Machining Aesthetics v.2.1 Driving Design by Amanda Ngieng

MACHINING AESTHETICS v.2.1

DRIVING DESIGN

377998 Amanda Ngieng

Contents 0.0 Preface 0.1 Introduction: Driving design

7 11

1.0 Phase 1A: Research and design 1.1 Design brief 1.2 Explorations 1.3 Design proposal 1.4 Critical review

19 21 27 55 75

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

Phase 1B: Design and prototype Design development Design proposal Critical review

83 87 113 135

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Phase 2: Fabricate and construct Design development: Global form The fabrication script Construction sequence The pavilion

141 145 207 251 319

4.0 Appendix 4.1 Biography 4.2 Credit 4.3 Bibliography

337 425 427 439

0.0 Preface Documented in this book is the entire process of designing and realising a research pavilion, beginning from the initial stages of research to its final built form. It is structured according to a two phase competition (phases 1A & 1B), which leads to phase 2, the construction phase. While it includes the some of the work done by the team, the book is primarily based on the work on the author, and hence is geared towards scripting.

Team structure Beginning from Team JEAR, our initial design was taken through to the construction phase and brought to completion.

Phase 1A

Phase 1B

Design and research

Design and prototype

Team JEAR Jessica Z. Element Z. Amanda N. Rachel L.

Team X Jessica Z. Element Z. Amanda N. Rachel L. Jack H. Farheen D. Siavash M.

Team JFSA Jack H. Farheen D. Siavash M.

Team WODA Daisy W. Onon I. William V.

Team Y Daisy W. Onon I. William V. Has A. Allegro Z. Ridho P. Elsie Z.

Team HARE Has A. Allegro Z. Ridho P. Elsie Z.

Week 1 (28 Jul 2014)

Week 4 (21 Aug 2014)

Week 7 (8 Sep 2014)

Phase 2

Fabricate and construct

Studio 15 Jessica Z. Element Z. Amanda N. Rachel L. Jack H. Farheen D. Siavash M. Daisy W. Onon I. William V. Has A. Allegro Z. Ridho P. Elsie Z.

Week 14 (6 Nov 2014) 9

0.1 Introduction: Driving Design Architects design buildings. We know that. But what does it mean to design buildings? Is it the form? The aesthetics? The function? How space is used? Since the Renaissance, architects have become more and more distant from the making process, moving away from the position of the master builder. So much that today, “design” and “build” became seen as separate entities, “the connections between them negotiable”.1 As a student studying architecture, this felt intuitively wrong. Following the third industrial revolution and the rise of rapidly developing digital technologies in architecture2, there tends to be two distinct worlds in design: The digital and the physical. Depending on the design process, the relationship between the two varies. Where design is separate from the making process, the digital tends to just be a drafting tool, replacing hand-drawn 11

plans, sections and elevation. Perhaps the tool has intelligence in the form of BIM (building information modelling), which greatly speeds up the documentation process and reduces the chances of errors. In either case, the physical tends to refer to the construction of the actual built form, with the digital dictating the physical; the built outcome is already prescribed in representation. This is most common in low-risk architecture where materials and construction techniques have all been tried and tested.

It could be made of any material it wanted. It could take on any form, regardless of how impossible or dangerous or expensive it would be to assemble. The ridiculous idea of an ice pavilion might have been taken forward.3 All effort would be placed into a compelling concept that would sell the idea.

But design should not be separate from the building process. After all, architects are involved in the design of the making of buildings. Design is not just about the aesthetics, or the concept, or the idea. It is not just about following building regulations. To design the built environment is much more: it is to design the processes that make buildings.

But if the design were to be made real, it cannot merely be a compelling idea. It cannot even just be a buildable idea. It has to be compelling and buildable. It cannot just appear convincing. The drivers of design are no longer limited to form and aesthetics; suddenly, a whole other category of drivers become involved: budget, time, workforce, access of technology, materials, space, structure, safety. The fabrication and construction process has to be every bit as designed at the design process; they have to be completely resolved.

If the design were to remain on paper, the pavilion documented in this book would most likely be different. It might be bigger.

How do we design a pavilion under $5,000 that can be designed and resolved in 10 weeks, fabricated and constructed in 3

weeks? With a workforce of 14 architecture students? We needed to create a system, or a rule set, that is flexible enough to accommodate all of them. We needed to optimise the design process, utilising technology to increase efficiency. In this case, the development and use of a custom script for the design of the pavilion allowed for changes to be made fairly quickly, saving on valuable time and resources. Through the use of generative lines4, we accounted for future modifications due to factors that we were not aware of yet and have not taken into account. While using the same logic, it is able to produce multiple iterations of the design, and allows for design ideas to be developed and pushed further as more information becomes available.5 All these iterations are represented digitally in the 3D modelling software Rhinoceros, which serves as a method of communicating the design.

In order to prototype efficiently, the plug-in Grasshopper is used to assist in turning the digital forms into files that can be sent for fabrication.6 Machines, including a laser cutter and a 3-axis CNC router, are able to take these files and cut them according to specified parameters, effectively turning the digital into the real. There is a direct transfer of information from the digital to the physical. This, however, does not mean that the pieces will assemble themselves.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is far easier to design a building with an array of non-repeating elements than it is to marshall their assembly on the ground.â&#x20AC;?7 With 1198 unique pieces8 creating a complex geometry, we are not able to use traditional plans and sections as construction drawings; they would be far too illegible. In other words, in order to be able to construct the pavilion, we had to design the assembly process and

documentation drawings, so as to allow the assemblers to be able to locate each individual piece. To construct the pavilion on time, we had to design an intelligent labelling system9 that was easy enough to follow, which also reduced time consuming corrections of mistakes. So we find that digital technology is incredibly powerful if used correctly within an appropriate work flow. It can be used to represent, to design, to make. This make one wonder: If the entire pavilion can be represented digitally, then is it really necessary to build prototypes? Assembly sequence can be done as a series of diagrams. Even structure can be tested by software such as Karamba. However, with current technology, the digital is unable to fully represent the physical world. The physical realm has discrepancies and forces that the digital does not have. For instance, despite being a manufactured material, a sheet of 18mm ply is not necessarily 18mm, but may have a slight variation of a fraction of a

millimetre. A digitally modelled object will stay as it is modelled, but its physical counterpart could sway and/or warp, such as the cantilevered roof of the pavilion. A laser cut model may not look exactly like how it looks in the digital world.10 And yes, Karamba can do structural tests, but it still requires actual test results to be accurate. The design requires a constant feedback from the digital to the physical and vice versa; neither can work without the other. There is an intimate relationship, where communication between the two is absolutely essential. Throughout the book, we will see how both worlds worked together to drive the design forward. Design and build cannot be separate entities. A pavilion such as this would not have been possible if the making process were not designed. In order to truly design a building, we need to take full control of both processes. Only then will we be able to retain design freedom, to steer design in the direction we want it to go; to push the limits of making, to realise real architecture.

Sheil, B, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Transgression from drawing to making,â&#x20AC;? Architectural Research Quarterly 9, no. 01 (2005): 23.

Rifkin, J, The third industrial revolution: how lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world (United States: Macmillan, 2011).

Refer to Idea 9 in this book, p. 38.

Refer to Phase 1A rule set diagram, pp. 62-63.

Refer to Section 3.1 (Design development: Global form).

Refer to Section 3.2 (The fabrication script).

Holden et al, SHoP: Out of Practice (United States: The Monacelli Press, 2012), 38.

Exact numbers: 1198 unique profiles, total of 1744 polysurfaces in digital model (546 packers). Additional packers were added on site.

Refer to labelling system, pp. 228-234.

Refer to digital and physical model comparison, pp. 66-67. 15

1.0 Phase 1A: Research and design This section covers the initial research and design process for the pavilion. At the end of the section, the pavilion will be conceptually resolved, addressing the project aims and key design issues. The design itself is not fully resolved, but demonstrates the potential to. Design team: Amanda Ngieng; Element Zhang; Rachel Low; Jessica Zhang.

1.1 Design brief The design brief calls for a research pavilion to be locate within the north courtyard of the new ABP building at the University of Melbourne. Following a rigorous design, research and prototyping process, the final pavilion should be one that: • Has a climatic envelope, providing shelter from sun and wind • Visually connects to its surrounding context • Is structurally sound without permanent fixings to ground • Is safe to construct and de-construct, with minimal noise on site • Satisfies OHS requirements 21

Sense of enclosure Located under an existing cantilever, there is already an existing form of enclosure and shelter. This opens up an opportunity to design a pavilion that does have to be a physical enclosure.

Circulation The site is a junction of multiple circulation paths. The pavilion can be one that interacts with the flow of people. The pavilion should be a space to be experienced, one that is able to attract and draw people in.

Union House/Baldwin Spencer

Circulation from Physics Building

Circulation from streets

Circulation from Redmond Berry Building

Rigid space constraints The maximum size of the site is fixed to allow sufficient space for the adjacent vehicle zone, which will be heavily used as the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning moves into the new building. The pavilion itself does not need to fill up the entire site.

Site boundary

Planning and usage Apart from creating a space that can be used for the final design review (accommodating a minimum of 18 people), it is also a space for relaxation (e.g. before lecture at Redmond Berry). There a numerous ways in which the pavilion can be fit in the site boundary, but in order to accommodate at least 18 people, the pavilion will need to open up into an open space where people can gather.

Plan iteration diagrams

1.2 Explorations A case study of the [C]Space pavilion begins the search of the initial design and conceptual direction. This is followed by a mass generation of ideas, which are then consolidated and explored digitally and physically. All these explorations work to develop a rule set which will form the basis of the pavilion.

[C]Space - DRL10 Pavilion case study [C]Space has a deformed, extruded grid for its envelope, creating a sense of enclosure without fully enclosing. The language of the envelope is carried into the ground of the pavilion, merging to form surfaces with various datum levels. These surfaces, depending on the datum levels, have different functionality; generally the largest flat area is the ground to walk on, whereas strips of raised areas are seating.

Geometric inputs

Slicing

This ambiguity between ground, seating and envelope is one that could be taken forward into the research pavilion. This will allow users to appropriate the space themselves, engaging with the form of the pavilion. The envelope and its play with transparency is also interesting to note, allowing visual connection to the surrounding context while providing a sense of enclosure.

Breaking

z y

x Interlocking

Rule set used to reverse engineer [C]Space

Section Relationship between ground + envelope

Intersection notch joint Rubber gaskets

Envelope FibreC sheets and mild steel plates

Artificial ground Decking, steps, seating, furniture Supporting ground Sand binding and fibreC mat is laid to form a level base

Detail of intersecting notch joints

Material breakdown 29

Heading Text

Ideas workshop 14 students. 140 ideas. In the quest to search for conceptual ideas, each person in the studio was required to generate 10 different ideas. These are the 10 ideas that were generated by myself:

MACHINING AESTHETICS STUDIO Ideas Workshop

IDEA No. 1

IDEA No. 2

What is the idea?

Tessellation

Spaces within skin Sectional diagram

Idea 1:Author Tessellation initials: AN

Idea 2: Spaces within Author initials: ANskin

Creating a grid that is made up from modular components that uses a single system of connection and assembly

Creating an ambiguous space where the envelope itself is so deep that it become habitable

MACHINING AESTHETICS STUDIO Ideas Workshop

IDEA No. 3

IDEA No. 4

What is the idea?

Flower in grid

Tearing ruled volumes

Idea 3: flower inANgrid Author initials:

Idea 4: Tearing Author ruled volume initials: AN

Using the transparency in a grid to create opportunities for plant life

Tearing up the envelope to generate new spaces that are both inside and outside

Despite trying to think up different ideas, many of the underlying concept behind the ideas are the same. A running theme in many of my ideas is the ambiguity of space and play on transparency.

MACHINING AESTHETICS STUDIO Ideas Workshop

IDEA No. 5

IDEA No. 6

What is the idea?

Sculpt block like clay

Pages

Idea 5: Sculpt block likeANclay Author initials: Moulding a geometric form to create ambiguity in wall and furniture

Idea 6: Pages

Author initials: AN

Numerous free-standing planes create ambiguous space (similar to Idea 2: Spaces within skin)

MACHINING AESTHETICS STUDIO Ideas Workshop

IDEA No. 7

IDEA No. 8

What is the idea?

Rotate single geometry

Raised sunken pit

Idea 7: Rotate single Author geometry initials: AN

Idea 8: Raised Authorsunken initials: AN pit

Creating a form by rotating a single geometry around an axis

Creating a sense of enclosure that have ambiguous entrances and different datum levels

MACHINING AESTHETICS STUDIO Ideas Workshop

IDEA No. 9

IDEA No. 10

What is the idea?

Ice pavilion Controlled melting

Multilayered skin

Idea 9: Controlled melting Author initials: of AN ice

Idea 10: Multi-layered Author initials: ANskin

Creating a pavilion that is temporal due to its material, and will disintegrate by itself naturally

Creating an envelope so deep that there is no longer a distinct envelope but only a sense of space (Similar to Idea 2: Spaces within skin)

Consolidating ideas As a team, we chose to continue on with 4 main ideas: 1. Circulation driven Following the site analysis, we seek to create a form that fits in with the current circulation pathways and desire lines, modifying them to create a space to gather. 2. Integrated seating Like [C]Space, ideas 5 and 8 speak of integrated seating and an ambiguity of function due to different datum levels. 3. Transparency Ideas 2, 4, 6 and 10 speak of different ways to achieve transparency, allowing one to visually connect with the surrounding context. 4. Adaptable Considering that the design will not yet be fully resolved, in order to have the potential to be pushed further, it must have a clear design direction but still be adaptable. 39

Circulation driven To begin exploring this idea of a circulation driven form, arbitrary circulation lines are used to generate form by deforming a grid. These circulation lines act as parameters that can later be changed to suit the site. This is followed by an exploration of a block aesthetic where a solid form is broken into pieces, and deformed based on a line of circulation. Twisting this block creates a sense of movement within the rigid geometry, however this form is quite arbitrary and does not consider buildability.

Deforming a 3D grid

Deforming a block

Twisting the block

Heading Text

The block aesthetic As the blocks are spaced apart, it is possible to see right through the form between the gaps. This sense of transparency is however quite limited as the blocks are quite long, and the gaps quite small. In creating the physical model, we found the potential of the form being placed on its side instead, creating an articulated seating/wall surface rather than an articulated ceiling. To create a comfortable seating area, the sharp edges of the blocks are modified so as to follow a smoother surface. A preliminary construction sequence is set up to test the buildability of these blocks. However, in order to retain the sense of transparency, the blocks required dowels in two directions, which is not possible. Apart from this impossibility, the blocks will also require a lot of material.

Smoothing the block aesthetic - integrating seating

An impossible construction sequence

The ruled aesthetic Initial explorations found the ruled aesthetic to have much potential. Like the block aesthetic, it retains a similar sense of transparency by breaking up the envelope, but uses less material and creates more comfortable spaces for users to appropriate.

Ruled surfaces

The first physical model was made to test the structure of the form. Results show that a lot more bracings are required: we need to triangulate the structure.

Defining form

Minimal internal bracing

Text

Heading Text

As sharp corners do not work with the wires, we thought to smooth out the form instead. After rebuilding the original curves, the form was readjusted and internal structure added.

Smoothing generative lines

Moulding the shape

Increasing internal structure

1.3 Design proposal The proposal for Competition Phase 1A follows the 4 main ideas: - Circulation driven - Integrated seating - Visual connection/transparency - Adaptable

Heading Text

Articulated Timber Ground The Articulated Timber Ground is about creating a sense of continued transparency and solidness through a staggered interlocking system that rotates around an axis to produce a curved form. Strict parameters of ergonomics and circulation are used to derive a functional and effective form. Lying between Redmond Berry and the new Melbourne school of Design, the pavilion is a temporary articulated landscape, a space that is moulded from the ground into a partial timber screen that envelopes a humble auditorium space. Its curved form enhances the flow of movement within the site which is derived from desire lines of circulation driven by the surrounding activities. The moulded landscape starts as a high table that lies in the direct view of the physics cafe and morphs itself into a lounge chair before transforming into a wall, a cantilevered roof, auditorium seating, and finally ending as a flat bench that faces the

entrances of Redmond Berry, drawing the crowd into the active space of the pavilion. The structure of the pavilion lies in the generation of its form. Generative lines are used to set out the form of the pavilion. These are then divided by vertical planes, from which ruled lines are drawn and culled to interlock. A triangulated internal structure is then generated to support the pavilion. The design of the pavilion is highly cost effective in its use of material as it is made up of small straight elements that can be nested side-by-side based on the limitation of 1220mm X 2440mm dimensions of Maxi birch plywood during fabrication preparation.

Circulation-driven Its curved form enhances the flow of movement within the site which is derived from desire lines of circulation driven by the surrounding activities.

Site plan

Ergonomically-driven Strict parameters of ergonomics and circulation are used to derive a functional and effective form.

625

680

440

860

440

1800

1150

680

1980

710

625

680

500

300

1150

440

700

680

Key plan

Rule set: Adaptability Generative lines are used to set out the form of the pavilion. These are then divided by vertical planes, from which ruled lines are drawn and culled to interlock. A triangulated internal structure is then generated to support the pavilion.

1 2 3 4 5

Generative lines Intersection planes Create ruled surfaces between lines Cull to interlock Generate internal structure

Full definition in section 4.0.1 of appendix.

Nesting efficiency The design of the pavilion is highly cost effective in its use of material as it is made up of small straight elements that can be nested side-by-side based on the limitation of 1220mm X 2440mm dimensions of Maxi birch plywood during fabrication preparation.

2440

Nesting Analysis for wasteage calculation and nesting efficiency

1220

Material : Maxi plywood Dimensions: 2440mm x 1220 Thickness:24mm Cost:: 204.82 Nesting efficiency: 84.05% of material Number of panels used: 26 Total Cost: 5200

Material: Maxi Plywood Dimensions: 2440mm x 1220mm Thickness: 24mm Nesting efficiency: 84.05% Number of sheets: 26

Labelling Although good enough to make a physical model, there is still much to be designed in the labelling system.

Discrepancy In the physical model, the slots for the wires are made based on the angle in which the wire passes through the member. In theory, this allows the curvature of the model. In practice, the nature of the wire straightens the model and do not follow the slots.

Digital Model

Physical Model

Jointing methods A proposed method to retain the curvature in the built form is to introduce packers to space out the profiles where necessary.

ABCBA Packers (B) between profiles (A, C)

440

1250

615 3000

Heading Text

1.5 Critical review Our proposal was one of the two chosen to move onto the next phase. This section is in response to reviewersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comments and covers a number of aspects that should be developed in the next phase.

Moving forward The ruled aesthetic proved to be well taken to by the panel. It presented opportunities to improve and push the design through to optimisation of form and resolution of joints. With the lowest calculation of material in comparison to the rest of the competition, it also demonstrated its potential to be developed into a design that can be realised budget-wise. Through the review, it is apparent that a having a clear rule set that ties in with clear conceptual ideas is powerful and is able to stimulate discussion. While it can be said that rules restrict design, it is more relevant to say that they place a focus on the direction of design. There is much to explore and having a good foundation makes a good starting point.

Optimisation There is too much unnecessary internal structure. This was particularly evident in the making of the physical model. One way to deal with this is to combine the internal and exterior structure, so that there are lesser pieces to assemble, reducing the number of joints. Working with cull patterns of the interlocking members and varying them can also reduce material and increase the transparency effect.

590 610

1150

3000

3710

Movement and joints The nature of ruled surfaces and the logic of triangulation results in a very stable form: this opens up the opportunity to design flexible joints to allow movement within the pavilion. This movement would encourage interaction with the pavilion, and is an exciting route to explore. Wires are good for tying together 1:10 physical models, but will not hold up at 1:1 due to the sheer weight of material. An individual fixing method will have to be designed.

The problem with radial sectioning While it was proposed to use packers to keep the form radial, that has numerous issues: Where it is spaced out, it becomes too sparse to sit on; the amount of radial is difficult to control, and impractical for creating a fluid form. On top of it all, the radial effect is minimal. The physical model was well liked... and that did not have a radial effect. Considering that the winning design was largely based on the potential of movement, it made little sense to try and incorporate both movement and solve the connection for radial as well.

19 90

00 44

The design will go linear, which is also in agreement with the nature of plywood.

4500

Heading Text

2.0 Phase 1B: Design and prototype This section covers the development of Phase 1A proposal. Design team: Amanda Ngieng; Element Zhang; Rachel Low; Jessica Zhang; Jack Hinkson; Farheen Dossa; Siavash Malek.

Team structure My main role in the optimisation team was to develop the script for the global form and to set up the laser cut files for fabrication. I was also responsible for making the 1:5 prototype.

Phase 1A

Team JEAR Jessica Z. Element Z. Amanda N. Rachel L.

Team JFSA Jack H. Farheen D. Siavash M.

Phase 1B

Team X Jessica Z. Element Z. Amanda N. Rachel L. Jack H. Farheen D. Siavash M.

Team X structure

Optimisation Amanda N. Siavash M. Element Z.

Coordinator Rachel L.

Prototype Jack H. Jessica Z. Farheen D.

2.1 Design development This section focuses on the development of the rule set and optimisation of the global form.

Resolving structure Combining external â&#x20AC;&#x153;skinâ&#x20AC;? with internal structure greatly reduces the number of joints while retaining form. The idea of movement combined with a lightweight roof such as this gives an inspiration for seating to move roof.

Prototype joint movement explorations took a 2D rotation approach and informed the type of movement possible.

To allow the seat to move, supports under the seat were removed, which resulted in the bracing intersecting with the base. The structure was adjusted to avoid this.

Optimisation To reduce material, the width of profiles was adjusted, but the effect was undesirable.

Supports protrude out of roof awkwardly

Effect is okay but these supports are structural and should not be made thinner

Rather than reducing the width of profiles, the weight of the roof can also be reduced by spacing it out, but we had to be careful that we do not lose that aesthetic that we like.

The staggering of members increases transparency and makes the structure appear lighter.

The amount of curvature in the form is increased to further articulate it.

Packers are used to reduce material by spacing out the profiles. These packers joint one end of the profiles to the next and inspired a method of construction for the 1:1 prototype. Since the profiles are already spaced out, the staggering was removed.

The jointing method requires a lot of fixings and should be simplified where possible. While the effect of the 1:1 prototype looks promising (refer to Section 2.2, pg 119), the lack of supports is worrying. More explorations regarding structure will have to be carried out, digitally first.

Joint assembly sequence

101

More configurations of structure were explored. Using the bracing as packers helped to reduce the number of joints. Width of profiles were reduced from 100mm to 60mm as they were found to be too wide in the 1:1 prototype.

Issue with interlocking

Fixing interlocking

The gaps between profiles in the seating area of the 1:1 prototype were found to be too wide. In contrast, there were still too much material in the supports.

and aesthetic reasons, while the rest are spaced out, increasing the transparency effect.

Rather than having each ruled surface spaced evenly, the interlocking pattern was adjusted such that the seats, base and roof are denser for functional

103

To address the safety issue of the roof hitting heads that was determined in the 1:1 prototype, the roof was raised.

To ensure that the pin joints used in the prototype can pass through all members, the ends of profiles were paired. However, this resulted in a form that loses its fluidity and uncomfortable seating areas, with the exception of the base. The pairing will be kept only in the base.

105

Although there was insufficient bracings in the 1:1 prototype, the previous digital iterations so far had structure that will not move. In this iteration, the supports were changed to address this. Internal bracings were also reduced.

107

The edges of the seating areas are cantilevered to avoid the odd edge finish that was in the 1:1 prototype.

109

As the form morphs into a flat seat area, the structure has to change. The decision was made to have a chain-link seat with a single set of cross bracings.

111

2.2 Design proposal While keeping to the main ideas and using the same basic rule set as Phase 1A, the proposal for Competition Phase 1B focuses on introducing movement into the pavilion and the optimisation of form.

113

1.0 Title Title description

115

Overview The 4 main ideas as taken forward from Phase 1A are: - Circulation driven - Integrated seating (ergonomics) - Visual connection/transparency - Adaptable In Phase 1B, the main ideas are retained, but now the pavilion also takes into account movement and aims to be a space for users to experience. Moveable joints were developed for the pavilion and the form was optimised.

Site plan

Ergonomics

117

Movement The pavilion is made of two parts: A moveable structure and a rigid structure that supports it. The first 1:1 prototype section was successful and demonstrated movement that we liked, but it lacked control and did not satisfy OH&S requirements.

First 1:1 prototype section

119

Joint Sequence

Through the use of sliders the amount and direction of movement can be controlled by the length of the slider.

Built 1:2 Prototype Component

1:2 prototype roof structure

Joint types 1 Pin joint (M6 bolts) 2 Rubber joint

3 Slider joint (M6 bolts)

1 1

1:2 prototype assembly sequence excluding roof

121

Heading Text

123

Heading Form The seats, base and roof are Text denser for functional and aesthetic reasons, while the rest are spaced out, increasing the transparency effect. Overhanging the seating edges articulates the form and creates a nice shadow line.

125

The ends were left open as it gives a nice effect, but may have to be closed off due to reasons explained in Section 2.3.

There is an opportunity to include lighting in pavilion, lighting it from the inside.

127

Nesting efficiency

Material: Maxi Plywood Dimensions: 2440mm x 1220mm Thickness: 18mm Nesting efficiency: 84.86% Number of sheets: 18 Spacing between profiles (used for 1:2 prototype): 15mm

Material : Maxi ply Dimensions: 2440m Thickness:18mm

Minimum toleranc on CNC (during 2n 15mm

Volume of Pavilion Volume per plywoo

Number of panels u Nesting efficiency

2440

Only 18 sheets are required for this proposal, compared to 26 in Phase 1A. The thickness is changed to 18mm to ensure sheets are not too heavy to be lifted onto the CNC machine.

1220

betwee plywood sheets Cutting and making process

constantly during assembly.

Long hair, sleeves or jewellery getting caught in machine Heavy material being dropped on one's feet

2500

Ensure all is kept away from the working machine - tie up long hair, take off jewellery, no long sleeves while working etc.

150 Wear steel toe capped boots. Have at least 2 persons near the machine. 2 3 25 M Wear suitable dust masks next to dusty operations, e.g. lathes or sanders. Vacuum daily. Breathing in fine dust particles 450 10 3 15 H Misuse of machinery - using equipment for any purpose other Machinery, tools and equipment may be used only by qualified and than its intended purpose authorised personnel. Follow appropriate procedures. 30 2 3 5 L Damage to hearing when exposed to excessive noise 0 Wear hearing protection while working with heavy machinery. Lifting heavy plywood sheets to Use lighter & thinner plywood sheets and have 2 persons or more when machinery lifting or moving. 2500 10 10 25 VH Flying debris from machinery 450 Wear eye protection while working with machinery. 6 3 25 H Cutting fingers when using portable power tools - drills, 3D GENERIC RISK ASSESSMENT2 (Completed form to be attached to HR18 if applicable) 150 Wear protective gloves. Make sure wires are always behind you. power sanders etc. 3 25 M Not being able to communicate Reason for proposed RESEARCH DESIGN AS PART OF STUDIO 15 - SCALE = 4 x or keep safe operation of work: 4 x 3M TALL Is that the size of your project? Location: Melbourne School machinery due to loud music of Design, 18 No headphones and no LLDS: mobile telephones in the workshop. 6 North Courtyard 3 1 L UnfixedAmanda rubber jumping around Ngieng, Element Zhang, Farheen when cutting 18 Ensure rubber to be cut is clamped down and will not jump into one's face. 6 Zhang,3 Rachel 1 L Dossa, Jack Hinkson, Jessica

Assembly sequence

Low, Siavash Activity DOCUMENT UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTEDMalek DATE: July 2008 Leggett Coordinator: To be revised: July 2009

+ Paul Loh and David

The pavilion is assembled off-site into chunks, where chunks are sectional portions of the pavilion. The size of a chunk varies depending on weight (maximum 40kg for two people to carry).

Date From:

1st OCTOBER 2014

Date To:

L L L L L L L L L L

1st DECEMBER 2014

Authorised: Faculty ABP EHS Committee

This is a generic risk assessment and for any given activity the risks outlined here will vary and the suggested controls for each risk may not be reasonably practicable. Therefore this document provides advice only. Staff undertaking risk assessments are expected to take into account the unique risks presented by each activity as relevant to their location/trip and ensure risk ratings and controls are appropriate and current. This Risk Assessment is to be completed by the Activity Coordinator. Please delete generic activities that are not appropriate to the field trip. You are required to add and undertake a risk assesment of any other activities not listed which are relevant to the trip.

RISK ASSESSMENT

ACTIVITY

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Unloading of Installation material

Inclement weather

Tripping, falling, slipping when transporting blocks

Carrying heavy objects Inclement weather Dropping heavy material on one's feet Hittingwhen passers-by with Tripping moving large material pieces plywood blocks Hitting passers-by when Risk of tripping transporting materialover ma-

Cutting and making process

terial on ground Lifting objects with sharp or splintered Long hair, sleevesedges or jewellery

Exposure Likelihood Consequence RISK SCORE E L C ExLxC

RISK LEVEL

180

210

10 6

25 15

2500 180

VH M

180

150

135

10 6

150 90

M M

300

getting caught in machine Heavy material being dropped on one's feet

2500

150

Breathing in fine dust particles Misuse of machinery - using

450

CONTROL MEASURES Stop work walkway during high are wind kept period.clear. WeighHave material with on weight Ensure 1 down person the- at least 2 person job. Wear appropriate clothing and take care. side to warn others. Wear gloves and do not carry too much. Have at least 2 persons or use the mechanical to assisthigh moving heavy materials. Stop workingliftduring wind period. Weigh first few Wear steel toe capped boots and take a secure grip. Have 2 or more blocks down with sand bags. persons when unloading. Ensure site isare secured with hatobstructions and hazard 1 Ensure walkways kept clear andwitch free from whentape. moving material personaround. to warn passers-by. Have 2 or more persons when carrying. Have 1 person to war passers-by Ensure site is material. organised and have an ordered storage when transferring

system. Wear gloves and boots. Put the plywood blocks down in an orderly manner. Have at least 2 persons Ensure all is kept away from the working machine - tie uplifting. long hair, take

They are then transported by truck onto the site and assembled together. Sandbags are used where necessary to weigh down lighter chunks.

LL L

L L

Wear steel toe capped boots. Have at least 2 persons near the machine. Wear suitable dust masks next to dusty operations, e.g. lathes or sanders. Vacuum daily.

Wear hearing protection while working with heavy machinery. Use lighter & thinner plywood sheets and have 2 persons or more when lifting or moving. Wear eye protection while working with machinery.

L L

10 3

25 25

2500 450

VH H

150

Wear protective gloves. Make sure wires are always behind you.

No headphones and no mobile telephones in the workshop.

Ensure rubber to be cut is clamped down and will not jump into one's face.

10 6

UNCONTROLLED DOCUMENT WHEN PRINTED DATE: July 2008 To be revised: July 2009

ASSEMBLY SEQUENCE 5

off jewellery, no long sleeves while working etc.

BLOCK ASSEMBLY PROCESS equipment for any purpose other Machinery, tools and equipment may be used only by qualified and than its intended authorised personnel. Follow appropriate procedures. 30 EACH BLOCK IS CONSISTED OF 2 purpose SECTIONS FOR2LARGER3 PIECES,5AND 4 SECTIONS FORLSMALLER PIECES, ACCORDING TO THEIR WEIGHTS. Damage to hearing when (joint sequence as shown before) exposed to excessive noise Lifting heavy plywood sheets to machinery Flying debris from machinery Cutting fingers when using portable power tools - drills, power sanders etc. Not being able to communicate or keep safe operation of machinery due to loud music Unfixed rubber jumping around when cutting

NEW RISK LEVEL

L L

Authorised: Faculty ABP EHS Committee

FROM 757 TO NEW ABP BUILDING. MATERIAL AND SITE BARRIERS GET DELIVERED BY A SMALL TRUCK - PROVIDED BY MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY. SITE GETS SET UP AND SECURED - BARRIERS TO ENSURE THAT NON-STAFF DO NOT ENTER THE SITE AND GET INJURED.

ASSEMBLED BLOCKS GET ERECTED ON SITE. FOR ROOF SECTIONS, ONE BLOCK IS CONSISTED OF 2 SECTIONS, WHICH WEIGHS LESS THAN 40kg, SUITABLE FOR TWO PERSONS TO LIFT AND TRANSPORT. CENTRE BLOCK IS TO BE PLACES ACCORDING TO SITE SET OUT. SANDBAG IS PLACED IN THE CENTRE BLOCK - LARGEST ROOF BLOCK - TO ENSURE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE PAVILION.

1 2 3 4 5

Assembly of chunks off-site Setting out the site Assembly of chunks Assembly of chunks Final chunk

LAST BLOCK GETS TRANSPORTED INTO POSITION.

1.0 Title Title description

131

Heading Text

133

2.3 Critical review Our proposal was chosen to move onto the final phase. This section is in response to reviewersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comments and covers a number of aspects that should be developed in the next phase.

135

Moving forward While there were conflicting opinions among reviewers, one of the considered benefits that the other proposal had over this one was that it had a sense of enclosure, and was more like a pavilion. On the other hand, this proposal seemed more like a fascinating bench whose end conditions have not been resolved. However, with plenty of research going into the jointing system and the development of the form, the proposal was able to demonstrate its high potential to be well designed and built within the time constraint. Because of its current resolution, and the potential of growth, it ended up being chosen as the winning project.

Resolution of form: Sense of enclosure

Resolution of ends: Aesthetics

How can we develop a form that still lies within the defined rule set, but provides a sense of enclosure? The current number of sheets required for this pavilion is 18 sheets. With budgeted limit of 24 sheets, this gives room for the form to grow further and become bigger. The idea to be developed in the next phase is bifurcation, the splitting of the form.

How do we want to end the pavilion? Currently, it looks like it had just been chopped off. Does it need to be covered? Does it need an end? The general consensus is that the end of the pavilion should be brought lower down, partly due to aesthetics, but also partly to ensure that no one tries to get inside the body of the pavilion and end up getting hurt by moving parts.

Resolution of structure: Safety More tests are required in order for the rubber to be safe enough to use in the construction of the pavilion, as rubber are prone to tearing when twisted. The idea to be developed in the next phase is to design a joint that utilises rubber in compression, which is more in the nature of rubber.

137

139

3.0 Phase 2: Fabricate and construct This section covers the development of Phase 1B proposal into the final built pavilion. Design team: Amanda Ngieng; Element Zhang; Rachel Low; Jessica Zhang; Jack Hinkson; Farheen Dossa; Siavash Malek; Daisy Wong; Onon Tam; William Varrenti; Has Azman; Ridho Prawiro; Elsie Zheng; Allegro Zhu.

141

Team structure In the design development phase, my primary role was in the development of the rule set and the global form. In the construction phase, my main role was in the development of the fabrication script (excluding nesting to sheets). When I had fulfilled my role I moved on to help with construction.

Design development phase

Miscellanous Daisy W. Has A.

Amanda N.

Global Form Siavash M. Element Z. Ridho P.

Prototype Rachel L. Jack H. Jessica Z. Elsie Z.

Analysis Farheen D. William V. Onon T. Allegro Z.

Construction phase

Documentation Daisy W. Jessica Z. Elsie Z. Onon T. Allegro Z.

Fabrication Has A. (project manager) Siavash M. Jack H. Rachel L. William V. Farheen D. Element Z.

Scripting Amanda N. Ridho P.

143

3.1 Design development: Global form There is still a lot more research required in order for the design to be fully developed. Issues such as the conditions on site, structure, safety and budget has only been lightly touched on and needs to be researched in more detail. All these information has to be designed into the global form. Being part of the team responsible for the global form, this section shows the evolution of the form in chronological order, while giving a sense of the main drivers that pushed the design forward.

145

Enclosing space: An extension dubbed “baby” To create a sense of enclosure, the form was elongated and bifurcated to form a “baby”. This was essentially a smaller, mirrored version of the original form (now dubbed “parent”).

147

The roof of the baby was removed. Apart from posing a number of issues regarding safety, it also does not follow the interlocking logic.

Following the type of pin joints that the prototype team was developing, a smoother form was required to allow joints to connect. The generative curves were rebuilt to be made smoother.

149

With minimal space for structure within the baby, a decision was made to flatten it, providing a seating area.

Edges of the seat are tapered to make space for internal cross bracings.

151

To ensure bolts could pass through the three profiles they connect, some edges needed to be extended. At the roof junction this was extended more than necessary to create and articulate a roof spline.

With 4 layers per section, the number of layers that the form can have must be a multiple of 4. Setting this restriction in the script ensures that the pavilion does not end oddly with additional bracings.

153

Site-driven: Determining orientation Solar, shadow and wind analysis were done to determine the optimum orientation and composition of the form.

FORM

SOLAR ANALYSIS

Single-Day- 8THNov,2014 Orientation 1

FLIPPED ROOF

Orientation 2

Orientation 3

Orientation 4

Orientation 5

Orientation 6

Bifurcation Form (Mirror)

Bifurcation (Mirror) & Extended Roof

SHADOW STUDY

Single-Day- 8THNov,2014 Sin Rise-Sun Set

2 10:00a.m. - 1:00p.m.

5 5:45p.m. - 6:15p.m.

Original Form

Flipped Roof

Extended Roof

Bifurcation Form

Bifurcation Form Mirror

WIND ANALYSIS Orientation 1

Original Form

Bifurcation Form

Flipped Roof

Extended Roof

Bifurcation Form with extended Roof

Orientation 2

Orientation 3

Orientation 4

Orientation 5

Orientation 6

Without going into the details, the results of the analysis was to change the current plan:

To this plan:

In other words, the form was to be mirrored.

155

Moulding the form The form was mirrored, but as it got passed through a number of people within the scripting team, the form somehow became out of proportion and no longer fits within the site boundaries.

Following the rules of ergonomics, the generative lines were adjusted, slimming the form and making it appear less bulky.

157

The ends were trimmed as much as possible, restricted by the existing curve in the roof as that could not be made steeper.

The roof was raised up to allow for headroom while maintaining profiles that have a length under 2400mm. This was to ensure that they could fit in a plywood sheet of 2440 x 1220mm.

159

Budget-driven: Determining scale The current budget only allows for 24 sheets of plywood. The current digital model estimates that over 31 sheets will be required; the form has to be made a lot smaller. Considering the current proportions, the baby would also look better smaller.

Model Volume (cm3): 1,243,604 Efficiency: 75% Estimated Sheets: 31.46

To further reduce the size of the baby, the number of generative lines that it had was reduced from 8 to 6. The seat at its back was removed.

Model Volume (cm3): 1,032,402 Efficiency: 75% Estimated Sheets: 26.12

161

The form was also pushed to the south-west corner of the site to allow space for circulation, and for the removal of bicycles from the bicycle rack.

The shape of the baby was adjusted for aesthetic reasons, and made a little wider for proportions.

163

The profiles at the spline of the baby required more overlapping for joints. A few iterations of this was done, resulting in the articulation of the spline.

Model Volume (cm3): 1,069,900 Efficiency: 75% Estimated Sheets: 27.07

165

The form was continually revised, its proportions adjusted and size reduced.

Model Volume (cm3): 973,573 Efficiency: 75% Estimated Sheets: 24.63

Model Volume (cm3): 964,380 Efficiency: 75% Estimated Sheets: 24.40

167

Dropping the end of the pavilion did not do much to change the cost, but was aesthetically more pleasing.

Model Volume (cm3): 961,188 Efficiency: 75% Estimated Sheets: 24.32

The baby was made smaller still; proportion-wise it was getting more pleasing, and the form was finally within the budget.

Model Volume (cm3): 919,673 Efficiency: 75% Estimated Sheets: 23.27

169

Safety-driven: Structure and ergonomics The small protrusion of the baby appear a little awkward. We need to criticise the use of this space: Is it a seat? A leaning wall? A screen?

While it made more sense for it to be something to lean on, the height-to-width ratio of the baby meant that it might topple if someone leaned on it. The height of the baby was brought as high as possible while keeping that in mind.

171

Bracing in one direction was thought to be less efficient.

The bracings in blue were adjusted to better support the roof structure. Informed by the prototype team, the angle of the seat support was made steeper to increase potential of movement.

173

The bracings were spaced out and reduced; the cull pattern was changed.

Packers were added parametrically according to the cull pattern, filling spaces between profiles but removed where there were bracings to take its place. Informed by the prototype team, more packers were required (generally at every connection) to reduce racking of profiles.

175

But while packers were required to reduce the racking of profiles, we did not want to have redundant packers for they increase the number of joints and amount of material, which in turn increase cost and time required for assembly. Explorations were done to optimise the number and position of packers.

Packers removed where profile members are short

Packers adjusted to run in centre of profiles

177

An OH&S review found that the spine of the parent was a hazard. There was a chance of it hurting someone when the roof moves, and had to be adjusted so that it cannot be grabbed.

The roof was protruding at a height where a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s back would be, and would be uncomfortable to lean back on. This was fixed.

179

Disjunction in surfaces were fixed. If they appear like that in the digital model, it would look like poor workmanship when built.

As an added measure, the seat was also widened in required areas to discourage people from leaning back.

181

Different configurations of cross bracings are explored.

Manual adjustments were made where required.

183

Jointing system As specified by our engineer consultant, the minimum material required around a hole is 24mm. For a hole diameter of 6mm, the diameter of material required (coloured in red) is 24 + 6 + 24 = 54mm. To ensure that sufficient material is around each joint, joint lines in the digital model are selected and piped to the required diameter of 54mm. Joints are then manually checked and adjusted.

The area in red dictates the amount of material required around this particular joint.

185

In order to fix the cases where there were insufficient material, the first step was to adjust the size of the profiles within the script. Only the width of the top end of the profiles were adjusted.

Occasionally, manual adjustments might be required. Manual adjustments was always done last as they were not parametric and had to be done again every time the form was changed.

187

The bone profile Profiles that vary in width are referred to as the bone profile. Rubber joints require a material diameter of 100mm due to the hole cut for rubber. To maintain transparency, only the width of the ends of the profiles were set to a diameter of 100mm. The rest of the varying width along the profiles were based on the logic behind ergonomic seats.

100mm

Required diameter

Without the bone profile, the holes are too close to the edge

Joint check

Wrong extension of profiles

Fixed 189

In the final 1:1 prototype, the bone profiles appeared to be quite successful. Apart from accommodating joints, they also make for comfortable seats.

191

From the prototype, we found that the width of the moving seats were too wide, and should be reduced.

Our engineer consultant, John Bahoric testing the structure of the 1:1 prototype.

The width of seats were adjusted in digital model.

193

What you see in the digital world may not be what you get, but any errors in the digital file will definitely be errors during fabrication.

The digital model may seem legit, but on close inspection there were a number of problems here and there. All of these problems had to be fixed.

Odd bone profiles in roof

Fixed profiles

195

Due to the way the bone script was written, there was a general lack of control of the parameters, which resulted in unwanted effects. All these had to be fixed.

End profiles to be refined

Fixed bone profiles

A high seat/surface helped in reducing stress on the roof supports. It also avoided making the pavilion appear too flat. However, it was too close to the roof, and posed an OH&S issue. To solve this, a special bone profile was developed.

Not enough headroom

Lowered seat

Some width of members are too thin, bracing and packers protrude

Some members are still too thin

Members are of a sufficient width 199

While the shape of the profile allowed it to be nested more efficiently, it was not structurally safe.

Portion of seat to adjust

The profiles were adjusted according to feedback.

Portion of seat adjusted

201

After the form was baked from the script, manual adjustments were made, including the adjustments and additions of bracings, refinement of bifurcation corner, and adjustment of end profiles.

Objects manually removed

Objects manually added

Steps to adjust end profiles

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original Move and copy to adjacent profiles Boolean union each layer Merge all faces Fillet profile corners for CNC (7mm) Extrude filleted curve into brep

203

After checking, it was found that bracings had to be added in the merged area to maintain the shape, and bracings had to be modified at the parentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tail to help strengthen the transition from a moving structure to a chain-link structure.

Objects manually removed

Objects manually added

While additional members had to be drawn in manually, they did not need to be modelled from scratch. Portions of the main script were extracted to assist in manual changes. For instance, only a single line for a profile needed to be drawn. The full profile shape will then be generated by Grasshopper.

Clusters from main script help in making manual changes

205

3.2 The fabrication script While the fabrication script for the laser cut file was able to serve its purpose in the previous phase and result in a full 1:5 model, the making of the fabrication files for the prototypes with actual joints was still not yet scripted. In order to be able to generate fabrication files for the entire pavilion, a script needs to be developed. The full cluster definitions can be found in section 4.0.5 of the appendix.

207

Final checks and preparation Due to the way the chunks are labelled, the parent and baby needed to be split. A script was used to split the merged area from the parent and baby so that they could be baked in different layers; the parent could then be separated from the “baby” easily. This avoided any mistakes that might happen in manual selection.

Form divided by script

It also joins any overlapping/ duplicate members together, resulting in a clean model.

Separate “baby” from “parent”

At the same time, an attached script lets you know which overlapping/duplicate profiles it was joining, if any, so that it was possible to check if any of those members were unintentional.

Script highlights the layer where profiles are joined

209

The script To allow for manual adjustments, unlike the fabrication script for the laser cut models, this script does not require inputs to be in any particular data structure. This is necessary to allow manual adjustments to be a part of the work flow. Essentially, the script takes the digital model and a number of other inputs and returns the information as points and curves on the xy plane, which are then nested and sent to the CNC machine.

Main steps: 1A Input breps of digital model to section and generate surface profiles, sorted by layer 1B Input lines sorted by joint types to generate the joints 1C Input lines sorted by joint labels to generate the labels 2C Sort data into chunks 3C Label profiles and orient data onto xy plane 4C Space profiles out, organised by chunks 5 Bake data into separate layers as required and name the layers

211

1A Generate surface profiles sorted by layer A single line sets the extents of the model to be sectioned. On this line an array of planes are set out based on the thickness of the plywood (18mm), which are then used to section the breps and turn them into surface profiles.

Layer 287

Layer 1

213

1B Generate joints There are a total of 6 different joint types that the script is required to draw. The main inputs for each joint type are the joint lines as generated in the global form, and the surface profiles generated in step 1A. Intersecting the joint lines with the surface profiles gives the location of the joints, where the specific joint type is drawn. Different types of milling of the CNC machine are required for different components in the joints. Each type was given its own output from the cluster as they will have to be baked in different layers.

The definition is repeated twice, once for the merged area + baby and once for the parent.

215

1B Generate joints: Rubber The oval-shaped pocketing for the rubber is to allow for the rubber to expand when it is compressed. Because of the pocketing and the nature of CNC milling, it is required for every third member to be flipped. Rubber joints in parent

Rubber inputs set 1

Rubber inputs set 2 (mirrored)

Components: 1 M6 Tee Nut 2 1/4” x 1” Mud Guard (Slip) Washer 3 Industrial Rubber Insert 4 10mm x45mm Steel Rod 5 1/4” x 1” Mud Guard (Slip) Washer 6 M6 Washer 7 M6 x 65mm Hex Bolt

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Cluster output (in relation to components): 7 Hole Pocketing - steel type 1 1 Hole Pocketing - steel type 2 4 Hole Pocketing - rod 3 Profiling - bean 3 Pocketing - oval

Rubber joint detail

Joints oriented to model

217

1B Generate joints: Washer The washer cluster has an internal input for the diameter of â&#x20AC;&#x153;hole pocketing - washer curveâ&#x20AC;?. In order to change this parameter, the cluster has to be edited.

Washer joints in parent

Diameter of circle: 24.88 mm

3 4

Components: 1 M6 Tee Nut 2 ‘Bannana Skin’ Silicone Insert 3 1/4” x 1 1/4” Mud Guard Washer 4 M6 x 65mm Hex Bolt Cluster output (in relation to components): 1 Hole pocketing - steel type 2 4 Hole pocketing - steel type 1 2 Hole pocketing - washer pt 2 Pocketing - washer crv

Washer joint detail

Joints oriented to model

219

1B Generate joints: Steel pin Although this particular joint does not require profiles to be flipped, the same pattern of flipping as determined from the rubber joints is carried through. This keeps the construction sequence consistent.

Steel pin joints in parent

Components: 1 M6 Tee Nut 2 M6 Washer 3 M6 x 65mm Hex Bolt

2 3

Cluster output (in relation to components): 3 Hole pocketing - steel type 1 1 Hole pocketing - steel type 2

Steel pin joint detail

Joints oriented to model

221

1B Generate joints: Vertical slots During a site survey, it was found that there is a level difference range of 19-65 mm. Rather than packing one side of the pavilion to 65mm, tolerance for the datum levels are inbuilt into the joints. The vertical slot joints allow for a tolerance of +/- 4mm and is used at every chunk-to-chunk connection. This is not required when there is a washer joint.

Vertical slot joints in parent

Components: 1 M6 Tee Nut 2 M6 Washer 3 M6 x 65mm Hex Bolt Cluster output (in relation to components): 3 Hole pocketing - steel type 1 1 Hole pocketing - steel type 2 3 Profiling - bolt slot

Joints oriented to model

223

1B Generate joints: Slider The slider profiles are kept at a length of 150mm, as that is the main length that will used throughout the pavilion. A few shorter sliders can be adjusted manually after baking, before nesting.

Slider joints in parent

Components: 1 6mm x75mm Steel Rod Cluster output (in relation to components): 1 Hole pocketing - steel type 1 1 Profiling - slider Slider joint detail

Joints oriented to model

225

1B Generate joints: Screw Screw joints are used to prevent/reduce racking of the cantilevering roof, while still allowing for movement. They are only screwed on one side. As the smallest drill bit of the CNC machine is still too big for the screw, the point is only marked with a small pocket. It will later be manually drilled. Although there should technically be only two points for the screw, the number of points is left at three for consistency of data structure.

Screw joints in â&#x20AC;&#x153;parentâ&#x20AC;?

30 mm

1 x screw

Components: 1 Screw Cluster output (in relation to components): 1 Hole pocketing - screw Screw joint detail

Screw

M6 washer M6 bolt

Joints oriented to model

227

1C Generate joint labels The joint lines as generated by the global form are sorted into their respective labels. Like in step 1B, the main inputs for each joint label are the joint lines and the surface profiles generated in step 1A. Intersecting the lines with the surface profiles gives the location of the joint labels. The joints are labelled according to the generative lines that they were derived from.

Joint lines are sorted into their respective labels and fed into the script.

F H G

229

2 Sort data into chunks A chunk is made out of sections, which are made up of layers. Generally, a section consists of 4 layers following the cull pattern ABAC, where: A are the denser ruled surfaces; B are the less dense ruled surfaces; and C are bracings/packers.

Selected chunk example from â&#x20AC;&#x153;parentâ&#x20AC;?

1 chunk

2 sections, 4 layers each

Chunk A: 6 sections (24 layers) Chunk B: 6 sections (24 layers) Chunk C: 4 sections (16 layers) Chunk D: 4 sections (16 layers) Chunk H: 4 sections (16 layers) Chunk J: 4 sections (16 layers) Chunk K: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk L: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk M: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk N: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk P: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk Q: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk R: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk S: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk T: 2 sections (8 layers) Chunk U: 4 sections (16 layers) Chunk V: 4 sections (16 layers) Chunk W: 6 sections (24 layers) Chunk X: 6 sections (24 layers) Chunk Y: 6 sections (23 layers)

The size of a chunk is determined based on its weight, limited by the maximum weight of 40 kg to ensure that it can be safely carried by two people. Letters O and I are not used to avoid confusion with 0 and 1.

Q P N M L K

HASE 2

J Y

H D C B A G F E

DIVISION OF FORM INTO CHUNKS 231

The number of sections in each chunk is fed into the script as a list of numbers. The script will then divide the form according to this information.

List of the number of sections per chunk in parent

Y X W

C B A

233

3 Fabricator: label and orient Using the data sorted into chunks from step 2, the Fabricator cluster labels the profiles in each chunk according to its chunk letter and layer number. The layer number restarts at 1 for every new chunk e.g. A1, A2 ... A24; B1, B2... Layers where profiles are flipped are marked with an underscore e.g. C1_, C2_.

Profiles in each layer have the same label and are differentiated by shape and their joint labels.

Oriented profiles

The script ensures that every 3rd profile of a section is flipped when oriented onto the xy plane. The joint labels that have already been flipped in step 1C get flipped back to be the right way up.

Using the location of joint labels as a guide, the profiles are rotated roughly horizontal.

235

4 Space out data and bake Organised by chunks, the data is then spaced out and baked. The script uses a distance of 2440mm to space out the profiles, allowing profiles to be quickly checked if they are too long.

Some profiles are very close to the next; this means that they are just barely under the size limit

Baked with joints in 3D: Chunks H - Y

Baked with joints in 2D: Chunks H - Y

237

Layers with the correct names are generated within the script, and profiles are baked in their respective layers through the script. While CNC only requires a single layer per type of milling, more layers with more specific information are created to allow for easier nesting and checking.

Layers baked

The collection of joints stored as a single list had to be sorted out

The Bake component by a Grasshopper add-on, LunchBox, allows for the model to be baked relatively quickly. However, it seems to be unable to bake groups. Layers for profile and joint labels are created, but their components are not baked. These have to be baked separately.

Quick bake

239

Script optimisation Scripting is powerful. It can run calculations at a speed unmatched by humans. Using brute force measures in Grasshopper works most of the time with negligible delay. However, for a script as big as this, it is important to optimise the script as much as possible. While technically a slower script would be able to give the same results, while only using more time, there are times when the computer will not be able to keep up with the amount of data it has to process and runs out of memory. The profiler in Grasshopper notes the time spent in running a component/cluster and highlights areas to optimise.

The split cluster was used multiple times in the document. Optimising it helped to speed up the overall definition significantly.

9.5s Split cluster definition

1.6s optimised Split cluster definition

241

Quick checks for errors in inputs Because of the large number of profiles generated, it is easy to spot some errors easily. For instance, if profiles do not orient correctly on the xy plane, it generally means that at least 1 or more joint labels are missing.

Chunk A-G of laser cut model

Missing joint labels detected

Labelling the object itself when baking allow for easier selection in Rhino

243

1:5 prototype as a method of checking Although the 1:5 model does not use actual fixings, it was very useful in checking the construction sequence and ensuring that the script is working as it should, flipping the right members and labelling correctly. One major error found during the checking of the 1:5 fabrication file is that the outputs for the Washer clusters were not plugged into the next part of the script.

245

Manual fixes Certain things that could not be scripted had to be fixed manually. For instance, it was easy enough to centre profile labels, and shift joint labels such that they do not overlap with the centre point of the joint. But the script is not clever enough to know if a label is still within the bounds of the profile, or if it overlaps with other components in the profile. These have to be adjusted manually during the nesting process. Baking objects in different layers allow for layers to be locked and reduce/prevent accidental movement of other components.

Fixing a joint label

Problems? Once the script has been created, the only things that should be changed should be the set parameters. While changes can be made to the script, it opens the door to mistakes. An error might be missed because it has been thought to have been checked before. The check using the 1:5 model was very important in checking for missing joints, etc. It is unfortunate that the 1:5 prototype was not done for the final fabrication file; that would be a good practice. Overall, the script worked as expected. Any errors that resulted during the later construction phase in section 3.3 was due to being given the wrong input information; nothing unintentional happened within the script itself.

247

Text

3.3 Construction sequence This section shows how the pavilion was constructed, starting from sheets of plywood and ending with the concrete plinth.

251

It begins Thursday, 9 October 2014, 3:00pm. 30 sheets of 18mm plywood from MaxiPly arrived and were transported into the workshop. Friday, 10 October 2014, 9:30am. Begin CNC milling.

253

Heading Text

255

Heading Text

257

Heading Text

259

Heading Text

Friday, 10 October 2014, 3:30pm. Completed routing and sanding for the first chunk (G). Sunday, 12 October 2014, 10:45am. Sorted pieces according to their layers and began assembly. Sunday, 12 October 2014, 2:15pm. First chunk completed. Fabrication files continue to be prepared, the CNC machine continues to mill, and students continue to route, sand and assemble. A metal cutter is used to cut steel rods to length. Rubber washers are cast in moulds. Metal bracings are spray painted to prevent rust. Problems. Discovered faulty ply during milling, which had to be returned to supplier and replaced. Black rubber is too thick to be laser cut; it melts. Problem solved by using an industrial guillotine to cut black rubber to size.

261

Heading Text

263

Heading Text

265

Heading Text

267

Heading Text

269

Heading Text

271

Heading Text

273

Heading Text

275

Heading Text

277

Heading Text

279

Heading Text

281

Heading Text

283

Heading Text

Saturday, 18 October, 10:00am. Site is set up. 10:30am. Completed chunks are transported to the site. 9:42pm. Final sheet for CNC is cut. 10:00pm. Chunk A-M assembled on site.

285

Heading Text

287

Heading Text

289

Heading Text

291

Heading Text

293

Problems. Roof profiles are racking. More packers have to be added manually. A physical generative curve is used to mark positions of new packers. Assembly continues.

295

Heading Text

297

Heading Text

299

Heading Text

Monday, 20 October 2014, 7:40pm. Final chunk is assembled. Monday, 20 October 2014, 10:00pm. Chunks A-V assembled on site. Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 11:30am. Last three chunks transported to site. Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 1:50pm. Assembly of profiles completed.

301

Heading Text

303

Heading Text

305

The ending Saturday, 25 October 2014, 12:54pm. CNC fabrication for foam mould is complete. Perspex blocks are placed into the foam. Dowels are cut. Foam is sanded, glued, and rubbed with vaseline. Sunday, 26 October 2014, 2:40pm. Concrete is mixed, poured and compacted.

Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 4:05pm. Foam is removed. Yard is cleaned. Wednesday 29 October 2014, 3:21pm. Concrete plinth is transported to site and fixed in position.

307

Heading Text

309

Heading Text

311

Heading Text

313

Heading Text

315

Heading Text

317

3.4 The pavilion With the completion of the pavilion comes an indescribable sense of pride and accomplishment. At the start of the book I wrote that design and build cannot be seen as separate entities, and I stick to the belief. We do indeed need to take control of both processes. It is interesting though, to note that there are times when the processes go feral and we lose control. We then have to scramble and retain control of the design, finding solutions to unexpected problems. In the making of this particular pavilion, I found that there are two main causes of problems: The lack of time and poor communication. As we were given a short time frame, there tends to be not enough time to think. There was not enough time to go through extensive checking processes to ensure that the actual construction is error-free. There was not enough time to fully test and develop the movement joints. Poor communication between team members lead to costly mistakes that could have been avoided.

319

How could communication be improved? This I do not have an answer to yet, and will likely be seeking the answer in the rest of my career. As loveable as the pavilion is, it was a disappointing time to find that the pavilion barely moves. This was, of course, only an issue for everyone who anticipated the movement. The pavilion will still appear complete even if it does not move. It will still be used; but the particular interactive effect that we strove for will not be realised. On the plus side, the risk of hitting someone with the moving bits of the pavilion (which we had been constantly trying to reduce) was now practically zero. Given the parametric design approach, it should have been possible for the design to remain within budget; however the flexible nature of the script got lost with the addition of the bone profiles. Due to the way it was written, a slight change in the data structure tend to cause it to break. When it was found that the pavilion was over budget, it was already too late to alter

the design. Last minute changes lead to more problems and it was imperative that we avoided it. The bone profiles also killed the nesting efficiency. Regardless, the bone profiles themselves were a very welcome part of the design, and it was surprising to find how ergonomic it really was (I know we designed it to be as such, but it was mostly in theory). Would it have been possible to have the pavilion be within the original budget ($3,550)? If more time was spent, it might have actually been possible to improve the nesting efficiency, since that it very much like a massive puzzle to solve. But even so, that might not have been enough material saved. To be able to remain within the original budget we would most likely have to either compromise on the design, or cleverly design it to become smaller. However, there was no such time to explore those routes. A pavilion (slightly!) over-budget is better than a pavilion stuck on paper, and to finish it before the construction deadline was an achievement that the studio could be proud of.

321

4.0 Appendix This section contains selected Grasshopper scripts that were used in the journal, detailed explanations of the rule sets used, as well as other miscellaneous information.

337

4.0.1 Phase 1A: Rule Set This section explains the rule set in detail, going into the Grasshopper script.

339

Overview The script shown on the right is the main Grasshopper script that is able to turn a set of inputs into a 3D digital form. It does not show the full script as definitions are hidden within clusters. A script is a machine, excelling in doing repetitive tasks very quickly. Though the use of clusters, it is relatively easy to adjust the parameters of the definition, giving control over the design.

Resulting form

Main steps: 1 Inputs 2 Create planes for sectioning 3 Slicing generative lines and drawing ruled lines between them 4 Make profiles from ruled lines 5 Cull profiles to interlock 6 Generate internal support lines from ruled lines of form 7 Make support profiles from ruled lines 8 Cull support profiles to interlock 9 Select relevant supports from those generated

7, 8

341

1 Inputs Generative lines set out the form, while sectioning lines set out the planes to divide the generative lines. Other tentative information, such as member width and plywood thickness, are parameters that can easily be changed. 1

2 Intersecting planes Using vertical planes to divide the curves ensure that the curves are divided on the same plane.

343

3 Ruled lines Already the form begins to take shape. Working with lines in Grasshopper require little computing power (as compared to surfaces). Having the skeleton of the form in lines help in previewing the form while adjusting the generative lines. 3

4, 5 Profiles Lines are turned into surface profiles using the Member cluster, which also splits them into two sets of surfaces. Alternating sets are chosen among each set of ruled surfaces to interlock them. The Thicken cluster converts the surfaces into breps.

345

6 Internal supports The Support cluster takes the entire list of lines that make up the external skin of the form as an input. It allows the user to chose two sets of ruled surfaces from the master list. A point is generated on each set of curves, from which the internal support is drawn.

7, 8, 9 Internal supports The internal supports are then culled to interlock (using the same logic as steps 4 and 5). The Select cluster removes any unwanted structure that was generated. 8

347

4.0.2 Phase 2: Rule Set This section explains the rule set developed for the final pavilion. Scripting team: Amanda Ngieng; Siavash Malek; Ridho Prawiro.

349

Overview : Global form logic

Global Form Logic

A B C D E F G H

Generative curves (input)

Moving Bone members select moving bracing input

H1’-b end points H1’-c

move end points through slider

seat, rotate H1’-d move leg & rotate roof

H1’-f

H1’-g measure roof movement

Copy series of xz planes every 18mm

Extract intersection points

Normal members

Draw lines between 2 points

Cull pattern

Bifurcation members

Profiling members & joints

Packers + Joints

H1-a input curves

H2-a input curves

H3-a joint two input curves

H4-a input curves

H1-b evaluate curves

H2-b offset curves

H3-b offset curves

H4-b evaluate curves

H1-c

H2-c extend input curves

H3-c

H4-c

H1-d draw interp curve

H2-d end points

H3-d end points

H4-d draw circles

H1-e extend input curves

H2-e draw arcs

H3-e draw arcs

H4-e planar surfaces

H2-f

H3-f

slider H1-f H1’-e measure limitation of clashes measure the angle of seat based on ergonomics

Create xz plane from point

Bone members

H1’

H1’-a

Extract bifurcation point

move points

end points

H1-g draw arcs

join curves

H2-g planar surfaces

extend input curves

draw perp lines

join curves

H3-g planar surfaces

H1-h join curves H1-i

planar surfaces

Thickening profiles (output)

KEY PLAN Main logic Detail profiling logic Clash analysis logic Fabricator logic

Fabricator logic

J-a

baked geometries

J-b

convert to single curves

J-c

make labels

J-c

orient in xy planes

Nesting

Clash analysis input

H5-a surfaces H5-b surfaces to curves H5-c evaluate intersections

351

353

H1: Bone member logic

Bone Member Logic (H1)

Input curve

Evaluate curve

Move points up & down in z axis

Draw interpolate curve from points

Extend input curve

Extract end points

Draw arcs from end points

Joint curves

H1â&#x20AC;&#x2122;: Moving bone member logic

Moving Bone Member Logic (H1â&#x20AC;&#x2122;)

Select moving bracing members

Measure maximum slider distance of clashes

End points

Measure angles for ergonomics

Move end point through slider

Measure roof movement distance

Move bracing & seat rotate leg & roof

? ?

355

H2: Normal member logic

Normal Member Logic (H2)

Input curve

Offset curve

Draw arcs from end points

Joint curves

Extend input curve

Extract end points

H3: Bifurcation member logic

Bifurcation Member Logic (H3)

Joined input curve

Offset curve

Draw arcs from end points

Joint curves

Extend input curve

Extract end points

357

H4: Packers and joints logic

Packers & Joints Logic (H4)

Input curves

Evaluate curves

Draw perpendicular lines for fixings

Draw circles for packers

H5: Clash member analysis logic

Clash Member Analysis Logic (H5)

Input surfaces

Convert surfaces to curves

Evaluate intersection between curves

359

4.0.3 Rule sets: A comparison This section compares the 3 final rule sets in phases 1A, 1B and 2.

361

Phase 1A script This is the summary of the rule set as detailed in Section 4.1 of the appendix.

2 1 3

Main steps: 1 Inputs 2 Create planes for sectioning 3 Slice generative lines and draw ruled lines between them 4 Make profiles from ruled lines 5 Cull profiles to interlock 6 Generate internal support lines from ruled lines of form 7 Make support profiles from ruled lines 8 Cull support profiles to interlock 9 Select relevant supports from those generated 10 Extrude surface profiles into breps

7, 8

Phase 1B script Although there are a few different steps, and the order of the steps have altered, it is apparent that it has the same underlying logic as phase 1A. The mess in steps 4 and 5 are largely due to the experimentation and optimisation of structure.

4, 5 1A 2

1B 6 8

Main steps: 1A Inputs (generative lines and sectioning lines) 1B Check if lines are under 2400mm 2 Create planes for sectioning 3 Slice generative lines and draw ruled lines between them 4 Modify ruled lines to extend structure where appropriate 5 Generate any additional bracings 6 Make profiles from ruled lines and cull profiles to interlock 7 Generate packers 8 Extrude surface profiles into breps

363

Phase 2 script The script has quadrupled in size as it is developed for the final form. Initial steps 1-3 have grown a lot due to the bifurcation logic. In steps 4 and 6, there are far more curves to modify. In step 5, bracings had to be added for the baby in addition to the parent. Step 7 introduces the bone profiles, and step 8 shows the increase in the number of packers that have to be extracted. Yet, the underlying logic is still the same: interlocking ruled surfaces.

Main steps: 1A Inputs (generative lines) 1B Rebuild generative lines to make smoother 1C Check if lines are under 2400mm 2 Create planes for sectioning 3 Slice generative lines and draw ruled lines between them 4 Modify ruled lines to extend structure where appropriate 5A Generate any additional bracings 5B Analyse moving structure 6 Cull ruled lines to interlock 7 Make profiles from ruled lines 8 Create bone member profiles 9 Generate packers 10 Extrude surface profiles into breps

365

4.0.4 Phase 1A & 1B: Fabrication script This section compares the fabrication scripts used for the laser cut models in phases 1A and 1B.

367

Phase 1A: Laser cut model fabrication script The first fabrication script is attached to the end of the definition for the global form. While there are only a few main inputs required for laser cut fabrication, it is difficult to reuse this script for future laser cut files as it is hard to see which inputs need to be changed. Using a script does not necessarily mean that the work flow is parametric. In this script there are a few sliders that makes the script lose its parametric nature.

Fabrication script as seen in main file

Phase 1B: Laser cut model fabrication script Using a cluster makes it easier to see what inputs are required, and what the script generates. If the script is written well and has a flexible nature, the cluster can easily be used again and again. This particular cluster was used in the fabrication of all 1:10 models as well as the 1:5 one. It could not be used for the 1:1 and 1:2 models as those did not use the same construction logic of wires.

Fabrication script as seen in main file

Orient&Label cluster

369

4.0.5 Phase 2: Clusters used in fabrication script This section contains a collection of the clusters used in the fabrication script and their corresponding definitions. It is not uncommon to have clusters within clusters. Where this occurs the clusters will be marked by a red box.

371

Rubber joint Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 216-217 for more information.

373

Washer joint Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 218-219 for more information.

375

Steel pin joint Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 220-221 for more information.

377

Vertical slots joint Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 222-223 for more information.

379

Slider joint Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 224-225 for more information.

381

Screw joint Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 226-227 for more information.

383

Split cluster A joint line always intersect with 3 surface profiles. This cluster separates the 3 points into their own components, while retaining its data structure relationship with the profiles.

385

Grow cluster This cluster is used in conjunction with the Split cluster (refer to pg 384). In the optimisation of the Split cluster, the full data structure had to be cleaned, with null items removed. This cluster returns the data back to the correct structure, including nulls.

Member cluster This cluster was used in all rule set definitions. It takes a line and turns it into the shape of a surface profile.

387

Joint labelling Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 228-229 for more information.

Joint label cluster

389

391

Chunk Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 230-233 for more information.

393

This cluster restarts the branch number to start it from 0.

395

Fabricator Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 234-235 for more information.

397

399

This cluster is used to flip profile labels in the 3D preview. It is set according to the pattern True, True, False, True to flip labels in every third layer of a section.

401

This cluster is used to flip joint labels in the 3D preview. It is set according to the pattern True, True, False, True to flip labels in every third layer of a section. .

403

This cluster is used to flip profiles (including their components and labels) that have been oriented onto the xy plane. It is set according to the pattern True, True, False, True to flip profiles in every third layer of a section.

405

Space out Refer to Section 3.2, pp. 236-237 for more information.

407

Joints 2D explode Refer to Section 3.2, pg 238 for more information.

409

4.0.6 LLDS checks This section contains a collection of checks by studio leaders Paul Loh and David Leggett regarding the global form, where the form was looked at layer by layer and problems highlighted. These checks have been invaluable and had a large part in getting the global form to work.

411

Non-teaching week: 30 Sep 2014

Bone to be made bigger Member need to be shifted by 9mm Can be combined New members Need to review - OH&S Slider joints?

413

Week 10: 06 Oct 2014

Split in two? Slider joint detail? Oversized Member close to touching Radius to inner corner? Ground lock to move back New member Vertical slot joint for site level tolerance

Week 10: 9 Oct 2014

Extend length and connect to joint New packers Profile needs to be thicker New bracings

415

4.0.7 Miscellaneous Other relevant work and information.

417

Roof explorations All these explorations came to a dead end. When a 1:1 roof extension prototype got blown away in a storm, it was confirmed that we would not be doing any roof extensions.

419

Representing information There are many ways to represent something, with some better than others. Here are a few different ways that were explored to represent the form on page 172.

421

Social media The pavilion has been posted on Facebook! Interestingly, they referred to the pavilion as a seat/ sculpture. I would like to think that they thought the pavilion could be neither be described just as a seat or a sculpture. Images sourced from Techne Architecture + Interior Design, https://www.facebook.com/ technearchitects.

423

4.1 Biography Amanda was born and raised in Singapore for the first 15 years of her life, before moving to Australia in 2008. She completed Bachelor of Environments (Architecture major) with first class honours at the University of Melbourne in 2013, and is currently in her first year of Masters of Architecture. She was first introduced to parametric design at Ex-lab: Bend Workshop 2012, and have immediately taken a liking to the work-flow. Since then her interests have been in digital design and fabrication, and her Masters course have been geared to support this. 425

4.2 Credit This section credits the work included in this book to the appropriate member/s of the team. Credit also goes to my tutors Paul Loh and David Leggett, whose guidance have been invaluable.

427

Page Cover 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Diagrams

Computation

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Photography

Writing AN

JZ JZ AN AN AN

WV, AN WV, AN

AN AN AN AN AN PP PP AN

FD RL RL RL

AN JZ

AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN, JZ, RL AN, JZ, RL AN, JZ, RL AN, JZ, RL

JZ JZ JZ JZ

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN

AN, JZ, RL AN, JZ, RL AN, JZ, RL AN, JZ, RL

FD FD FD FD

AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN

AN, JZ, RL AN, JZ, RL

FD FD

Page 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Diagrams AN AN

Computation

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Photography

AN, JZ, RL

Writing AN

AN EZ EZ RL JZ JZ AN AN RL RL JZ AN RL EZ JZ JZ

RL RL RL AN AN

RL RL AN AN AN AN

AN AN

JZ JZ AN AN AN AN AN

JZ JZ AN AN

AN AN

JZ JZ AN AN

WV, FD, AN AN

AN FD FD AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN RL

AN AN

AN AN RL, JH RL, JH

X RL, JH, FD, JZ RL, JH, FD, JZ

FD FD FD

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN RL, JH

RL, JH, FD, AN

429

Page

Diagrams

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

RL AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

Computation

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Photography

RL, JH

RL, JH, FD, AN

AN AN AN AN AN

Writing AN AN AN AN AN

RL, JH

AN EZ EZ JZ JZ, RL SM

AN AN RL, JH

RL, JH, FD, AN

JZ, RL RL

JZ AN

RL, JH RL, JH

RL, JH, FD, AN RL, JH, FD, AN

FD JZ JZ JZ JZ JZ FD

RL JZ EZ EZ AN AN

AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN

JZ JZ AN AN AN

RL, JH RL, JH

JZ JZ AN AN

WV, AN AN

AN, RP AN, RP AN, RP AN AN

JH JH

RP RP RP, SM AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN

Page

Diagrams

Computation

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

AN AN AN 15A AN AN AN AN AN AN AN OT AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN JZ AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN LZ AN JH JH

AN AN AN

Model Fabrication

Photography

RP, SM AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN

AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

Writing AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

JH, RL AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

Model Assembly

JH, RL

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

431

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Page

Diagrams

Computation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN

AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN, JH AN AN, JH AN AN, JH AN AN AN AN, JH AN AN, 15D AN AN AN JZ AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

Writing

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN, DW, HA

AN AN

Photography

DW, HA, LZ, JZ

AN AN, HA, SM AN AN

Page 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Diagrams

Computation

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Photography

15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

RP RP FD FD FD RP JZ JZ JZ

15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F 15F

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

HA FD RP FD RP RP FD FD FD RP RP FD FD FD JZ JZ JZ JZ JZ FD FD FD RP RP RP RP RP RP JZ RP RP RP RP RP RP JZ RP RP HA

Writing AN AN, HA

AN, HA

433

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Diagrams

Computation

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Photography

15F 15F 15F 15F EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM EZ, SM

15 15 15 15 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C 15C

RP RP RP RP AZ AZ HA HA HA LLDS HA HA HA AZ AZ AZ

Writing AN, HA

AN, HA AN, HA

AN AN FD PP PP FD FD JZ JZ JZ JZ JZ JZ JZ JZ PP PP AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

RP, SM, AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Page

Diagrams

Computation

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP

RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN RP, SM, AN

Photography

Writing

AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN

AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

AN AN AN

435

Page

Diagrams

Computation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

Model Fabrication

Model Assembly

Photography

Writing AN AN AN AN

AN HA HA HA HA

AN AN AN AN

Key: AN EZ RL JZ JH FD SM DW OT WV HA RP LZ AZ LLDS PP

Amanda Ngieng Element Zhang Rachel Low Jessica Zhang Jack Hinkson Farheen Dossa Siavash Malek Daisy Wong Onon Tam William Varrenti Has Azman Ridho Prawiro Elsie Zheng Allegro Zhu Paul Loh, David Leggett Professional photographer

15 15A 15C 15D 15F

Studio 15 excluding EZ Studio 15 analysis team (FD, WV, OT, RP, AZ) Studio 15 concrete team (EZ, SM, JH, DW, HA, AZ) Studio 15 documentation team (DW, OT, LZ, JZ) Studio 15 fabrication team (AN, HA, SM, RP, FD)

Additional notes: - Scripting was generally credited to me as most of those that I documented are iterations that I have done. The global form script for Phase 2 was done collaboratively with RP and SM.

437

4.3 Bibliography Dempsey, Alan, Y. Obuchi. Nine Problems in the Form of a Pavilion. London: Architectural Association Publications, 2010. Holden, Kimberly J., G. Pasquarelli, C. Sharples, C. Sharples, W. Sharples, and P. Nobel. SHoP: Out of Practice. United States: The Monacelli Press, 2012. Kolarevic, Branko. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2003. Rifkin, Jeremy. The third industrial revolution: how lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. United States: Macmillan, 2011. Sheil, Bob. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Transgression from drawing to making.â&#x20AC;? Architectural Research Quarterly 9, no. 01 (2005): 20-32.

439