YiTian_Chew_FinalJournal

STUDIO AIR JOURNAL CHEW YI TIAN (CHLOE) | 685846

Semester 1 2015 | Caitlyn Perry Studio

2

TABLE OF CONTENT

Introduction Conceptualisation

A.1 Design Futuring A.2 Design Computation A.3 Composition/Generation A.4 Conclusion A.5 Learning Outcomes A.6 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

Criteria Design

B.1 Research Field B.2 Case Study 01 B.3 Case Study 02 B.4 Technique: Development B.5 Technique: Prototypes B.6 Technique: Proposal B.7 Learning Objectives and Outcomes B.8 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

Detailed Design

C.1 Design Concept C.2 Tectonic Elements & Prototypes C.3 Final Detail Model C.4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes

3

INTRODUCTION

About Me

Chew Yi Tian, Chloe

I was born and raised in a vibrant cosmopolitan

city, Singapore. I moved to Melbourne in February 2015 in pursuit of my Architecture degree in University of Melbourne.

People often ask me, “Why Architecture?�. I got to admit that it all started with a computer game called The Sims. I was introduced to it at the age of 8 and was hooked onto Architecture ever since. Growing up determined to be an architect, I eventually graduated from Singapore Polytechnic with a Diploma in Architecture.

4

Throughout my three years in school and a year of working in architectural firm, I have gained an amount of knowledge in digital design and was able to equip myself with various digital softwares like Revit, Google SketchUp, Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator.

Parametric modeling is new to me, as I have no prior knowledge in Rhino and Grasshopper.

However having said that, I am very eager to explore the endless possibilities of this digital designing software.

INTRODUCTION

Previous Work

I was first taught AutoCAD and 3D Max during

my first year of diploma. It helped me better visualize my design concepts and assisted me through my design processes. However, I do feel restricted at times due to the limitation of the design softwares. We were also introduced to 3 dimensional modeling program such as Google Sketch Up and I later self-taught myself Autodesk Revit through online video tutorials.

During the 2nd year of my polytechnic, we were tasked to design a 10 storey residential apartment for a group of Yuppies. My design was focused around the concept of embracing nature into the building by incorporating existing site natural elements (eg. framing of views). I used the Building Information Modeling (BIM) program, Revit, throughout the project. It helped save time and allowed me to better understand my project.

5

“

Answering the ‘design futur

ing a clear sense of what design ne Even more significantly, it means ch what we design.. . ...Whenever we destroy something- the omelette at cost of the tree, through to fossil fu the planet’s atmosphere.1

6

ring’ question actually requires haveeds to be mobilized for or against. hanging our thinking, then how and bring something into being we also t the cost of the egg, the table at the uel generated energy at the cost of

�

7

A.1

Design Futuring Week One

8

Fig. 1: Exterior Night View (Courtesy of NBBJ)

A.1: DESIGN FUTURING

Hangzhou Sports Park Hangzhou, China NBBJ & CCDI 2013

Fig. 2: Variations of external envelope design (Courtesy of NBBJ)

As the demand for steel increases globally,

the designers decided to utilize parametric design to cut waste while creating functionality and form. This allows design changes to be made with minimal effort while the design team efficiently explore design alternatives and variations with the conceptual constraints.

To design the exterior, an integrated parametric system was created to conceptualize, simulate, and document the complex geometric systems.

Parametric control of the point cloud was the primary means of controlling the form.

Parameters for manipulating the point cloud enabled the design team to study different configurations of the exterior surfaces (Fig. 2).

For conceptualization, the parametric system was set up to explicitly define the control surface geometry and study formal variations.

Physics simulation tools were used to test basic structural behavior. For detailed analysis and engineering,

custom scripts were used to automate the communication of centerline information to the structural engineering team. As for documentation process, parametric workflow systems were invented to link together disparate design and documentation environments for a more seamless international collaboration.

The rapid acceleration towards global practice coupled with advancements in informationbased economies necessitate that architects develop their systems and processes to be adaptive and flexible.

This project with similar areanas like the famed Bird’s Nest, the Beijing National Stadium, was completed in year 2013. It strongly exhibited the process where new design tools were invented, developed, integrated, coordinated, modified and shared for the purposes of delivering a project of a spcial civic value in China.

9

Fig. 3: Interior view of pavillion (Courtesy of Sy lvain Deleu)

A.1: DESIGN FUTURING

Serpentine Gallery Pavllion London, England Toyo Ito 2002

Fig. 4: “Wormhole” model showing critical depth study (Courtesy of Cecil Balmond)

Fig. 5: Pattern Study (Courtesy of Toyo Ito)

I

to’s design strives for architecture that is fluid and not confined by the limitations of modern architecture. He experimented with the light aluminum material and incorporated a certain degree of transparency. At first look, the building appeared to be a complicated mixture of random pattern. However, it is in fact derived from an algorithm of a cube that expanded as it rotated (Fig. 5).

The use of parametric designing is largely evident in the design of the façade. The intersecting lines created by the rotation formed different triangles and trapezoids that gave a sense of infinite motion. The placement of materials were designed to maximize framing of the surrounding environment (Fig. 4).

The creation of the pavilion sparked several encouraging and positive thoughts when it opened, comparisons were made to other new buildings and the gallery came out on top. The pavilion also sparked peoples interest in parametric designing when it came out in 2002, it was one of the buildings that clearly demonstrated the use of algorithm for architecture. It was an eye opener for other architects to learn what parametric design was all about. It was a bold move by Ito that was well received to the public. Even though the building was only up for 3 months, it has been regarded as one of the most successful temporary pavilions till date.

11

“

Computers, by their natur

correctly programmed, they can fol conclusion.2

12

re, are superb analytical engines. If llow a line of reasoning to its logical

�

13

A.2

Design Computation Week Two

14

Fig. 6: Canopies come “alive� at night with lighting (Courtesy of Grant Associates)

A.2: DESIGN COMPUTATION

Design Computation

Formal meaning of digital design was to

computerize ideas that were preconceived in the mind of the designer. While it is often referred to as digitized design or computerization, it no longer is seen as a truly creative digital practice. The use of digital in Architecture has moved from being a documentation tool to a much more powerful computational tool. With that, designers are now able to extend their abilities to deal with highly complex situations as it allows the exploration of new ideas. The processing of information and relationship of elements which constitute to a specific environment; providing a framework for negotiation and influencing the interrelation of datasets of information, with the capacity to generate complex order, form and structure3 which can be expressed as an algorithm.

Computational design advocates a total new approach to the design process where algorithmic programming for a set of outlines and variables are done which it then computes and derive the formal composition. Through this approach, designers are able to simulate building performance by incorporating performance analysis and knowledge about material, tectonics

and parameters of production machinery in their design drawings. This methods employs the faultless and thorough manner of the computer to run monotonous data and processing, which is something that the human mind lacks of. This takes over an interpretive role by understanding the results from generating code, and through modification, new option and design with further potential is being created.

Computation design impact the fabrication and construction of the building greatly as it currently tends to be the development of parametric families of components and in necessary control of the data.

Computation presents an integrated design approach which allows further flexibility towards the later stages of a design project as parameters can be tweaked without the need to redesign the entire work. In the early stage of this approach, conceptualization and criteria designing & detailing will be resolved so that the final built form can be computed in a relatively short period of time. This allow increase efficiency and allow for better communication.

15

16

Fig. 7: Photo of the “Supertree” (Courtesy of Grant Associates)

A.2: DESIGN COMPUTATION

Gardens by the Bay

Singapore, Singapore Wilkinson Eyre Associates & Grant Associates 2012

Fig. 8: Diagram showing the environmental loop is the foundation (Courtesy of Grant Associates)

The whole planning uses an intelligent

environmental infrastructure, allowing endangered plants, which could not normally be found in Singapore to flourish, this provide both leisure and education purposes for the inhabitants.4 By engaging with contemporary computational design techniques and parametric studies, it allows creation of the dome to open up all possibilities and the flexibilities of forms and materials. The envelope itself consists of a grid shell-arch steel structure with a double glazed skin that sits directly on the grid shell, and the arches are the main load-bearing components.

Supertree was created with the purpose of sustainable energy and water technologies integral to help cool the space. (Fig. 8) With the intend for the display of the plants that typically

thrive separately in cool dry and cool moist climates, careful planning and calculation was being done to ensure sustainability is acheived.

With the help of parametric modelling and engineering, it brought about the realization of column-less, magnificent space. (Fig. 9)

Fig. 9: Interior space of dome (Courtesy of W. Eyre Architects) 17

Fig. 10: Shellstar Pavillion (Courtesy of Dennis Lo)

A.2: DESIGN COMPUTATION

Shellstar Pavillion Wan Cai, Hong Kong MATSYS 2012

Fig. 11: Algorithmic transformation diagram (Courtesy of MATSYS)

S

hellstar is a lightweight temporary pavilion that maximizes its spatial performance while minimizing structure and material.

The form emerged out of a digital form-finding process based on the classic techniques developed by Antonio Guadi and Frei Otto, among others. Using Grasshopper and the physics engine Kangaroo, the form self-organizes into the catenary-like thrust surfaces that are aligned with the structural vectors and allow for minimal structural depths.5 The structure is composed of nearly 1500 individual cells that are slightly non-planar. In reality the cells must bend slightly to take on the global curvature of the form. However, the cells cannot be too non-planar as this would make it difficult to cut them from flat sheet materials.

Using a custom Python script, each cell is optimized so as to eliminate any interior seams and make them as planar as possible, greatly simplifying fabrication.

Using more custom python scripts, each cell was unfolded flat and prepared for fabrication.

The cell flanges and labels were automatically added and the cell orientation was analyzed and then rotated to align the flutes of the Coroplast material with the principal bending direction of the surface (Fig. 11).6 Using contemporary computational design techniques, the designers were able to achieve their goals in mind through the exploration of new ideas. The way that the arched structural forms congregate to dispersed point is also worthy of mention.

“

The emphasis shifts from th

of form”7

20

”

he “making of form” to the “finding

21

A.3

Composition/ Generation Week Three

22

Fig. 12: Research Pavillion (Courtesy of IDC/ITKE)

A.3: COMPUTATION/ GENERATION

Computation/ Generation

Opposing the conventional understanding

of form generation through drawings, generative design allows the exploration of new ideas which increases the designer’s ability to solve complex problems efficiently. By providing a framework of information through an understood language of algorithm between the human and the design computation software, it is able to generate performance feedback at various stages of a project to help increase productivity.

Computation invites a vast exploration space for computational concepts, such as topological geometries, isomorphic polysurfaces (“blobs�), motion kinematics and dynamics, key shape animation (metamorphosis, parametric design) etc.

This analytical computation can be used to actively shape the buildings into a more dynamic outlook.

Though the shift from composition to generation created more room for innovation that cannot be generated through conventional design process, it on the other hand limit designers who have yet familiarize themselves with the design computation software that may result in less impressive end products and waste of time in the process. It also invite impractical imagination of designer. Computation should not be entirely relied on but it should be used to its fullest advantage as an accompanied tool for designers who will eventually be the moderator of the overall design.

23

24

Fig. 13: View of Research Pavillion (Courtesy of IDC/ITKE)

A.3: COMPUTATION/ GENERATION

Research Pavillion Stuttgart, Germany IDC/ ITKE 2011

Fig. 14: Close up of structure material (Courtesy of IDC / ITKE)

T

he project explores the biological structure principles and performance of a range of different geometries through a series of computational processes that is eventually built exclusively with extremely thin sheets of 6.5mm thick of plywood. During the analysis of different biological structures, the plate skeleton morphology of the sand dollar became a basic principles of the bionic structure.

Form finding and structural design are closely interlinked through computation programs8 and it optimized data exchange which made it possible to analyze and modify the critical points of the model. The modular system of polygonal plates are linked together at the edges by finger-like calcite protrusions and the glued and bolted joints were tested based on the structural calculations generated.

25

26

Fig. 15: Interior Space (Courtesy of Hufton + Crow)

A.3: COMPUTATION/ GENERATION

Heydar Aliyev Center Baku, Azerbaijan Zaha Hadid Architects 2012

Fig. 16: Close up of structure material (Courtesy of IDC / ITKE)

T

he project aim was to relate to that historical understanding of architecture by developing a firmly contemporary interpretation, reflecting a more nuanced understanding. Fluidity in architecture is not new to this region. In historical Islamic architecture, rows, grids, or sequences of columns flow to infinity like trees in a forest, establishing non-hierarchical space. The public plaza, as urban ground, undulates and folds upwards to create internal spaces, a whole new kind of inclusive public civic space for the city.

A design that was inspired by “the fluid geometry of water in motion� was developed using computation software, it is a highly precise but constantly evolving digital model. Advanced computing allowed for the continuous control and communication of these complexities among the numerous project participants.9 27

“

The public plaza, as urban ground, undulates and folds upwards to create internal spaces, a whole new kind of inclusive public civic space for the city.10

�

28

Fig. 17: (Courtesy of Hufton + Crow)

29

Conclusion/ Learning Outcomes

A.4-A.5

Week Three

30

A.4-A.5: CONCLUSION AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

Conclusion & Learning Outcomes

Architecture is seen, experienced and

felt every second of our life, transcending both time and space. It has always been a method for cultures to express their influential movements. It is so much more than a structure or a built form. It reflects the economic, social and political cultures. We have shifted from digitalizing designs that were preconceived in the mind of the designer to computation where our designs will be further explored in ways that we can never do. In the past, Computer Aided Design softwares were meant for a more accurate and faster way of documentation and communication. However, architecture is moving towards parametric design and algorithmic sketching. It is innovative as it enables the creation of new geometries, the use of new structural systems and implementation of new construction technologies. A new design logic and a different way of thinking results in an architectural language and style that is unique and fresh, steering clear of conventional forms and designs. Personally, I believe that computational design has had a positive impact on Architecture. The outcomes that are proposed by this approach augment architectural intellect and unfold innovative discourse that cannot be predicted. In the next part of this journal I will be exploring and experimenting with algorithmic scripting and design in response to our given design brief.

It has been an eye-opener thus far. Studying of algorithmic design through learning Grasshopper (not forgetting the frustration of not getting it right), and studying of precedents, the logic of parametric design is something new and foreign to me. Before beginning this module, I am ashamed to say that I have never thought of the difference between computerization and computation methods that are now instilled in me. Parametric, generative design, algorithmic scripting, all these terms are defining a new architectural approach that is taking place. It is interesting to see how computation softwares have pushed the limits of design with project like Research Pavilion

by ICD/ITKE. Unlike traditional lightweight construction which can only be applied to load optimized shapes, the new design principle derived through computation can be applied to a wide range of custom geometry.

I have also learnt some new skills with regard to parametric modeling in Rhinoceros and Grasshopper. I believe that this studio is a learning curve and that I am simply at the beginning and it is an opportunity to discover new creative happenings.

31

A.6 32

Algorithm Sketches Week Three

A.6: ALGORITHM SKETCHES

A vertical wall with 2/3 curve loft that can be manipulated by adjusting the points.

I

was tasked to create an undulating ground surface and investigate biomimetic forms, using the box morph tool and propogate it over the surface. Although it was not a very successful take on the biomimetic form, I have manage to create a unique undulating form with the surface pattern of a geometry that I have created myself. This results in a very different end product than what I expected.

These sketches demonstrate that tractability of parametric modelling. Numerous iterations can be derived from a single entity within a short time frame.

A box geometry that can be manipulated by voronoi 3d and by removing a few blocks, it creates an interesting form almost instantly.

The change can be visualized in real-time and in three-dimensions instantly. It is efficient in fabrication preparation and that is a huge advantage as it allows designers more time in the exploration stage that will not be compromised by physical and time constraints.

Due to its nature, the parametric models also encourage the designers to discover the unexpected outcomes (e.g. by simply rotating the model or a wrong connection of components) that could result in something new.

33

References 1.

Fry, Tony. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p. 4 <https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au> [Accessed:11 Mar 2015] 2.

Peters, Brady. ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought (2013), p. 4 < https:// app.lms.unimelb.edu.au> [Accessed: 19 Mar 2015] 3.

Peters, Brady. ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought (2013), p. 4 < https:// app.lms.unimelb.edu.au> [Accessed: 19 Mar 2015] 4.

Archdaily, ‘Gardens by the Bay / Grant Associates’, 2012, <http://www.archdaily.com/254471/ gardens-by-the-bay-grant-associates/> [Accessed: 18 Mar 2015] 5.

Matsys, ‘Shellstar Pavilion’, 2013, < http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/> [Accessed: 18 Mar 2015] 6.

Matsys, ‘Shellstar Pavilion’, 2013, < http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/> [Accessed: 18 Mar 2015] 7.

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), <https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au> [Accessed: 18 Mar 2015] 8.

Dezeen, ‘ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at University of Stuttgart’, 2011, <http://www.dezeen. com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/> [Accessed: 19 Mar 2015] 9.

Archdaily, ‘Heydar Aliyev Center / Zaha Hadid Architects’, 2013, < http://www.archdaily. com/448774/heydar-aliyev-center-zaha-hadid-architects/> [Accessed 19 Mar 2015] 10. Archdaily, ‘Heydar Aliyev Center / Zaha Hadid Architects’, 2013, < http://www.archdaily. com/448774/heydar-aliyev-center-zaha-hadid-architects/> [Accessed 19 Mar 2015]

34

Image References Fig. 1 HangZhou Sports Park NBBJ, 2010. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/56594/nbbj-and-ccdi-break-ground-on-hangzhousports-park/ [Accessed: 11 Mar 2015] Fig. 2 HangZhou Sports Park Miller, Nathan, 2011. Available: https://acadia.s3.amazonaws.com/paper/file/T6KK2N/AcadiaRegional_016.pdf [Accessed: 11 Mar 2015] Fig. 3 Serpentine Gallery Pavilion Jordana, Sebastian, 2013. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/344319/serpentine-gallery-pavilion2002-toyo-ito-cecil-balmond-arup/ [Accessed: 11 Mar 2015] Fig. 4 & 5 Serpentine Gallery Pavilion Collective Architects, 2011. Available: http://www.collectivearchitects.eu/blog/77/serpentinepavilion-case-study [Accessed: 11 Mar 2015] Fig. 6, 7, 8, 9 Gardens By The Bay ArchDaily, 2012. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/254471/gardens-by-the-bay-grant-associates/ [Accessed: 18 Mar 2015] Fig. 10, 11 Shellstar Pavilion Matsys, 2012. Available: http://matsysdesign.com/2013/02/27/shellstar-pavilion/ [Accessed: 18 Mar 2015] Fig. 12, 13, 14 Research Pavilion at University of Stuttgart Dezeen, 2011. Available: http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-theuniversity-of-stuttgart/ [Accessed: 19 Mar 2015] Fig. 15, 16, 17 Heydar Aliyev Center ArchDaily, 2013. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/448774/heydar-aliyev-center-zaha-hadid-architects/ [Accessed: 19 Mar 2015]

35

B.1

Research Field Week Four

36

Fig. 18 : 3D printed soft seat (Courtesy of Lilian Van Daal)

B.1: RESEARCH FIELD

Biomimicry

Fig. 19 : Biomimicry in Nature (Courtesy of Autodesk)

The nature is the largest laboratory that ever

existed and ever will. Biomimicry is providing an opportunity for digital design techniques to be implemented through the framework of ‘biologically inspired processes’.11 This new way of design process applies to principles governed by nature which are supported by billions of years of evidence. The design process is not simply the replication of form, but rather the investigation and adaptation of the system.

Therefore, Biomimicry provides the opportunity to employ tools and ideas otherwise unavailable to the designer. This enables the application and imitation of nature’s design resolutions and ideas in an attempt to resolve human problems in the movement towards conditions conductive to life.

Nature provides an opportunity to generate forms which consider and manipulate materiality enabling fabrication of forms which imitates a sustainable system as much of the complexity, strength, toughness and sophistication generated by nature are made of

Fig. 20 : Research Pavillion 2012 (Courtesy of IDC/ITKE)

simple materials (ie. Keratin, Calcium carbonate and silica).12 The philosophy of biomimicry is the borrowing of the ‘fundamental formative processes and information systems of nature in the search for solutions to the environmental and human problems which govern our designs.13 Through the understanding and appreciation of the complex structure of nature, we will then be able to explore the potential of this design technique. Computation has enabled this exploration and design technique to evolve and inform design through scientific explanation.

As explored in earlier precedent projects, such as the Research Pavilion designed by IDC/ITKE exhibited the potential produced by biomimicry adaptive system in conjunction with computational methods. Nevertheless, intensive material research is required in order to incorporate material adaptability through the design process.

37

B.2

Case Study 1.0 Week Five

38

Fig. 21 : VoltaDom (Courtesy of Skylar Tibbits)

B.2: CASE STUDY 01

VoltaDom

MIT Skylar Tibbits 2011

Fig. 22: VoltaDom (Courtesy of Skylar Tibbits)

T

his installation, titled VoltaDom, was developed by SJEY, which was founded by Skylar Tibbits. It was created as an entry for the 150th FAST Arts Festival and as a result, it is currently situated on the MIT campus, spanning through a corridor.14 This design explores the use of computational processes, and this is evidenced through the development of a complex and highly geometric pavilion structure. In a sense, this design is reminiscent of the vaulted ceilings in ‘Gothic Architecture’, within the cathedrals in particular, as they play a part in enhancing acoustics. It was developed in conjunction with computer coding, and was later created using fabrication technologies. In my opinion, the white use of materials provides the structure a dynamic

quality as the geometry in conjunction with light adds a multi-faceted view, which in turn comes down to the intricacy and detailing of the extruding elements.

This project explores the ideas associated with architectural “surface [paneling]”, which came into play through the assembling of this installation. Fabrication strips were used as a method of creating the curved vaults (as evidence through the area where the vaults intersect).15 In the pages that follow, I aim to explore the lengths of manipulation, by substituting the geometries for others as well as placement of points and its boundary.

B.2: CASE

Original Iteration

Replaced pop2d with RadGrid

Replaced pop2d with RadGrid

Closed cone

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

5.1 Changed one of the cone to sphere

40 Added Field Patterning

1.2 Decreased cone radius size + Increased points in pop2d

6.1

Increased the upper radiu

2.2 Replaced pop2d with Radial + Decreased number of grid cells in radial direction

Replaced pop2d with He grid cells value us

3.2 Increased number of grid cells in radial direction

Decreased number of gr

High height

Both to sphere

Increased Points +Increased divided grid

4.2

5.2

6.2

Closed cone

Changed one of th

Decrease

E STUDY 01

1.5 1.3

us of the cone using Dom2

Decreased points in pop2d

2.3

exGrid + Increased X and Y sing number slider

3.3

rid cells in polar direction

+ high height

4.3

5.3 he cone to cylinder

ed Points

1.4

2.4

Replaced pop2d with TriGrid + Increased cone radius

3.4 Replaced pop2d with pop geometry

Opened cone + high height

Decrease the points for pop2d

4.4

5.4

Increased points in pop2d + Increased upper radius of the cones using Dom2

2.5

Increased cone top opening size

3.5

Replaced pop2d with pop3d

Opened cone + low height + high density

Low heigth + higher density

4.5

5.5

41 6.3

Changed pop2d to RadGrid

6.4

6.5 Decreased V Count + Increased grid cells in radial direction

B.2: CASE STUDY 01

Successful Iterations & Selection Criteria

42

Iteration 2.4

Iteration 3.2

Iteration 3.5

Iteration 4.5

B.2: CASE STUDY 01

GENERATIVE PROCESSES While generting the 6 series of different iterations, my aim was to understand the algorithm through flexing, the function of each node and figuring out which inputs could be replaced and still work with the other components. Through manipulating the numerical values, I begin to manipulate the nodes themselves.

Therefore, there is no direction in terms of form.

Through that I begin to experience “research by design” as mentioned by Rivka and Robert Oxman.

SELECTION CRITERIA My generative processes were lack of a formal direction from the start, however my generative criteria for the iterations were generated mainly around the potential of it as an architecture.

Focusing more specifically on the dynamism, perforation, geometry and pattern.

Although I ended up with some iterations that look different from the original purpose of the algorithm, I managed to create many new designs with the original geometry of the project.

HIGHLIGHTS ITERATION 2.4: Retaining the original geometry, I arranged them in a triangular grid manner which turned out to have a very interesting result. The form created negative and positive spaces which allows for perforations that has the potential as a wall cladding.

ITERATION 3.2: The look of the geometry

changed drastically as I manipulated the numerical values of the cones and also arranged them in a radial grid manner in which the overlapping geometries generated a very interesting overall pattern.

ITERATION 3.5: Instead of the origin points laid out in 2d, I decided to manipulate the points with a 3d generative component. The end result was very pleasing as it demostrated perforation within the form and with the geometries overlapping each other in different plane, it created depth which gives an idea of movement.

ITERATION 4.5: I manipulated the numerical values of the cones opening to create a cylinder looking base geometry, and with the number of origin points increased it in turned increased the perforation of this form. Something to note is that in my iteration 5.3 it displayed a similar looking form, this shows that there is more than one way to manipulate the algorithm that will generate the similar end result.

SPECULATION Instead of looking at it as a wall cladding or panelling, each iterations could be seen as positive and negative space that will be extruded out as “rooms”. Perhaps the entire series of 1 could be further developed with that idea. Selected iterations such as 2.4 could also be further developed with the idea of secondary spaces surrounding a core area. Iteration 3.2 could also be looked at it the same way with the most important space in the “heart” of the form and less important spaces spreaded out to the peripheral area. Iteration 3.5, however, will not work and therefore becomes irrelevant. As for iteration 4.5, it can also work for the idea of positive and negative spaces.

43

B.3

Case Study 2.0 Week Five

44

Fig. 23 : ZA11 Pavillion (Courtesy of Patrick Bedarf)

B.3: CASE STUDY 02

ZA11 Pavillion

Cluj, Romania Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan 2011

Fig. 24: ZA11 Pavillion as a performance space (Courtesy of Georgeta Macovei)

ZA11 Pavillion is a project designed

and fabricated by a group of students in Cluj, Romania, with the use of advanced parametric design techniques. It has a strong representational power and is integrated into its historically-charged context. With a small budget and donated materials, the design brief was to create an innovative pavilion that could be flexible space for uses ranging from a temporary book shop to a performance space.

The temporary space was designed to intrigue passersby and to draw them into the space for various events. This was achieved by creating a spectacular ring subdivided into deep hexagonal prisms that could both define the venue for the

events as well as provide glimpses to intrigue and attract people into it.

This project succeed in reaching its goal as a powerful urban attractor which managed to engage the local society on all levels. Both young and senior citizens, both professionals and non-architects by the completed pavilion as well as during the act of its construction, thus this proves to be more than an indifferent temporary shelter.16 This integration allows a possibility to create vast amount of variations through changing geometry and patterns.

45

B.3: CASE STUDY 02

Reverse Engineering

Fig. 25: Diagram showing parametric design processes (Courtesy of ZA11 Pavillion designers)

CURVE CURVE

MOVE/SCALE

CURVE

LOFT

HEX ON S

CURVE BREP

46

SOLID DIFFERENCE

T

XAGON SURFACE

TRIANGLES PATTERN ON SURFACE

B.3: CASE STUDY 02

Failed Attempt 1: After creating different segments on the surface, I tried to put on hexagon cells pattern on it by attempting to convert the cull patterns to lines on surface but failed.

Failed Attempt 2: Started off with Surface Divide component and used cull pattern on the surfaces. However, I could not achieve the uniform hexagon cells.

Failed Attempt 3: Component SolidDifference was used here to cut out the triangle patterns on surfaces but it failed to do. It is due to the fact that the surface created is not a solid item and thus the component did not work.

OUTER SURFACE MOVE/SCALE

SURFACE DIVIDE

INNER SURFACE

LOFT

SURFACE

BREP

47

B.3: CASE STUDY 02

Reverse Engineering

48

STEP 1

STEP 2

STEP 4

STEP 5

B.3: CASE STUDY 02

STEP 1: Basic shape of ZA11 Pavillion derived from 3 irregular shape of rings. Also a point in the centre of the rings was set, it will be used in the later steps.

STEP 2: Lofted the curves to get the base surface.

STEP 3: Applied irregular hexagon cells on the base surface using the Hexgonal cells component.

STEP 3

STEP 4: The base surface was copied, moved and scaled down by the centre point that generates the inner surface.

STEP 5: Lofted the corresponding lines of hexagon on the inner and outer surfaces, which was then DeBrep-ed to obtain individual surfaces. The surfaces were then extruded and capped to give it a thickness.

STEP 6: Applied the pattern created to each individual surfaces. The pattern was then scaled down to create a smaller triangle that was meant to be the â&#x20AC;&#x153;cut-outâ&#x20AC;?. To achieve the effect, the smaller triangle was extruded and solid trimmed with the extruded surfaces accordingly.

STEP 6

49

B.3: CASE

Grasshoppe

50

STUDY 02

er Definition

Pattern was made by Rhinoceros and set by Grasshopper as a surface. The surface are divided diagonally to make a right-angled triangles. Two points are generated symmetrically by the diagonal and then by the points, scaled down and right-angled triangles are generated just like the way inner and outer shell of basic surfaces are formed. Then, trim two smaller triangles to make a hole.

51

B.3: CASE STUDY 02

Reverse Engineering

Final outcome of my reverse engineered project

Fig. 26: ZA11 Pavillion (Courtesy of Patrick Bedarf) 52

B.3: CASE STUDY 02

CHALLENGES

DIFFERENCES

I was stuck for a couple of times before deriving with the final definition that achieved the closest result to the chosen project. Challenges faced:

The differences between my reverse engineered model and the original project piece is the type of joinery that connects each individual piece together. Also, the hexagons generated in my reverse engineered model is more uniformly arranged whereas the one in ZA11 Pavilion is more randomly distributed throughout. Lastly, the inner surface was created by scale and move of the external surface in my reverse engineered model, however the original project may have used the process of extrusion of hexagon cells for a certain distance instead of scaling the external surface.

• Surfaces had no thickness to it. Resolved it by extruding and capping all the holes.

• Initially at Step 6 where triangular holes are needed to cut out from the base form, SolidDifference component was used but it did not work. Resolved it by replacing the component with SolidTrim.

• Baked and realized that the surfaces where the triangles were being trimmed off are not covered. Resolved it by brepping the scaled inner triangles.

SIMILARITIES The similarities between my reverse engineered model and the original project piece is the overall shape as well as the hexagonal cells on the surface. The pattern projected on each individual surfaces is also similar to the original.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, each individual pieces have to be in a correct order as generated by the design computational software in order for the whole structure to work. As each piece has a different shape and size, this design relies greatly on the parametric design technique to generate the results for fabrication.

Without the constraint of the original form and some alterations, perhaps it could be used as a continous piece of multi-function landscape furniture.

53

54

B.4

Technique: Development NTW

55

B.4: Technique Development

Technique Development HEXAGON

56

DIAMOND

TRIANGLE 1

B.4: Technique Development

TRIANGLE 2

QUADS

SKEWED QUADS

57

B.4: Technique Development

HEXAGON

58

DIAMOND

TRIANGLE 2

B.4: Technique Development

SKEWED QUADS

ITERATIONS For the iterations on page 56 & 57, I mainly derived them from replacing the hexagon cell grid to varies options on a plugin for grasshopper called LunchBox. It is a useful tool as it allows me to explore the various types of structural grid. I further manipulated them by trying to achieve my design criteria by changing the form of the base curves that determines the overall form of my structure. Interestingly, the end results were satisfying as I manage to achieve structure with spatial qualities.

For the iterations on this page, my aim was to go beyond the definitionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limit. As shown in the first row of iterations I have replaced the extrude component with pipe component and the results I got were pleasant, some of them seem to be exploded off the structure itself.

It is interesting to see how by just replacing a component can do such difference to the overall form. For the second row of iterations on this page, I tried out the components on weaverbird for a change.

Retaining some of the original geometries selected from previous iterations, my aim was to change the pattern on each surface.

However, I did encounter a few challenges before arriving at shown iterations. Intiailly I replaced the triangular pattern with a square but it did not work. Thus, after experimenting with a few others, I finally settled with using the components Constant Quad Subdivide & Panel Frame from LunchBox plugin under generate tab as seen on the last 3 rows of iterations.

59

B.4: Technique: Development

Successful Iterations & Selection Criteria

Successful Iteration 1

Successful Iteration 2

60

Successful Iteration 3

B.4: Technique: Development

GENERATIVE PROCESSES While generting the 50 different iterations, my aim was to slowly evolve away from the original definition until they are no longer identifiable and also pushing the definition to its limit.

Besides manipulating the numerical values, I also begin to replace components for varying end product.

SELECTION CRITERIA Similar to my previous selection criteria, the iterations were generated mainly around the potential of it as an architecture. As I have a clearer idea of what my design proposal is going to be like, I generated the iterations around it.

Focusing more specifically on being structurally biomimicry, geometry & pattern, perforation and also the spatial quality created. I would like to create varying openings that will contribute to the spatial quality and also guide the users towards CERES.

HIGHLIGHTS SUCCESSFUL ITERATION 1: For this iteration, I experimented with the perforation of each panels by manipulating the geometry and pattern. First, I changed the base geometry to (almost) the form I derived from my site analysis for the chosen site. With that, I changed the patterning of each panels with a Constant Quad subdivided component and the end result was very pleasing as it demonstrated a different perforation within the form. This will create a unique light and shadow play within the space. The amount of light passing through can be controlled with the U and V value of the hexagonal cell component. With a higher output of U and V value, it will result in a darker interior as the surface opening gets smaller and with a lower U and V value of the division of the surfaces will it allow more light to enter into the space.

SUCCESSFUL ITERATION 2: Although I have manipulated the definition by replacing them with other cell components like Triangle, Diamond and Quads, Hexagonal cell is still the most successful and appropriate component.

By using the hexagonal cell component help to achieve a form that is structurally biomimicry.

SUCCESSFUL ITERATION 3: I manipulated the base geometry of this form to look like a “cave”. While retaining the Triangular cell grid component on the surface, this turned out to be the most successful iteration out of the other cell grid component due to the complex spatial quality it created within.

SPECULATION I started generating my iterations with the consideration of it being incorporated into my chosen site and interesting forms started to be created. Instead of looking at it as a gathering space as it was originally intended for, I can start looking at it as a new entrance way into CERES. Perhaps an entrance way with the spatial quality similar to the successful iteration 3 that will draw pedestrians in. As for successful iteration 1, I tried to achieve a base geometry shape that was in respond to the chosen site, however due to the definition’s restriction, I was only able to achieve a small part of it. Perhaps I can start looking into Kangaroo Physics and SpringFromLine component that will allow for a more flexible form finding process. Lastly, for successful interation 2 being structurally biomimicry, I can consider varying the thickness of each panels. With the increase in thickness of selected panels at the lower part of the structure, it will not only make my structure stronger but also perhaps counter the site’s flood issue.

61

B.5 62

Technique: Prototypes Week Six

B.5: Technique: Prototypes

Technique Prototypes

Prototype 1: Exploring tied joints and hexagonal shape

With the ideas derived from technique

developments, I thought about producing them into a 3-dimensional models. It is useful because what may seem to work on Grasshopper might not necessarily be constructable in real-life.

In the process, not only do I learn about the constructability of a model, but also I started thinking about ways to fit the elements together.

I also started to see how different joints can affect the look of the structure.

For example, prototype 1 uses a tying joint where 2 pieces of panel are secured together via a metal cable wire. It appears to be almost flushed with the panels whereas in the slotted joinery prototypes, it seem to be expressed as part of the design.

With the 3 slotted joinery prototype, I realized that the joinery makes a difference to the overall spatial and aesthetic quality of the structure. It can either be â&#x20AC;&#x153;concealedâ&#x20AC;? or expressed as a design element. Also, while making the prototypes, I have learned that the arrangement of the panels will result in perforation of varies shape and sizes. This will in turn create a variety of selection of shadow casted by the simple manipulation of joinery detail. These prototypes satisfy the requirement

of the brief of the structure being a selfcomissioned architecture.

Material chosen for the prototypes are grey boxboard from FabLab, besides the fact that the card cutter was out of service, I thought grey boxboard was an interesting material to look at because although it is a basic material, I found that prototypes 2, 3 & 4 were very stable and has potential of being a structurally sound modular cell. However, I do think that I will be using a different material for the final model.

To produce these prototypes, I have tried to use grasshopper definition to fabricate however it did not work as I expected and was running out of time. Thus, I resulted in drawing each pieces in Rhino file instead. For the production of my final model, I do hope that I will be able to prefabricate my model using the fabrication grasshopper definitions given.

From these prototypes, I have realized that I have full control of the light and shadow play that will affect the overall spatial aesthetic value of the structure. With a simple change of patterning on each panels and also the density of the U & V value of the grid system.

63

B.5: Technique: Prototypes

Prototype 2, 3 & 4: Exploring varies slotted joints

Assembly Sequence: Pieces of fabricated panels are fixed together by joinery specially designed for the prototypes.

64

B.5: Technique: Prototypes

Joint Type 1 prototype: In this prototype, I have chosen a simple grid system of triangles with simple triangular patterning on them. The joinery to fix the panels together is a simple cross that allows 4 panels to connect together and also an asterick that connects 8 panels

Prototype 2: Cross/Asterick Joint Joint Type 2 prototype: Retaining the same grid structural system and pattern as the previous joint type, this joinery is a perfect circle with either 4 or 8 cuts that allows varies panels to connect together.

Prototype 3: Circular Joint Joint Type 3 prototype: With the same grid structural system and patterning on each panel as the previous prototypes, this joinery was derived from a square. It allows 4 or 8 panels to connect at each time.

Prototype 4: Square Joint 65

66

B.6

Technique: Proposal Week Seven

67

MAJOR HUMAN CIRCULATION PATH

WINTER SUNSET

WINTER SUN-

SUMMER SUNSET

SUMMER SUNRISE

CHOSEN SITE

PATHWAY LEADING TO CERES COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT

68

B.6: Technique: Proposal

A New Entranceway

Existing signages directing to CERES Park are badly vandalized and unclear.

I have chosen to design a new entranceway

from Merri Creek Trail leading into CERES Community Entrance Park. The structure will be a form that sits at the junction where the existing pathway leading to CERES Park and Merri Creek Trail meets. In comparison to man-made constructions natural biological constructions exhibit a significantly higher degree of morphological differentiation. This allows a higher performance and resource efficiency and this is why my proposed design structure will be structurally biomimicry. This will help to achieve the brief of self-comissioned architecture that will express and support

continuous relationships between technical, cultural and natural systems.

Major human circulation path was observed along Merri Creek Trail with activities like strolling, jogging and cycling. Although CERES Community Environment Park has an existing pathway that connects to Merri Creek Trail, the directional signages are badly vandalized and unclear. Thus, this hinders the wayfinding of pedestrians into CERES Park. My aim for this project is to attract more citizens into CERES Park.

69

B.6: Technique: Proposal

CURVE CURVE

MOVE/SCALE

CURVE

HEXAGON ON SURFACE

LOFT

OUTER SURFACE MOVE/SCALE

INNER SURFACE

LOFT

SURFACE

DEBREP

CURVE BREP

SOLID TRIM

EXTRUDE

PATTERN ON SURFACE

EXPLODE

EXTRUDE

My thought flow chart showing the components that I will be focusing on for the next part of my design.

70

B.6: Technique: Proposal

Technique Proposal

Rendered prototype for form finding

U

Rendered prototype for spatial quality

sing computational software like Grasshopper allows me to extend my ability to explore new ideas. The processing of information and relationship of elements which constitute to the site chosen provides a framework for negotiation and influencing the interrelation of datasets of information, with the capacity to generate complex form and structure which can be expressed as an algorithm. Looking at form finding for my structure in particular, in order to reach my goal, the form will have to respond accordingly to the chosen site.

should perhaps start looking into form finding via Kangaroo Physics. The tool of SpringFromLine is probably the most appropriate tool to achieve the desired form.

I started to look into the form derived from the chosen site by manipulating the base geometry in my algorithm definition (as shown below).

Although it manipulated the overall form of the structure, the shortcoming of this method was that the intented form was unable to be fully achieved due to the limitation of my grasshopper definition. To overcome this, I

Geometry and patterning on each panel allows for perforation. And with that, varies openings will be achieved by either panels overlapping each other in a different plane or the detailed joinery that affected the quality of light and shadow within the space as shown on page 65.

I would also like to use HexagonPanel component to achieve a form that is structurally biomimicry. That being said, I would also like to look into how to create trianglular paneling within each hexagon shape as it will give the hexagonal cells more support with the extra structural support within.

71

B.7 72

Objectives/ Outcomes Week Eight

B.7: LEARNING OBJECTIVES/ OUTCOMES

Learning Objectives & Outcomes

With the use of Rhino and Grasshopper, it

gives me a clearer perspective of the buildability in a digital scale. With this understanding, I was able to easily identify and experiment different possibilities in terms of structure flexibility allowance and spatial quality. From this point onwards, I was able to begin discover more ways to generate a range of possbilities.

I was able to anticipate and readily accept the criticisms by openly discussing about the shortcoming and limitations of my proposed designs as shown in my technique proposal section and the reverse engineer for ZA11 Pavilion. During my interim critique session, I was told that my precedent studies(Research Pavilion 2011 by ICD/ITKE) that I have shown during the presentation seems to have no link to my proposal, however in my defence I was actually discussing about the inconsistent hexagonal cells that were derived from the form curvature and discontinuities. I found that the technique is relevant to what I will be doing next for my form finding. But perhaps when presenting the precedent case study, I did not explain myself clear enough on that part.

I was able to engage in self-directed learning of visual programming and in algorithm construction and thus acquired the ability to generate a variety of design possibilities with given situation as shown in Case Study 1 where I was given a grasshopper definition of my chosen Research Field and was able to explore and understand the possibilities of the definition by changing the existing parameters, inputting geometries and replacing component options.

While uncovering the latent potential within the defintion, I was able to generate iterations that were mainly around the potential of it as an architecture. This is a very interesting way of learning as I start to experience â&#x20AC;&#x153;research by

designâ&#x20AC;? as coined by Rivka and Robert Oxman.

Besides that, in Case Study 2, I was required to reverse engineer a chosen project of my Research Field. It was tough at first because I approached it the wrong way, but after researching online around the grasshopper community, I found similar tutorials that could be incorporated into my project. Although there were obvious difference between my reverse engineered model and the original, I was able to develop a personalized repertoire of computational techniques as shown in the technique development through 3D digital models.

Eventually I started to investigate the scale, material effects and geometry base on those techniques as shown in my Technique Prototype section. The realization that even a small detail like joinery can make a difference to the spatial quality captured my interest.

I was also able to investigate the issues of fabrication and assembly through the making of physical prototypes. As stated in that section, I had problems producing pieces from grasshopper and thus I will have to look into this for the next part.

My knowledge for Grasshopper and Rhino is slowly progressing as time pass. I feel that these are softwares that are hard to teach in school and can only be learnt by self-directed learning through online tutorials. I would not say that I am very knowledgable with these softwares but I do feel comfortable using them now. However, I hope to be able to speed up my process of dealing with it each time as I realized that I spent too much time figuring things out and tend to neglect the aesthetic aspect due to the time limit.

74

B.8

Algorithmic Sketches Week Eight

75

B.8: APPENDIX

Algorithmic Sketches

For our algorithmic sketchbook, we were

tasked to explore fractal geometry by using an equilateral triangular polygon shape that will be turn into a tetraherdron. As the diagrams shown on page 75, I was able to achieve pleasant results by simply manipulating the definition. I have also learnt that by activating the sun path and ground plate, it allows me to generate renderings of my iterations with better graphical qualities. The shadows casted gave an interesting way to look at the overall iteration.

76

We were given the definition of a tree to play around with and on page 76 and through these series of manipulation, I was able to understand the relationship of each component. I have also added materials on the model and rendered them to see a contrasting difference between the original. Using these new found skills, I will be able to incorporate them into my design proposal.

B.8: APPENDIX

Extruded and exploded equilateral triangular, with exploded elements removed.

Extruded and exploded equilateral triangular, with most of the geometry hidden due to the fact that I have overscaled the explosion.

Adjusted the radius and segment to form a pentagon shape, extruded and exploded with exploded elements removed.

77

B.8: APPENDIX

Increased count value of the division of each branch around the circular vector

Added materials to the chosen itieration, and a floor slab on top of it.

Using the given definition of a tree, I explored further with the creation of a 3d field evaluation. In this iteration, I incorporated the square grid component to create a wave like form.

78

B.8: APPENDIX

Similarly to the above iteration, I used the given definition and incorporated the series component and piped them accordingly.

Using Graph mapper component with gaussian as a graph type.

Using Graph mapper component with Bezier as a graph type.

79

References 11. Biomimicry Institute, ‘What Do You Mean by the Term Biomimicry?’, 2007, <http://www. biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/what-do-you-mean-by-the-term-biomimicry.html> [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015] 12. National Geographic Magazine, ‘Biomimetics.’, 2008, <http://ngm.nationalgeo-graphic. com/2008/04/biomimetics/tom-mueller-text> [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015] 13. Frazer, John. An Evolutionary Architecture (Cambridge University: Architectural Association Publications, 1995), p.11 <http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/publications/ea/intro.html> [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015] 14.

SJET, “VoltaDom”, 2011, <http://sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html> [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015]

15.

SJET, “VoltaDom”, 2011, <http://sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html> [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015]

16. Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’, 2011, < http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdanhambasan/> [Accessed: 15 Apr 2015]

80

Image References Fig. 18 3D printed soft seat Designboom, 2014. Available: http://www.designboom.com/design/ilian-van-daal-biomimicry3d-printed-seat-10-02-2014/ [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015] Fig. 19 Biomimicry Autodesk, 2013. Available: http://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/products/biomimicry [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015] Fig. 20 Research Pavillion 2012 IDC/ ITKE, 2012. Available: http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=8807 [Accessed: 03 Apr 2015] Fig. 21, 22 VoltaDom Arch2o, 2011. Available: http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/ [Accessed: 08 Apr 2015] Fig. 23, 24, 25, 26 ZA11 Pavillion ArchDaily, 2011. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescupatrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/ [Accessed: 15 Apr 2015]

81

C.1 82

Design Concept Week Nine

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

Interim Presentation Feedback

FEEDBACK FROM INTERIM

Feedback given to the previous proposal was

to make an interactive entranceway instead of just “a new entranceway”. One that can interact with the site, clients and the people. The idea of spatial aesthetic of light and shadow casted by the changes with the different type of joinery can also be further developed. The form proposed can also be developed by various parametric tool suitable for the intent. By understanding the spatial spaces that I would like to achieve, I will be able to use parametric tools effectively to create the concept I was driving towards.

ADDRESSING THE FEEDBACKS • Interactive entranceway - People: As proven in my prototypes; Different light quality will be created within the space by varying the size of the joineries. Main stretch along Merri Creek Trail will be experience a darker space whereas the pathway into CERES Environment Community Park will become brighter gradually. Interacting with the people using light and shadow play that will lead them into CERES Park.

• Interactive entranceway - Site: A tunnel like form with the base geometry derived from the chosen site itself will sit perfectly at the junction between Merri Creek Trail and CERES Environment Community Park entrance.

83

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

Site photos

Chosen site of the junction between Merri Creek Trail and CERES entrance with surrounding facility.

A

fter addressing the feedback given by the panels from my interim presentation, I decided to head down to CERES Environment Park again.

This time with a clearer idea in mind of what my design proposal is going to be like. Instead of walking through the estates to get to Merri Creek like the previous time, I walked through CERES park with Nursey, Dam, EcoHouse, Learning Centre, Resource Hub and Community Gardes along the way. When I was there, there were a lot of people in the gardens and learning centres. They were mostly on educational school trip and also there were adults maintaining the community parks. These people are part of the client in our brief.

84

With my proposed design techniques, its highly expressive joinery/patterning and perforated skin questions the notion of boundary. As light and views are filtered, softened and dampened towards the interior, the interior is slowly and more hesitantly revealed towards CERES Park.

My proposed design form can perhaps evolve further in relationship to the site and accomodate surrounding existing facility such as the park benches shown in the image above.

This way, my proposed new entranceway will not only act as a trasition area but also allow interaction between the clients and the installation.

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

Entrance of CERES Park to Merri Creek Trail

Human circulation and activities along the Trail

Another view of the chosen site with existing houses in the far background.

85

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

Form Finding

A view of my chosen site from Google Map Pro and the site facility nearby that I am hoping to incorporate into my design.

From here, I was able to generate a base geometry for my design that slowly morph with the site surrounding.

86

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

1. A geometry that I derived directly from the junction where Merri Creek Trail and CERES Park entrance meets.

2. With the base geometry that I have derive previously, I incorporated the existing site benches into my base form.

3. Enlarged the resting point for a smooth transition of form.

4. The entrance to CERES Park was emphasized by the change in size as compared to the Merri Creek Trail.

87

88

Fig. 27 : Honeycomb upclose (Courtesy of Sean Hoyland)

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

Structurally Biomimicry

Fig. 28 : Snowflake upclose (Courtesy of Kenneth G.)

S

tudying biomimicry lead to my current method of design. Nature has been regarded as a model, measure, a mentor in design. The integration of biomimicry is a beneficial tool in the design process for architects and designers.

The so-called “design spiral” acts as a guide which assits in biologizing “a challenge, query the natural world for inspiration, then evaluate to ensure that the final design mimics nature at all levels” - ie. form, process and structure.17 In my case, I am focusing on the structure of my proposed design.

Can the design be as efficient, simple and sustainable as found in nature?

This field provides two different design approach paths, Design to nature; and Nature to design.

The first approach illustrates how designers identify a design problem, and turn to nature to find a solution; the second approach looks to studying nature and imaginging human applications for nature’s designs.18

Fig. 29 : Sand Dollar (Courtesy of Rebecca Ersfeld)

In this instant, I looked at the basic geometry of honeycomb, snowflake and sand dollar. The cells of a honeycomb are hexagonal and they fit together without any gaps to tile the plane as three hexagons meet at every vertex thus the geometry makes efficient use of space and building materials.19 This method can be seen demonstrated in my previous precedent, ZA11 Pavilion. As for snowflakes, the molecules of water that form each tiny ice crystal naturally arrange themselves into a hexagonal (six sided) structure. The result will be a snowflake with six sides or six arms. This shows that hexagon is the basic structure in nature.

Using the same structural principle as a sand dollar, Research Pavilion 2011 was able to use geometrical arrangement of the plates notching into one another to allow for a high bearing capacity. Using these principles, I will be able to use computation and parametric modellings to create something that is feasible and functional.

89

90

Fig. 30 : Dragon Skin Pavilion (Courtesy of Pekka Tynkkynen)

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

Spatial Quality

Fig. 31 : Mirror Tower (Courtesy of LAN Architecture)

The spatial quality can be affected by various

aspects such as the light, object, air, materials and sound.20 In my design proposal, I will be focusing on light and perhaps explore on the materials used.

Light that fills a room can give the impression of a space and spaces are experienced by the mood transmitted within. The relationship between light and architecture occurs inevitably.

Light can play with scale or it could also be used simply to highlight elements within a space.

In my case, I hope to use light to guide the users along Merri Creek Trail towards CERES Environment Park. As discovered from my previous prototypes, different joineries created various geometries that in turn cast varying

Fig. 32 : Times Eureka Pavilion (Courtesy of Nex Archi.)

Using this technique of varying scale and sizes allows me to control the spatial quality created. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Materials react with one another and have their radiance, so that the material composition gives rise to something unique. Material is endless.â&#x20AC;?21 As shown in the above images, the use of different materials creates a different user experience. In the previous prototypes, I used boxboard and perhaps in the next few prototypes to come I can look at different material such wood and board. At the same time, it will also allow me to explore the structural integrity and flexibility of each material and from there I can then decide on a material that I will be using for my final presentation model.

91

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

My thought flow chart showing my design definition.

Exploration of structural strength of a basic hexagonal shape which later was strengthen by dividing it into six equilateral triangles.

Another prototype was also made to explore the structural strength further by changing the material boxboard to MDF.

92

Although the change in material provided a strong and rigid joint, however it does not allow any flexibility that might be essential for the proposed design.

C.1: DESIGN CONCEPT

Tectonic System

Exploration of structure integrity of a hexagon module.

Hexagonal cells made up of 6 triangles that will populate throughout my form.

My proposed design will be made up of equilateral triangular cells that will populate throughout the form. With the intial hexagon shape, in order to make the structure stronger and be able to create the desired form without any form of support in the space beneath, I have decided to strengthen the shape by dividing them it into 6 triangles.

This not only allow the strengthen the structure but also allow for more pattern and variation of perforation in my design. Each line above represents a panel that makes up the module.

At each junction where the lines meet, there will be a joint that connects all the panels be it 3 or 6 of them.

93

C.1: DESIGN

Envisaged Const

MATERIALS

FABRICATION

TRANSPORTATION

Materiality: In the selection of material, I focused on achieving a certain level of durability and sustainability as mentioned in our design brief to seek for environmentally friendly decomposable material. After much research online, I found out that Spotted Gum (also known as Corymbia Maculata) is a suitable material that has an approximate life span of 40 years. It is also known that it occurs naturally in part of Victoria.

Fabrication: I believe that each panel will vary in size as it changes according to the curvature.

Thus, it is important to label each and every piece to avoid confusion and ease the process when assembling on site. Laser cutting each piece will be the most ideal choice of getting the precise angle and dimensions.

Transportation: Transporting the materials to site by a suitable size truck.

94

N CONCEPT

truction Process

SITE WORKS

ASSEMBLY

FINISHES

Site Works: To be cleaned and perhaps have necessary props to anchor the structure down to site later on.

Assembly: It is important to make sure each panel connects to the correct joint, if not the whole structure will not work. Thus referencing back to the digital model is essential while assembling the structure. It is recommended to fix hexagonal/triangular cell modules from the top and work down to the bottom for stability.

Finishes: No finishing is needed as material is intended to be left â&#x20AC;&#x153;rawâ&#x20AC;?.

95

96

C.2

Tectonic Development Week Ten

97

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Form Development Prototype

Base form derived from site

Step 1: Lofting the 4 curves that was derived from the site to achieve a smooth lofted surface.

Applied Hexagon on surface and scaled the surface to create a second layer. Lofted the two layers together to create â&#x20AC;&#x153;Hexagonal cellsâ&#x20AC;? that populate throughout the whole form.

Step 2: Increased the scale value to 0.5 instead of

98

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Form Development Prototype

Step 3: Applied triangular pattern on the panels by using Panelling tool component morph 3D.

Step 4: To increase the structural strength and integrity, Hexagon on surface was replaced by Triangles on surface as previously explored.

99

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Challenges Faced

Overlapped panels shown at the junction

Overlapped panels shown at the junction

A close up of the overlapped panels

Overlapped Panels: Panels at the junction where it splits into two were overlapping each other and this means that it is almost impossible to construct in real life.

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Challenges Faced

Warped panels

Warped patterned panels

Warped Panels: To fabricate using laser cutter, my panels need to be planar surface instead of warped. But one huge issue was that my panels are all warped as I lofted them.

Too many elements: The scale of the hexagons/ triangles on the two surfaces should be adjusted to a smaller value as there are too many elements in the structure. The size of each panels should also be adjusted in a way such that they do not overlap each other.

Time & Cost: As previously mentioned there were too many elements in the structure, this will in turn increase the fabrication time needed and will result in a higher cost. Besides that, to assemble the whole structure with that many elements, more time will be needed. It is not a very feasible project to do as it will take up too much time and labour cost.

101

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Refined Design Workflow

CURVE CURVE CURVE

OFFSET LOFT

TRIANGLE ON SURFACE

CURVE

EXTRUDE

TRIANGLE ON SURFACE

PATTERN ON SURFACE

SCALE PANELS BOUNDARY SIZE

DEBREP

LOFT

PLANARIZE PANELS

A refined thought diagram to resolve the issues highlighted on previous page.

INTERSECTION BETWEEN PANELS

PANELS BREP CURVE BETWEEN PANELS

PERP FRAMES

CIRCLE

LOFT SURFACE

102

LOFT REGION DIFFERENCE

SURFACE JOIN

MATERIAL THICKNESS

OFFSET

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Formal Form Development

Step 1: Changed the base geometry to a less complex shape by lofting 4 curves.

Step 2: Applied triangles on surface with division of surface in U direction value 7 and in V direction value 8.

Step 3: Off set triangulated surface outwards.

103

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Formal Form Development

Step 4: Lofted the 2 surfaces together.

Step 5: Planarized the panels with Planarize component and Kangaroo springs.

Step 6: Scaled the size of every panel smaller to allow room for joinery at the junction of the panels. It also allows me to test the feasibility of the joinery that I will be using.

104

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Formal Form Development

Step 7: To minimize the weight of the whole structure, I scaled down the edges of the panel to create void in the middle while still maintaining the structure integrity of the structure.

Step 8: To give the panels a thickness, the component Amplitude & Extrude was used.

Step 9: Lastly, joint at each junction was created by the component PerpFrame and Circle to create joinery with notches for slot connection between the elements.

105

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Fabrication (Joinery)

Thought diagram for joinery fabrication

I decided to fabricate a final model of 1:100 scale to illustrate the spacial quality in my structure at different time of the day.

Instead of the easy way out which is to 3d print everything, I decided to laser cut each piece to demonstrate the stability of my proposed design and that it will work in real life.

After much unrolling and tagging each piece, I sent it to the FabLab for prefabrication.

Illustrated connection detail 106

C.2: TECTONIC DEVELOPMENT

Fabrication (Final Model)

0

1

3

2

15

13

27

36

35

30

58 56

55

81

9

39

42

41

54

8

18

17

16

28

6

5

14

60

59

57

61

86

82

66

62

90

89

92

138

139

140

133

132

131

117

116

113

120

121

107

108

94

157

181

169

8A

8B

23A 22A

9B

9A

10A

12B

11B

11A

10B

12B

12A

13B

13A

12A

14B

14A

2B

2A

1B

1A

7B

3A

17A

15B

16B

18A

23B

23B

24A

24B

25A

25B

25A

25B

26A

26B

27A

27B

29A 28A

29A

30A 29B

19A

5A

19B

5B

20A

6A

20B

7A

6B

21A

21B

31B

30B

28B 29B

18B

4B

17B

23A

22B

4A

3B

1B

16A

15A

182

180

178

177

175

17

17

2

3

174

170

8

16

33A

31A 32A

32B

34B

I encountered issues during the preparation of fabrication. Such as the material thickness that I wanted (2mm) was not available, thus I had to improvise and settled on 1mm boxboard material that I will later stick two together to make a final thickness 2mm.

It was not the most ideal solution as the laser cutting time will double up which means the fabrication cost will increase. However, due to time constraint, I decided to go ahead with it and fabricate anyway.

107

108

C.3

Final Detail Model Week Eleven

109

110

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

My final digital is a model applied with

timbre finishing and rendered with V-ray with sunlight adjusted to achieve the desired result.

In both my digital and physical final model, I managed to achieve a structurally biomimicry design and interesting spatial quality that users will experience.

My physical model that will be shown in the later pages is a 1:50 scale model made up of boxboard material sprayed with black paint (due to the hairy texture resulted from the removal of masking tape that was used to hold the cut-out pieces together after the fabrication).

111

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

Final Digital Model (On-site)

112

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

Final Digital Model (On-site)

113

114

115

Structure on site: a similar language between my structure and the local powerline is observed here.

C.3: FINAL DE

Digital section th

116

ETAIL MODEL

hrough structure

117

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

Final Model Fabrication Process

End product the laser cutting process of boxboard material. The burn marks will be covered with paint later on.

118

C.3: FINAL DETAIL MODEL

Final Model Fabrication Process

Two circular joinery at each junction where the panels meet.

Panels connected with two joints that is designed to receive six panels.

A hexagon cell that is made up of six triangles and twelve panels.

119

C.3: FINAL DE

Digital section th

120

ETAIL MODEL

hrough structure

121

122

123

Light and Spatial Quality

124

125

Light and Spatial Quality

126

C.4

Objectives/ Outcomes

127

C.4: LEARNING OBJECTIVES/ OUTCOMES

Learning Objectives & Outcomes

Feedback given during the Final Presentation

was to consider the materiality of my structure which I have included in my journal under part C1 construction process. It was also advised that I have a base for my physical model instead of it being a â&#x20AC;&#x153;site-lessâ&#x20AC;? form which I have also improved. Given more time, I would like to explore more on how my structure sits on site and also perhaps revisit the previous form I was initially interested in. To conclude for my final presentation, it was a success in my opinion as mentioned by one of the panel that my project demonstrated how I test and adjusted my design accordingly, which is also one of the learning objectives of this module.

128

I have learnt a lot through Design Studio Air. It

enabled me to develop new design techniques I never knew I would actually enjoy in the end.

This subject has challenged my understanding of design processes and has introduced the principles of generative design. Personally, developing a parametric language to work with was a challenging experience and the struggle to obtain desired design ideas were hurdles that were very new within a design studio. Nevertheless, the opportunity to design something unconceivable previously through these techniques was an exciting and unconventional process. The resources of online forums, video tutorial and algorithm tasks enabled evolution of ideas as well as a developed and growing technique. It also taught me to be independent in terms of learning a new software as personal research played a huge part in this subject. After completing this project, it changed my perspective that I once used to have during my darkest moment in this module. While doing algorithmic tasks, I sworn to myself to never touch this software after the studio ends, however right now I find myself consider using it in the future as I have a better grasp of how it works, the possibility it allows and how fast it speeds up processes.

The format of the course was a new experience for me in a way as we started producing design ideas before addressing the given brief in part c.

I am used to creating initial design ideas around datas analyzed from given site of the brief.

Personally I felt that if we had concrentrated more on the brief earlier, we could have further developed our proposed design. However that being said, I understand that part a and b are necessary as part of the learning process of this module. The research and reverse engineering played a huge part towards my proposed design as they served as a foundation. Proposed design

C.4: LEARNING OBJECTIVES/ OUTCOMES

Learning Objectives & Outcomes was made possible not only by grasshopper, but also Photoshop, Rhino and V-ray.

Grasshopper allowed me to explore different design possibilities with just a few clicks no matter if it is a slight change or a major one.

I had experience with software like Google Sketchup when doing 3d model for other design studios and comparing it with Grasshopper, it really aided me in designing beyond my limit.

It was more of a design exploration tool rather than a software that translate design that was already conceived in my mind. In Case Study 2 of Part B, I was able to develop a personalized repertoire of computational techniques through the technique development that showcased a variety of design possibilities with the definition through 3D digital models. From there, I was able to come up with my design concept proposal in the end of Part B and continue to test and adjust the design possibilities to suit the given brief. In part C I showed a variety of parametric modelling development that was generated by the change of algorithmic definition to address different issues that I encountered along the way.

Coming into this semester with my basic knowledge for Rhino and non-existence knowledge for Grasshopper, I feel that I have developed a certain knowledge in both the software that I am now confident to share with others. To be honest, I have never fabricate any of my model in my years of architectural practice as I would usually hand-make them. After this program, I have no only gained knowledge in the software but also familiarized myself with the process of laser cutting fabrication. Knowing what I know now, I foresee myself visiting FabLab more often as digital fabrication is an efficient and accurate way of producing a design model. I guess doing individual work has its

perks as I am in charge of all the different stages of design and fabrication. It was a great success in achieving the objective of this module and I will continue to explore Grasshopper in time to come to push these skills further.

I was able to investigate the scale, material effects and geometry base on those techniques as shown in Part B Technique Prototype and eventually in both Part C2 & C3 section. In my exploration of structural integrity, I did a series of prototypes as shown in section Part C1. A physical prototype allowed me to understand how my structure behave under a certain load in ways that Grasshopper does not. Producing physical prototypes also allow me to realize that my previous modular cell does not work in a curvature thus allowing me to do changes accordingly and develop a greater understanding of how design interacts with the air.

Researches done at the start of the semester allows me to be familiarized with many projects around the world that uses parametric design tools. It lead me to realize that parametric design is closer to me than I think. I start to notice designs that were potentially done by parametric designing tools everywhere I go. I am now able to analyze the techniques used and compare the ideas behind each projects which in turn broaden up my knowledge in this aspect.

I developed a personalized repertoire of computational techniques at the end of this program after a series of research and adjustment. All in all, I do think that grasshopper has open up another venue for architectural design and its infinite possibilities. Thank you for being part of my journey!

129

130

131

Final Model With Site

132

THE END.

133

References 17. Designboom, ‘Biomimicry’, 2000, <http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/biomimicry. html> [Accessed: 11 May 2015] 18. Ibid.

19.

Wikipedia, ‘Hexagon’, 2007, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagon> [Accessed: 11 May 2015]

20. Wikiepedia, ‘Atmosphere’, 2007, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_(architecture_ and_spatial_design)> [Accessed: 11 May 2015] 21.

134

Peter Zumthor, Atmospheres (Switzerland: Birkhauser, 2006).

Image References Fig. 27 Honeycomb Wikipedia, 2007. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycomb#/media/File:Apis_florea_nest_ closeup2.jpg/ [Accessed: 05 May 2015] Fig. 28 Snowflake Kenneth G. Libbrecht, 1999. Available: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class. htm [Accessed: 05 May 2015] Fig. 29 Sand Dollar Rebecca Ersfeld, 2010. Available: http://musingsofaseawitch.blogspot.com.au/2010_04_01_archive. html [Accessed: 05 May 2015] Fig. 30 Dragon Skin Pavllion Archdaily, 2012. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/215249/dragon-skin-pavilion-emmi-keskisarjapekka-tynkkynen-lead/ [Accessed: 11 May 2015] Fig. 31 Mirror Tower Archdaily, 2009. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/39101/mirror-tower-lan-architecture/ [Accessed: 11 May 2015] Fig. 32 Times Eureka Pavillion Archdaily, 2011. Available: http://www.archdaily.com/142509/times-eureka-pavilion-nex-architecture/ [Accessed: 11 May 2015]

135