Design Journal - Part B (Ben Ryding) by Ben Ryding

about me â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; - J.R.R. Tolkien Each morning I wake and see that quote hung by my bedroom door on painted canvas. It is motivation that despite the sleepless nights, and the compensational litres of coffee, design is where I want to be. Design has always been a passion of mine. I realised my love for it in year 9, when a teacher first introduced me to photoshop and illustrator, and all the possibilities the software contains. To this date, I am a primarily self-taught, freelance, graphic designer. I have completed design work for many companies, large and small, bands and DJs. The moment I knew I wanted to study architecture came in year 10, when I was lucky enough to complete my work experience at Six Degrees Architects, working closely with Director, Mark Healy.

This opportunity allowed me to get a great insight into the daily workings of an architecture firm and a fantastic introduction to all that an architect does. Since being introduced to Rhino in first year, Virtual Environments, I have used it for design studios and where 3D modelling has been practical. In terms of Grasshopper, however, I am a complete novice. I believe it will be an interesting learning experience, particularly as it adds a rational, ordered element to the chaos which design can be. To me, architecture is art. Seeing the progression from a solitary idea to a final, constructed form is the most rewarding moment of any true art form; be that even painting, sculpture, literature or theatre. Architecture, as art, is about originality. By definition, it is producing something that has never been done before. I think that is incredible.

CONTENTS PART A A.01

Design Futuring

A.02

Design Computation

A.03

Composition/ Generation

A.04

Conclusion

A.05

Learning Outcomes

A.06

Appendix

PART B B.01

Research Field

B.02

Case Study 1.0

B.03

Case Study 2.0

B.04

Technique: Development

B.05

Technique: Prototypes

B.06

Technique: Proposal

B.07

Learning Objectives and Outcomes

B.08

Appendix

PART A

atelier brückner

GS CALTEX PAVILION The GS Caltex Pavilion is a project commis-

ioned by Korean oil company GS Caltex for the 2012 Korea Expo in Yeosu, South Korea. German architecture and exhibition design studio, Atelier Brückner, designed the Pavilion as an illustration of “the companys mission and its vision for the future”.1 The Pavilion is an interactive installation which encourages the user to approach, walk around, and even participate in the “dynamic ensemble”.2 The display is constructed of 18 metre high light poles which illuminate in a multitude of varying colours to “mimic various weather/natural conditions, such as rain, waves, fire, lightning and wind”.3 It has become most popularly known as resembling an “oversized rice field”, with its “blades” swaying like grass in the wind.4

The display responds to the touch of the user. Upon being touched, a surge of light sparks from the source-pole out through the other poles before resuming the original light show. The entire Pavilion is designed as to draw the user in, and, whilst occupying a 1960 m2 area, an 18 metre high light showcan be said to do this. The design intends, through the use of natural imagery, to highlight the oil companies “sustainable energy concepts”.5 At the centre of the Pavilion is a seven metre high, star-shaped, mirrored room with a panoramic view. The black and white projections the user experiences within the pavilion present a poetic illustration of the “company’s willingness to take responsibility” with regard to the sustainable innovations that GS Caltex is taking.6

Atalier Brückner’s philosophy is, primarily, that “form follows content”.7 They aim, through their exhibitions, to lead people into a story. In this particular design, the studio creates initial intrigue through the large, playful displays, drawing the user to the centre of the Pavilion, where the content is made clear, and the story is told. Once inside the design, standing between the large poles of flashing lights, the user is made to feel insignificant as a part of the whole. This is a purposeful aspect of the Pavilion. The effect is that whilst a single person is miniscule when

compared to the greater part of the site, a single person can create a powerful surge which extends, braching from pole to pole, until they have solely affected the entire Pavilion. Showing that the action of one, can affect the experience of the whole. This GS Caltex Pavilion invokes a sense of curiosity. It is near impossible to walk by the Pavilion, as it draws you in. The bright lights, colours, and shear volume of the display all play on the user. In general, people love interaction and inclusion, and that is exactly what this design promotes. The only thing that

this design requires is a single touch and the ‘interaction’ is immediately apparent by anyone in the vicinity of the Pavilion. It would be useful to take note of this project in the design of the installation for this subject. Whilst it is important for the installation to generate energy, it also must promote interaction. This Pavilion has provoked the thought that the installation will require some form of attraction, making users approach and interact with it through sheer curiosity or desire. For without an attraction, there will be no interaction.

PAVILION8 (title) GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner PAVILION STREET VIEW9 (left, top) GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner POLE ‘BLADES’10 (left, bottom) GS Caltex Pavilion, Atalier Brückner

3xn architects

‘LEARNING FROM NATURE’ PAVILION The ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion by Dan-

ish architecture firm, 3XN Architects, was constructed in 2009 for the ‘Green Architecture for the Future’ exhibition at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Pavilion is built using 100% naturally sourced, sustainable materials; often substituting synthetic materials for re-usable materials which had never been used in a project such as this. The focus of this design is on sustainability, and so the architects focused their attention on these natural materials in order to minimise the impact of the design. 3XN Architects often work with complexshapes and forms within their buildings, and

this Pavilion is no different. The form is driven from a Moebius strip - a surface with only one continuous side and one boundary. This concept developed into this ‘rubber band’ style design which, in its context by the Museum, encourages play and interaction. The Pavilion has been designed with a dual energy generation system. On the top-most surface of the strip, a series of 1 mm flexible solar panels have been attached - only where the user is unable to climb. The second source of energy generation is with the incorporation of piezoelectric materials in the floor of the structure. These materials generate a current from the weight of the user. The electricity generated in the Pavilion is used to power the LED lighting integrated in its design.

The sustainable focus of this building is not, in any way, hidden. Everything from the self-reliance of the structure, to the natural and renewable materials are celebrated in the design. The circular nature of the Moebius strip and the choice of green for the aesthetic are very obvious highlights of the ‘natural’ and ‘sustainable’. Tony Fry states that Design Futuring is about sustainable design, and ensuring that there is a future in which design may continue to take place.11 Sustainability is about maintenance of the world we live in, ensuring its longevity.

of lush green foilage, and the deep blue of the sky and the ocean, the natural, free form and choice of colour make it seem at one with nature, and not merely intruding on it.

heat it as it cools. The use of these materials has the potential to save 10 to 15 percent on the heating and cooling of buildings. The technology contained in this design is quite phenomenal. It proves that innovation can be found in the most unlikely of places. Although this design may not appear complex, the technology it holds is completely surreal.

The innovation of this design is not limited to the material choices and unique way in which it generates electricity.This structure contains a hydrophilic nanostructure which, not only keeps its surface clean, but with a process known as photocatalysis, removes 70% Piezoelectricity has big potential for of pollutants from smog. research. It generates energy from the interaction which it is designed to It’s surface also has the ability to retain receive - allowing a certain degree of That is not to say that the Pavilions de- heat with phase changing materi- cross-over. With the sheer flexibility of sign is tacky or self-indulgent. In fact, als which have the ability to cool the piezielectricity, this piece of technolquite the opposite. Within its surrounds structure as the temperature rises, and ogy has a lot of opportunity for design.

PAVILION12 (title) ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects INNOVATION13 (right, top) ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects SOLAR PANELS14 (right, bottom) ‘Learning from Nature’ Pavilion, 3XN Architects

tom wilcombe

CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG ARENA The Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena

by Tom Wiscombe Architecture is a proposal for a 2012 architectural design competition for the Chinese University of Hong Kong in Shenzhen. This design means to encapsulate “an idea about social space and multi-functionality for 21st century university culture”.1 This week posed the discussion on what constitutes computation against computerisation. Ultimately, this distinction comes down to design realisation, and whether it falls before or after its modelling in design software. Computerisation is the modelling of a realised design, utilising the software available. It limits freedom of modelling as it utilises a set of parameters, with an idea in mind of the conclusion. Whether or not the design is finalised, it has a, relatively, set destination.

Computation, on the other hand, is design which is completely reliant on the software at hand. The design is not realised, nor is a conclusion remotely considered. This type of modelling involves complete freedom of design. It generally involves setting algorithms to ‘see what happens’. In this way, it is more of an investigation into the limits and features of the modelling software, dependant, solely, on the designer’s field of view. In this way, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena can be classified as a computerisation design. Although it is clearly modelled in three-dimensional modelling software, the defined form and simplistic architectural makeup gives the impression that the design was preconceived in the architect’s mind, with an existing conclusion that the software helped him to achieve.

This is, by no means, an inferior method of design to computation. This method uses the software as an aid, rather than a tool. Computerisation assists in the design process, whereas computation is reliant on the software. Likewise, this is not to suggest that computation is inferior. Computation relies on the computer to envision a design concept that the human brain is not naturally equipped to control. It is highly mathematical and is, therefore, a much more complex conclusion when compared in contrast to computerisation.

Kalay, in Architectures New Media, stated that “[computers] lack any creative inabilities or intuition” and therefore are “totally incapable of making up new instructions”.2 This shows that regardless of technological advances, there will always be a need for the designer; that a computer will never be able to produce an original, creative thought.

outcome is perceivable in the human brain; it is believable that a person could produce this concept. That is to say, that Tom Wiscombe could have, potentially (and with the desire to do so), designed this project by hand, without the aid of a computer at all. However, the rise of technology, in particular three-dimensional modelling software, has made this method unnecessary and, frankly, outdated. This is a Referring this back to the Arena, the design truly expresses the prospects conclusive proof of computerisation, of computerisation as a modernist aprather than computation, is that this proach to the architectural profession.

ARENA3 (title) Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture MODELLING DEVELOPMENT4 (left, top) Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture ARENA AT NIGHT5 (left, bottom) Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, Tom Wiscombe Architecture

robert stuart-smith

NATIONAL ART MUSEUM OF CHINA The National Art Museum of China is a 2012

proposal by Robert Stuart-Smith and Roland Snooks (kokkugia) in collaboration with Studio Pei Zhu. Utilising a cloud metaphor, the project required a “formless form” to contrast the Beijing Olympic site’s “monumental nature”.6 An algorithmic methodology was used to create a seamless connection between the interior and exterior. The cloud metaphor was carried through a variety of aspects throughout the building. The use of glazing gives the building a sense of lightness; reflecting colours and allowing a spatial connection between the built form and it’s landscape. The algorithm used generated a flowing form, with each aspect seemingly connected to an

other. This means that there is no start to the building, nor an end. And likewise, it means that the building is void of any obvious joints. This creates interest in the design. The natural curves and forms seem to draw the user in through the pure openness of the proposal. In contrast to Tom Wilcombe’s Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, the National Art Museum of China project explores the limits - or lack thereof - of computational design. The complexity of form in this design illustrates the need for the computational approach. This building could not be designed as a series of architectural drawings, as the form changes dependent on where the user stands in relation to the building. It requires a three-dimensional approach.

The algorithm used generated a flowing form, with each aspect seemingly connected to another. This means that there is no start to the building, nor an end. And likewise, it means that the building is void of any obvious joints. This creates interest in the design. The natural curves and forms seem to draw the user in through the pure openness of the proposal.

ily on the computer than “the designer’s mind”.8 His view is that it is computerisation that is “the dominant mode of utilising computers in architecture”.9 This view is a limited one. Although in terms of architecture as an inhabitable building, computerisation is more widely used for generating form, this outlook doesn’t account for the possibilities of this type of programming.

In Algorithmic Architecture, Kostas Terzidas wrote that in comparison to computerisation, “computation or computing, as a computer-based design tool, is generally limited”.7 He expresses this view as computation relies more heav-

In contrast to Tom Wilcombe’s Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena, this project explores the limits - or lack thereof - of computational design. The complexity of form in this design illustrates the need for the computational

approach. This building could not be designed as a series of architectural drawings, as the form changes dependent on where the user stands in relation to the building. It requires a threedimensional approach. The outcome for this subject is meant to prove that “Renewable Energy Can Be Beautiful”. This project demonstrates that beauty can be found in the unlikely. It’s natural, fluid form gives a sense of dynamism; as if the structure may alter if the user looks away. This truly demonstrates that computation is a methodology for achieving beauty through mathematics and algorithms.

MUSEUM10 (title) National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith Design ‘CLOUD’ FORMATION11 (right, top) National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith Design GENERATED FORM12 (right, bottom) National Art Museum of China, Robert Stuart-Smith Design

matsys

CHRYSALIS I I Chrysalis III is a project by Matsys exploring

cellular morphologies, particularly the “selforganisation of barnacle-like cells across an underlying substrate surface”.1 This design is an exploration of these cells finding their most balanced packed state through natural shifting across the surface until relaxing into an overall form. This project is a design for a 1.9 metre tall light source, with light expanding from the 1000 cells dispersing around a room to create a soft, natural glow. This is a design which focuses on materialisation. As this is designed to be an aesthetic fo cal point for a room, the materiality and struc 14

ture needed to fit this purpose. Matsys opted for composite paper-backed wood veneers; poplar veneer for the interior of the structure, and cherry veneer for the exterior. This use of a wood finish adds to the sense of a natural form which the design is attempting to create, as well as generating a natural orange glow from the light source on veneer. Although each individual cell is made up of straight - to some degree, jagged - edges, taken from a voronoi base geometry, the way in which these cells are connected give this sense of an overarching, natural form. Utilising Rhino, Grasshopper, and various Grasshopper plugins, simulations were run to determine this ‘balanced state’.

In this way, Matsys has utilised threedimensional modeling software, in an attempt to accurately recreate natural processes. It is, to some degree, using one of the most advanced design technologies, in an attempt to resemble that which man has had no influence over. Kostas Terzidas sees computational architecture as the use of modelling sofware as a tool, unaided by the “designer’s mind”.2 Although, technically, this project fits beneath Terzidas description, without the designer, this project would not come into the physical space. Computation can, therefore, be described as design realisation after the inclusion of the computer, as

a tool, for reaching a final design out- solely on the mind of the designer. A come. computer may generate form, function, movement, structure, but it cannot Although Matsys was, to some de- generate finish - not without the degree, aware of the individual cell struc- signer’s input. ture and the overall form, it is the way in which the cells are distributed over This aspect of materiality comes unthe design that defines this project as der Terzidas’ ideal of the use of “the computational. It is, in this way, an ex- designer’s mind”.3 Computation is a ploration of artificial self-organisation. very technologically reliant method of design, but the input of a designer is Materiality is not a result of computa- what allows the method to progress. tion; a computer can not generate a The designer writes and adjusts the material which gives ‘balance’ to a algorithm, decides the fabrication design. Materiality is a decision based process, and the materiality in which purely on the architect. Whether this is it will be constructed of, and without a a decision based on structural stabil- single of one of these inputs, the final ity and functionality, or purely an aes- design would not come into the reality thetic decision, the final product rests spectrum.

INTERIOR4 (title) Chrysalis III, Matsys PLAN/ ELEVATIONS/ AXONOMETRIC5 (left, top) Chrysalis III, Matsys EXTERIOR6 (left, bottom) Chrysalis III, Matsys

michael hansmeyer

SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS Subdivided Columns, by Michael Hansmey-

er, is a fantastic example of the capabilities of modern technology. Utilising the column as a starting point, due to its place as an â&#x20AC;&#x153;architectural archetypeâ&#x20AC;?, Michael Hansmeyer developed it into an example of infinite complexity, through computational algorithms.7 Michael Hansmeyer has experimented with computation throughout his entire career. However, as in majority of his projects, the computer is where the design would stay. Hansmeyer used this project to bring computation out of the computer, to the physical realm. Using 1mm thick sheet and a laser cutter, Hamsmeyer and his team constructed the columns at 1:1, a total of 2.7 meters tall. Despite not being able to achieve 100% of the computational detail, the team were able, through reliance on the technological, to attain an incredible level of accuracy. These columns

demonstrate the possibilities of computation. It proves that computation does not have to be limited to the virtual; that, with the advancements of technology, complex geometry, and the detail involved, is possible. This project is an explicit exploration into fabrication. For a professional, such as Michael Hansmeyer, the computation design for Subdivided Columns was a very achievable feat. The fabrication of this design, however, whilst desiring to achieve the same level of complexity, was much more difficult. Using a laser cutter is the most modern, convenient and applicable technology that is also plausible. Although 3D printing is on the rise, issues with scale and expense make it unsuitable for this circumstance; particularly this early in its production. Despite this, 3D printing is an example of future technology impacting the possibilities of future design.

Fabrication and manufacturing are the only limitations on the computational approach. Computational architects are merely waiting on the fabrication technology to catch up to the modeling software. When this occurs, more and more computational projects will arise in the physical space, outside of the computer. In comparison to the Matsys project, Subdivided Columns is much further outside the possibilities of current manufacturing technologies and, therefore, fabrication of the columns was a much larger accomplishment. Effictively, with

this project, the experimentation came Hansmeyer was able to achieve in in terms of the fabrication, not the Subdivided Columns is way outside computational approach. the mindset of any designer. This is a great statement on computation as a Contemporary architecture involves practice. Whilst the human mind is nothe presence of modern materials, where near capable of this design, a techniques and technologies in the de- computer is. However, the human mind sign process. The incredible detail and is the exact input which allows a comornamentation evident in these Sub- puter to output these complex geomdivided Columns provoke the thought etries and creative designs. In this way, that computation is the design means one is not, and cannot be without the of the future, and as fabrification tech- other. The future of architecture and nologies catch up, architectural design design as a whole resides in computwill as well. ers and modern technology and to disregard this, is to fall behind the conThe level of complexity that Michael temporary movement.

HALL OF COLUMNS (title) Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns. html> [accessed 23 March 2014] EXHIBITED COLUMN (right, top) Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns. html> [accessed 23 March 2014] CONSTRUCTION DETAIL (right, bottom) Subdivided Columns, Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns. html> [accessed 23 March 2014]

Computation is a design method which pro-

vokes vastly different opinions on its place within architecture. Whilst many computational designers are excited by how far technology has progressed, there are many who believe that the rise of computation will lead to the end of creative thought. Bryan Lawson suggests that computation is an encouragement of “fake creativity”.1 This view is based solely off of the reliance of the computational designer on the computer, as a tool. There is a common view amongst many that computation requires nothing more than knowledge of design software. To take this view is to suggest that one could paint a masterpiece after learning the basics of how to hold a brush. Computation requires a precise integration of programming knowledge with a vast design skill set in order to create a successful computational design. It is important to draw elements from precedents in the approach of a design. Part A of this journal presents a variety of innovative computational projects in which to draw inspiration. Further exploration into energy generating

materiality is crucial to the progression of this design. Whilst standard energy generating concepts - solar, wind, hydrolic - are simple and quite effective, it is important to also experiment with other innovations, such as piezoelectric materials, which generate energy through the interaction that the project is designed to encourage. A computational design approach is the most beneficial progression As a designer, it allows a complexity of form that cannot be achieved through traditional design methods. This allows experimentation of intricate design outcomes, materiality, and innovation. It is important to note, however, that with the progression towards a fabricated scheme, fabrication technologies must be constantly referred to in order to judge the possibility of certain outcomes. Ultimately, this project is designed to benefit Copenhagen and the people within. It must be an attractive concept which fits, aesthetically with its landscape, whilst promoting interaction and renewable energy. Through computational and technological innovation, it will prove that “Renewable Energy Can Be Beautiful”.2

L E A R N I N G Having had no prior experience in Grass-

hopper, I consider myself to have progressed vastly in such a short period of time. From merely copying definitions from tutorial videos, without much understanding of what each component does, to having created an unguided concept, with lengthy definitions and a comprehension of why it works, I feel that I am truly getting an initial grasp of the computational method.

O U T C O M E S

Algorithmic computational design was initially new and scary to me. However, in the mere three to four weeks of learning, I can certainly see the benefits. Computation seems to open many doors - excuse the cliche - in terms of dynamic, intricate design. In retrospect, my past design experience could have benefitted greatly from current knowledge, casting away the limitations of geometric form and evolving into a new scope of architecture.

appendix

Grasshopper has sparked a deeper

level of thinking into form generation. The learning of this program was an introduction to an algorithmic method of design. This logical way of thinking has the ability to produce more complex, dynamic designs, in contrast to a lot of static architecture as a result of traditional design techniques. Moving into Part B will begin a deeper exploration into geometry and complex formmaking. The models displayed here highlight just a minute selection of ways that form can be achieved. These forms experiment with the introduction of patterning and materiality on a singular base surface. It shows that, although, the primary research field for Part B will be on the overall geometry, a finish must be considered throughout; be it to add an element of complexity to the design, or to allow more practical fabrication. I believe that personal expermentation and problem-solving, particularly in the third week, has allowed for a much more concrete understanding of Grasshopper than if I had merely mimicked tutorials. It has demonstrated the possibilities of this modelling software, as well as the potential for computational design in architecture. 21

REFERENCES design futuring (4 - 7)

1. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gscaltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 2. Ibid. 3. Design Boom, Atalier Brückner: GS Caltex Pavilion for the 2012 Korea Expo <http://www.designboom.com/readers/atelier-bruckner-gscaltex-pavilion-for-the-2012-expo-korea/> [accessed 11 March 2014] 4. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gscaltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 5. Ibid. 6. eVolo, GS Caltex Pavilion for the 2012 Korea Expo / Atelier Brückner < http://www.evolo.us/architecture/gs-caltex-pavilion-for-the2012-korea-expo-atelier-bruckner/> [accessed 11 March 2014] 7. Atalier Brückner, Philosophy (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/atelier/philosophie.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 8. Atalier Brückner, GS Caltex Pavilion (Germany: Atalier Brückner, 2014) <http://www.atelier-brueckner.com/projekte/architekturen/gscaltex-pavillon.html> [accessed 11 March 2014] 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008) pp. 1-16 12. Design Boom, 3XN: ‘Learning From Nature’ Showcase Pavillion, Louisiana (Milan: Design Boom, 2014) <http://www.designboom.com/ architecture/3xn-learning-from-nature-showcase-pavillion-louisiana/> [accessed 10 March 2014] 13. Noliac, Learning From Nature (Denmark: Noliac, 2014) <http://www.noliac.com/Learning_ from _ Nature-8152.aspx> [accessed 10 March 2014] 14. Design Boom, 3XN: ‘Learning From Nature’ Showcase Pavillion, Louisiana (Milan: Design Boom, 2014) <http://www.designboom.com/ architecture/3xn-learning-from-nature-showcase-pavillion-louisiana/> [accessed 10 March 2014]

design computation (8 - 11) 1. Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena (California: Tom Wiscombe Architecture, 2014) <http://www.tomwiscombe.com/project _ 005.html> [accessed 17 March 2014] 2. Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25 3. Tom Wiscombe Architecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong Arena (California: Tom Wiscombe Architecture, 2014) <http://www.tomwiscombe.com/project _ 005.html> [accessed 17 March 2014] 4. Ibid. 22

5. Ibid. 6. Robert Stuart-Smith Design, National Art Museum of China (London: Robert Stuart-Smith Design, 2014) <http://www.robertstuart-smith. com/filter/projects> [accessed 18 March 2014] 7. Kostas Terzidas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006) 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Robert Stuart-Smith Design, National Art Museum of China (London: Robert Stuart-Smith Design, 2014) <http://www.robertstuart-smith. com/filter/projects> [accessed 18 March 2014] 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid.

composition/ generation (12 - 15) 1. Matsys, Chrysalis III (Oakland, CA: Matsys, 2014) <http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/> [accessed 23 March 2014] 2. Kostas Terzidas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006) 3. Ibid. 4. Matsys, Chrysalis III (Oakland, CA: Matsys, 2014) <http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/chrysalis-iii/> [accessed 23 March 2014] 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, Subdivided Columns (Zurich, Switzerland: Michael Hansmeyer Computational Architecture, 2014) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html> [accessed 23 March 2014] 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid.

conclusion (16) 1. Bryan Lawson, ‘“Fake” and “Real” Creativity Using Computer-Aided Design: Some Lessons From Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press, 1999), pp. 174-179 2. Land Art Generator Initiative (Pittsburgh, PA: Land Art Generator Initiative, 2014) <http://landartgenerator.org/>

PART B

geometry

RESEARCH FIELDS The chosen research field for this week, and potentially the continuation of Part B, is geometry. This field was chosen due to its broad scope, particularly in relation to the possibilities of future design.

Whilst geometry is a integral part of many of the other research fields - patterning, tessellation, structure, etc. - the design focus varies between the underlying form and the way in which it will be fabricated. In this way, although with tessellation, the final outcome must have a tessellated exterior, with geometry, the fabricated form could be tessellated, patterned, or be made up of a purely structural aesthetic.

Algorithmic design, as was explored in Part A, is quite limitless in its design possibilities, particularly in contrast to traditional methods. It is due to this, that geometry was chosen, in the hopes of maintaining the limitless design potential. Three designs were proposed as the starting point for geometry research, being: SG2012 Gridshell by Matsys, Green Void by LAVA, and VoltaDom by Skylar Tibbits. These designs present a fantastic example of the various ways of achieving form. Each of these designs contain an evident base geometry, however, each was achieved in a different way.

Matsys’ SG2012 Gridshell is, to some degree, as it appears. The base geometry was somewhat pre-conceived, with a ‘line work’ pattern applied over, giving it a kind of structural aesthetic. LAVA’s Green Void was, although not seemingly, designed in the complete reverse of Gridshell. The geometry is very apparent, and it contains no abstraction of patterning or tessellation. However, this form was achieved with a set of lines which were piped, meshed, and altered through the Kangaroo plugin for Grasshopper to achieve a minimal surface. Skylar Tibbits’ VoltaDom contrasts these designs,

yet again. Whilst, once again, an underlying geometry can be seen, the form was achieved purely through the joining of the paneled elements. This design, in particular, could be said to come under tessellation as the primary design focus, as the overall geometry was more of a secondary concern. Fabrication is an aspect which must be perpetually considered throughout the design process. Although LAVA’s design is, arguably, the most focused on the geometry of the design, it is much for complex to fabricate due to its complex, curved form. However, a simple

variable triangulation would simplify the fabrication process entirely, as it would allow the construction to be reduced to smaller, paneled elements or nets, which would come together to form the, more complex, whole. In this way, geometry is the most effective way of achieving true computation. Although the sectioning, strips/ folding, patterning, and several other fields contain clear design intents, geometry allows experimentation within the software, not realising the outcome until it is produced through the algorithmic method.

GREEN VOID1 (title) Green Void, LAVA VOLTADOM2 (right, top) VoltaDom, Skylar Tibbits SG2012 GRIDSHELL3 (right, bottom) SG2012 Gridshell, Matsys

case study 1.0

For Case Study 1.0, an exploration of LAVAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green Void will provide the base for experimental research.

The Grasshopper definition for this project provided three different methods of achieving the form of the design. These methods were through the lofting of the extreme base geometries, drawn in Rhino and lofted in Grasshopper, a complete Rhino loft using a series of closed curves, and finally an abstraction of line work using the Kangaroo plugin for interaction and minimalism. This final method provided the foundation for experimentation due to its increased flexibility and creative control. 28

[

]

SPECIES ONE B E N

R Y D I N G

[

]

SPECIES TWO B E N

R Y D I N G

[

]

SPECIES THREE B E N

R Y D I N G

[

]

SPECIES FOUR HAMISH COLLINS

[

]

SPECIES FIVE HAMISH COLLINS

[

]

SPECIES SIX A L E K S

S W I L O

[

]

SPECIES SEVEN A L E K S

S W I L O

In order to judge the ‘most successful’ iterations, it is crucial to outline a selection criteria which allows an unbiased judgment of the design. The design team outlined the criteria in four primary points. These being: fabrication oppotunities, potential for development, application to the brief and visual effect. Fabrication opportunities refers to the efficiency of fabricating the design. Whilst a level of complexity is desirable, it must not be overwhelming to the point that constructing the design is no longer practical. 36

Potential for development means, as it suggests, the possibility for the advancement and evolution of the design. This criteria can be simply calculated by the number of parameters and the level of effect that these parameters have on the design.

The final criteria, visual effect, is much more subjective, yet a crucial element in any design. Although it cannot be easily calculated, the design must have a sense of unity and visual appeal which will allow it to fulfil its role as a ‘beautiful’ piece.

Application to the brief refers to the relatedness between the iteration and two of the primary design requirements of the LAGI 2014 brief; its functionality as an interactive piece, and the possiblity for the application of renewable energy systems.

After much deliberation, the team narrowed the list down to the three ‘most succesful design iterations based purely on the selection criteria outlined. The final three designs were narrowed down as the best iterations from each designers species.

Species Two, Iteration 1 (left) demonstrates an experimentation with the Kangaroo plugin to achieve a minimal surface on a variable form. This species is highly developable, with a range of parameters influencing base points, pipe radius, level of relaxation, among others. As a design, it sparks interest through its complex geometric form, and, given the right scale, would encourage the users interaction.

complex, it is manipulated with the brief in mind. This is particularly evident in the large triangular panels, suitable for the application of renewable energy systems.

ods. In terms of fabrication, this species is definitely more difficult than the others due to the combination of large cells, supported by very thin wire-like elements. In this way, fabrication must play a vital role in decision making in Species Seven, Iteration 6 (right) order to achieve a well-rounded, efshows the design of a more repetitive, fective design. recursive project. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s varied, curved elements give a more natural aesthetic, This shows design as a multidisciplinary, acting as a focal point for its context. multifaceted field. That is to say, that it The fractal-like nature of this species is essential not to focus design purely Species Five, Iteration 6 (centre) shows show that geometry can be achieved on the aesthetic aspect, but consider a more geometric alteration on Spe- in a multitude of ways, and exploration all relevent aspects. It is in doing this cies Two. Although it is not as visually must be taken into other design meth- that successful design emerges. 37

NONLIN/LIN PAVILION4 (right) NonLin/Lin Pavilion, Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany SPONGE CUBE - SOLAR LEAVES5 (right, bottom) Sponge Cube - Solar Leaves, Ming Tang

case study 2.0

During Case Study 2.0, an investigation of Marc Fornes’ FRAC Centre (‘nonLin/Lin Pavilion’) will provide the base for analytical, developmental research.

This is an interesting design which uses very organic forms which are fabricated through perforated strip panelling to achieve the natural geometries. Mimicking nature, the project uses a “y” model to achieve multidirectionality, allowing a fractal system to be evident in the internal design makeup.

The design uses minimal surfaces to create a natural coral-like structure, forming the basis of the pavilion. The perforations of the pavilion are divided into a grid across the surface with the radius of the perforations varying via multiple control points. These perforations play with light, creating a visual experience inside the pavilion for the user to enjoy. This design acts as a standalone structure without the requirement for additional structural members. ‘Sponge Cube - Solar Leaves’ is a project entered in the 2010 LAGI competition which had a similar inspiration to that of the Marc Fornes design, and produced quite similar characteristics. The design contains complex folding which produces a ‘three dimensional maze’ which the user is ab experience as a continuous variable space. This project incorporates a dual system of photovoltaic cells and a piezoelectric generator in a single ‘leaf’ allowing the design to capture energy from both the sun and wind.

This pavilion could be looked at from many different perspectives. From an initial analysis, a metaballtype structure can be seen on the very surface. Simultaneously, the fractal â&#x20AC;&#x153;yâ&#x20AC;? system can be seen beneath. There is also the overall form to consider and the varying size of the perforations. Due to the random complexity of the design, any attempt to recreate it perfectly is futile. Therefore, in order to reverse engineer the project, one must include all of the elements which are essential in the pavilion design.

The base geometry was formed from the edges of a 3D Voronoi component which was used to generate the piped branches, this voronoi component was down to the overall formusing Mesh Split. Due to the size and quantity of faces in the mesh, the computer was unable to generate all perforations without crashing, so a significantly culled list of surface points was used to express the element used.

for a series of mesh spheres generated on the surface. The radius of these spheres was determined by their distance from manually set attractor points. This process, on a more complex scale, can produce visually interesting results.

Attractor points, in general, can be used in a multitude of ways. Not only can they determine sphere radius, but perhaps the height of tesselated panels, or the width of a lofted form. They can be used to These points were the centre points adjust many objects in many ways,

and are just one way in which a de- ing limiting the range of possibilisign can be impacted manually. ties. Although this has gone slightly more abstract than the voronoi Although the voronoi component is component allows, there is many overused and unoriginal, it presents components and techniques within an idea; particularly in the 3D form. the computational approach that When plugging a series of points produce these kind of unlimited, uninto this component, one does not known designs. know exactly what the result will be. This is true computation. The un- It is for this reason that in the deknown is where some of the most velopment stage of design that interesting and creative ideas come the computational approach will into play because there is noth- be further explored. A more math-

ematical approach will be taken, in an attempt to produce a species of designs which are completely beyond the realms of what can be imagined; whether than be through the human mind or a predicatable result from typical Grasshopper components, such as patterning with haxagon or voronoi grids. A purposeful dissociation will be made from these components in the hopes of creating a unique design which may further be refined.

technique: development

Following on from Case Study 2.0,,

it became clear that an ideal geometry would be one which is unpredictable, yet beautiful; flowing on from the unknowns of the computational approach to an outcome which may have never arisen had another approach been taken A range of species were produced, using an array of different techniques to produce form. In the development stage, it is important not to place a limit on possibilities; to remain free.

Revisiting Case Study 1.0, it seemed that the team neglected one of the outcomes which contained hidden potential. Species Three (Ben Ryding), investigated a shrink wrap effect of a ‘fabric’ on an underlying mesh. Although this species was not as successful as it may have been, Rosie pointed out just how exciting this type of design could be. This led the team to begin thinking about inflatable structures. That is to say, not a rigid design made from timber or steel, but a flexible plastic-type polymer which, when inflated, creates a dynamic form which is constantly moving.

Species Three was created in Kangaroo using a negative pressure component. Although a positive component would create an inflated form, the team wanted to avoid using Kangaroo as a means of design as it risks an overly simple ‘pillow’ design from the expansion of a basic mesh form. Rather, it was important to investigate form-generation as a seperate practice, saving the use of Kangaroo’s inflation as a means to test the form, seeing how it reacts under different pressures. In this way, although the focus of our development will be on inflatable architecture, it is not so much an exploration of how inflation can create form, but how form can be

achieved through inflation. That is to say, that rather than inflating a mesh for a design outcome, the mesh will instead be folded, pleated, pulled, tucked, until the inflated form resembles that of the seperately generated form to be achieved. Doing so will result in a much more appealing design, as well as placing a lot more emphasis on the designer, rather than an emphasis on external forces. Therefore, the team will continue to attempt different means of form generation, and although perpetually considered throughout the design process, achieving the final inflated form comes as a secondary step in the design.

precedents: inflatables

These two projects, Peace Pavilion and Exquiste Corpse, demonstrate how inflatable architecture can be implemented. Both of these projects utilise inflation in the same way that the team had discussed for the final outcome, with a pre-determined form influencing the inflatable, and not the other way around. This shows that inflation is not limited to a basic ‘pillow’ form, but can take on any form that the designer wishes it to. These designs, however, highlight the importance of acknowledging frabrication techniques throughout the entire design process, to produce an entirely

rounded, considered design. Each of these designs employs a different means of fabrication, particularly in terms of materiality. Whilst the Exquiste Corpse project appears to use a fairly low quality, yet high flexibility plastic sheeting - such as garbage bags or table cloths the Peace Pavilion uses Précontraint 902 S2, which is a lightweight, high strength engineered fabric typically used for much larger-scale designs. It comes in 267cm widths allowing for easy fabrication of large scale fabric designs.

bles allows for a degree of flexibility that no other design field could capture. Inflatable architecture can adapt to space, be easily erected and deconstructed, and adjust itself to the local conditions.

Although these designs - Exquiste Corpse, in particular - are not incredibly complex or innovative, they demonstrate how inflatable structures do not have to be limited to the basic. Simultaneously, it highlights fabrication techniques which can be emplyed in the final outcome, as well as a brief investigation into real-scale materials for Utilising a technique such as inflata- use in the design.

PEACE PAVILION6 (top) Peace Pavilion, Z端ndel & Cristea INLFATABLE STRUCTURE7 (bottom) Exquiste Corpse, AA School of Architecture

Distance: 23 Division Points: 11 Scale: 21 Max Value: 29 Rotation: 20

Distance: 60 Division Points: 19 Scale: 21 Max Value: 54 Rotation: 45

Distance: 40 Division Points: 10 Scale: 21 Max Value: 60 Rotation: 11

Distance: 20 Division Points: 8 Scale: 10 Max Value: 35 Rotation: 70

Distance: 22 Division Points: 8 Scale: 66 Max Value: 44 Rotation: 2

Distance: 69 Division Points: 36 Scale: 20 Max Value: 12 Rotation: 100

Distance: 50 Division Points: 10 Scale: 10 Max Value: 93 Rotation: 40

[

Distance: 20 Division Points: 12 Scale: 50 Max Value: 17 Rotation: 10

Distance: 25 Division Points: 25 Scale: 25 Max Value: 25 Rotation: 25

Distance: 35 Division Points: 18 Scale: 45 Max Value: 34 Rotation: 20

]

SPECIES ONE B E N

R Y D I N G

Degree One: 2 Degree Two: 2 Max Value: 30 Addition: 2

Degree One: 2 Degree Two: 1 Max Value: 39 Addition: 1

Degree One: 1 Degree Two: 1 Max Value: 19 Addition: 2

Degree One: 2 Degree Two: 1 Max Value: 42 Addition: 2

Degree One: 1 Degree Two: 1 Max Value: 17 Addition: 0

[

Degree One: 1 Degree Two: 1 Max Value: 17 Addition: 1

Degree One: 1 Degree Two: 2 Max Value: 15 Addition: 2

Degree One: 0 Degree Two: 3 Max Value: 53 Addition: 1

Degree One: 1 Degree Two: 2 Max Value: 10 Addition: 2

Degree One: 2 Degree Two: 2 Max Value: 12 Addition: 1

]

SPECIES TWO B E N

R Y D I N G

Base Geometry: Box Scale Factor 1: 0.350 Scale Factor 2: 0.680 Scale Factor 3: 0.600

Base Geometry: Box Scale Factor 1: 0.350 Scale Factor 2: 0.680 Scale Factor 3: 1.000

Base Geometry: Box Scale Factor 1: 0.350 Scale Factor 2: 0.680 Scale Factor 3: 0.600

Base Geometry: Cone Scale Factor 1: 0.500 Scale Factor 2: 0.950 Scale Factor 3: 0.950

Base Geometry: Cone Scale Factor 1: 0.950 Scale Factor 2: 0.950 Scale Factor 3: 0.950

Base Geometry: Cone Scale Factor 1: 0.900 Scale Factor 2: 0.750 Scale Factor 3: 0.600

Base Geometry: Lofted Shape Scale Factor 1: 0.350 Scale Factor 2: 0.760 Scale Factor 3: 1.000

Base Geometry: Lofted Shape Scale Factor 1: 0.800 Scale Factor 2: 0.760 Scale Factor 3: 1.000

Base Geometry: Lofted Shape Scale Factor 1: 0.950 Scale Factor 2: 0.500 Scale Factor 3: 0.800

Base Geometry: Lofted Shape Scale Factor 1: 0.050 Scale Factor 2: 0.500 Scale Factor 3: 0.500

[

]

SPECIES THREE HAMISH

COLLINS

Rotation Factor: 0.719 Scale Factor: 0.494 Pipe Thickness: 0.2 Repetition Factor: 3

Rotation Factor: 0.519 Scale Factor: 0.804 Pipe Thickness: 0.1 Repetition Factor: 4

Rotation Factor: 0.789 Scale Factor: 0.600 Pipe Thickness: 0.4 Repetition Factor: 2

Rotation Factor: 0.700 Scale Factor: 1.000 Pipe Thickness: 0.5 Repetition Factor: 4

Rotation Factor: 0.789 Scale Factor: 1.000 Pipe Thickness: 0.7 Repetition Factor: 5

Rotation Factor: 0.700 Scale Factor: 0.800 Pipe Thickness: 1.5 Repetition Factor: 3

Rotation Factor: 0.118 Scale Factor: 0.800 Pipe Thickness: 0.2 Repetition Factor: 3

[

]

SPECIES FOUR HAMISH COLLINS

Y-Number: 43 Y-Seed: 324 Z-Number: 43 Z-Seed:396

Y-Number: 43 Y-Seed: 497 Z-Number: 43 Z-Seed:396

Y-Number: 43 Y-Seed: 497 Z-Number: 43 Z-Seed:424

Y-Number: 43 Y-Seed: 329 Z-Number: 43 Z-Seed:424

Y-Number: 80 Y-Seed: 300 Z-Number: 80 Z-Seed:424

Y-Number: 29 Y-Seed: 250 Z-Number: 29 Z-Seed:500

Y-Number: 29 Y-Seed: 500 Z-Number: 29 Z-Seed:500

[

Y-Number: 29 Y-Seed: 490 Z-Number: 29 Z-Seed:490

Y-Number: 29 Y-Seed: 379 Z-Number: 29 Z-Seed:379

Y-Number: 94 Y-Seed: 200 Z-Number: 94 Z-Seed:200

]

SPECIES FIVE A L E K S

S W I L O

No. of Points: 150 Sphere Radius: 2.0 Seed: 626

No. of Points: 150 Sphere Radius: 1.0 Seed: 600

No. of Points: 150 Sphere Radius: 3.0 Seed: 702

No. of Points: 134 Sphere Radius: 1.5 Seed: 200

No. of Points: 400 Sphere Radius: 0.2 Seed: 440

No. of Points: 489 Sphere Radius: 0.2 Seed: 481

[

No. of Points: 700 Sphere Radius: 0.2 Seed: 650

No. of Points: 700 Sphere Radius: 0.1 Seed: 650

No. of Points: 700 Sphere Radius: 0.3 Seed: 650

]

SPECIES SIX A L E K S

S W I L O

Each of these six species explore different means of form-generation in an attempt to cover multiple bases, allowing for a much wider design scope than if the designs were limited. Species One and Two (Ben Ryding) explore the use of a recursive cluster definition. Species One uses an input curve, analyses its curvature at set points, and offsets these points from the original curve based on this degree of curvature, a rotation element and secondary offset allow a lateral adjustment in each offset curve. These curves are then lofted to produce the final form. Species Two incorporates a similar cluster definition, with final lofted curves, however 52

the cluster is completely rewritten. This species takes a set of points as the input, analyses for distance from the closest point, and curvature of an arbitrary curve drawn between them. This produces a secondary curve which, in turn, produces a set of points for the next cluster, with an additional number of points added with each additional cluster. This technique for form generation expresses true computation, as it is a highly mathematical approach to design which produces an outcome which could nt have been predicted from the input curve or points.

of exploring form. Species Three looks into a randomised form generation using a base geometry in which branches and perforations are applied. Some of these outcomes may be compared to the Sponge Cube Project explored earlier. Scaling different aspects of this definition produce quite different outcomes, allowing a true exploration of the computational approach. Species Fouris a look at fractal patterns and branching. It takes a set of curves, scales, rotates and reapplies to the base curve a repeating number of times to create a tree-like form. Although possibly not as applicable as Species Three, it is a Species Three and Four (Hamish Col- very interesting outcome and aspects lins) demonstrate two different methods of it could be explored further.

Species Five and Six (Aleks Swilo) explore form generation and patterning which could be applied. Species Five explores a quite random form generation with randomly generated points and an adjustable seed. This Species is quite interesting as it could be applied to a base form as well as acting as its own self-restrained structure. Species Six is not so much an exploration of form, but one of perforations. Although not coherently relevent as a form generation exercise, perforations and patterning can be used on any base surface or mesh which we decide to continue with, adding an extra level of complexity and interest to the design.

Using the selection criteria outlined for Case Study 1.0 - being, fabrication oppotunities, potential for development, application to the brief and visual effect. - the most successful outcome was deemed to be Species One, Iteration Seven. The entirety of Species One demonstrated the potential for development of the design, highlighting that minor parameter changes can have large effects on the overall form. Similarly, as a closed mesh, it is able to be inflated, fulfilling our own requirements within our research field. ALthough visual effect is subjective, it was generally agreed by the team that this design had the most impact due to its apparent complexity

within an overall simplistic form. The one difficulty with this design will be fabrication. Whilst at a larger scale it may be possible to create and weld the tens of thousands of panels in the base mesh, at the scale weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re working at, this just isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t practical. As we intend to apply a form of energy generation on the mesh faces, they will need to be at a larger scale to make the generation of energy practical. It is due to this that the team decided to reduce the mesh to 500 triangulated panels which could be fabricated individually and welded together to create the overall form of the design. 53

technique: prototypes

Utilising the idea of triangulated panels, a prototype was created from cut and welded panels of white plastic tablecloth. Experimentation was taken into other materials for the prototype, however, the tablecloth proved to be the most effective material as it was lightweight, strong/durable,whilst being the most effective material to weld.

would impact the design in different ways dependant on the positioning of the fan in relation to the overall design.

We were able to adjust the level of airflow into the prototype between 3V and 12V with multiple voltages in between. We liked the effect of varied airflow during changeover, but still noted how dynamic the deThis prototype was not so much sign appeared during steady an exploration ofhow to create airflow. our precise form through fabric, but rather an exploration The team wanted to create an of how form can be achieved interactive design, encouragthrough the cutting and weld- ing users to come to the design, ing of different panels in a mul- experience it, and influence it. titude of ways. Using a solder- Through this interaction, the ing iron proved to be the best design could be used as an way to weld the plastic as it educational tool, showing ussimultaneously cut the tabs off ers the effects of renewable the panels, whilst melting the energy and how everyone has edges of the plastic together the potential to generate it. to create a strong, seamless joint. One issue that was pointed out in the Interim Presentation Using a smaller-scale fan, we was that this prototype, when were able to inflate the fabric inflated, expands to its limits, to test the transition between contradicting our design which 2D panels to 3D form. The folds in, curves and flows in a fabric was clamped to the fan more complex manner. Thereby MDF and rubber clamps fore, if we are to continue with alllowing a consistent, closed a design such as this, alteramesh, whilst allowing the air- tions must be made so that the flow to impact the inflation of model - and unltimately the the fabric. At a real-scale, a real-scale design - flows in similar approach would be tak- the same way. This could be en, except it would most likely achieved through pinning asuse multiple fans oriented at pects to restrict expansion, stiffdifferent intervals around the ening/thickening parts of the base of the design, allowing membrane, or creating a tightmultiple inputs for airflow which er brace, pulling the design in. 55

KØBENHAVN INFLATABLE PAVILION 56

Given such a large site, the design proposal must be large enough - in one direction, at least - to compensate. With minor adjustments to the desired form from the development stage, our design has molded into an inflatable pavilion spanning almost 30m (L) x 10m (W) x 10m (H). Although this is not large when

compared to the site, due to the flat to experience the wonders that reterrain, it will be noticeable by any- newable energy can offer. body who comes in contact with it. This design works in all regards and This design is vastly different when merely brings the conflict of fabnviewed from different angles giv- cation to be resolved. The design ing it visual interest and intrigue. It may still be refined, but it provides naturally draws the user in through an effective base point for the final pure curiosity and it allows the user outcome.

Fig. 1

NORTHERN WIND DIRECTION

332.

154 .63

SITE ACCESS/PATH

technique: proposal Fig. 2

Fig. 3

WATER TAXI TERMINAL

N COPENHAGEN HARBOUR

Upon discussion, the team decided on a dual energy generation system, incorporating piezoelectric panels and OPVC (organic photovoltaic cell) panels. The piezoelectric panels will be placed strategically at the base of the pavilion, generating energy from the users who walk on them. These will be coupled with triggers which, upon touch from the user, will send a short burst of air from the fan closest to where the trigger initiated. This burst will send a rippling effect across the surface of the membrane (Fig. 2), gradually weakening in strength as it moves away from the source. Although this will use a portion of the energy that the pavilion generates, the benefits of educating the public of the power of renewable energy far outweighs the cost of the energy used. Although piezoelectric panels only generate a small amount of energy, this is offset by the OPVC panels. These solar panels are flexible plastic panels which are able to generate energy, even in low-light conditions. Through this dual energy generating system, more energy will be generated than the pavilion will require and, therefore, it will feed the excess energy back into the Copenhagen grid. In this way, visitors will learn the impacts of renewable energy, whilst also generating the energy to be utilised throughout Copenhagen.

From a technical perspective, in an attempt to minimise energy wasted, the input fans will be installed with shutoff valves. Whilst the fans are letting a short burst of air into the pavilion, these valves will open, letting the air enter. However, when the fans are not in use, these closed valves will create an airtight seal, thus requiring no energy to remain inflated.

As can be seen in FIg. 1, we are dealing with a vast site. Therefore, location must be well considered in order to achieve the most effective outcome. Taking into account wind direction, modes of transport, site access and surrounding areas, the south-west corner seemed to be the best placement. This is due to the location of the water terminal, keeping the design away from the industrial setting and bringing the Fig. 3 demonstrates how airflow design close to the water and wind through the pavilion would function, paths. following the channels and adhering to the contours of the design. Fig 4. is a diagram which highlights Admittedly this is a diagramatic the primary proposal for how the model merely meant for demon- pavilion will function. It is ultimately strational purposes, but it shows a user-controlled generation systhe directionality of the rippling that tem, with the touch of the user the design intends to achieve. power the fans, rippling across the

surface, with excess energy generated connecting back into the Copenhagen grid. The means of energy generation are, ultimately, chosen with the design in mind. Using flexible curved OPVC panels will allow the functionality of the inflatable to remain, whilst generating energy. This is an educational pavilion. Not in the sense that the user will learn the specifics of the system, but as the user can see and feel for themselves how big an impact the renewable energy can have. They will form their own ideas; their own opinions, but the pavilion starts a conversation. One which will encourage the renewable.

C Fig. 4 59

learning outcomes Using functions and processes over physical form-making does have its benefits in that outcomes may be produced that could have never been considered prior. However, that being said, before an outcome can be deemed as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;successfulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; it must undergo a much harsher selection criteria to ensure that problems do not arise further down the track. The modelling must be tested, both physically through prototyping, and virtually through plugins such as Kangaroo to accurately deem whether they will serve their purpose effectiely. The

reverse

engineering

proved insightful as it demonstrated just how many different ways there are about achieving the same form, let alone an attempt to produce a multitude of different forms. Although this can be considered a simple form-finding exercise, it allowed design realisation. Whilst geometry is such a broad scope, gradual form-making allows an insight into the types of forms which can be discovered, and utilising grasshopper to adjust parameters and produce iterations allows the designer to smoothly narrow in on the desired outcome, rather than make an attempt to manually alter task forms.

The Interim Presentation made it clear that we still have a lot to consider in terms of better integration of design and energy generation as well as the requirement for additional prototyping to ensure the effectiveness of a folded, contoured design. However, it allowed a better understanding of our design and how it will be achieved. Ultimately, the team believes that despite the complications and additional work that this kind of design will require, utilising algorithmic techniques, it is more than possible. Inflation has not had that much external attention, and we believe that opens up so many more possibilities.

Objective One

digital skillset, has allowed a degree better understanding of the restrictions It is only by interrogating the brief in of crossover and understanding of the and capabilities of that aspect of dedetail that the designer may realise computational modelling in the physi- sign. the potential for a design. Through the cal space. brief, a set of criteria may be set which Objective Seven drive the processes of the design. The Objective Four Though developing a thorough underuse of algorithmic programming can Similar to above, the building of pro- standing of all aspects of computation assist in this processing by utilising these totypes helps to bridge the gap be- would take years, if not more, to gain, criteria as parameters for the design. tween the computational model to the through personal research and selfphysical, allowing design realisation. learning, you may gain a thorough understanding in your area of research Objective Two quite quickly. This specialisation is quite Parametric modelling is an extremely Objective Five effective tool for achieving multiple Developing a design proposal re- important in a task such as this. For outcomes with ease. The use of adjust- quires much greater critical thinking of without it, a design may never be fully able parameters means that a single the design, particularly as youn are realised.

design species may create a multitude required to make a case as to why the of different designs that would not be design will work. The interim presenta- Objective Eight possible without computation. tion made it clear that unless every mi- A specialised skillset provides a certain nor aspect is considered, a convincing repertoire of computational techniques. case cannot be made. This repertoire allows such tasks as the Objective Three reverse engineering to be made possiThrough the design tasks of reverse ble, as it is possible to gain understandengineering and iteration production, Objective Six three-dimensional media skills have The analysis of built and conceptual ing of each individual component, and greatly increased. Physical fabrica- projects is a crucial means of devel- the abilities and constraints that each tion and fabrication technologies, al- oping ones own design. By exploring one possesses and, therefore, how though not specifically relevant to the these projects, one is able to form a they may be combined in design.

appendix

lot of the form making from this outcome came from recursive and fractal definitions. These definitions are very effective as they can lead to outcomes that the designer can not imagine; creating an original design through mathematical processes rather than explicit design desicisions. Design decisions must perpetually come into play to ensure that the outcome relates effectively to the brief and the designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own selection criteria, but for initial form-finding, these mathematical processes form an extremely effective starting point which the designer can refine and spark ideas from. These types of definitions will still come into play through the refinement of the design, however, in order to reach a refined design, greater restrictions must be placed on the design process, leading to a successful outcome.

PRECEDENTS P

1. LAVA, Green Void (Australia: LAVA, 2008) <http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/green-void/> [accessed 8 April 2014] 2. Skylar Tibbits, VoltaDom [US: Skylar Tibbits, 2011] < http://www.sjet.us/MITV_ OLTADOM.html [accessed 8 April 2014] 3. Matsys, Gridshell [Louisiana: Matsys, 2013] <http://matsysdesign.com/tag/gridshell/> [accessed 8 April 2014] 4. Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, NonLin/Lin Pavilion (France: Marc Fornes & TheVeryMany, 2011) <http://theverymany.com/constructs/10-frac-centre/> [accessed 17 April 2014] 5. Ming Tang, Sponge Cube - Solar Leaves [USA: Ming Tang, 2010] < http://landartgenerator.org/ LAGI2010/920017/> [accessed 17 April 2014] 6. Z端ndel & Cristea, Peace Pavilion [London: Z端ndel & Cristea, 2013] < http://en.sergeferrari.com/ lightweight-architecture/peace-pavilion-an-inflatable-structure-clad-in-precontraint-902-s2/> [accessed 128 April 2014] 7. Exquiste Corpse, AA School of Architecture (UK: AA School of Architecture, 2011) <http://projectsreview2011.aaschool.ac.uk/students/ExquisteC _ orpse> [accessed 28 April 2014]