Dagmar Reinhardt, SmartStructuresLab (2014) by Dagmar Reinhardt

Shown as part of the Powerhouse Sydney Design Festival 2014, 16 – 24 August 2014, the SmartStructuresLab2014 investigates the complex geometries of hypar surfaces. This studio was led by Dr Dagmar Reinhardt from the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, in collaboration with Eduardo De Oliviera Barata, UFOSydney, Rob Beson, AR_MA, and Alexander Jung, reinhardt_jung|architecture and design. Departing from engineering precedents as a springboard for design, this lab rethinks the legacy of Frei Otto, Eladio Dieste, Buckminster Fuller, and Felix Candela, and tests the boundaries of interdisciplinary design strategies. While behaviours of form and structure can be embedded in material computation through self-forming systems such as catenary chains or tensile membranes, in current computational design, the control over rule-based designs with a mathematical logic become possible. The lab reveals an approach to engineering architecture in process; as a dialogue between analogue design models, computational design series, engineered analysis and optimisations, 1:1 plywood prototypes, 1:20 skeleton structures and a multiplicity of 3D printed form studies. SmartStructuresLab2014 employed for the architectural design process a wide suite of software in order to derive design iterations, and to optimize the spatial and structural performance. As a central component, we shared a workshop session on karamba (www.karamba3d.com) by Clemens Preisinger, Matthew Tam and Sascha Bohnenberger (of Bollinger-Grohmann-Schneider (Frankfurt, Vienna, Melbourne\ www.bollinger-grohmann. com). Through structural analysis and simulation software fully-embedded in the parametric environment of Grasshopper (one of the plug-ins for the 3D modeling tool Rhino/McNeel Rhinoceros), we thus explored fully integrated, design iterations, structural behaviour and material affordances. As a consequence, the architecture design models on display combine parameterized geometry, finite element calculations and optimized algorithms. Body and structure relationships were tested in the collaboration with ArtinThreads and creative director Ashley Lim (www.artinthreads.com), in a one-night-only multi-interdisciplinary installation and fashion show at the brandX space in April 2014, where 1:1 prototypes came to life as occupied by dancers and audience. With MARC4003 Master Of Digital Architecture Research Students: Julian Badman, Nicholas Cheung, Hsien Hn Chor, Wilson Chung, Hope Dryden, Katharine Fife, Alexandra Gurman, Seung Han, Runzhe He, Harry Henshaw-Hill, Max Hu, Lee Ah, Yong Leong, Robin Lloyd, Justin Lo, Piyangi Mallawarachchi, Thong Mau, Alena Minaeva, Giselle Moore, Sargiz Morad, Dion Moult, Emmy Omagari, Yen-Yeen Ong, Ognjen Rakic, Pascale Roberts, Andres Rodriguez, Nicholas Souksamrane, Mark Szekely, Chiao Thien, Hugh Thomson, Mark Vukovich, Jason Waddell, Yile Wang, Yi He Yao, Sarah Yates, Junchen Ye, Hee-Jung Yoon, Suk Yoon, Hongkai Yuan, Alexander Yuen, Chloe Zheng.

Powerhouse Museum presents

SYDNEY DESIGN 16–24 August 2014

SMARTSTRUCTURESLAB2014 FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN AND PLANNING PRESENTED BY

POWERHOUSE| SYDNEY DESIGN FESTIVAL 16-24 AUGUST 2014

BOLLINGER + GROHMANN I n g e n i e u r e

__________________

Introduction Shown as part of the Powerhouse Sydney Design Festival 2014, 16 – 24 August 2014, the SmartStructuresLab2014 investigates the complex geometries of hypar surfaces. This studio was led by Dr Dagmar Reinhardt from the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, in collaboration with Eduardo De Oliviera Barata, UFOSydney, Rob Beson, AR_MA, and Alexander Jung, reinhardt_jung|architecture and design. Departing from engineering precedents as a springboard for design, this lab rethinks the legacy of Frei Otto, Eladio Dieste, Buckminster Fuller, and Felix Candela, and tests the boundaries of interdisciplinary design strategies. While behaviours of form and structure can be embedded in material computation through self-forming systems such as catenary chains or tensile membranes, in current computational design, the control over rule-based designs with a mathematical logic becomes possible. The lab reveals an approach to engineering architecture in process; as a dialogue between analogue design models, computational design series, engineered analysis and optimisations, 1:1 plywood prototypes, 1:20 skeleton structures and a multiplicity of 3D printed form studies. SmartStructuresLab2014 employed for the architectural design process a wide suite of software in order to derive design iterations, and to optimize the spatial and structural performance. As a central component, we shared a workshop session on karamba (www.karamba3d.com) by Clemens Preisinger, Matthew Tam and Sascha Bohnenberger (of Bollinger-Grohmann- Schneider (Frankfurt, Vienna, Melbourne\ www.bollinger-grohmann. com). Through structural analysis and simulation software fully embedded in the parametric environment of Grasshopper (one of the plug-ins for the 3D modelling tool Rhino/McNeel Rhinoceros), we thus explored fully integrated, design iterations, structural behaviour and material affordances. As a consequence, the architecture design models on display combine parameterized geometry, finite element calculations and optimized algorithms. Body and structure relationships were tested in the collaboration with ArtinThreads and creative director Ashley Lim (www.artinthreads.com), in a one-night-only multi-interdisciplinary installation and fashion show at the brandX space in April 2014, where 1:1 prototype came to life as occupied by dancers and audience. With MARC4003 Master Of Digital Architecture Research Students: Julian Badman, Nicholas Cheung, Hsien Hn Chor, Wilson Chung, Hope Dryden, Katharine Fife, Alexandra Gurman, Seung Han, Runzhe He, Harry Henshaw-Hill, Max Hu, Lee Ah, Yong Leong, Robin Lloyd, Justin Lo, Piyangi Mallawarachchi, Thong Mau, Alena Minaeva, Giselle Moore, Sargiz Morad, Dion Moult, Emmy Omagari, Yen-Yeen Ong, Ognjen Rakic, Pascale Roberts, Andres Rodriguez, Nicholas Souksamrane, Mark Szekely, Chiao Thien, Hugh Thomson, Mark Vukovich, Jason Waddell, Yile Wang, Yi He Yao, Sarah Yates, Junchen Ye, Hee-Jung Yoon, Suk Yoon, Hongkai Yuan, Alexander Yuen, Chloe Zheng.

__________________

publication

FORM Central to any architectural discourse is the discussion of form, and its genesis, design, rules, translations, processes. Forms can be addressed as typologies, as variants, as singular solutions, as dependent on context. This paper is interested in forms that do not merely pose an aesthetic problem, but which are informed by (and inform) material and structural behaviour. We argue that forms are containers of forces as much as they are expressions thereof. We further argue that forms need a foundation that enables continuations into and out of structure and material considerations; a geometric or mathematical logic through all stages of a design and construction process, and continue even after form has been brought into existence. In that sense, forms must be considered non-finite states or ‘conditions’ in space and time, as multiplicities.¹ DAGMAR REINHARDT & ALEXANDER JUNG

038 FORM AND FORCE

2 David Wendland, Model-Based Formfinding Processes: Free Forms in Structural and Architectural Design (Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart, http://Elib. Uni-Stuttgart.De/Opus/ Volltexte/2001/761/Pdf/ Wendland.pdf).

1 As Lynn argues, “[f]orm can be shaped by the collaboration between an envelope and the active context in which it is situated. While physical form can be defined in terms of static coordinates, the virtual force of the environment in which it is designed contributes to its shape. In this way, topology allows for not just the incorporation of a single moment, but rather a multiplicity of vectors, and therefore, a multiplicity of times, in a single surface.” Greg Lynn, Animate Form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 10.

3 Dagmar Reinhardt and Alexander Jung, “Representation as Research: Design Model And Media Rotation”, RIBA Journal of Architecture, ed. Hilde Heynen (Routledge Taylor Francis, Vol.13, April 2008), 185-201. 4 Peter Pearce, Structure in Nature is a Strategy for Design (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1978), 54. 5 “If the parametric is a technique for the holistic control and manipulation of design objects at all scales from part to whole, the algorithmic is a method of generation, producing complex forms and structures based on simple component rules.” Michael Meredith, From Control to design – Parametric/Algorithmic Architecture (Barcelona: Actar, verb monograph, 2007), 3.

Form follows logic. Forms based on Euclidean geometry can be described precisely and unequivocally by using a few parameters only.² Yet this is only true for forms that can be described, codified, contained. In contrast, forms based on Non-Eucledian geometries, as those found in nature, may also use a mathematical logic but extend generic shapes towards highly complex formations that are the result of a morphogenesis, the transformation of shape in matter over a period of time. Forms are consequences of processes. Form finding models directly use physical properties to shape the structure of forms, as they contain force flows and material contingencies, and thus deliver a certain degree of approximation for the object of design. Analogue models are not just formal approaches but design tools that consider the result of material and structural reactions to forces.³ Impacts on the consistent relationships between structural elements (as opposed to fixed metric quantities) allow us to review changes. Interventions to form thus register systemic rules of a model, as for example by varying the number or length of members or elements, or by adding or removing weight). Changes to a single element propagate corresponding changes throughout the whole system (in position, magnitude, or frequency). Forms are resistances. Exerted through systems of compression and tension, forces prompt alterations to form that result in transitions; deflections; collapse; or in the bestcase scenario, an optimised solution. In design models, these local interventions have an effect on extended fields or even on the entire structure, similar to nature in which protocols of minimum inventory enable systems with maximum diversity.⁴ In this manner, the behaviour of form can be explored as the model acts within boundary conditions, effectively enabling a two-fold generative design: a process of design (boundaries), and process of self-generation (object). Forms are variables. In continuation, forms in digital processes can afford momentary delays of material in favour of shape protocols and iterations derived through control of geometrical or mathematical rule sets. Parametric protocols enable systems that are defined (through an order of component rules and based on optimised or confirmed behaviour)⁵ to undergo series of iterations while preserving specified qualities. Finally, forms are maps. Form can be used to map and distribute internal forces (such as dead-load patterns within an object) and external force flows (of context, such as gravity,

ESSAY— FORM AND FORCE

This essay discusses SmartStructuresLab2014, a postgraduate studio that approached the engineering of architecture in process. Relationships between form, force and structure are explored here as a dialogue between analogue design models, computational design series, and engineered structural analysis and optimisations; through digital fabrication of 1:1 plywood prototypes, 1:20 skeleton structures and 3D printed form studies. SmartStructuresLab2014 reviewed engineering precedent of self-formation and rule-based designs, and extended these in a process of design iteration, structural behavior review and material affordances. This involved the full integration and seamless transition between 3D modeling (Rhino/McNeel Rhinoceros), parametric design (Grasshopper) and structural analysis (karamba) environments. Thus, a descriptive language of complex curved surfaces becomes available that combines parameterized geometry, finite element calculations and optimization algorithms in rule based scenarios at the intersection between digital and analogue modelling. As a consequence, the resulting design models develop formative principles for tension, compression, or hybrid systems, to be deployed as grid shell, masonry, concrete or membrane structures. This paper reviews the underlying conceptual framework and protocol of the studio.

FORCE In the development of forms, one might argue that two major models, two schools of thought, exist: that of self-forming systems, and that of rule-based designs. Both are expressions of force flows within, and share similar resulting structural capacities and characteristics, but depart from different structural viewpoints. While the first establishes form through material computation—the possibility of material to self-form under the impact of external forces—the second establishes form through rule-base, optimised geometries that govern complex shapes. This is significant because systems vary between regular and irregular organisations as result of self-forming processes that build according to a logic of material formation. And without the logic of rule-based paradigms, form becomes arbitrary and meaningless. At the intersection between digital and analogue, the investigation of structural forms–strategized tectonics that take architectural design from concept to fabrication and construction–enhance the core competence of an architect; and enables firstly, an understanding, and secondly, the collaboration between engineers and architects. In fact, the legacy of structural complexity we inherit in works by Otto, Fuller, Candela, Dieste, has been set by these engineer-architects variably as self-forming structures, and rule-based geometries.

040

6 Neil Leach, Digital Morphogenesis (London: Wiley Academy, AD 79, 2009), 34. 7 Pedreschi quotes Mainstone on three forms of intuition that have guided structural innovation: “1. Intuitions of structural behaviour: a spatial or muscular sense of the actions of force and stability, that an arch may spread if the abutments are not sufficient to push against the thrust or that a tall slender column is less stable than a short broad column. 2. Intuitions of structural action: a deeper understanding of structural behaviour, supported by careful observation that led to more precise ideas of force, moment and equilibrium; the start of a quantitative understanding of structure. 3. Intuitions of structural adequacy: a perception of the adequacy of a generic structural form for a particular application, conditioned perhaps by the significance of changes in scale and proportion.” Remo Pedreschi, “Form, Force and Structure: A Brief History” in Achim Menges and Michael Weinstock (eds.), Versatility and Vicissitude: Performance in Morpho-Ecological Design (London: Wiley Academy, AD 78, March 2008), 12-19.

8 Edward Allen, Waclaw Zaleski and Boston Structures Group, Form and Forces: Designing Efficient and Expressive Structures (New York: Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2010), 219. 9 As Otto notes: “The fundamental interrelation between the form of a structure, the forces which act during its creation, or which it transmits, and the mass required to fulfil this structural task, without primarily aiming to find a direct application in the field of architecture… result in greater knowledge of forms, structures and the processes, which lead to their development.” Frei Otto, ed., IL 25: Experiments - Form, Force, Mass (Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, Information of the Institute for Lightweight Structures IL, 1990), 0.14. 10 Lynn argues that ‘the context for design becomes an abstract space that directs form within a current of forces that can be stored as information in the shape of form.’ Greg Lynn, Animate Form (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999). 11 Maria E. Moreyra Garlock and David P. Billington, Felix Candela: Engineer, Builder, Structural Artist (Princeton, N.J.: New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).

Self-forming structures have a long history of invention. Hooke’s Law (1675) described the catenary as “the true mathematical and mechanical form for all manner of arches in building” “[A]s hangs the flexible line, so but inverted will stand the rigid arch.”⁸ These hanging chains are the first self-forming structures: the catenary forms a curve in tension under its own weight, and responds through shape formation to changes in location and magnitude when forces act upon it. Moreover, when such a self-formed curve is turned upside down, the arch stands equally in compression. Both are forms in equilibrium with the forces running through their geometrical and material system. This structural, formative principle can be used as a design model in different material systems spanning from masonry to grid shells, or membrane structures that then act as tension, compression, or hybrid systems. In Experiments: Form, Force, Mass (1960), Frei Otto strategically extended Hooke’s mandate to strategic structural form-finding, and developed a matrix for the structural design of membranes, minimal surfaces, tensile and pneumatic structures, and shells. Here, the form of a structure as constituted in a self-forming process is of primary importance.⁹ Defined by boundary conditions, Otto’s models give visual evidence of force flows within. Rather then providing analytical descriptions of form, they effectively store forces within form.¹⁰ In ‘unforced’ or un-deformed condition, the surface rests in a formation of regular elements. Surfaces are deformed according to forces applied to control points; vertically by pulling one point upwards, or horizontally from several sides. For example when exposed to force, a mesh surfaces self-forms as it interpolates between two points (interval expansion), and organises itself in a pattern of densities and voids. Self-forming structural tests thus become design models that economise the design effort through the simulation of the material and structural behaviour of spline curves in systems which draw on the equilibrium figures of the architectural object. Form is then neither architectural language nor typology, but a prototype that is governed by universal principles, and which constitutes a rule system of spatial and structural complexity. Generic rules of geometry can, on the other hand, equally become project definitions, as is the case with Felix Candela’s shells structures, and his rule-based system of doubly curved surfaces applied to hyperbolic paraboloids (hypars), tympans and umbrellas.¹¹ Specifically, compression

ESSAY— FORM AND FORCE

and wind or snow loads). In repeated conversions between analogue and digital mediations of form, a computation of form and force relationships becomes key to effective structural behaviour. In what has been termed ‘reverse engineering’, models that exist as equilibrium figures (where forces and form have found a balance) are used as base data sets of: shape, node coordinates, or spline curvatures. These approximate forms are stability figures with homogeneous force distributions, which give definitions to structure. A combination of material interaction with a physical model and geometric‚ ‘reverse engineering’ thus enables the control, variation, and realisation of form, free-form and form multiplicity. As a consequence, formers top-down processes of form-making can be replaced with a bottom-up logic of form finding.⁶ This is significant because it allows the designer to include intuitions of structural behaviour, of structural action, and of structural adequacy.⁷ It allows forms to be expressions of force.

STUDIO The SmartStructuresLab2014 (Self-Forming Systems and Rule Based Geometries for Catenary Structures, Membranes and Shells)¹⁵ reviewed the means by which architectural systems respond, adapt and achieve form through interaction with external and internal forces. We used engineering precedents as a springboard for design; to reflect upon structure and skin, force behavior and spatial performance, and to use these precedents for innovation and invention in architecture, referencing and researching the work of engineer-architects Frei Otto, Eladio Dieste, Buckminster Fuller, and Felix Candela. The studio pathway proceeded through the two-fold agenda from self-formation to rule-based design in a continuous process. The students designed, simulated forces, analysed, systematized and re-articulated structural systems of hypars (in catenary, shell, or membrane systems), which acted as design drivers that apply mathematical

042

principles. In continued applications and physical tests in 1:1 prototypes, this allowed us to think through structural logic and rule-based scenarios for a variety of architectural paradigms by manipulation, adaptation, and evolution of form, force and structure. In the design of form and force, SmartStructuresLab2014 was segmented into the following distinct phases; a. the physical form finding through a spacebox after a structural precedent, b. the transfer modeling of form and system into 3D-modelling software (McNeel Rhinoceros); c. the continued variation through rule-based descriptions (GH Grasshopper); d. the testing and revision for structural fitness (karamba); and e. the organization into segmented elements for digital fabrication. The initial production of the design framework was then followed by a prescribed path for the testing of complex hypar or other rule-based geometries. Each of these phases reviewed criteria that impacted on the design decisions for form / architectural object:

12 An excellent discussion of structures can be found here. Richard Bradshaw, David Campbell, Mousa Gargai, Amir Mirmiran, Patrick Tripeny, Special Structures: Present, Past and Future (American Society of Civil Engineering. Journal of Structural Engineering, June 2002), 691-708. 13 Ibid., 695. 14 Maria Moreyra Garlock and David P Billington, Felix Candela: Engineer, Builder, Structural Artist, 76. 15 This postgraduate Master of Digital Architecture Research studio at the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, was led by Dr Dagmar Reinhardt with Eduardo De Oliviera Barata, UFOSydney, Rob Beson, AR_MA, and Alexander Jung, reinhardt_ jung|architecture.

a. Students were asked to select a design strategy or exploratory model by an engineer-architect, research its context and variations, and remodel the precedent as a tension, compression or hybrid model. The physical form-finding started with a spacebox (a wooden frame with base, a support boundary condition able to withstand tension/compression), in which students set up a series of material form studies (membranes with anchor points and cables/threads). Students reviewed the resulting model through stress testing and deformations (subjecting the shape to additive impact in tension or compression. For example, the curvature of a surface can be formed by pulling anchor points in three or more directions (x-,y-, and z- axes). This allowed us to demonstrate the force flows within, and enabled students to experience form and force relationships as the formative behavior of structures. b. The studio then transferred the analogue form studies into advanced computational software. The translation of self-forming behavior into digital modeling (McNeel Rhino) provided the potential to establish, rethink and revise rules for forms. For example, models could be described by setting a series of defined curvatures and sweeping along set line, effectively expressing design as a ruled-based and self-forming system. As a consequence, the force flow set a parametric definition for the geometry of digital form (in contrast to non-geometrical form finding). Design variations could initially

ESSAYS— FORM AND FORCE

structures (shells, vaults, conoids) and tension-compression combinations (space grids or geodesic domes) are complex but structurally very efficient geometries. Shells can be singly curved (cylinders, vaults, cones), or doubly curved (domes, hyperbolic paraboloids). Similar to form-found or self-forming structures such as the tension membranes discussed earlier, shells are form-resistant: they resist loads by virtue of shape¹² and are inherently geometrical, therefore rule-base, because “all constructed shells are fragments of a more complete geometrical shape, and all geometric surfaces either continue to infinity or intersect with themselves.”¹³ Hyperbolic paraboloids can be described as doubly curved surfaces with a negative curvature, formed as a saddle. Moreover, of all complex doubly curved geometries, hypars are specifically smart because their shape can be defined with straight lines. We can argue that these hypars are conceptual extensions of the self-forming membranes or catenary arches, and have simple equations describing their warped surfaces that “permit stress calculations through simple mathematics.”¹⁴ More importantly for architectural design, they are generic geometrical forms that offer a multitude of applications through simple manipulations—via curved boundaries or straight cuts, through rotations, or intersections of the hypar surfaces. These doubly curved surfaces thus become rule-based design systems—design models that expand the structural and material arsenal of architecture.

c. In continuation, the ruled-based iteration of form was translated into rules in the parametric environment Grasshopper (GH, McNeel Rhino plug-in), whereby form was solved in precise descriptions of geometry, relations, and mathematical prompts in code (if-then scenarios). In this design environment, form similar to its analogue parallel corresponds to threshold conditions set by predefined criteria. For example, spline curves can be set as tangents between three defined points, and closed with a minimal surface that is ‘released’ between all curve boundaries (through gravity simulations in kangaroo, a Live Physics plug-in for Grasshopper that provides interactive optimization and form-finding).

044

Reinhardt develops design-research through practice projects, design studios, exhibitions and grant applications that focus on relationships between generative design, acoustic simulation, structural engineering, digital fabrication and spatial programming. Her work is regularly discussed in digital communities such as eCAADe, ROB|ARCH, CAADRIA and Leonardo. Together with Alexander Jung and their shared practice reinhardt_ jung, the outcomes of design research are tested in applied architecture solutions that have received numerous awards, are widely published and attract international recognition.

e. Finally, the design continued the process into a series of digitally fabricated models, from representational 3D-printed form studies, to precise and detailed fabrication for construction. Students organized form into segmented elements for digital fabrication and construction, as 1:20 skeleton structures, and finally into 1:1 scaled plywood prototypes. Based upon the structural engineering analysis, design principles were revised so as to account for and integrate material properties and fabrication requirements. This stands for an applied architectural solution derived from previous analogue and digital exercises. Students thus applied their previously acquired understanding of force flows within forms to a detailed, efficient prototype of an architectural object in a context. The resulting structures are smart, structurally informed, and represent a design that has come full-circle back to an analogue model.

Dr Dagmar Reinhardt and Alexander Jung are architects, researchers and educators. Reinhardt is the Master of Digital Architecture research leader and Program Director of the Bachelor of Architecture and Environments, with a special interest in smart structures that extend computational design towards design research and practice applications. She is developing design principles for a mathematical language derived from laws of the natural world, and that are shared between generative design, scripting, sound/music, digital fabrication, interaction design and architecture. As a cross-disciplinary researcher,

d. Interlocking with physical and digital modeling, the studio then continued iterations of complex hypar forms into the simulation and analysis of forces, and into optimisations of spatial and structural performance. For the gravity and load testing exercises, students were trained in a custom-designed engineering workshop in karamba (a structural engineering software plug-in for Grasshopper). This software provides accurate analysis of spatial trusses and frames, and thus allows the further definition of form and force by combining parameterized geometric models, finite element calculations and optimization algorithms.

Relationships between form, force and structure remain a core question in architectural discourse. Critical to understanding this is the dialogue between the parallel realms of architecture and structural engineering, which can produce forms that go beyond aesthetic criteria, and which can be smart—in their design, their structure, and their construction. In this context, advanced computational software offers not so much an effective medium but a collaboration tool for the exchange of work within a multi-disciplinary team. 3D modeling, scripting and analysis software can be considered a platform that interfaces between architect, engineer, and fabrication. As has been discussed, SmartStructuresLab2014 deeply engages with the conceptual and practice sides of architectural design. On the practice side and aiming at the architectural profession, the course prepares students for multiple exchanges of form in a design process that—beyond form variations available through scripting software— includes structural performance as a key design criterion. On the academic side, the SmartStructuresLab studio series continues to engage design as design research. Through a discourse of form and force, design is a systemic process of collaborations and shared design intelligence that advances knowledge in the field of architecture. By developing potential methodologies for interdisciplinary practice, a horizontal learning structure empowered paradigms of the digital–through advanced geometries, structural engineering, and digital fabrication—that can act as pilot projects and prototypes for new architectural and engineering approaches. 

ESSAY— FORM AND FORCE

CONCLUSION

be formed intuitively, and then described as rule-based protocol.

ARCHITECTURE ANNUAL 2014: PROPOSITIONS First published in 2014 by Freerange Press in conjunction with the Graduate Architecture Exhibition 4th-12th December, 2014 Freerange Press is an online and print publishing co-operative based in Australia and New Zealand. Freerange's focus is on global issues of design, politics and life for an urbanised humanity. www.projectfreerange.com

Tin Sheds Gallery, 148 City Road University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia ISBN: 978-0-9808689-6-8 Editor: Ross Anderson Associate Editors: Sean Bryen Kevin Liu Designer: Ryan Phung Printer: Peachy Print Australia Pty Ltd © 2014 PROPOSITIONS This book, PROPOSITIONS, and all works depicted in it are © editors and contributors, 2014. All rights reserved.

__________________

studio design portfolios

(hero image)

CONTEMPORARY GOTHIC KATHARINE FIFE, EMMY OMAGARI & SARAH YATES SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

length L

SET-UP DIAGRAMS

ANALOGUE TESTING CERAMIC CASTS OF PLEATED

length L

Planar Surface Sheet

Initial form-finding experiments looking at hanging funicular systems based on the work of Frei Otto were undertaken and became the basis for form extensions. A stitched surface was introduced and the notion of the pleated form presented itself ripe with potential. Not only did the pleated surface in their various iterations present an enlivened system, but also gifted the project with structural logic.

Proving that the pleated component played an integral role in the structure’s efficiency through rigorous testing in Karamba, focus shifted towards the curved parameters of the form. Multiple iterations of quadrant curves and top rails were generated digitally in Rhinoceros and Grasshopper, the result of which was a vast array of unique architectural gestures. The parameters of the boundary curves were varied to extremes that allowed for an exploration of spatial qualities when composed and arranged through a modular system. It was at this stage that a link back to physical model making was crucial to effectively marry the tectonic explorations with the explorations of form.

Funicular geometry of the fabric forms already had a significant structural advantage. Crease lines were analysed in the fabric surfaces and noted as naturally manifesting force lines. When translated back into the digital environment the crease lines turned pleats proved to have prominent structural integrity.

Whilst translating from the digital realm into the physical, the flexibility of the fabric membrane naturally produced a set of beautiful and structurally useful tension geometries that were then refined and geometrically adapted in order to apply to a larger scale.

... NOT ONLY DID THE PLEATED SURFACES IN THEIR VARIOUS ITERATIONS PRESENT AN ENLIVENED SYSTEM, BUT ALSO GIFTED THE PROJECT WITH STRUCTURAL LOGIC.

Uniform Distribution length L 0.65 L 0.25 L

Uneven Distribution Concentration of stress at narrow neck length of cross section only 0.25 L - additional depth would be required for structural integrity

Smooth Form

length L L L

Pleated Form

Even Distribution Using pleat to create form from sheet; uniform length of cross sections adds structural depth where required, distributing stress more evenly

EXTERNALISED CENTRIFUGAL SPATIAL ARRANGEMENT

_ANALOGUE TEST MODELS 1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

5.1

6.1

INTERNALISED CENTRIPETAL SPATIAL ARRANGEMENT

Undulating Canopy

Varying Light Densities 1.1a

1.1b

1.1c

1.1d

1.1e

1.1f

1.1g

Irregular Configuration

_ DIGITAL ITERATIONS : VARIATIONS ON A THEME Module Matrix Revisited 1_SWEEP 2_CATENARY CURVES AS RAILS

CENTRIPETAL CONNECTION

rotation axis

CENTRIFUGAL CONNECTION

Externalised canopy rotation axis

rotation axis

Internalised vault space

Elevation

Plan

rotation axis

Elevation

Externalised Edge fixing

Internalised Arch fixing

Staggered Arch fixing

CONNECTION TYPES

PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - DENSITY OF PERFORMERS AND SPECTATORS

Sections

(hero image)

PIVOT PAVILION HOPE DRYDEN/ ROBIN LLOYD/ ALEX GURMAN SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

GRIDS

PROJECTED CURVES

CURVE DIVISION 1

CURVE DIVISION 2

TRUSS SYSTEM LOGIC The Karamba tool helped with the development of the trusses systems. the asymmetric grid arrangement of the trusses were optimized to have a greater density of supports at the centre of the shell where need to support the cantilever structure and less structure towards the edges to minimize the dead load acting on the structure. Similar to the system developed in the HYBGRID the trusses are composed of three layers, an upper, a middle and a lower section. The curvature of the trusses are defined by the length of the spacers. The scripting logic diagramed to the left is described below. 1. Points of intersection with other lines of the grid are identified 2. Circles drawn from intersection points to midpoints of segments. Chords drawn between circle|circle intersections. Middle curve interpolated between initial intersection points and endpoints of chords 3. Circles drawn from endpoints of chords to initial intersection points. Chords draw between intersection points of circles. Lower curve interpolated between extracted points. 4. Completed overall truss geometry 5. Compression and tension analysis performed in karamba shows rods in compression, upper section in tenstion and lower section in compression

PROGRAM The idea of an interactive architecture through which people could begin to transform their surroundings for specific needs originated in ideas explored for the Brand-x exercise. In a theatrical act we envisioned the pavilion opening and closing to allow for degrees of privacy and offer a way to adapt to daylight conditions and privacy and acoustic requirements. With this in mind the decision to make our structure in the context of a 1-hour program was to make a sunken amphitheatre. Pushing the usable space down into the ground enabled the architectural form to be viewed at eye level, making the geometry more familiar at a human scale. The progression of the architectural experience on approach allows a strong visual connection with the external shell structure. Upon entering the pavilion, shadows cast by the exposed timber truss system and the sunken nature of the amphitheatre offer a more intimate environment for performances and reflection.

TRUSSES

KARAMBA ANALYSIS

(image)

SHORT SECTION 1:100

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR In addition to bracing the inadequate cross section of the plywood required stronger foundation supports which would stop the trussed arches from flattening out. In effect the analogue model sees a paradoxical return to the structural principles developed for Frei Otto’s multi halle project. In a similar way to Otto’s gridshell the final shape is a partly self-formed by the introduction of anchoring supports.

KARAMBA TESTING Through constructing the final analogue model we observed unanticipated material deformations at localised points across the model. The 1mm thick aeroplane plywood material we selected for production proved to be too thin. the rod spaced trusses lacked appropriate resistive material tension forces and struggled to hold their own curvatures under additional load of the cantilevering body. The bolt connections were also not forming completely rigid junctions which was enabling high degrees of torsion across the model. To ameliorate these observations we conducted additional testing in karamba. We analysed several bracing alternatives which could be attached to the already established junction points.

ELEVATION 1:100

By pulling under utilized elements into compression the analogue application of this testing was successful in eliminating visible deformation in the model.

LONG SECTION 1:100

KARAMBA ANALYSIS

MATERIAL SYSTEM PRECEDENTS Our initial formal studies were informed by Candela’s over sized sculptural concrete gestures with their impressive capacity for cantilevering long spans. While material explorations in timber led us to look at Otto’s multihalle lattice grid shell structure that was partly self-formed on site during construction. The generation of form through material computation led us to research the work of Truco and Felipe. Unlike Otto’s multihalle the HYBGRID lattice structure developed by Truco and Felipe does not find its form from being raised or lowered to or from the ground. Rather, the structure was developed as a layered system whose form could be globally defined through the local manipulation of actuators.

FORM AND SHAPE From our rocking motion concept we developed a two contact point requirement for deriving forms. Through testing a variety of forms with different profiles and minimal surfaces we developed an understanding of the importance of utilizing symmetry and controlling an objects centre of gravity. Adopting characteristics of our initial spacebox forms, program requirements for these two-contact point forms expanded to incorporate large cantilevering wings. As we resolved our form we looked at rendering it materially as a linear network deployed along the surface.

The work of Achim Menges also inspired us to explore the material computation possibilities of plywood timber. His pursuit for morphogenetic design through computer-aided manufacturing continues to move us.

DESIGN PROCESS EARLY FORM STUDIES

NON PERIODIC ORGANISATION lattice structures in physics typically appear as regularly repeating three-dimensional arrangements of atoms, ions, or molecules in a metal or other crystalline solids. Architectural manifestations of these lattice structures, typically defined by gridshells structures, have been largely made up of flat linear elements bolted or woven together at uniform spacings in two directions. Our project offers the introduction of dispersing and non-uniform grid patterning into the gridshell logic. The introduction of this variable creates space for material optimization of predefined forms enabling greater spans and longer cantilevers with minimal material Simultaneously this organizational approach appropriates the grid as an ornamental gesture.

INTERIM DESIGN

3D PRINTED FORM STUDIES

ANALOGUE SHELL TESTING

DESIGN PROCESS RULES 1. Form generation – a planar surface is deformed with point controls to form basic saddles and other doubly curved surfaces 2. Edge conditions refined with selection of a closed curve profile 3. Initial surface trimmed with selected profile 4. Grid pattern applied to selected profile with three variables of control: density, cross over and dispersion. 5. Grids projected to surface but geometry still without material thickness or structural depth 6. Truss members assembled from projected curves 7. Deformation analysis conducted in karamba 8. Surface form, profile shape and grid pattening optimized for structural efficiency 9. Output results assessed against multi-dimensional and aesthetic criteria. 10. Prepare for production if results are satisfactory. If yield is unsatisfactory existing fitness variables can be adjusted or new variables can be introduced (ie bracing elements) and feedback into design optimisation process.

Kangaroo Base Geometry

TRIAXIAL PAVILION Triaxial pavilion creates an intensified experience of light and sky. The tri-axial plan generates 3-‘pocket’ spaces which fold in from a larger shaded gathering space. These ‘pockets’ create a sense of enclosure and serenity, whilst making the user more aware of the sky beyond. The doubly curved structure is constructed from singly curved timber structural elements, joined as a waffle structure. Singly curved panels wrap the structure, a gap between the panels grows with the change of curvature in section, keeping each panel as a singly curved element, hence easily constructible. These slices in the cladding add a dynamism when the structure is traversed.

Kangaroo Variation 1

Kangaroo Variation 3

Weaverbird Base Geometry

Weaverbird Variation 1

Max Hu Harry Henshaw-Hill Lex (HongKai) Yuan

Kangaroo Variation 2

Weaverbird Variation 2

Weaverbird Variation 3

32mm structural ply waffle structure. 80mm wide beams.

Folded steel plate connections.

2 x 3mm playwood sheeting fixed to beams with steel angles.

Plan 1:100

Concrete footings. Structural Axonometric

Elevation A 1:100

Section A 1:100

Ply waffle structure cut from 2400 x 4800mm sheets

2 panels spliced together

Steel plate connection

Elevation B 1:100

Section B 1:100

4 panels per leg, transported to site in individually pieces

Panels spliced to create leg

3 legs joined together

Developable Strips

Splicing

Two curves

2 layers of 3mm plywood strips cut from 2400 x 4800mm sheets. Joined together.

First curve copied across Lofted together Lofted surface trimmed Elevation C 1:100

Section C 1:100

(hero image)

HYDRO FOLD ANDRES RODRIGUEZ 308271143 Closest Closest leg toleg the to the pointpoint SEUNG JI HAN 309257123 AH RA LEE 310257948 ALEX YUEN 310243238 SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

Closest Closest leg toleg the to the pointpoint - join- join

The hydrofold architectural project has the ability to adapt, reorient and multiply at a variety of scales. The form is generated from a series of circles which branch off each other in a hierarchical formation. On the top level of this hierarchy the largest circles/modules create a chain-like spine which bend and turn according to site conditions. From this main spine a series of smaller modules branch off according to the closest water collection point. The further away the circles branch off the smaller the circles become and the number of subdivisions decreases. This creates a variety of dynamic spaces/shelters which twist and turn in an organic formal logic. This larger scale modular development is able to accommodate a series of 3 modules (for a small pavilion project) up to 50 or even 100 modules (for a site such as a desert).

Closest Closest leg toleg the to the pointpoint - join- join

Closest Closest leg toleg the to the pointpoint -join -join

WaterWater collection collection pointpoint

THE DESIGN PROCESS

Overall our project dealt with combining : continuous boundary curves that created engaging spaces with our desire to celebrate water .Its main mission was to serve the community by providing water to the wider public and its purpose was to express as simply as we could the intention of the pavilion to collect /store/filter/ water and that therefore the pavilion could be a symbol of water culture , a functional entity and a gathering space for communities.

The structure of the project is embedded within an interlocking strip panelling system. A lack of a structural skeleton in which panels are placed was an important design decision to enhance unity in the form and material. According to analysis, the folded sheet increases structural integrity in comparison to a flat/smooth surface. This folded skin simultaneously redirects the water to nodal points in the system.

space box

Draining (legs) Filtering (wings)

Draining (legs) N N

E E

Filtering (wings)

Draining (wings)

concept development N N

Filtering (legs)

t leg to the

The overlap of the panelling strips create an interlocking rigidity to the structure. Analysis using Karamba will assist in advising structural integrity/efficiency in areas such as the number of subdivisions for the panelling strips, thickness in material, connections and scalability of materials.

Closest leg to the point - join

Closest leg to the point -join

Water collection point

Gradient descent lines

Water collection point

water collection point

water collection point closest leg to the point - smaller module joined

form finding closest leg to the water collection point

medium module joined

Closest leg to the point - join

Closest leg to the point -join

Water collection point

Larger scale modular development

CANOPY PAVILION Nicholas Souksamrane, Nicholas Cheung, Justin Lo SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

The canopy pavilion was a result of experimentation with minimal surfaces and self-forming structures. Our goal was to develop forms that were generated by reactional pulling and pushing. What resulted was a mesh that had control points manipulated along the vertical axis. These control points became columns of space which layered in elevation to develop a forest of columns. Upon further qualities and light control. Light wells were developed in the control points that were pulled up, allowing for a openings in our canopy. The pavilion is situated in a city park nested within existing trees, extending the canopy boundary and instigating a unique sensory experience. The program is dynamic space.

Elevation

to relate with it’s context. disappear and reappear at another part of the pavilion.

Plan

(hero image)

The Wish Pavilion is an architectural metaphor for a “wish tree”, a tradition shared by many cultures in which offerings or written wishes are hung on the branches. The timber structure of the Wish Pavilion represents the organic and dynamic skeleton of a living tree. In a spatial dialogue with the pavilion, the users physically tie their wishes onto the “branches” of the structure. The scale of the pavilion gradual increases, first conveying the notion of growth; while as a functional aspect allows people of varying ages and heights to interact with the structure. The hung objects are protected under the cover of a “green skin” of climbing plant (eg. ivy) that blankets the structural frame. This mimics the foliage of a wish tree that creates the connotation of sheltering the wishes of the people. There is a modular aspect of the pavilion which allows for a repeated element in which scale is played with through digital manipulation. Intended to be situated in a busy urban context, the Wish Pavilion springs forth as an oasis amongst the fast-paced, gritty environment of the city.

WISH TREE PAVILION YILE WANG THONG MAU RUNZHE HE PIYANGI MALLAWARACHCHI SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

“Green skin” of climbing plant

Occupying a niche space in the city within a concrete, steel and glass blur, a rare moment of natural and spiritual tranquility is found under the pavilion, providing a space for people to cast their desires and hopes amidst their daily routines. The “petals” of the pavilion enclose visitors away from their immediate context, offering a haven of nature for a social yet introspective experience where it is needed most.

Written Wishes Hung on the Tree

Tradition Shared by many Culture

East Elevation

Wish Trees of Different Scales

Wish Cards

South Elevation

Design Concept / Inspirations

8 8

13 5

33 21

spiral galaxies

nautilus shell

spiral aloe

snails and fingerprints

cancer cell division

fibonacci and armor

The Fibonacci Spiral

Fibonacci Spirals Interplay

+ Normal

Fibonacci Spiral & Modular Possibility

Force Bending

Brand X + Intrium = Form Finding

Force Bending

Rotate Op.1

Rotate Op.2

Rotate 3D

The Brand X model expressed an idea of spatial intricacy of the curves which derived from bending. We sensed some degrees of resemblance between the BrandX modules and the Fibonacci Spiral we previously achieved

Grasshopper step-by- step Process

Plan View

Divide the Curves

Starting with a Fibonacci curve and give it a three dimensional increasing volume with circles. The resulting form look like a natural shell with gradually increasing sections. This allows us to work with the 2D Fibonacci on a 3D platform. Select and join the points on the equal location of the increasing circles, the resulting curve was then divided again with the base curve so that the connection between each corresponding points on two curves divide the surface strip in many gradual decreasing scale of ‘blocks’

Divide Surface Strip

Plan View

Controlled Space layers

Three-dimentional ‘S’

Control Points Plan View

‘S’Fitting the Boundaries

Two Portions of the divided ‘blocks’ will be used to construct one ‘petal’ in a controlled three-dimensional space . The curves that construct the ‘petal’ are made in the three-dimensional bounding ‘block’. The curvature of the curve is strictly controlled by the point on the boundary lines that allow the result S to be just touching the boundaries which allow for a continuity of curvature for the later. An entire module of two combined ‘petals’ as we studied previously is then constructed by using the same method regarding the curves’ three dimensional spatial quality in the space boxes

By applying the similar methods, all the curves are then generated in a continuous way but reducing in scale. A few variations are allowed to play with this grasshopper model, and we will chose the most appropriate one that fits our material properties.

Selected Design

Design Variation

A few Animations of showing different variations of our grasshopper can be made in the aspects of growing in length, growing in scale, rotation and so on.

Design Variation

INTERIOR VIEW TOWARDS THE TALL DOME FACING WEST

INTERIOR VIEW TOWARDS THE SMALL DOME FACING EAST

PROGRAMMATIC DIAGRAM SUNSET

SUNRISE

architectural proposal QUINCY YE ALENA MINAEVA EDWARD YAO LEONG YONG XIN

EAST

MORNING SCENARIO

WEST

EAST

Evening Function

Meditation & Exercise 6AM

WEST

EVENING SCENARIO

12PM

8PM

From the same floor plan a mesh is generated, with a geometry that sits within the structure of the church hanging from the members above with cables. Polypropylene panels with custom cut connector pieces acting as this mesh filter the incoming afternoon light giving the interior of the space a mystical, dream-like atmosphere. The tall dome catches the light as the sun sets whilst the smaller dome, in the shadow of the larger dome makes a sanctuary for those wishing for a meditative atmosphere. At all times the structure remains a constant presence, its silhouette making itself felt as shadows during times of usage at dawn and at afternoon, as a vague outline through the skin and as a skeletal frame from the outside each time as a gentle reminder of the genesis of the project in the geometry of cathedrals.

LONG SECTION

LOOKING UP TO MAIN DOME

VIEW LOOKING THROUGH ENTRY

VIEW FROM MAIN DOME

ENTRY TO THE MAIN DOME

architectural proposal

INITIAL EXPERIMENT

DESIGN REALISATION

BRANCHING CATENARY SYSTEM

GENERATION OF BASE PLANS

LINEAR CONSTRUCTION

QUINCY YE ALENA MINAEVA EDWARD YAO LEONG YONG XIN

BASE TRIANGLE

FOLDING LINES

ceremonial

HIGHEST DOME

meditative

TRANSITION

SEPARATION OF FUNCTION

The Cathedral Pavilion seeks to

capture the organic lines and flow of self forming catenary curves within its structure. Inspiration for the pavilion came from the work of Gaudi on the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, in which chain models were employed to elegantly derive the final form of the church. The beauty of the catenary system comes from its ability to generate complexity with each added layer. Thus initial explorations of the structure focused on understanding the behaviour of a single module, with each subsequent iteration examining the interactions which occurred when additional modules were added.

CIRCULATION & OPENING

PLANAR TRANSFORMATION

GENERATION OF STRUCTURAL FRAME

10M 10M

STRETCH

SHEAR

PEEL

7M 7M

5M 3M

This experimental logic transferred to the final structural process, here we begin by examining the floor plan of a single triangular module, as we iterate, we subdivide this triangle and copy/tesselate/transform it with each progression. The structure is then generated as an inverse catenary with various forces acting upon the structure corresponding to its differing zones of usage. In this particular configuration as a cathedral, the pavilion contains a series of domes of increasing height. From the same floor plan a mesh is generated, with a geometry that sits within the structure of the church hanging from the members above with cables. Polypropylene panels with custom cut connector pieces acting as this mesh filter the incoming afternoon light giving the interior of the space a mystical, dream-like atmosphere. The tall dome catches the light as the sun sets whilst the smaller dome, in the shadow of the larger dome makes a sanctuary for those wishing for a meditative atmosphere. At all times the structure remains a constant presence, its silhouette making itself felt as shadows during times of usage at dawn and at afternoon, as a vague outline through the skin and as a skeletal frame from the outside each time as a gentle reminder of the genesis of the project in the geometry of cathedrals.

3D TRANSFORMATION 2-PLANES

BASE PLAN WITH FUNCTIONS

EXTRUSION HEIGHT

converging columns

multilayered structure

connection techniques

module array

C E

D C A B

context adaptable

EXTERIOR VIEW OF THE CATHEDRAL

STRUCTURAL FRAME

GENERATION OF SKIN FROM SAME BASE OFFSET WIDTH

REPETITION-2

CROSS LINKAGE

CONVERGE

3D TRANSFORMATION 5-PLANES

SKIN EXTRUSION

SKIN OFFSET FROM FRAME BOUNDARY

SKIN EMBEDDED INSIDE FRAME

SKIN PATTERNING WIDER

CONVERGE

BIFURCATION

AXIAL STRETCHING

NARROWER

HORIZONTAL SUBDIVISION

DESIGN RULES

STRUCTURAL LINES

VERTICAL SUBDIVISION

CURVATURE SUBDIVISION

OVERLAID SUBDIVISION

THE BARNACLE PAVILLION

Light permeates the doubly curved surface of the pavilion through the ‘barnacles’ to create a space infused with dappled light. The design seeks to embody a sense of continuity in the form and display the idea of connections through the barnacles as their dependency on each other forms the basis of the structure.

Chloe Zheng, Pascale Roberts, Giselle Moore, Ognjen Rakic SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

The meditative sport of Tai-Chi is typically practiced outdoors in order to establish a stronger connection with nature and inspire self-reflection within the natural world. The Barnacle Pavilion seeks to enrich this experience by creating a space that mimics its surroundings and enhances the experience of being on the rocky seascape. Of particular interest and inspiration to our design process was the work of Félix Candela, specifically his explorations with the hyperbolic paraboloid shell. The spatial quality created with the doubly curved surfaces of his thin shelled structures was an aspect of design we particularly enjoyed and endeavoured to carry through the entirety of our project.

skin

structure

Form and shape

Inspired by the natural, fluid and continuous movements of the body during the practice of Tai Chi, the form is rooted in the earth and grows to create a continuous, fluid and animated space below the doubly curved surface. barnacles

The Design Process:

The design process involved exploration of the hyperbolic paraboloid shell. Through continued iterations and variations, we aimed to create a doubly curved surface that embodied the concepts of fluidity and a sense of an organic form. grid

Initial form finding involved starting with a rectangular plane in the RHINO interface, and exploring various ways of creating a “ribbon” like form by manipulating the plane. The main flaw of this process was the inability to set control points and thus limited the scope of our experiments. In order to achieve a more controlled form we continued with form finding techniques in grasshopper. This included applying the sine curve as the two boundary edges for our

surface

Northern Elevation

provide a passage through the pavilion

Rule based form finding - sine curve

provide connections through pavilion and open spaces to meditate underneath

Karamba load analysis

Surface Border

Diagonal Curve

Offset of Border

Random Curve

form, manipulating the amplitude and frequency of points on the curve to achieve a desired curve. Finally, both curves were lofted to create a surface. After multiple studies we decided to pursue the form that appeared to be the most structural. This chosen form was then put into KARAMBA analysis for grasshopper and tested for structural stability.

Rules for logic

The hyperbolic paraboloid (hypar) follows the logic of having structuralas it an equal number of contact points withbolt theallground panels together does being in tension. We primarily followed this logic in determining the number of points permitted to touch the ground and the number of points permitted to be lifted.

attach barna to structure bolted angle brackets

Karamba testing

The Karamba testing of iterations were informative as in most cases it alerted us to the structural deficiencies within our forms. Following the karamba test for our final form, it was revealed that the design was in fact not structurally stable. In response to these results we moved the footings around and applied a second surface layer to the hexagonal structural grid system in an attempt to make the form more rigid- as we did in our Brandx design. These studies were helpful in terms of understanding which areas were generally the structurally weakest and needed the most reinforcement.

Structure and behaviour

After exploring rectangular, triangulated and hexagonal grid systems, we mutually decided to pursue a hexagonal honeycomb system. Despite understanding that this system has been used many times before, we decided to pursue it because it was the most appropriate to our design. We felt that the hexagonal grid- if manipulated could provide be quite visually interesting and also create our desired visual effect of ‘dappled light’. 1. construct structure To make enhance the hexagonal grid structure, we wanted to change the aperture sizes of the openings as well as extruding these hexagons to create light funnels- otherwise known as the ‘barnacles’. Following our Karamba exercises, we then added a second skin layer to reinforce the rigidity of the structure. The opening apertures of this surface layer were determined through the use of an attractor curve in grasshopper.

Attractor curve experiementation

2. attach barnacles

Shadows cast from attractor curve

Powder print model

Construction model

Construction model experimentation

1:10

Powder print model

Plan

Construction model process

Construction model shadows

Laser cut construction model

Construction Section

Eastern Elevation

BIOMORPH PAVILION

The Biomorph Pavilions are designed to create musical, peaceful, variable and biomorphic spaces. The use of a parametric definition allows infinite possibilities driven by the acoustic and the experiential. A conjunction of these ideas creates the surreal and polarising architecture of the Biomorph.

Sargiz Morad, Mark Adam Szekely & Mark Vukovich SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

deformed at 4 points along the vertical axis. This is a reference to gravity as in the gak deformations. As such, flat vertical surfaces need to be avoided. The most effective deformations occur with long slits at different angles.

Examining architectural precedents that were digitally complex and/or geometrically logical assisted in producing unique rules for a biomorph geometry.

The primary form is the vault shape. This allows the deformations to be clearly expressed. Many of the Pavilions contain a circular plan in the center to allow the audience to be arranged around the musician.

Examining musical precedents that featured stripped back performances - house shows, basement shows and street performances with minimal equipment assisted in determining the program. These performances produce surreal acoustic environments to be incorporated in the Pavilions.

Slits are produced to permeate sound and light. This filters the experience to the outside to allure an audience, like wind caught between a door slightly ajar. On the inside, the outside is filtered in. Daylight can dance through and sound will have a mixed quality with some music leaving and some outside noise entering.

Taking inspiration from both the cloth analog study and the gak analog study, a definition was developed that takes an input vault shape - approximates and divides the shape with panels - and then deforms slits within these panels. The shape is then progressively thickened from the base to the top. Slits are formed according to an adjustable aperture, and are then

The Pavilions are semi open with formal and informal openings. The public can enter one opening, pass around the performance and through the other. Informal openings can allow the musician to dance around the Pavilion - to perform briefly for the outside as well.

Paneling application to input form, then deformation, thickening and multiplication.

Production of a definition to generate enclosed bays for the pavilion in a proportional rule based manner.

Application of surface paneling system to initial pavilion bays demonstrating how the grid division behaves.

Second Pavilion

Creation of a form for brainstorming at interim that begins to utilize the script more effectively.

Gradual thickening from the bottom to a thinner top for structural expression and moving control points to achieve pavilion form and requirements.

Choosing the right amount of deformation to the panels for aesthetic, acoustic and lighting purposes.

Third Pavilion

Fourth Pavilion

Fifth Pavilion

Form.

Deformation.

Construction.

Plan

Axonometric

Through the generation of defined program areas represented by each circle, tangents are drawn between each and are divided by arcs to control head space. The deformation process through the application of slits and tension points. Running each panel through a grid to produce egg notching in three directions to create the framework of the panel. This allows casting and fixings.

Elevation

THE VINY

THE VINY PAVILION FOR WINE TASTING

THE VINY is a pavilion located at the vineyard which serves as a place for hanging out and wine tasting.

Chiao Hui Thien Hee-Jung Yoon Yen-Yeen Ong SmartStructuresLab2014 | G11, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

The design concept of the pavilion revolves around the visualisation of flow generated by several force fields acting onto a defined space. Based on this concept, the design aims to create a space characterised by visually flowing structures and surfaces, subsequently generating a fluid space further defined by undulating floor surfaces. Modular system is used to create a pavilion that can be potentially extended by adding additional modules. Parametric design is employed to generate a series of modules that can be adapted according to different ground levels, making the system flexible enough to be used on different ground conditions. Vines are grown along the structures to enhance the concept of flow over a period of time. The flow of time can be observed when vines creep along the structure and cover more and more of it. The spatial quality of the pavilion is ever changing albeit slowly depends on the density of vines. The structure will slowly disappear while nature takes over it. The pavilion will be transformed.

ELEVATION 30m MATERIAL SELECTION

Wine tasting / Seating area

7.5m

GLULAM timber

Reception

Wine tasting/ Seating area

Roof Bridge

Entrance

Entrance Steel O-Section Hollow Bar

PLAN

SEATING AREA Perspective view

STAGE A

Entrance

RECEPTION / WINE TASTING AREA Perspective view

ENTRY Perspective view

STAGE B

Overall Structure INITIAL CONCEPT

MODULE

FORCE DIAGRAMS

Multiple forces

Top View

Side View

Hexagon as base grid

Modular form generated within grid

Repeated modules with intermediate components

FORM OF MODULE STEP 2: Rotation

STEP 1: Height

Perspective view

Plan view

Side view

Perspective view

Plan view

Side view

RESULTS OF KARAMBA TESTING With the aid of Karamba, we carried out structural testings for the pavilion. In order to perform the test more efficiently, we downscaled the test to one module. The structural performance of the module without secondary elements was favourable. The module was strong and stable on its own with only very minimal displacement.

Timber arch x6

Angle block x6

Connecting Joint x6

Then we tested the roof portion of the module. We started with triangulated structural grid and the displacement was minimal As we changed the density of the structural grid the roof tend to sag more. This was due to the extra weight of the added members. Similar result was observed as we increased the size of the structural members. The roof performed best with minimal structures as it carried less of its own weight. After the roof testing, we moved on to the floor portion of the module. The floor had a different load testing on it as it was trafficable and people should be able to walk on it. In order to emulate this, we added in point loads acting on the floor structures. Similar variations from previous roof tests were performed on the floor structures. Based on the results, we found out that the floor performed better with denser and larger secondary structural members which was contrary to the roof results. We concluded that larger and denser members were needed to support the point loads. Essentially, the Karamba results justify the variations and density that could be done to the structural grid for the roof and floor portion of the module.

Module structure

Karamba Testing

Displacement: 4.5mm Primary structure Overallarch form structural behaviour 120 x 200mm timber Max Displacement: 30.0mm

Displacement: 5.0mm

Displacement: 17.9mm Triangulated secondary roof structure 35mm dia. steel hollow O profile

Triangulated secondary floor structure 35mm dia. steel hollow O profile

Optimised module 35mm dia. steel hollow O profile

(hero image)

BRAND X - HYPARVILION Our pavilion celebrates the doubly curved surface through the combination of 3 hypar shapes which emerge from the ground and meet at 5 elevated points. By manipulating the points and rotating the orientation of each hypar, they were able to create a structurally viable form that has a flowing movement to the space it defines.

Giselle Moore, Ognjen Rakic, Pascale Roberts, Chloe Zheng, Sargiz Morad, Mark Szekely, Mark Vukovich, Hugh Thomson, Jason Waddel, Daniel Yoon SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

Hyparvilion Design Development

The juxtaposition between the straight edges and the seductive curves of the hypar is visually captivating and draws you in to experience the flow of the form. - Bounding Box dimensions: 7310l x 4130w x 3210h mm. - 90 strips of birch layered plywood at 2400l x 20w x 6d mm.

Hypar Surfaces with Grid Lines

Karamba Analysis

Created Moment Lines

Construction - Hypar One

Construction - Hypar Two

Construction - Hypar Three

Plan - 1:50 - 1:50 - 1:50 - 1:50

- 1:50 Elevation A - 1:50 - 1:50 - 1:50

- 1:50 Elevation B - 1:50 - 1:50 - 1:50

- 1:50 - 1:50 Elevation C - 1:50 - 1:50

- 1:50 - 1:50 Axonometric A - 1:50 - 1:50

- 1:50 - 1:50 Axonometric B - 1:50 - 1:50

- 1:50 - 1:50 - 1:50 Axonometric C - 1:50

Hypar First Layer

Hypar Second Layer (inspired by Karamba analysis)

(hero image)

This dynamically generated digital architecture explored the limits to what could be designed by computers. Using a modular, parameter-based, inversely dependent software stack, we were able to combine multiple dimensions of seemingly conflicting factors to generate a series of design iterations which would then form our building. Among those factors considered were structural optimisation, material efficiency, automated aesthetic analysis based on surrounding neighbours and using the Golden Ratio, colour and shape recognition, shape “excitedness”, various BCA limitations including but not limited to fire stair placement, and BIM standards. These were evaluated using an immersive set of virtual reality experiments and gut instinct, resulting in a building that may or may not be subconsciously able to perceive the underlying parameters that it embodied. This allowed us to retrace an original set of criteria, forming a unified set of spacial constraints to construct the form. The resultant experience is simultaneously both full bodied and crisp, yet mature and light-bodied.

NODE BASED LATTICE STRUCTURE WILSON CHUNG NICHOLAS CHOR DION MOULT SmartStructuresLab2014 | 1, MARC4003, The University of Sydney

Sectional cut of facade cladding system

Triangulated facade cladding

110 N3-10000

47 114

108

M11-9000 36

54 73

H20-0

N7-9000

P20-0

J0-0

P10-0

K1-6000

P20-0

P18-18000

104

P7-0

P0-0

P2-18000

32 P2-0

P10-0

H20-0

P20-0

P7-0

P2-0

110

N3-10000

108

26 55

P7-0 39

N7-9000

54 27

18 47 114

P0-0

J0-0

M11-9000

M0-0

48 10

N7-9000

44 29 L7-12000

64 N7-9000

38 48 76.39

K1-6000

118

70 15

H4-16000

109

J0-0

M0-0

101

107

33 53

J0-0

I17-16000 20

H G

63 G0-0

G2-12000

D20-0

H20-0 61 75

G4-17000

101

20 42

H20-0

G4-17000

J0-0

118 H4-16000 109

G17-9000

77 D20-18000

F2-10000 63

142

E9-18000

75 E0-0 145 E2-6000

21 76

111

114

E7-14000 97

E0-0

63 102

70 A20-0

137

E4-0

137 53

E0-0

I17-16000

E0-18000

G0-0

101

139

108

110

E10-9000

18 36

E0-0

101

77 D20-18000

94 E9-0

E9-0

G17-9000

E4-0 70 A20-0 110 D20-0 24

100

E9-0

C2-18000

C9-0

113

B11-9000

A14-18000 62

E4-0

54 21 79

54 D20-0

A14-0

A9-0

Node angles and locations

121

C9-0

A20-0

A9-0

Node coordinates and members

101

F2-10000

H20-0

101 E12-18000

D20-0

G17-9000