STUDIO AIR 2018, SEMESTER 2, BRADLEY ELIAS ZHE YONG SIM

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PART B - CRITERIA DESIGN B.1 RESEARCH FIELD B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0 B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0 B.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES B.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL B.7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES B.8 APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKE TCHES BIBL IOGRAPHY

B.1. RESEARCH FIELD

4

CRITERIA DESIGN

GENETICS Architects are developing newer digital tools that create more opportunities in design process, fabrication and construction. These new computational techniques enable problems to be solved by successive improvements and developments.

Recursive Aggregation is an algorithmic technique which originated from the Lindermayer System (L-System). The process is differentiated through the simple idea of running data loops of iterations with an undefined state in a self-similar way. By simply changing the parameters, complex objects can be The approach of integrating genetics to be part of the emerg- created through replacing properties of its starting condition. ing computational design techniques have the potential to A simple set of carefully defined rules can produce a very create change in the realm of architecture as their main char- complex object in a recursive process consisting of only a few acteristics are based on the laws of nature, natural principles levels. [2] It is an algorithm which solves a problem by solving a smaller instance of the same problem until a solution and life which governs the approaches taken. can be found. Genetic Algorithms are a class of highly parallel, evolution‘True’ genetic algorithms are distinguished as a randomly ary, adaptive search procedures which area characterized determined optimization method which slowly moves towards by a string-like structure equivalent to the chromosomes of its optimal point; potential solution whereas recursive agnature. [1] The algorithm replicates the principle of natural selection through biological evolution processes such as the gregation is conducted simply and its outcome is a result crossover of genes, mutation and reproduction. Undesirable of repeated iterations based on a constant ruleset. Genetic traits would be removed and only the best traits and properalgorithms also require a criterion to test the outcomes of ties would be chosen to be passed on to future generations. the generation process and algorithmic outputs are tested in The outcome would create new forms that are members of the a simulated environment to get the ‘fittest’ output and breed same family with little differences. them together so future generations would have improved performance in the environment.

[1] John Frazer, An Evolutionary Architecture, AA: London (1995), pp. 1-134 (p.58) [2] Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, (Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2005) pp. 1-63 (p. 24) CRITERIA DESIGN

5

PROJECT: THE INTERACTIVATOR Architect: John and Julia Frazer Project Year: 1995

Fig 1. Interactivator (1995) by John and Julia Frazer: Experimental evolution of Form

The Interactivator was an experimental concept which goal was to create artificial life through evolutionary process and to simulate nature’s behaviour in a built environment. The environment is actively involved to affect the growth of the seeds so that each is unique to its situation; its form evolves based on the interaction with actual visitors and environmental sensors. [3] Genetic codes were passed on from one ‘seed’ to others through cell division and disperses to all models. Successful genes in genetic algorithms would be selected based on the calculated fitness value and subjected to the crossover and mutation process.[4] Through the process, different architectural forms are then created. Genetic algorithms are used in this case to test the variable which is the seed and through the many different variations, only the ‘fittest’ seeds would be chosen as the basis for future improvements.

[3] Branko Kolarevic, p.23 [4] Didem Akyol Altun and Bora Örgülü, Towards a Different Architecture in Cooperation with Nanotechnology and Genetic Science: New Approaches for the Present and the Future, Architecture Research, Vol. 4 No. 1B, 2014, pp. 1-12 (p.3) Fig 1. EMK Complexity Group, Interfacing with Evolution: towards a self organizing Architecture <http://emk-complexity.org/events/2005-10-07-art-complexityand-design.html> [Accessed on 21 August 2018]

6

CRITERIA DESIGN

PROJECT: 20 BRIDGES FOR CENTRAL PARK Architect: Benjamin Aranda and Chris Lasch [Aranda\Lasch] Project Year: 2011

Fig 3. Design Process

This project was a proposition to extend the legacy of brick, stone and cast iron bridges of Central Park. It uses recursive aggregation through a family of structures that vary in size and configuration but retain the same fundamental identity and logic. [5] The design process consists of integrating the 1st generation crystal units; representing the first iteration around the bridge line which is the constant and the subsequent generated units (2nd and 3rd generation units) would be scaled down and implemented on the first iteration. The process repeats itself until the structural bridging is complete.

Fig 2. Visualisation of Concept

Many variations are created for each of the 20 bridges of Central Park based on its different environment for each location. The end goal of the process would be to reach the end of the bridge line through data loops of different iterations, creating complex forms through an initial simple form.

[5] Aranda\Lasch, 20 Bridges for Central Park, <http://arandalasch.com/works/20-bridges-for-central-park/> [Accessed on 20 August 2018] Fig 2 and 3. Aranda\Lasch, 20 Bridges for Central Park, <http://arandalasch.com/works/20-bridges-for-central-park/> [Accessed on 21 August 2018]

CRITERIA DESIGN

7

B.2A. L-SYSTEMS

8

CRITERIA DESIGN

The Lindermayer System is a mathematical theory formulated by Aristid Lyndenmeyer for the simulation of multicellular organisms and mainly for the growth process of a plant’s development. L-systems can be utilized to create complex self-similar fractals by a simple ruleset inputted into a system which is able to generate iterations through recursive aggregation. The Lindermayer System is a string-rewriting algorithm based on rulesets in a generative sequence which places an emphasis on the idea of growth as an initial state is changed or replaced according to pre-defined rules and its resulting outcome for every iteration is interpreted and becomes the basis for the next iteration. “L-system rules determine the underlying structures of growth in a way that is analogous to the way that DNA is thought to determine biological growth. This growth relies on the principle of self-similarity to provide extremely compact descriptions of complex surfaces.” [1] “The synthesis of inputs that are extremely simplistic and the complexity of the output processes enable very flexible and open-ended generative procedures which can be applied to a large variety of themes regardless of scale.” [2] L-Systems are used mostly for forms which require modularity and recursion; a series of selfsimilar forms is the basis for which this system was developed, to generate forms based on a recursive algorithm. The L-System language can be incorporated with parametric systems such as independent variables, mathematical functions and conditional operators, that work together to allow a response to environmental influences such as site conditions and it permits multiple systems to interact with each other. [3] Nature is the basis for which the string-rewriting logic is developed upon. Architects are now able to integrate the principles of nature into the way they formulate their designs parametrically and the use of L-systems to generate organic forms that are only restricted by what is pre-determined by them. The boundaries of form generation can now be further explored with this theory.

[1] Houdini, L-System Geometry Node, <http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/nodes/sop/lsystem.html> [Accessed on 27 August 2018] [2] Michael Hansmeyer, L-Systems (Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2003) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/l-systems> [Accessed on 27 August 2018] [3] Michael Hansmeyer, [Accessed on 27 August 2018] CRITERIA DESIGN

9

B.2A. MATRIX OF ITERATIONS 5 FAMILIES (SPECIES); 50 ITERATIONS L-Systems are based on a set of rules which repeat generation after generation based on a recursive algorithm. The following families are created using the ‘AggyAtack’ L-System definition which incorporates the use of functions such as Anemone in Grasshopper to generate these L-Systems of different qualities.

10

CRITERIA DESIGN

SWIRL AND WHIRL 01 The form is mostly generated through a constant repetition of the same indexes, creating a spirallike quality to each iteration. This is my favourite iteration out of this family as the form is aggregated such that it looks like there is an invisible orblike barrier which the branches are growing against.

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

CRITERIA DESIGN

11

`

PRICKLY AND BRISTLY 01

This is my favourite iteration out of this family as the form is aggregated such that it resembles the shape of a dragon with thorns on its spine.

12

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

CRITERIA DESIGN

ROOTED AND EXTRUDED 01

This is my favourite iteration out of this family as the form is aggregated such that it looks like a mutated tree with an eye in the middle and the branches are growing from it.

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

CRITERIA DESIGN

13

and fierce

ATTRACTION AND REACTION 01

This is my favourite iteration out of this family as the form is aggregated such that it displays some form of reaction in the middle that explodes outwards in a symmetrical pattern.

14

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

CRITERIA DESIGN

PIERCE AND DISPERSE 01 This is my favourite iteration out of this family as it shows the unpredictability of what a mistake could achieve; to look for the good in the bad. There were a few dummy branches not properly connected to the axiom, resulting in this unusual form once aggregated. Similar to iterations 06 - 10 which capitalized on the mistake to explore what else could be generated.

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

CRITERIA DESIGN

15

CASE STUDY 1.0

16

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig 1. The Bloom Project

CRITERIA DESIGN

17

PROJECT: BLOOM Architects: Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez Project Year: 2012

The Bloom Project was commissioned by the Greater London Authority as part of the Wonder Series to celebrate the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. The project was spearheaded by Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez and their goal for the project was to encourage the public to construct open ended design formations using the bloom components. The Bloom project is an example of a recursive aggregation through the use of the L-System where “a complex object can be produced through a simple set of carefully defined rules in a recursive process consisting of only a few levels.“ [1] The only fixed variable would be the bench which is the initial structural anchor from which further components could be added to it, expanding the structure based on the public’s interaction with it. The limitations of the project would just be the imagination of the participants as there are endless

Fig 2. Bloom cells interconnected

[1] Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, (Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2005) pp. 1-63 (p. 24) Fig 2. RMIT, Bloom: Alisa Andrasek, (RMIT, 2014) <http://designhub.rmit.edu.au/exhibitions-programs/bloom-alisa-andrasek> [Accessed on 31 August 2018]

18

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig 3. Bloom Cells ‘evolving’ from the initial bench structure

The participatory design process aims to bring phenomena of social networks and game culture to the physical environment at an urban scale and initial pavilions/follies which represented gateways of the game were constructed by designers to showcase the possibilities of the recursive aggregation system implemented. [2] New forms and structures can be generated organically through the adaptability of the components. Having one cell designed with 3 connection points such that other cells could be attached was the fundamental aspect of its design as the designers’ aim for the project was to have no restrictions and freedom of choices for the public to engage. Recursive aggregation allows designers to create designs efficiently through the use of a simple component and expanding it into a complex system without having to compromise their design concept and language as it is retained even as their design is further developed in different site conditions.

[2] Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez, Bloom: Distributed Urban Game, Barlett Design Research Folios (2012), pp. 1-44 (p. 7) Fig 1 & 3. ArchDaily, BLOOM - A Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez, (ArchDaily, 2012) <https://www.archdaily.com/269012/bloom-a-crowdsourced-garden-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez> [Accessed on 31 August 2018]

CRITERIA DESIGN

19

B.2C. COMPONENT DESIGN AND AGGREGATION The following components were created to explore the potentials of recursive aggregations. New rulesets were written for each component to generate aggregations unique to the component. 4 of the 6 components would be selected to be aggregated.

20

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

21

`

COMPONENT 1 DOUBLE-POINTED PICKAXE This component was created through experimenting the functions of the cage edit command where points were dragged in and out to extrude and create depressions within the form.

COMPONENT 2 DEFORMED SWAN This component was formed through the shifting of points using the cage edit command and twisting the form to create an organic shape which shows some form of fluidity.

COMPONENT 3 ANCHOR-SHIP This component was created through the positioning of points on the shape and forming surfaces through the corner points. The surface is then mirrored on the opposite side to create the overall closed polysurface.

22

CRITERIA DESIGN

COMPONENT 4 DOUBLE ENDED KUNAI This component was formed by creating a symmetrical form with sharp edges and setting points in the middle of it such that when surfaces are formed through the coner points, both sides look the same.

COMPONENT 5 FLIGHT This component was formed through the union of two components. The final component was inspired by the initial concept on the right. The forms were created through the cage edit function and the curving of points that were extruded from a sphere.

COMPONENT 6 WHALE-CLAW This component was created through creating a hole within an eclipse and shifting of form using cage edit to create a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;fishlikeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; shape. The individual shape was mirrored left and right and later scaled down to create a sense of depth to the structure. All components were then joined together to create this final form.

CRITERIA DESIGN

23

24

CRITERIA DESIGN

COMPONENT 1

AXIOM = ACD

DOUBLE-POINTED PICKAXE

A = CAB B = DAC C = DA D = CA

The aggregation produced resembles the form of a star in which the pointed ends of the components are accentuated. However, the rulesets and positions of the component could be altered to produce a more organic form instead of a linear one for future aggregations.

CRITERIA DESIGN

25

AXIOM = ABCD A = BCD B = ADC C = BAD D = CBA

COMPONENT 3 ANCHOR-SHIP

26

CRITERIA DESIGN

AXIOM = BCD A = BCD B = ADC C = BAD D = CBA

The 2 aggregations produced were attempts at creating a more organic form. I wanted to explore the possiblities of what could be achieved even with a symmetrical component. Less symmetrical components would be a better option at creating more diverse aggregations.

CRITERIA DESIGN

27

28

CRITERIA DESIGN

COMPONENT 4

AXIOM = BACD

DOUBLE ENDED KUNAI

A = BCA B = DBA C = AC D = CAB

This aggregation was unique in such a way where the components are interconnected to form a very aggressive and piercing form. A successful example of how a symmetrical component can also create unique and provoking geometries.

CRITERIA DESIGN

29

30

CRITERIA DESIGN

COMPONENT 5

AXIOM = ACD

FLIGHT

A = ABC B = CB C = AD D = BC

This aggregation produced has a gun-like form where the components are aggregated towards different points from a central point. The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;birdsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; look to be escaping or taking flight in many directions. However, the component could have been improved more for more diverse aggregations.

CRITERIA DESIGN

31

B.3. CASE STUDY 2.0 AGGY-ATTACK COMPONENT AGGREGATION

32

CRITERIA DESIGN

The Aggy-Attack Component Aggregation demonstrates a recursive algorithm through the use of an automated procedure that is able to create multiple iterations of a single component through its orientation and defined rulesets.

CRITERIA DESIGN

33

`

AGGY-ATTACK COMPONENT AGGREGATION

02

01 Create a polyline that would be referenced as the axiom handle in the algorithm, serving as the initial parent branch. The polyline has to consists of 2 segments that intersect to form a right angle.

07

06

Once the aggregation is completed to its desired outcome, it is ready to be baked and extracted as an overall form.

34

Create multiple segments of L-shaped polylines which would be referenced as the dummy branches.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Define the axiom branch, the growth rules and the number of generations in grasshopper. With all relevant information and rulesets, the aggregation process can take place. The anemone loop allows the aggregation to grow according to the desired number of iterations keyed into the number slider.

03

Crea able of d vari

05

Crea bran bran wou com an i usin

ate an orientation plane for the end of each segment, this enes the individual dummy branches to be orientated in any form direction and angle. To individually recognise each branch, a iety of different lengths can be created for the polylines.

ate a component which would overlay onto the initial parent nch to serve as a primary component for the secondary dummy nches. Referencing the component as a brep for the axiom uld allow each dummy branch polyline to replicate the primary mponent and create an intersection with it. There should not be intersection of dummy branches, any collision can be removed ng the cull pattern.

04 The dummy branches are referenced later on in the grasshopper algorithm as indexes (A, B, C) to determine the position and order of the branches for the aggregation process. The set of indexes of the ruleset would be the determining factor to how the branches would develop in a heuristic manner.

B

C A

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

35

B.4. TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT Two new components would be developed and aggregated in a similar way as the previous four. However, secondary sockets are added to the components as well to aid in achieving â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;localized differentiationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Digital fabrication techniques are to be considered as well in designing the components.

36

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

37

COMPONENT 1A THE PUZZLE PIECE THEORY

This component was developed with the idea of having ‘puzzle pieces’ to be aggressive. The puzzle pieces are a representation of groups of people who are interconnected to each other. It is the idea of how groups of students are like puzzle pieces; even if they don’t go to the same puzzle, they are all the same thing, as part of the collective. The secondary socket components are curved spikes which represents the aggressiveness of different groups of people, in this case, students. Collectively, everyone feels some form of negativity towards the MSD building, be it severe or mild. The size of the spike is determined by the level of frustration of the students towards the building. The more frustrated, the bigger the spike.

38

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

39

This aggregation was not satisfactory as it overall looks like a chunk of components in a mess with no form of depth and quality to it. However, it was the basis for which i tested the local differentiation in such a way where the spikes would get bigger in size as it approaches an obstacle. This aggregation demonstrates the change in spike size from the bottom up. Further experimentation with the rulesets would defintely create something which stands out from this mass of components.

C B D

A E

AXIOM = BAC A = BAC B = AC C = CAB

RULESET 1

40

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

41

42

CRITERIA DESIGN

This aggregation was something different as it has a creature-like shape with its tail on the top and it is ‘consuming’ its prey/food which is why the spikes are accentuated at the bottom.

C B D

A E

AXIOM = AC A = BC B = AC C = CB

RULESET 2

CRITERIA DESIGN

43

This aggregation was created after making several changes to the arrangement and orientation of the dummy branch components. It proved to produce an unexpected aggreagation unlike the first iteration which was just a dense mass of components mashed together. This aggregation displays convergence where the spikes in the center are bigger while those on the sides are evidently smaller.

C

B

D

A

AXIOM = ABCDE A = BC B = DA C = DE D = CB E = AD

RULESET 3

44

CRITERIA DESIGN

E

CRITERIA DESIGN

45

COMPONENT 1B THE PUZZLE PIECE THEORY

Changes were made to the secondary socket component as i felt that it did not capture the quality of agggresiveness that i wanted. Hence, the curved spikes are modified into long and sharp thors in hopes that this would bring me closer towards what i wanted to achieve.

46

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

47

This aggregation was successful in my opinion in capturing the aggressiveness that i wanted, On the left of the aggregation, it looks like a creature with multiple sharp teeth trying to attack or devour its prey. The size of the thorns are also bigger towards the ‘mouth’, displaying the level of aggression.

C

B

D

A

AXIOM = ABCD A = DAB B = BAD C = DAB D = BAD E = DAB

RULESET 4

48

CRITERIA DESIGN

E

CRITERIA DESIGN

49

COMPONENT 2 THE HOOK

This component was developed with the idea of a hook in mind. It represents the concept of creating something which stands out that leaves a lasting impression. The idea of having the spike is similar to an icicle which represents the harshness and negativity. One associates the qualities of cold to be something that lacks warmth of feeling which is exactly what the MSD building is. It is ‘cold’ as people are not compelled to stay. The level of ‘coldness’ is displayed through the sizes of the spikes. The spikes get bigger towards a more negative space and the hook component would hook onto that space, creating a bold statement.

50

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

51

52

CRITERIA DESIGN

This aggregation was not satisfactory as it overall looks like a chunk of components in a mess with no form of depth and quality to it. However, it was the basis for which i tested the local differentiation in such a way where the spikes would get bigger in size as it approaches an obstacle. Further experimentation with the rulesets would defintely create something which stands out from this mass of components.

B

C D

A

AXIOM = DAC A = BAC B = DAC C = BC D = DAB

RULESET 1

CRITERIA DESIGN

53

This aggregation was not satisfactory as it overall looks like a chunk of components in a mess with no form of depth and quality to it. Further experimentation with the rulesets would defintely create something which stands out from this mass of components.

B

C D

A

AXIOM = BAC A = DBC B = DAC C = VAD D = BCA

RULESET 2 54

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

55

56

CRITERIA DESIGN

This aggregation was slightly successful as it appears organic and it looks as if it is consuming something, evidently seen through the size of the spikes. The hook components after going through many generations also creates a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;spiky spineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the aggregation. The aggregation can be further developed through more experimentation with the rulesets.

B

C D

A

AXIOM = DA A = DBC B = DAC C = BAD D = BCA

RULESET 3

CRITERIA DESIGN

57

B

C D

A

AXIOM = DA A = DBC B = DAC C = BAD D = BCA

RULESET 4 58

CRITERIA DESIGN

REFER TO NEXT SPREAD FOR ClOSE UP PERSPECTIVE

CRITERIA DESIGN

59

RULESET 4 This aggregation was unique in a sense that although it was linear in the direction the components were aggregated but it was able to create a line of hooks and from different angles, it shows the spikes going into a circular fashion along the linear path. The spikes also get bigger as it converges into the center.

60

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

61

B.5. PROTOTYPING

62

CRITERIA DESIGN

COMPONENT 01

COMPONENT 02

METHOD: LASER CUTTER

For component 1 & 2, i would propose to use the laser cutter to fabricate the individual unrolled components that could be attached together using an adhesive. Laser Cutting is much more efficient as it enables complex shapes to be cut without the need of tooling and at a faster rate than other methods like 3D printing/CNC Milling. The materials used are also lightweight and it would make more sense to use more lightweight materials for a large scale installation. The top and bottom layer would be fabricated separately and once both layers have been pieced individually, it would be joined together with an adhesive to form the overall component.

OTHER POSSIBLE METHODS OF FABRICATION METHOD: RESIN CASTING

METHOD: VACUUM FORMER

It is the method of plastic casting where a mold is filled with a liquid synthetic resin, which then hardens into a solid.

This is a method in which a sheet of plastic is heated and stretched onto a singlesurface mold, and forced against the mold by a vacuum. This process can be used to form plastic into permanent objects.

This method is very efficient as the initial mold is already created and it would just require reusing that mold again and again to form the components.

AND

Both top and bottom layers of the components could be vacuumed formed and later attached together using an adhesive.

CRITERIA DESIGN

63

B.6. TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL MSD BUILDING, LEVEL 03 & 04 The space which i felt was under utilised would be levels 03 and 04. Students mostly use the third floor only if they were desperate for a place to study in the MSD building. The fourth floor seats don’t really have a specific purpose to them. The view of the atrium is the only thing which draws them towards that space. However, it is not compelling enough to make them stay there. Students would rather study on the lower floors where they can study with their friends for long periods. I felt that this design of having seats and tables along the edge of the space was just a superficial solution to satisfying students with more spaces to study without much thought. True, it might serve that purpose but that is not a space students would want to study at unless they have no other option. It is ridiculous how the basement of the MSD building has so much open space for exhibitions but the purpose of the building is for education not for the purpose of showcasing exhibitions. Large spaces could be catered for those purposes but there’s so little study spaces catered for students to study at. The idea of using the aggregation created in B4 was to create a form that hooks onto spaces which don’t serve much purpose and make it known that it is a useless and boring space. Hence, the aggression in the form seen through the spikes of the aggregation.

64

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

65

66

CRITERIA DESIGN

DESIGN PROPOSAL The idea is to provoke and create a bold statement to reveal how boring and useless this space is. The space is only utilized mostly during exam periods where students just want to concentrate in school but have no place to study. It is also able to create a form of interest in visitors who do not usually frequent the MSD building to question the purpose of having such a installation hooking onto the side of the floor. The glaring juxtaposition would be able to spark conversations that question the actual design process of the building.

CRITERIA DESIGN

67

SITE PROPOSAL The structure can be implemented anywhere but the location i have chosen to focus upon would be the level 03 and 04 areas as shown in section. It would be held up by wires which are attached to the ceiling. The components can also hook onto the floor slabs for further support.

68

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

69

B.7. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

70

CRITERIA DESIGN

Part B defintely pushed me to my limits. The feeling of approaching uncharted territory was something that kept me in fear at the start of Part B as I was not confident in Rhino and Grasshopper. However, over the weeks, i got to develop my understanding of computational design and using computational methods through the case study analysis and algorithmic modelling. It was also refreshing how we could finally experiment with what we have studied upon in Part A. Though the idea of using algorithmic processes to create diverse and unique forms can seem daunting at the beginning but once you analyse it step by step, it is possible to understand the entire process in no time. I initally questioned myself as to why would it be necessary to create so many iterations for different points in Part B such as the L-Systems and Component Design but i felt these are all learning opportunities to fully understand how the recursive processes works and this could only be possible through constnat repetition. That allowed me to slowly manipulate the algorithm until i get the hang of the specific functions used and that allowed me to develop the form based on what i wanted to achieve. The use of the automated recursive process defintely brings a different perspective to architectural form generation. It only takes a single component/defined ruleset to generate a variety of unique complex forms and this would definitely increase the efficiency of how an architect design. Algorithmic processes can also take into consideration site conditions and many other variables which also aid the architect in solving many unforeseen problems, smoothening out the design process overall. Having to design with the consideration of fabrication had brought my understanding of the design process to a new perspective as there are so many considerations to analyse before deciding how a single component (in this case) can be fabricated. To always design with the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;how toâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in mind is a good way of staying realistic which is what architects should always remind themselves. Designing complex forms can be interesting and rewarding but the means of achieving it are equally as important. Part B has brought my understanding of computational design to a new level and boosted my confidence in using Rhino and Grasshopper which i was fearful of at the start of Part B. I am much more excited to bring what i have learnt from this to Part C and push myself further.

CRITERIA DESIGN

71

B.8. ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

72

CRITERIA DESIGN

GRADIENT DESCENT - Basic Flow Simulation

CRITERIA DESIGN

73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

74

CRITERIA DESIGN

REFERENCES 1. Akyol Altun.m, Didem and Örgülü., Bora, Towards a Different Architecture in Cooperation with Nanotechnology and Genetic Science: New Approaches for the Present and the Future, Architecture Research, Vol. 4 No. 1B, 2014 2. Andrasek, Alisa and Sanchez, Jose, Bloom: Distributed Urban Game, Barlett Design Research Folios (2012) 3. Frazer, John, An Evolutionary Architecture, AA: London (1995) 4. Hansmeyer, Michael, L-Systems (Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2003) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/l-systems> [Accessed on 27 August 2018] 5. Houdini, L-System Geometry Node, <http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/nodes/sop/lsystem.html> [Accessed on 27 August 2018] 6. Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, (Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2005) 7. Lasch/Aranda, 20 Bridges for Central Park, <http://arandalasch.com/works/20-bridges-for-central-park/> [Accessed on 21 August 2018]

IMAGES 1. ArchDaily, BLOOM - A Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez, (ArchDaily, 2012) <https://www.archdaily. com/269012/bloom-a-crowd-sourced-garden-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez> [Accessed on 31 August 2018] 2. EMK Complexity Group, Interfacing with Evolution: towards a self organizing Architecture <http://emk-complexity.org/ events/2005-10-07-art-complexity-and-design.html> [Accessed on 21 August 2018] 3. RMIT, Bloom: Alisa Andrasek, (RMIT, 2014) <http://designhub.rmit.edu.au/exhibitions-programs/bloom-alisa-andrasek> [Accessed on 31 August 2018] 4. Lasch/Aranda, 20 Bridges for Central Park, <http://arandalasch.com/works/20-bridges-for-central-park/> [Accessed on 21 August 2018]

CRITERIA DESIGN

75

Sim_ZheYong_947819_PartB
Sim_ZheYong_947819_PartB