Daniel Hy 837623 final Air journal

STUDIO: AIR

JOURNAL

DANIEL HY 837623 SEMESTER 1, 2018

A brief introduction: Who Am I? My name is Daniel! (however, eventually everyone know gets to know me calls me ‘Dan’). I am a third year student studying architecture under Bachelor of Environments or, as they call it now, Designs.

My love for architecture, as well as most of the studies in that area, began way back in high school when i took Visual Communications & Designs (VCD) as a Unit 3/4 subject. Though I feel I’ve been surrounded by architecture all my life in one or another. What I mean is, growing up, my family would constantly move around a lot; even countries at a point. Whenever we moved, it was always into a temporary house while our new house would be built (We would never stay longer than 5 years at each house).

Occasionally though, I would go with dad after school or during the weekends to witness our new homes in the midst of being erected. In other words, a front row seat for any aspiring architects. At that age, as most kids are, I was extremely curious as to how things worked. In my case, how a house was built from scratch.

Jump forward a few years and here I am. At first, I thought my next few years of studies would focus mainly on solid architecture; reading plans, understanding them and drawing them up. Little did I know that this was only the tip of the iceberg. Now i understand why the faculty decided to change the degree name from ‘ENVIRONMENTS’ to ‘DESIGN’.

I consider myself a safe person. If I know how to do something in a certain method, chances are, I would stick to that method. This means pen and paper, and AutoCAD. Though lately, I found out that I was limiting myself with my ways of “designing” and considered it outdated. If I wanted to pass my undergraduates course, I would have to get with today’s methods, like Rhino or SketchUp (both of which I was very unfamiliar with). So I thought to myself, why not challenge myself by throwing myself into the deep end and hope that I would learn to swim quick!

Table of Content

Part A: CONCEPTUALISATION A.1: Design Futuring

• Case Study 1: Philips Pavilion • Case Study 2: RAMS Stadium

A.2: Design Computation

• Case Study 1: Underwood Pavilion • Case Study 2: ITKE/ICD Research Pavilion 2011

A.3: Composition/Generation

• Case Study 1: Esker House Roofscape • Case Study 2: Robotic Fabric Formwork

A.4: Conclusion A.5: Learning Outcome A.6: Appendix

• Algorithmic sketches for Wk 1-3

Reference list

A.1 DESIGN FUTURING

If there’s one goal designers of all professions have on their mind, it’s that they aim to design a better tomorrow. A major part for wanting these ideals or concepts to become a reality is to understand that innovation and sustainability is the key to designing a better future; in hopes that we may prolong this world for the next generation to rise and carry on in our footstep.

Of course, not a lot can be done these days, well efficiently, without the help of technology. We have long passed that stage of debating that humans co-exist, and admit that it is a part of us. It is our design intelligence that pushed the advancement of technology in the industry over the last 10 years to bring us all one step closer to a desired future, whatever that may eventually be. The world is ever-changing, we are continuously evolving, nothing really is set in place. Therefore, we must forego our formulas for design and imagine. Create.

Explore. We are only limited by the way we think. We have the creativity; the dream. We have the intelligence. We have the resources. We have the technology. Let us write our world a better future before it writes it for us.

PRECEDENT 1 PHILIPS PAVILION, LE CORBUSIER

Philips Pavilion duing Expo 1958

Back in the 50’s, Le Corbusier would’ve had to practically build and design the fluid form of the Philips Pavilion himself by hand. Each face of the surface would probably have had to have been shaped and documents at a time; knowing that trial and error would be a common sign for him. However, when seeing the simulation of the formation of the pavilion, it is intriguing to see how far design methodology had come. In today’s future, we are able to take Le Corbusier’s hard work and convert it into one continuous process; creating the structure all at once as opposed to surface by surface. It is quite fitting that for a structure to house arts and music, its construction reflected that off of fluid motion, as if it were dancing into its form.

Bouncing off of its fluidity, the organic shape of the pavilion could only be done through the flexing of materials. To make the body feel as it is stretching yet at the same time contracting. This, once again, mimics the body and limbs of a dancer. To see such an organic shape would’ve been very peculiar back in the days due to architecture and design following a systematic rule; that a structure was deemed a structure if it had specific characteristics. However, moving forward into the future, we break away from these rules and compete to create the next attention grabbing idea. We understand that design has no limitation, and that we are constantly expanding our knowledge to find the best “original” idea.

Le Corbuiser’s sketches for the Philips Pavilion

Timber construction of the Pavilion

PRECEDENT 2 RAMS STADIUM, HKS ARCHITECTS

RAMS Stadium rendered exterior

I believe that the future arrives whenever something innovative is introduced into our lives. Technology or amenities that make our tasks more efficient or easier allow us to further the development of the world.

Buildings and structures that stuck to a simple geometric formula could now be shaped in ways that the human minds and hands couldn’t have fathomed. The Rams stadium is one of those buildings that represent the design of the future. Its overarching roof structure consists of 70,000 aluminium panels that were individually cut out using CNC machines; assuming each one was cut and shaped specific to its placement. This would’ve been a laborious task to complete alone back in the days where the function of machines was limited and man-power was absolute. ing would stand. the building itself; to bring it life and characteristics.

Nowadays, with the advancement of digital design, we are able to create detailed simulations of the construction and practicality of the building right in front of you; working out all the structural requirements and running tests to ensure the building would stand. The advantages of digital design tools allow designers to “exhibit greater degrees of geometric complexity, variability, and differentiation,” meaning that we have the power and ability to shape what a building should look like. It is the possibility of flexing, bending, curving and folding the building itself; to bring it life and characteristics.

The smarter and creative we designers get, the more potential we unlock for ideas, possibilities and further advancements into the future of design.

RAMS Stadium rendered aerial shot

RAMS stadium rendered interior shot

A.2 DESIGN COMPUTATION What design computation does for us architects is take what can do by pen and paper and enhances it in every possible way. It convenience and programs are endless, only limited by our knowledge. The integration of computational designs, like AutoCAD, Rhino and Grasshopper, Sketch-Up furthers architectural design and engineering, through the introduction of parametric designs. It has opened up doors to a world of designs that would once be possible in theory, and breathes life into it with the commands at your fingertip.

Parametric designs binds the relationship between digital design thinking along with the manipulation of algorthims; to simultaneously think anout an overall object and its broken-down componenets and materials. To take apart, reshape and put together again faster than one could possible achieve by hand. In other words, Oxman explains it as such: “parametric systems enables the writing of rules, or algorithmic prodecures, for the creation of variations.”

One would argue that computational design is overtaking paper drawings (“out with the old and in with the new” type of saying). To that, Oxman says, using Gehry’s Guggenheim building as a key example, “the building was analog in design and digital in production”. This argues back that computation is not replacing old techniques, rather refining and redefining them.

In a world where everything around us is growing at an exponentially rapid rate, it is the practice of computation that would keep you up to date. If we were to continue using the analog technique of hand/paper drawings, our ideas would already have been of the past. The one drawing we can draft up by hand would be considered inferior to the five drawings we can model up at once.

However, that is not to say hand drawings are obsolete. We think and braimstorm through sketches and then we produce it on a CAD or 3D modelling program. We tell it what to do.

Our sketches control the creation of our designs, not the computer.

PRECEDENT 1 UNDERWOOD PAVILION, GERNOT RIETHER & ANDREW WIT

Underwood Pavilion

If one were to take a quick look at Riether and Wit’s ‘Underwood Pavilion’, their initial thought would be to consider how they digitally designed it, or what programs they used. Hardly anyone one be convinced that a design as complex as this would be modelled my pen and paper. That is not to say that it isn’t impossible, however in today’s age we understand how the advancement of computational designing can open up a world of discovery, exploration and possibilities.

In summary, the Underwood pavilion is a parametric tensegrity structure, that can be broken down to structural frame and its modules. By definition, a ‘tensegrity structure’ is a termed that given to a “lightweight structures composed of cables in tension and struts in compression.”

What computational design did for Riether and Wit was come up with algorithms that would work in conjunction with physics to generate various forms of the module. It allowed the designers to alter the point, curves and surfaces in the X, Y and Z axis and to produce different outcomes. The ability to run real-time simulations and calculations to ensure that the desired module, as well as the tensile strength of the structure, would work is also a small extension of what design computation has to offer. By using a physics plug-in alongside the CAD software, they were able to explore how tensegrity systems could be parameterized to adapt to the site and program.

However, the true potential of design computation is really seen when the designing, the modelling and the simulating can work in unity to provide the designer/s all the information they need to design efficiently.

Digial model sequencing the construction of the Underwood Paviion

Tensgrity steel structure

Fixing the elastic fabric module onto the structure

PRECEDENT 2 IDC/ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION 2011, IDC/ITKE UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART

ADC/ITKE Rsearch pavilion 2011

With the ability to parametrically design digitally means the ability to further explore and experiment with more complex forms and geometries.

The notion of mimicking an organic form (or as it is properly termed ‘biomimicry’) is not a new concept, however, with how far designing and technology has come, the ability to do so has changed the way designers design.

In 2011, the University of Stuttgart had the idea of biomimicry in mind for their next pavilion design.

The project explored the biological mapping of a sea urchin’s shell plating and transferring it onto an architectural structure through the means of computer aided design (or CAD), and computer aided manufacturing for its construction. Aside of generating the design of the shell geometry, the use of CAD also allowed the students to explore a range of geometries and its compositions, in order to achieve their aim of proving that a design of such complexity was not impossible to design and fabricate.

Focuing on the fabrication of the pavilion, this was where the use of design computation as a means of manufacturing had its advantages over conventional fabrication. The structure itself comprised of repetitive variations of the plate geometry, which were fixed with each other via interlocking tabs and connections. Instead of having to cut out each piece one by one, machines like laser cutters and CNC machines (or in the case of this project, a seven-axis robotic arm) could do a more economical job, by reading the CAD file and mass produce the individual components in a short spread of time. Not only are machines less time consuming to work with, but they also do an accurate job, which would lead to a clean and precise built structure.

CAD sketch of the shell plates

Rendered model of the 2011 Pavilion

7-axis robotic drilling grooves for connection

tongue and groove interlocking connection

diagram showing the articulation of the robotic arm

A.3 COMPOSITION/ GENERITON

If you were handed a brief to design a pavilion out on an open space, would you sketch it up by hand or model it up on a CAD software? In this day and age, clearly the answer is computerisation. We live by technologyy on a day-to-day basis, it’d be quite an itch not to just open up AutoCAD or Rhino and click away! However, in doing so, have we foresakened composition and moved forward with generation?

Have we lost our creative touch that we rely on the use of computerisation and computation to do our work for us?

Anyone can draw a line on a paper, but it takes times to understand how to draw the same line digitally. Whether it’s a simple as merging two points or writing out the algorithms to produce the same result. But then if that were the case, why would we choose the latter method if it would take longer?

Truth is, in today’s world, no one stops for you. Either you are the first to design something innovative or you fall behind. It is a challenging industry so understanding it and all its potentials is your greatest advantage.

Well, no. Regardless of how advanced and specific a program is, it still requires a master brain to command it, to tell it what to do. In a digital drafting platform, we tell it where to draw two lines and how to join the two. Of course, it then does it for us because we tell it to. In a 3D modelling space, all the algorithms and parameters are displayed for us, but we are the ones who need to write it and modifty it. To shape the model at our own accord. None of which a computer can do on its own.

It is important to understand that the existance and advancement of computerisation and computation is not to take over our roles as aspiring architects, but merely used as an extension to further our limits of design, creativity and imagination. If it is programmed to do so, then it is possible.

PRECEDENT 1 ESKER HOUSE PLASMA STUDIO

Esker House Roofscape

The Esker House project is a self-contained residential unit secured above an existing housing unit from the 1960s. The thematic idea behind the development of its design, according to what Plasma Studio had to say, is that is “a parasite which adopts the structure of its host and gradually distorts it to fit a unique organisation and morphology.” To this understanding, it suggests that a mimicry approach was used via design computation to produce a parametric recreation of the Italian landscape the current unit sits on.

The result of the roofscape, while designed to be a series of deformed lines that can be viewed as quite angular and dynamic from certain perspectives, actually comes together in a soft and fluid morphology which compliments to the form and function of the rooms that operate below it. The spread of the strips differs from tight in private rooms and wide in public rooms. This reflection with the interior and exterior space highlights the connection between occupant and habitat.

As above, I mentioned that the design of the roof was developed via the aid of digital computation.

However, it took more than just computation to bring this project to fruition.

Articles by Peters and Wilson introduce and discuss the function of algorithms, and how algorithms bridge the connection between the designers’ minds and computation. The use of algorithms was significant in the process of designing the style and shape of the roof from obtaining details about the roof plans of the existing house to the topography of the landscape of the landscape they aimed to mimic, and plugging it into a CAD program. The other part was having to come up with an algorithmic pattern in order to create the morphology and spread of the roof frames; understanding how it would flow from one side of the house to the other. Again, this required in-depth knowledge of how the existing rooms work and how it operated. All of this experimentation and calculation would come together to fabricate what would be the future of designing for residential (and also commercial) homes.

Esker House roofscape CAD drawing

Esker House roofscape CAD drawing

PRECEDENT 2 ROBOTIC FABRIC FORMWORK (CASE STUDY)

Fabric-camptacted concrete form

In today’s advancing world, robots and/or machines are taking over most of society’s jobs, most commonly automated assembly lines that produce goods. Of course, robots can do a cleaner job than humans can, and they do a faster work. Even the construction industry has caught onto the idea of using various machines to help mine resources, or cut materials out or assemble components. However, it feels architects and designers have been left in the dust when it comes to updating their methods of fabrication.

Concrete, for instance, is still being used the traditional way. It is such a bold material to use for arts and construction, yet all we see of concrete structures are static masses. Geometries as we know it have moved passed the simple 6-sided blocks and towards more parametric designs that are developed with the aid of digital computation. However, this is where it all changes for the better of designing. This is where the introduction to robotics can literally shape the future of architecture.

In Mark West’s “The Fabric Formwork Book”, he defines how an innovative method of concrete fabrication can remove the conventional limitations of rigid formworks and reinforcements to create a whole range of geometries that are more parametrically focused. The updated formwork is a lycra material which is stretched out and secured in position by a pair of robotic arms, to which concrete is then poured into. The freedom of flexibility translates into the freedom for the formwork to assume any design permutations. The idea behind digitally making concrete is that it considers any weaknesses and constraints about the material or its existing form and aims to create more viable solutions. Thus, it reduces on cost, time, budget and waste of materials.

Still animated model of robotic arms at work

Formwork curing while attached to robotic arms

Textured detail of concrete form

A.4 CONCLUSION

Looking back at Part A, the weekly topics had a heavy focus on undeerstanding the evolution of computational design and how architects and designer, today, would continue to utilize it to solve problems in the future. Even though technology is advancing at a pace where it is constantly updating it self to shape our world through parametric geometries ad algorithmic designs, it still requires an input, a command, to give it a set of instructions and guidelines. Ideas.

Design. Inspiration. Creativity. Innovation. These do not come from the machines we build, but from our minds. They come from a passion to create a sustainable future for the next generation to come.

That is where we should be standing in terms of designing for the future, with the aid of computational design.

As for design approach, I have yet to come up with one. However, with the precedents which I have been researching and understanding, I am beginning to develop a list of materials and methodologies which I am willing to experiement with for the case study to come.

A.5 LEARNING OUTCOME

In my self-introduction, I told myself I would attempt to throw myself into the deep end with this subject and hope that I would be able to swim. I will say that after 3 weeks, I have struggling to keep paddling. I have had a whole new language of designing and 3d modelling thrusted at me and it is A LOT to take in. However, the fact that I am here completing this part of the journal is saying that I am willing to keep moving forward. This new-found knowledge has broadened my list of design methods and I cannot wait to fully utilise these skills in my later studios.

I have, yet, a long journey ahead of me, however, I have made good friends who I can rely on for help, as well as an amazing tutor to go to.

WEEK 1: TOWER

From a simply lofted rectangle, the ROTATE component implemented with the ‘degrees’ command allows each individual rectangle extruded in the Z axis to change its orientation by the number given to it. A SERIES command bridges the number slider and the ROTATE component, which makes the rectangle rotate multiples of 8. Thus, the final lofted design is a twisted form that repeats by the number of rectangles there are times the spacing in between each rectangle.

By reducing the the number of rotation of the rectangles and zooming in on the overall form, I was able to create the illusion that the building is gradually slanting over the edge.

This form is similar to the first design of the building, except it takes with the number slider. Clearly what has changed is the number of rectagnels running in the Z axis as well as the spacing in between each of the reactangles. This creates a tower that has a taller/extended twist to it.

A.6 APPENDIX ALGO SKETCHBOOK

This design of the building moves away from the ‘degrees’ command in the ROTATE component and, instead, replaces it with the ‘graft’ command. It is hard to explain what exactly happens when the ‘graft’ command is turned on, however, I can make a guess that instead of rotating the individual rectangles in multiples of whatever number is indicated on the slider, it rotates the rectangles around its central axis by the number on the slider. Thus, the higher the number, the more rotation of points there are, the more it looks like a circle/ star from plan view.

this form is a combination of the last two where the ‘degrees’ command and ‘graft’ command works in unision to create this slice in the building. The absence of a chunk can sbe seen as a section cut into the building. The number of grafts has been turned up, where the corners are so close to each other, it almost appears to create a circular shape from plan view.

WEEK 2: POINT, CURVE, SURFACE

Table of Content

Part B: CRITERIA DESIGN B.1: Research Field

• Case Study 1: Philips Pavilion

B.2: Case Study 1.0

• Case Study 1: Underwood Pavilion

B.3: Case Study 2.0

• Case Study 2: Robotic Fabric Formwork

B.4: Technique: Development B.5: Technique: Prototype B.6: Technique: Proposal B.7: Learing Outcome and Objectives

CRITERIA DESIGN

Moving forward to Part B, ‘Desgin Criteria’ will ask us (students) to evaluate, test and select the appropriate options to produce an outcome that meets all the requirements of the brief; but also allows to generate a possible physical prototype that compliments the structure established in said brief.

This section is dedicated to the expermentation and developing of techniques or tectonic systems using computaional design. Following that, construction will begin on a prototype. However, the idea of this prototype is not to build an actual phyical model, but to build the formwork for which the components/modules will be mass produced from.

B.1 Research Field: Flexibility

“Flexibility,: the capability to bend and twist on a material, without breaking.�

This was the theme for which our entire semester had to experiment with.

The aim, to rig a formwork while would manipulate the flexible nature of fabric materials in order to help cast concrete in various organic shapes. The end goal was to mimic the illusion of flexing concrete, a solid and rigid mass, into the form of a bike shelter. Going into this, one should understand the full extent of how various fabrics work and behave, through form finding and tensile force.

However, flexibility would not be without geometry, and geometry determines how flexible a form and its material is. A good precedent that demonstrate the the unity of geometry and flexibility is the Green Void, by LAVA,

B.2 Case Study 1.0: Green Void LAVA

Green Void, by Australian designers - LAVA, is an appropriate example of the ideology of ‘digital-to-physical’ fabrication, bringing to life digital simulations and interacting with real surroundings. What makes the Green Void a successful product relies heavily on two factors: 1.) running realistic simulations using state-of-the-art 3D digital modelling programs and, 2.) using lightweight fabrics, like nylon, to create the minimal surface of the form.

The Green Void is more than just a sculpture; it is an experience to be witnessed. The ends of the form rigid frames that secure itself to the ceiling and walls of its surrounding environment, however the body itself, the minial surface, is freely stretching. It breathes life into the form, and that is thanks to the careful form finding and tensioning of the minimal surface skin.

Speaking of form finding, the aid of 3D modelling programs like Rhino3D and Kangaroo3D is explores how an organic and fluid design would exist given that, due to the fabric being used, surface-tension would largely be at play. An anchor and spring component on Kangaroo3D would simulate the loads and forces that would act on the form and from there, experimentationas begun.

According to LAVA, the process of an optimized minimal surface design, the use of lightweight materials and CNC (computer numeri code) fabrication technology exposes a new dimension in sustainable design practice, much like the Green Void.

3D generated render of the Green Void + post kangaroo3D simulation. (Top) Implementation of the Green Void on site. (Top)

Construction of the Green Void. The double-stretch woven fabric is strategically attached and woven around aluminium tracks, which are located at each of the ends. The rest of the shape relies on the tension of the fabric itself.

On the left, the colours are mapping out pieces of the surface, so that it can be re-prodiced in 2D.This makes it easier to cut out and stitch back together. Mnay of the pieces are not the same, therefore working with multiple pieces produces are cleaner finish than having to work with one whole piece.

SPRING = 0.50 QUAD COUNT = 5 (BASE MODEL)

ITERATION 1

ITERATION 2

ITERATION 3

ITERATION 4

SPRING = 0.13 QUAD COUNT = 2

SPRING = 0.13 QUAD COUNT = 8

SPRING = 0.86 QUAD COUNT = 2

SPRING = 0.86 QUAD COUNT = 8

B.3 Case Study 2.0:

MARS Pavilion Form Found Design

FORMFOUND DESISGN are a team of designers who specialise in utilising the innovative concrerte casting method known as ‘robotic fabric formwork’. This method impliments the precision, control and engineering of six-axis robotic arms along with the flexible freedom of soft fabrics. The end result is casting concrete modules in various organic shapes that would be considered more difficult to produce using conventional casting methods.

Using these modules, and numerous amounts of 3-point connectors, they construct one of their well known structures, the MARS Pavilion. The Pavilion was built spefically for a robotics convention to demonstrate such a new manufacturing process and rapid prototyping.

The final design of the pavilion takes the form of a hexagonal gridshell dome. This was achieved by exploiting the compressive qualities of concrete to form an optimised geometry, as well as simulating a digital “chain model” to get the catenary curvature of the dome (similar to Anton Gaudi’s ‘Hanging Chains’).

Form fiding plays an integral role in ensuring the pavilion stands soundly. A heavy reliance on computatinoal design was required even before the building began to ensure the both the modules and overall geometry were the right size, shape and proportion. In this instance, Kangaroo3Dwas used (along with Rhino3D) to work out the parameters of the form. The anchor and spring components helped determine what the final resting position of the dome would be, ensuring that they had to work with he compressive load of concrete and steel.

Rhino3D + Kangaroo3D render od the pavilion

Here, we can observe the pair of six-axis robotic arms holding the two ends of the fabric formwork in place while the individual is pouring concrete into the top opening. The idea is that while concrete is being poured, the arms can stretch the formwork into the desired position, as well as help vibrate it to remove all the moisture.

This is a close-up shot of the 3-point connector component which holds the modules together. While hard to see, there are actually two components to the connection. Each end of the module is fixed with a steel plate, which bolts can run through, and latch onto the central connector.

Here, we see no attempt to clean up the seams exposed on the surface of the concrete module. This may have been an intentional decision to show the imprints and imperfections of the formwork, to give it some illusion.

B.4 Technique: Development

B.5 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

What is ‘Robotic Fabric Formwork’? Robotic fabric formwork is the method of utilising the precision of robotic arms with the freedom of frabric materials (like lycra) in order to cast concrete modules in an organic form.

The first step in using this method to cast our concrete is understanding how each of the components work individually and together, and why they are used. Although there are numerous precedents that already exist, and reports have that detailed this methodology, not all of them go about it in the same matter. Thus, our group feels it is appropriate to respect the precedents and do the experiments ourselves to determine which ingredients and methods produce the best outcome for us.

One of the more crucial components in this whole design is understanding how robotics work; after all it is main apparatus for how the concrete will be cast. While we could use the University’s resources in robotics to help us with our casting, the group thought designing a M.O.C robotic arms formwork would provide a greater understanding how it functions.

B.5 FABRIC FORMWORK

While the use of robotic arms to cast concrete is a relatively new method to apply into the design and/or construction world, many individuals or groups have accepted the challenge in exploring this new wonder.

One of the precedents our group looked into was the Mars Paviliion by FORM FOUND DESIGN. We had decided on this because of a.) its appoach towards casting the concrete was almost exact to how we would cast it; b.) we wanted to cast a ‘Y branch’ shaped module, which was what the pavilion was constructed out of and; c.) its overall design would become a basis of how our final design would look like because we take it into our own direction.

However, unlike our precedent, our group doesnt not have the whole extent of the tools and equipments they used, nor do we have the knowledge of casting concrete in such an unique manner, meaning a lot of what we were about to do would be trial and error, experimental and hopeful. If something were to go wrong during the whole process, we would have to start over, and, therefore, delay our schedule.

B.5 SOURCING MATERALS: LYCRA Collecting gthe fabrics was certainly the easiest and quickest step in beginning this whole development and, thus, was the direction we went in. Our group knew the type of fabric we wanted was ‘lycra’ simply because all the precedents we looked at (as well as a discussion with our tutor) had used some sort of lycra for their fabric formwork.

However that being said, the reason why WE, as a group, would decide to work with lycra as opposed to other materials is being the fabric formwork had to be able to withstand the weight of wet, moving concrete, be able to stretch into different positions ONCE the concrete has been filled, and it had to contain the concrete itself without bursting, but allow the moisture to be discharged.

All the lycra fabrics were purchased locally from Spotlight and a range of them were picked so that we could evaluate their stretchability, durability and permeability. The purpose of these tests would help the group understand the properties of each lycra and determine which sample would work best with the formwork.

The first test would be a “comparisons” test, using a numbered scale and a table, to rank each fabric according to their properties. This is simply approached by peer-examining each fabric carefully and deciding on a value to give. While test alone could’ve been enough to determine on a lycra, we left that an actual concrete sampling test on each of the lyras in action would’ve strengthened our first predictions and judgements.

Sample 1: 2-way stretch mesh Lycra

Sample 2: Scoop buy knits #3 Lycra (off-white)

Sample 3: Shiny nyon spandex Lycra (Cobalt blue)

PROPERTIES OF LYCRA SAMPLES FABRIC NAME

2-way stretch mesh lycra

1.....2.....3.....4.....5 Low

Scoop buy knits #3 lycra (off white)

Shiny nylon Spandex lycra (cobalt blue)

High

Fabric from Chelle (30% lycra/ 70% polyester)

STRETCHABILITY

5

2

4

1

DURABILITY

2

4

3

5

PERMEABILITY

5

3

3

1

RESULTS The results of the test were not too much of a surprise to the group, as it had only confirmed our theories on each sample.

2-way mesh lycra: Off the bat, this sample was a definite “no-go”. The results clearly showed that this lycra would not be able to do its job as a concrete formwork. First of all, there is too much elasticity woven into the fabric itself, meaning the weight of the concrete would stretch out the fabric towards the direction of gravity. The concrete itself, then, would not be able to hold its shape as it is continuously sagging.S Secondly, the fabric is very thin. Whether the fabric would be able to hold such a large quaitity of concrete without the fabric blowing up is a big risk. finally, The tightness of the stictches is very wide, meaning that when stretched the holes would enlarging, not only would the moisture seep out, but also some of the concrete itself.

Scoop Buy Knit #3: Unlike the first sample, the properties of this sample is its total opposite. There is very minimal elasticity in the fabric, meaning it is able to hold its form, and will not be affected by the factor of gravity. Because there is very little elasticity, there are more durable threadings inside the fabric, meaning it is able to withhold the concrete from bursting. The stitchings on this fabric is more tightly woven, however, it is undeniable that the holes still exist in order for the fabric to breathe. This means that the excess moisture from the concrete will penetrate through, but not big enough that the conrete will do the same.

Shiny nylon Spandex: This sample was “not too hot, not too cold”, in a matter of speaking. Preliminary testing shows that the results of all three properties place it right down the middle the first two. Therefore, to our conclusion this was the penultimate fabric to cast our concretes in.

The last column on the table shows a fabric that we did not source ourselves, but was given to us to use, personally from our tutor. This sample only goes by its material content in name as there was none to begin with. This means that sourcing more of this fabric would be a challenge.

This material was given to us later down the line of our development and thus would come into play later as our focus was more towards the fabrics that we experimented with ourselves.

B.5 SOURCING MATERALS: CONCRETE SAMPLING The next phase in the development was working with concrete. While it may have seemed like an easy task to just mix up some cement mix with water and pour it into the formwork, a lot of consideration and thought had to go into choosing which concrete mix to use.

So we got to work testing out which type of concrete to use. On one hand, there is the standard concrete mix with a ratio of cement : sand : aggregate. On the other, there is the simple concrete mix of pure cement.

This experiment begins with building two 10cm x 10cm timber formworks to house the concretes in. Both mixtures are then added in with water and the mixing begun. (Below is a photo of the ‘cement only’ mixture being mixed. It is clear that this is not the first mixture due to the smoothness of the wet concrete and the absence of aggregates).

The ratio of water to mixture is VERY important to get right. If the mixture has too much water, the viscocity will be very aqueous and the curing time will differ. Once it has fully cured/hardened, the excess moisture will leave a wet layer on the surface of the concrete. Additionally, the strength of the concrete may weaken, making it prone to breaking due to the lack of the mixture not gripping. On the other hand, if there is not enough water in the mixture the concrete will be harder to mix, leading to a thicker viscosity, and concrete that is prone to cracking or crumbing.

Once the accurate proportion of water and cement mixture is poured into the formwork, the next crucial step is getting all the air bubbles out, via vibration. This is as simple as tapping on the sides of th formwork (as long as it generates any movement) for a good couple of minutes. This rigorous step ensures that the concrete will be a solid mass, as air bubles can also lead to cracking.

Finally, the concrete is left to cure overnight to a day or two. This depends on the environment conditon, as well as the choice of concrete.

This sample consists only of pure cement mix and water.

One way of differentiating the two could be that cement has a lighter hue of grey due to its natural properties.

Because of its single compoenent, it weighs significantly less, making casting large quantities easy to manage; and it doesnt effect the formwork in any form or manner. It does, however, make the mixing the wet concrete a lot harder because of how fine the cement powder is. One drop over or under of water changes the viscosity of the mixture and, thus, the overall quality of the dried concrete.

As seen in the image of this sample, a wet layer has formed on the surface of the concrete slab. This is due to the excess water rising to the top while the concrete was being vibrated and curing. This layer makes the top of the concrete very weak (as evident by the cracking on the edges) meaning that it will ruin the form it takes. ** This is a key factor that needs to be taken into consideration should this mixture be used for the rest of the development.

On one hand, there is the standard concrete mix with a ratio of cement : sand : aggregate. The aggregates play an important role in two ways; saving on the quantity of cement and sand used, but also fills out the amount of concrete being used. This means at the finish on the concrete surface will be rough and coarse, due to the different sized aggregates in the concrete mix. The downside of this pre-mixture is because of the addition of aggregates, it weighs down the concrete a lot, which is not ideal when the formwork we are working with is held in the air.

One other concern is that when pouring this mix into the fabric formwork, the larger, sharper aggregates may catch onto the fabric itself and tear it open. This is a big drawback and potential hazard for using this mix.

CONCLUSION: Concrete VS Concrete

SAMPLE 1

SAMPLE 2

700g (cement + sand + stone aggregate) + 100mL water • Darker Colour • Heavy in weight • Takes longer time to dry (1+ day/s) • Tougher to mix • rougher texture and finish • easier to get ratios right

390g Geelong builders cement + 110mL water • Lighter Colour • Lighter in weight • Fast drying (~1 day) • Easier to mix • Cleaner finish and smoother surface • harder to get ratios right

Pinning the properties of both concrete samples against each other on a table, it is clear to see which concrete we would use to forward our design. Sample 2 has more to offer as a reliable concrete mix than sample 1 does.

However, tha being said, the one disadvantage to sample 2 is getting the cement to water ratio right. Given how the sample testing went, it would require quite a bit of practice.

B.5 SOURCING MATERALS: FRAME AND MECHANISM Finally, the stage of building the frame and robotic arms begin. The main frame where the robotic arms and concrete casting will be done is all housed within a 550x550x550mm timber box. The group did a solid job ensuring that all the lines were event and that the connections were rigid, as we were going to apply a lot of force onto it.

The next step was to attach a pair of sliders that would move in the vertical direction, within the boundary of the box. For the pair of robotic arms to properly do its job, it had to be fully articulated in all directions within a three-dimensional plane. Thus, these sliders would aid in moving the arms up and down -the Z axis.

This is simply accomplished by “wrapping� the vertical frames of the box with a piece of timber, ensuring that there is enough clearance for it to freely slide up and down. The ends of the slider are then secured with a fastening bolt. this ensures that the sliders are locked in the position it is aligned to.

The final step is to add markers along the vertical struts for control points.

Additionally. an extra set of sliders were planned to be attached to the other two faces of the box, however quickly came to the realisation that the two sets of sliders would work against each other. The idea was scrapped.

Following the sliders, an attachment component needed to be inserted to fit the last arm of the fabric formwork. The wire grid served three purposes: 1.) it held the PVC pipe opening in position for pouring concrete.

2.) it serves as a control point for casting concrete 3.) it held the third arm of the Y branch formwork.

The wire was simply weaved through pre-drilled holes spacing 100mm apart. While weaving, it was important that the wires were pulled to maximum tension. This ensured that the grid would not droop down when concrete would be poured and cured.

Each line on the grid represents X-Y coordinate points that helps keep track of the movement of the header, and how it differs from the original shape.

The type of wire used was 5mm thick galvanised wire rope from Bunnings. While the wire was thicker than what we’d hoped for, the danger in threading wire wrope was fraying the end, which caused a lot of pricking. This was something to consider in terms of handling and safety.

Turnbuckles (also from Bunnings) were used to anchor the ends of the wire rope. This particular turnbuckle had a closed end, and an open end, which made it versatile in how it would hook onto the frame. Furthermore, both ends were screws which meant we could adjust the length of the turnbuckle, which helped in tightening the wire gird.

With the frame itself completed, the last and crucial piece to this build were the arms itself.

We wanted our versions of the arms to function as close to their robotic counterparts as possible, which meant making them very articulate. This involved adding mutiple hinge joints so they could pull off numerous position when casting attaching the fabric formwork.

For the build, the arms themselves were made up of a 2 rectangular blocks of timber each, fastened with nuts and bolts at each end to create joints, and then a flat plate at the end of the arm that would represent the base of the connection. That too was designed to hinge up and down.

At the opposite end of the arm is a ‘slot’ joint that would slide and grip onto the sliders itself. This would give the arms the freedom to move left and right (in the Y axis). The connection iself is not fastened down with a bolt, for the ease of moving and disassembling, however could be simply added.

The harder part of completing the arms, however, was figuring out how to fix the ends of the fabric formwork to the ends of the arms. While it took a lot of precision thinking, we ended up with what you see in the picture to the left.

The flat side of the PVC pipe opening would be screwed onto the base plate. Following that, a metal hose clamp will tightly fit around the end of the tube section. This piece is what will secure the ends of the fabric formwork to the arms. The hose clamp has an adjustment piece with helps tighten or loose the clamp.

Above, is a rough diagram which details out how each of the components piece together.

B.5 SOURCING MATERALS: THE FORMWORK Coming back to the frabrics, it was time to stitch up the formwork. The shape we wanted was a Y-branch/wishbone, so it was single enough to draw it up on the fabrics themselves.

Probably the hardest part of this process was getting access to a sewing machine. First we went to the tailors to help us stitch up for fabric, but eventually one of the team members got hold of one. We chose to go for back-stitching because we wanted the gaps in between the weaves to be as tight as possible. This would ensure there would be no leaks at the sides of the formwork, but also that it would hold the formwork together.

With the sewing complete, we thought we were done. However, the major problem we had come across was the measurements of the opening of the formwork. We had considered the diameter of the opening, but not the circumference. This would be a problem when it came to fitting the opening ends to the PVC arms as they would be too small to slip on.

None the less, with a bit of force and compromise with the ends of the formwork, we managed to slip them onto the frame. At least with the tight fit, no cement would be leaking out.

B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPING #1 Before our first official prototyping began, the group decided to test the rest of the fabrics so that they could physically back up the points they made with the table.

All the fabrics were sown into a tube-like formwork. Concrete would then be poured in. If the fabrics did its job, the cured concrete would take the form of a tube. If not, the weight of the concrete would pull down on the formwork and sag.

First off, the 2-way stretch lycra was obviously too stretchy, so as expected the concrete drooped to the bottom of the formwork, as seen to the right, The grey formwork, which was not stretchy but rigid, held its tubular shape, but lost a lot of its mass due to the size of the holes on the fabric itself.

The first prototype was finally about to commence. The easy part attaching the formwork to our make-shift robotic arms frame.

At this point, we were able to freely adject the top opening, and the two arms to our desired position. Once we had checked that everything was in place and ready, it was time to pour concrete!

Here we could see the excess moisture dripping out from the bottom end of the formwork. This was done naturally, but slapping the sides helped accelerate the pace. This was what we were hoping for because it meant we would get a solid finish for when the concrete cured.

UNFORTUNATELY, our first prototype failed because of two majot problems.

1.) We didn’t not account for how big the fabric formwork shouldve been because of its ability to stretch.

2.) The fabric itself was, even then, too stretchy.

The overall weight of the concrete stretched out the formwork even more.

This was a big problem as once all the concrete was poured, the final size of the formwork itself was wider than the frame it was housed in. In the photo above, we had to detach the arms away from the slider or else the formwork would sag to the ground. The two arms were curving as it was already. The stretching meant that there were places where there was more concrrete than others and, thus, this differentiation caused the concrete to crack apart at the thinner, weaker joints.

B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPING #2 Learning our mistakes from the first prototype, we tried out the fabric that our tutor gave us.

First of all, the formwork was stitched from a more thicker material, and wasnt as stretchable. This meant the weight of the concrete would not affect the form as much.

Secondly, the size of the formwork was significantly smaller than the first prototype. We had decided that if the formwork were to stretch, we would leave it to the weight of the concrete to do the job.

This would ensure that the final shape the concrete would take is natural-looking and proportionate.

However, like the first formwork, it was made of a similar material so as concrete of being poured, and when the other members of the group were helpling the guide the concrete in, moisture started to seep through the fabric.

Once it was all said and done, our concrete-filled formwork looked a lot more closer to what we were after from our precendents.

Unlike our first prototype, we were very much pleased with how this prototype turned out.

The concrete was in the shape of the Y branch/ wishbone. The entire mass was very solid, and very heavy. But most importantly, it meant that our robotic fabric formwork technique was a success. The next step was to produce more modules with variation.

B.5 TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPING #3

The success of the third prototype was exact to that of the second, Furthermore, now that we had understand how our casting method worked, we were able to cast out this variation of the module at the quicker pace.

What was differnent about his variation compared to the original was the re-positioning of the top opening in a different grid space, and the ajectment of the robotic arms. The product of this was a more curved shape, both down he neck of the module, but also at the two arms. To our surprise, the change in position in the formwork did not hinder the thickness of the overall mass.

The sucess of our prototypes meant that we were ready to move onto designing the form of our final proejct.

B.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL Our proposal for designing a bike shelter aims to get students’ attention towards visiting the New Student Precinct, to which it is located. Through this, we hope that it provides a more/improves on student experiences through natural, cultural and social engagement.

We wanted the design of the bike shelter to stand out, but also blend into the new environment. To achieve this, we looked at the increased amount of trees on the proposed site and studied its flow and pattern. The idea of merging with the vegetation came from the visual cue that the combined form of the Y-shaped branches looked like actual branches sprouting up from the ground. Furthermore, because of its hexagonal gridshell design, there are clearly holes in the design, no matter what form the Y-branches take. Therefore, we would need to rely on the surrounding site to provide shade.

The easy way out of this problem would be to situate the bike shelter next to a tall building for shade, however, that would not fit our criteria. Instead, to continue the theme of blending in with nature is to grow the vegetation around and onto the bike shelter itself. In a sense, it is treating the Y-shape profile of the bike shelter is one big vine wall. These vines would behave like a skin for the bike shelter, and serve to shade the users and protect them.

• Natural engagement– integrating the bike shelter into the existing environment. Encourage the growth of plants and other vegetation.

• Social engagement – bike shelter can potentially become a meeting point for socialising.

Additional components on and under the bike shelter would allow further engagement, like seats, racks, storage space, a place for students to express their imaginations and treat the bike shelter as a playground, etc.

• Cultural engagement - The idea of the bike shelter is to exist and provide engagement. We dont want it to stand out and break away from existing buildings. In other words, the idea is to respect the site we are building onto.

B.6 TECHNIQUE: PINTEREST PRECEDENTS

B.6 TECHNIQUE: SITE ANALYSIS

SITE PLAN

The site for the bike shelter is the upcoming New Student Precinct, which i located behind the Sidney Myer Asia Center. It is quite the appropritate location as it is relatively close to the main entrance of the university, allowing students who travel by bike to park close. It also allows commuters on the main tram like to walk through the site to reach their destination.

SITE ANALYSIS

Three site analysis plans were produced, detailing certain information that would aid in understanding how students would engage with the site and about the site itself; thus we could determine where the bike shelter would best be situated. As mentioned in the proposal, the two main factors that need to be considered is shade and vegetation.

B.6 TECHNIQUE: INITIAL PROTOTYPE

PLAN

RENDERED PERSPECTIVE

B.7 LEARNING OUTCOME

Whereas Part A, focused deeply on the theoretical side of parametric design and computational designingg, Part B focused more about the physicality of both. It took what we did, and still had to, understand about this area of design and pushed it further tenfold to the point that we were learning this whole new language as we progressed.

What I did learn was how intricate computational designing is as a tool with unlimited potentials to desgin, simulate, deconstruct and rebuild. It was very interesting to learn how any changes to the definition, whether switching definitions or adjusting the parameters, could change the look of the model (and also crash it), resulting in endless outcomes. It really offers designers their own space to be constructive and creative (like FORM FOUND DESIGN) exploring endless possibilites towards designing.

My main problem while completing Part B was time management. Because I solely focused a large chunk of my time and effort towards prototyping and the final design, it did not leave me with much room to experiment with my case studies. I felt that both the case studies and prototyping were both equally as important as one had to rely on the other in order to make sense of this whole chapter of the journal.

While I managed to complete Case Study 1.0, with Green Void, time really wasn’t on my side when it came to reverse-engineering Case Study 2.0, MARS Pavilion. Through many trials, it was my lack of understanding that led to the absence of the entiretly of Part B.4. However, despite my failure to present an actual reversed-engineered model of the case study, I am still quite contempt that I had selected this case study as it will challenge me and push me continuously until I succeed. That is when I feel I truly understand using Grasshopper and all its plugins.

Regarding the design proposal, though the final design is not an accurate repesentation of the original form, it is still a prototype to the final outcome none-the-less.

My goal for the Part C will be to push myself and my newfound knowledge to the limit, to improve on my weaknesses which have become clear during the writing of this part, and to make up for the parts which I have missed.

Table of Content

Part C: DETAILED DESIGN REFLECTION: interim Presentatation

C.1: Desgin Concept

REVISIT: Precedent: MARS Pavilion REVISIT: Precedent: Fattyshell REVISIT: The Site

C.2: Tectonic Elements & Prototypes Modules: The ‘concept of growth’ Arrangement of the modules Form Generation

C.3: Final Detail model

Box Frame Fabrication Final Castings Connections

C.4: Learning Objectives & Outcomes C.5: Conclusion& Reflection C.6: References

REFLECTION: Interim Presentation

Reflecting upon the interim presentation, there were a number of things we had to revisit and clarify before we could move on.

The biggest criticism given from our panel of judges was that our initial design for the bike shelter was too simple in terms of being a geometric shape. This was a good point in the fact that we were dealing with a free-form shape but ended up designing a structure with straight walls and roof. Of course, we were still trying to incorporate the concept of “trees” into our shelter so we had to look back at our precedents and figure out how we would accomplish this.

Another criticism that we wanted to rectify were the weight of the prototypes, and how they weould be an issue.We hadn’t taken into account how the weight of the modules could affect the end product, until the topic of connecctinos and reinforcements was brought up.

Long story short, the overall weight of the shelter would determine what type of conenction we needed to use, but also whether a central reinforcement was needed. One of the guest judges had suggested using foam balls as an alternative to gravel aggregates. That would certainly reduce the amount of cement used, thus lightening up the modules itself.

Lastly, speaking on connections, at this point we had not decided what type of connection we wanted to use for our modules. Though I had somewhat of an idea, I hadnt the time show it during the presentation nor the opportunity to share it with my group.

With those helpful criticisms in mind, it was time to get our heads into gear and our hands busy!

C.1 Design Concept: REVISIT: Precedent: MARS Pavilion

- Form Found Design After taking in the criticisms of the initial desing of the bike shelter, it was logical to go way back to the beginning and revisit our first precedent.

The MARS Pavilion is the successful amalgamation of the precision of robotic arms and the flexibility of a fabric formwork as a concrete casting method.

Its limitation lies in the pavilion’s form. Knowing the final form is a dome, the modules are confined to a certain geometry in order to support one another.

Using this as a starting point, we wanted to break away from this closed-shaped design, and explore the freedom of casting organic concrete molds. .

C.1 Design Concept: REVISIT: Precedent: Fatty Shell

-Fabrication Robotics Network (Kyle Sturgeon, Chris Holzwart and Kelly Raczkowski)

With the flaws in limitation of the first precedent, we then revisited another precedent which seemed to have remedied those limitation with their own design.

Like the MARS Pavilion, the Fatty Shell project follows an algorithmic script to produce a series of multi-point modules.

However, where this design differs from that of its previous precedent is that the programmable parameters are widely adjusted into organic shapes and curves; as the fatty shell does not follow a specific overall form.

With the combination of the form of the first precedent and the flexibility of the second, we were ready to generate ideas for our final design.

C.1 Design Concept: REVISIT: The Site Once again, our site is the New Student precinct, as the space we wanted to place our bike shelter is established by the star on the site map below. Our requirements were that the location had o be somewhere spacious, but also surrounded by trees and vegetation. This was so our shelter does not hinder foot traffic, but also integrate the trees as natural shelter/shade.

Our aim for placing our bike shelter in this specific area of the campus was to open up the new precinct space and to attract students to the site. There are clearly hundreds of students who bike to university on a daily basis, but may not always find a space to park, or dont have time to look for one. We hope that once students visit the precinct, they find the incentive to spread the word to people who need to park their bikes. Eventually, students will see it as more than just a bike shelter, but more as a place of social meeting/gathering.

Sun and wind direction

Vegetation

C.2 Tectonic Elements and Prototypes: Concept of growth

Continuing with the idea of incorporating the nature of a tree as part of our bike shelter so that it is part of the environment, we explored the notion of mimicky. The concept demonstrated how our modules would “grow” out of the ground, very much like how a tree would.

Each “growth” stage begins with a node (controllled by an adjustable slider) that represents a seed.

Once the value of that parameter is changed, the “seed” grows into the our Y-shape module (as represented below).

Now, at each end of the module is another set of nodes. Once again, increasing the values of the parameter multiples the number of modules, creating the simlation of the our design sprouting from the ground and growing into something tree-like.

Growth 1

Growth 2

Grasshopper definition

Growth 3

C.2 Tectonic Elements and Prototypes: Arrangement of the bike shelter

With the concept of growth establish series of these We decided on a fluid, non-linear pa would weave their tway through the sorbing the e As mentioned in our constraints, we around the area, so having the “trees out th

hed onto a single “tree”, the next step was “plant” a nodes onto our desired path. ath as the overall shape as it refelcted how people e shelter as opposed to waking through it; thus abenvironemnt around them. e did not want to cause a build-up of foot traffic s’ arranged in a disorganse manner helps to spread he locked-up bikes.

C.2 Tectonic Elements and Prototypes: Form Generation

Three individual lines are generated to form a shape and direction.

A skin/body is gene the lines structure a

erated to give and weight.

The skin (as a mesh) is relaxed to give the structure definition and organic form

C.3 Final Detail Design:

Box Frame (robotic arms)

The pair of arms work in a simple but intricate manner that creates a different position. Each arm has two Each motion that the arm can animate is labelled as X, Y and Z, after the 3D axis plane.

X, allows the arm to stretch out within the frame of the box.

Y, allows the arm to slide forward or back, left to right, depending on one’s perspective.

Z, allows the arm to rise and lower itself along the single perimeter of the box frame.

hinges, an “elbow” joint and a “wrist” joint.

C.3 Final Detail Design:

Linking the modules to the ‘concept of growth’

3 iterations of the modules were programmed, to be stack our reality. These boxed are simply dubbed ‘Box #1, #2 and

Box #1 create the modules at its largest size as the base.

Box #2 is positioned over the cured base module and castin gins over the connecting arm box shows a smaller iteration the base.

ked upon one another to allow the simulation of growth in d #3.

e postng bem. This n of

Box #3 is positioned above the previous two, showing the casting of the shelter canopy.

The smallest of the iterations.

C.3 Final Detail Design: Fabrication

The step-by-step process of fabricating the final modules for the bike shelter follows almost exaclty to that of the eariler prototypes, down to even using the same fabric (as per the notion of recyclability and reusability of our entire formwork).

While the sewing and shaping of the fabric formwork remains identical, a slight tweek in the width of the formwork, in that it is much wider than it normally is, for two reasons.

1. The widening of the three ends means we can roll up the sleeves in order to reduce the size of the formwork, while still being able to attach it to the pair of arms.

2. We wanted to show a variance of the modules in the bike shelter in terms of size and thickness.

Thus, we decided upon casting a module showing the base of the shelter.

In casting our many prototypes, we encountered a weight problem, in that the amount of concrete we were mixing was shown in how heavy the modules were. By itself it would be a small issue in terms of handling it by individuals. However, if we tried to connect these modules, it would gradually evolve into a major problem; both in handling it and the strength of the connection.

Thus, one of the remedies that was kindly suggested to us was to use a lightweight aggregate, like foamball. This would solve both our weight problem, as well as the cost and use of the cement mix.

Therefore, like one would with regular aggregate, the foamballs were methodically mixed into the concrete mix. It was crucial to have the optimal amount as too much or too less could affect the overall ratio.

Indeed, the use of foamballs reduced the ratio of cement powder by half, which meant that we could make more batches, if we had to. It was quite a surprise when we found out that our new mixture could now make twice as many as we did before, in one batch.

C.3 Final Detail Design: Casting

The fabric formwork is attached to its respective connections in the formwork. The ends are then fastened with adjectable hose clamps.

The open-end, as well as the two arms are moved and adjected in place, such that it looks like the first “growth� of our digital design. One of the arms is permanently resting at the bottom. This wil represent the trunk of the module.

The adjus its proper concrete fi wet concr the formw

stuable arm is lowered from r Y shape purely for the filling process. This aids the rete in filling in that side of work.

with the wet concrete filled and vibrated, the adjectable arm had to be raised back into position so that is truly resembles the grassphopper design.

C.3 Final Detail Design: Connections

**Note that while we used opted for a timber block, with grooves, to use as a connection point between two modules, it would realistcally not an ideal material due to its properties. The only reason why we choose to use a timber connection was because the material was readily available to obtain, was it was easy to mill out all the grooves. However, because we were dealing with concrete, which has A LOT of moisture and over time it will start to rot out the timber, leading to cracks or weak points.

Alternatively, the more appropriate choice of material would be steel. First of all, the durabiliy of steel is significantly higher than that of timber. Secondly, a steel connection would not perish over time, given that it is properly protected with a moisture-resistant coating. Unfortunately, steel has higher embodied energy than timber. However, the long term use of a steel connection outweighs the use of a timber connection.

C.3 Final Detail Design: Final module

In order to cast the second module on top of the connection of the first module, a number of things had to be considered beforehand.

- Firstly, both the first module and the fabric formwork did not fit within the box frame (no matter how small we made the formwork), therefore, the entire boxframe had to be temporarily propped up. (**In the diagram a few pages back, it showed, ideally, how multiple modules would be casted. However, we did not have a second box frame, thus the propping had to be improvised.)

- Secondly, due to the form of the first module, it clearly was not able to stand up straight. Therefore a base had to made specially so it could stand in place while the second module was casted. (**More on that on the right of the page) - Lastly, because we were working with a new fabric the second-time round, we had to make sure when filling the concrete that the formwork was not overfilled in such that it was topheavy. However, at the same time, we had to ensure the concrete had sunken down to where the connection was. This was very important because if there were any gaps between the connection, then it would be a weakpoint.

Module #1 Block with hole drilled through Bolt Wedge

Due to natural asymmetry of the first module, the overall form was undoubtably unbalanced, which meant it would not support itself with the second fabric formwork attached.

Therefore, a counterbalance had to be built in order for the first module to stand. This was a simple block and wedge bolted together, with a hole drilled down the centre to fit the bottom of the first module in. (As seen above)

C.3 Final Detail Design: Final module

Prototype 1

Prototype 2

Prototype 3

C.4 Learning Objective & Outcome

As cliche as it always sounds, the last part is always the hardest part. This last leg of the journey really taught my group mates how to work as a team. It taught us how to communicate with one other, how to split up the work so we’d all be doing one part, and how to manage our time completing each part. Without these interpersonal skills, there was no way we would be able to finalise everything in time.

Probably the hardest and most time crunching section of part C, aside from casting our final module, were the renderings. While I personally did not partake in the renders, actual, I had to ensure that my group understood what we wanted to show and present during our final crit. If not for a clear understanding, we would have to continuously render until we got it right. In fact, we had to ensure that all the diagrams and renders we did had matched the design that we had all envisioned, but also that we had all the pieces of information to explain it. Once again, it was a matter of dividing up the work, and getting it done in time so that we could all go over it.

Speaking of explaining to the group, I realised that my group had entrusted the leadership role to me since the mid-sem presentation. No decisions or actions were to be executed without my confirmation, and my group mates were more than happy to confirm with me first.

That being said, my biggest learning outcome for Part C was definitely understanding how to be a trusting leader. I had to ensure my team believed that I could help and guide them throughout the entire way. They put their trust in me and I would do the same. Luckily I was working with a solid team who were individually good at their own things. In the end, despite the role I played, we had all learnt a thing or two from each other. I would happily say I was proud of my groups’ efforts.

C.5 Conclusion & Reflection

What a hectic subject end the first half of the year with. I wont pretend to I am relief to leave all this behind me once I submit my journey. Studio: Air has really left a mark on me that I think I will never forget. Thoughout the semester, I have endured so much, and throught it all I have learnt new ways of designing, thinking, creating, producing, rendering... and the list goes on and on. However, the biggest praise I can give is not only to myself, but also to my team, whom have been alongside me the entire semester. Without them I would most certainly say I would not be here feeling the way I feel.

In saying that, I did enjoy my time in this subject. It was especially fortunate that my team and I were able to get along so well and, therefore, made everything we did seem fun. While I was not the sharpest mind when it came to learning Grasshopper, I am glad I could add parametric designing to my ever-growing list of design methods. I hope that one day I will put it to good use again.

However, where I felt i truly shone, and where I was most proud of myself, was the physical fabrication of, both, the prototypes and the final module. I came into this class introducing myself as someone who loved working with their own two hands, and I must say I kept every word.

Aside from my achievements, Studio: Air taught me tot think critically, to think three-dimensionally, and to think backwards. It wasnt as simple as brainstorming up a concept and throwing it onto Rhino. No, it was learning how to think and improve while you’re constantly designing. It was about thinking forwards and backwards, while trying to make sense of it all. And at the end of the day, it was about explaining and justifying your reasons and understanding. If my brain wasn’t working at full capacity at the start of the semester, it is now! And I think this overall experience and learning curve has etched itself into my brain, waiting for an opportunity to show itself again.

C.6 References AD Classics: Expo ‘58 + Philips Pavilion / Le Corbusier And Iannis Xenakis, 2018 <https://www.archdaily.com/157658/ad-classics-expo-58-philips-pavilionle-corbusier-and-iannis-xenakis/image-38> [Accessed 5 March 2018] Abbuhasan, Ala, “Underwood Pavilion | Gernot Riether & Andrew Wit”, Arch2o.Com, 2014 <https://www.arch2o.com/underwood-pavilion-gernot-riether-andrew-wit/> [Accessed 13 March 2018] Aragon, Greg, HKS Talks Rams Stadium At LA Construction Conference, 2017 <https://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.enr. com%2Fext%2Fresources%2FBlogs%2FGold-Rush%2Frams-pic.jpeg%3F1485551283&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.enr.com%2Fblogs%2F12-california-views%2Fpost%2F41360-hks-talks-rams-stadium-at-la-construction-conference&docid=shp6-bC5VXUsLM&tbnid=T7PBCTl02FlulM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiWtcqZ99bZAhUGUbwKHbJDBjYQMwjaAShGMEY..i&w=950&h=475&hl=en&bih=637&biw=1366&q=rams%20stadium%20construction&ved=0ahUKEwiWtcqZ99bZAhUGUbwKHbJDBjYQMwjaAShGMEY&iact=mrc&uact=8> [Accessed 5 March 2018] Black and white background < https://www.google.com.au/search?newwindow=1&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=637&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=O2enWpnYA4Gd8QXqtpD4Dw&q=blue+and+white+background&oq=blue+and+whi&gs_l=psy-ab.3.1.0l10.22775.24774.0.26607.12.10.0.0.0.0.500.2196.23j3j0j1.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.7.2187...0i67k1.0.GrP4NkBcTfk#imgrc=osOtD2L-lXX5RM: > [Accessed 13 Mar 2018] Culver, Ron, Julia Koerner, Joseph Sarafian, and Cham Springer, “Fabric Forms: The Robotic Positioning Of Fabric Formwork”, Springerlink, 2016 <https:// link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26378-6_8> [Accessed 16 March 2018] Culver, Ron, and Joseph Sarafian, Concrete Fabric Formwork, 2016 <https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2016/05/fabric-forms-joseph-sarafian-ron-culver-concrete-robotic-construction_dezeen_936_0.jpg> [Accessed 16 March 2018] Culver, Ron, and Joseph Sarafian, Concrete Fabric Formwork, 2016 <https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2016/05/fabric-forms-joseph-sarafian-ron-culver-concrete-robotic-construction_dezeen_936_4.jpg> [Accessed 16 March 2018] “Esker House / Plasma Studio”, Archdaily, 2009 <https://www.archdaily.com/11957/esker-house-plasma-studio> [Accessed 15 March 2018] Esker House CAD Drawing, n.d. <http://www.plasmastudio.com/work/images/architecture/Esker_Haus/PS_ESH_REN_INT_02.jpg> [Accessed 15 March 2018] Esker House CAD Drawing, n.d. <http://www.plasmastudio.com/work/images/architecture/Esker_Haus/PS_ESH_REN_INT_01.jpg> [Accessed 15 March 2018] Esker House Exterior, n.d. <http://www.plasmastudio.com/work/images/architecture/Esker_Haus/PS_ESH_PHOT_EXT_03.jpg> [Accessed 15 March 2018] Form Found Design, Concrete Fabric Formwork, 2016 <https://i.pinimg.com/564x/0d/dc/3e/0ddc3ed4f2d714b41fba14080414364c.jpg> [Accessed 16 March 2018] “Form Found Design”, Form Found Design <https://www.formfounddesign.com/fabric-forms> [Accessed 16 March 2018] HKS, RAMS Stadium Aerial View, 2016 <http://42mzqz26jebqf6rd034t5pef-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/la-sp-sn-new-stadium-20150320-007.jpg> [Accessed 16 March 2018] HKS, RAMS Stadium Interior, 2016 <https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5836/521c/e58e/ce5c/7400/006f/slideshow/04_Champions_Plaza_HKS_ watermark.jpg?1479954938> [Accessed 16 March 2018] ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 / ICD/ITKE University of Stuttgart”, ArchDaily 2012 <https://www.archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart/> [Accessed 13 Mar 2018] ICD | ITKE Research Pavilion 2011Gallery / ICD/ITKE University of Stuttgart”, ArchDaily 2012 <https://www.archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart/5004e8d328ba0d4e8d000dde-icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart-drawing-01> [Accessed 13 Mar 2018] Icditke-research-pavilion, 2012 <https://www.archdaily.com/200685/icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart/5004e8b928ba0d4e8d000dd6-icditke-research-pavilion-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart-photo> [Accessed 13 Mar 2018] Lopez, Oscar, “AD Classics: Expo ‘58 + Philips Pavilion / Le Corbusier And Iannis Xenakis”, Archdaily, 2011 <https://www.archdaily.com/157658/ad-classicsexpo-58-philips-pavilion-le-corbusier-and-iannis-xenakis> [Accessed 5 March 2018] Lopez, Oscar, Philips Pavilion Under Construction, 2016 <https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e8/9886/46fe/9fbb/ef00/00a4/slideshow/image-8-5.jpg?1441306752> [Accessed 16 March 2018] Menges, Achim, Bob Sheil, Ruairi Glynn, and Marilena Skavara, Fabricate (London: UCL Press, 2017), pp. 36-38 <http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1546589/1/Fabricate.pdf> [Accessed 5 March 2018] Morby, Alice, “Fabric-Cast Concrete Method Could Be The Future Of Construction”, Dezeen, 2016 <https://www.dezeen.com/2016/05/19/ron-culver-joseph-sarafian-fabric-forms-cast-concrete-robotic-arms-construction-method-of-the-future/> [Accessed 16 March 2018] Riether, Gernot, Arch2o-Underwood-Pavilion-Gernot-Riether, 2014 <https://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Arch2O-Underwood-Pavilion-Gernot-Riether-03-750x400.jpg> [Accessed 13 March 2018] Philips Pavilion Sketches <https://i.pinimg.com/564x/11/8a/3b/118a3b4d958fc537524605a56db03254.jpg> [Accessed 16 March 2018]

Riether, Gernot, Underwood Pavilion mid assembly, 2014 <http://http://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Arch2O-Underwood-Pavilion-Gernot-Riether-23.jpg> [Accessed 13 March 2018] Riether, Gernot, Underwood Pavilion mid assembly, 2014 <http://http://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Arch2O-Underwood-Pavilion-Gernot-Riether-23.jpg> [Accessed 13 March 2018] Riether, Gernot, Underwood Pavilion construction sequence, 2014 <https://www.arch2o.com/underwood-pavilion-gernot-riether-andrew-wit/arch2o-underwood-pavilion-gernot-riether-16/> [Accessed 13 March 2018] Soraperra, Michele, Hilips Pavilion - Le Corbusier And Xenakis - Expo 58 (Part 01), 2008 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3cKxLxq-Xw> [Accessed 5 March 2018] Form Found Design, MARS Pavilion, 2017 <https://www.designboom.com/wp-content/dbsub/407643/2017-04-15/img_6_1492247904_63bb6a204644f611fb9315d286b5cd88.jpg> [Accessed 20 April 2018] Form Found Design, Siz-Axis Robotic Arms, 2017 <https://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/form-found-design-mars-pavilion-designboom-600.jpg> [Accessed 20 April 2018] “Robotic Formwork In The MARS Pavilion”, Issuu, 2017 <https://issuu.com/formfounddesign/docs/acadia_robotic_20formwork_20in_20th/1?ff=true &e=31673187/55042495> [Accessed 20 April 2018] “Form Found Design”, Form Found Design <https://www.formfounddesign.com/palm-springs-pavilion> [Accessed 20 April 2018] https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e8/9eff/e258/4674/1c00/00c4/slideshow/1868790740_081210-green-void-build-up3-cb.jpg?1441308388 LAVA, Green Void, 2008 <https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e8/9fd3/e258/4674/1c00/00cb/slideshow/1439975974_081210-green-void-build2-upcb.jpg?1441308600> [Accessed 20 April 2018] LAVA, Green Void Build up, 2008 < https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e8/9eff/e258/4674/1c00/00c4/slideshow/1868790740_081210-green-voidbuild-up3-cb.jpg?1441308388 > [Accessed 20 April 2018] LAVA, Wireframe coloured, 2008 < https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e8/a072/e258/4674/1c00/00d3/slideshow/115140084_021209-ch-wireframe-colored.jpg?1441308761 > [Accessed 20 April 2018] LAVA, Patterns, 2008 < https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e8/a161/e258/4674/1c00/00db/slideshow/823320020_081210-ch-patterns. jpg?1441308999 > [Accessed 20 April 2018] LAVA, Green void build up 10, 2008 < https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e8/a056/e258/4674/1c00/00d2/slideshow/281882239_081210-greenvoid-build-up10cb.jpg?1441308751 > [Accessed 20 April 2018] Baraona Pohl, Ethel, “Green Void / LAVA”, Archdaily, 2008 <https://www.archdaily.com/10233/green-void-lava> [Accessed 18 April 2018] Etherington, Rose, “Green Void By LAVA | Dezeen”, Dezeen, 2008 <https://www.dezeen.com/2008/12/16/green-void-by-lava/> [Accessed 18 April 2018]