STUDIO AIR PART C MUHAMMAD FAIZ
874505 1
2
contents PART C: DETAILED DESIGN c.1 design concept c.2 tectonic elements & prototypes c.3 final detail model c.4 learning objectives and outcomes
4 9 13 22
3
4
PART C: DETAILED DESIGN C.1 DESIGN CONCEPT
DESIGN CONCEPT FEEDBACK
The
interim review allowed me to receive multiple constructive comments about the design from Part B. Some of the comments being that the design was too ‘straight-forward’ without any additional thoughts given to the whole structure of the installation. It was also deemed as too literal. Instead of allowing humans to just walk through the installation, there should be obstructions in the design itself to allow humans to feel the struggle of metamorphosis, similar to the damselfly. From these comments, we will move forward to produce a design that responds to these comments and suits the site better.
5
len gth : 28 -36 cm lon g
CERES Community Environmental Park
bringing chosen species into the human’s habitat which would assist with the eradication of animals feeding on the vegetation
3 metres
habitats for prey
proposed food pyramid
Our design concept is to provide a vantage point
for the chosen animal, which is the Southern Bobook Owl. Intead of providing a habitat for the animal in the site itself, we are bringing the species out to a nearby location, the CERES Community Environmental Park. The species is known to hunt on smaller creatures such as house mice and moths. By bringing the owl to the park, it will prey on those species while removing those pests from damaging the plants grown in the park.
6
ground level
The structure of our design is based on the 3 levels of hierarchy between the species, with the owl being on top, the flying insects in the middle and the crawling mice on the ground. Providing a vantage point allows the owl to get a clear vision of the site and will be able to swoop into its prey with the height of the structure being high enough.
height of vantage point from 5 - 12 metres
vantage points
CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS
FIXINGS
OR
+
The laser-cut panels will have holes that will fit snugly around the structure, to stop the panels from sliding down we will use a washer at each fixing point.
LASER-CUT PANELS STRING
To create a contrast with the natural surroundings the structure will be white. To achieve this we will lasercut the panels from white perspex or MDF which will be painted to achieve the desired finish.
The final step will involve running string through the whole structure. For this we will use fishing line as it is strong and white/clear in colour.
STRUCTURE For the vertical elements creating the main structure, we will use either PVC tubing of timber dowels spray painted white to match the laser-cut panels.
OR
+
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE JOINT DETAIL The panels will have widened areas around the fixing points, these will slide down the structure to rest on the washers that grip the structure and prevent the panels from moving.
1
1. Line the panels and washers up with the structure.
2
2. Slide the washers over the structure to the desired position then slide the panel down until it rests on the washers.
7
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
JOINT DETAIL There will be little holes in the panels that will allow fishing line to run through the structure.
3
8
3. Continue step 2 until all the panels are on the structure.
4
4. Run the fishing line through the structure using the holes in each panel.
C.2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES
9
For our prototype, we experimented with layered
plates to represent the scale of the hierarchy from bottom up. The plates consists of holes to allow the connection between each other, and also to enhance the towering effect for the structure.
10
Figure 1
Figure 2
The rods that were used were 3mm and 6mm
acrylic rods (Figure 1) for the inner and outer layer of the lining. The plates were represented by MDF Boards that were laser-cut with precision and later spray painted white to show the contrast between the two materials. The rods were glued onto the plates using epoxy glue, which allows quick drying and speeds up the construction process compared to using regular adhesive glue. The plates were rotated at every level to show more complexity compared to being stationary on every layer.
11
PROTOTYPE
12
C.3 FINAL DETAIL MODEL 13
FEEDBACK
During the construction of the prototype, we
came upon great difficulty trying to force the rods through the holes on the plates with an angle. Although it may contribute to the structural strength of the whole design, we figured that producing a structure with parallel rods might be a much more efficient method and it would allow more rods to be inserted through the plates, producing a constant pattern or facade, instead of a randomized one. For the final part, we begin to work on the final design with parallel rods using a precedent study that we found and tried producing a parametric design using Grasshopper.
14
PRECEDENT STUDY
Hungarian Mathematical Model - TamĂĄs LĂŠvai
https://www.graphisoft.com/info/news/press_releases/gomboc3.jpg
The Hungarian Mathematical Model by Tamas Levai has the similar aesthetics that we are trying to achieve for our final model. The designer used vertical elements to allow the free movement of light and air. Similar to our project, we would like to provide a structure that does not restrict the existing movement on site. Using clear acrylic allows us to achieve the intended and enhances the transparency of the design.
https://www.graphisoft.com/info/news/press_releases/gomboc1.jpg
15
16
17
18
EXTERIOR RENDER
19
CONSTRUCTION
Similar to the prototype, we used 3mm
and 6mm acrylic rods for the inner and outer lining. However, instead of the MDF Board, we replaced it with clear perspex to show the transparency of the structure as mentioned above. There are a few problems faced during the construction process which includes the structure not being sturdy enough in the beginning due to the lack of rods at the base but as the layers get higher, the structure began to hold itself up without any form of bracing. Another problem faced was the lack of holes on the plates for the rods to go through. That caused the overall structure to be unable to show the effect of the attractor curve, also mentioned during our final presentation.
20
FINAL DETAIL MODEL
21
22
C.4 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES
FINAL PRESENTATION FEEDBACK The
feedback received during the final presentation was that the design did not show the paramatric features used from Grasshopper, which is the attractor curve. It was also viewed as ‘not unique’ and that it would not stand out on site. One way to improve on this was to include other parametric features into our design, which will be worked on the further developments
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT From
the above comments, we worked on the existing design, allowing grasshopper to produce a rather unique pavilion using the array component. Instead of providing a structure for the chosen animal, this pavilion creates a mutual relationship by catering to both humans and animas on the site. The materiality of the pavilion includes the usage of bamboo, which conforms to the values of the park by being made from natural and sustainable materials.
23
24
RENDER OF PAVILION
25
26
27
LEARNING OUTCOMES Through this design process in Part C, I developed the ability to
generate a range of design possibilities with the use of Grasshopper and Rhino. Using these softwares make it a lot easier in trying to churn out complicated and irregular forms that cannot be achieved with other softwares. This also made me more aware of laser cutting. I was very intrigued by the digital fabrication done and hope to explore these techniques in the future. In Studio Air, using the Grasshopper software made me realise that it does more than configure and generate forms, but it can also analyse the different environmental factors like the Sun’s or Wind’s analysis. I feel that it is an important aspect because it is a natural occurrence in life today and understanding the different issues of the natural environment will make the design proposal better. Overall, I learnt about the foundation and the understandings of computational geometry and computation design as a whole. This is a very useful and important learning curve for me to know in today’s developing technology. Part C helped me get a better grasp of today’s engineering and architectural designs. I did not know about computational design until this studio. It showed me that computational digital architecture has been around for a few years now and that it should be explored and used more often to develop structures that were previously ‘impossible’ to do due to technology constraints, and now make those interesting and unique forms come to life. The outcome through this is a level of higher learning and the capability to generate new and creative forms using digital architecture.
28
29