastly tried 40x10 , while this more acturately showed a gradual transition from panel to panel, the panels were too small as a result of the number of panels, all trying to fit on the small surface. For these reasons we chose the 20x6 iteration, as it acturately showed the tesselation and werenâ€™t too small in size.
EXTRUDE ALONG Y VECTOR
CAP EXTRUSION TO FORM FACES
CULL ALTERNATE FACES
Following the positive comments in regards to our interim presentation regarding how our fabrication technique created a linearity and connectivity in our design. We decided to further with the extrusion of our tessellating pattern. We wanted to see what we could push further we tried using different extrusion for each panel with attractor points but Rhino continually crashed no matter what computer we used, so we gave up on that idea. Instead we turned to figure out how we could explode the panels from the base ribs, since before the ribs and panels were treated as a whole if we were to place surface perforations then even the sides would have them too, which we didn’t want, also enabling the separation between edges and panels would allow for much more development such as surface perforations upon the panels. We attempted to explode Brep, which successfully separated them into each separate component, but further from that we could not separate the face and the extrusion without them joining back together again. That was until we tried to do it manually, culling, counting each piece and in a panel typing in “true, falseX16” this successfully separated the two components but however also created and extra unintended feature. Originally the panes were all on one side of surface, creating an almost boring surface, however this method of culling made some panels be jined at the back and some at the front creating an interesting structure, further depth and allowing for viewage on both sides of the road. Design Concept
PANEL PERFORATIONS Inspired by many tessellation projects, such as Tessellion and EXOtique, who use perforation to add an extra layer of complexity to their design we wanted to try creating perforations on our project as well. We began developing a pattern to use for our design we debated between many types of patterns and shapes, we eventually settled on circular back in vein with our Voltadom voronoi explorations. We started by making a radial grid creating a circle on Rhino then arraying the circle in a circular pattern. The radial grid was set on a surface, allowing the usage of the map to surface tool on grasshopper, from there would allow us to split the surface with these new curves. Rather than just keeping them a radial grid we experimented with the capabilities of the the radial grid, using a point attractor we could change the sizes of the circles dependent on where the point was. Inspired by EXOtique, the point was placed at the center of the grid, making the inner circles smaller and gradually grow bigger in size the closer they got to the edges.
Following that we determined that a normal radial grid would be too boring and thus decided to cull some of the radial pattern making it no longer circular in pattern. After agreement over the pattern we mapped the pattern onto the surface, not wanting all the panels to have perforations we used a random reduce tool to reduce the number of selected panels. While using random reduce we did not have maximum control over what panel faces were picked, we could still determine the number of faces selected and and their relative position through changing the seed number and a number slider to change how much was reduced.
Using what we learnt from our reverse engineering exercise of Tessellion we set out to make our design much more complex and interesting, this we wanted to do through the use of perforations on the surface, to both create an aesthetic quality and emphasise the shadows that can were created through the base tessellating pattern. Perforations were made in two ways both using the map to surface function.
Similar to how the panels are deformed in accordance to the form and dependence on whether the section of the surface is wide or narrow; the perforations too are exaggerated along with the panels, as the panels deformed in accordance with the surface.
Rather than having a perforated pattern upon each individual panel, we wanted to create an overarching pattern over the entire structure. This iteration was created in response to the critique of our inability to fully control the above perforating pattern. Using similar techniques, we the overarching pattern was made through three different iterations, point attractor, curve attractor and image mapping. The result was a in accordance to where the attractor point was each circle would differ in size, those closer to the point were smaller in size and further from the point the larger the circles became. Curve attractor is similar to point attractor only differing in the time used to cause the attraction.
Image mapper on the other hand caused the circle to follow the gradient of an image therefore black and white images are best used, we used a soft gradient image as we didnâ€™t wants drastic change between the circle sizes but soft gradual change in accordance with our design intent. These three options gave us more control over the perforations than the previous iteration did, however, this meant the circular holes were no longer elongated through, thus losing the beauty of the deformation of the perforations as if they followed the rules of the panel. Using attractor points and image mapper did cause some difference between each aperture only rather than a deformation they only differed in size.
Fig. 3.1: EXOtique, PROJECTiONE
EXOTIQUE PROJECTIONE BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, INDIANA 2011 “EXOtique combines an understanding of how materials react, then intelligently embeds that into the design process.” ~ EXOtique
Fig. 3.2: EXOtique Lighting, PROJECTiONE EXOtique by PROJECTiONE was an installation at Ball State University, it was created using parametric tools, Rhino and Grasshopper, the aim of EXOtique was not to create a beautiful design but rather to focus on fabrication, how design tools can be used to create fabrication without the need of representation, to think at a more rational and logical level. The design intent was not to create something complex in form or decoration but rather simplify fabrication techniques and consideration of materiality, this is reflected through the simple surface and panelling usage. EXOtique interested us through its usage of surface perforations to allow for light
and aesthetic qualities in making a relatively simple surface more complex. The perforations seem to be mapped onto the surface as one overarching pattern following a rule. The perforations form a hexagonal pattern similar to the panels used to create the ceiling installation. The perforations also have an added complexity of the perforations near the edges of the panels bigger and gradually go smaller. Our team wanted to achieve something similar, however due to the nature of our structure, unfortunately, we were not able to create a similar effect, but still achieved the goal of creating an overarching perforation pattern on our tessellating structure.
ORNAMENTAION While the perforations do make the form and eventual shadows to the form more interesting it begs the age old question of ornamentation and its necessity. The perforations at essence is just ornamentation applied onto a structure and do not really bring about any extra structural qualities to the resulting design except aesthetics qualities. It is often questioned the necessity of ornamentation, and such thoughts founded the Modern Movement, the desire to create “pure,” “honest” structures that did not hide nor lie about their structural qualities, and that all elements holds a structural component and were not there to just “look pretty.” However, some see ornamentation as a necessity, as an art, while yes they hold no structural qualities, they instead only create an aesthetic appeal, aesthetics is a key part of architecture, as the main reason we design is for appeal and similarly for the Wyndham design, create an aesthetically pleasing work for people of Wyndham to enjoy. There is also the belief that there is no real separation from ornamentation. All elements, whether structural or not create an ornamental/ decorative effect on a building whether we intend it to or not, making separation from ornament and building impossible, as we as architects naturally design for appeal to the human eye. Similarly in our design the perforations hold no structural capabilities and only add extra aesthetic appeal to our design. They will, however, make the panels slightly lighter through the removal of material however it will potentially make it less structurally stable, this will not be a major problem due the light natural of plastic of which the design is to be made of. While yes the perforations hold no structural aspects and are only there for mostly aesthetic reasons and experimentation with Grasshopper, the perforations on the panels further emphasise the shadow formed through the design.
Fig. 3.3: EXOtique Perforations, PROJECTiONE
EXOTIQUE PROJECTIONE BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, INDIANA 2011
“[T]he definition of ornament is a difficult one, and at different moments in history it has designated much more than mere surface decoration. Ornament is by all accounts a slippery term, tied to the differences between applied arts and high arts, existing in the shifting spaces between simple functionality and aesthetic pleasure, migrating between the frivolous expressions of decadent superficiality and the manifestations of society’s moral condition. Put simply, if there a discrete meaning for ornament, it is in all cases a historically specific definition.”
~ Rose, Peter Isaac
Left View Design Concept
DESIGN PROCESS PATTERN
TESSELLIRON Stephanie Choy 540190, John Duong 540254, Sue Wang 542054 Melbourne, Australia 2013
TECTONIC ELEMENTS Construction of the model and the design in real life are very similar, and thus through small scale fabrication can emulate the same effect. While the small scale model is made from paper the real construction will be built from plastic which is cheap, water resistant and durable. The design is comprised of three main components the strips acting as a ribs, the joints connecting the strips and finally the caps/ panels to bring the model together. Step 1: Aligning the strips together Step 2: Holding strips together with tabs. Step 3: Lastly placing the panels on top of the rib structure welded
JOINTING Test model testing the jointing between two strips and between strips and panels. Top demonstrates the jointing between two strips in order to hold the pieces together and keep the form of the shape. Middle: Interation between a 3x3 grid of panels, the veritcal pieces are held together through tabbing, while the horizontal pieces are linear strips tabbing placed between in order to keep their form. Bottom: Different iterations of tabbing types that can be used to weld panels and strips together. Tabbing types can bring interesting design into the panels, by cutting perforations where the tabs end, you have a in pening and closing of perfortion upon the structure and an integration between structure and design.
TECTONIC ELEMENTS 1:10 CONTRUCTION DETAIL
1:10 constuction detail of the model, chosen a 2x2 grid at the ground connection area. To demonstrate how these interate with neighbouring pieces and how it would connect to the groud. Slits were placed between areas where the panels would meet together. This is to allow for tabs to slit through and join the pieces together. Unrolled strip, demonstrating where slits are and how it was sent to fablab to be cut.
In real life the pieces would be melded together most likely with a tab.
The demonstrate real life construction material that will be used, the 1:10 detail model was made with white polypropylene (we had to buy ourselves since the fablab only stocked clear.) Fablab cutting made construction easier as plaastic is thicker than card and harder to fold, thus through fablab pre-etching all the lines construction was easier.
Since the model was larger than 1:20 more detail could be shown than what can be in a 1:20 or 1:50 model and perforations were cut into the panels. These panels demonstrate how light and shadow would work in the real world, creating interesting shadows from just the perforations.
Panel to Ground
The tectonic elements needed in connecting the structure to the ground and ensuring the structural stability of the entire installation. The panels are grouping into columns, the deisgn made of 20X6 therefore a total of 20 columns are needed. The bottomost panels will be secured to the ground using bolts and concrete footing. Since the installation is to be mostly of plastic the concrete footings need not be too deep. This also allows for easy disassembly for future works.
As a plastic installation, the design therefore will be quite flimsy and will need a cable suspension system to keep it in place. As well as keeping to the standard 4m height as a free standing wall. This also addresses safty concerns in regard to wind loads, metal tensile suspension wires will pull in opposite to the direction of the wall. The cables will be connected to the ground and kept in tension through concrete footings.
The design is to place at the south end of Site A to as stated earlier allow for maximum visibility by the motorists as it can be seen from all sides of the road. The model is a measly 20m x 4m which when driving by would only pass by in a seconds, however the model is still visible upon approaching the design,
and will elicit curiosity from approaching motorists. Since motorists will be driving by the Gateway in such a small time it is therefore important to create a unique spatial experience in a short amount of time, achieved through the shadows, lighting and the morphing panels which illicit movement.
Rendering of supposed drive by of Wyndham Gateway Design Proposal. As seen from many perspectives. Driving by from Geelong up to Melbourne, the installation is quite small but is still eyecatching due to itâ€™s jarring contrastc to itâ€™s surrounding elements, plus the bare environement.
Unrolling and nesting of the final model, unto 900mmx600mm Rhino Files at 1:20 scale. In order to save money, space and materials, the unrolled strips were placed as close to each other as possible. We wanted to print our final model in paper as itâ€™s easy to bend, plastic while more representative of our final model would be too hard to bend at the scale we wanted. Final cost for printing was $70
Originally we wanted to card cutter however the size and intriquecy of the job made the fablab transfer our file over to laser cutter. Laser cutter, while faster left us with a few wonky lines and uncut corners. Mistakes: Etching the numbers in a large font, cost us a lot of time and money .
Printed paper, with cuts for each of our strips. we ended with five pages. The Fablab hadnâ€™t cut through the lines entirely and we were left vcutting through the corners to poke the pieces out. Weâ€™re not sure why this happened. Laser cutter burnt some scorch marks unto our model, which we feel gives the model and extra effect.
Strips that would eventually become a rib like structure to hold the faces. Each stripes has multiples etches on it to allow for bends for where the panels will eventually be. The result was 120 panel components, 40 strip components and 420 tab components.
After cutting out the strip it was time to glue them all together. Starting by gluing two strighst together at the ends then slowly wrapping it arounf the panels.
Resulting strips joined together with their panels. Aboce shows a incorrectly unrolled strip with one panel the oppposite direction to the rest, which will be later rectified.
Because of laser cut build up in the last week of semester we never had the oppurtunity to make a model and thus we decied to try and hand cut all the indvidual strips, panels and tabs. abovetabs. Above shows the difference between the two strips.
Previous work had us construct the panels horizontally, however due to height, material and strength constraints, we decided to make the strips linear, they still encapsulate the idea of linearity, movement and connectivity in the design.
Laying out of the strips with panels, to visuallise how they would eventually join together. By just laying they out the already demonstraight the linearity of the deisng and of the curvacious nature of the form.
Demonstration of the tabbing between two strips. The were marked with 1cm long slits 0.5cm from the ends of the strips which would allow for the 1cm long tabs to slip through and join the strips together.
FABRICATION SPECIAL THANKS
Thanks to these awesome people. (From left to right: Rob, Tha, John, Michelle and Steph, except maybe Steph and John... because team mates are supposed to suffer with me) For sticking with me late at night “banging out this model“, this wouldn’t be done without you all.
Stephanie Choy 540190, John Duong 540254, Sue Wang 542054 Melbourne, Australia 2013
REFLECTION In our final presentation we were unable to produce a model due to the amount of people sending in their Rhino files and our file while still sent in considerably early was not able to be cut. Without a visual aid and a physical representation it brought down the arguments for our case and was thus critiqued on elements that could’ve been accomplished with just a visual aid. We were also critiqued on not being able to properly express our understanding of our design, grasshopper and control of the design and grasshopper, stating there was too much “random” elements in our design. While there were “random” elements within the design they were necessary in order to create a more distinguished design, and we did have control over a lot of aspect of our design in regards to morphing of panels and the overall form. Hopefully these issues are addressed within the journal, and our control over grasshopper and the design is clearly expressed through pictures and writing.
While our presentation was less than stellar and more I would’ve liked to try on grasshopper and our design, I felt overall we did a great job with our design especially in the aspects of a morphing tessellation, creating and developing from the original flat pattern into a 3Dimentional pattern hat curves Project Proposal
Through the semester I have developed a greater understanding of computational architecture, I have learnt many ways in which computational architecture can be applied, seen my classmates create amazing structures from just a computer program and we too created something great. Computation architecture can be used to create buildings, ornamentation and mostly simplify and organise the way we design architecture. As Iâ€™ve stated before parametric modelling and computational architecture is just another tool for architects to use as one would use a pen and paper. Computational architecture is not much
However, I still stand by the belief that as an architect you need both computational and traditional skills in order to design you cannot just sacrifice one skill for the other, while there are some things you can only achieve through computational design there are similarly things you can only achieve through traditional design. You have to learn to integrate them together and only through then can you truly create a masterpiece. That being said throughout the semester I have learnt new techniques on Grasshopper and Rhino that I never thought possible. While I needed much help from friends, tutors and random strangers on the
REFERENCES RESOURCES: Beijing National Aquatic Centre: None Reading Bewteen the Lines:  Archdaily, revised 2013, Archdaily, viewed March 13th 2013, <http://www.archdaily.com/298693/reading-between-the-lines-gijsvan-vaerenbergh/> Church of Saint Pierre: None Weaverbird:  Text © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Images: p 140(t) © Sergey Titov; p 140(b) © Co-de-iT; p 141 © Wieland Schmidt Geco:  Text © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Images: p 142 © Built by Associative Data; p 143(t) © [uto] Thomas Grabner and Ursula Frick; p 143(b) © SPAN Mercedes Benz Museum:  Archdaily, revised 2013, Archdaily, viewed April 3rd, <http://www. archdaily.com/72802/mercedes-benz-museum-un-studio-photos-bymichael-schnell/> Daimler AG, revised 2013, Daimler AG, viewed April 3rd 2013, <http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-863897-1-1509792-1-0-0-0-0-0-11702-614318-0-1-0-0-0-0-0.html  ARCspace, 1999-2013, Dansih Architecture Centre, Copenhagen, viewed April 3rd, <http://www.arcspace.com/features/unstudio/mercedes-benz-museum/> Carpenter Centre Puppet theatre:  Cubeme, 2005-2011, CubeMe, viewed April 2nd 2013, <http:// cubeme.com/blog/2009/07/07/puppet-theater-at-harvards-carpender-center/>
EOI I: CASE FOR INNOVATION IMAGES: Title Image: Decodrip, Creaticart Source: Creaticart, Decodrip, Digita, Creaticart, Viewed March 28th, 2013l<http:// www.creaticart.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/7a27faafbf419a6aac9 8ddd1a457395e/c/r/creaticart-decodrip-catalog-decodrip-02-air-abstraction_1.jpg> Beijing National Aquatic Centre Fig. 1.1: Beijing National Aquatic Centre, PTW Architects, 2008, viewed March 6th 2013, < http://www.allpeoplestalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Beijing-NationalAquatics-Center.jpg> Fig. 1.2: Beijing National Aquatic Centre, PTW Architects, 2008.viewed March 6th 2013, <http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z422/curiousplaces888/watercubebeijing1. jpg> Reading Between the Lines Fig. 1.3: Reading Between the Lines, Gijs Van Varenbergh, 2011, viewed March 6th 2013 < http://www.dezeen.com/2011/09/09/reading-between-the-lines-by-gijs-vanvaerenbergh/ > Church of Saint Pierre Fig. 1.4-1.6: Church of Saint-Pierre, Le Corbusier, 2006, Viewed April 3rd 2013, <flickr. com> WeaverBird Fig. 1.7-1.14: Text © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Images: p 140(t) © Sergey Titov; p 140(b) © Co-de-iT; p 141 © Wieland Schmidt Geco Fig. 1.15- 1.16: Architecture Design Magazine: Text © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Images: p 142 © Built by Associative Data; p 143(t) © [uto] Thomas Grabner and Ursula Frick; p 143(b) © SPAN Mercedes Benz Museum Fig. 1.17: Mercedes Benz Museum, UN Studios, 2006, photographviewed April 3rd 2013, <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Mercedes-Benz_Welt_pan. jpg> Fig. 1.18: Mobius Strip, viewed April 3rd 2013, <http://www.baunetz.de/talk/crystal/images/19/28_Mobius-band.jpg> Carpenter Center Puppet Theatre Fig 1.19- 1.22: Carpenter Center Puppet Theatre, Pierre Huyghe, Date Unknown, viewed April 2nd 2013, <http://atelier29.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/puppet-theatre-forharvards-carpenter.html>
REFERENCES RESOURCES: Evolo, revised 2013, Evolo, unknown, viewed April 12th, <http://www.evolo.us/architecture/voltadom-installation-skylar-tibbits-sjet/> Designplaygrounds, revised 2013, Designplaygrounds, unknown, viewed April 13th, <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits/>  Dezeen, created 2006, Dezeen Limited, unknown, viewed April 15th 2013, <http:// www.dezeen.com/2008/08/13/tesselion-by-skylar-tibbits/>  Wyndham Gateway Proposal Brief
EOI II: DESIGN FOCUS IMAGES:
Fig. 2.1: Ceramic Tiling Tessellation Source: Ceramic Tiles in Marrakech, unknown, unknown, viewed, May 6th 2013, <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/CeFig. 2.2: Polyp. Lux, SOFTlab Source: Polyp.Lux, SOFTlab, 2011, photograph, viewed May 2nd, <http://www.designboom.com/design/softlab-polyplux/>
Fig. 2.2: Polyp. Lux Lights, SOFTlab Source: Polyp.lux, SOFTlab, 2011, photograph, viewed May 2nd, <http://www.designboom.com/design/softlab-polyplux/> Fig. 2.4: Voussoir Cloud, Iwamoto Scott Source: Voussoir Cloud, Iwamoto Scott, 2008, photograph, viewed 23rd, <http://www.archivenue.com/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscottwith-buro-happold/> Fig. 2.5: VoltaDom, skylarTIBBITS Source: Voltadom, skylarTIBBITS, 2011, photograph, viewed April 26th, <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits/> Fig. 2.6: Tesselion, skylarTIBBITS Source: Tesselion, skylarTIBBITS, 2008, photgraph, viewed april 26th, <http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ skylar.jpg> Fig. 2.7: Sky and Water I, M. C. Escher Source: Sky and Water I, M.C Escher, 1938, print, viewed April 20th<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pNMjAkWtCuc/UOfwifyYZ0I/ AAAAAAAAo2Q/MZqkJLUxzns/s1600/Escher.gif>
REFERENCES RESOURCES:  Wyndham Gateway Proposal Brief
PROJECTiONE, 2009, PROJECTiONE LLC, Indiana, viewed June 3rd 2013, <http://www.projectione.com/exotique/>  PROJECTiONE, 2009, PROJECTiONE LLC, Indiana, viewed June 3rd 2013, <http://www.projectione.com/exotique/>  Moussavi, Farshid, and Daniel Lopez (2009). The Function of Form (Bar-
celona: Actar; New York), p. 8
 Rose, Peter Isaac (2004). The Dispossessed: An Anatomy of Exile (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press), p. 261
PART C: PROJECT PROPOSAL IMAGES: Fig. 3.1: EXOtique Source: EXOtique, PROJECTiONE, 2011, Photograph, viewed June 3rd 2013, <http://www.archdaily.com/125764/exotique-projectione/>
Fig. 3.2: EXOtique: Lighting Source: EXOtique, PROJECTiONE, 2011, Photograph, viewed June 3rd 2013, <http://www.archdaily.com/125764/exotique-projectione/>
Fig. 3.3: EXOtique: Perforations Source: EXOtique, PROJECTiONE, 2011, Photograph, viewed June 3rd 2013, <http://www.archdaily.com/125764/exotique-projectione/>