University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces A Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
led by Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne
JONATHAN IZEN + MAXWELL MORIYAMA The idea for the social wall began as an exploration into the idea of creating a collaborative interaction that breaks the boundaries of physical space. Based on the interest in having two human inputs to initiate the responsive output in the surface, the project requried at least two individuals to trigger the surface interaction. Depending on where the two people are in physical space determines the location where the wall reacts. The wall illuminates on the opposite side of the user, allowing the second user to see their collaborate reaction and vice versa. In effect, the wall allows visual contact with another individual without physically seeing the person. Using the digital model and a scale module of the wall, the behavior of the installation was simulated as the installation would react within the lobby of the A&AA Building. Light sensors detect the proximity of the users. Depending on their distance from each other, the light appears at a faint illumination. When the people move closer to each other and ultimately reach a point where they would be face-to-face in the physical world, the wall illuminates to full brightness, where the wall communicates the union of their interaction.
Photo by Andrew Payne
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
The design evolved as an experiment to have two inputs and connect two or more people in space. Cells in the wall structure were created with a voronoi algorithm, with a variation in the density of the cells decreasing towards the center, encouraging movement to the middle of the wall. A barrier in the center of each cell blocks the light to the opposite side while still allowing light through the transparent skin of the surface. The installation could lead to a new kind of communication in the physical world by digital means. This also implies a completely radical interpretation of contact with another human between physical barriers and could explore new and unexpected interactions between people. This installation might lead to a flurry of new architectural applications. If the idea for the social wall was implemented over the scale of an entire building, program could be distributed by a response in the surface conditions. If a room bustling with activity displayed a kind of message indicating the interior social conditions, it might influence how people navigate through the space of the building. Futhermore, the architecture could dictate if a space was too crowded or if human activity was sparse, creating a flow and balance within the building program and within social interactions in the space.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
Sara Vernia with Roussa Cassel INITIAL THOUGHTS ON REINTERPRETING REAL TIME IMAGERY.......................................................................... Every act of seeing is a visual judgement; it is immediate and composed of indivisible ingredients. What we see gives us a way to orient ourselves, a way to navigate through an extremely complex world. What if however, we transcribed these visual ingredients (light and shadow) into a tactile or physical language. Our initial thoughts were to mimic the camera obscura, an optical devise that was first conceived in order to view an external image which would be projected onto a two dimensional screen. Our intent was to be able to represent a scene in real time through a static lens and filtered onto a dynamic surface. For the sake of time we decided to simplify our project by using photo light sensors instead of a live image feed to collect our data. For this project we were interested in locating a particular spot within the White Stagg Building in Portland, Oregon, where we could place our theoretical responsive surface installation. Our immediate thoughts were to find a space that would be animated with motion and changing light. This in the end turned out to be an interstitial space within the main lobby where skylight windows connect two existing brick buildings. We felt this would be an interesting place to reflect images of the cloud cover and daylight conditions throughout the day.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE s u r f a c e s Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
THE RESPONSIVE SURFACE.................................................................................................................................. Our initial inspiration for the responsive surface was a project done by Daniel Rozin which utilized 830 square pieces of wood and a built-in camera to rotate blocks which would recreate the images directly adjacent using light and shadow. Our project also used a grid of blocks, sized at two inches on edge, but the faces of the blocks were colored white, gray and black, each face representing the average value of the pixel detected above. Each block would be connected to a motor and a light sensor and rotate to display the face with a tonal value depending on the light reading. We envisioned the surface as an elongated floor installation composed of a 15x240 grid of blocks which would mimic the sky above. rotating cube
The prototype we constructed for our project evolved from a set of three cubes mounted directly on servo motors, to an apparatus which would conceal the mechanical parts and expose only the critical elements. Because the motors we were working with only rotate 180 degrees, we were limited to using three faces of the cube.
3-cogs servo
GETTING IT TO WORK............................................................................................................................................ To implement our design we used Grasshopper, a plug-in for McNeel’s Rhino modeler, and Firefly, a set of comprehensive tools that bridge the gap between Grasshopper and the Arduino micro-controller, allowing for real-time data to flow to and from the three dimensional digital world and the physical world. For our simulation, our objective was to use light meters that would feed into the analog inputs on the Arduino board and produce readings in a gradient using pulse-width modulation. With the data we translated the 10-bit numeric values (0-1024) into three specific rotations. The light values between 0-333, 334-666 & 667-1024 would respectively correspond to 0°,90°,180°. This data would then be sourced to the digital output and direct the servo motors to turn the cubes so they would display their appropriate tonal value. ANALOG INPUT SCHEMATIC
DIGITAL OUTPUT SCHEMATIC DIGITAL PIN #
ANALOG PIN #
+5 VOLTS PHOTO RES.
GROUND RES. 10K
SERVO
GROUND +5 VOLTS
FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................................... As the next step, we would like to develop the digital model more fully so that one could read the pixilated image on the face of the boxes within the 3D model. I would also like to continue investigating the initial idea of translating real time data collected through the lens of a camera to a digital model that would instantaneously average the pixels of the photograph and then output to a responsive surface. An even more ambitious continuation of the project would be to translate the visual data into a tactile surface, allowing for one sensory experience to be interpreted with a different sensory language, perhaps giving a more wholistic understanding of reality.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE s u r f a c e s Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
Roussa Cassel
with Sara Vernia
Our design concept was to build a responsive surface that would act as a camera or a lens and reflect dynamic changes from the outside into an interior space within the building. We were initially inspired by the Wooden Mirror project by Daniel Rozin which utilizes 830 square pieces of wood and a built-in camera to rotate the blocks and recreate the image using light and shadow. Our project also used a grid of blocks (pixels), but the faces of the blocks were colored white, gray and black. Each block would be connected to a motor and a light sensor and rotate to display a face with a tonal value depending on the light reading. We envisioned the surface as a freestanding floor installation that would be located under a long linear skylight in the Whitestag building. The image of the sky would constantly update on the surface depending on cloud cover and daylight conditions. We constructed a prototype model with three cubes to test our ideas. Because the motors we were working with only rotate 180 degrees, we were limited to using three faces of the cube. A challenging part of the project was getting the cubes to rotate in exact 90 degree steps. Light meters that feed into analog inputs produce readings in a gradient using pulse-width modulation. Translating a range of light readings into a specific rotation, we were able to rotate and stop the cubes with their faces properly displayed. Another challenge was devising a way to mount the motors underneath the cubes, ultimately we settled on three cogs per cube, so that the cubes could be seamlessly mounted in a plane. Given more time, I would like to develop the digital model more fully so that one could read the pixilated image on the face. We were able to make the concept work, but we can’t really know if it would be visually successful. I would also like to figure out how to make the rotation of the cubes, the “refreshing” of the image, occur in a cyclical wave instead of all the cubes rotating simultaneously. I can imagine this idea evolving in a number of different ways. One suggestion was to use cylinders rather than cubes, which would allow the pixels to be closer together and a produce a gradient of tonal values, perhaps making the image more legible.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
GEOFF SOSEBEE Associated LEDs Associated LEDs explores the lost spaces of a building, the un-programmed circulation spaces that we often pay no attention to. The project tries to draw attention to the space through an interactive surface composed of an array of LEDs and proximity sensors. As a person walks into the area, LEDs begin to light, growing brighter as the person comes closer. The LEDs represent the influence or "personal space" of a person. As people circulate through and around the space, these LED "fields" begin to interact with one another, merging together as people move into one another's space.
Prototype in action, LEDs showing the proximity of the person.
The prototpe consists of 4 LEDs in a 2x2 array and 4 light sensors that mimic the output of proximity sensors. This interactive prototype has two uses, one to show the light levels of 4 LEDs of the full size array represented graphically in Rhino. These 4 LEDs can be selected by moving an encompassing box around, so one can view the differing light levels throughout the imagined surface. The second use is to actually sense presence (or in this case light levels) which defines the overall values of the LEDs in the graphic array. The site of the imagined surface is in an atrium space in the University of Oregon's White Stag building in Portland, Oregon. However, the surface has also been imagined to be an entry canopy to a building or a bus shelter, where the interactive responsive surface will show users how they and others move around a space and interact with one another. This could also occur in a pubic open space, a square or sidewalk; where people could begin to understand their presence among others and how each person circulates through a space both interacting with and avoiding one another.
Prototype with the Rhino interface.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
William  R.  Taylor  /  PD(X)  Lab  Report  /  *URZLQJ 7HFWRQLFV )LUHÀ\ Sketches pbma LZkZ O^kgbZ
KhnllZ <Zll^e
6\Y KLZPNU JVUJLW[ ^HZ [V I\PSK H YLZWVUZP]L Z\YMHJL [OH[ ^V\SK HJ[ HZ H JHTLYH VY H SLUZ HUK YLMSLJ[ K`UHTPJ JOHUNLZ MYVT [OL V\[ZPKL PU[V HU PU[LYPVY ZWHJL ^P[OPU [OL I\PSKPUN >L ^LYL PUP[PHSS` PUZWPYLK I` [OL >VVKLU 4PYYVY WYVQLJ[ I` +HUPLS 9VaPU ^OPJO \[PSPaLZ ZX\HYL WPLJLZ VM ^VVK HUK H I\PS[ PU JHTLYH [V YV[H[L [OL ISVJRZ HUK YLJYLH[L [OL PTHNL \ZPUN SPNO[ HUK ZOHKV^ 6\Y WYVQLJ[ HSZV \ZLK H NYPK VM ISVJRZ WP_LSZ I\[ [OL MHJLZ VM [OL ISVJRZ ^LYL JVSVYLK ^OP[L NYH` HUK ISHJR ,HJO ISVJR ^V\SK IL JVUULJ[LK [V H TV[VY HUK H SPNO[ ZLUZVY HUK YV[H[L [V KPZWSH` H MHJL ^P[O H [VUHS ]HS\L KLWLUKPUN VU )LJXUH $ )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ [OL SPNO[ YLHKPUN >L LU]PZPVULK [OL Z\YMHJL HZ H MYLLZ[HUKPUN MSVVY PUZ[HSSH[PVU [OH[ ^V\SK IL SVJH[LK \UKLY H SVUN SPULHY Figure  1B  -  Arduino  Growing  Tectonics  Kit PD(X)  Lab  /  Performance-Âdriven  Design  &  Ecology  Lab ZR`SPNO[ PU [OL >OP[LZ[HN I\PSKPUN ;OL PTHNL VM [OL ZR` ^V\SK JVUZ[HU[S` \WKH[L VU [OL Z\YMHJL KLWLUKPUN VU JSV\K JV]LY Furthering  the  investigation  into  a  performance-Âdriven  HUK KH`SPNO[ JVUKP[PVUZ design  and  ecology  laboratory,  I  explored  the  addition  of  WKH )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ SOXJ LQ WR WKH VWXGLR EDVHG GHVLJQ HFRV\VWHP As  a  means  of  developing  strong  per- (Figure  1A  &  1B).  >L JVUZ[Y\J[LK H WYV[V[`WL TVKLS ^P[O [OYLL J\ILZ [V formance  correlations  between  this  studio  design  environ- [LZ[ V\Y PKLHZ )LJH\ZL [OL TV[VYZ ^L ^LYL ^VYRPUN ^P[O VUS` PHQW DQG HQYLURQPHQWV LQ ZKLFK GHVLJQV PLJKW OLYH )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ YV[H[L KLNYLLZ ^L ^LYL SPTP[LK [V \ZPUN [OYLL MHJLZ VM [OL served  as  a  real-Âtime  sensing  and  actuation  interface  J\IL ( JOHSSLUNPUN WHY[ VM [OL WYVQLJ[ ^HZ NL[[PUN [OL J\ILZ WKURXJK DQ $UGXLQR FRQÂżJXUDWLRQ )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ IDFLOLWDWHG SDUDOOHO [V YV[H[L PU L_HJ[ KLNYLL Z[LWZ 3PNO[ TL[LYZ [OH[ MLLK PU[V physical  and  digital  prototyping,  allowing  simultaneous  HUHSVN PUW\[Z WYVK\JL YLHKPUNZ PU H NYHKPLU[ \ZPUN W\SZL ^PK[O adaptive  form  and  control  design  development  and  testing.
TVK\SH[PVU ;YHUZSH[PUN H YHUNL VM SPNO[ YLHKPUNZ PU[V H ZWLJPMPJ Growing  Tectonics YV[H[PVU ^L ^LYL HISL [V YV[H[L HUK Z[VW [OL J\ILZ ^P[O [OLPY MHJLZ WYVWLYS` KPZWSH`LK (UV[OLY JOHSSLUNL ^HZ KL]PZPUN H Growing  Tectonics  is  a  PD(X)  Lab  research  framework  ^H` [V TV\U[ [OL TV[VYZ \UKLYULH[O [OL J\ILZ \S[PTH[LS` ^L and  curriculum  study  with  the  goal  of  increasing  the  rate  ZL[[SLK VU [OYLL JVNZ WLY J\IL ZV [OH[ [OL J\ILZ JV\SK IL of  propagation  and  survival  of  autotrophs  in  urban  and  Figure  1C  -  Studio  as  Ecosystem ZLHTSLZZS` TV\U[LK PU H WSHUL H[WUHPH FRQGLWLRQV ,Q WKLV VHVVLRQ , XVHG )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ WR GHVLJQ adaptive  responses  to  changes  in  environmental  fac- tors  which  affect  plant  growth,  in  this  case  lighting  levels.  .P]LU TVYL [PTL 0 ^V\SK SPRL [V KL]LSVW [OL KPNP[HS 7KURXJK )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ , ZDV DEOH WR TXLFNO\ WHVW LGHDV DERXW UH- TVKLS TVYL M\SS` ZV [OH[ VUL JV\SK YLHK [OL WP_PSH[LK PTHNL VU sponsive  autotroph  envelopes  which  mitigate  exaggerated  [OL MHJL >L ^LYL HISL [V THRL [OL JVUJLW[ ^VYR I\[ ^L changes  in  environmental  conditions.  The  resulting  sketch  JHUÂť[ YLHSS` RUV^ PM P[ ^V\SK IL ]PZ\HSS` Z\JJLZZM\S 0 ^V\SK HSZV module  as  show  in  Figure  1B  &  1C  and  described  in  the  SPRL [V MPN\YL V\[ OV^ [V THRL [OL YV[H[PVU VM [OL J\ILZ [OL evoltuionary  Figures  2A  -  2F  could  become  part  of  a  larger  ¸YLMYLZOPUNš VM [OL PTHNL VJJ\Y PU H J`JSPJHS ^H]L PUZ[LHK VM HSS assemblage  of  modules  serving  as  either  stand  alone  systems  or  subsystems  within  larger  building  systems  and  [OL J\ILZ YV[H[PUN ZPT\S[HULV\ZS` 0 JHU PTHNPUL [OPZ PKLH surfaces.  The  Primary  behavior  explored  in  this  sketch  L]VS]PUN PU H U\TILY VM KPMMLYLU[ ^H`Z 6UL Z\NNLZ[PVU ^HZ [V was  an  automatic  plant  protection  resonse  at  night  and  a  \ZL J`SPUKLYZ YH[OLY [OHU J\ILZ ^OPJO ^V\SK HSSV^ [OL WP_LSZ full  sunlight  exposure  response  during  the  day.  In  addi- [V IL JSVZLY [VNL[OLY HUK H WYVK\JL H NYHKPLU[ VM [VUHS ]HS\LZ WLRQ , H[SHFW WKDW )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ ZLOO DOORZ PH WR PDNH VLJQLÂżFDQW WLYOHWZ THRPUN [OL PTHNL TVYL SLNPISL DGYDQFHV LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH FRQFHSW RI ÂłXELTXLWRXV cultivationâ&#x20AC;?,  studying  potetnials  at  the  intersection  of  urban  DJULFXOWXUH DQG XELTXLWRXV FRPSXWLQJ XQLWLQJ HFRV\VWHPV design  and  real-Âtime  decision  making.  Figure  1D  -  Day  /  Night  Behavior
Page  1  of  2
<UP]LYZP[` VM 6YLNVU +LWHY[TLU[ VM (YJOP[LJ[\YL ( ( ( :\TTLY PU [OL *P[`
K>LIHGLBO> lnk_Z\^l 1HZVU 2LSS` 1VOUZVU HUK (UKYL^ 7H`UL .YHZZOVWWLY -PYLMS` ^VYRZOVW OVZ[LK I` 5HUJ` *OLUN
KhnllZ <Zll^e pbma LZkZ O^kgbZ
Agile  Methods  /  Test-Âdriven  Development
Agile  Software  Development  Methodologies  and  related  Test-Âdriven  Development  practices  have  emerged  from  complexity  management  and  rapid  prototyping  needs  in  the  develop- 6\Y KLZPNU JVUJLW[ ^HZ [V I\PSK H YLZWVUZP]L Z\YMHJL [OH[ ment  of  large  software  systems  in  fast  moving  markets.  Many  of  the  ideas  which  have  ^V\SK HJ[ HZ H JHTLYH VY H SLUZ HUK YLMSLJ[ K`UHTPJ JOHUNLZ emerged  from  Agile  Methods  research  are  potentially  applicable  to  architectural  design.  MYVT [OL V\[ZPKL PU[V HU PU[LYPVY ZWHJL ^P[OPU [OL I\PSKPUN >L 7KHVH LGHDV VHHP SDUWLFXODUO\ XVHIXO LQ WKH GHVLJQ RI V\VWHPV ZKLFK UHTXLUH VLPXOWDQHRXV HYROXWLRQ RI SK\VLFDO DQG FRGH EDVHG EHKDYLRU VWUXFWXUHV ,Q WKLV )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ VWXG\ , SDLG SDUWLFX- ^LYL PUP[PHSS` PUZWPYLK I` [OL >VVKLU 4PYYVY WYVQLJ[ I` +HUPLS lar  attention  to  the  concepts  â&#x20AC;&#x153;working  software  is  the  primary  measure  of  progressâ&#x20AC;?  and  9VaPU ^OPJO \[PSPaLZ ZX\HYL WPLJLZ VM ^VVK HUK H I\PS[ PU ÂłGHOLYHU ZRUNLQJ VRIWZDUH IUHTXHQWO\´ IURP WKH Âł3ULQFLSOHV EHKLQG WKH $JLOH 0DQLIHVWR´ JHTLYH [V YV[H[L [OL ISVJRZ HUK YLJYLH[L [OL PTHNL \ZPUN SPNO[ http://www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
HUK ZOHKV^ 6\Y WYVQLJ[ HSZV \ZLK H NYPK VM ISVJRZ WP_LSZ I\[ [OL MHJLZ VM [OL ISVJRZ ^LYL JVSVYLK ^OP[L NYH` HUK ISHJR Embracing  the  related  software  development  practice  of  Test-Âdriven  Development  I  broke  ,HJO ISVJR ^V\SK IL JVUULJ[LK [V H TV[VY HUK H SPNO[ ZLUZVY WKH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV LQWR VPDOO LWHUDWLRQV DQG VHW YHU\ VSHFLÂżF JRDOV IRU WKH HYROXWLRQ HUK YV[H[L [V KPZWSH` H MHJL ^P[O H [VUHS ]HS\L KLWLUKPUN VU of  each  generation  of  the  physical  and  behavioral  components  of  the  system.  Studying  Rodney  Brooks  work  on  evolving  rather  than  designing  centralized  control  (http://www. [OL SPNO[ YLHKPUN >L LU]PZPVULK [OL Z\YMHJL HZ H MYLLZ[HUKPUN evolvingmorphologies.com/?p=15)  I  thought  of  each  iteration  as  the  building  up  of  MSVVY PUZ[HSSH[PVU [OH[ ^V\SK IL SVJH[LK \UKLY H SVUN SPULHY complexity  in  small  jumps.  As  part  of  the  PD(X)  Lab  process,  I  have  documented  each  of  ZR`SPNO[ PU [OL >OP[LZ[HN I\PSKPUN ;OL PTHNL VM [OL ZR` ^V\SK the  basic  goals  for  the  system  at  each  iteration  as  a  form  of  test  case.  A  new  iteration  of  the  JVUZ[HU[S` \WKH[L VU [OL Z\YMHJL KLWLUKPUN VU JSV\K JV]LY system  was  initiated  only  after  the  last  test-Âcase  was  passed.  In  this  way  the  embodiment  HUK KH`SPNO[ JVUKP[PVUZ and  the  intelligence  of  the  system  were  evolved  as  a  whole,  neither  was  advanced  further Â
Figure  2A
Figure  2B
beyond  the  bounds  of  the  test  case  which  could  potentially  add  complexity  without  testable  performance.  >L JVUZ[Y\J[LK H WYV[V[`WL TVKLS ^P[O [OYLL J\ILZ [V
[LZ[ V\Y PKLHZ )LJH\ZL [OL TV[VYZ ^L ^LYL ^VYRPUN ^P[O VUS`
Iterations YV[H[L KLNYLLZ ^L ^LYL SPTP[LK [V \ZPUN [OYLL MHJLZ VM [OL
J\IL ( JOHSSLUNPUN WHY[ VM [OL WYVQLJ[ ^HZ NL[[PUN [OL J\ILZ
Passing  autonomy  tests,  removing  the  designer  fromt  the  system  through  a  series  of  small  [V YV[H[L PU L_HJ[ KLNYLL Z[LWZ 3PNO[ TL[LYZ [OH[ MLLK PU[V evolutionary  steps:
HUHSVN PUW\[Z WYVK\JL YLHKPUNZ PU H NYHKPLU[ \ZPUN W\SZL ^PK[O Figure  1A:  Test  hand  over  light  sensor,  establish  calibration  /  remap  data  to  0-Â180  servo TVK\SH[PVU ;YHUZSH[PUN H YHUNL VM SPNO[ YLHKPUNZ PU[V H ZWLJPMPJ Figure  1B:  Test  cup  over  light  sensor,  re-Âestablish  calibration YV[H[PVU ^L ^LYL HISL [V YV[H[L HUK Z[VW [OL J\ILZ ^P[O [OLPY Figure  1C:  Test  hand  in  front  of  sensor  in  plant,  re-Âestablish  calibration  MHJLZ WYVWLYS` KPZWSH`LK (UV[OLY JOHSSLUNL ^HZ KL]PZPUN H Figure  1D:  Test  cone  over  light  sensor  in  plant,  re-Âestablish  calibration  ^H` [V TV\U[ [OL TV[VYZ \UKLYULH[O [OL J\ILZ \S[PTH[LS` ^L Figure  1E:  Test  lamp  as  sun  simulating  a  day,  re-Âestablish  calibration   ZL[[SLK VU [OYLL JVNZ WLY J\IL ZV [OH[ [OL J\ILZ JV\SK IL Figure  1F:  Test  lamp  as  sun  with  plant  protection  behavior,  re-Âestablish  calibration  ZLHTSLZZS` TV\U[LK PU H WSHUL Conclusions
.P]LU TVYL [PTL 0 ^V\SK SPRL [V KL]LSVW [OL KPNP[HS )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ KROGV VLJQLÂżFDQW SURPLVH DV DQ LQWHJUDO WRRO LQ IXWXUH 3' ; /DE LQYHVWLJDWLRQV DQG TVKLS TVYL M\SS` ZV [OH[ VUL JV\SK YLHK [OL WP_PSH[LK PTHNL VU curriculum  development  as  it  serves  as  a  critical  function  in  the  task  of  modeling  the  design  [OL MHJL >L ^LYL HISL [V THRL [OL JVUJLW[ ^VYR I\[ ^L ODE RQ DV D IXQFWLRQLQJ HFRV\VWHP )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ DOORZV IRU PRUH DJLOH DQG HYROXWLRQDU\ DS- JHUÂť[ YLHSS` RUV^ PM P[ ^V\SK IL ]PZ\HSS` Z\JJLZZM\S 0 ^V\SK HSZV SURDFKHV WR UHDO WLPH DGDSWLYH DUFKLWHFWXUHV DQG VLJQLÂżFDQWO\ IXUWKHUV 3' ; /DEÂśV JRDO RI SPRL [V MPN\YL V\[ OV^ [V THRL [OL YV[H[PVU VM [OL J\ILZ [OL XQGHUVWDQGLQJ GHVLJQ LQIRUPHG E\ WKH VWXG\ RI (YROXWLRQDU\ (FRORJ\ 6XEVHTXHQW WDUJHWV ¸YLMYLZOPUNš VM [OL PTHNL VJJ\Y PU H J`JSPJHS ^H]L PUZ[LHK VM HSS IRU )LUHĂ&#x20AC;\ VNHWFKHV LQFOXGH PRUH VLJQLÂżFDQW SURWRW\SLQJ RI DVVHPEODJHV RI G\QDPLF *URZ- ing  Tectonic  modules  and  subsystems  including  self  monitoring,  irrigating,  shading,  and  [OL J\ILZ YV[H[PUN ZPT\S[HULV\ZS` 0 JHU PTHNPUL [OPZ PKLH additional  protective  responses. L]VS]PUN PU H U\TILY VM KPMMLYLU[ ^H`Z 6UL Z\NNLZ[PVU ^HZ [V \ZL J`SPUKLYZ YH[OLY [OHU J\ILZ ^OPJO ^V\SK HSSV^ [OL WP_LSZ [V IL JSVZLY [VNL[OLY HUK H WYVK\JL H NYHKPLU[ VM [VUHS ]HS\LZ WLYOHWZ THRPUN [OL PTHNL TVYL SLNPISL
Page  2  of  2
Figure  2C
Figure  2D
Figure  2E
Figure  2F
<UP]LYZP[` VM 6YLNVU +LWHY[TLU[ VM (YJOP[LJ[\YL ( ( ( :\TTLY PU [OL *P[`
K>LIHGLBO> lnk_Z\^l 1HZVU 2LSS` 1VOUZVU HUK (UKYL^ 7H`UL .YHZZOVWWLY -PYLMS` ^VYRZOVW OVZ[LK I` 5HUJ` *OLUN
Claire Alyea This project is meant to approach the topic of how to generate varying levels of privacy through a kinetic screen. The specific site is an open partition along one wall of a multi-purpose classroom in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts. This classroom is used for classes, workshops, pin-up critiques, and other meetings. It is located off the main access corridor for most architecture studios, and thereby receives a lot of passing-by traffic and general interest by students. The project is based on the theory that with increased volume in the classroom, the less private the function is, and the more accessible the activities inside should be perceived. By increasing views into this classroom during events such as informal critiques or workshops, students not directly participating University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
in these activities would feel more welcomed and engaged in the work of their peers. Using grasshopper, firefly, and a sound detector on an arduino board, the curtain would respond in corresponding levels of opacity. The first step for this project was establishing the parametersfor the screen. With the concept of pulling a curtain aside to provide a peek into the room, I established a grid of smaller operable screens, allowing for small portholes to give a glimpse inside. A grid of smaller screens keeps a minimal amount of separation between room and corridor, even at the maximally opened position guided by the sensor when volume recorded is high. These screen snapshots show two versions of this screen, based on two types of pattern parameters. As a new Grasshopper user, the main challenge for me was knowing enough functions in order to understand how I would set up this idea of repeating, kinetic screens. I found that the path to proficiency in Grasshopper is predicated upon broad exposure to all the tools available. Once I understood a baselevel of what functions were possible, it was very exciting to begin to combine them and think through a logical path to creating the design I had imagined. By contrast, I found the Firefly functions and Arduino operation very straightforward as they require less introduction to begin operation. Another challenge was that my initial idea involved the possibility of a randomized screen, changing its pattern every time a volume recording would be taken. Although I did not discover how to do this during the workshop, I was able to create a different pattern for opening the screen using the same grid geometries. This workshop opened the door to thinking about how architecture can be thought of kinetically, and the potential for interactive, communal spaces. I see Firefly as a gateway to creating new perceptions and feelings about congregation -or movement and making these activities perceived in the built environment. These tools can be used to awaken our senses about the places we inhabit.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
MICHAEL PROHOV + LUKE SMITH As our first exercise in leveraging the power of these new software tools, we decided to explore a relatively common architectural application: a photoresponsive canopy system. While it may be possible to achieve this through innovative materials, we chose to focus on mechanical solutions fostered by the arduino technology. In this iteration of a mutable canopy structure we proposed a grid of identical cells that would rotate independently such that each cell would maintain a position normal to the brightest point. Maximizing the condition of brightness for each cell could greatly increase the brightness exposure of the system as whole as opposed to a single orthogonal angle for the entire grid. If achieved, this could be potentially valuable for photovoltaic applications. The physical model depicted on this page represents one cell in a modular system.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE
surfaces
Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
Given the scope of the charrette, we decided to simplify our model by assuming the brightest point to be the location of the sun. After this was established, we created an arc to serve as the sun path and a point travelling along it to serve as the sun. From each typical panel a maximum brightness reading simulates a typical noontime condition (with the highest altitude angle at due south) whereas the darkest reading simulates a sunrise or sunset condition (with the lowest altitude angle). Part of understanding the logic of the firefly-arduino toolset requires stating what the proposed inputs and outputs are, before attempting to manipulate any data. In our case, brightness yields position. Or put another way, the photoresistor inputs brightness levels as analog data and our script outputs two angles corresponding to tilt and pan rotation. The level of brightness will define the sun’s distance along the arc which in turn will define the rotation of the panel. Using the previously defined arc we created a vector defined by the center of each cell towards the sun point. The plane of each hexagonal cell is defined as normal to this vector. Then by decomposing this vector into its constituent parts we were able to measure the two angles of rotation. To find the pan angle we created a ‘shadow vector’ constucted from the x and y components of the original vector and then measured the angle from this new vector to the global x-axis. The tilt output was defined by the angle between each cell’s local (rotated) xz-plane and the original vector. We then isolated the values of a single cell (highlighted in green) so that our physical model would correspond to the behaviour of a particular cell. The two angles of this cell were set as outputs to their respective servo motors and the physical model responds to light input from the light sensor. Our model has shown that each cell could respond independently to light levels such that they would each maintain an orthogonal position to the brightest point. In order to justify responding on a microlevel we would need to incorporate an additional level of complexity: the true direction of the brightest point sensed by each cell. Rather than each cell responding on a microlevel to a global condition: i.e. the position of the sun, each cell would need to respond to its own brightest point. This would certainly be feasible with additional light sensors per cell and a modified definition in grashopper. University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE
surfaces
Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
Emma Chen
with Ray Tam
The design concept for the installation was inspired by the artistic installations of Ned Kahn, an artist whos work allows viewers to oberve and interact with natural processes. Similar to his alluminum panel installations that enabled people see undulating patterns across a series of hung aluminum panels in the presence of wind, we wanted to create an installation that enabled people in an indoor space to be able to notice what was happening outdoors. The location of the installation would be in the central lightwell area of the first floor of the White Stag building. While the lightwell allows users to see the whether it is sunny or cloudy, bright or dark, it is complete sealed off from the outdoor environment. The intention for the installation is to create a mechanism for people to able to observe an additional natural process, that of wind. The panels would be translucent to conintue to allow light wash down the lightwell into the space. The presense of outside wind would be picked up by sensors and cause each of the installationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s panels to rotate at a specific time thereby creating an interesting undulating motion effect. Our primary focus was on the Rhino/Grasshopper model and trying to find an elegant way to make the Grasshopper script work properly. The biggest challenge was trying to figure out how to make each row of panels move in sync and have that pattern flow throughout the installation, smilar to seeing a wave ripple accross the ocean. The other challenge was trying to figure out how to apply this scrip to a non rectalinear surface. We used the majority our time debugging the buffering portions of the Grasshopper model, experimenting with different settings and input value ranges to make the ripple effect of the panels move across the installation. With the help of Geoff, Jason and Andrew, we were able come up with the undulating effect on the Grasshopper model we were pleased with. Had we had more time, we would have liked to further develop the physical model. Given we only had one serve motor, we were only able to mock up on panel, which made it difficult to illustrate the undulating effect. Further investigation would involvie multiple servo motors and panels as well as replacing the llight sensor with an actual wind sensor, which would allow us to create a more interesting effects in the physical model.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
JonathanÊ InternicolaÊ The focus of my project was how to create responsive furniture. By utilizing heat, bend, and pressure sensors I was interested in making a planar surface read human contours and movement and support it using a series of motors and pistons. The planar surface would be composed of a Òq uiltÓ of individual mechanisms to provide optimal responsiveness. Durring the workshop I focused on creating just one of those mechanisms that would respond to curvature, local body pressure, and global body pressure.
University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng
David Taylor & James Yamada The idea behind Light Control was that it would be a series of rotatable louvers & LED lights that would interact with with persons in proximity to the installation. Each louver was designed to open independantly as a direct function of a persons proximity based on an x and y axis plane, and the LED was designed change color for the same reason. Light Control currently is only a scaled down prototype that measures approximately 10”x10”x8”. The intent was for the idea to grow into a more human scale 10’x16’x1’ modular wall system. The analog input for sensing proximity on the protype forLight Control were two light sensors and two potentionmeters. A light sensor was combined with a potntiometer to simulate the x and y movement of person in relation to the protype throughthe Rhinocerous, Grasshopper, Firefly, & Arduino softwares. University of Oregon - Department of Architecture - A & A A - Summer in the City 2011
RESPONSIVE surfaces Jason Kelly Johnson and Andrew Payne - Grasshopper + Firefly workshop hosted by Nancy Cheng