Caitlyn Bendall Design
Studio Air 2015
640 277
Tutor: Finn Warnock
Clockwise from Top: Caitlyn Bendall, Studio Earth Physical Model, Aerial View, Photograph Caitlyn Bendall, Studio Earth Section A, Digital Line Drawing Caitlyn Bendall, Studio Earth Section B, Digital Line Drawing Caitlyn Bendall, Studio Earth Physical Model, Front View, Photograph
Introduction My name is Caitlyn Bendall and I am currently a third year architecture twenty
one,
student grew
in up
the in
a
Bachelor small
of
country
Environments. Victorian
I
am
town
and
developed a fascination with architecture through ‘Grand Designs’. Throughout the ‘three year’ undergraduate course that Melbourne University offers for Architecture I have managed to delicately avoid using or learning digital technology whilst still successfully completing two studios. Unfortunately this means that Studio Air with its direct focus on digital technology serves as a steep learning curve. Thankfully friends and online tutorials have taught me the basics of Rhino and Grasshopper but at this stage I am not using these programs to the best of their abilities. As far as knowledge of digital technology used in practice I am sure I have seen and admired projects that are classes as computer aided
design but I wouldn’t be able to identify how or why this aid was particularly useful. I do know from previous subjects that digital technology can help with assessing structural and post construction performances of a building as well as allowing smooth interaction between different professions on a job, but that in most cases it also requires a lot of forward thinking to be used well. I prefer to design using old methods but do see the merit in didgital design when it has been learnt well and can be used well. My previous work shown to the left is from a studio I completed in second year.
Contents 05 Introduction
Personal Profile and Previous Projects
08 A.1 Design Futuring Gardens by the Bay Grant Associates
30 St Mary Axe/Swiss Re Headquarters Foster + Partners
14 A.2 Design Computation
The Design Process and the Introduction of Digital Technology
16 A.3 Composition/Generation Reaction in Practice
18 Bibliography 20 B.1 Research Field Strips/Folding 22 B.2 Case Study 1.0 Seroussi Pavilion Biothing Matrix of Iterations Design Brief Selection Criteria Successful Iterations Design Brief Proposal Direction Precedents 32 B.3 Case Study 2.0 ZA11 Pavilion Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan
42 B.4 Technique: Development
A
ST U D I O A I R PA RT A
PAGE 8
Gardens by the Bay ‘Supertree’, photograph, < http:// www.grant-associates.uk.com/projects/gardens-by-thebay/> [accessed August 1 2015]
A.1 Design Futuring Gardens by the Bay Grant Associates Winning a host of awards for both design and sustainability, and tourism, the Gardens by
the
Bay
Project
completed
in
2012
excels in promoting Singapore’s image as a ‘Green City’1 along with innovative design. The idea of the Gardens by the Bay project situated on Singapore’s Marina was to bring the ecosystems of the World to the Tropics.2 The winning competition entry of two conservatories linked to a grove of ‘Supertrees’ - by Grant Associates architects3 - provides artificial environments perfect for Mediterranean and Tropical Montane area plants4, whilst being practically self-sustaining running on energy and water generated within the park itself.5 The research and development for the two conservatories was a very integral stage of the project in order to be able to create a functioning ‘closed system’ and the correct internal environments. A multidisciplinary approach to the design was taken involving Wilkinson Eyre (Architects), Atelier Ten (Environmental Consultants) and Atelier One (Structural Engineers).6 This team used both digital and analogue methods to assess design factors such as solar radiation infiltration, ventilation CA IT LY N B EN DA LL
paths, plant behavior and thermal properties of the structure. In particular computer modelling was used to determine the optimum shape for the conservatories that would generate the required cool atmosphere without using additional cooling methods.7 The approach of involving experts from different backgrounds is a relatively new one in the field of architecture but has, especially in this project, shown to deliver a better outcome8 more attuned to environmental factors that can enhance rather than hinder the building. As an example of the benefits of involving environmental consultants in a project, Gardens by the Bay represents a shift in modern times towards growing consideration of how buildings impact their wider context. The design won the Climate Change Adaptation award from the Landscape Institute in 20139 marking it as an outline to follow in sustainable future design. PA RT A
PAGE 9
“Look
beyond the immediate development horizon to understand the wider context of the project 10
”
The design employs a system whereby no energy, water or material is wasted, and looks outside the area of the Gardens to take advantage of things that are usually thrown away. Energy for the chillers that cool the conservatories is generated by photovoltaic panels on the top of the Supertrees, which serve a dual function of exhausting warm air from the conservatories. Rainwater is collected and treated, waste heat from energy creating processes is reused and clippings from the vegetation that lines Singapore’s streets is used as a fuel.11 The Gardens could be an interesting insight into a ‘possible future’ proposed by Dunne12 in which the diverse ecosystems of the world can no longer survive where they once could, and artificial environments are the only option to retain certain species. Not only can these conservatories provide that but their selfsustaining ability makes them ingeniously invaluable for the future.
Above: Darren Chin, The two conservatories, Photograph, <http://www. atelierten.com/2012/projects/gardens-by-the-bay/#> [accessed August 2 2015] Below: Diagram of the system, Digital line drawing, , < http://www. grant-associates.uk.com/projects/gardens-by-the-bay/> [accessed August 1 2015]
1 Atelier Ten, ‘Gardens by the Bay, Singapore’ <http://www.atelierten.com/2012/projects/gardens-by-the-bay/#> [accessed August 2 2015] 2 Meredith Davey, ‘Gardens by the Bay: Ecologically Reflective design’, Architectural Design, 81 (2011), 108 – 111 (p.109) 3 Davey p.109 4 Grant Associates, ‘Gardens by the Bay’, < http://www.grant-associates.uk.com/projects/gardens-by-the-bay/> [accessed August 1 2015] 5 National Parks Board of Singapore, ‘Sustainability Efforts’ <https://www.gardensbythebay.com.sg/en/the-gardens/about-the-gardens.html#!/sustainability-efforts> [accessed August 1 2015] 6 Grant Associates 7 Davey, pp.110 - 111 8 Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, ‘Beyond Radical Design’, in Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction and Social Dreaming, ed. By Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013), pp. 1 – 9 (p.6) 9 Grant Associates 10 Davey, p.111 11 National Parks Board of Singapore 12 Dunne and Raby, p.4
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL
30 St Mary Axe Foster + Partners
Colloquially referred to as ‘The Gherkin’1, Foster + Partner’s office building, originally designed to build the image of company Swiss Re2, has become a beacon of accepted modernism and sustainable design amongst London’s city scape. Architects should strive to “design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future which is essentially unknown”3, complex as this may seem to achieve the Swiss Re tower offers a considered approach to the challenge. Catering to both social and environmental concerns that often plague tall buildings, wrapped in a unique and bold package, the Gherkin has become an “urban icon”4 of a sustainable office building. It solves the inadequacies of typical office buildings of the past through passive cooling and ventilation, responds to the psychological research on work spaces of the present through lighting and communal work spaces, and attempts to minimise its impact on the future by reducing its energy footprint, using 50% less than conventionally air conditioned office buildings.5 The distinctive shape and facade of 30 St Mary Axe was developed mostly in “[response] to local environmental conditions”6, particularly the interaction of wind with skyscrapers. The direction, force and path of the wind were digitally modelled, influencing the tapered shape of the building at the base to minimise wind tunnels7 and securing the use of mixed mode ventilation, in operable windows and stack ventilation.8 These aspects of design were based majority on environmental benefits but also enhanced the buildings interaction with its wider context. ‘The Gherkin’ at night, Photograph, <http://www. fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-st-mary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015]
PA RT A
PAGE 11
Above: London city skyline, photograph Below: Clockwise top to bottom: Modelling of wind patterns, Computer Model Physical models of proposals, Photograph initial sketches, hand drawing Images Source: <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/ projects/30-st-mary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015]
ST U D I O A I R PA RT A
The tapered base accommodates a public plaza at ground level which invites pedestrian movement through the site as a shortcut.9 The Gherkin’s form, dramatically differing from its neighboring classical office buildings,10 also confronted the London public to question why it was designed in this way. Its prominence in London’s landscape promotes a discussion among ordinary people about the potential environmental impacts of everyday things, such as buildings.
“First ecological tall building”
- Foster + Partners
Swiss Re Headquarters also compelled a larger audience to explore the possibilities of creating office spaces in a way that has little or no negative environmental impact. After the construction of “London’s first ecological tall building”11 other companies felt the pressure to match the new standards in design that had been set by Foster and Partners.12 Environmental sustainability was brought to forefront of design and became a new way to assess a buildings success, prompting buildings like CH2 in Melbourne and the Bullitt Centre in Seattle.
PAGE 12
As a result of 30 St Mary Axe’s innovation in environmental and social aspects and its relation to a wider context, Foster and Partners received the RIBA Stirling Award in 2004.13 This “prize is presented to the architects of the building that has made the greatest contribution to the evolution of architecture over the past year”.14 The building has won public and architects’ favour, and become a driver of further research into a previously seldom looked into aspect of building design.
1 James S Russell, ‘In a city averse to towers, 30 St. Mary Axe the ‘towering innuendo’ by Foster and Partners, is a big eco friendly hit’, Architectural Record, 192 (2004) 218 2 The Royal Institute of British Architects, ‘St Mary Axe, The Gherkin (2004)’ <https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/RIBAStirlingPrizeWinners/StMaryAxe%E2%8 0%93TheGherkin(2004).aspx> [accessed August 4 2015] 3 Norman Foster, My Green Agenda for Architecture, online video recording, TED, January 2007 < http://www.ted.com/talks/norman_foster_s_green_agenda> [accessed August 3 2015] 4 Jonathan Massey, ‘Risk Design’, Grey Room, Winter (2014), 6 – 33 (p.7) 5 Foster + Partners, ’30 St Mary Axe’, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-st-mary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015] 6 Russell, p.218 7 Russell, p.218 8 Massey, p.13 9 Russell, p.218 10 Massey, p.13 11 Massey, p.11 12 Russell, p.218 13 Foster + Partners 14 The Royal Institute of British Architects, ‘RIBA Stirling Prize: A Short History’ <https://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/RIBAStirlingPrizeAshorthistory.aspx> [accessed August 4 2015]
A.2 Design Computation With the progression of technology advancing rapidly into the modern era, Architecture has been facing a new movement toward digital design that replaces hand drafting with computer modelling. The leap to computation may seem dramatic from traditional design processes but the multitude of benefits can be seen in practices that have already embraced the digital design revolution. The use of computer technology in design has not only made certain processes more efficient, but has changed the way many professional practices function, and the method by which they formulate ideas. The traditional design process - where analogue proposals would be checked for real life feasibility at their latest stages - has been delineated by the ability of digital technology to translate into various professions. Multidisciplinary teams working on a project from conception stages are now common practice; experts on specific elements of a building work together to develop a single computerized model. Through this early and constant involvement of necessary professionals, like engineers and environmental consultants, issues in potential designs can be detected and resolved before they become major problems.
Above: Achim Menges, Oliver David Krieg and Steffen Reichert, HygroSkin â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Meteorosensitive Pavilion: Development Process, Digital Model/Photograph, < http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5612 > [accessed August 7 2015]
Involving engineers at early stages means dreaming big which is what Gehry Partners did. Their use of technology made complex shapes possible boosted confidence and applied by optimization of the shapes through programming to perfectly fit a series of manufacturing parts allowing for easy fabrication. These factors were programmed into the design so that no alteration could be made if it didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fit the ability to be manufactured, preventing any possibility of no design. The production was an ultimately very complex form.
ST U D I O A I R PA RT A
PAGE 14
Above (both images): Achim Menges, Morphogenetic Design Experiment, 2012, Model, Permanent Collection, Centre Pompidou Paris, < http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5083> [accessed August 7 2015]
Computation will help use achieve our future goals (biomimicry) Gehry project looked into the elements that computation provides that analogue canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t. Achim Menges explains this beutifully through his Hygroscope project. Looking into biomimicry which in turn is described as the next architectural stage by Kalay. Computer technology optimised the shape, was also used to simulate the program of the cone. Material was a big factor, meant the changing of how we look at developing projects (from design to engineer looks after materiality and structural) to a new design process - morphogenisis. Embed fabrication information. All in one solution/package.
1 2 3 4 Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture 5 6 7 8 9 10
ST U D I O A I R PA RT A
PAGE 15
A.3 Composition/ Generation At the beginning of the introduction of digital technology most architects used it only to digitise final forms of analogue exploration,1 or to perform menial or analytical tasks at a faster rate than a human mind could.2 However the drive is now towards using digital programs as an extension of an architects own abilities3 - the idea of “research by design”4 - and continuously throughout the entire design phase.5 Further capabilities of computer programs are extending their use into consultation, materiality and potentially even in use phases of a structure’s lifetime.6
1 2 3 4 Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture 5 6 7 8 9 10
ST U D I O A I R PA RT A
PAGE 16
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL
PA RT A
PAGE 17
Bibliography
Atelier Ten, ‘Gardens by the Bay, Singapore’ <http://www.atelierten.com/2012/projects/ gardens-by-the-bay/#> [accessed August 2 2015] Davey, Meredith, ‘Gardens by the Bay: Ecologically Reflective design’, Architectural Design, 81 (2011), 108 – 111 Dunne, Anthony and Raby, Fiona ‘Beyond Radical Design’, in Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction and Social Dreaming, ed. By Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013), pp. 1 – 9 Foster, Norman, My Green Agenda for Architecture, online video recording, TED, January 2007 < http://www.ted.com/talks/norman_foster_s_green_agenda> [accessed August 3 2015] Foster + Partners, ’30 St Mary Axe’, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-stmary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015] Grant Associates, ‘Gardens by the Bay’, < http://www.grant-associates.uk.com/projects/ gardens-by-the-bay/> [accessed August 1 2015] Massey, Jonathan, ‘Risk Design’, Grey Room, Winter (2014), 6 – 33 National Parks Board of Singapore, ‘Sustainability Efforts’ <https://www.gardensbythebay. com.sg/en/the-gardens/about-the-gardens.html#!/sustainability-efforts> [accessed August 1 2015] The Royal Institute of British Architects, ‘RIBA Stirling Prize: A Short History’ <https://www. architecture.com/StirlingPrize/RIBAStirlingPrizeAshorthistory.aspx> [accessed August 4 2015] The Royal Institute of British Architects, ‘St Mary Axe, The Gherkin (2004)’ <https://www. architecture.com/StirlingPrize/RIBAStirlingPrizeWinners/StMaryAxe%E2%8%93TheGherk in(2004).aspx> [accessed August 4 2015 Russell, James S, ‘In a city averse to towers, 30 St. Mary Axe the ‘towering innuendo’ by Foster and Partners, is a big eco friendly hit’, Architectural Record, 192 (2004) 218
Images: Gardens by the Bay ‘Supertree’, photograph, < http://www.grant-associates.uk.com/ projects/gardens-by-the-bay/> [accessed August 1 2015] Darren Chin, The two conservatories, Photograph, <http://www.atelierten. com/2012/projects/gardens-by-the-bay/#> [accessed August 2 2015]
Diagram of the system, Digital line drawing, , < http://www.grant-associates.uk.com/ projects/gardens-by-the-bay/> [accessed August 1 2015] ‘The Gherkin’ at night, Photograph, <http:// www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-stmary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015] London city skyline, photograph, <http:// www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-stmary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015] Modelling of wind patterns, Computer Model, <http://www.fosterandpartners. com/projects/30-st-mary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015] Physical models of proposals, Photograph, <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/ projects/30-st-mary-axe/> [accessed August 3 2015] Initial sketches, hand drawing,<http://www. fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-st-maryaxe/> [accessed August 3 2015]
B
B.1 Research Field Strips/Folding
Strips and Folding have long been architectural techniques in design exploration making their integration into the computational field potentially more complex. Folding can be used to speculate on ideas, form and reform patterns, and the material used in analogue methods essentially remembers the processes applied to it.1 In this way folding is similar to creating an algorithm in Grasshopper; a pathway can be created, completed and then de-constructed and taken in a different direction at a certain point within the algorithm. Strips develop form through layering, creating an object from a collection of objects, allowing for manipulation of a specific area which will change the overall structure and dynamic. Structures created using these methods often give the illusion of curving back into themselves or that a single path of material could be followed throughout the structure. Structural form finding can be achieved with strips and the same method used to populate the structure as an ornamental covering. The elements created partition space but often not fully, patterning a space with continuous elements. This innovative feature of strips and folding becomes a catch 22 in the fabrication process, as difficulty lies in designing connections that are structurally efficient without disrupting the continuity of material. Material length is such required to be maximized or connections discrete - matched with the structure or hidden. Double White Agent achieves this with multitudes of panels connected seemlessly creating spherical elements which are further connected to each other. Alternately connections can be more obvious; in the Archipelago Pavilion, connections are a feature but the ingenuity of the overall form relies on a space that is both inside and outside; continuity of material focused in this way.
1.
Sofia Vyzoviti, Folding architecture : spatial, structural and organizational diagrams (Amsterdam : BIS, 2003)
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 20
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
Top left, clockwise to bottom: Archipelago Pavilion, 2012; Double White Agent - Theverymany, 2012; In Silico Building Pavilion;
PAGE 21
Top and bottom: Seroussi Pavilion - Biothing, 2009
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 22
B.2 Case Study 1.0 Seroussi Pavilion Biothing
Seroussi Pavillion is a structure born of parametric design which allows for easy modification to fit individual sites. Descriptions of architecture have now become much more than representations of a realised product, rather they are part of an ‘Increased Resolution Fabric of Architecture’1, as Alisa Anrasek describes it. Seroussi Pavilion exemplifies this new way of design where an algorithm can produce many different outcomes determined by (in this case) physics, limits of material fabrication and geographical features of the intended landscape.2 Electromagnetic Fields create the plan by attraction and repulsion at specific points and this flat pattern is then elevated using a mathematical function - sine. This builds a parametric formula of self-modifying vectors - as the input for the field changes so do the vectors.3 Basically every part of the design is controlled by an algorithm; the openings in the tiled version of the design are effected by mathematically transcribed lighting and potential view factors that work in conjunction with metal and glass material restrictions.4 Anrasek terms the main theory behind the Seroussi Pavilion as ‘indeterminancy’; ability for ‘unrestrained’ results that are rooted in influencing factors, as well as vaguely programmed spaces that allow for multiple social interactions.5 The project overall advocates adaptability in design.
Seroussi Pavilion - Biothing, 2009 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Alisa Andrasek, ‘Indeterminacy and Contingency: The Seroussi Pavilion and Bloom by Alisa Andrasek’, Architectural Design, 85.3, (2015), 106 - 111. Alisa Anrasek, ‘Indeterminacy and Contingency’ Biothing, /////SEROUSSI PAVILLION /PARIS//2007 (2010) <http://www.biothing.org/?cat=5> [accessed 28 September 2015] Biothing, SEROUSSI PAVILLION Alisa Anrasek, ‘Indeterminacy and Contingency’
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 23
5
5
53
15
10
100
25
17
200
35
490
Division of each circle (Point Charge) (CD) Point Charge: 5 Field Line Distance: 100
Field Line Distance (FL) Point Charge: 5 Circle Division: 35
Point Charges (PC)
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 24
-5
-10
10
10 Graph Mapper Height (X): -1.5 Point Charge: 5 Circle Division: 35 Field Line Distance: 100
Graph Mapper Height Point Charge: 5 Circle Division: 35 Field Line Distance: 100
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 25
Graph Mapper Combinations Point Charge: 5 Circle Division: 35 Field Line: 500 Height: 10
Graph Mapper Set Graphs Point Charge: 5 Circle Division: 35 Field Line: 200 Height: -10
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 26
Radius: 1
Radius: 7
Radius: 5
Radius: 3
Radius: 10 Point Radius Point Charge: 5 Circle Division: 35 Field Line: 200 Height: -10
Radius: 5
Radius: 5; Strength: 2; Decay: 3; Multiplier: -5.3
Field Spin Component Point Charge: 5 Circle Division: 35 Field Line: 200 Height: 5
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 27
Design Brief
Selection Criteria: Most Successful Iterations Using computation the interaction between humans and nature will be explored. The idea is to produce a structure that enacts a role reversal between the two - instead of humans manipulating and destroying nature at their will, nature will become the dominant partner. This will be done in a pavilion type structure that allows for the observation of nature over time. Connections, pattern and perviousness will be important in illustrating the purpose of the design.
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 28
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 29
B.3 Case Study 2.0 ZA11 Pavillion
Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan The ZA11 Pavilion was built as an attraction, to peak the interest of passersby and invite them into the Speaking architecture conference it was outside of.1 Whilst this was the publicly promoted image of the structure it was more heavily focused on displaying the computational advancements of architecture.2 The design was entirely parametrically generated and inclusive of constraints on material, cost and scale, as it was student run. The project therefore had to create something alluring to the eye but not elaborate.3 The form generated allowed for structural stability, functionality in terms of a space for various activities and something intriguing. Each panel is unique and set at a specific angle with adjoining panels through the specially designed connection system in order to create this shape. Thickness of material was experimented with as it impacted the stiffness of the joints and computation was used in labelling the pieces to make sure they were joined in the correct order.4 ZA11 Pavilion attracted a diverse crowd with its creative form which was also successful in housing a variety of activities associated with the conference. Due to it being assembled entirely by students, its dominant use of parametric design was a success as it allowed for systematic labelling and assembling which could subsequently be done by anyone.
1. ThinkParametric, CLJ02: ZA11 PAVILION (2015) <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/clj02-za11-pavilion/> [accessed 31 August 2015] 2. ThinkParametric, CLJ02: ZA11 PAVILION 3. ThinkParametric, CLJ02: ZA11 PAVILION 4. A-ngine, [CLJ02] - ZA11 Pavilion (2011) <http://www.a-ngine.com/2011/06/clj02-za11-pavilion.html> [accessed 31 August 2015]
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 30
Top and bottom: ZA11 Pavilion - Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan, 2011
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 31
Reverse Engineering Initial Attempt
Above Left: ZA11 Pavilion Stages of Design Process Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan, 2011 Opposite Page Above: Stages of Reverse Engineering - Own Vector Line Images Opposite Page Below: Diagram of reverse engineering process Own Line Drawing
1. Create base curves in Rhino 2. Find the average/midpoint of the curves - height and center in plan 3. Create hexagon (polygon) and orient multiple on the surface using grid of points - scale to create similar effect 4. Extrude hexagons to midpoint 5. Use scaled versions of curves (internal to original) to create a surface to split the extruded curves at. Use ListItem component to retrieve the outer curves.
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
HexagonalGrid
Curves
Scale
Loft
Loft
DivideSurface
1
PAGE 32
TriangleGeometry DeconstructMesh
Vertices
CreateSurfaces/Faces
OrientToSurface
SplitSolid
RegionDifference
ListItem 5
MidPoint 2
Vector
ExtrudeToPoint 4
Plane Hexagon
OrientToSurface
Scale 3
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 33
The six step process diagram provided by the design team acted as a set of instructions to follow in reverse engineering the project. A lack of grasshopper prowess meant that this initial attempt at recreating the structure produced a similar aesthetic but not a workable algorithm nor constructible piece. A hexagonal grid would not orient to the surface created which left the edges of each singularly oriented hexagon disconnected. The method of extrusion and SolidDifference also created a dense and clumsy algorithm difficult to adjust. In particular the hexagons were oriented parallel to the straight base plane and didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t follow the initial populated curve, and the stage of triangle cut-outs on each face was not achieved. The blue path running above the algorithm created shows a prediction of a more accurate algorithm to what would have been used by the designers and is similar to the approach used in the Second Attempt at reverse engineering.
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 34
Reverse Engineering Second Attempt
2
Offset Curves
Loft Loft
OrientToSurface
1
Loft HexagonalGrid Planar Surface
OrientToSurface
5 4
3
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
1. Create base curves in Rhino. 2. Loft curves. Offset curves internally and loft. 3. Create hexagonal grid on adjustable surface. 4. Orient hexagonal grid to both original and offset surface. 5. Loft oriented grids together.
PAGE 35
With assistance in Grasshopper from Finn part of the suggested blue algorithm in the Initial Attempt was able to be created. By using a hexagonal grid each hexagon shared faces with the ones next to it, creating an element for tectonic exploration. By using offset instead of extruding to a point the hexagons are greater controlled, more even and easier to constructed, but also less similar to the original pavilion. A vector to point method could be looked into instead to create a more accurate algorithm as shown in the ZA11 process images. This Attempt also failed to explore the triangle cut outs in each face/panel of the pavilion.
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 36
Reverse Engineering Final Attempt
4 1 6 5 3 2
44 11 6 5 3 2 62 5 3 2 4 1 6 5 3
10 1 87 7 9 11 00 8 1
19 10 001 8 7 10 1 11 00 9 8 7 1
6 5 3 2 1 4
4 1 6 5 3 2
44 11 6 5 3 2 62 5 3 2 4 1 6 5 3
10 1 87 7 9 11 00 8 1
19 10 001 8 7 10 1 00 9 8 7 11 1
6 5 3 2 1 4
4 1 6 5 3 2
44 11 6 5 3 2 62 5 3 2 4 1 6 5 3
10 1 87 7 9 11 00 8 1
19 10 001 8 7 10 1 00 9 8 7 11 1
Z-Vector
6 5 3 2 1 4
Extrude
Vertical Faces
Join
Faces
ListItem
Extrude 2
FaceNormal
OrientToSurface Loft
DeconstructBrep
5 1
OrientToSurface 4 1 6 5 3 2
Vertices
Z-Vector Extrude
44 11 6 5 3 2 62 5 3 2 4 1 6 5 3
10 1 87 7 9 11 00 8 1
19 10 001 8 7 10 1 00 9 8 7 11 1
4 1 6 5 3 2
19 10 001 8 7 10 1 00 9 8 7 11 1
6 5 3 2 1 4
ListItem
44 11 6 5 3 2 62 5 3 2 4 1 6 5 3
10 1 8 7 9 11 00 8 7 1
6 5 3 2 1 4
SolidDifference
Polyline
Offset
4 3
Repeat
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Deconstruct the Lofted surface to get both the Faces and Vertices Extrude the faces - relatively horizontal faces in Z-Direction and vertical faces using vectors normal to the faces Using three corners of each face create triangles and offset them inside the face. Do this multiple times to populate each face with two triangles Extrude every triangle in the Z-Direction Use SolidDifference to trim the triangles from the hexagonal extruded surface
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 37
This process still could not achieve triangle cutouts on every single faces and resulted in some faces being deleted entirely. The extrusion was also very rough and didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t created a smoothly inset surface - offsetting the hexagonal grid and orienting it to surface would not achieve this either because it could not be capped. Also if the hexagonal grid was to be manipulated or the shape changed entirely then it would be tedious to fix the algorithm to match the new structure so that the triangles still worked.
4 1 6 5 3 2
44 11 6 5 3 2 3 2 62 5 4 1 6 5 3
10 1 87 7 9 11 00 8 1
19 10 001 8 7 10 1 11 00 9 8 7 1
6 5 3 2 1 4
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 38
Reverse Engineering Evaluation
Above Left: ZA11 Pavilion - Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan, 2011
The reverse engineering was successful in that it provides a sufficient algorithm to be modifying in part B.4, even though it did not exactly replicate the original project. Although triangle cutouts could not be made on each face of the hexagons the overall shape and idea of ‘warped’ hexagons forming a lattice type structure has been achieved. Connections were not considered in the reverse engineering, however they were a big part of the original project, therefore this should be looked at in the future and the original method could be considered for using in Part B.5 Prototyping. This precedent can be explored further by changing the initial geometry that the ‘lattice’ is oriented on. This could change the feel of the structure in terms of stability.
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 39
B.4 Technique: Development ZA11 Pavillion
Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
PAGE 40
Species 2
Species 1
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 41
Species 3
ST U D I O A I R PA RT B
Species 4
PAGE 42
Species 5
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL C RIT ERI A D ES I G N
PAGE 43
Bibliography
Andrasek, Alisa, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Indeterminacy & Contingency: The Seroussi Pavilion and Bloom by Alisa Andrasekâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Architectural Design, 85.3, (2015), 106 - 111. A-ngine, [CLJ02] - ZA11 Pavilion (2011) <http://www.a-ngine.com/2011/06/clj02-za11pavilion.html> [accessed 31 August 2015]. Biothing, /////SEROUSSI PAVILLION /PARIS//2007 (2010) <http://www.biothing. org/?cat=5> [accessed 28 September 2015]. Vyzoviti, Sofia, Folding architecture : spatial, structural and organizational diagrams (Amsterdam : , 2003). ThinkParametric, CLJ02: ZA11 PAVILION (2015) <http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/ clj02-za11-pavilion/> [accessed 31 August 2015].
Images: Archipelago Pavilion, photograph, < http:// www.evolo.us/architecture/archipelagoparametrically-designed-pavilion/ > [accessed August 18 2015] Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan atrick Bedarf, ZA11 Pavilion, photograph and digitally produced diagram, < http://www.arch2o.com/za11pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarfbogdan-hambasan/ > [accessed October 1] Guillaume Blanc ,Double White Agent, photograph, < http://theverymany.com/12atelier-calder/ > [accessed August 18]
In Silico Pavilion, photograph, < https:// insilicobuilding.wordpress.com/ > [accessed August 18] Seroussi Pavillion, photograph and digital model, < http://www.biothing.org/?cat=5 > [accessed August 28]
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL D E TA I LED D ES I G N
PAGE 45
C.1 Design Concept Interim Presentations provided the feedback that the project lacked a clear vision of what exactly it was trying to achieve. The concept was interesting but the real life imposition didn’t match it visually, architecturally or in computational innovation. From this feedback a simpler approach to implementing the concept on site was taken. The previously imagined ‘cage’ where humans could observe nature that grew around and on the cage was developed into a ‘pavilion’ that retained the core elements of attracting an audience and also changing people’s perception of nature.
RECONSIDERED BRIEF The structure create must be visually intriguing in order to attract people towards it. The structure must distort the view of nature in some manner, altering the viewers perception of it. The structure must allow people to be able to stand inside it, as well as potentially provide seating options. The structure is to mainly cater to people walking the Merri Creek bike track, in particularly families.
Feedback was also given that the design could better connect to the site. By orienting the structure on the already present viewing platform at Merri Creek it would allow for stability and create greater interest, as it would now be ‘unavoidable’ at the most common area to view nature. The ZA11 already included a very simple yet effective connection system that I will attempt to replicate to provide structural integrity to the project. Panels could be developed further to include different thicknesses .
ST U D I O A I R PA RT C
PAGE 46
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL D E TA I LED D ES I G N
PAGE 47
Technique and Construction Diagrams Platform Outline Curve
Vertical Line from Centre
End Points
Points
X
Scale Smaller to Centre Hexagonal Grid
Extrude to Centre Point Orient on Surface
Y
Deconstruct Brep
Orient Faces to XY Plane Plane on Edge curve
Extrude Material Thickness Pentagon on Plane Face Normal
Label Panels and Connections Digitally
ST U D I O A I R PA RT C
Produce using Large scale laser cutter
PAGE 48
X
Connect and Loft
Trim
Uniform Scale
Y
Orient to Original Plane
Extrude Material Thickness
Trasport to site using truck
Trim Intersection between two Solids
Put together manually using scaffolding Stabilising formwork - buttresses needed
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL D E TA I LED D ES I G N
PAGE 49
C.2 Tectonic Elements and Prototypes The element chosen to repeat was the connection between the panels each being different depending on its specific location on the structure. This connection allowed for the panels to sit at specific angles and create unique hexagonal shapes across the pavilion. With was
this achieved
the each
idea of hexagonal
The panels themselves were different length, curvature and
changing the perspective of nature of the viewer hole gave a certain view of the wider view. therefore also shape because
ST U D I O A I R PA RT C
unique in that they were each a of the overall structures unique form.
PAGE 50
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL D E TA I LED D ES I G N
PAGE 51
Prototype Model
ST U D I O A I R PA RT C
PAGE 52
Final Crit Feedback Feedback from the Final Crit indicated that again the concept was interesting but it wasn’t refined enough for the presented model/structure to match with its purpose. It was suggested that the structure needs a more specified objective to create a sense of dynamism and achieve the change in viewer’s perspective. Each hexagon would be angled towards a certain ‘spectacular’ point in the landscape making singular focuses on important images. Alternately some hexagons could be faced inwards back into the structure, to catch unsuspecting viewers offguard and enhance the quality of playing with people’s views of landscape - they don’t know what they will see. The model - materials chosen and size of connections was also seen to be clunky and heavy. This doesn’t fit with the idea of the structure being something gently imposed on the landscape - something to look at but also look through. The thought of changing material should also be considered.
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL D E TA I LED D ES I G N
PAGE 53
Development THINGS TO FURTHER DEVELOP Create attractor points corresponding to landmarks at Merri Creek in order to deform the hexagons populated on the surface of the structure. Modify the shape so that certain hexagons unexpectedly view back into the structure. Use attractor point or otherwise to make the hexagons that face the creek smaller. Think about changing the material of the structure to something lighter that still retains the same properties as well modifying the connections.
ST U D I O A I R PA RT C
PAGE 54
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL D E TA I LED D ES I G N
PAGE 55
C.4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes Objective 1. The Brief that I developed was not directly related to computational design and therefore made it hard later on in the design to develop a concept that was innovative. Objective 2. I was able to develop multiple iterations for the design concept show in Part B. These iterations successfully utilised multiple components of algorithmic design as well as taking advantage of the ability to change small details multiple times to create different results. Objective 3. I was unable to fully explore the medium of digital fabrication and this in turn has let down my design in a big way as it is an important stage in developing tectonic systems. I otherwise was able to develop a simple algorithm to create a structure and translate that algorithm into an explanatory diagram. Objective 4. Because of the lack of prototype models I developed again it was difficult to physically explore this relationship between architecture and air, although the concept I wanted to explore focused highly on the imposition of architecture on a space and how even a simple frame can develop an atmosphere.
ST U D I O A I R PA RT C
Objective 5. I tried to focus on speculative design early on in the design process as this is something that interested me - grabbing peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attention to make them think about something classed as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;everydayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and making them question its validity or worth. However this proved difficult to realize in a physical design the way I would have like and the concept became simplified. Although the argument of the design was solid it may have lacked basis in computational theory. Objective 6. Part A shows that I understood and enjoyed learning about the theory behind computational design and how effectively it can be integrated into modern architecture. Objective 7. I am successfully able to manipulate as well as create simple algorithms in order to produce a structure as shown in Part B, although my understanding of this is still quite elementary. Objective 8. I do not believe I am the level where I am able to completely on my own decide what is the most effective technique, or path to use to solve a problem. However I am capable of testing multiple options to develop the most successful approach.
PAGE 56
CA IT LY N B EN DA LL D E TA I LED D ES I G N
PAGE 57