ARC20001-2019-s1-Vonj_Grigorioum_Florioo_Ghionisp

OSSEUS

ARCHITETURAL DESIGN STUDIO 2 - CONSTRUCTION - JAYDEN VON - MATT GRIGORIOU - OLIVIA FLORIO - PETER GHIONIS

ABOUT.

CONTENT. This report and presentation covers the principles and design analysis of tensegrity structures and the way in which they can be implemented into an architectural space.

01 PRECEDENCE STUDY & ANALYSIS 02 PROTOTYPE ANALYSIS 03 DESIGN BRIEF & PLANNING 04 DESIGN ITERATIONS & PROTOTYPING 05 FINAL DESIGN

We achieve this through various in depth analysis of both a physical and digital nature.

2.

3.

01.

PRECEDENCE STUDY

4.

5.

01.

6.

7.

02.

PROTOTYPE ANALYSIS

8.

To further understand the way in which these structures worked we created various prototypes to replicating oue precedence study to get a better physical understanding of the requirements of these complex models.

9.

02.

10.

11.

02.

12.

13.

02.

14.

15.

02.

16.

17.

02.

18.

19.

03.

DESIGN BRIEF & PLANNING

20.

21.

04.

DESIGN ITERATIONS & PROTOTYPING

22.

Once we had an understanding of the building and brief, we begain to digitally experiment with potential modules and forms that we could create along our facade, as well as experimentation with some physical prototypes to help better understand the construction process of these structures.

23.

04.

24.

25.

04.

DESIGN ITERATION I 4-Strut Tensegrity stalactite formation.

The first facade experimention we came up with was implementing a stacked, ‘tree’ like formation of a 4 strut module.

We found that this design although was complex in nature, seemed very bulky and overbearing for the size of the building.

26.

27.

04.

DESIGN ITERATION II 3-Strut Tensegrity stacked wall.

The second design we came up with involved stacking a 3 Strut module into a wall like formation.

The wall provided a very unique shadow and did not interfere with the existing columns.

Although visually and physically it worked well, we found that the complexity and intricacy of the design wasnt quite there yet.

28.

29.

04.

DESIGN ITERATION III Experimenting with different size strut members.

In our third design, we started to experiment using different sized strut members.

We found that digitally we could get it to work but the process of creating it was too long and limited us to changes in module if we needed to.

Although visually and physically it worked well, we found that we were limited to one module design by doing it this way.

Opening up that north wall had been our mission from the begining and this was a closer step to that goal.

30.

31.

04.

32.

33.

04.

DESIGN ITERATION IV Our fourth design implemented shade sails in the structure, as we found that this would be necessary to provide shading along that north wall.

The problem with this design was the size and lineairty of the compression members, although we did not go with this design it did aid in the idea of using one of the compression members as a replacement for the columns.

34.

35.

04.

FORM MAKING VS FORM FINDING

STANDARD PRINCIPLE

36.

DIGITAL MANIPULATED FORM

SIMULATED FORM

PHYSICAL SIMULATION DEMONSTRATION 37.

04.

38.

DESIGN ITERATION V

39.

05.

The final design we are proposing consists of five different modules.

The modules are orientated in a way that heroes the tensegrity form whilst also not overbearing the original structure.

FINAL DESIGN

40.

41.

05.

42.

43.

05.

PROPOSED DESIGN

COMMUNAL OUTDOOR SPACE

44.

45.

05.

46.

PROPOSED DESIGN

47.

05.

48.

PROPOSED DESIGN

49.

05.

50.

51.

05.

52.

53.

05.

54.

55.

05.

1:5 PROTOTYPE

RED PORTION TO BE PROTOTYPED

56.

5-STRUT BASE

3-STRUT

57.

05.

ROD LENGTHS LENGTH CHART

ASSEMBLY DIAGRAM

DIGITAL

DIGITAL

ROD LENGTHS

R1 S1

R1

S1 S2 S3

655mm

S13

R2

S12

R2

S2

S12

R3

R1

R5

R4

S1 S13 R3 S15

R3

300mm

R4

345mm

S11 R5

R4 S5

S3

S7 S3

S4

S4

S8

R5

345mm

R6

345mm

S7

S14

R8

S6 R3 S13 S15

300mm

S10 S11 S12

S4 R4

345mm

S7 S8 S9

S2 S4 S5

S5 S6 S7 R5

345mm

S9 S10 S11

S5 S6 S7

345mm

S16 S17 S18

S20 S22 S24

S2 S5

S5

S9 S10 S11

S20 S22 S24

R6

S17 S19 S20

470mm

S4

S14

S7 S8 S9

S4

R7

5-STRUT BASE

470mm

S17 S19 S20

370mm

S1 S19 S21

S18 S23 S24

R8

58.

S3 S12 S14

S21 S22 S23

S1 S19 S21

370mm

S3 S12 S14

500mm

S16 S17 S18

S8 R7

S10 S11 S12

S1 S13 S15

R2 S10

S10

R1

S11

R2

500mm

S4 S8 S14

S4 S8 S14

S13

S1

S2

S1 S2 S3

655mm

S6 S13 S15

S21 S22 S23 S18 S23 S24

STRING

S1 S2 S3 S4

S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 R21R22R23R24

LENGTH mm

315

300

300 395

610

305 350

515 300 360

310 350

330

265

265

185

285 380

290 240

310 385

170

250

STRING

S1 S2 S3 S4

S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 R21R22R23R24

LENGTH mm

315

300

300 395

610

305 350

515 300 360

310 350

330

265

265

185

285 380

290 240

310 385

170

59.

250

05.

60.

1:5 PROTOTYPE

61.

05.

62.

63.

05.

64.

1:1 MATERIAL CONSIDERATION

65.

05.

66.

1:50 SCALE MODEL

67.