STUDIO AIR 2017, SEMESTER 1, MANUEL BOYD HELLIER KNOX
PART C
81
StudioAIR
Reflection & Main Design Concepts The client responded positively to my design, and Malak’s design, prompting our group to proceed with an interpretation of these two designs. Both these designs displayed a desire to exist harmoniously within nature, while serving the needs of the client sufficiently. Both however, suffered from issues related to costing, use of recycled materials, and issues of constructability. With the strength of the group now behind us, our further explorations were largely a result of group engagement, with all members bringing knowledge of their chosen field of study to bear. This afforded members of the group the ability to step back from a broader attempt at completing an entire concept, and focus instead on realising highly finished elements of the
Fig. 82.1.
C1 REFLECTION & CONCEPTS
Malak’s sunshading structure over the sandpit.
design related to their field. We also looked to CERES 2016 Strategic Directions document to prompt our design. The themes were largely related to an educational drive to instil a sense of conciousness within the wider population of the precarious nature of the environment and ecosystem in today’s consumption driven society. This educational element was particularly fitting within the context of the children’s area, and would be a key conceptual driver in our design. At this point the client also indicated a shift in focus to solely designing a shading structure for the sandpit area, fortunately something that had been accounted for in our earlier designs.
Minimal complexity The limited number of elements, coupled with the repetition of 4 key pieces allows for quick and simple assembly, as well as reduced fabrication costs.
Non-intrusive form The role of this structure is not to impede upon the existing area, and the activities within, but rather accommodate and bolster them. Materials were similarly chosen according to this mantra.
Diversity of application and use The structure looked to accommodate a diverse array of activity within the space. This would reflect the diverse Ceres community.
83
StudioAIR
Group Design Development The client responded positively to my design, and Malak’s design, prompting our group to proceed with an interpretation of these two designs. Both these designs displayed a desire to exist harmoniously within nature, while serving the needs of the client sufficiently. Both however, suffered from issues related to costing, use of recycled materials, and issues of constructability. With the strength of the group now behind us, our further explorations were largely a result of group engagement, with all members bringing knowledge of their chosen field of study to bear. This afforded members of the group the ability to step back from a broader attempt at completing an entire concept, and focus instead on realising
C2 GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
highly finished elements of the design related to their field. We also looked to CERES 2016 Strategic Directions document to prompt our design. The themes were largely related to an educational drive to instil a sense of conciousness within the wider population of the precarious nature of the environment and ecosystem in today’s consumption driven society. This educational element was particularly fitting within the context of the children’s area, and would be a key conceptual driver in our design. At this point the client also indicated a shift in focus to solely designing a shading structure for the sandpit area, fortunately something that had been accounted for in our earlier designs.
Initial geometry generated through L-System
Geometry cleaned up using baked curves
Structural elements integrated in to form
Material properties introduced to existing geometry
Tectonic PVC piping elements introduced
85
StudioAIR
Biomimicry A canopy form was seen as evoking a sense of shelter while speaking to trees themselves. This environmental theme was in keeping with CERES, and their action plan that advocated for educational ideals within the community.
Clockwise from left: 86.1 - Render of canopy form, highlighting interplay between the branches and the flower that dropped from them. 86.2 - Photo of preexisting foliage at the site, that served as a visual motif and motivator for biomimicry designs. 87.3 - Tree rings drawn on structural prototype, speaking to educational, environmental, and biomimicry notions.
C2 GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Patterning The patterning on the structure looked to the forms of nature once more, aiming to create a pattern that echoed the soft, breezy shapes of a flower, or leaf filled canopy. Achieving a visually arresting shadow pattern was of importance.
Clockwise from right: 87.1 - different arrangements of flowers and leaves were tested for visual qualities, as well as to gauge the ease of fabrication 87.2 - Examples of the construction process of these leaves, highlighting their parametric nature, as well as the computational logic behind their conception
87
StudioAIR
These prototypes looked to engage the community of CERES in a painting activity. This activity would engage the community, in turn allowing for a personal investment within the structure they would use. Bottles would be collected, and painted by members of the CERES community.
Clockwise from right: 88.1 - Customisable, parametric mounts for the plastic bottles 88.2 - Painted bottle samples 88.3 - Painted bottle samples
C2 GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Geometry The geometry of the shade structure was created using the Grasshopper plugin, Rabbit. Rabbit allows for modelling of L-System trees, which utilise a step based algorithm that grows from text based prompts, following a dictated angle and unit of movement. This system allows for visually complex systems that obey regular and understand logics, albeit it with a somewhat steep learning curve. The systems strengths lie in the visual complexity of it’s repetition.
Clockwise from top right: 89.1 - L-System samples, highlighting patterns of growth 89.2 - Computational model visualising radiation received from sun, using Ladybird script within Grasshopper 89.3 - Computational model visualising shade generated by shading geometry
89
StudioAIR
Structure Development of the structural elements of the design were largely dependant upon the geometry generated by the L-System. The complexity of the system, and it’s highly angular form made dealing with these junctions a priority. Similarly, the top heavy design mandated a focus upon the grounding of the structure, and the footings that would grant it some strength from loading and use.
Above, right - assorted structural sketches and concepts.
C2 GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Below, right - structural prototype images.
91
StudioAIR
Connection to upper canopy 2 bolted connections reduce moment forces
Lower member Gusseted at T-junction Two identical element
Capping element Hides structure
Spacers Ensures stability
Steel brackets Joins lower members to secured stumps. Four used for solid connection
Wing nuts Allow for gradual assembly of the project Assist in generating flex in plywood members
Ply member Hubs at ends to fit with others Mass customizable
Washers
Oversized for aesthetic detail May incorporated flower pattern from
C2 GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Clockwise from top left: 92.1 - Construction diagram of footing system 93.1 - Footing system 93.2 - Footing system 93.3 - Plywood hub prototype detail 93.4 - Triangulated plywood hub system
93
StudioAIR
C2 GROUP DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
95
StudioAIR
TITLE OF SECTION
Final Review After experiencing an overwhelmingly negative review and being largely dissatisfied with the product of the group, I decided to re-evaluate and continue the project individually. I would take in to consideration a number of valid and thoughtful recommendations put forth by the reviewers. As my research focus was on structure, the result of my further investigation would of course be skewed towards a more structural exploration. Achieving the desires of the client, such as shading, inability to climb, and
the use of recycled materials were not disregarded however. These concerns propelled my further explorations, utilising the constraints as directions to take the project in. My further development would utilise the triangulated hub system seen in the earlier prototype, as well as the plywood we had chosen to use throughout.
Single system
The differing systems between the canopy and uprights created irregularities and weaknesses. A single system would avoid this.
Consolidate canopies
The two canopies counteracted each other, and the effect they strove for. A single canopy would simplify the form and concept.
Triangulate base
Two points of contact to the ground is insufficient structurally. Similarly, relying on the posts is an unsuccessful resolution.
Less top-heavy
The structure generated by the L-system got far more complex as it grew, creating a complex network of beams, and adding an impossible amount of weight.
Possible to realise
The geometry of this form made realising it, either in reality, or in a model form, using the methods and materials chosen was not possible.
97
StudioAIR
TITLE OF SECTION
Conceptual development
Clockwise from left; 102.1 - Proposed render of shade structure 103.1 - Mass customised plywood beams, with connecting hubs, bolts and washers, early prototype 103.2 - Tectonic detail of beam spacer - sunshade connection
99
StudioAIR
Individual Work
C2 INDIVIDUAL WORK
Shading element The shading element utilises the existing sandpit shade cloth. It was assessed to have little to no structural damage, requiring instead a removal of mould and dirt build up. Recycling this element, while reinterpreting it was an important part of the recycled ethos associated with CERES. The cloth would be reintroduced as a number of smaller sections, allowing for a play of light, and reducing uplifting wind forces that exist on site.
Shading to beam spacers A system of two coloured plastic pots would be placed inside one another serving as an aesthetic element, as well as a reminder of context. This is illustrated on P103.
Mass customised plywood beams The plywood beams would be fabricated in recycled plywood, commonly found cheaply as old formwork or construction surplus. It would be milled in to the desired, mass customised form through use of CNC router and computational data, generated from the model.
Beam to footing connection Connection to the ground would be achieved through use of an off-the-shelf structural steel component, like the accompanying image. This would then be secured through a small amount of concrete. While this compromises the environmental ethos in some ways, it ensures the long term structural viability of the structures base.
101
StudioAIR
C2 SITE PLAN
103
StudioAIR
Final Model Fabrication Process The fabrication of this model utilised a computational system of mass customised beams, meeting through hubs, with a suspended sunshade above. The beams were calculated through measuring their distance, and then reduced at 1:10 to achieve the desired scale. The bolt holes were kept parametric up to this point, until 3mm was decided as ideal circumference. This was after a period of prototyping, as well as checking for availability in stores. The leaf patterns were added to the beams, evoking the canopy element of the earlier design, as well as CERES environmental ethos. Plywood was used, as it was the decided material for the project, chosen for it’s availability from recycled vendors. On each hub, the length of the component was registered. This was used during the fabrication process in conjunction with the computational model, and text tags within Grasshopper and Rhino. This was a remarkably efficient and accurate process. I was initially concerned about the increased depth at each hub as they built up, cutting 4 copies, 2 of the original distance, one 5% larger, and one 10% larger. These larger copies were redundant however, as the materials tolerances were sufficient to catering to this minor discrepancy.
C3 FINAL MODEL
Upon receiving the laser cut pieces, initial work involved cleaning them, to achieve an even surface, free from discolouration and burn marks. This was done using a sander. All 3 copies were sanded at this point, to ensure a similar finish regardless of their set.
It took some time at the beginning of the build to work out an adequate construction sequence, that avoided costly mistakes, while being efficient. Attempts at filling in row by row were too time consuming and prone to mistakes. The system of identification I chose, with the length of each piece etched on the hub was sufficient, but required constant reference to the computer. In hindsight, a numbered hub system would have been preferable.
The final construction method involved all horizontal members, and all edge pieces. From this point onwards, the construction process would be complicated through movement on the vertical axis. This method would be similarly viable for construction on a larger scale, with minimised risk for builders, as the work would take place at ground level, rather than at elevation. Pieces at this point were loosely bolted, with nuts and washers attached. This allowed for pieces to be attached later easily enough.
105
StudioAIR
Upon completing the initial framing elements on flat ground, the model was suspended, simply using a hook and string. This idea emerged from Gaudi’s hanging catenary models, used to natural form find curves. Though the application here was somewhat different, it did aid in the assembly process through easier access to joints. Also visible is the pattern of the canopy. An interesting element of this was the inability of some pieces to meet while lying flat, while easily reaching once suspended. The construction process at this point ensured that the beams were arranged in a cascading manner. The overlap this system would create would reduce the pooling of water, reducing weather impact.
A base was created for the model in 12mm marine plywood. This would provide a secure element for the structure to attach to, ensuring the proper dimensions were achieved in the spans. The circumference of the circle was found using measurements from the digital model, with a 25mm allowance on either side. The interior of the circle was removed both to increase visibility, as well as a reference to the sandpit. The structure was fixed to the model using small 90 degree brackets. These were used in this instance to replace the stock structural steel elements mentioned previously.
The model was once more suspended to allow for even and consistent coating of spray varnish. The varnish would be applicable on a full size model, however would be more likely painted on, as an outdoor grade would be necessary. This coating increases the lifespan of the structure greatly. The blue elements featured are the scaled representations of the pot plants mentioned in the structural breakdown, serving as spacers for the suspended shade cloth. They were made of small sections of 8mm wall plug.
C3 FINAL MODEL
The model is pictured here, with the spray varnish finish. The finish creates a richness in colour and texture, accentuating the existing grain and patina of the timber. Alternatives to this would be a waxed finish, which is more natural and environmentally friendly, in tune with CERES ethos. This was not chosen at this point, as in reality, a varnish finish would be more like as a protective option. Some of the lower leaves were also removed from the model, to reduce climb-ability, an important point for the client.
The shade cloth was pierced by the existing bolts, to ensure a robust fix. Nuts were then screwed in to position, fixing the shade cloth. It was trimmed after this, aiming to make the shape as closely reflective to the design as possible. A heat gun was used to shrink the shade cloth over the top of the structure, with the plastic in the cloth responding well to the heat. This subsequent tautness was used to communicate the design intent of tensioned shading elements.
Finally, the model was pierced with a soldering iron to create the individual shading elements. The soldering sealed the frayed edges of the sail also. The completed models construction occurred over a substantial period of time, using a combination of computational data, and physical exploration, as the best route was often found through a process of trial and error, akin to prototyping.
107
StudioAIR Completed Model
PROJECT PROPOSAL
109
StudioAIR
TITLE OF SECTION
111
StudioAIR
TITLE OF SECTION
113
StudioAIR
TITLE OF SECTION
115
StudioAIR
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Learning Objectives and Outcomes Studio Air offers a gentler, yet still comprehensive entrance in to the, at times, intimidating world of computational design. Presented at the beginning with a new and seemingly nonsensical visual display, and an accompanying metalanguage of apparent jargon, the studio offers a structured path to follow. Personally, this discovery has been both engaging and challenging, as the new adoption of many new technologies commonly are. I have already used the computational tools of Grasshopper in my professional work, using them to contour and label a 40 layer thick assortment of stepped contours. Without the knowledge Studio Air gave me, the job would have been prolonged greatly. The design project grew my understanding of architecture away from a simply functional understanding of architecture, and towards something that may emerge as a response to not only the client’s needs, but also to it’s context. This feedback based relationship utilises tools like sun shading to create more efficient while avoiding disturbance of the design intent. Parametric modelling was invaluable throughout the process of my
final design, especially following the shift to the fabrication stage. Components could be scaled easily, while still being flexible if changes were necessary. In the case of the bolt holes, this adaptability allowed me to assess which bolt would do the job sufficiently, and then this decision could be rapidly incorporated in to the fabrication files, before they were manufactured.
Interrogating a brief Successful architectural interventions walk the line between meeting the needs and wants of the client, while attempting to infer their future desires or idealised mode of operation. In this design studio, it was crucial to appeal the broad community that lies under the banner of CERES. It is rare to find such a large and diverse community bound together under a shared identity and desire for educational and community based problems to global issues. This community, and the energy they possess was a primary motivator for my design exploration. Computational design offered a flexible and responsive palette to explore this, with design choices being highly responsive and flexible. As the semester progressed, so too did my ability to realise my design choices accurately through computational methods.
117
StudioAIR
Generating a variety of design possibilities As the semester progressed, several major design changes were evident. While seemingly following a linear path of refinement, this path was paved with the many attempts, failures, and test afforded through the flexibility of computational modelling. One of the virtues of computational modelling most valuable for this studio was the ability to fail, and then learn from these failures. Whether it was within the Grasshopper definition, or as a design or structural element, the flexibility afforded by working in a highly responsive digital ecosystem made fixing these errors simply a matter of a bit of time and hard work.
Skills in various threedimensional media Modelling in Grasshopper and Rhino does not exist in isolation. Instead the communicative strength of these programs is often at its best when viewed through other digital tools and media, that reinterpret the data in to a more readily accessible form. This may be through rendering, where the generated forms can be inserted in to the context, accommodating a strong visual dialogue, especially
C4 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
with a client, who may not understand the complexity of architectural, or computational, data. The relationship between the modelled structure, and it’s fabrication was also interesting. Realising the structure in all it’s complexity, purely through Grasshopper was often impossible at a beginner/intermediate skill level. What resulted then, was a relationship between the model, and fabricated elements, where one would trust in the process to render the results shown by the computational modelling.
Ability to make a case for proposals The ability to make a case for proposals was an interesting development. As the level of refinement of the project increased, so too did the ability to explain processes, and schedules for construction and fabrication. These developments greatly increase the tangibility of the project, adding a sense of excitement to it’s realisation. The devil is in the details, and computational design is allows for many, many details, affording a depth of quality only found through progressive development and refinement.
119