CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 3.3.3 Serpinsky Triangles 19 1.1 THE PROJECT 2 3.2 GS PSEUDO CODE 20 1.2 GOALS 2 3.2.1 Fractal Branching 20 1.3 APPROACH & DESIGN PROCESS 4 3.2.2 Fractal Footprint 20 1.4 APPLIED METHODS 4 3.2.3 Fractal Volume 21 3.2.4 Facade 21 2. DESIGN CONCEPT 3.2.5 Serpinsky Division 22 2.1 OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT 5 3.2.6 Roof Structure 22 2.1.1 Architectural Idea 5 3.5 GS GROWTH BEHAVIOUR 23 2.1.1 Objectives for Computation Design Strategies 7 3.6 INPUTS & OUTPUTS 28 2.2 DESIGN SYSTEM FLOWCHART 8 2.2.1 Main Design Elements 8 4. OPTIMISATION PROCESS EXPERIMENTATIONS 2.2.2 External Influencing Criteria 8 4.1 GENOMES & FITNESS CRITERIA 28 2.2.3 Elements-Criteria Relationship 8 4.2 MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMISATION 29 2.2.4 General Algorithmic Approach Concept 9 4.2.1 Analysis Results 29 2.3 SITE ANALYSIS 10 4.2.2 Fractal Branch 33 2.3.1 Setup 10 4.2.3 Footprint 36 2.3.2 Studies of Influencing Criteria 10 4.2.4 Program Implementation 37 2.3.3 Combining the Results 12 4.2.5 Structure 47 2.4 COMPUTATION STRATEGY FLOWCHART 12 4.2.6 Panels 48 2.5 APPLICATION OF ANALYSIS IN COMPUTATION 13 4.2.7 Facade 49 2.5.1 Simulation Methods 13 2.5.2 Criteria 13 5. DESIGN DOCUMENTATION 2.5.3 Evaluation 15 5.1 SITE PLAN 50 5.2 PROGRAM 51 3. GENERATIVE SYSTEMS (GS) EXPERIMENTATIONS 5.3 FLOOR PLAN 52 3.1 APPLIED GS RULES 16 5.4 SITE ELEVATION 54 3.3.1 Fractal Branch System (axes) 16 5.5 SITE SECTION 55 3.3.2 Fractal Recursion (Footprint) 17 5.6 EXTERIOR RENDERS 56
5.7 INTERIOR RENDER 60 APPENDIXES I. - GRASSHOPPER DOCUMENTATION 5.8 CONSTRUCTION 61 Analysis 68 5.8.1 Materialisation, Manufacturing, & Assembly Logic 61 Score System 69 5.8.2 Construction Documentation 64 Final Score System 69 Creation of Starting Line & Optimization 70 6. CONCLUSION Program Implementation & Optimization 71 6.1 ON EXPERIMENTATION 65 Cafe & Exhibition: Implementation & Evaluation 72 6.1.1 Limitations 65 6.1.2 Future Experiments 65 APPENDIXES II. - PRELIMINARY DESIGNS 6.2 ON PROCESS 66 GENERATIVE SYSTEMS 74 6.2.1 Advantages of Parametric Approach 66 (First) Recursive Branch 74 6.2.2 Analysis and Program Implementation 66 Dragon Curve & Diagrid Drape 75 6.2.3 General Obstacles 67 Dragon Curve & Boxes Through landscape 76 6.3 ON THE DESIGN PROJECT 67 Fractal Recursions & Broccoli Script 77 6.3.1 Applying Architectural Intentions 67 Serpinsky Triangles 78 6.3.2 Potential Applications 67 EVALUATIVE SYSTEMS 80 Nudi Branch 80 Tree & Access Points 80
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE PROJECT
This is the booklet of our group also known under the name Network Integration, this title will be explained further on in the booklet but first we will introduce ourselves quickly. The group is a team consistent of 3 international students and 1 dutch student, Ken Chen and Guo Xi from China , Martin Fiala from Czech and Thomas Moeken from the Netherlands. We wish you as the reader a lot of fun and inspiration since we put hard work and a lot of sweat and tears into this booklet.
At the start of this project we already set some goals, of course like we first mentioned we will have to use these generative systems. And we will. Not just by settling in the systems taught to us in the tutorials but we will try to develop new systems and ideas. We will try to combine these different system on different scales.
The design brief gave us the assignment to design a pavilion in the park between the Architecture faculty and the Delft Science Centre. It is a deserted park at the moment and to regain any function to this area we will have to either connect the borders on the right way, or make it functional to draw people in there. The project is part of the Hyperbody msc3 course and is backed up by a series of workshops which will help us to tackle the assignment. The first workshop week was about generative systems in general. We were explained the different systems we could use and we were taught to write the systems in codes , python. These generative system will be there to generate the outcome by setting input, instead of just designing every little part. The second workshop week was about Optimization and Genetics. This workshop week we were learned to optimize the generative systems and we were taught several ways to evaluate the used systems in relationship to our project. We will of course use these systems but we will also try to develop our skills into this design method, we will try and compare the several systems and all this to deliver the best possible system for our pavilion.
One of the goals is to create Architecture without hesitation. The result should not be vague in terms of design decisions but every little step should be backed up by arguments. Also , we will try to develop our team skills, we are with 4 and we will try to divide the project to every ones strong points to contribute to the project. We are there to help each other but it’s quite useless to let someone do work which can be done by someone else in a shorter period of time. Then we set some goals regarding the design brief. The park is empty now, and we think that most of the students on this faculty won’t even know that there is a park at all. The park is between the Architecture faculty and the Delft science centre, which means that there will be a lot of students around, also will these students be the perfect target group for such innovative architecture as our pavilion. Since students pass by a lot on this site because of some routes crossing and attraction points like the busstop the amount of people near the site is already there. The next step is to draw the people into the site and this is what our pavilion will do. We will connect the architecture faculty and the science centre by adding extra program, not only the intended café will be there which is in our minds not enough to make this connection.
Fig. 1 - The Pavilion
1.3 APPROACH & DESIGN PROCESS
1.4 APPLIED METHODS
Just using generative systems to gain architecture to our architectural needs is not enough. In this case we will use one main focus points which will help us to determine the approach to tackle this pavilion. We were asked to choose a climatic aspect, this climatic aspect will be the focus point of the design and therefor a main input for our systems.
We already told about the major changes in the regular design process compared to our new process. We think that using generative systems, instead of a top down system without the continue influence of the evaluation and analysis , will lead to much more sufficient architecture in terms of not only usage but also sustainable building.
We will try to design systems which will be contributing to our set climatic aspect, the sun. All systems and architectural steps will be evaluated by the needs of the sun, for example for different set programs but perhaps in a later stage of this design even to generate energy. This aspect will be left behind since there is no time to focus yet on the faĂ§ade elements but will be a logical next step after this project.
The usage of computer technique will not only help us to generate these systems, but by working in a 3D environment we are able to watch the project in every little detail at all times. Without wasting time in building models we will be able to instantly see the data and change the data with instant outcome. Of course the concepts and the main ideaâ€™s for systems whatsoever are drawn by sketch in the sketchbooks they will still be used to communicate to each other for example to explain and predict outcome or solutions.
The approach will be different because of the use of a total different design method. We are used to do analysis and then start designing, but by using generative systems and parametric design systems we are able to use the analysis as a continue input for the different design steps. Also the evaluation which tends to come last in the regular design process will be integrated into the design process, all made available by the use of these systems. Our evaluation will contain to look over our system and set values and or rules. These rules and values can be refined and made perfect while experiencing the different outcome.
What kind of methods will we apply? We already introduced the notion of the 3D environment and the generative systems. Several flowcharts will explain the design process in relation to the applied methods and by reading our booklet step to step you will be guide through our ideas, systems and results. The diagrams will help to set the main idea but the screenshots will help you to understand the systems in relationship to the design assignment. We really put our heart into this project, days and night 24/7 and sometimes multiple 24/7â€™s. We came across a lot of problems and dead ends but eventually we managed to deliver a pavilion based on generative systems as a network integrated into the site.
2. DESIGN CONCEPT 2.1 OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT Fig. 2 - Location of Site
2.1.1 ARCHITECTURAL IDEA Located on the edge of the TU Delft campus facing the historical center, the triangular site is wedged between three dominant buildings and two infrastructure nodes. The buildings include a science center, the faculty of architecture, and student housing facilities. The eastern tip of the site is dominated by a large intersection connecting the city center to the suburbs and the highway, whereas on the west side lies the main artery connecting the campus to the city. The site is well connected to the public transport network; comprising of two bus stops and a future tram line running along the west edge. The main train station is also within walking reach. (fig.2)
Fig. 3 - Movement of Students
The student housing is in part located inside the site itself. The other half of the site is a park with a fair amount of green space and a variety of trees. Currently the park is seldom used. Contributing factors are likely the fact that the park is cut off from the cityâ€™s residential districts by the large road intersection and building institutions, whereas the students occupying those institutions mostly travel between these buildings and their housing and public transport stops which are all directly connected, giving them little reason to venture into the park. (Fig. 3)
The main starting point for the design was to reconnect the park with the surroundings. By placing a pavilion with a new program inside, people will have a reason to go there. Furthermore, the pavilion is intended to act as a bridge across the park, acting as an additional connecting element between the surrounding functions. Since most local functions deal with students, these become the target demographic. This is reflected in the program, which is aimed at drawing them into the park by the program’s enhancement of the local facilities. The rough scheme includes a café, to cater to the cultural side of student life, and act as a source of income for the structure. Study areas will supplement the limited amount currently available at the architecture faculty. Lastly, a flexible exhibition space can act as a multi-purpose area for various activities and events. The idea is to also make these spaces partially indoors and partially outside, to further enhance the connection with park. In terms of typology, the proposed structure will be a blend between a land bridge and a traditional pavilion building. The actual layout and form will be a consequence of the afore-mentioned qualitative top-down aims (connecting concept, proposed program), in combination with bottom-up generative systems working with quantified input data obtained from an analysis of the site and its main characteristics (sun exposure, daylight, amount of trees, accessibility points). The aim is to then apply the retrieved data to select a form and orientation which can make optimal use of the site’s characteristics with regards to the accessibility for visitors and the pavilion’s indoor climate. An interactive façade will adjust its openness according to program’s daylight needs or the number of people present. (Fig. 4)
Fig. 4 - Students as Connecting Factor
Fig. 5 -Objectives
2.1.2 OBJECTIVES FOR COMPUTATION DESIGN STRATEGIES The pavilion consists of several computational aspects. Firstly, a system is needed to determine the buildings placement and extent within the site. The extent of the building can be further broken down into a system to determine the footprint, and height or volume. A strategy for program placement with regards to the building’s generated layout and exterior criteria is also needed. As well as a system to control the interactive façade, so as to optimally adjust itself based on interior and exterior conditions. The various generative systems informing the layout of the building and its program will strive together to create an ease of movement and a continuous experience for the users, whilst at the same time placing the built form into the site so as to best make use of the sun orientation, buildable area, and connection to the surroundings. In the same way, generative systems employed in the skin and structure of the building will optimize the façade and thereby the pavilions climatic condition by adjusting the amount of daylight and temperature according to the position of the sun and the number of people present inside the building. (Fig. 5)
2.2 DESIGN SYSTEM FLOWCHART 2.2.1 MAIN DESIGN ELEMENTS
2.2.2 EXTERNAL INFLUENCING CRITERIA
The design process began with the selection of a location within the site, based on the establishment of architectural goals for the pavilion, then enhanced within computational system aims necessary for the actual realization. The main steps of the process, informed by exterior criteria pertinent to the project, are then as follows: identify a starting point for the design, find a secondary point so as to establish the primary axes for the building, further branch out the building towards the site boundary, extrude a footprint along each of the newly created axes, add a height factor to generate volumes, adjust structure based on external criteria, fine tune structure in an optimization process. (Fig. 6)
Many exterior inputs can exert an influence on the future building. The selection was narrowed down to what were seen as the main elements, these being the sun path and exposure, wind, trees present on the site, and ease of accessibility.
Fig. 6 - Design Process Flowchart
In the process, it was discovered that the winds presence on the site was fairly evenly spread and its effect on potential structures, especially smallscale ones such as the pavilion, would be negligible. Hence the wind factor was removed from the analysis. 2.2.3 ELEMENTS - CRITERIA RELATIONSHIP (Fig. 7) Given the nature of many of the design aims, such as the pavilion’s integration into the site and its connecting aspect, in naturally follows that the site criteria have a large impact on these architectural elements. As mentioned previously, all criteria were considered together at the start, nevertheless, the sun has the most influence in the later stages when it comes to optimizing the openings in the façade. Ease of accessibility mainly influences the building’s connecting aspect, as well as its permeability in terms of creating a relationship between the interior and the exterior. The trees played the biggest role in the first aim, to cause minimal changes to the existing park. They also affect the optimization process of the façade openings. Each of the criteria get a certain weight in relation to each other, based on their perceived importance against each other and against the architectural aims. These scores can be manipulated throughout the design process in order to experiment with a variety of outcomes.
Fig. 7 - Elements-Criteria Relation
2.2.4 GENERAL ALGORITHMIC APPROACH CONCEPT (Fig. 8) Based on the connection between the site criteria and the design aims, one can start to decide what algorithms would best realize the aims. The idea of minimally intruding into the site means that ideal building locations need to be found. This means determining places by a system that can rate individual places and thus compare them to select the best one.
Fig. 8- Elements-Algorithms Relation
Once an ideal starting point is located, an algorithm is needed to generate the buildingâ€™s axes, along which the actual structure can later be placed. The system needs to once again avoid existing obstacles such as buildings and trees, and instead find areas that are suitable in terms of sun and daylight, which will be important for the placement of the program. A fractal branch could achieve this, by following rules that dictate which places to grow into and which to avoid, thereby guaranteeing a relationship between the what the algorithm is doing and what is on the actual site. The benefit is that this also entails the axes will be placed throughout the site as the branching occurs, which means the building will inherently spread around instead of being in one place, thus facilitating the aim of connectivity. The axes then need to be extruded to form a footprint. Here, a secondary recursion of the existing branch lines can be used. Since the base line of the extrusion is the line generated in the previous step, a direct link can be made between the reach of the building and the amount of ground it directly occupies. Once the footprint is setup, the volume can in turn be extruded. This is based on the footprint size and the desired height as determined by the program. The surface of the abstract volume then needs to be divided to
2.3 SITE ANALYSIS create some form of structure. The method chosen was to divide the surface using Serpinsky triangles. This allows for a smooth division across the surface, as well as a variety of triangle sizes. This latter aspect can be utilized when it comes to the last step. (façade opening optimization – serpinsky) In the last step, the variety of structural divisions across the volume is made use of as a basis for the application of façade opening. In effect, all varied triangles generated in the last step are further recursed in the same way, generating a plethora of potential openings. The density of openings will depend on the program present.
2.3.1 SETUP The analysis will begin by overlaying the entire site with a grid of points. This allows the infinite multitude of individual points on the site to be abstracted down to a more manageable level. The point grid also acts as a reference base, which all subsequent analyses will use to map their results unto. This means individual results can then be compared with each other. The grid will be parametrically defined in Grasshopper and so its resolution can be increased or decreased accordingly. (Fig. 9) 2.3.2 STUDIES OF INFLUENCING CRITERIA Using the Ladybug plug in, an analysis of the sun’s exposure on the site can be made, taking into account the position of existing buildings and major trees. From the result, the highest scoring areas are then mapped onto the main point grid. (Fig. 10)
Fig. 9 - Setting up a Point Grid
Since the proposed pavilion is meant to stimulate the use of the park, as well as function as an extra connecting element. Hence ease of access is a key factor. The analysis begins by identifying the main entry points around the immediate border of the site. In a similar fashion as the points in the sun exposure study; certain points are given a higher score. In this case these are points that demarcate important entry points. These entry points are chosen in a strictly subjective way based on the architectural goals. For example, with the target demographic being students; one of the aims is to create a strong connection with the architecture faculty. Therefore, the entry point of the faculty gets a higher relative score than other entry points. All values are set parametrically so they can be manipulated. Then, each point on the point grid will be analyzed against all the entry points, and assigned a score
Fig. 10 - Sun Study Principles
Fig. 11 - Accesibility Study Principles
based on this. This is done for each point, finally the points that scored the highest against all the other points will be selected. (Fig. 11) The aim of the design is to keep as many trees in the park intact. This means deciding on a certain range from the trees which the pavilion must stay clear of, and thereby mapping out the available potential building site in between. The analysisbegins by locating all the major trees on the site and giving them an adjustable range of influence. Points are then scored based on their distance from all the trees, with the highest score being points that lie completely outside the trees influence. The results will be once again mapped unto the same point grid as the previous ones. (Fig. 12) Fig. 12 - Trees Study Principles
2.4 COMPUTATION STRATEGY FLOWCHART 2.3.3 Combining the Results
The results from the three analyses can then be superimposed on top of each other, mapping all the varying points at once, without their original scores. Ie. Only the highest scoring points from each analyses will be used. Then each criteria type gets a weight in a certain proportion to the rest, so that the results can be compared and merged. For example: sun and trees at 30% each, and accessibility at 40%; these proportions can always be changed or toggled. This merger then selects the most suitable points based on all three criteria. These will then be the main attraction points which act as candidates for the starting point of the design. (Fig. 13)
The computation process starts by taking the results from the site analysis. The time of sun exposure (using the Ladybug plug in), the importance of access points, and the range of influence of the trees (both analyzed in Grasshopper) are all transferred to the point grid, each layer the result of the highest scoring points, whereby they are merged based on a proportional weight granted to each criteria.
Fig. 13 - Overlaying the Results
The resulting points are then used as the data for the next algorithm, to determine the branch system of the building axes based on a certain amount of basic rules. The rules for the branching were written as a code in Python. Once these axes are setup, they are used as the starting point for the third algorithm, which recurses the line so as to generate potential footprints along each line. In this case, the code for the recursion is once again written in Python. The Gekko Plug-in can be used to determine the adjustment of the midpoint along the base axes (necessary to generate the recursion), based on results from the Ladybug sun study. This will create a series of triangular surfaces. The three corners of each surface can than used as an anchor point for the extrusion of a volume. The volume itself is divided using Serpinsky triangles in teh final stage, to create window openings, for which the code was written in Python. The recursion is done in such a way that the triangulation covers the surface in a smooth manner. In the later evaluation phase, this structure can be optimized using the Karamba Plug in. The actual placement of the openings are also dependent on the results from the Ladybug sun studies.
2.5 APPLICATION OF ANALYSIS IN COMPUTATION 2.5.1 SIMULATION METHODS
Fig. 14 - Computation Methodology Flowchart
A digital 3D model of the site was made in Rhino, which then served as the basis for all subsequent work (Fig. 15. The base point grid was setup up in Grasshopper and linked to the model (Fig. 16). 2.5.2 CRITERIA For the analysis in Ladybug, the range of results necessary was narrowed down based on the original aims. Since the target demographic were students, this meant they would primarily occupy the site during the academic school year. Therefore the analysis looked at the sun path between the months of September and July. It is also expected that the highest number of users will occur during the day, between standard working hours and into the evening. The time span was set between 9 am and 8 pm (Fig. 17, Fig. 18).
Fig. 15 - Digital 3D Model
Fig. 16 - Grid in Site
Fig. 17 - Sun Path Diagram in Ladybug
Fig. 18 - Sun Study
Fig. 19 - Chosen Access Points
Fig. 20 - Relative Scores Across the Site
Fig. 21 - Effect of Changing Access Weight
Fig. 22 - Tree Sizes on Site
Fig. 23 - Tree and Site Range.
Fig. 24 - Determine Values of Points on Site
The results of the effect of the chosen aspects points (Fig. 19) varied based on their relative score and their distance from any given points (Fig. 20). Varying these results can have dramatic effects on the outcome of potentially suitable points (Fig. 21).
The size of the trees (Fig. 22) determined the value of each point. The red outline in this case marks the no-go zone around the boundary of the site (Fig. 23). Each individual point would be compared to the distance of all trees. The points that would be furthest in general would obtain a higher score (Fig. 24).
2.5.3 EVALUATION The merging of the final scores for each point is done in Grasshopper, so that all the inputs from the site can be manipulated. The results are then displayed as gradients running along the point grid (Fig. 25). In this way, changes to the analysis rules or the weights between each criteria can be immediately seen and compared. For example, Figure 26 shows an example of a final result, based on a balanced ratio between each criteria. Changing these weights, such as lowering the importance of the sun criteria, shifts all the points. In this case we can see the access points and their importance dominates (Fig 27). Fig. 25 - Result of Combined Results
Fig. 26 - Effect of Balanced Criteria Weights
Fig. 27 - Manipulating Criteria Weights
3. GENERATIVE SYSTEMS (GS) EXPERIMENTATIONS 3.1 APPLIED GS RULES 3.1.1 FRACTAL BRANCH SYSTEM (AXES)
Fig. 28 - Setting up the Starting Line
For the start of the fractal branch system, the highest overall scoring point from the point grid is selected. The first line needs to be established first, from this line the branching can then occur on both ends. A first rule addresses this by letting the starting line run from the start point, through as many highest scoring points as it can find throughout the site (the exact position of the line is therefore determined during the later stage of optimization). (Fig. 28) Once the starting line is set, the fractal branching can begin. This follows several rules so as to avoid overlapping itself. The first rule is that the branching occurs under a 120 degree angle. This avoids the footprints in the next step from overlapping each other. Should two branches later on grow towards each other, their intersection becomes an end point and they both stop growing. (Fig. 29) The site as obstacles consisting mainly of trees, and one small building located in the park. The branches grow straight out, and they stop growing when they are at the closest perpendicular distance to a tree, that is located between their starting point and the edge of the site in the direction of their growth (Fig. 30). This rule is devised so as to always avoid a collision with an obstacle (B). Since stopping within a treeâ€™s range could still cause the next branching to hit a tree due to the 120 degree rule (A). Stopping at the closest perpendicular distance avoids this problem. By avoiding the trees and the building, the axes branch out through the site and so determine the potential space for the pavilion.
Fig. 29 - Rules to Avoid Overlap.
Fig. 30 - Avoiding Collisions
Fig. 31 - Spreading Across the Site
The final rule for the branching involves setting a maximum number of recursions. After this number is reached, the individual branches grow straight out until the end of the site, or stop if they encounter an obstacle (but they do not split further). This is to avoid any labyrinthine recursions from being created around the edge of the site, which would also be too close to each other to be used in any meaningful way. The branches that terminate closest to the highest ranking access points are selected as potential entry points for the pavilion. (Fig. 31) 3.1.2 FRACTAL RECURSION (FOOTPRINT) The start and end point of each line created by the fractal branching (Fig. 32) are used as the starting points for the second recursion, together with a midpoint along that line determined by the Gecko plug-in using the Lady bug data and the proximity of obstacles. The recursion occurs along these three points and generates a potential footprint. Due to the varying lengths of the different branch axes, different sized footprints will be created. (Fig. 33) Although the recursion creates triangles across both sides of the base line, only the triangles outside of the exisitng ones are used, so as to prevent the juxtaposition of footprints (Fig. 34). Further recursions can take place a set nuber of times to generate ever-smaller additional footprints. Then the program is placed inside. Through Grasshopper, all the available areas are evaluated against the program size and the relationships between each part in order to locate within which triangular footprint(s) individual spaces can be placed. Lastly, the edges of the triangular footprint are connected with each other, so that the spaces can become integrated. Any small leftover triangles that are not needed are ignored.
Fig. 32 - Selecting Start & End Points
Fig. 33 - Beginning the Footprint
Fig. 34- Further Footprint Recursions and Adjustments
Fig. 35 - Extracting the Volume
3.1.3 SERPINSKY TRIANGLES Once the program is placed and the actual footprint of the building is firmly determined, the volume can be extruded (Fig. 35). The triangleâ€™s end points are used as the anchor points. The standard height of these points is set to 3 meters, but is varied according to the program. Based on the points and their height, a dome shape is generated.
Fig. 36 - Facade & Roof Tessalation
The surfaces is then covered with Serpinsky triangles. These allow for a varied collection of different sized elements in the facade, which can be used in the last step to create a variety of openigns inside the facade, where needed. Furthermore their form will act as the main structural principle of the building. Between the dome and the ground, the triangles are continued along their paths to create the walls of the pavilion. Once all this is set, the triangles can be further subdivided to for the basis of the skin openings. The density of these openigns will depend on the program, and the genome criteria. (Fig. 36)
3.2 GS PSEUDO CODE 3.2.1 FRACTAL BRANCHING (Fig. 37)
3.2.2 FRACTAL FOOTPRINT (Fig. 38)
3.2.3 FRACTAL VOLUME (Fig. 39)
3.2.4 FACADE (Fig. 40)
3.2.5 SERPINSKY (Fig. 41)
3.2.6 ROOF STRUCTURE (Fig. 42)
3.3 GS GROWTH BEHAVIOUR (ACTUAL RESULTS) Fig. 43 - [STEP 1] Setup Starting Axis
Fig. 45 - [STEP 3] Set Border
The central axis is layed down, by selecting the most optimal point from the site analyses and then analyzing in Grasshopper which line will cover the highest number of remaining validated points withing a set max. range.
The fractal branch number of recursion is capped at 5 times. (However in practice this has not been achieved anywhere on the site). Border points are layed down so the fractal knows when it has reached the sire boundary.
Fig. 44 - [STEP 2}Identify Trees
Fig. 46 - [STEP 4] Execute Fractal Branch
Trees are assigned, with their ranges of influence, for the fractal branch to The pavilionâ€™s axes are mapped across the site. Following the growth rules avoid. that were set; regarding number of recursions, angle, overlaps, obstacle avoidance, and where to stop.
Fig. 47 - [STEP 5] Trim Branch
Fig. 49 - [STEP 7] Second Footprint Recursion
Once the fractal growth is done, extruding branches at the siteâ€™s boundary are trimmed.
The second recursion generates the footprint to only the outer side, so as to avoid juxtapositioning with the footprint from the first recursion.
Fig. 48 - [STEP 6] First Footprint Recursion
Fig. 50 - [STEP 8] Connecting Edges
Now the generated axes are themselves recursed in order to create the footprint. The first recursion happens on both sides of the base line.
The edges of the first recursion triangles are connected, establishing a region of space which will act as the connecting element between the individual triangular footprints, and as a transition space with the exterior park.
Fig. 51 - [STEP 9] Final Footprint
Fig. 53 - [STEP 11] Set Volume Height (3D view from here on)
Obtaining the final footprint that will be used.
3D View: Based on the program in each volume, a height factor is added to each anchor point.
Fig. 52 - [STEP 10] - Identify Closed Volumes
Fig. 54 - [STEP 12] Primary Load-Bearing Structure
Identify suitable areas for the insertion of the program, based and their relative position and the available squared meters. These areas will become the closed volumes of the pavilion, acting as interior space.
The top of the volume is populated with a diagrid pattern. This will be the primary load-bearing structure of the roof.
Fig. 55 - [STEP 13] Secondary Load-Bearing Structure
Fig. 57 - [STEP 15] Exterior Wall Extrusion
Below the primary structure is a secondary one. This Honeycomb shaped load-bearing structure has its nodes directly below the center point of each triangle of the primary structure.
The exterior walls are extruded from the rim of each volume vertically to the ground.
Fig. 56 - [STEP 14] Load-Bearing Structures Connection
Fig. 58 - [STEP 16] Roof Package
The two load-bearing structures are connected together with small beams.
Roof package is added on top of the structure.
Fig. 59 - [STEP 17] Serpinsky Division for Opening Units
Fig. 61 - [STEP 19] Edge-Connecting Surfaces are Membranes
Roof package is divived with a Serpinsky recursion, to generate triangles of The connected points between the tips of the largest triangles (first recurvarying sizes. These will act as the basis for the roof opening units. sion) are connected and lofted. This surface will be a sun shade sail. Hence it will be a membrane under tension, not a solid element. Fig. 60 - [STEP 18] Additional Closed Volumes
Fig. 62 - [STEP 20] Final Structure with Roof, Membranes, and Addition of Roof Opening
Smaller closed volumes, based on a third recursion of the footprints, can be Opening units are added unto the roof, based on the Serpinsky devision. potentially added if extra space for an additional program is needed. Their orientation is based on the sun orientation.
4. OPTIMISATION & EXPERIMENTATIONS 3.6 INPUTS & OUTPUTS (Fig. 63)
4.1 GENOMES & FITNESS CRITERIA (Fig. 64)
4.2 MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMISATION 4.2.1 ANALYSIS RESULTS
4.2.2 FRACTAL BRANCH
4.2.4 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Fig. 88 - Program Implementation Flowchart
Fig. 126 - Structure Analysis (Using Karamba)
4.2.5 STRUCTURE The structural analysis was carried out using Karamba (Fig. 126). It was then optimized using the Gecko plug-in (Fig. 127).
Fig. 127- Optimization (Using Gecko)
4.2.6 PANELS The panels have been optimized Ladybug and Galapagos plugi-ins (Fig. 128), to create a gradual variation in the folding angle (Fig. 129). Fig. 130 shows the results before and after optimization. Fig. 128 - Gradual Variation in Angle of Roof Openings.
Fig. 128 - Panels Optimisation
4.2.7 FACADE The effects of solar radiation on the glass panels were analyzed using the Gecko plug-in (Fig. 131). The results were subsequently used to determine the transparency of the panels (Fig. 132).
Fig. 131 - Glass panels analysis
Fig. 132 - Optimized transparency of panels
5. DESIGN DOCUMENTATION 5.1 SITE PLAN (Fig. 133)
5.2 PROGRAM Fig. 134 - Schematic Program Layout
The building consists of three main parts: a cafe, study areas, and exhibition spaces. Essentially each part can exist independently of the others. The cafe is meant for generating revenue, and giving people (both students and local residents alike) an added reason for visiting the park. It is situated inside the pavilion and partially outside, to enhence the connection with the surrounding green space. The cafe will be one of the larger spaces in the pavilion, and form the central point of focus. Both Sun and Accessibility are key criteria for this space. Furthermore, the cafe needs smaller secondary spaces: toilets, the kitchen, and storage. These need to be in direct connection with it. The cafe has its own main entrance. The second aspect of the program are study areas for the students on campus. There are currently not enough work spaces in many faculty buildings, particularly the architecture faculty situated right next to the park. The spaces can be small units for accomodating a few students at a time, and can be scattered throughout the building. Furthermore, several larger meeting rooms will be incorporated into the design allowing for larger groups of people to work together or hold meetings. One large space can also cater to seminars etc. These spaces once again need a direct connection to toilets. The third function is an exhibition space. The idea here is to have a multifunctional space located between the two other functions, to be used for whatever any of the university faculties might need space for. Once again part of it is inside, and part of it outside, under a sunshade. This space is once again connected to toilets and a storage, so that it can function autonomously from the rest. This is important since it is likely that different parts of the building will be open at different times. Accessibility is the main criteria here, and so the reception is attached to this part of the building.
5.3 FLOOR PLAN (Fig. 135)
Fig. 136 - Floor Plan (Fragments)
5.4 SITE ELEVATION Fig. 137 - East-West Elevation
Fig. 138 - South-North Elevation
5.5 SITE SECTION (Fig. 139)
5.6 EXTERIOR RENDERS Fig. 140 - Bird’s eye View
Fig. 141 - Bird’s eye View
Fig. 142 - Eye Level View
Fig. 143 - Eye Level View
5.7 INTERIOR RENDER
5.8 CONSTRUCTION Fig. 145 - Fragment of Building, Exploded View
5.8.1 MATERIALISATION, MANUFACTURING, & ASSEMBLY LOGIC The triangle edges tessalating the facade are used as the basis for structural steel trusses. Essentially creating a diagrid structure covering the intire building (Fig. XX). Using File-to-Factory (F2F) principles, the data from the digital model can be directly sent to a manufacturer which can fabricate each elements using Coputer Numerically Controlled (CNC) production. The individual elements can than be delivered on site, where they are dry assembled. Diagrid structures are self-supporting, doing away with the need for scaffolding. Manufacturing in the factory allows for the highest measures regarding precision and safety, minimising problems and risks on the building site. The dry assembly method also minimises the impact and time needed to put the building together on the site. It also means it can be taken down more easily in the future, should the need arise. The exterior walls between the ground and the domed roof volumes will for the large part be made up of floor-to-ceiling windows, to make the most use of natural light and to visually connect the building with the park. In some places however, for example the toilets, the walls will need to be opaque.To nevertheless retain the daylight aspect whilst getting rid of the transparency, laminated glass profiles with fibre glass insulation inside can be used (Fig. 146). These profiles can structurally support themselves, whilst also acting as a traditional insulating wall. The fibre glass insulation allows for light to pass through and diffuse pleasantly into the interior. A system of this kind has been used in many places, for example on the extention of the Nelson Atkins Museum, designed by Steven Holl (Fig 147). The german company Wacotech is a common supplier for these products.
As for the large windows in the majority of the exterior walls, these also need to avoid transmitting glare and direct sunlight. This is of particular importance for the study areas and the meeting rooms. The proposed solution is to use window panels developed by the company Okalux. The glass panels have an inside layer made of an aluminium wire mesh. This mesh partially blocks light rays at certain angles, creating a soft light all the while giving protection from glare and direct sunlight. The aluminium layer also has a climatic function. Together with the panelâ€™s solar and thermal coating, it reduces the total solar energy transmittance of the glazing. This exact product and its propertirs was developed for the Seattle Public Library designed by Rem Koolhaas (Fig. 148), which in program and facade cover is very similar to pavilion design. These glass panels can also be used for the opening units in the roof.
Fig. 146- Laminated Glass Facade Element
Fig. 147 - Laminated Glass Facade (eg: Nelson Atkins Museum by Steven Holl)
The roofsâ€™s individual cells can be filled using once again custom produced CNC profiles from polycarbonate resin. These are light and also have nsulating properties, and so the roof only needs a minimum of layers of material,. Thereby minimising the need for additional detailing and potential problems that arise from having numerous layers of different materials. The polycarbonate profile is then coated with two layes of aluminium to protect it from weathering. An example of this application can be seen on one of the early designs of emerging non-standard architecture; the iWeb pavilion by Kas Oosterhuis, currently located on the TU Delft campus itself (Fig. 149).
Fig. 148 - Roof Windows with Wire Mesh (eg: Seatle Public Library by Rem Koolhaas)
Fig. 149 - Polypropylene-Aluminium Roof Elements (eg: iWeb by Kas Oosterhuis)
Fig. 150- Example of standard Sun Shade Sail with Rigging
The additional roof elements between the triangles play two roles: they connect the various spaces, and also create an area that is sheltered yet is outdoors, thereby merging the inside with the outside and creating a gradual transition for the user between the two. These elements can be simple sun shading sails (Fig. 150). They can easily be custom made by a variety of manufacturers. They are made from an HDPE membrane; a type of high density polyethylene with very high tensile strength. It is very light and although it is produced from petroleum, it is 100% recyclable. The membranes are relatively low cost and light, and have a reasonable lifespan of around 12 years, whilst being resistant to UV light, fire proof, water proof, and hail resistant. They also offer ample architectonic possibilities, as they can be made in a myriad of colors and given varying levels of transparency. The fabric is folded around the edges and sealed. Through the created loop, stainless steel wires are run from corner to corner, which are in turn attached to steel profiles and bolt shackles on all ends. Standard wire fittings and turnbuckles adjust the tension in the sails. The setup is all basic rigging material borrowed from the ship industry, it can withstand massive loads and also be taken apart very easily.
5.8.2 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION Fig. 151 - Section view of Construction
Fig. 152- Isometric view of Construction
6. CONCLUSION 6.1 ON EXPERIMENTATION The crucial objective within this design project was to find suitable generative systems and figure out how to apply them in the project. In this regard, lots of experimentation was done with various systems, in order to find the right ones, and join them up in a logical sequence which could generate the desired results. The same process applied for the optimization part of the design. In essence, rigorous systems were needed, but ones which could nonetheless be adaptable enough so as to incorporate parameters from the buildingâ€™s context and which would allow for a sufficient level of malleability in order to infuse the design process with the desired subjective, topdown architectural decisions.
6.1.1 LIMITATIONS The first limitation regarded the point grid, and its shortcomings which soon became soon. The two dimensional grid meant the design was relatively well worked out from a floor plan point of view, but when extruded to three dimensions, problems arose, such as the various sized canopies overlaying each other. Starting with a three dimensional grid, and thinking in 3 dimensions from the get go would have prevented this unnecessary complication. The two GS systems were too deterministic. Based on their implicit rules, it was not possible to relate the systems to the site analysis, or to modify them in any meaningful way. For example the dragon curve can work with a start and end point, but its growth between those two points is based on its own internal rules, and it is not possible to integrate it with additional elements, such as the attractor points, because than it stops being an L-system. The Broccoli script was the same problem. Unless another system would be used in tandem with it, it was impossible to get away from the triangles, and hence to create and architectural or structural qualities. 6.1.2 FUTURE EXPERIMENTS A potential development could be finding a suitable generative system for the interior. As the final design stands now, the spaces inside are quite tall, up to 12 meters. As a next step in the design, it would make sense to somehow divide this height sensibly into floors and such.
6.2 ON PROCESS 6.2.1 ADVANTAGES OF USING A PARAMETRIC APPROACH Designing in a way that all the elements were interconnected and changeable allowed for huge improvement in time efficiency. It meant that the actual building could be designed without the site analysis being finished yet. The correct parameters were then fed into the design part and so the building on the end still responded to its context. This workflow was only possible due to the parametric nature of the process, and would have been impossible using more traditional approaches. That being said, workflow could still be improved. For example, had there been a three dimensional grid instead of a flat one, then the solar analysis could have been done in three dimensions from the start, instead of first doing a solar analysis of the ground, and then later another solar analysis on the structure. This would have made the step to the morphology of the building much quicker. 6.2.2 ANALYSIS & PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The analysis system combined with the score system works really well. By setting our own priorities and choosing the aspects to analyse we were able to find the hotspots of our site regarding our objectives. The eventual points helped us again on every scale as optimisation criteria. As shown in the booklet, almost every decision is made with an evaluation to the score system. The first line of the branching system has been a result to this system and gave us a nice starting position for the eventual footprint. By setting rules such as sizes and physical requirements we implemented the program.
This program was again optimised by the scoring system. Not only did it give us the best option every step. It was also able to as a final evaluation. The systems worked really well although some changes could have been made. Instead of optimising every little step it should all be integrated into one optimisation process. Since every small step influences the whole try to combine. By combining all genoms and setting the total gained points as fitness criteria we should be able to run one final optimisation for our complete process. Yet this system won’t be able to run on one of our pc’s so we think the way we optimised the footprint and programmatic aspects is not so bad after all. To make the program implementation more accurate we could also set several extra rules and conditions in this way we could make it as complete as you would like to have. The recursive program placement is already a very large grasshopper file without refining the conditions and extra rules. So to be able to make this optimised program placement system we would write the conditions and rules into a python script , since we can set a for loop to do the iterations for us. To conclude the program system: the files could be way more compact and more sufficient. But as a startup and work in progress it was a very nice contribution to our project. It was part of the main concept and it helps a lot as well. In this way we were able to implement our architectural idea’s into a generative system.
6.3 ON THE DESIGN PROJECT 6.2.3 GENERAL OBSTACLES
6.3.1 APPLYING ARCHITECTURAL INTENTIONS
The main obstacle lay in using generative systems which were too deterministic. Finally, more adaptable systems had to be used, such as the fractal branch, whose rules were directly based on criteria from the environment. These experiments relied on trial and error, and so the project had to go through many fruitless stages which in the end were ditched in favor of other ones.
The main quandary during the project was infusing the design with specific architectural qualities; finding the balance between the determinism of some generative systems and the flexibility of others. Hence not being bound by the particular geometrical outcome of a system, but also still managing to apply the architectural aims in a clear and systematic manner. The introduction of generative system rules whose behavior was based directly on parameters from the context (such as the fractal branch for the building axes), as well as inserting â€˜layersâ€™ between each system (for example separating GS canopy from the GS openings with a structure; whose shape is dependent on the system but nevertheless acts as a transition), made this possible.
As mentioned previously, it was not possible to assign any meaningful structure or architectural qualities or program to the canopy structures either. Dividing the canopy with a Serpinsky division alone also did not solve this problem. These problems had to be circumvented by combining the systems. One way was to combine the system with something more basic, such as tessallating the generated canopy with a regular structural framework, and then applying a second generative system, in this case the Serpinsky division, over that, to create the window openings.
6.3.2 POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS The fractal branching which was developed for the layout of the building across the site is based on simple contextual rules, similar to biological processes, which allow it to be implemented in many other situations, completely unrelated to this particular site or design. It can also be optimized easily because it has a clearly defined set of genomes which affect the outcome.
APPENDIXES I - GRASSHOPPER DOCUMENTATION Fig. 153 - GH FILES / Analysis
Fig. 154 - GH FILES / Score System
Fig. 155 - GH FILES / Final Score System
Fig. 156 - GH FILES / Creation of Starting Line and Optimization
Fig. 157 - GH FILES / Program Implementation & Evaluation/Optimization
Fig. 158 - GH FILES / Cafe & Exhibition: Implemetnation and Evaluation.
APPENDIXES II - PRELIMINARY DESIGNS GENERATIVE SYSTEMS (FIRST) RECURSIVE BRANCH
Fig.159 - Topology Mapping Process
The first concept for how to layout the building across the site was based on using the overlayed results from the anaysis to identify suitable points, and then cluster these based on their distribution. Then connect them with a recursion, and create a series of different nodes. ‘Ends” would connect the entry points of the site with other nodes (and can be used as the basis for circulation). ‘Dots’ would connect to other nodes in the building but nothing else (analogous to dead end, quite parts of the building). Finally, ‘Knots’ would be central points connecting with all other nodes and each other (ie places where the main components of the program can be placed). In the process of searching for suitable generative systems to create the area and Fig. 160 - Topology Generated from Analysis volumes of the building, this approach was abandoned.
DRAGON CURVE & DIAGRID DRAPE
Fig. 163 - Dragon Curve Principles
The Dragon Curve was experimented with as a possible use of a generative system for determinign the pavilion footprint. It was adjusted so that it could generate cells for the building volumes. These generated cells were then combined with the cluster points from the topology study. The resulting surface was then covered with a diagrid structure which could then be eventually subdivided for openings and so on. Problems with the appliction of the diagrid structure led to furhter experimentation with regards to the skin. The Dragon Curve was kept. Fig. 161 - Applying the Dragon Curve
Fig. 164 - Morphology Generation Process
Fig. 162 - Example of Results; Dragon Curve and Diagrid Structure.
DRAGON CURVE & BOXES PUSHING THROUGH LANDSCAPE
Fig. 165 - Dragon Curve Along a Path from A to B
Keeping the Dragon Curve and using it to connect selected attractor points based on the site analysis, it was this time used to determine extra points around its generated perimeter. In this way it defined additional points that could be used as a range for the pavilion’s footprint. Boxes representing future volumes for various programmatic elements were then inserted . Their position and size were determined by the selected at- Fig. 166 - Addition of Boxes traction points. Unlike in the previous experiment, this time the diagrid was not draped across the created volumes. instead, the ground was subdivided into a series of triangles, and the boxes would ‘punch’ through this tessalated surface. Using a recursive pattern, the skin was subdivided based on its proximity to the selected attraction points. The idea was to have more subdivisions near the attractors, so that there would be a bigger possibility for the later application of the facade openings. However a practical probem arose out of this; the diagrid structure was very intricate near the top, where it already occupied a small surface area, and was very open near the bottom, wher it actualy stretched out. Structurally speaking one would expect the exact opposite. This and the added problem of not being able to do very much with the dragon curve due to its deterministic behaviour (you can set it to join two selected points or more, but the recursion it generates between those points is set and not very flexible in terms of adapting to the environment or other necessary factors/ aims) led to the discarding of this concept. A different generative system, on eless arbitrary and one that could be better tailored to the architectural aims and the site, needed to be used.
Fig. 167 - Subdivision of Ground Surface & Boxes Pushing Through
FRACTAL RECURSIONS & BROCCOLI SCRIPT
Fig. 168 - Recursions & Application of Broccoli Script
Fig. 169 - Inserting Program & Optimizing to Sun
A new type of recursion was opted for, as well as a new generative system that was better suited for generating volumes. The recursive system needed to be able to be connected to objectives, and be manipulatable based on all of the attraction points, and be responsive to various criteria’s. Hence the fractal that navigates the site was developed (and still in ise in the final version). The ‘Broccoli script’ was used as a means to generate usable volumes. At this stage however the idea was still to simply use it as a canopy, and to place boxes underneath it to house the program. The idea was then to parametrically manipulate these boxes according to the program, taking the maximum size so as not to interesct the canopy, and the minimum size being limited by the practical usability of the space. The final volume sizes can than be optimized based on the sun criteria. However at this stage the design still lacked a reasonable integration between the generative system creating the skin, and the functional space needing to be house in it.
Fig. 170 - Process Flowchart
Fig. 171 - Examples of Resulting Geometry Using the Broccoli Script
Fig. 175 - Footprint Generation and Program Placement
Using the broccoli script to generate a volume proved too retstrictive, so other systems were looked at. The next one to be experimented with was the Serpinsky divisions. However it became quickly apparent that using them to both create a volume and structure at the same time once again did not offer the necessary flexibilty the design needed for the implementation of architectural aims. Also, the footprint at this stage of the design was extruded in both directions during the recursion, which led to ackward dome shaped spaces inside the larger domes, which were tricky to make use of or turn the space between the shapes into anything usefull. These issues were then tackled, resulting in the final project presented in this report.
Fig. 172 - No More Broccoli, volume is now a smooth dome extruded up.
Fig. 173 - Relation between the different recursed triangleâ€™s canopies
Fig. 174 Structure, Serpinsky Recursion
Fig. 176 - Design Process Flowchart
Fig. 178 - Isometry of Penultimate Design
Fig. 177 - Computation Method Flowchart
Fig. 179 - Site Plan
Fig. 180 - Impression
EVALUATIVE SYSTEMS NUDI BRANCH
TREE & ACCESS POINTS
The aim was to first use the Nudi Branch Plug-in for Grasshopper to evaluate the flow of people so as to determine where they move the most aroudn the site, as a means to gauge the accesibility of the future pavilion better. However, without the means to get accurate data regarding the number of people who move around at different times of the day and whereabouts they go, the results would be meaningless, so this metod was not used in the end
In the early stages of the site analysis, the idea was to simply create a nogo range around the trees, and take every point lying outside this range as usable. This method was later abandoned in favour of the more finetuned manner whereby each point is compared to All trees and their ranges. Similarly, the access analysis first included connecting (somewhat contrived) powerlines between entry points, which would influence each point, but later again the method of comparing each point to All the entry points was used.
Fig 181 - Example of Results Generated with â€˜Nudi Branchâ€™
Fig. 182 - Old method of mapping grid points affected by Access points.