Studio Air Part B Brian Duong 761765

BRIAN DUONG 761765

Part B : CRITERIA DESIGN

Genetics looks at physical attributes which have been determined or governed by a rule set. The study of genetics in architecture takes its roots from biological studies and nature. Biologically, the ruleset in nature is in the form of DNA. This is then translated into physical features in living organisms. Architecture takes inspiration from the genetic nature of living organisms and develops it into architectural fields of study, focusing on various aspects such as natural selection and recursive aggregation. Recursive aggregation is a method which produces outcomes using repetition of iterations over multiple generations. An example of this in nature is the way in which tree branches grow. Each branch adds onto the last and quickly produces an overall complexity. This method is derived from the Lindermayer System or L-system. Recursive aggregation looks at creating complexity as a whole from a possibly simple form. This process can be replicated digitally, taking a simple initial geometry and replicating it over a specified ruleset. The outcomes produced can result in organic aggregations 1.

Within genetics, there is also natural selection which is similar to recursive aggregation in that each new iteration or generation is dependent on the previous. However unlike recursive aggregation where the ruleset is constant and new iterations are unchanging in physical properties, natural selection is an iterative process which takes the fittest outcomes from the previous generation to produce a new generation which will be tested for fitness. Over multiple iterations, unwanted attributes are naturally removed until the resulting outcome is at its optimum. In a sense, the natural selection process has iterations which converge over multiple generations, whereas recursive aggregation diverges over multiple generations.

Digital recursive aggregation allows changes to be made easily in the ruleset or physical properties which quickly effect the overall aggregation to a significant degree.

B.1 GENETICS

TWIST REVOLVE

A = ++>+<+BC>++<+A B = A^+>++>+<++B C = /++<+A<+A angle = 23

Rabbit Plugin Parameters Syntax A.B.C Branch Name + Extend Branch > Turn Right < Turn Left / Roll Right \ Roll Left ^ Pitch Up v Pitch Down

A = ++<B++C B = >+A+^+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 29

A = ++B++C B = >+A+^+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 27

A = ++<B++<C B = +A+^/+ C = v/<++<+AB+B>+A angle = 17

A = ++>B++<C B = +A+^^+ C = v//+++A+B>+A angle = 29

A = ++B+<+<+C B = >+A+^/+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 27

The following collection of drawings are iterations upon the principle of recursive aggregation. They were produced using grasshopper some with the hoopsnake plugin and others with the rabbit plugin. As such the parameters are divided into two types. For iterations produced in hoopsnake, the input parameter consists of input curves placed in the desired orientation. This is then taken and aggregated using the hoopsnake plugin. A limitation to this in this case is each iteration will contain the same initial curves with no variation in the ruleset. For the rabbit plugin, a ruleset may be specified which is then used to produce a recursive aggregation.

B.2A L-SYSTEMS

SPRAWL

A = ++<B++<C B = >+A+^+ C = v/+++A+B>^>+A angle = 29

A = ++<B++<C B = >+A+^>+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 29

A = ++<B++C B = +A+^\>>+ C = v/<++<+AB+B>+A angle = 17

A = ++<B++C B = +A+>+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 24

A = ++<B++<C B = <+A+^+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 29

A = ++<B++C B = <+A+^+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 24

Rabbit Plugin Parameters Syntax A.B.C Branch Name + Extend Branch > Turn Right < Turn Left / Roll Right \ Roll Left ^ Pitch Up v Pitch Down

A = ++<B++<C B = <+A+^^+ C = v/+++A+B>+A angle = 29

A = ++^B++<C B = >+A+^+ C = v//+++A+B>+A angle = 17

A = ++>+<+BC>++<+A B = A^+>++>+<++B C = v/++<+A<+A angle = 28

A = ++<B++>C B = >+A+^+ C = v/++<+A+B>+A angle = 29

CURL A = ++<B++C B = <+A+^+ C = v/+++A+B>+C<+A angle = 14

A = ++<B++C B = <^+A+v+ C = v/+++A+B>+C<+A angle = 14

Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchezâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bloom project is an example of using recursive aggregation to produce a large scale complex structure with an organic feel. The primary focus of this recursive aggregation is to develop a singular component which can be repeated to form a larger aggregation. The components need to be complex enough in order to produce multiple different connections between the same types of component at various orientations. It is also important to note how the aggregation interacts with the surrounding environment.

Recursive aggregation behaves almost organically, avoiding objects and adjusting to the site as it grows. This produces a strong connection between a recursive aggregation and the environment it is in as it directly responds to the environment. For practicality custom components may be introduced to provide connections between the aggregation and surfaces and also between aggregations. Overall the design language should be adhered to.

In addition, the bloom project holds the ability to be deconstructed and reconstructed as the components are not fixed together. This further amplifies the notion of an organic and changing form.

B.2B THE BLOOM PROJECT

INITIAL COMPONENTS

The following set of aggregations are produced using a manual aggregation method from a selected range of initial components. The resulting aggregations have been selected on the basis of appearance and complexity. This process explores the implication of rulesets on aggregation outcomes within the area of recursive aggregation.

COMPONENT 1

B.2C COMPONENT DESIGN & MANUAL AGGREGATION

COMPONENT 2

COMPONENT 3

COMPONENT 4

Take input curves and standardise the lengths of the first segment. For standardised component application.

Take the second segment of each polyline, redraw in relation to the index of each polyline so that each polyline has a different second segment length making them unique. This is to allow the identification of each individual curve with a heuristic approach.

Create a dummy initial branch for the following branches to aggregate form from. Again, create a plane at the end of the first segment.

Take the input curves and crea each curve. This takes the newl gives them an orientation plan branches.

Orient the initial curves referen dummy initial branch plane to t at the end of each branch. In c step.

Take the list of branches and c to the indexes of the rulesets us the appropriate branch. This tr the branches according to the

Check the branch with one-to-many collision to check if any intersections are occurring along the branch.

Use the cull pattern to remove colliding branches and end the branch line.

This series of processes indicate the underlying steps to produce a recursive aggregation using algorithmic modelling met produces a recursive aggregation based off component orientation and ruleset selection. Further development into alg collision system, interaction with the environment and grafting multiple rulesets together.

Create a plane at the end of the first segment of each line using the first and second segment for plane orientation. The plane will be used as a reference to orient each branch.

Copy the dummy branch to a new aggregation, leaving the original to be editable with its branches.

ate planes at the end of ly created curves and ne for the following Create a component to overlay onto each branch.

ncing from the original the newly created planes conjunction with the next

cull the indexes according sing heuristics to identify anslates the rulesets into branch type.

Take the component and orient it to a separate dummy branch which has an orientation plane at the end of the curve.

Orient the component using the reference curve and plane to the branches and planes in the aggregation.

Check the branch against an environment surface for distance using surface closest point Cull any branch that is within range of the surface

ethods. The foundational algorithm gorithm resulted in enabling a self-

B.3 THE BLOOM PROJECT

SURFACE COLLISION This development of the algorithm looks into the collision between the aggregation and any outside surfaces or objects. Whenever a branch of the aggregation nears a specified surface, the growth of the branch is halted. This limits where the aggregation is able to spread and produces alternate outcomes. This can further be applied to generating the aggregation on a specified site.

SELF COLLISION This part of the algorithm looks at the self-collision of the aggregation. As the aggregation grows, more of its branches are likely to intersect and collide with each other. In order to retain a physical feasibility for the aggregation, intersecting geometries must be dealt with. Furthermore, each successive generation of the algorithm increases the complexity. Pruning intersecting branches provides a cleaner outcome. Within this algorithm, each branch is referred to previous geometry to check for collisions.

They are then halted if the collision check returns true.

GRAFTING This modification to the algorithm allows for two rulesets to exist in a single aggregation with a clear distinction. The aggregation begins with a ruleset, then after a number of specified generations, switches rulesets. This produces outcomes which have multiple properties and combined aggregation aesthetics.

COMPONENT 1 - RULESET 1

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

The following set of outcomes explore a set of chosen components with various rulesets applied to each component. The diagrams illustrate the ruleset being implemented.

B.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

COMPONENT 1 - RULESET 2

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

COMPONENT 2 - RULESET 1

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

COMPONENT 2 - RULESET 2

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

COMPONENT 3 - RULESET 1

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

COMPONENT 3 - RULESET 2

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

COMPONENT 4 - RULESET 1

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

COMPONENT 4 - RULESET 2

A Gen 4 Gen 3

B

Gen 2

C

Gen 1

D

Axiom

E

Developing on the selected component one, the connections between components have been further detailed so that the fabrication of components is feasible. Between each component there are multiple opportunities to have connections and various orientations which are possible. Within the available joint connections, numerous aggregation outcomes can be produced with specified rulesets. As well as components being oriented head to tail with each connection, some components are also connected head to head and tail to tail. This further increases the number of combinations and orientations that can be achieved using this single component. As such the component has slots which accommodate for the successive component to fit into.

B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

The most suitable fabrication process for this component would be laser cutting as the curves which need to be cut have sharp corners which would be limiting for a fabrication process such as CNC milling. Furthermore, the fabrication of this aggregation is quite repetitive as only one component is used to produce the aggregation.

Considerations only need to be taken for custom pieces to mount to exterior surfaces and bridging components.

Otherwise the fabrication of these components can be achieved through standard laser cutting procedure.

After producing a 3D model of the component, the profile is taken and projected onto the cutting template.

This component curve is then repeated as many times as needed, limited by the size of the cutting material. The component curves are positioned so that as many components are nested onto the material as possible with the least amount of space wasted. This is then to be sent to a fabricator to produce. A limitation of using laser cutting for this particular component design is that some component connections fit at an angle so prove troublesome to fabricate using a laser cutter which is only able to cut vertically into a thin material. However, this problem can be adjusted by changing the orientation of the components in a way which lends itself to more efficient fabrication.

This section looks at the connections between the aggregation and surrounding environment surfaces and the connections between multiple aggregations. The ground and wall connections are intended to provide stability to the overall aggregative structure. As these are custom connections, the number of connection points are kept minimum and do not interfere with the overall aesthetic of the aggregation. Similarly the bridging components which in this case connect the two aggregation at multiple points are non-intrusive and attempt to use modified component pieces to create a continuous flow through the aggregations.

B.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

During this process of research and development, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve developed a greater understanding in parametric design and an improved way of thinking and approaching algorithmic modelling. The use of algorithmic modelling accelerates the development and research processes. Compared to manually constructing and modifying geometry, algorithmic modelling allows for greater flexibility in modifications and synthesis. This has enabled me to be able to explore many more possibilities than I would have been able to using manual processes. This leads to more unexpected results and outcomes which would be inconceivable otherwise. Especially when it comes to working with algorithms, my proficiency in understanding and adjusting and tweaking algorithms to my own needs has improved greatly. The progression using recursive aggregation through this project highlights the complexity that is able to be achieved with simple conditions. This allows room for more in depth exploration and development.

B.7 LEARNING OUTCOMES

B.8 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHBOOK

REFERENCES “Bloom - The Game | Indiecade - International Festival Of Independent Games”, Indiecade.Com, 2017 <http:// www.indiecade.com/games/selected/bloom-the-game> [accessed 15 September 2017] “Home”, The Bloom Project, 2017 <http://www.thebloomproject.com.au/> [accessed 15 September 2017] Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture In The Digital Age: Design And Manufacturing (New York: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 23-24