Thomas_Emily_760281_PartB by Emily

STUDIO AIR PART B EMILY THOMAS 2017, Manuel Muehlbauer

STUDIO AIR EMILY THOMAS 2017, Manuel Muehlbauer

CONTENTS B.1 - RESEARCH FIELD...................................8 1.1

CANOPY........................................10

1.2

ZA11

PAVILION................................12

1.3

SITE

ANALYSIS................................14

1.4

INSPIRATION...................................16

B.2 - CASE STUDY 1.0..................................24 2.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION.......................26 2.2 SELECTION CRITERIA............................30 2.3 SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES...........................32 B.3 - CASE STUDY 2.0.................................38 3.1 ZA11 PAVILION - SUCCESS?......................40 3.2 REVERSE ENGINEERING............................42 3.3 PARAMETRIC DIAGRAM.............................48 3.4 COMPARISON.....................................50 3.5 IF UNCONSTRAINED?..............................54 B.4 - TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT..........................56 4.1

CASE

STUDY

4.2

GENERATING

4.3

SELECTION

4.5

SUCCESSFUL

MANIPULATION.....................58 IDEAS.............................68 CRITERIA

(REVISED)................72

OUTCOMES..........................74

B.5 - TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPE............................78 5.1

JOINT

PROTOTYPE..............................80

5.2 1:1 JOINT PROTOTYPE..........................92 5.3

SUN

SITE

5.4

SHADE

5.5

CHANGED

ANALYSIS...........................94

PROTOTYPE..............................98 TO

DIGITAL

MODEL.................100

B.6 - TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL.............................102 6.1 RESEARCH......................................104 6.2 DESIGN........................................106 6.3 SELECTION CRITERIA............................110 6.4 DESIGN REFLECTION.............................114 6.5 IMAGES OF FINAL DESIGN.......................118 B.7 - LEARNING OUTCOMES..............................132 B.8 - APPENDIX........................................136 8.1 APPENDIX: PART 1............................138 8.2 APPENDIX: PART 2............................140

B1. Research Field Biomimicry involves documenting and reflecting on nature; emulating its forms, rules, processes and systems to create an optimized and sustainable design1. It is not copying how systems work exactly, but developing certain concepts and utilising the ideas from these to create design outputs. 1. Biomimicry 3.8. â&#x20AC;&#x153;What is biomimicryâ&#x20AC;? Biomimcry 3.8, (2017) < https://biomimicry.net/ what-is-biomimicry/> [accessed: 22/03/2017]

Elytra Filament Pavilion, 2016 < http://www.archdaily.com/787943/elytra-filament-pavilion-explores-biomimicry-in-london> [accessed: 22/03/2017] 9

ARCHITECT: UNITED VISUAL ARTS LOCATION: TORONTO YEAR: 2010

United Visual Arts,Canopy, 2010 < http://www.archdaily.com/81576/maple-leaf-square-canopyunited-visual-artists> [accessed: 22/03/2017]

B1.1 CANOPY An example of biomimicry, Canopy is inspired by the filtered light that one sees when walking through a forest. The modules, which are all the same geometry, are inspired by the shape and nature of leaves, which, when fit together, create a tessellated pattern. This form elucidates how biomimicry can create a multitude of design opportunities.

to that of trees. Biomimicry also provides a rule set for construction, a precedent that has the optimal form that can be emulated in architecture.

In terms of using this precedent as one to inform my own design, I think the most interesting aspect of this is the way the light mimics trees in reality. I think this would be an interesting aspect of the Conceptually, inspiration can design to explore further, even if come from anywhere, from a spi- my design was based on a differder web which inspires form to a ent form. tree canopy that inspires the filtering of light. The Canopy design also demonWith nature providing many prec- strates fabrication techniques edents, possibilities are endless, I could explore myself in my and already exist. There is no own design. The cells seem to need to create our own rule-sets be made from planar geometry for designs when nature has pro- which would be easy to cut from vided them for us to emulate in a planar material. The plastic designs. In terms of materiality within the cells provides diversiand fabrication concerns, nature ty within the design, the two macan inspire this too. terials come together to create a single composition, something I Canopy utilises a plastic that fil- would like to explore in my own ters natural light to the street pavilion. scape below the installation, further demonstrating its closeness

ZA11 PAVILION ARCHITECT: Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan LOCATION: Cluj, Romania YEAR: 2011

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan,ZA11 Pavilion, 2011 < http://www.formakers.eu/project-125-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarfbogdan-hambasan-za11-pavillion> [accessed: 13/04/2017]

B1.2 ZA11 Pavilion Another example of biomimicry, the Za11 Pavilion mimics the cellular structure of objects to create a rotational node based design. The cells are hexagonal and each panel which is extruded towards the interior of the pavilion has a different cut out, mimicking the uniqueness of leaves on a tree.

I think this form and design could be applied to my own pavilion and inform the rule-set I follow during the design phase. The panels are similar, yet different in form which makes them interesting and could form some sort of leaf-like structure for the site. This may be better for application than the Canopy project as I think The cells do not copy cells in na- the rules can be applied to more ture (cells in nature are not usu- surfaces and shapes in order to ally squashed hexagons like in create an interesting design. this design) but it does demonstrate the way cells are organised In terms of fabrication concerns, to create solids. Cells and atoms this project does outline the progroup together to create differ- cess better in their journal, but ent objects which is used to in- the Canopy design has the advanfluence the overall design of this tage of having two different types pavilion. of materials. Perhaps I could use this materiality and apply it to a The design utilises this in order design based on the form and to create the form, but also em- rules of the ZA11 pavilion to crephases the fabrication process ate an interesting pavilion that and construction ease. Each of satisfies my own brief. the planar surfaces can be cut from plywood and joined using simplistically modelled joints made from cut-out hexagons.

B1.3 SITE ANALYSIS CERES is an education and community centre based on conservation and sustainability. It is situated on Merri Creek, in Brunswick, Melbourne and is a non-for profit organisation. There is an emphasis on living well together and enhancing the beauty of people instead of prohibiting the negativity. The park consists of many community gardens, chicken farms, a playground and learning centres where many school groups visit on excursions. After school hours, the site is used for community groups.

The specific site I will develop a design for is the chil-

dren's sandpit, located in the biomimicry based playground. A shading device is needed to protect children from the sun while they learn through play. The pavilion must reflect the rest of the playground and fit in with the theme, probably based on something from nature that children can interact with. The site is not large, and has some existing infrastructure (poles) that can be utilised for the design. An overhanging awning is quite close to the site and may have an impact on the design if the structures are placed too close together which must also be taken into consideration.

Brain Cells, < http://epilepsyu.com/blog/brain-cells-capable-of-early-career-switch/> [accessed: 24/03/2017]

B1.4 INSPIRATION Neurons provide a way for different parts of the brain to communicate and respond to sensory inputs. Providing connections between nodes, these neurons could be a good precedent study for a light-weight pavilion. Connectivity is what makes these brain cells interesting,

as without them, different parts of the body would be disconnected and no longer work. I find the same truth of air; it connects all of us, providing a path for communication. The geometry of the neurons is also interesting, stemming from nodes, the wires are thin and could be constructed as a pavilion. 17

Spider web, < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_web> [accessed: 24/03/2017]

B1.4 INSPIRATION A spider web is a geometry that is stable, yet it is a light structure. Spiders use silk which is produces in their silk glands to make their webs. They can choose which type of silk they use to create different structures. The web is made of radial and orbital lines which create a structurally

sound design. A web provides interesting geometry which could be used in a future design. It also emphasises movement and due to air flow, and could be mimicked through a tensile structure made from thin wires or strings of different types. 19

B1.4 INSPIRATION Found on the site (CERES) near the playground, these plants have an interesting geometry. They utilise a single, tall stalk and have large leaves ground out from top to bottom, making them different from other plants which grow leave towards the top of the plant.

Since this is relevant to the site, perhaps it will be useful to explore in terms of biomimicry and emulating nature in the design. The branching is something that could create a shading device that looks interesting and has the potential to facilitate learning through play. 21

Blood Cells, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9va0KPrVExs> [accessed: 24/03/2017]

B1.4 INSPIRATION Instead of exploring biomimicry on a larger scale, perhaps a microscopic scale could work just as well. The blood cells on the left demonstrate an interesting geometry and patterning which could be applied to both the form of my design and the detailing. The clustering in this image is also interesting as some of the cells overlap creating

strange and unique patterns. In terms of research, looking for objects under a microscope could also support the brief as the playground at CERES is populated with scaled up objects. Demonstrating this kind of detail in a design could enhance childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s understanding of how objects work at a microscopic scale. 23

B2. Case Study 1.0 The structure alters the classical vault in a modern way, aiming to create an installation that is easily fabricated and created through computational design. In terms of biomimicry, this design emulates the use of cellular structures in design in repetitive way.

VOLTA DOM ARCHITECT: Skylar Tibbits LOCATION: MIT University, Massachusetts YEAR: 2007

Elytra Filament Pavilion, 2016 < http://www.archdaily.com/787943/elytra-filament-pavilion-explores-biomimicry-in-london> [accessed: 22/03/2017]

Species

POP 2D (#Points)

#Points = 15

#Points = 6

Radius = 0.2

Radius = 0.7

RADIUS (Radius Size)

M SPLIT (Enabled) Enabled

DOMAIN (V0)

V0 = 0.4 MSplit Enabled

V0 = 0.9 MSplit Disabled

HEIGHT (Height =) Height = 0.69 26

Height = 5

B2.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION

#Points = 23

#Points = 35

Radius = 1

V0 = 0.9 MSplit Enabled

Height = 20 27

Species

SURFACE POINTS (U =) U = 10

U = 5

DomV0 = 0.8

DomV0 = 0

Curve type = Parabola

Curve type = Bezie

Curve type = Linear

Curve type = Bezie

SURFACE POINTS (DomV0 = )

GRAPH MAPPER (Height)

GRAPH MAPPER (DomV0)

GRAPH MAPPER (Height and DomV0) 28

Height = Sinc DomV0 = Sinc

Height = Parabol DomV0 = Parabol

B2.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION

U = 7

Curve type = Conic

Curve type = Sinc

a a

Height = Linear DomV0 = Sinc

Curve type = Perlin

Height = Guassian DomV0 = Guassian

Brief Requirements: - Light Weight Pavilion o Use of materiality o Limited foundations o Gaps in design - Provide shading during interactive events o Covered area o Block Sunlight o Big area covered - Reflective on movement of air o Light-weight o Thin materiality o Translucent

Marc Fornes & Theverymany,Outdoor Amphitheatre, 2013 < https://theverymany.com/buildings/13_merriweather-park/> [accessed: 24/03/2017]

B2.2 SELECTION CRITERIA To be a successful design, the pavilion must follow the requirements of the brief and also be an aesthetically pleasing design. The pavilion must be lightweight, which could be done through the use of different materials or thicknesses. The foundations should not be deep so the pavilion is light and not as grounded as it would be if it used a heavy concrete or thick materiality. Having gaps in a design rather than having an entirely solid form would also help in making the design lightweight. Secondly, the design must provide shading during events. To do so,

it would probably have to be large enough to cover most of, or the entire area. It should also be made from a material that blocks the sunlight. The final criterion is that the pavilion must be reflective on movement of air. Since the design studio's theme is this, the design will probably need to be made from a lightweight material that is thin and possible translucent. It should also some light into the design (since it will be used during the day) and probably have a symbolic resonance with air, or a process which encompasses the movement of oxygen.

FIGURE 1: MAKING THE CUT OUTS LARGER

FIGURE 2: DIVERSE SIZES OF HOLES USING GRAPH MAPPER

B2.3 SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES FIGURE 1 My first chosen design iteration would be successful because it is would be light-weight and easy to make with a thin material, satisfying this aspect of the brief. However, as is, it would not provide much shade which makes this design less successful in this respect. FIGURE 2 This design is a mixture of the lightweight materiality with thinner frames combined with elements that would provide shade. The design, however is varied, so it does not mimic the bio-structure of air as well as the previous design.

FIGURE 3: LARGER CUT OUTS AND POPULATE ALONG A SURFACE

FIGURE 4: DIVERSE SIZES AND HEIGHTS IN THE GEOMETRY

B2.3 SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES FIGURE 3 Figure three would fix the problem in FIGURE 1 without compromising the lightweight structure or it's likeness to air in a biomimicry respect. The clustered design could provide shade and circulate air, however, it is more complex and would be difficult to make for a large area. FIGURE 4 This design has no variation in the size of the light penetration, but varies the height, providing an interesting, yet shading design. It could also be made from lightweight materials and provide a design which reflects the brief well.

Skylar Tibbits,Volta Dom, 2007 < http://picssr.com/tags/voltadom> [accessed: 24/03/2017]

B2.4 SPECULATION Now that the geometry differs substantially from the original project, it could be applied more widely. Instead of just being used for a vaulted ceiling, it could be used for netting of some sort (in terms of the first successful outcome) or an art installation. It could also be turned on its side and used as a wall instead of ceiling. Most of my designs have holes in them, making the quality very different from the original design. It would facilitate airflow better and be more lightweight as the design

would use less material to fabricate. It could also allow light to penetrate, creating a shadow effect. While the original design is fully enclosed, the successful iterations, especially the design with the varied holes would create interesting shadows and qualities. The overall form and shape did not change too much, the shape could still be created by using rolled cones with holes cut into them. Even if they overlap, joints could be cut into the planar pieces for fabrication.

B3. Case Study 2.0 The project endeavours to show how parametric design can be used in reality and to attract people to the ZA11 Speaking Architecture event. The form of the design is based solely on ease of manufacturing. The planar timber panels easily fit together to create the complex shape. Hexagons line the edges of the planar pieces to join them together, but also form a part of the design language. The form is mostly based on the structure and composition of materiality, rather than an abstract ideas.

ZA11 PAVILION ARCHITECT: Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan LOCATION: Cluj, Romania YEAR: 2011

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan,ZA11 Pavilion, 2011 < http://www.archdaily.com/147948/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> [accessed: 31/03/2017]

ARCHITECT: Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan LOCATION: Cluj, Romania YEAR: 2011

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan,ZA11 Pavilion, 2011 < http://www.archdaily.com/147948/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> [accessed: 31/03/2017]

B3.1 ZA11 PAVILION - SUCCESS? I think the project is definitely successful in utilising parametric design and structure to inform form. The CNC cut material is fixed together easily and the form seems to come from a strict ruleset of applied structure.

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan,ZA11 Pavilion, 2011 < http://designplaygrounds.com/deviants/clj02-za11-pavilion/> [accessed: 31/03/2017]

The design is also interesting and unique, which demonstrates how it brings people to the architectural speakers event. Its strange, yet familiar geometry achieve this goal. However, another goal of the project was to provide shade during performances and gatherings, similar to our own brief. From the images, it seems this pavilion has too many holes to provide shading and users may not be entirely sheltered during use.

Step 1: I Created curves in Rhino and lofted

Step 2: I projected hexagonal curves onto the

them

surface (using the hexagonal grid)

Step 3: I found the discontinuities on the

Step 4: I created a solid cylinder in the middle

curves and created poly lines between these

to cut the curves. I found the intersection be-

points and the mid point

tween the cylinder brep and the curves

Step 5: I tried creating poly-lines between the

Step 6: When I grafted the intersecting points and the

intersections and the discontinuities on the

discontinuities, the lines worked. I then hit a dead end

hexagonal grid (This method failed)

as the lines were all grafted and couldn't be lofted.

B3.2 REVERSE ENGINEERING To reverse engineer the ZA11 Pavilion, I tried a few methods, some which failed. It took a while to project the hexagonal grid onto the lofted surface, but I used a tutorial online to model these curves. Following the same method on the ZA11 website, I created lines from the grid points to the centre but this presented problems later so I instead extruded the geometry. I think my design has more hexagons than the real pavilion, but using less hexagons, the form started to fail.

Step 7: I extruded the hexagonal curves to

Step 8: I trimmed the new extrusions using

the mid point

the cylinder brep which worked better than the original method I tried

Step 9: I offset the curves to create a frame

Step 10: Using the definitions I created in step 5 and

look on the geometry

6, I divided the curves and placed a polygon on these points. Then offset the intersections to create notches for fabrication

REVERSE ENGINEERING ZA11 PAVILION 44

REVERSE ENGINEERING ZA11 PAVILION

B3.3 PARAMETRIC DIAGRAM I believe the project produced by beginning with a curve lofted surface before projecting a hexagonal grid onto the design. These curves were extruded to a certain point in the middle of the shape then trimmed to create the void in the middle. Holes were then cut in the planar faces and polygons were positioned along the edges to create joints for the pieces.

ARCHITECT: Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan LOCATION: Cluj, Romania YEAR: 2011

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan,ZA11 Pavilion, 2011 < http://www.archdaily.com/147948/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> [accessed: 31/03/2017]

B3.4 COMPARISON SIMILARITIES:

holes within them which allow light

Firstly, both the ZA11 pavilion and

to enter the pavilion.

my design use a hexagonal grid projected onto a lofted surface as

Secondly, both designs follow a sim-

the starting point for the form. The

ilar form, the curves begin on the

hexagons provide the basis for the

ground and rise to create an open-

extrusion which both goes back

ing for people to enter through.

to a certain point in the middle of

The designs would also similarly be

the design. Both designs are also

similarly constructed using plywood

constructed using planar surfac-

and CNC cutting to produce easily

es joined together with polygonal

assembled pieces.

shapes. These surfaces have offset

ARCHITECT: Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan LOCATION: Cluj, Romania YEAR: 2011

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan,ZA11 Pavilion, 2011 < http://www.archdaily.com/147948/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> [accessed: 31/03/2017]

B3.4 COMPARISON DIFFERENCES:

hexagons but it did not look as ef-

While the two forms are very similar

fective and some of the joints broke

(that was the intention) obviously,

(the surfaces were no longer joined

there are some discrepancies within

effectively).

the designs. The two pavilions have diverse lofted surfaces making up

My joint polygons are placed in

the actual form. This is because it

different positions than those in the

is increasingly difficult to model

ZA11 pavilion because it was diffi-

curves the exact same as the ones

cult to model the exact placement

seen in modelling diagrams of the

(again, modelling off the photos

pavilion and even harder to model

proved difficult).

off the photos of the final pavilion itself. Therefore, the forms are go-

Finally, the offset holes in my de-

ing to be different.

sign are a little bit different. I could not model the two holes so I mod-

Additionally, my design has far

elled one to make it appear some-

more hexagons in the grid and they

what similar, but also different in

are more regular than those in the

some regard.

ZA11 pavilion. I tried mine with less

B3.5 IF UNCONSTRAINED? Firstly, if I were unconstrained by

I could experiment with the lofted

the original form, I would try to use

surface form, creating something

more points to extrude the hexago-

that is taller in profile or some-

nal curves to. Some could be on the

thing with more discrepancies in the

outside and some on the inside.

curves.

The size and shape of the hexagons

The joints could also be changed;

could also be different. I could try

the joint shapes could be altered and

using polygons with more sizes or a

the placement of them could change

variation in shape size which would

as well. Perhaps circular joints would

produce some diverse outcomes.

work better with the final shape or triangle joints.

B4. Technique: Development 56

B4.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION Move Points

Hex-grid (x,y)

x=3, y=5

Delete Delete Brep

Curve Shapes 58

B4.1 ITERATIONS 1-11

x=1, y=3

x=10, y=10

Delete Offsets

B4.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION Change Shape

Pipe Radius R=5

Move the points outside

Panelling

B4.1 ITERATIONS 12-22

R=0.5

R=0.02

All failed, the curves were unable to find which point to extrude to

B4.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION Change Grid Triangulate

Radial Grid

Populate geometry

Move the points outside Copy, Scale and Rotate 62

B4.1 ITERATIONS 23-31

Grid

Voronoi

Rectangular Grid

Less points in voronoi

B4.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION Weaverbird Thin = 2

Smooth

Sirepinski

Change Joints Circles

Pop Geometry with Circles 64

B4.1 ITERATIONS 32-41

Loop

wbWindow

wbThicken

Point attractor change circle radius 65

B4.1 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION Scale with Point attractor

y=1, z=1

y=1, z=0.477

Fillet

R=14

Scale Factor

r = 0.82

B4.1 ITERATIONS 42-46

Scale Factor = 0.21

B4.2 GENERATING IDEAS I was stuck on how to manipulate the geometry more after developing so many iterations, so I generated ideas by drawing forms. These forms were based on the geometry developed in the other iterations and were also based on the brief and the site. The first idea was based on some

thing I had been thinking about for a while and thought of during my initial design brainstorming in the studio. I drew the others, allocating thirty seconds to each idea and came up with different forms that dealt with the site. I could then apply the grasshopper geometry to the forms to develop more iterations.

B4.3 CASE STUDY MANIPULATION Applying to Site

B4.1 ITERATIONS 42-50

- Educational and based on biomimicry o Natural looking materials o cell-like structure

Tia Kharrat,Butterfly House, 2016 < https://www.dezeen.com/2016/06/28/tia-kharrat-university-westminster-architecture-graduate-butterfly-enclosure-formation-eggs-biomimicry/> [accessed: 14/04/17]

B4.4 SELECTION CRITERIA (Revised) In addition to the brief requirements listed in B2, after meeting with the client, some points need to be considered in the pavilion design. The site I have chosen is the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s' sandpit which requires a shading pavilion to protect users from harmful UV rays. This was outlined in the former brief and discussed. The point that was not discussed in the previous requirements outline was the fact that CERES provides a playground for the children which has an immense focus on biomimicry. Therefore, any design I

choose must be reflective of this. The other areas of the playground focus on providing spaces where the kids could be a part of nature (mostly by introducing them to habitats of birds and insects). The pavilion design for the sandpit should follow this concept and provide a learning and education experience through play. I could achieve this through mimicry of cells or habitats in nature and but using natural looking materials. This is a point which will affect the designs I choose as the most effective outcomes.

FIGURE 1: USING THE DOME AS THE MAIN GEOMETRY

FIGURE 2: CIRCULAR COMPONENT JOINTS

B4.5 SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES FIGURE 1:

FIGURE 2:

The most successful iteration, I believe based on the selection criteria is the dome design. The form looks structurally sound as well as lightweight and represents movement of air through the cells. Biomimicry is also represented through the cells that symbolise those inside leaves and the shape is also vaguely plant like.

The only thing different about this iteration is the joint shape, but I feel is a successful one that must be analysed. Biomimicry is the part of the selection criteria that this design represents the best. Plant cells contain chloroplasts which the circular shapes could symbolise and while their main function to provide a simply fabricated joint, it could educate users while doing so.

The design does not however appear to shade the user from the sun which was a highly important part of the brief. The gaps in the structure are large and could mean that the design fails in satisfying all the aims. The joints are also not detailed or feasible in this design so maybe these two disadvantages could be fixed to create a better pavilion.

However, the design form is of poor quality, in regards to the selection criteria. The large gaps in the design would make it difficult to provide shading, although the framing of the panels would be lightweight and allow airflow.

FIGURE 3: FILLETED PORTAL FRAMES

FIGURE 4: PATTERNING AND PANELLING ON GEOMETRY

B4.5 SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES FIGURE 3:

FIGURE 4:

I believe this design successfully demonstrates a lightweight pavilion that could present a highly controlled, but positive air-flow. The design also follows the same cellular structure of the others which makes it successful when it comes to the educational aspect of the brief and could be made from natural looking materials.

The patterning on this design is what makes it different from the others and I think this also makes it successful when you take into account the selection criteria. The design would be light-weight if made from certain materials and also provide shading as there are no holes in the panels. The cell-like structure and patterning also represent biomimicry very This design does not have de- well, and could be used as an edtailed joints however and despite ucational tool. it's light-weight look, I think when fabricated, it would be heavy as However, I believe this design there are many panels that make would be difficult to fabricate. up the composition. I think the In this iteration, the patterning designs with less cells are more is bevelled on the surface which successful in this regard. would be expensive and give the design a more detailed look, something which would not fit in well with the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s' playground as well as other designs.

B5. Technique: Prototypes Fabrication and assembly considerations necessitated a change in my final model many times. The Grasshopper model itself was created based on the Za11 Pavilion, but when I altered the joints to fit aesthetically with my new design, a series of problems occurred. Materiality also proved to present problems in the design as some material choices were cheap and reliable, but did not perform well under weather conditions. Finally, a design that would be able to be fabricated was devised, after extensive prototyping and testing.

SITE PROTOTYPE

Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan,ZA11 Pavilion, 2011 < http://www.archdaily.com/147948/ za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> [accessed: 31/03/2017]

JOINT PROTOTYPE AT FULL SCALE

B5.1 JOINT PROTOTYPES I tested a series of joint types in a single model and demonstrated how well they would fit together in an overall model. I tested how the joints performed under stress as well as how aesthetically pleasing they were and how well they fit the brief. The effective joints were those that remained rigid once they were fixed and would not move under any stress applied. Simplicity also became a factor as there are many pieces in the actual design and joints were all different, so they would need to be fabricated easily. Aesthetics was also a factor since the design would not be

able to have an undesirable appearance once fabricated. Some of the hand-made joints were surprisingly effective in this regard as the brief called for a design that looked hand-made and fit in with nature. However, some undesirable effects also presented themselves in some joints. Many of the joints would require additional bracing to be supported and work effectively under stress. The joints that showed deflection in only one direction could be easily fixed, but some joints showed twisting, shifting, shear forces and allowed the pieces to pull apart to some extent. These joints would need too much bracing to be effective.

For video documenting stress testing, please follow the link https://youtu.be/ujpKrZ28HZs

B5.1A CIRCLE WEDGE This joint was based on that used in the original ZA11 pavilion. Laser cutting could ensure that the perfect joint is created and everything fits together will in the design at the specified angle. The joint is strong and deals with stress well, only failing when significant force is applied. The problems with the joints lie in the aesthetics. The joint is large and cannot be easily

hidden. In a real cell (which the design is based on) nothing can penetrate the cell wall (which the hexagons represent), so this joint is also inaccurate in terms of the educational aspects. Since the joint is made from timber, it would also need to be finished adequately to protect it from moisture gain.

B5.1B ROPE The rope is more of a flexible joint but aesthetically, it provides positive design feedback. When stress is applied, the joint can be moved, but tightening does create a solid joint in some respect. Another frame on the end of the design would be needed to keep the angles correct, but since the rope provides a semi-solid

joint, it could be effective. The rope would also be free from rust and unlike the timber wedge of the previous prototype, withstand rain and moisture gain. The rope is aesthetically pleasing and gives the design a more 'natural' and 'handmade' look. These aspects are specified in the brief, making the rope a good choice.

B5.1C STEEL CABLE TIES Another flexible joint, the steel cable ties provided a similar outcome to the rope. An additional bracing system would be required to aid the design in keeping its shape, however I found the steel cable ties could not be tightened sufficiently to remain semi-rigid. The joint is completely moveable and does not withstand compressive or tensile forces.

There is also the fact that the cable ties are made of steel. Although the joint will remain strong, a rust would form on the exterior of the joint. This would not be aesthetically pleasing. In addition, the joint is very viable and a different type of paint would be required if attempting to hide it.

B5.1D PLASTIC CABLE TIES Plastic cable ties could be tightened the most out of all the flexible joints I tested. Once the angle was set, the cable ties held the pieces in position, even after forced were applied to it.

The plastic cable ties are also not aesthetically pleasing. They have the large piece of plastic that ties them off at once end which stands out and the black colour does not help to hide the joint.

However, this is still a flexible joint so additional bracing would be needed at a 1:1 scale.

Since they are made from plastic, they could be painted, but I do not feel this joint expresses the design intent adequately.

B5.1E SMALLER PLASTIC CABLE TIES Since the black cable ties worked well in regard to how it held the shape and angle, I tried smaller, clear coloured ties. These worked similarly to the black ties, but were better hidden in the design. Perhaps using even more cable ties along the joint could create a pattern to work with the design. It would also give the hand-made feeling like the rope, without standing out

too much like the black joints. Again, this joint is flexible though so it would require additional framing, but I feel like this joint type would work well at a 1:1 scale for the real design.

B5.1F HINGES When testing joints, I could not go past the hinge, even if I did not think it was going to work well. The testing surprised me, however. The hinge was not the worst joint used in the prototype, and actually presented some positive outcomes. The joint kept the pieces together rather well, and when positioned correctly, kept at the correct angle in the design.

Rivets needed to be used to join the pieces together however, so this may not be the best joint. The hinge was quite thick and when taking material thickness into account, the rivets barely made it through to hold. Perhaps a bolt could be used at 1:1 scale however, to resolve this issue.

B5.1G TAPE Surprisingly, tape worked very well and could actually become a contender for the final joint choice. The tape used was strong enough to hold the pieces and very difficult to remove. The black colour does stand out, but the joint runs along the entire length of the piece so it appears like a line in the model, something that could aesthetically work with the design.

However, unsurprisingly, the tape does not perform well under stress. Twisting can occur, as unlike other joints, there is not stiffness in any direction. The tape would also come lose over time and the material does stretch. So the tape joint is not the best for the design, but still provided valuable feedback during the prototyping phase.

B5.1H METAL BRACKETS The metal brackets actually performed the best and I tried them in two different joints. The joint is easy to fabricate, just bend the metal using pliers to a specified angle. The metal is difficult to bend once it is in place on the timber pieces (I know this because I originally placed the pieces in the wrong place and got the wrong angle).

the material was simple. I used an aluminium rivet which could be hammered against the metal to form the end of the joint. At a 1:1 scale, this joint may not be feasible, but a bolt would work just as well. In terms of design aesthetics, I feel like this joint gives the design a 'handmade' feel similarly to the rope, but also provides a strong, rigid connection between pieces.

Since the pieces also have ready cut holes, fixing them to

B5.1I WIRE I tested the wire because it had similar properties to the bracket, but could be bent into shape easier once fabricated. However, the wire presented many problems. It actually provided a similar joint to the rope, flexible and poor quality under stress. The wire was also difficult to tighten which meant the joints moved in many directions, providing something that would require

a lot of bracing to be sustainable. Aesthetics were also an issue in this joint. The wire needed a long end twisted over to prevent the joint from coming out of the timber. To do this, I had to twist the wire around itself many times which created an undesirable looking joint. The wire also has pieces sticking out at the ends which would be a safety hazard for children using the shelter.

B5.1J METAL RINGS The metal rings had a similar effect as the wire on the joint, the looseness of the joint meaning it could move too easily. The angle at this joint was not held at all and without the extra piece of wire to stop the joint from coming out of the timber, the rings continuously fell out when too much stress was applied.

The pieces also moved up and down more than any other pieces, meaning additional bracing would probably not be enough to sustain the design. The rings do look aesthetically pleasing however, as they are small and circular, but this design quality is not enough o offset the structural qualities of the joint.

1:1 JOINT MODEL

B5.2 1:1 JOINT PROTOTYPE I developed the more successful joint from my last prototype to create a joint which was strong and easy to fabricate. Since this model was scaled up, the joint was a little bit more difficult to fabricate. The 6 mm thick MDF should be good for the final scale design, but it was more difficult to cut and get the rivets through. I had to buy longer rivets (aluminium) which could be easily adjusted or hammered if mistakes are made during fabrication. The metal brackets are strong and withstand a great amount of stress. It does not bend when I push on it and withstands many forces. Another issue with the first prototype was the planarity on the ends of the timber panels.

The pieces do not fit well together, especially when three pieces come together, but adding a piece of rope in the joint alleviates this issue. It is a material that can move, and withstand compression and tension. This works similar to a compression joint in concrete panels, and keeps the joint circular and the pieces apart from each other. Both these joints also have another benefit: they have a sort of natural, hand-made aesthetic that works in well with the CERES site. Most of the buildings and installations on the site are made of timber or mud bricks, not concrete or pre-fabricated materials. Therefore, I think these joints will enhance this aspect of the design, allowing it to fit in with the overall park.

For video documenting stress testing, please follow the link https://youtu.be/3_cgPQGJvxg

SITE SHADING DIAGRAM: YELLOW = SUNRISE ORANGE = MIDDAY SUN RED = SUNSET (SOURCE: http://suncalc.net/#/37.766,144.9845,20/2017.04.27/15:52)

SHADING MODEL

B5.3 SUN SITE ANALYSIS The CERES site is covered with trees which provide adequate shelter in most places, however the sandpit is open on one side, letting in harmful UV light. After documenting the sun pattern using a sun calculator, I discovered majority of the sunlight penetrates the site in the morning and early afternoon. This is the time of day when the playground would be busiest due to it being school time. Children visit CERES for school excursions and community programs and these usually run during the earlier times of day. In the afternoon to evening,

the sandpit would still be used, but not as popular. However, there are trees on one side of the site which provide shade during these times. So, a shading pavilion would be required to protect users from the morning sunlight. Since a larger pavilion would mean more expense, I tried to make the design as small as possibly, while still protecting the users from the sun. Therefore, I designed a form directly relating to this, something to block the harmful rays in the morning, but still be open on the other side since the trees provided protecting in the afternoon.

SCALE SITE PROTOTYPE

B5.3 SITE PROTOTYPE 1:20 I built up a model of the site, focusing mostly on the sandpit. Doing this allowed me to place the model on the site without seeing the old shading sail which could be seen in photos. This also allowed me to demonstrate how the design worked in a 3-dimensional sense, rather than on a screen image in 2-dimensions. The actual model of the pavilion was made using a strong, white cardboard which could be easily bent. This does not

demonstrate the actual joints in the real design, but does demonstrate the form, making it a useful exploration. This model also allowed me to see the scale of the model on the site. I measured the built up site carefully, whereas on an image, this was difficult to do. Therefore, this prototype allowed me to see how the design worked on site scale-wise and the aesthetics of the overall form.

SHADING TEST WITHOUT TREES

SHADING TEST WITH TREES

B5.4 SHADE PROTOTYPE The same 1:20 model was used to demonstrate the shading aspect of the design, through light manipulation and video recording. By watching the light, I found the perfect positioning for the pavilion on the site and can demonstrate how the sandpit will be shaded throughout an entire day. Firstly, I recorded the sun (light) moving without the addition of the trees to block the afternoon sunlight. This demonstrates how the design works as a singular element.

The next video, I filmed the design and an additional tree aspect working together to shade the sandpit. It can be seen determined through this video that the design does in fact shade the sandpit through the entire day. Lastly, I turned out all the lights except for the one I was using as the sun to emphases how shaded the sandpit will be. The sunlight is emphasised because it stands out so much and darkness continues over the sandpit throughout the entire process.

For video documenting shading patterns, please follow the link https://youtu.be/4kGHHTm9bUM

100

B5.5 CHANGES TO DIGITAL MODEL Originally, my digital model used the planar circular joints but this did not work in reality so I changed it. I added holes punched into the planar pieces which can be used for the metal brackets. This will allow the joints to be precise and accurate. I also added the piece on the back to address the shading issue better and enlarged the overall design before the making of the 1:20 model because I found the 1:5 model scale looked out of proportion.

101

B6. Technique: Proposal 102

PAVILION ON SITE

103

PLANT CELLS AT A MICROSCOPIC LEVEL

Chloroplasts < http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/09/25/botanical-wednesday-sincewe-were-extracting-chloroplasts-in-the-lab-today/> [accessed: 14/04/2017]

104

B6.1 RESEARCH Plants use the process of photosynthesis to produce glucose (food) and oxygen. These photosynthetic cells are populated with chloroplasts, which are filled with chlorophyll molecules that absorb photons (light). Once the chlorophyll absorbs enough photos, it can split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen ions. The oxygen ions combine to form oxygen gas, some of which is released into the air and some is used by the plant itself. This stage is called the light-dependent stage. The second stage, or the light independent stage, occurs in the stroma of the chloroplast. The molecules, including the previously generated hydrogen ions, undergo a series of cyclic reactions resulting in the formation of glucose. To use this as a basis for my design, I could use the cellular structure of a leaf to form the geometry. The chloroplasts, which are spherical shapes within the plant cells could

be represented by the circular joints or an additional plastic interior inside the cells. To provide a shading aspect, I could have a membrane on the exterior of the pavilion which would represent the leaf at a distance, while the interior represents it on a cellular level. The chloroplasts, which are spherical shapes within the plant cells could be represented by the circular joints or an additional plastic interior inside the cells. To provide a shading aspect, I could have a membrane on the exterior of the pavilion which would represent the leaf at a distance, while the interior represents it as a cellular level. There is also a relevance to the air theme of the studio if I were to use photosynthesis as a biomimicry precedent. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, playing an integral part of the air-flow system.

Rabinowitch, Eugene. "Photosynthesis." Photosynthesis. (1969).

105

106

B6.2 DESIGN: STRUCTURE The overall structure of the design is cut from a sphere and populated with cellular geometry.

flow and light to penetrate the design and enter the sandpit which is important for the users.

Each cell is hexagonal, but they are all different sizes create diverse angles. The hexagons are not planar, but they are made from planar pieces of timber, as if the cell had been extruded and scaled outwards.

Each panel is also a different size and slightly different shape, but could be laser cut, or cut with a saw by hand. To join, holes will be drilled or laser cut into the panels where metal brackets can be riveted.

The timber panels have cut outs which are filleted slightly to soften the edges. The holes in the surfaces allow more air

A rope is also positioned between all joints to provide a compressionable material to support the pieces.

107

Painted cells applied to the design

108

B6.2 DESIGN: METAPHOR The shape of the design is based on the structure of photosynthetic leaf cells. The cell walls are modelled with the MDF which form the hexagon shapes, but the interior workings of the cell will be painted on by students from a local school. Since there are sixteen cells, each student or pair of students will create a painted on the tarp within the frame of the design. The tarp will then

be nailed to the timber frame to demonstrate the inner workings of the leaf design. Since the tarp will only be nailed to the back of the design, it can be removed and redone but another class whenever necessary. The timber frame will remain but the tarp will be created again and again, involving as many members from the community as possible.

109

- Educational and based on biomimicry o Natural looking materials o cell-like structure

View of the pavilion from the hill

110

B6.3 SELECTION CRITERIA LIGHT WEIGHT PAVILION: To address this element of the selection criteria, I used timber as a material for the design. My final selection Material, MDF is semi-lightweight, but still holds some weight so the design can stay grounded without an extensive use of footings. The design itself also supports this idea because it is created using a series of panels with cut outs. The design is made from frames, not solid shapes and creates shade through an additional tarp attached to the back. The tarp can facilitate airflow and because the pieces create hexagonal tunnels throughout the design, it emphasises the overall lightweight effect caused overall.

PROVIDE SHADING DURING INTERACTIVE EVENTS: The form of the design is based on the sun patterns of the site, or more specifically, the shade patterns that could be created with the certain form. The form curves in, as if it is cut from a sphere which ensures shade will cover the entire sandpit in the morning. The tarp attached to the back will cover any holes the lightweight frame of the pavilion creates and will protect children or any other users from harsh UV rays. The other side of the sandpit is already shaded by trees so the design is one sided.

111

- Educational and based on biomimicry o Natural looking materials o cell-like structure

View of the design from the entrance to the sandpit

112

B6.3 SELECTION CRITERIA REFLECTIVE ON THE MOVEMENT OF AIR: The pavilion addresses this aspect of the brief in two ways. Firstly, the frame which the design is composed of allows air to flow through the site and the design. The tarp attached the back would be woven and block the shade without blocking too much air. The cellular structure of the design is also populated with cut outs which provide additional flow through the site. Secondly, the biomimicry aspect of the design supports the movement of air and oxygen. The cell shapes and the decoration of the tarp represent the creating of oxygen, among other molecules, through photosynthesis. As already explained in the previous section, the plant cells absorb photos causing the water )H20) to split into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Therefore, the overall design does not only support airflow through

a frame like design, but also through a metaphorical sense through representation. EDUCATIONAL AND BASED ON BIOMIMICRY: The playground at CERES is the Australian Bush scaled up, so I created a giant leaf for children to play under. Leaves provide natural shade where the built environment is lacking, so this design aptly mimics this idea. It also supports the grade 2 curriculum, where children learn about the inner workings of plant cells. The tarp design will be representative of plant cells and the structure of the design bolsters this. The educational aspect can also be demonstrated through the community involvement. The class of students chosen to paint the tarp will paint the design, having learnt about cells in school and be able to share their knowledge with others.

113

Children using the sandpit under shading

114

B6.4 DESIGN REFLECTION -ADVANTAGES Firstly, the pavilion is advantageous because it represents CERES values. There is an aspect of community involvement through the painting of the tarp. It also emphasises learning through play and fun, something important and memorable about the CERES program. The design is also innovative because it is created entirely based on the patterns of the sun and reflects this wholeheartedly. Since it was made parametrically, all the pieces are scaled proportionately and the joints and angles are precise. Each piece joins perfectly and creates a structure which can stand up and support its own weight. In comparison to my other ideas, I think this is the best as it shades the sandpit adequately. The design is also created

using a lofted surfaces which can be unrolled and cut out of fabric to create the backing tarp. In comparison to other design ideas that may be presented, I feel like my design stands out as it incorporates the community and a strong aspect of learning through the cellular structure. The structure is also as small as possible to ensure the materials are not too expensive and the labour is not too intensive. This is a project that could be fabricated within a tight budget and assembled by unskilled labourers (university students). Overall, I think my design is effective and unique. It adequately addresses all aspects of the brief and could be realistically applied to the site at CERES.

115

View of the back of the pavilion

116

B6.4 DESIGN REFLECTION -DRAWBACKS Even though my design may adequately address the brief, it does have some drawbacks which have been pointed out and will have to be addressed. Firstly, the design is composed of some sharp edges which could be dangerous. This is a pavilion designed for children so it needs to safely address all of their needs. To address this, perhaps I could fillet all the corners of the pieces which would change the overall design, but make it much safer. There is also the issue of how the design should sit on the ground. Since it is made out of timber, it may not be feasible to have it sitting within the soil, so maybe it needs some

footings to tie it to the ground I should also be tied down to prevent it from moving and injuring children in the sandpit. There are also some design drawbacks; the design itself is not very complex, and a lot of the emphasis is on patterning. While this may be an advantage, I think complexity could be added by altering the cut outs in the panels. The holes shown at the edges of the panels (for joints) also populated the ends due to the way Grasshopper interpreted the command. This may be a drawback, having more holes than necessary, but I left them in their because they introduce some more patterning into the overall design.

117

Cell Shade Proposal

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

B7. Learning Outcomes 132

133

B7.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE ONE: GATE THE BRIEF

INTERRO-

I feel like after this design studio task, I have began considering the process of brief formation differently. Because of the opportunities presented by Grasshopper and through computational design, I was able to better understand and design something that directly reflected the brief. The brief of this design called for a shading device, a fact in the brief I would usually ignore until the later stages of the design. However, due to the parametric programming, I was able to follow the same process I usually did (generating ideas based loosely on the brief) then alter these ideas to fit a different form that was based entirely on the sun patterns of the site. Similarly, I think I interrogated the brief by considering prototyping choices as well. Because prototyping was such a large part of the design process, I could address the shading and lightweight focuses of the brief. This could also be directly related to the computational side of things since I could again, easily change the design when I discovered something did not work.

134

OBJECTIVE TWO: ABILITY TO GENERATE A VARIETY OF DESIGN POSSIBILITIES FOR A GIVEN SITUATION To create 30 iterations in the first case study was actually very difficult. I found myself getting stuck at around fifteen iterations because I was not content to just plug in a number slider and change it a few times for a different design outcome. However, in case study two, I found it much more rewarding to go through the process of generating. Having gotten used to using Grasshopper by then, using the computational program actually enhanced my ability to generate ideas. I usually only generate five to ten different ideas, but using Grasshopper allowed me to generate ideas I would never have thought of by just drawing or model making. Especially when I used Weaverbird and mathematics to manipulate the design, outcomes were surprising and I was able to explore the design space better and more meaningfully.

OBJECTIVE THREE: DEVELOPING SKILLS IN VARIOUS THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEDIA I was used to remaining in two dimensions for my past design studios as I relied a lot on hand drawing, but in Studio Air, everything was done three-dimensionally and it gave me a better understanding of the design and how it works. I feel like I understand the form and joints better, from working with a three-dimensional model in Grasshopper and Rhino and was able to use this to inform my design development. The analytic diagramming was difficult at first, but it allowed me to fully understand how the Grasshopper model worked and how it was put together. However, I still think Prototyping was the most rewarding part of the design development. Making physical models allowed me to see my model in real dimensions and understand material thickness and scale and how it would affect the overall design.

OBJECTIVE FOUR: UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND THE AIR

which meant I completely understood the design and its importance during the presentation.

This may be one objective I have not yet mastered. While my design does allow air-flow, I do not think it reflects the relationship between the built form and the air as strongly as it can. This could be altered in part C to create a design that fully demonstrates this point.

OBJECTIVE SIX: DEVELOP CAPABILITIES FOR CONCEPTUAL, TECHNICAL AND DESIGN ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTS

However, conceptually, I do understand the relationship between plants and air, which was a major part of my design. Since my built form elucidated the shape of a leaf, the conversion of water to oxygen was diagrammed in the design, demonstrating on some level, the relationship between my specific built form and the air. OBJECTIVE FIVE: DEVELOPING THE ABILITY TO MAKE A CASE FOR PROPOSALS I feel like my case was made well with this design, but I do often struggle with this in other subjects. This semester, I think because I knew the design so well through Grasshopper, I was able to cut out any flaws before presentation

Though this is only relevant to the first part of this section, I feel like during part B I was able to analyse the projects better than in part A. This may have been because of the introduction to biomimicry in the case studies. I enjoy using metaphor and story in my designs so when I see another design such as the Canopy (from B.1) has an intrinsic narrative, I was better able to interact with the design. I could discuss each of the designs in relation to technology and see the pitfalls of them, not just the advantages. OBJECTIVE SEVEN: DEVELOP FOUNDATIONAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF COMPUTATIONAL GEOMETRY, DATA STRUCTURES AND TYPES OF PROGRAMMING

I found I enjoyed using it more during this design task. I understand data structures, however, I still struggle with understanding how to manipulate and use them. I know they exist and what branches look like but not how to work with them. So maybe this will be a point I will work on in the future during part C. OBJECTIVE EIGHT: BEGIN DEVELOPING A PERSONALISED REPERTOIRE OF COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES I feel like the algorithmic sketch book and video tutorials have helped with this aspect of the subject. I often find myself opening definitions that I knew had a certain outcome and using them to solve a solution in a new design. And due to the need to recreate the ZA11 pavilion, I had to try many definitions and processes before I found the right one, but I found many processes that did not work that could be applied to other designs because I now know their outcomes.

Since the computational side was very logical and scientific,

135

B8. Appendix 136

USING THE GRAPH MAPPER

137

PANELLING IN GRASSHOPPER

138

B8.1 APPENDIX PART 1 The algorithmic sketches for part B of the journal were all about learning to use and manipulate different Grasshopper plug-ins such as Kangaroo Physics and Weaverbird. The panelling definition was meaningful to manipulate, I think. I could change many inputs and outputs to devise different geometries and create patterns. The radial pattern in the most effective because I used a point attractor to manipulate

the sizes of the holes in the geometry. I think these algorithmic sketches could be very useful in creating panels on future designs. These panels could be applied to different surfaces to create diversity within designs. I tried to use this as one of my iterations but the panels were not 3D once applied to the design, however I still think these will be useful in the future for other design solutions.

139

USING KANGAROO TO CREATE GEOMETRY

140

B8.2 APPENDIX PART 2 This was another meaningful patterning definition, but this one was created using Kangaroo. To manipulate the definition, I changed sliders to alter the heights and sizes of the cells. This created a sense of diversity within the sketch which made the pattern more meaningful than it was to begin with. I also used a point attractor at one stage to manipulate the

different sizes of the holes and heights and plugged in graph mappers to also alter inputs gradually. This geometry could also be useful and applied to future designs. I came up with the sketch after I did the fifty iterations of my design but it could be applied later to develop the pavilion more.

141