Studio Air- Part C (Carla Sujanto) by csu.img

STUDIO AIR JOURNAL

2018, SEMESTER 1, DAN SCHULZ CARLA RENATA SUJANTO [832783]

PART C | DETAILED DESIGN

PART C

DETAILED DESIGN

C1 | DESIGN CONCEPT \\ (RE)TREE

Fig 49. Spiralling branch structure made in Rhino and Grasshopper. By Ariane Garay.

Fig 50. Decaying heartwood of log found at Brimbank park. Photo by Ariane Garay.

1 | Initial branching idea was considered unfeasible as a mass construction of 1:1 scale would use too much time, money and resources.

2| Decaying heartwood of log found at Lerderderg State Park. Image was used in first idea to create rustication patterns. In second idea, its form is ‘unrolled’ to create panels.

A new group was formed to create the final design consisting of seven members. Although a new project was pursued, details such as site (Merri Creek) and overall objective (artificial habitat) remained the same.

Our second and final concept was inspired by the same log which was image sampled to create the first concept’s rustications as it was found that small spiders had made their webs and retreated into the dark and decayed spaces of the log. Therefore, we focused specifically on spiders as opposed to larger animals. We analysed what made the decayed spaces of the log habitable for these spiders and designed spaces which would facilitate the needs of these spiders as well as other spiders. The idea was to analyse the decayed heartwood and create panels which would represent its tree rings.

Our new project (Re)Tree involves analysing the habitable aspects of a tree and designing a structure which multiplies this aspect. Eg. creating a branching structure to maximise intersections which birds use to build nests, a structure of holes to simulate hollows which birds and marsupials inhabit. Our initial concept involved branching, surface rustication and mass construction using timber. However, it was not feasible in terms of material, cost and time.

This project is proposed to be Design Research. Our group acknowledges that we cannot accurately determine whether this creates a habitat suitable for a spider ecosystem, but our proposed design facilitates for spider occupation using available research and personal observations. 93

CONCEPT 1 | BRANCHING Concept Development Our first concept had explored the idea of a branching structure which creates habitable hollow spaces for birds and small marsupials and also incorporates perforations in the surface for insects and spiders.

Fig 51. Under Magnitude by Marc Fornes and The Very Many. (https:// w w w.dezeen.com/2017/01 /25 /marc-fornes-ver y-many-undermagnitude-coral-installation-orlando-convention-centre-installation/)

Our project involved taking inspiration from the branching nature of eucalyptus trees to create spaces for birds to perch and insects and spiders to make their home. A mesh relaxation script was to be pursued. A base mesh structure was to be created using Kangaroo components for mesh relaxation and weaverbird to help create the mesh.

Fig 52. Rings of eucalyptus tree with interesting pattern. Spiders have made funnel webs inside the perforations. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

The surface of our structure was to be rusticated and take its design from eucalyptus bark and naturally occurring patterns found in the trees. These perforations would allow for insects and spiders to inhabit the structure.

Fig 53. River Red Gum tree data collected from Lerderderg State Park. Diagram by Jacinta Chan.

Research was done to find statistics on the structure of the River Red Gum. Our idea was to use data collected from site visits to control our base structure when creating the branching mesh script.

It would be irrational to completely replicate data such as the height and circumference of a real tree to create or branching structure as it would be far too big. However, we can use data such as the proportion of elements, angle of intersection and number of branches coming off the trunk to inspire our structure.

Fig 54. Spiralling branch form, created by Ariane Garay.

Fig 55. Shortest walk coral forms, created by author.

The first attempt at branching began wiith a base structure which developed from a thick base which thinned as it got higher. The algorithm attempted to branch and create intersections based on data collected from the site. A similar form was developed using a voronoi function, combined with the initial geometry to cull any branching outside of the spiral. This created an interesting structure in which many smaller, thinner branches came off of one spiral trunk. The length of the branches became shorter as it got taller as the structue is based on the first geometry.

An algorithm to create coral-like branching structures was developed. We wanted to experiment with a more randomised process. Branch length and direction was determined by points from a populate 3D function and its shape would be determined by the shortest path taken through the set of points from a base point. Parameters which could be controlled include the overall shape which the structure takes (eg. spherical, conical, flat), the base and end width of each branch and the number of points populating the base geometry (which would loosely control the number and length of branches).

This structure doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t necessarily use data collected from the site, however, there are parameters which could be changed to include the tree data. The structure would also be very difficult to construct and fabricate with a mass material like wood, though it can be made smaller and branches could be culled so less material would be used.

Although this process generated interesting geometries, we were looking for a more controlled algorithm in which data collected could be input into the design. A process which is too randomised would mean that the software is doing most of the work; no initial goal for the design was thought of before using the software. Furthermore, this kind of structure would be very difficult to fabricate with mass. It would requre a lot of material and money.

Fig 56. Rustication patterns created in Rhino and Grasshopper. By Ariane Garay, Jacinta Chan, Sabrina Widjaja, Arwa Edris, Adam Chiodo.

Fig 57. Rusticated panels were laser cut and layered. By Ariane Garay, Jacinta Chan, Sabrina Widjaja, Arwa Edris, Adam Chiodo.

We used functions such as metaball, image sampling, spinforce and point charge to create patterns for rustications on our structure. These patterns were intended to be CNC milled onto the surface of our form. They would create small holes and indentations for small spiders to retreat. These patterns were acheived by either sampling images of river red gum bark or recreating patterns found on bark using spinforce or point charge.

Panels were then laser cut using MDF and glued on top of each other to create holes and indentations of different depths. Although these panels were fabricated to represent the surface texture of our form, the panels themselves could also create habitable spaces for spiders as it provides edges to build webs and dark spaces for them to retreat when they are not hunting.

FEEDBACK FabLab Consultation Sessions + Guest Critics Our team consulted with FabLab staff for guidance on both our first concept and our final concept. They found several issues pretaining to the cost, time and material waste of our project should we continue to use CNC milling for our 1:1 scale model. These sessions brought us into the direction of using the machines in the Fablab workshop to continue with our final project.

CNC Milling Consultations (Darcy) Week 8-9 Our first concept, in which we attempted to create a mass, branching, 1:1 scale timber model, was considered unfeasible in terms of cost, time and resources. Firstly, our branching ideas were too complex which would lead to very high costs and a lot of material waste. Secondly, because we were aiming for a 1:1 scale model, that again increases the cost of our project. Thirdly, our surface rustication prototypes were also too complex. Both our team and the Fablab staff were unwilling to take on our first conceptâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project, pushing us to simplify our final concept and find different methods which would be more cost effective, efficient and less wasteful.

The Fablab staff suggested we aim for volume as opposed to mass in order to decrease time, material waste and cost. Alternatively, we could create a hollow structure and fill it with slurry. The staff also directed us towards the workshop to continue with our project, as opposed to using CNC milling fabrication methods. This lead us to ideas of buying and cutting material ourselves; while it would be more labour intensive, construction would cost less regardless of the complexity of our project. Instead of CNC milling our surface rustications, we decided to use sandblasting to create texture on our design. This is more simple and less costly, but it still creates interesting results which could add to the habitability of our design.

Guest Feedback (Simon) Week 9 Guest critic Simon, who was a sculptor and architect, suggested that we return to the log we found at Brimbank park as this was a good example of how animals (spiders) will select and build their habitats. He also suggested that we use the natural process of the decaying logâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s formation to inform our technique (eg. use environmental data to shape our design) and study the habitable aspects of the log so that we could maximise this in our design.

From feedback received in week 9, our main issues were derived from our lack of direction as well as the feasibility of our 1:1 scale branching concept. We decided to change the direction of our project from branching to the formation of the log. The log was our point of inspiration and our main precedent; essentially we aimed to unroll the log and make it bigger to maximise the decayed habitat and multiply it across our design. Surface rustication would now be acheived using the sandblasting machine in the Fablab workshop.

CONCEPT 2 | LOG Concept Development Our final concept was inspired by the decayed log found at Brimbank Park while studying tree growth. We were interested in how the decay occurred naturally and what characteristics made the log habitable. Our idea was to take the habitable aspects of the log, such as the dark enclosed spaces, holes and indentations, and repeat it across a larger designed structure. This concept would also relate back to Part A where we considered ‘design futuring’ and the advantage of digital design and fabrication; this project would experiment with the idea that through digital design, habitats such as this, which would otherwise take decades to develop and require specific conditions to develop into suitable habitats, could be designed artificially in a few months.

100

Fig 58. Tunnel-like webs built between the cracks in the log. Photo by Ariane Garay.

Fig 59. Graph of annual rainfall in Melbourne from 1983 to 2017 (35 years). Graph by Jacinta Chan.

The decayed log which was initially used in image sampling became the precedent of focus for our project. While studying tree growth, we had found the log inhabited by spiders, evidenced both by the tunnel-like webs between the cracks and by a spider observed to be resting and building on the log. We were very interested in the idea that the tree, essentially dead/dying, became a habitat for many spiders and possibly several species of spiders or other animals. Our goal was that in analysing what aspects made the decaying log habitable for the spider, we could create an artificial habitat which recreates and multiplies these habitable characteristics in a few months rather than several decades.

We first tried to determine the cause of the decay as well as the cause of the decay pattern as this would form the basis of our script when modelling digitally. The trunk seemed to have decayed from the inside and this would suggest heart/trunk rot which is a disease caused by fungus that can attack Eucalyptus trees.1 Trees become more susceptible to root injury and fungal diseases, such as heart rot, when there is too much rainfall as this reduces the amount of oxygen in the soil. 2

1 Gardening Know How, “What Is Heart Rot Disease: Info About Bacterial Heart Rot In Trees” Gardening Know How <https://www. gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/tgen/heart-rot-in-trees. htm> [1 June 2018] 2 University of Illinois, ‘Horticulture’, University of Illinois Extension (Knox County: University of Illinois, 2014) < https://web. extension.illinois.edu/hkmw/downloads/55040.pdf> [1 June 2018]

Fig 60. The pattern of decay on the log was possibly influenced by the softness of each tree ring. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

We also observed that the decay pattern followed the rings of the tree; thicker tree rings, generally indicating years where there was a good amount of rain, were not as decayed as the thinner rings, which indicate years when there was too much or too little rainfall.1 Both oxygen and water are essential for healthy tree growth, which is why a lack of oxygen, or too much or too little water could have negative effects on tree health. We determined that the heart rot has gone deeper where there are thinner tree rings as they indicate years where the tree grew in harsher conditions (too much/too little rain, not enough oxygen) and may not have had enough nutrients.

1 McDougal Littel, ‘Tree Ring Widths Vary from Year to Year’ Exploring Earth: How Do Trees Record Time? <https://www.classzone. com/books/ear th _ science/ terc/content /investigations/es29 05 / es2905page02.cfm> [1 June 2018]

Fig 61. Rough sketch of our concept. Sketch by author.

The idea was essentially ‘unrolling’ the decayed log into panels which represent different tree rings in the log. Gaps between each panel would create habitable space for spiders, surface rustication would also help to create habitable spaces.

101

RESEARCH Rainfall Study Adult Lifespan Annual Rainfall 1983 708.6 1984 670.2 1985 825.8 1986 577.5 1987 688.9 1988 671.8 1989 811.6 1990 633.4 1991 681.5 1992 871 1993 419 1994 405 1995 791 1996 824.1 1997 363.2 1998 665 1999 554.8 2000 403.3 2001 289.6 2002 436.4 2003 491.8 2004 525.6 2005 297.2 2006 331.8 2007 408.6 2008 432 2009 415 2010 700.6 2011 862.8 2012 618.2 2013 665.3 2014 479.2 2015 362.8 2016 678.9 2017 639.2

Data collated by Arwa Edris and Jacinta Chan. 102

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1983 36.3 1 53.5 48 68.8 49.2 87.4 60.4 94.6 111.6 87.2 10.6

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall- 1984 99.6 18 46.2 53.1 22.4 11 43.1 60.2 133.8 50.2 65.4 67.2

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfa

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1988 46.6 13.6 23.7 8.2 74.1 57.4 58.7 58.5 53.9 33.4 163.4 80.3

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1989 53.3 98.2 84.9 71 63.4 49.6 59.4 83.9 52.4 88.7 35.8 71

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfa

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1993 92.2 62.9 38.5 27.4 38.7 54.2 45 60.1 127.6 51 77 171.8

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1994 38.8 109.6 37 63.8 32.8 42.6 15.2 29.2 38.4 20 40.6 12.4

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October

Rainfall - 1998 48.6 85.6 11.6 63.4 59.6 64.4 51.4 23.8 37.2 94.2

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October

Rainfall - 1999 26.8 31.4 62 35.4 58.2 47 14.2 84.8 28 62.4

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October

all - 1985 18.4 7.6 40.2 68.5 61.4 110.6 83.1 78 57 70.8 82.2 148

all - 1990 2 74.6 31.2 94.2 18.7 39.4 92.7 58 40.8 103.6 52.5 25.7

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall- 1986 38.2 17 18.2 58.1 73.1 34 88.2 45.6 40.6 65.3 41 58.2

Rainfall - 1991 80.8 0.8 61 37.7 21 125.7 59.6 54.4 86.5 27.4 20.5 106.1

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall- 1987 65.2 73.9 42 21.7 63.3 67.2 79.7 23.8 36.2 49.2 74.8 91.9

Rainfall - 1992 45.1 19.1 27.3 39 79.4 45.2 33.1 66.1 131.4 109.9 177 98.4

ainfall - 1995 135.4 18.8 71.6 111.4 87.4 87.8 72.8 56.8 40 85 70.2 38.8

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1996 114 93.8 45.8 148.6 34.4 59.2 90.1 56.2 67.4 50 40.8 23.8

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1997 23.2 6 16.4 14.4 68.2 31.6 20.2 31 54 29.8 61.2 7.2

ainfall - 2000

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October

Rainfall - 2001 12.4 16 79.6 123.2 19.6 61.6 14.6 53.2 44.4 80.4

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October

Rainfall - 2002 38.6 77.6 31.3 43.2 35.8 29 30.7 47.9 34.1 29.2

31 35.4 27 42.2 87.8 40.6 52.2 46.2 80.6 109.6

To reflect the natural formation of our precedent log, we gathered rainfall data from 1983 to 2017 for the Melbourne area; this data would be used in our digital design. We used data provided on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for the Botanical Gardens 1 as our precedent logâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s site, Brimbank Park, did not have rainfall data.

1 Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology, Climate statistics for Australian locations: Summary statistics CRANBOURNE BOTANIC GARDENS (May 2018) <http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/ av?p_stn_num=086375&p_prim_element_index=18&p_ display_type=statGraph&period_of_avg=ALL&normals_ years=allYearOfData&staticPage=> [6 June 2018]

103

Data collated by Arwa Edris and Jacinta Chan. 104

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1998 48.6 85.6 11.6 63.4 59.6 64.4 51.4 23.8 37.2 94.2 61.6 63.6

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2003 Rainfall- 200313.4 18.2 13.4 18.4 18.2 68.2 18.4 25.2 68.2 36.4 25.2 73 36.4 54.2 73 36 54.2 68 36 15.4 68 65.4 15.4 65.4

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2004 52.8 Rainfall- 2004 17 52.8 13.8 17 51.2 13.8 24.2 51.2 44.2 24.2 37.1 44.2 68.7 37.1 73 68.7 64.4 73 118 64.4 51.2 118 51.2

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfa Rainfa

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2008 Rainfall- 200817.2 25.2 17.2 70.4 25.2 17.2 70.4 38.4 17.2 16 38.4 46.2 16 51.8 46.2 14.6 51.8 12.8 14.6 46.4 12.8 75.8 46.4 75.8

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2009 Rainfall- 2009 1 3.21 39.2 3.2 37.2 39.2 11.6 37.2 23 11.6 37.6 23 35 37.6 67.8 35 22 67.8 94.2 22 43.2 94.2 43.2

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfa Rainfa

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall- 2013 8.8 69 41.6 23.4 44.6 97.4 71.6 64.6 87.5 52 61.6 43.2

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 1999 26.8 31.4 62 35.4 58.2 47 14.2 84.8 28 62.4 35.4 131.2

Rainfall- 2014 14.8 24 27.6 76.4 41 54.4 27.4 35.2 36.2 46.2 59.2 36.8

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall

Rain

l - 2000 31 35.4 27 42.2 87.8 40.6 52.2 46.2 80.6 109.6 40.9 38.8

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 2001 12.4 16 79.6 123.2 19.6 61.6 14.6 53.2 44.4 80.4 65 45.2

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall - 2002 38.6 77.6 31.3 43.2 35.8 29 30.7 47.9 34.1 29.2 28 11

all- 2005 all- 200520.6 158 20.6 12 158 26.8 12 10.6 26.8 40.4 10.6 25.8 40.4 60 25.8 43.4 60 41.2 43.4 56 41.2 60.4 56 60.4

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2006 Rainfall- 200653.2 55 53.2 18.2 55 47.8 18.2 74.6 47.8 11.2 74.6 41.8 11.2 31 41.8 30.4 31 6.8 30.4 28.8 6.8 14.4 28.8 14.4

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2007 Rainfall- 200731 16.6 31 42.6 16.6 22.8 42.6 41.6 22.8 41.4 41.6 64.4 41.4 15 64.4 19.4 15 21.8 19.4 58 21.8 76.6 58 76.6

all- 2010 all- 2010 29 41.8 29 95.8 41.8 41.6 95.8 24.8 41.6 53.6 24.8 21.2 53.6 56 21.2 40 56 139 40 114.2 139 85.2 114.2 85.2

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2011 Rainfall- 2011 89 161.8 89 23.9 161.8 96.9 23.9 61.6 96.9 34 61.6 39.6 34 23.6 39.6 72.4 23.6 67.8 72.4 113.2 67.8 79 113.2 79

Months January Months Febuary January March Febuary April March May April June May July June August July September August October September November October December November December

Rainfall- 2012 30.6 Rainfall- 2012 59 30.6 62 59 56.6 62 78.6 56.6 73.8 78.6 59.6 73.8 52 59.6 42.6 52 36 42.6 39.8 36 27.6 39.8 27.6

nfall- 2015 56.8 41.4 24.4 36.8 42.8 27.8 65 41 33.2 11.8 46.4 46.8

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall- 2016 53.4 9.2 38.2 49.7 60.2 71.3 68.6 69.4 104.6 70.2 36.4 47.7

Months January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December

Rainfall- 2017 33.2 47 29.2 142.7 29.6 21.4 35.6 45 46.7 43.4 46.2 119.2

105

CLIENT

Spider Study As well as studying the habitable aspects of the log, we also analysed the behaviour and characteristics of the spider seen resting and building inside the decayed area and on the surface of the log. Though we are not certain whether it was the Wrap-around spider that created the tunnel webs, we can assume that this spider can inhabit this log. As we are not designing for this spider alone, we also took into consideration some other small spiders which are found in Victoria and their behaviours and needs. In designing for these spiders, we made several generalisations in their behaviour (eg. many of them make webs to catch prey, they prefer dark spaces to rest when not hunting) as many spiders are able to adapt to different environments, including man-made structures.

106

Fig 62. Wrap-around Spider found on log. Photo by Ariane Garay.

Fig 63. Badge Huntsman Spider. https://museumsvictoria.com.au/spiders/ detail.aspx?pid=0

Wrap-around Spider Dolophones conifera

Badge Huntsman Neosparassus diana

Size: 6-10mm Web: Large vertical orb webs Habitat: Twigs, dry bark surfaces Prey: Small insects, flying insects Behaviour: Flattens itself on twigs and bark when not hunting. Curved abdomen and patterning helps it camouflage on bark and twigs. Nocturnal- builds orb web at night and rests during the day.1

Size: 16-20mm Web: No web. Habitat: Foliage, on tree trunks, beneath bark. Prey: Insects. Behaviour: Nocturnal- hunts at night and retreats into bark during the day. Will build silk retreat when moulting or laying eggs.1

1 ‘Wrap-around Spider 1 - Dolophones conifera’ Brisbane Insects (last updated October, 2009) <http://www.brisbaneinsects.com/ brisbane_orbweavers/WrapAroundSpider.htm> [1 June 2018]

1 Museum Victoria, ‘Badge (Huntsman) Spider’ Victorian Spiders <https://museumsvictoria.com.au/spiders/detail.aspx?pid=0> [1 June 2018]

Both the Wrap-around spider and Tube-dwelling spider were found to be inhabiting the log. The Wrap-around spider was observed to be producing silk on the surface of the log and resting on edge of the log face. This may be because its pattern is similar to that of the log’s surface, therefore it tried to rest on the log and camouflage. The Tube-dwelling spiders were not visible themselves, however, there were many visible tube webs in the crevices of the rotted heartwood. Based on these observations and further research, we believe that in recreating aspects such as the log’s texture, dark internal spaces and small crevices, spiders may find our artificial log suitable for habitation.

Fig 66. Tube web likely constructed by tube-dwelling spider. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 64. Jumping Spider. http://www.ozanimals.com/Spider/Jumping-Spider/ Opisthoncus/sp.html.

Fig 65. Tube-dwelling spider that may have constructed tube webs on the log. http://spiderbytes.org/2015/07/13/segestriidae-tube-web-spiders/.

Jumping Spider Opisthoncus sp

Tube-dwelling Spider/Tube Web Spider Segestriidae ariadna

Size: 10mm Web: No web. Habitat: Under bark, foliage, shrubs, on the ground, man-made structures (eg. railings, buildings). Prey: Mostly flying insects. Behaviour: Can jump several centimetres. Will make silk sacs to rest, moult and place egg sac.1

Size: 7-23mm Web: Will make silk tubes webs with radial entrances like trip wire. Habitat: In cracks of rocks, tree bark, dead trees, walls, under stones. Prey: Insects. Behaviour: Nocturnal- will retreat into tube during the day and wait at the entrance of web for an insect to touch the web.1

1 ‘Jumping Spider (Opisthoncus sp)’ OzAnimals Australian Wildlife <http://www.ozanimals.com/Spider/Jumping-Spider/ Opisthoncus/sp.html> [1 June 2018]

1 Catherine Scott, Segestriidae: tube web spiders [online blog] <http://spiderbytes.org/2015/07/13/segestriidae-tube-web-spiders/> [1 June 2018] 107

TECHNIQUE

Grasshopper Pseudo-code

We digitally produced panels which represented the tree rings of our log and creates small dark spaces between these panels which facilitates the habitation of small spiders. Our technique attempts to abstract the natural process of the logâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s decay digitally onto 18 panels (which we intend to be of timber planks) using yearly and monthly rainfall data.

1. Raw yearly rainfall data to be used to determine panel thickness or width of gap between two panels. Converted to standardised widths which would be easy to cut.

7. Join ends of top curve to base curve. Make the edges into a surface.

13. Divide surface to create 10x10 point grid and select 4 corner points.

2. Values seperated into widths for panels and widths for gaps.

3. Raw monthly rainfall data for each year is turned negative to form the top curve of each panel.

8. Offset the first surface by the gap width.

9. Close the edges of the two surfaces to make a solid panel.

14. Create rectangles on chosen points.

Fig 67. Pseudocode illustrating grasshopper technique. Diagrams by author.

108

15. Extrude rectangles towards next panel by gap width.

It should be noted that this step was incorrect in the final script; to accurately reflect the natural formation of our decayed log, in which more water generally leads to stronger wood and more growth, the values should not be made negative. This way, higher values would represent less decay of wood than smaller values.

4. Monthly rainfall converted to maximum and minimum heights of the top timber plank.

10. Add panel width, gap width and sum of previous panel width and gap width to get distance to move the next panel across.

5. Base curve is divided to 12 points (for each month). Points are moved up based on monthly data and used to make the top curve.

11. Repeat panel creation process.

6. Yearly rainfall data is juxtaposed onto top curve to acheive curve that is more jagged and simulates the log.

12. Move new panel according to distance in step 10.

109

FINAL DIGITAL DESIGN Log Unrolled The final digital model depicts our concept of the spider habitat log unrolled into panels to maximise the amount of habitable space. Initially, we intended to create 35 panels (for each year of rainfall data we collected) which would be laminated together, however, we believed that creating gaps of varying widths between each panel would help facilitate spider habitation as it would create more dark internal spaces for the spiders.

Fig 68. Component at human scale. Diagram by author.

Fig 69. Component at spider scale (Wrap-around Spiders are approx. 6-10mm). Diagram by author.

The final component would be 1000x500x500 mm. This is firstly because we took into consideration possible forms which the component could become; (eg. extended to become a seat or stacked to become a wall, barrier or facade) therefore it had to be heavy enough to stay in place, but not so heavy that it canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be moved/handled.

We believe that small-medium sized spiders between 5-20mm would inhabit the component. The varying widths between each panel would also accomodate for different sized spiders, along with the rusticated textures and holes created by sandblasting.

However, given its function as a spider habitat, human interaction should be kept to a minimum so that the spider habitat wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be disturbed and no humans would be hurt by any potentially dangerous spiders. While a seat may not be a desirable function, a wall/ barrier or free-standing component would still be possible.

110

Wedges would be nailed between panels to maintain the width between each panel and also join the panels to create a whole component. The corners which the wedges create at the joint would also create more spaces for spiders to create their webs.

Fig 70. Close up of digital model showing panel texture and wedges between the panels. Image by author.

HABITABILITY -Dark spaces (for nocturnals) -Holes and indentations (for webs and retreats) -Variety of surfaces (smooth, grooved, curved) -Different space sizes (to accomodate for more than one species/size of spider) COST -Cost effective fabrication and surface treatment -Cost effective materials CONSTRUCTABILITY -Easy to build -Easy to transport ECONOMIC MATERIAL USE

We will be judging our final physical model on four main criterion. Habitability would be considered the most important factor given that our brief requires us to respond to a scenario in which artificial habitats are created to combat the decline of natural habitat trees. This criterion depends on how well the design creates habitable spaces for a range of spiders. Cost, constructability and economic material use were major issues in our previous concept. Our final model must be built to a high standard while addressing these issues of feasibility and material use, and most importantly, the problem posed by our brief.

111

Fig 71. Isometric view of final digital model. Image by author.

112

TOP VIEW

SIDE VIEW

FRONT VIEW

Fig 72. Final digital model from different views. Images by author.

113

PART C

DETAILED DESIGN

114

C2 | TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES

Fig 73. One panel would consist of 6 planks. Diagram by Ariane Garay.

Fig 74. Sandblasting tested on timber planks. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

1 | Instead of CNC milling our panels of one timber piece, we decided that gluing planks would be a better option for our scale and desired effects and details.

2 | We used small planks of wood to test the effects of sandblasting and how to control it. Different durations and different types of timber create differing effects.

We decided to create our panels by stacking planks. The top plank would be cut manually using machines and tools such as band saws and sanders and planks would be joined using glue and nails.

The surface of our panels will be sandblasted in order to create more texture in the surface and to create holes and deep indentations in our panels which could facilitate spider retreats.

We believed that this method compared to laser cutting or CNC milling would be more cost effective, less wasteful and more convenient (for us and the fablab staff) as we have panel widths which must be cut manually given that they are not standard widths.

The timber we chose was MGP10 untreated timber. We believed this acheived the most interesting result when sandblasted as the softer wood is blasted down while the harder wood is more resistant. This creates a texture of ridges and valleys.

115

PROTOTYPES AND TESTING Cutting & Sanding Tests Most of our previous prototypes and testing involved laser cutting and CNC milling, however, our current project required more knowledge on hands-on methods such as sawing and sanding. We began testing how to cut our planks to the correct thicknesses, and also tested different types of saws for our curve. We constructed a small scale panel prototype testing sandblasting, sawing, and gluing our planks together. We also used planks to test which kind of cutting machine and blade would be best suited cutting the intricate curves of our top planks.

1.1 3.1

1.2

3.2

2.1 4.1

2.2

Fig 75. Testing different methods of cutting our timber. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

We first tried using a scroll saw as the curves we wanted to acheive were quite intricate. However, the thin blade wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t strong enough to cut through our timber, making it difficult to acheive the curves we want. We resolved this by instead using a jig saw to roughly cut the outline of our curves. Then we used a large sander to sand down rough edges and corners to our desired shape, and a smaller sander to create a smooth surface.

116

4.2

Fig 76. Panel curve templates for panels 1-4. Templates by author.

Because we had decided to manually cut our timber instead of CNC milling or laser cutting, we had to find a way to recreate the curves we made digitally. Our method was to simply create templates of our curves to print which would then be traced onto our planks of timber. Although this may not be as accurate as other digital fabrication methods, we felt it was the best solution if we were to cut the planks using saws and sanders.

Fig 77. Initially, a scroll saw was used as the curves we wanted to acheive were intricate. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

117

Sandblasting Tests We created prototypes to test sandblasting effects and how different types of timber and different durations of sandblasting can affect the final outcome. It creates a very interesting visual effect, but it primarily adds t0 our designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s habitability as it creates internal spaces for different spiders to inhabit.

Fig 78. Testing the effects of sandblasting on MGP10 timber. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 79. Some areas were sandblasted until the material was cut through so that holes were created. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

We wanted to create some areas which acheived a similar texture to that of the decayed section of the log. We believed that this texture would create grooves and indents which would help the spiders build their retreats.

Through sandblasting, we wanted to create a panel surface which had textures and features facilitating for different spiders and different purposes. For example, the smoother surfaces would be suitable for the Wrap-around spider to camouflage into, and deep indentations and holes would be suitable for the Tube-dwelling spider to build its web and for

We tested the effects of sandblasting on different types of wood and different thicknesses of timber. After several tests, we believed that sandblasting effects on MGP10 untreated timber acheived the texture we aimed for as the softer wood is sanded down to create grooves and ridges.

118

Fig 80. Prototype panel made of three timber planks. This tested the effects of different durations of sandblasting, gluing planks together and cutting our curves with a bandsaw then sanding. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

119

PROTOTYPING Small Scale Prototype

120

Fig 105. Small scale component was laser cut using MDF. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 106. Small scale component demonstrates how our design can be stacked. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Our first prototype is at a significantly smaller scale than our acutal model; this is to demonstrate the possible functions of our component as a system of many structures (which would be too costly to demonstrate with 1:1 models). Wedging was not possible due to its size, though digital fabrication made it possible to express our original curves.

Because our design is quite rectangular, it can be easily stacked to become a wall/barrier or fencing system for outdoors, possibly parks and gardens. Initially we thought this had the potential to be a sound barrier, but spiders would be repelled by the loud cars. An outdoor fencing function would make it so that it has a function in the human environment without necessarily needing any human interaction. This would cause less disturbance for the spiders.

Curves Prototype

Fig 107. 1:1 scale model of top plank curves. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Offcuts from cutting the top planks of our panels were put together to create a flattened prototype of our component. This was intended to demonstrate what kind of environment we are aiming to create for the spiders.

Fig 108. Prototype demonstrates the environment we want to create through our component. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

The wedges of our model were intended to create seperation between panels as well as join the panels together, however, they also create corners within the internal spaces of our structure and this could also facilitate the building of webs and silk retreats. The valleys of our curves may also facilitate the building of webs as it creates walls at a spider scale.

121

SURFACE TREATMENT Sandblasting

To mimic the texture of natural wood and of our log, we decided to use sandblasting to rusticate the surface of our panels. Different durations of sandblasting on different thicknesses of panels would create a variety of outcomes. Some parts of the panels would be sandblasted right through to make holes build webs, while other areas would have ridges and valleys which simulate weathered wood, and this texture could help to facilitate spider habitation.

Fig 81. Stencils used for sandblasting panels. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 82. Sandblasting for longer will create holes. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Steel stencils were laser cut to create patterns on the panels. The circular design of the stencils take from the rings of our log. Thicker panels would have more spaces for the sandblaster to create its effect, while thinner panels would have less. This was both to create a variety of textures on our panels and also because we did not want the sandblaster to damage the thinner panels, therefore we limited the effect of the sandblasting to a smaller area.

The duration of sandblasting would also acheive different effects; the longer the duration, the deeper the sand will cut into the timber. We wanted to create the rough grooved texture in the shape of the stencils as well as create indents and holes which cut right through the panels. This would create a variety of spaces for spiders to inhabit.

122

Fig 83. Final panel design after sandblasting. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 84. An industrial sandblaster was used instead of the smaller one we’d used for our prototype panel. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 85. Some areas were sandblasted for long durations to create deeper indentations. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

We consulted with industrial sandblaster company “U-Blast” as the size of our panels are too large for the sandblasting machine used for our prototype. Additionally, we’d need higher strength to cut through some of our thicker panels. Aluminium Oxide was used for this process, leading to a slightly darkened grey finish on our panels.

123

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS Material & Fabrication Past experience in our first concept suggested that using CNC milling processes would not be feasible for a timber 1:1 model. We decided that creating the panels out of timber planks, cutting each plank to the panelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thickness, shape and dimensions manually and gluing them together would be more cost effective and would create less material waste. Although it was more labour intensive, we felt that the size of our group would cut down the work.

Planks with features like cracks, knots and holes were specifically chosen as it would give the panel natural indents and holes for habitation. Fig 86. Timber planks with knots and holes were selected. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

1.1 3.1

1.2

3.2

2.1 4.1

2.2

1. 45x90x3600 timber planks are cut to desired thicknesses of 9,18,27,36,45mm using a band saw. These thicknesses are dependent on the amount of rain received in the year the panel represents.

Fig 87a. Construction process. All photos by Jacinta Chan.

124

4.2

2. Top plank curves are taken from our digital model, nested, seperated into halves (to fit on A3 sheets), labelled and printed to be traced onto the timber planks.

Test cuts with the scroll saw suggested that we couldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;nt acheive smoothness in the curved surface with a saw alone, additionally, a stronger saw machine would be needed. A jig saw was chosen; though this does not acheive the intricacy we aim for, we can use the tool to roughly cut through to our curves and proceed to sand the timber to the correct shape.

3. Using a jig saw, top plank curves are cut roughly just above the traced curve template.

125

4. Straight edges of planks are sanded to correct shape with a large sanding machine. This is more to correct the shape of the plank into our desired curve and less to smooth the surface.

7. Wood glue is used to put panels together.

Fig 87b. Construction process. All photos by Jacinta Chan.

126

5. Planks are sanded to create smooth surface on the top plank. This surface may be suitable for our Wrap-around Spider which would flatten itself onto curved twigs and bark.

8. Planks are nailed together at the side.

The decision to use planks as opposed to one large panel of wood was made to reduce cost, material waste, ease of fabrication and transportation. Material was chosen and bought from bunnings, therefore, we had to be able to transport a large amount of material back to the Fablab. The size and weight of the planks were easy to transport. Additionally, as we were now using workshop tools, planks would be more convenient to work on as opposed to large panels. The curve of the top plank would be worked on seperately from the cutting of the bottom planks.

6. Bottom planks are cut to correct widths and thicknesses.

Both wood glue and nails were used to hold together the planks of the panels. The planks had to be secure as we essentially wanted 6 planks to act like 1 panel of timber. However, we couldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve potentially used wooden dowels along the top edges of each plank, and instead of securing the planks flush against eachother, we could create some seperation between each plank. This could possibly create more habitable space.

9. Clamps are used to hold panels together while glue dries.

127

Student ID & Full Name (e.g. 123456 John Doe)

Sheet 01 of 05

10. Patterns were made digitally using rhino and grasshopper 11. Complete panels are sandblasted using steel stencils to and laser cut onto 0.6mm steel sheets. Five stencils were create pattern. These would mean that a variety of textures made to match the different thicknesses of timber panels. and spaces would be created on each panel- smooth surfaces, grooved textures, intentations and holes.

12. Wedges were cut last. They would both connect and seperate panels, and would also make more habitable space.

Fig 87c. Construction process. All photos by Jacinta Chan.

128

13. Panels, tools and wedges are taken to construction site (farm). Wedges are screwed in between panels.

We were cautious as to whether the steel stencils would withstand the strength of the industrial strength sand blaster as we had only conducted testing with the smaller Fablab sandblaster. Additionally, we were also cautious as to whether the sandblaster might damage the thinner panels. Therefore, as an extra precaution, the stencil pattern differed to control for how much of the timber would be affected by the sandblasting hose. This would also create a wider variety of textures and spaces in our design as panels with more exposure to the sand would have deeper indents and grooves.

The final construction stage of the full component, including screwing in the wedges into the panels, was completed on the field (farm on Gruyere, VIC). Panels, tools, screws and wedges were transported by car to the location. This was so that we could observe how well our completed model functions in an outdoor setting.

129

COST ANALYSIS Panelling The wood that we bought from Bunnings were MGP10 Structural Pine, with the dimensions of 90x45x3600mm at $12.89 a piece.

6 Panels

3600mm

540mm

600mm

45mm

90mm

Variable (Yr) We initially cut them into 1200mm panel so excess in case of mistakes. The table saw at Bunnings is also inaccurate target.

Cost analysis calculated by Ariane Garay. 130

90mm

Variable (Yr) Depends on the Yearly Rainfall Data Every second value in a list of 35 years is culled

VARIABLES LIST 0.9mm 0.9mm

1.8mm 1.8mm 1.8mm 1.8mm 1.8mm 1.8mm

2.7mm 2.7mm

3.6mm 3.6mm 3.6mm 3.6mm 3.6mm

WOOD CALCULATIONS

COST CALCULATIONS

4.5mm x 6 Panels 4.5mm x 6 Panels 4.5mm x 6 Panels

12 Pieces x $12.89 = 154.68 Plus, an additional fee of $2 per cut to 1200mm.

3.6mm + 0.9mm x 6 Panels 3.6mm + 0.9mm x 6 Panels 3.6mm + (0.9 as excess) x 6 Panels 3.6mm + (0.9 as excess) x 6 Panels 3.6mm + (0.9 as excess) x 6 Panels 2.7mm + 1.8mm x 6 Panels 2.7mm + 1.8mm x 6 Panels 1.8mm + 1.8mm + (0.9 as excess) x 6 Panels 1.8mm + 1.8mm + (0.9 as excess) x 6 Panels

12/3 = 4 times x 2 = 8 cuts - -> 2 from 3600/1200 = 2 cuts per t imber 8 cuts - 2 free cuts = 6 cuts 6 x $2 per cut = $12

= 12 Panels needed altogether

PANELS TOTAL VALUE:

4.5mm 4.5mm 4.5mm 4.5mm 4.5mm

$154.68 + $12.00 = $166.68 131

COST ANALYSIS Wedges

Each piece could be cut up to 60 units of wedging.

90mm

Variable (YrW) The wood that we bought from Bunnings were MGP10 Structural Pine, with the dimensions of 90x45x3600mm at $12.89 a piece.

Cost analysis calculated by Ariane Garay. 132

60mm

Variable (YrW) Depends on the Yearly Rainfall Data The culled data determines the wedging widths

VARIABLES LIST 0.9mm 0.9mm

1.8mm 1.8mm 1.8mm 1.8mm 1.8mm

2.7mm 2.7mm 2.7mm 2.7mm

3.6mm 3.6mm 3.6mm 3.6mm 3.6mm

WOOD CALCULATIONS

4.5mm 4.5mm

COST CALCULATIONS

4.5mm x 4 Units 4.5mm x 4 Units

Technically, we can cut out all 48 unit pieces out of one single piece of timber, but during our testing stage of researching

3.6mm + 0.9mm x 4 Units 3.6mm + (0.9 as excess) x 4 Units 3.6mm + (0.9 as excess) x 4 Units 3.6mm + (0.9 as excess) x 4 Units 3.6mm + (0.9 as excess) x 4 Units

pieces around 25-50% of the time, so therefore the smart thing to do was to have an extra 3 pieces per wedge. 1 Wedges + 3 pieces = 4 units 48 x 4 = 192 Units In this case, we bought 4 pieces of timber. 4 x 12.98 = $51.56

2.7mm + 1.8mm x 4 Units 2.7mm + 1.8mm x 4 Units 2.7mm + 1.8mm x 4 Units 2.7mm + 1.8mm x 4 Units 1.8mm + (1.8mm as excess) + (0.9 as excess) x 4 Units = 4 Units per measurement x 12 lines = 48

PANELS TOTAL VALUE:

$51.56 + $4 Cut Cost to 1200mm = $55.56

133

PART C

DETAILED DESIGN

134

C3 | FINAL DETAIL MODEL

Fig 88. Final panel after sandblasting, ready to be constructed. Photo by Jacinta Chan. 1| Panels, wedges, tools and other materials were constructed on an open field; both for convenience (since the model is quite large at 1:1 scale) and to test its whether it is habitable.

Our group decided to construct this at 1:1 scale as firstly, we are a big group of seven members which would lighten the workload and cost of the project, and secondly, because our clients are quite small, we believed that a 1:1 scale model is a feasible goal. Although our hypothetical site was Merri Creek, we felt that asking for permission to build and keep our projects on the site would be a long process. Our group member, Sabrina Widjaja, had offered the alternative to use her family owned farm in Gruyere, VIC, so that we could have space to build and keep our models.

The reason we wanted to construct our project in an outdoor setting was primarily so that we could measure the success of our projects in a real world setting. We wanted to observe whether spiders would choose to inhabit our structure, and also to test whether it can withstand the elements. Additionally, constructing it outdoors would give us much more working space than the Fablab which we were previously working in. Our primary goal is to test whether small spiders can inhabit our design. However, we acknowledge that results found on our modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s site may be specific to that site and canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be generalised to Merri Creek. 135

Fig 89. Final 1:1 component on site, facing 1983 panel. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

(RE)FUSE | LOG â&#x20AC;&#x153;In a world without trees what might a digitally produced habitat look like?â&#x20AC;? Returning to the brief, I believe our final design satisfies the overarching goal of making an artificial habitat by recreating the aspects of our precedent log that facilitates spider habitation and multiplied these aspects throughout our component. Throughout our design and construction process, we took into consideration the scale, needs and behaviour of potential spiders which may inhabit our structure and used this information to inform our design. In taking the habitable aspects of our precedent log and repeating it on a larger scale, we have artificially recreated a natural habitat which would otherwise take decades to form through a selection of natural processes.

136

Fig 90. Final 1:1 component on site, facing 2017 panel. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

137

Fig 91. Badge Huntsman inspecting panel before construction. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

138

Overall, I believe that our final design satisfies the habitability criterion. The gaps provide narrow and wide spaces for different sized spiders to make webs. Indents and holes created through sandblasting facilitates for the building of webs and silk retreats for resting, moulting and egg laying. Nocturnal species could also retreat into the dark internal spaces of our design. We were limited by the fact that our panels are made of several planks, however, if it were one homogenous piece of timber, we could have used CNC milling processes and a Metaball function on grasshopper to design more controlled holes in our design. The cost of our final design was less than $100 for each member, which includes timber, sandblasting and the laser cut stencil for sandblasting. Our design also involved simple construction and simple parts, leading to ease of construction. Decisions such as designing for volume instead of mass, manual fabrication and material choice would’ve influenced cost and constructability. As our design involves a subtractive process, the use of planks instead of one large panel lead to less material waste. Offcuts of our top planks were used to create our prototype, so material waste was decreased

Fig 92. Close up of wedges sandwiched between panels once fully constructed. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

139

Fig 93. Exploded diagram of panels and wedges in component. Diagram by Sabrina Widjaja.

140

Computational techniques were used to create the top curves of our panels using collected monthly rainfall data for Melbourne each year. The minimum and maximum heights of these curves could be modified according to the sizes of the planks we chose.

Fig 93. Decayed log habitat used as project precedent. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 94. Curves of our panels which reflect the decay of the precedent log. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Panel thicknesses and gaps between each panel were also created using yearly rainfall data. Our final design maximises the habitable aspects of our log by reflecting the natural processes which influenced its formation.

141

Panel 1, representing 1983.

Panel 2, representing 1985.

Panel 3, representing 1987.

Panel 7, representing 1995.

Panel 8, representing 1997.

Panel 9, representing 1999.

Panel 13, representing 2007.

Panel 14, representing 2009.

Panel 15, representing 2011.

Fig 95. Final panels to be constructed. All photos by Jacinta Chan. 142

Panel 4, representing 1989.

Panel 5, representing 1991.

Panel 6, representing 1993.

Panel 10, representing 2001.

Panel 11, representing 2003.

Panel 12, representing 2005.

Panel 16, representing 2013.

Panel 17, representing 2015.

Panel 18, representing 2017.

143

PART C

DETAILED DESIGN

144

C4 | LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES

Fig 96. Early seat design development idea for our component. Diagram by author.

Fig 97. Design improvement idea; seperating planks for more habitable space. Diagram by author.

1| An early idea for component functionality. After critic opinions, and further research and development, we believe less human-spider habitat interaction would be better.

2| Seperating planks instead of gluing them could create more narrow spaces for spiders to build webs and retreats.

In week 13, Stanislav Roudavski came in as a guest critic. Points which he suggested for development include thinking about our component as a living system, acknowledging gaps in our project and considering potential solutions (eg. whether it successfully facilitates spider habitation, whether human interaction is necessary, possible or potentially harmful) and thinking about what our design experiment contributes to the field of architecture (and possibly the study of spiders).

Our group acknowledges that this design is not a completely resolved solution as there are many factors we cannot control or design for given that our clients are spiders and the success is measured by the spidersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; response to our design. We can only design with information gained from observations on our precedent log and research that is currently known (eg. information on spiders found on the log and on the panel) and we must often make generalisations on our clients. We cannot be certain that the spiders we specifically researched would inhabit our component or whether certain aspects of our design would have any affect on them, but based on personal observations, the spaces our design incorporates and the size of these spaces, we can assume and generalise that small spiders between 5-20mm that have been observed to behave a certain way have the potential to inhabit our structure. 145

IDEAS FOR DEVELOPMENT

146

Fig 98. Technique improvement for top curve. Sketch by author.

Fig 99. Surface treatment improvement. Sketch by author.

We could create more habitable space by adding more data points in our top curve instead of simply using monthly data. This could make more narrow, deep valleys for Tube-dwelling spiders to build their webs.

Drilling holes into the tops of our panels could create a surface similar to that of our precedent log. Many tube webs were found between cracks and crevices in the log; by recreating these natural holes, we could create more habitable space.

Fig 100. Plank connection improvement. Sketch by author.

Fig 101. Screws used to connect wedges to planks. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Instead of connecting planks flush against each other, we could use dowels between each plank or one longer rod which goes from top to bottom to create seperation between planks. These narrow in-between spaces would provide a suitable environment to build retreats.

As our component will most likely be outdoors, we should consider using a timber sealer to ensure that water doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t warp the timber. However, we should consider whether this may be harmful for our clients. Additionally, screws should be galvanised to prevent rusting.

Fig 102. Badge Huntsman exploring our panel. Photo by Jacinta Chan.

Fig 103. Component can be stacked to become barrier/wall or fencing component. Diagram by author.

Our design could also contribute to the study of spiders and education on spider ecology. This may be especially useful for Merri Creek, specifically CERES Park, and the Management Comittee as they often hold educational events for young children and students. This component could help to educate them on different types of spiders, how they live together, and how they create their webs and retreats.

Our design could be simply used as a decorative piece, but the component, being rectangular, could be used as a brick-like component to be stacked into a wall or barrier. Our design could be used as a fencing component along parts of the Merri Creek Trail which require barriers, or at CERES park where fencing is needed for gardens.

CERES may find use in our artificial spider habitat in order to study and educate others on how spiders create their webs and retreats. The Merri Creek Trail could make use of barriers and fences to indicate picnic areas or to simply keep people on the trail.

Fig 104. Map of CERES and Merri Creek trail where component could be used. https://www.mcmc.org.au/aboutmerri-creek/merri-shared-path. 147

LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Interrogate a brief - Personal score 9/10 I think I have become competent in interrogating a brief. Our brief explains how the making of an artificial habitat requires “a feedback of discovery, repetition and multiplication” which is a process which guided my group and I in our design. This can be seen in aspects such as the repeated gap between each panel, creating dark internal spaces for small spiders to retreat into and build webs. The brief also informed our final design criteria; in our previous ideas, we were too focused on the appearance of our surface rustications. But when we returned to the brief, we made sure that the appearance was less about how we perceived the pattern, and more about whether the sandblasted surface, indents and holes facilitates spider habitation.

4. Develop an understanding of “relationships between architecture and air” - Personal score 10/10 I believe my group and I performed exceptionally well in understanding and realising our designs as physical models. Our brief required us to consider a very possible hypothetical problem in the future, thus we were put in a mindset that our solution should be realistic as well as creative; this also meant that we would have to use real-life observations and studies of our clients and our environment. We developed an understanding between ideation and realisation through making our design at 1:1 scale using appropriate material as this meant that we had to also consider appropriate material and tools, cost and material waste, as well as the full construction and transportation of our model.

2. Generate a variety of design possibilities - Personal score 5/10 I believe the script I developed was too controlled as it was mostly based on data. Because of our group’s idea of ‘recreating the natural process’ of our precedent log, the script became too rigid and did not allow for design exploration; aside from the dimensions of the component and the size of curves, there wasn’t much I could alter in the script. In the future, using graph controllers instead of fixed data points may create more design possibilities. 3. Develop skills in various three-dimensional media Personal score 7/10 Althrough my script was quite limiting, I still feel that my algorithm for this project is much more complex than any of my previous work and my understanding of Grasshopper has grown significantly. Before this, I struggled to understand why some components were used (especially related to data), but now I am able to understand how to manipulate and convert multiple data sets into a creative structure. Our final project did not require digital fabrication methods like CNC milling (as the Fablab did not recommend it), so I believe I have a lot to learn in terms of digital fabrication. However, previous tasks, such as material testing in Part B, helped me to understand nesting and creating a net for laser cutting a digital design.

148

5. Develop the ability to make a case for proposals Personal score 4/10 Although we did not go through with week 12 presentations, we were given the oppurtunity to present our current progress to sculptor/architect Simon in week 9 and subject coordinator Stanislav Roudavski in week 13. We found that because our team’s direction was often in flux, and the final direction of our project was only solidified incredibly late (at the end of week 9), we often struggled to make a case for our project. Oftentimes, I felt that our ideas were underdeveloped and so I found them uninteresting, weak or unfeasible, which lead to weak proposals. This also lead us to change the direction of our project several times, causing further confusion. In our week 13 presentation to Stanislav Roudavski, we were advised to strengthen our proposal by firstly approaching our design as a design experiment, instead of a resolved design solution, secondly by bringing more attention to our final concept, as opposed to our previous ideas which may cause confusion, and thirdly by undertaking more research on potential clients and our site (Merri Creek), as we could still make an informed design by making some assumptions and generalisations on animals which would inhabit the structure.

OUTCOMES PROJECT OUTCOMES

STUDIO/SUBJECT OUTCOMES

I believe that if our final project proves to be a successful artificial habitat for spiders, it could contribute to both the study of spiders as well as the field of architecture. Success could be measured by how many spiders inhabit the structure, how many species inhabit the structure, and whether the spaces we designed for them are being occupied/used (eg. narrow spaces, sandblasted holes and indentations). If successful, this could inform future architects that the process of creating artificial habitats for spiders and insects involves replicating and multiplying existing natural habitats.

The final project definitely helped me to further my computational skills. I had initially thought that my understanding of grasshopper was very poor, but the case was simply that I had to take time to understand and learn through practice demonstrations and trial and error. That being said, I feel I have a lot to improve on if I am going to fully utilise the advantages of using grasshopper and other computational techniques. The main advantages of computation is that these programs allow iterative designs and the ability to digitally fabricate these designs. But these advantages were not put to use in our final outcome (it should be noted that the Fablab had discouraged us from CNC milling due to the fact that the scale of our design was 1:1 and the different widths of our panels would be too costly and too complicated) I believe this project also helped me to further develop teamwork skills. Despite many obstacles, I believe that most of my group members remained resilient and continued searching for solutions around problems that arose. This included group switching, and subsequently project switching, as well as the expectation of a 1:1 scale model. As this project required many tasks, if we encountered problems in one area, work still continued in other areas. Eg. if we were stuck with finding fabrication methods, we would continue with our laser cutting file. Despite the hardships experienced in creating a full scale model, our studio was encouraged to think about the potential of what we create in the studio; as well as being valuable for future employment, our project could prove to be successful and contribute to spider research and future designs of artificial habitats.

149

BIBLIOGRAPHY Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology, Climate statistics for Australian locations: Summary statistics CRANBOURNE BOTANIC GARDENS (May 2018) <http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=086375&p_prim_element_ index=18&p_display_type=statGraph&period_of_avg=ALL&normals_years=allYearOfData&staticPage=> [6 June 2018] ‘Jumping Spider (Opisthoncus sp)’ OzAnimals Australian Wildlife <http://www.ozanimals.com/Spider/JumpingSpider/Opisthoncus/sp.html> [1 June 2018] ‘Wrap-around Spider 1 - Dolophones conifera’ Brisbane Insects (last updated October, 2009) <http://www. brisbaneinsects.com/brisbane_orbweavers/WrapAroundSpider.htm> [1 June 2018] Catherine Scott, Segestriidae: tube web spiders [online blog] <http://spiderbytes.org/2015/07/13/segestriidae-tubeweb-spiders/> [1 June 2018] Gardening Know How, “What Is Heart Rot Disease: Info About Bacterial Heart Rot In Trees” Gardening Know How <https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/tgen/heart-rot-in-trees.htm> [1 June 2018] McDougal Littel, ‘Tree Ring Widths Vary from Year to Year’ Exploring Earth: How Do Trees Record Time? <https:// www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es2905/es2905page02.cfm> [1 June 2018] Museum Victoria, ‘Badge (Huntsman) Spider’ Victorian Spiders <https://museumsvictoria.com.au/spiders/detail. aspx?pid=0> [1 June 2018] University of Illinois, ‘Horticulture’, University of Illinois Extension (Knox County: University of Illinois, 2014) < https:// web.extension.illinois.edu/hkmw/downloads/55040.pdf> [1 June 2018]

150

151