Swarm Architecture: Kas Oosterhuis’s Novel Mode of Conceptualizing Architectural Design

Swarm Architecture: Kas Oosterhuis’s Novel Mode of Conceptualizing Architectural Design

Name: Venkata Shiva Ganta Tutor: Antonino Di Raimo University Of Portsmouth

CONTENTS

List of Figure........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Swarm Intelligence Paradigm: Background and Applications to Architectural Design................ 6 Swarm Intelligence.............................................................................................................................................. 6 Swarm Architecture............................................................................................................................................ 7 Swarm Logic in Building Process..................................................................................................................... 9 Communication in Swarm Architecture..........................................................................................................10 Case Studies Background..................................................................................................................................11 Case Study 1: Hydra, Saltwater Pavilion..............................................................................................................11 Swarm Behaviour for Structural Properties...................................................................................................11 Case Study 2: Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit Showroom...................................................................15 Swarm behaviour as an overall Architecture Design System......................................................................15 Case Study 3: Trans_Ports 2001...........................................................................................................................19 Swarm Behaviour as Transformable Architecture........................................................................................19 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................21 Bibliography..........................................................................................................................................................22

2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Flock of Starling showing collective behaviour....................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Complex results generated through Agent Based simulation by following simple evolution rules, Stephen Wolfram......................................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3: Natures form of computation, formation of sand dunes over a long period of time.................................7 Figure 4: People connect to people........................................................................................................................................8 Figure 5: People connect to things.........................................................................................................................................8 Figure 6: Things connect to things, Apollo Soyuz connection 1975................................................................................8 FIgure 7: Script generating animated spline, Maxscript......................................................................................................9 Figure 8: Generating flocking patterns in Grasshopper......................................................................................................9 FIgure 9: Hydra Saltwater Pavilion, ONL............................................................................................................................11 Figure 10: Unibody Smart Town Car....................................................................................................................................12 Figure 11: Unibody skull heterodontosaurus......................................................................................................................12 Figure 12: Illustration of Power Lines defining the geometry of Saltwater Pavilion...................................................12 FIgure 13: Ruling Curves, Saltwater Pavilion 1997.............................................................................................................12 Figure 14: Exteior Curved Fins have the same detail all throughout, Saltwater Pavillion........................................13 Figure 15: Point Cloud reference Points and spread-sheet of data (for CNC), Saltwater Pavillion......................13 Figure 16: Axonometric of the Structural system, Saltwater Pavilion.............................................................................14 Figure 17: Virtual Worlds projected on floor and wall inside Saltwater Pavilion...........................................................14 Figure 18: Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit Showroom, ONL..............................................................................15 Figure 19: Illustration: the Acoustic Barrier, a slender snake, bulging with its ingested program, the cockpit building.....................................................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 20: Hessing Cockpit showroom, ONL....................................................................................................................16 Figure 21: Point Cloud of reference points, Acoustic Barrier..........................................................................................16 Figure 22: 3d steel lattice structural elements of Acoustic Barrier and its corresponding execution using CAM technique.................................................................................................................................................................17 Figure 23: CAM produced Structural elements of Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit are numbered for easy assembleage on-site.................................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 24: Assembly of structural elements on-site, Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit......................................18 Figure 25: Structural Frame of Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit..........................................................................18 Figure 26: Trans_PORTs 2001, Kas Oosterhuis.................................................................................................................19 Figure 27: Muscle NSA, Kas Oosterhuis..............................................................................................................................20

3

Introduction We can think about form simply as organization. (interview with roland SNOOKS, 2010) Kas Oosterhuis is the professor of architecture at the Delft University, and director of Hyperbody and the Protospace Laboratory for collective Design and Engineering. His research and teaching is mainly focused in interactive architecture, real time behaviour of buildings and environments, and concepts of living buildings and parametric design and File to Factory (F2F) production. He even owns a firm named ONL. From the early 1990s onwards, novel methodologies, for example, digital tectonics paralleled the development of spline modeller development tools. Architects began manipulating curved lines directly on their computer screen.

Architects started mass producing blob like forms and tested previous modernist concepts of ordering space by presenting the thoughts of folding (Greg Lynn) or field conditions (Stan Allen) that clung to the impacts of dynamic environmental conditions on the procedure of shaping. The crucial design decisions turned out to how to set adequate limits of variations to these kind of conditions, changing the role of an architect from outlining static results to orchestrating various dynamic processes with multiple instantiations of possible outcomes. An effect of this was parametricism allegedly turned into a definitive ‘new global style for architecture and urban design’ (Parametricism, 2008).

Kas Oosterhuis took these approaches further during the last decade. He not only emphasized on the continuous gamification of architecture with wide variety of digital and animation tool getting integrated into the design process, but also, in a rather illogical way, referred to swarming (fig 1) as a novel method of conceptualising architectural design (Oosterhuis & Feireiss, 2006). Swarm Architecture (SA), Oosterhuis claimed, would replace substantial forms and orderings with a notion of architecture as information flow. It is focused on the organizing of various movement vectors within a distributed system of different interacting agents (people, materials, environmental forces, etc.).

Moreover, with its appeal to the bottom-up principles and emergent global behaviour of Agent-based Modelling and Simulation (ABM), it likewise rose above the generative standards of spline modelling and parametric design.

Figure 1: Flock of Starling showing collective behaviour

4

Oosterhuis in his paper on swarm architecture says: ‘An individual architect will no longer be tempted to have the illusion of complete control over the process. […]. Now in the beginning of the twenty-first century architecture is going wild […] (Oosterhuis & Feireiss, 2006, p76)’. As Australian architect Ronal Snooks also adds ‘I consider parametric and emergent as polar opposites. Within parametric hierarchical tools all possibilities are given within the starting condition, while emergent conditions arise from the non-linear systems such as multi-agent model. […] What we are interested in is looking at design from the smallest element and the way that generates order at the macro level (interview with roland SNOOKS, 2010)’.

This dissertation will be exploring the potential use of Swarm Intelligence (SI), Agent-based Modelling (ABM) and the language of Swarm Architecture for understanding the dynamic process of connecting people and all other active elements in the building construct in a complex adaptive system, and how Swarm Architecture (SA) informs its structure in real time. Further investigating into case studies which were executed using this architectural language.

5

Swarm Intelligence Paradigm: Background and Applications to Architectural Design Swarm Intelligence Computational Swarm Intelligence can be indicated as a kind of science from the bottom-up. If we put it the other way, using swarms is the same way as “getting a bunch of small cheap dumb things to do the same job as an expensive smart thing (View of Computational Swarming, 2014, p10). It is grounded to the idea that the complex adaptive behaviour of a system at the global level which are affected by multiple parallel interaction of very simply constructed individuals at the local level, when they follow a set of only a few behavioural rules like avoidance (avoid collision with flock mates), alignment (steer towards the average heading of flock mates), and cohesion (steer towards the locally perceived centre of the flock). This system collectively possesses certain abilities that lacks in their component parts. The individual member of the swarm has only a limited understanding of its environment, but collectively as a whole can adapt flawlessly to the changing conditions of its surrounding.

The swarms inspired Agent-based Modelling (ABM) and simulation which provided researchers with the enduring knowledge about dynamic collectives. This conglomerate prompted the improvement of advanced software-based ‘autonomous particle system’ and transformed into the most essential sources for the development of distributed models in the ABM software paradigm.

ABM systems has been referred to as computational models specifically based on two properties, namely contextualization and complex patterns. The first property alludes to the way that ABM contextualized models of simulation, involving a reliable number of entities named agents. Each agent performs a proper computation, which when, influenced by the presence of the other agents can result in the formation of complex patterns, being it either behavioural or morphological (Di Raimo, Melis, Oliveira, Robazza, 2018). The second property, which is the direct result of the first, refers to the ability of these systems to trigger complexity what has been called emergence.

This concept involves the process of triggering complex entities, which shows the self-organizing properties, from simple interactions between the individual agents. The emergent properties seen during simulation are based on a simple set of rules (the relation between the agents and their environment), which results in abstract forms (fig 2) and structures which are unexpected. From a scientific and philosophical point of view, ABM are rooted within Complexity Sciences, namely a set of epistemological assumptions and math tools focused on the properties that some systems exhibit as soon as they deviate from a linear and deterministic evolution to a chaotic and non-linear development over time. Systems such as these can be found, for instance, in nature and in societal behaviour (Di Rimo et al., 2018, p. 2).

Figure 2: Complex results generated through Agent Based simulation by following simple evolution rules, Stephen Wolfram

6

Swarm Architecture One of the main features of the design should be to synchronize the structure and the skin. But, Oosterhuis believes this can be only done and orchestrated, organized and managed properly by parametric design methods.

The design should be about making a new system using new technologies that incorporates all possible variations into one system. But, what are the underlying rules to get this output? Stephen Wolfram in his book “A New Kind of Science� says that Nature is a form of computation, which executes simple rules over a long period of time(fig 3). Oosterhuis applies these rules into architecture by scripting, to get the outcome. The form is the outcome of simple rules scripted, where the form is not derived from sketches, but it is scripted and out of the script we get the complex form in a very simple straight forward procedure. Complexity is the new form of beauty which will be experienced in the coming decades which will invade into all design fields, Oosterhuis claims.

Underlying all these, it is about the connectivity and directionality between people and things. People connect to people (fig 4), people connect to things (fig 5) and things connect to things (fig 6) there is some sort data exchange which I am going to further talk about in this dissertation. But combining and connecting these things is a very strict procedure, it is very precise. According to Oosterhuis this connectivity and directionality between these elements as seen in the building construct can be achieved through Swarm Behaviour.

If we take a closer look into the swarm behaviour, all the active members of the swarm behave as an individual unit in an individual node, and the individual actor only communicates with its immediate neighbour and all neighbours follow this same principle. This is Swarm Logic (TEDx TALKS, 2011).

Figure 3: Natures form of computation, formation of sand dunes over a long period of time

Now, if we can consider people and things as a system of swarm, we can arrive at the ecology of people and things.

Imagine this as an internet of people and things, this awareness could help leading us in generating ideas for the projects and concepts where people are connected to things emotionally, as there is a bi-directional interplay of emotions between people and things (Oosterhuis, 2006, p. 14).

The truly innovative architect designs swarm architecture for an open source in real time (Oosterhuis, 2003, p. 5).

Oosterhuis in his book Hyper Bodies, Towards an E-motive architecture says that buildings communicate. All the components in the building send and receive information in real time processing incoming data and giving new outcomes. There is a chain of communication and reaction going on between people, buildings and building components. They are all in a swarm system.

We use our five senses to process information in our brain and other organs by which we produce images and sounds and put new processed matter into the world. Information is continuously transforming and in this transformation process information travels from one processing unit to other. Information is carried in all sorts of manner, through wires, through vehicles and many other ways.

7

People are data carriers too. Information just keeps flowing and travelling. Oosterhuis declares, if we apply this notion of information processing to buildings and architecture, then we realize that buildings are continuously absorbing information, processing information and producing new information. Buildings are always connected to this information flow. They are connected to the other buildings in the cities, connected to the world through internet, connected to users through user interfaces. All the buildings components like lights, doors, windows, computers, television sets, stairs, seats, basically everything which the user touches are continuously transforming.

And these processes run by building components play a key role in the evolutionary process of the formation and transformation of information and spaces. All this information is sustained in the swarm system, it is never lost, it only transforms.

Figure 4: People connect to people

Figure 5: People connect to things

Figure 6: Things connect to things, Apollo Soyuz connection 1975

8

Swarm Logic in Building Process How can the traditional vernacular building be accomplished using Swarm Logic process? In SA process there are no intermediate phases which involve 2D drawings, working drawings, drawings of details. Oosterhuis says that in his practice ONL (Oosterhuis Lénárd) they only produce drawings derived from the 3D model just to get the approval from the authorities and for all other interactions they use the design development itself. He believes that getting comments on the drawing and then again feeding it back into the 3D model is double work and says that there is too much information lost in the translation. This process doesn’t even involve making 3D models in software, but rather the 3D model is programmed on a variety of software platforms like Visual Basic, Autoslip routines, Rhinoscripts, Maxscripts (fig 7), Processing, Grasshopper (fig 8), Pro-Engineer. As these softwares support the ABM simulation and through which complex desired forms can be achieved.

Machines have taken over humans in the process of production and execution of building elements. Machine to machine communication to produce a variety of building components are enabled through the new digital techniques. Humans connect to this machine communication through conceptual interventions and through a variety of input devices can produce building components which are visually rich and complex. This process is called mass customization based on file to factory (F2F) production as described by Oosterhuis in the book “Disappearing Architecure II: A New Kind of Architecure” (Disappearing Architecture, 2005).

Buildings as people know today are based on mass production of building components. Most of the products are produced in limited range of sizes and then later customized during the assembly in the factory or on-site as part of the building. The mass-produced elements are categorized and specialized into discrete classes: doors, beams, windows, columns, tiles, bricks, hinges, wire, piping, etc. The production according to the principle of mass customization follows a completely different path. There is no catalogue, the products are produced from raw materials (which in most cases still mass produced) for a specific purpose as required by the specific building for a specific purpose. These products would not fit anywhere else, as there are unique and produced for a specific building. Architecture based on this new paradigm of mass-customization is totally different from the art of designing buildings we have seen until now. New tools are developed for creating diversity and complexity in the structures based on simple rules applied on conceptual procedures to generate behavioural relations between all constituting building elements. The organized control points which define the geometry are influenced by internal and external forces communicating with the evolution of the 3D model. A genuine comprehension of the peer to peer network of machines communicating to machines, connected by a flow of information prompts a total new attention to the architect/designer. We must go one level up and start designing the rules for the behaviour of all possible control points and the constraints of their behaviour instead of thinking of the richness and complexity (Disappearing Architecture, 2005, p. 23).

Figure 7: Script generating animated spline, Maxscript

Figure 8: Generating flocking patterns in Grasshopper

Oosterhuis refers the swarm of control points as Point cloud. The positions of the control points are not seen as individual exceptional states, but as implicit possible states in the flocking relation between the points. Oosterhuis in his book “Towards A New Kind of Building” says that these point clouds can be seen as sort of Quantum state of geometry (Disappearing Architecture, 2005, p. 25). These control points are ruled by the non-standard computation, there are no plans and sections involved in the design phase. The building design is based on the new building paradigm of mass customization and new design paradigm of programming soft design machines. Simple rules put into the machines are designed to compose a visually complex geometry. The data is transferred from the 3D model to the executing machines through peer to peer communication.

9

The point clouds are assigned numbers and the cutting, bending, drilling, welding machines are operated by these numbers and sequence which are produced by scripts, routines and procedures which are written by the designer and executed on the points of the point cloud. The organization of the points on the point cloud is done through a variety of design strategies (external and internal factors), using a variety of programming tools. These nodes can be interpreted as points on a constructive mesh when developing the 3D model using scripting. The designer can start working with the simple rules starting from the related positions of the nodes to generate the relevant data for mass –customization production. And the behaviour of these nodes is used to form the shape of the building.

Communication in Swarm Architecture Swarm Architecture is basically based on the idea that all the elements in the building operate like intelligent agents, data carriers and data processors that are active members in the swarm. These members constantly measure their mutual positions keeping an eye on the other members and tacking their positions in real time. All the building elements are members of the swarm. We can say that the building is the swarm. Each individual element (from a sheet of glass, wood, columns, trusses etc.) monitors the other, they are aware of the others. Some elements can be static and just read data, while some propose changes to the system. But, they all add something to the system. Each individual element in the building swarm is as stupid as a bird in the swarm. The bird operates a number of limited tasks in real time just to stay in the swarm. The flocking behaviour follows three simple rules 1) Cohesion: Fly towards the centroid of your local flockmate, 2) Separation: Keep a certain distance away from nearest flockmate, 3) Alignment: Align your velocity vector with that of the local flock. In Swarm Architecture we can use these rules and more rules like Evasion (Avoid occupying the same local airspace as your nearest flockmate), Migration (Fly towards a pre-specified location), and the designer can assign more rules to the parameters driving the formula of his/her imagination and generate the forms (Oosterhuis, 2003, p. 51). In this way architecture will not be same anymore. Architecture goes wild says Oosterhuis. In this practical system of Swarm Architecture all the building elements are intelligent agents flocking in the herd and reconfiguring themselves in real time.

Oosterhuis describes in his book “Hyper Bodies, Towards an E-motive Architecture� that in the design swarm, the designer exchanges information with other disciplines in a collaborative process, operating with visual artists, composers, graphic designers, planner, broadcasters of information and other architects. The information is also exchanged between the designer with construction engineers, installation engineers, project managers and process managers. And in this way the designer builds his vision. The feedback loops are established between these players and these players learn from each other. In the design swarm there is a constant flux of data, and this data cannot be stopped or else it will kill the project. This awareness is essential to follow a protocol for collaborative engineering. All the members in the swarm should acknowledge that the other members belong to the swarm with different view on the process of the growth of the project. Even though the members have different views on the process of the project, they are still able to swarm together as they share a common language and run a common script. In this process no one owns the building model, it is owned by itself (Oosterhuis, 2003, p. 54).

10

CASE STUDIES BACKGROUND Oosterhuis does not allude to the swarm logic as a shallow reference just, and it is expressly not implied as a metaphor. His design attitude is based on what it is, not what it looks like. The case studies in this dissertation are the works done by Oosterhuis practice ONL (Oosterhuis LĂŠnĂĄrd) and explain how this swarm logic initiated and further developed.

Case Study 1: Hydra, Saltwater Pavilion Year: 1997 Typology: Cultural Country: Netherlands

Figure 9: Hydra Saltwater Pavilion, ONL

Swarm Behaviour for Structural Properties The Saltwater Pavilion sits on an artificial man-made environment, cantilevering over the sea by 12 meters. The structure of the pavilion has advanced from the earliest initial points of the design process as a three-dimensional computer model. The designers were completely free with the programming of the building. The only thing they knew was the budget and roughly the scale of the project it must be. Oosterhuis practice ONL treat buildings as Unibodies (Oosterhuis, 2002a) in the same way as complex hard structural body of animal’s head is wrapped in a flexible skin (fig 10), protecting the nervous wiring and allowing it to follow the movements of the jaw and sensing the organs. In the similar way the car has its own stiff structural unibody protected by its fenders, hood and bumpers which can be easily removed to accommodate changes in style (fig 11). In the same way PC on the other hand has developed into an exoskeleton with a hard-protective shell on the outside and delicate wiring and intricate connections on the inside. The building body of the Saltwater Pavilion is generated combining these two strategies.

The program was developed to create a continuous flow of spaces inside the building and to have one skin wrapped around these spaces. To efficiently construct the design, a method was developed using the computational program to maintain both absolute control and absolute flexibility during the construction period. The design was based on eight lines along different paths which are scaled and narrowed to generate the form. The eight lines which Oosterhuis refers to as power lines of the geometry, take their own paths and comeback to their initial node to form the form (fig 12). A parametric design concept was developed. Each inch of the building is different because of its fluid geometry. Parametric design was used to describe the fluidly varying lines of the building volume in terms of parameters. The form was kneaded, stretched, bent, rescaled, morphed, styled and polished.

The depiction of the form is set down in the digital genes of the design that hold the germ of life, says Oosterhuis.

11

Figure 10: Unibody Smart Town Car

Figure 11: Unibody skull heterodontosaurus

To control the design economically and aesthetically, a three-dimensional database linked to the 3D model was built. In this database, the data was generated for every specific participant in the building process. The builder receives the information in the form of only a few principle details together with various tables with the parametric values. These data were used directly as input for the CNC machines, to manufacture the steel structure of the building, and the other set of data was used directly on the building site for the assembly of the structures. The steel structure for the building was based on scripting the exact geometric relations between the point cloud reference points on the control curves, which form the basis for the communication with the production machines (CNC). It is all one detail if we look at the curved fins of the pavilion (fig 14), but it is just the depth and the angle that varies along the path. The independent point cloud calculates the positions of the relative reference points and spread sheets of data of all the positions are made for the contractor to know all the different angles with their x, y, z positions. Spread-sheets of data were generated, which were sent to the CNC production machines, as the CNC machines do not real drawings but process data instead (fig 15). Oosterhuis realized that this relation between the reference points of the point cloud was something like what birds do in a flock. The birds follow simple rules as to form the flock, yet the birds execute their rules as a player in a running complex adaptive system, like being a player in a game. This triggered the thought of Swam Architecture to Oosterhuis and to think of architecture as a dynamic system, not only in the design phase where everything is still moldable, but also in its built behaviour as a built structure. The nodes of dynamic structure act as in a swarm, looking to their immediate neighbour to change position and information content.

Figure 12: Illustration of Power Lines defining the geometry of Saltwater Pavilion (Primary Source)

Figure 13: Ruling Curves, Saltwater Pavilion 1997

12

Figure 14: Exterior Curved Fins have the same detail all throughout, Saltwater Pavilion

As said earlier all the elements in the building are member of the swarm system. The Saltwater Pavilion has a responsive interior, that uses virtual environments to produce programmable space. It achieves this by connecting a virtual representation different world to the physical world through using different sensors connected to different interactive systems that operate together. The three actuating systems 1) projected animation 2) light systems 3) audio system are placed throughout the building to give a multimedia experience to the users. These systems interact with the user and the immediate environment in real-time. For example, the light programs itself to the wind speeds, sea level rise and the cycle of light and the sound is quicker when these factors are high. The projection of pre-programmed virtual environments on the floor and wall (fig 17) guide the user to walk through inside the building.

Figure 15: Point Cloud reference Points and spread-sheets of data (for CNC), Saltwater Pavilion

13

Figure 16: Axonometric of the Structural system, Saltwater Pavilion

Although not yet physical form of responsive architecture, the spaces inside the building are still responsive.

Furthermore, by layering the digital world over the physical world, the depth and complexity of responses produced within a space can be very rich and these digital worlds can be a direct extension to the physical body.

Figure 17: Virtual Worlds projected on floor and wall inside Saltwater Pavilion

14

Case Study 2: Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit Showroom Year: 2006 Typology: Infrastructure City: Utrecht, Netherlands

Figure 18: Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit Showroom, ONL

Swarm behaviour as an overall Architecture Design System The aim of this project was to combine a 1.5km long acoustic barrier with an industrial building (cockpit/Hessing showroom) of 5000-meter square. It is a design of a slender snake that ingested a little pig that scales stretching with the volume (fig 19). The conceptual underpinning for the project is laid by the means of articulating set of Nurbs curves, suggestive of a connection between the height, width and the length of the barrier. Basically, six Nurbs curves stretched along the 1.5km stretch of the A2 highway (Utretch, Netherland), describe the acoustic barrier and the cockpit building. Two pair of Nurb Curves describes the top and bottom of the structure, the third pair describe the folds and the general mass of the structure, which increases significantly at the cockpit’s position.

This project was also to create a sensation of sixty seconds of architecture for the swarm of cars streaming at a speed of 120 km/h along the acoustic barrier. The form of the barrier was based on a context driven rule, the length of the built volume of the Cockpit emerging from the acoustic barrier will be ten times more than its height. This parametric connection once set, and mapped onto the arrangements of the curves, yields a generally smooth curvilinear surface with a smooth transient bulge, which houses the Cockpit/Hessing showroom space (fig 20). This “informed geometry”, which makes the three-dimensional skin for the acoustic barrier works as a “form generator” as well as a “form regenerator”, attributable to the geometrically relational (parametric) reliance of the generic curves (Design Informatics, 2005). Any parametric modification made to the curves leads to the regeneration/ re-appropriation of form results in a new, yet controlled spatial configuration.

Figure 19: Illustration: The Acoustic Barrier, a slender snake, bulging with its ingested program, the cockpit building

15

Figure 20: Hessing Cockpit showroom, ONL

To get a finer degree of control over the obtained (conceptual) three-dimensional form (from the network of curves), a parametric basic framework which acquires its dimensional logic from an ideal development, oriented perspective (e.g. dimensions of glass panel) is mapped onto the surface of the conceptual construct. This intersection results in the extraction of distinct series of nodes/points, collectively called the “point cloud� (fig 21).

This point cloud represents a parametric setup. It depicts the volume by points and establishes spatial relationship between them: by serving as generic information database concerning highly specific co-ordinates, parameters and values for each constructive node it embodies. The sound barrier contains approximately 7000- point objects, whose relations are administered in a database. These relations are specifically connected to structural profiles and the related scaling factors of the cladding materials.

Figure 21: Point Cloud of reference points, Acoustic Barrier

16

To develop the constructive spatial structure and to manufacture the glazing and cladding material for the acoustic barrier an application is programmed. This application was programmed in different scripting languages (MAXscript, Auto Lisp) connected to the database system to handle all the point-data and their relations. The developed script operates on a simple rule: all points should look at and analyse their neighbours (in terms of co-ordinates and proximity). This rule based interaction is much the same as the thought of Flocks (Swarm). In this case the Boids (birds in the swarm) are replicated as points/constructive nodes, are the active members of a flock, calculating their position in real-time in relation to each other. The programmed scripts are based in such flocking principles, when applied to the point cloud iteratively runs all the calculations to update: 1. Steel-wire frames with its database, 2. Steel-lattice structure including all the execution drawings, 3. Dimensions and Execution drawings of glass plates (Design Informatics, 2005, p. 241). The scripting computational component part works at three levels and every component installation is a progression of these iterative operations. The following table shows the detail description of the three scripts.

Script 1

Loads the Rhino generated .DWG files containing the point clouds > Makes a single mesh out of them > Offsets this mesh by their brace value (radius of the braces conceived by the glass manufacturer that will be used for the assembly of the glass plates) > Creates a series of spheres cantered to the vertices of this mesh that represent a second point-cloud to be used exclusively for the glass plates.

Script 2

The second Script based operation is responsible for segmentation of the entire point–cloud body into bays of 9.33 m. This generation of segments dissects the barrier into three bays with 118 points each and derives its logic from the sequence in which the foundations for the construct must be laid. This basic dissection of the volume apart from being appropriate for physical construction also proves to be beneficial in terms of CPU usage and data handling and hence tends to be much more efficient and performative in the long run. Each segment contains a group of points and its corresponding mesh. The meshes in turn describing the glass plates and the amount of displacement needed by the extracted glass plates in between adjoining segments.

Script 3

Builds the axis of the steel profiles that form the structure > Projects the planar surfaces generated between the points, defining shape and position of the glass panels > Generating steel construction elements and Generating Glass plate elements

Table showing the scripting of the computational component parts (Design Informatics, 2005, p. 242)

Figure 22: 3d steel lattice structural elements of Acoustic Barrier and its corresponding execution using CAM technique

17

The precise data processed via scripting and generative design components is further transferred to the manufacturing units for the Computer Aided Manufacturing purposes (CAM) (fig 22). This helps in speeding up the production process of the assembly phase as all the parts are named/numbered and the workers on-site must match it to the right order to make the structure. It is more like an IKEA product.

This design method prompts a parametric mode of operation, which enable one to communicate smoothly with three-dimensional model and project database, including a collaborative design approach, also including application of diverse tools and techniques (programming/scripting, graphic design, architecture, engineering and CAM) towards showing spatial developments.

Figure 23: CAM produced Structural elements of Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit are numbered for easy assemblage on-site

Figure 24: Assembly of structural elements on-site, Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit

Figure 25: Structural Frame of Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit

18

Case Study 3: Trans_PORTs 2001

Figure 26: Trans_PORTs 2001, Kas Oosterhuis

Swarm Behaviour as Transformable Architecture In the previous case studies, even though the swarm logic was applied in the design process, but the result was a static unanimated structure. The biological swarm as seen is animated, continuously transforming into complex patterns. Within architectural design we can see that there is a developing interest in the application of swarm systems for designing transformable structures in the work of Kas Oosterhuis, which is examined below.

Oosterhuis uses the swarm intelligence to describe the kind of transformable architecture he wants to develop. His proposal “Hyperbodies” are treated as parts of real-time information exchange network, which involves external and internal factors, local user, other connected building or internet users. Both the nodes of the kinetic apparatus and the users are conceived as different swarm units, which communicate with each other and with the members of the other swarm (Oosterhuis, 2003). The external structure of these Hyperbodies as described by Oosterhuis, consists of a mesh of independently controlled tensile contracting and relaxing industrial actuators, which act together to adjust the general physical form. They are considered as swarms, since, as Boids, the individuals members are actively calculating their position in real time in relation to the other members.

Trans_Ports 2001 (fig 26) is a conceptual proposal for a series of connected active buildings able to respond to incoming information changing shape and content in real-time (Oosterhuis, 2002a). The values of the positions of the nodes of the structure changes depending on the movement of the visitors. Oosterhuis proposed to use hydraulic cylinders (Fluidic Muscle, pneumatic cylinders without pistons, designed by Festo) at these nodes, which are the point of intersection of the actuators of the external mesh which can modify their length depending on the air that is pumped into them. The building form is controlled by these individual cylinders which comprises the mesh of the building. The building not only interacts externally, but also among the user and the data coming from the internet users is communicated to the visitors as in the form of projections on the interior of the building.

Oosterhuis argues about Trans_Ports having many identities, because in minutes it transforms into a totally different entity, and the interior can adapt to variety of uses: “The Trans-ports pavilion passes through a multitude of identities –in only a few minutes the structure can transform completely into another entity... the structure effortlessly adapts to a variety of uses. Trans-ports can be tuned into different modes… (Oosterhuis, 2002b, p. 97)”.

He proposes 8 such different functional modes in the building. Oosterhuis argues that the building can be used as information space, performance space, disco room, TV room, research room, reception, art gallery or stay inert (Oosterhuis, 2002b, p. 98 ).

19

Practically however, we can see that the potential change in the form of the building is rather limited. As the deformation of the structure is limited to the movement of the hydraulic cylinders as well as the elasticity of the structural material. Due its structural transformation limit, the functional limitations of the building are also affected, despite Oosterhuis claims and intensions.

Kas Oosterhuis with his Hyperbody Research Group, have applied the above ideas to many small scale kinetic architectural structural prototypes like Muscle NSA (uses Festo muscle) (fig 27). Despite the fact that these ideas based on swarm intelligence, the outcomes don’t appear to have the formal dynamism and adaptability biological or digital swarms. The structures display restricted potential for modification of the external structures and its flexibility.

Figure 27: Muscle NSA, Kas Oosterhuis

20

CONCLUSION

How is Swarm Architecture relevant to Architecural Design?

This paper discussed the potential application of Swarm Logic applied by Kas Oosterhuis in his works to generate and execute forms. Even though Kas Oosterhuis uses swarming as a novel mode of conceptualising architectural design, the generated form does not exhibit the properties of biological swarm (complex patterns) in real-time.

I think that the Swarm Intelligence and Agent-Based Modelling used by Oosterhuis or in general, can benefit the architectural design in the following way. First the ABM based software expands the possibilities of dealing with and streamlining complex interactions of different information factors for building form. Second, the agents, if properly tuned, will self-organize in various interesting and desirable forms when simulated under different scenarios, which can help in understanding of planning and building forms. Third, experimenting in ABM software, an extraordinary number of various scenarios can be tried and assessed against each other, offering into a variety of desirable futuristic forms. And fourth, ABM has the capacity of adding more elements during an ongoing design process, which helps in handling multiple ideas and the feedback from the clients along the process.

As we can notice, in the recent decades technology has invaded into various fields and evolving faster than the logical organisms ever did. Swarm Architecture tries to engage with technologies or collaborators using various technologies into the design process. For instance, in the case of A2 Acoustic Barrier, CAM technique was used to produce the structural elements. This technology was live for many years before, but never been used in a larger scale. Even in the case of Oosterhuis proposal for Trans_Ports 01, he proposes to use hydraulic muscles designed

by Festo, which were basically designed for the automation industry. We can see how Kas Oosterhuis uses various technology and incorporates them into his designs to achieve his desirable forms. But also, when designing these kind of fantasy structures (Trans_Ports 01) there is a need to understanding of the physical limitations before implementing.

I believe Swarm Architecture (SI and ABM) in terms of architectural design can be used in understanding and generating new forms as a result of the emergent processes. But also, challenges the designers where to implement this technique and find the rules that are effective to generate complex forms. If the rules are not defined properly the results or the conceptualising idea would merely be a matter of luck.

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AA School of Architecture. (2015a). Kas Oosterhuis - If You’re Not in Real Time, You’re Dead. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPcXx8iSUcg AA School of Architecture. (2015b). Kas Oosterhuis -ONL’s Roadmap from Non-Standard to Interactive Architecture. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=0fzR-Ytu19Q Design Informatics. (2005). Delft. Retrieved from http:// onl.eu/sites/default/files/files/KasOosterhuis.pdf Disappearing Architecture: Part II Kas Oosterhuis: A New Kind of Building. (2005). Research Gate. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/312071345_Disappearing_Architecture_ Part_II_Kas_Oosterhuis_A_New_Kind_of_Building_ ISBN_978-3764372750 Di Raimo, A., Melis, A., Oliveira, F. (2018, January).

Agents-Based Modelling: Implications in Urban Design pedagogy within an ecological framework. Unpublished intranet document, University of Portsmouth. interview with roland SNOOKS. (2018).

SUCKERPUNCHDAILY.COM.Retrieved 7 February 2018, from http://www.suckerpunchdaily. com/2010/04/25/interview-with-roland-snooks/ Oosterhuis, K. (2002a). Kas Oosterhuis Programmable Architecture. Milan: Arca (L’).

Oosterhuis, K. (2002b). Architecture goes wild.

Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

Oosterhuis, K. (2003). Hyperbodies: Towards an E-motive Architecture. Basel: Birkhauser.

Oosterhuis, K., & Feireiss, L. (2006). The architecture co-laboratory: GameSetandMatch II. Rotterdam: Episode Publishers.

Parametricism - A New Global Style for Architecture and Urban Design. (2008). Patrikschumacher.com. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from http://www.patrikschumacher.com/ Texts/Parametricism%20-%20A%20New%20Global%20 Style%20for%20Architecture%20and%20Urban%20 Design.html TEDx TALKS. (2011). Kas Oosterhuis - We are changing your view on what is beautiful and what’s not. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tvsQLeSK-U

View of Computational Swarming: A Cultural Technique for Generative Architecture. (2014). Journals.open. tudelft.nl. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from https:// journals.open.tudelft.nl/index.php/footprint/article/ view/808/991 Yiannoudes, S. (2009). An Application of Swarm Robotics in Architectural Design. Research Gate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220992734_ An_Application_of_Swarm_Robotics_in_Architectural_ Design

FIGURES ArchDaily. (2009). Figure 22: 3d steel lattice structural elements of Acoustic Barrier and its corresponding execution using CAM technique. Retrieved from https:// www.archdaily.com/15400/acoustic-barrier-onl ArchDaily. (2009). Figure 23: CAM produced Structural elements of Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit are numbered for easy assemblage on-site. Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/15400/acoustic-barrier-onl ArchDaily. (2009). Figure 24: Assembly of structural elements on-site, Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit.

Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/15400/ acoustic-barrier-onl ArchDaily. (2009). Figure 25: Structural Frame of Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit. Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/15400/acoustic-barrier-onl Author Love. (2016). Figure 4: People connect to people.

Retrieved from https://www.authorlove.com/2016/08/ first-kiss-story-2.html Cityness. (2011). Figure 26: Trans_PORTs 2001, Kas Oosterhuis. Retrieved from https://cityness.wordpress. com/2011/05/01/how-complexity-informs-architecturean-evening-with-kas-oosterhuis-and-thomas-jaskiewicz/ Corbis. (2013). Figure 1: Flock of Starling showing collective behaviour. Retrieved from https://blog. nationalgeographic.org/2013/10/16/strength-innumbers-5-amazing-animal-swarms/ Feyter Group. (2007). Figure 20: Hessing Cockpit showroom, ONL. Retrieved from https://www.feyter. com/node/113

22

Kas Oosterhuis. (2016). Figure 6: Things connect to things, Apollo Soyuz connection 1975. Retrieved from http://www.oosterhuis.nl/?p=145

ScriptSpot. (2012). Figure 7: Script generating animated spline, Maxscript. Retrieved from http://www.scriptspot. com/3ds-max/scripts/pflow-to-splines

Kas Oosterhuis. (2012). Figure 10: Unibody Smart Town Car. Retrieved from https://arcspace.com/bookcase/ programmable-architecture/

SportoWe Fakty. (2017). Figure 5: People connect to things. Retrieved from https://sportowefakty.wp.pl/wyscigi-motocyklowe/689064/nicky-hayden-o-zyciu-karierze-i-motogp-motocykle-sa-moim-zyciem

Kas Oosterhuis. (2012). Figure 11: Unibody skull heterodontosaurus. Retrieved from https://arcspace.com/ bookcase/programmable-architecture/ Kas Oosterhuis. (2016). Figure 13: Ruling Curves, Saltwater Pavilion 1997. Retrieved from http://www. oosterhuis.nl/?p=145

Stephen Wolfram [Blog post]. (2015). Figure 2: Complex results generated through Agent Based simulation by following simple evolution rules, Stephen Wolfram. Retrieved from http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/ what-is-spacetime-really/

Kas Oosterhuis. (2016). Figure 15: Point Cloud reference Points and spread-sheets of data (for CNC), Saltwater Pavilion. Retrieved from http://www.oosterhuis. nl/?p=184 Kas Oosterhuis. (2010). Figure 21: Point Cloud of reference points, Acoustic Barrier. Retrieved from http:// www.oosterhuis.nl/?tag=point-cloud Nenov Ivo. (2016). Figure 8: Generating flocking patterns in Grasshopper. Retrieved from http://www. grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/boids-2d-flockingpattern ONL. (n.d.). Figure 9: Hydra Saltwater Pavilion, ONL. Retrieved from http://onl.eu/projects/salt-water-pavilion ONL. (n.d.). Figure 14: Exterior Curved Fins have the same detail all throughout, Saltwater Pavilion. Retrieved from http://onl.eu/projects/salt-water-pavilion ONL. (n.d.). Figure 16: Axonometric of the Structural system, Saltwater Pavilion. Retrieved from http://onl.eu/ projects/salt-water-pavilion ONL. (n.d.). Figure 18: Acoustic Barrier and Hessing Cockpit Showroom, ONL. Retrieved from http://onl.eu/ projects/a2-cockpit ONL. Figure 27: Muscle NSA, Kas Oosterhuis. Retrieved from http://onl.eu/projects/nsa-exhibition-pompidou Pexels. (2017). Figure 3: Natures form of computation, formation of sand dunes over a long period of time.

Retrieved from https://www.pexels.com/search/sand%20 dunes/ Sander Boer. Figure 19: Illustration: The Acoustic Barrier, a slender snake, bulging with its ingested program, the cockpit building. Retrieved from http://onl.eu/sites/ default/files/files/040831-Hessing-Cockpit_paper.pdf

23