AIR STUDIO YINQIU CAI, GEORGINA, 711714, TUTORIAL 2
5
Figure.1: Prototype by Mark Fo
33 73
ornes1
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PART A. CONCEPTUALISATION 6
14 21 27 28 29
A.1. Design Futuring
A.2. Design Computation
A.3. Composition/Generation A.4. Conclusion
A.5. Learning Outcome A.6. Appendix
PART B. CRITERIA DESIGN 35
B.1. Research Field
45
B.3. Case Study 2.0
37 53 57 65 67 69
B.2. Case Study 1.0 B.4. Technique: Development B.5. Technique: Prototypes B.6. Technique: Proposal
B.7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes B.8. Appendix
PART C. DETAILED DESIGN C.1. Design Concept
C.2. Tectonic Elements & Prototypes C.3. Final Detail Model
C.4. Learning Objectives and Outcome
REFERENCES
PART 2
CRITERIA DESIGN B.1. Research Field B.2. Case Study 1.0 B.3. Case Study 2.0 B.4. Technique: Development B.5. Technique: Prototypes B.6. Technique: Proposal B.7. Learning Outcome B.8. Appendix Bibiliorgraphy 33
34
B.1. RESEARCH FIELD
Although those precedent can be classified into different categories of research fields, the logic behind them is all the same: parametric/algorithm design. In order to have a deeper understanding of it and create my own work, I should learn from different projects and try to synthesise those across fields. So I select the following different works in two different categories.
Macroscope formfinding These precedents use parametric design to develop the general forms first then to the individual, so they are examples of “macro-formfinding�. GEOMETRY The approach is to use basic mathematic to generate 2D or 3D geometries. They can be controlled through parametric adjusting, so they are very straightforward in their forms.
MATERIAL The approach is to simulate the performance of the from through its material system. The form-finding process can directly respond to the material, becoming the real material based design.
35
Microscope formfinding These precedent use parametric design to find the single elements first, then apply those in a large form, so they are examples of “micro-formfinding�. The change of pattern will correspondingly affect the whole design. So for those works, connection between elements and patterns of each elements should be strictly design.
It is a very different approach. However, it is similar to patterning, just the size and the performance way for it. It can also be described as marcro-formfinding precedents, but the use of contouring makes it different. It is very practical on fabrication, also create a natural beauty.
PATTERN
CONTOUR
36
B.2. CASE STUDY 1.0
project introduction Green Void is an installation in the central atrium of Customs House in Sydney, created by Architects LAVA. It is a 20-metre tall sculpture that hanging from the ceiling with steel cables, and it consists of lightweight, woven materials stretched around the aluminium skeleton. The Green Void has a total surface area of 300 square metres enclosing 3000 cubic metres of space. The Green Void is a perfect example that explain the principles of mesh relaxation through its curving surface. The project is whole immersed in a soundscape and the tensile membrane is used to make the sound effect better. The five channels of the sculpture reach out to connect various levels to give users a specific visual experience. The shape of the whole project is not designed explicitly, it is the outcome with most efficient connection of different boundaries in three dimensional space, so it is one generation from their iteration pools. The structure itself looks like natural elements, such as plants and corals. The original concept of this project is to explore the the flexible material following the forced of gravity, tension and growth. 37
reasons to pick the object The Green Void is a perfect example of parametric design, but my reason of choosing this is not only that. In our studio, the brief and design direction is very clear and has been pointed out by tutor. So I need this precedent as: 1 - The form itself can be an installation of the ceiling, but it is not chilling at all. In this case, the precedent explores and tests the possibilities of the ceiling structure and performance. This is a new typology of the ceiling. Also, the material is used to respond the LED light performance at the site.
2 - The form itself is really dynamic, and it creates a sense of difference from the planar ceiling and surrounding objects. 3 - Furthermore, most students from my studio choose the techniques such as pattering, tessellation and contouring. They are all simple to generate a ceiling structure comparing to this precedent. Since the precedent is curved and suspended from the ceiling, structure ability needs to be considered and it can be made by the Grasshopper plug-in: Kangaroo. I like to challenge this, and see what I can generate at the end.
38
MATRIX ORGANIZATION The intention of making iteration matrix is to create a pool of candidates by adjust parameters of an existing algorithm. Then designers can pick and select some satisfying outcome from the candidates pool based on the criteria below. During the process, rethinking the criteria is important to avoid failure algorithms. I tried to iterate the form in there steps gradually to push the definition to its limitation while deepen my understanding on it. Firstly, I tried small changes on the existing parameters. Although the outcome will mostly be similar, but in this way, I can understand and be familiar with the algorithm more. In the step, I tried to adjust the dimension and direction of each element, and use kangaroo physics to generate different forms. From now, the definition form each iteration is basically all the same with tiny changes. Also, I developed the kangaroo physics a little bit to see
the difference of final outcome. Secondly, I replace the existing elements and definition with others to create more iteration and push the algorithms to its limitation. In this step, I also tried to use other definition and components to make the form in a brand new way. Finally, I create some my own forms that applied the similar definition and components, but not the same. In such process, I can improve my iteration pool and bring myself more inspiration with random combination. Therefore, the following iteration matrix is going function as an experiment record sheet. It has many iteration, but all of those are with tiny or small changes on definition. Some new definition and components are still added to test the possibilities of algorithms. During the process, I keep exploring and developing more possibilities, and key parameter changes will be recorded.
EVOLUTION CRITERIA I have already talked about the function of making iteration matrix from the left article. Since I have a giant generated candidates pool here, I need set a criteria to help me pick and select some outcomes with the most potential to perform. Considering the practicality of the design task, I list the below criteria.
Aesthetics
It is the most direct and straightforward requirement from the clients and brief. Both the exterior and interior of the design should be dynamic but following the geometric logic at the same time. It should create a specific atmosphere for people who attend the Shadow Electric Festival. However, it should avoid the excess of patterning causing chaos.
39
Constructibility
Contractibility is prior and primary to consider before all other elements. Any tectonic that are not suitable for fabrication should be eliminated whether it is good-looking or not. The construction method and ability should always be considered in all process of evolution.
Materiality
The outcomes with most potential will be picked to test its tectonic and material performance.
Innovation
Both the material behaviour and form should be represented in an innovative way. This will require me to push the logic and definition in the Grasshopper to its limit in order to generate more complex situations and possibilities.
ITERATION MATRIX 1.0
Basic Parameter Test Key Parameters: dimension, move, scale, rotate, loose option
Randomly change the distance between basic elements Randomly change the dimension of single elements
Orientate the single elements randomly
Add more geometry elements to the definition to see the outcomes from Kangaroo
40
Kangaroo Physics Structural Test Key Parameters: Global area of force, anchor points
Global aree greater or smaller than 1
Only part of the end points as anchor points
New definitions to the Kangaroo physics
41
Skeleton Test Key Parameters: exoskeleton, node size, start size, end size
Use exoskeletion definition to form the tube mesh from single line
Genetate the patterns from the skeleton from specific definition
Change the end and start size of each element
42
Exterior Pattern Test Key Parameters: countour, pattern lunchbox
Patterning with lunchbox with planar patterns
“Patterning� with contour
Pattern with lunchbox with extruded box
43
Exterior Pattern Test Key Parameters: countour, pattern lunchbox
44
OUTCOMES WITH MOST POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP
CONCLUSION The iteration matrix in case study 1 is lacking of depth I think. I just change the shape the dimension of each elements to see what new forms will be generated from kangaroo physics. Also, patterning are introduced and considered to give the form an aesthetic exterior; however, all of those are very basic. Meanwhile, the use of exoskeleton definition is applied to the iteration matrix.
B.3. CASE STUDY 2.0
PROJECT INTRODUCTION Taichung Metropolitan Opera House is now one of the famous and most difficult building designed by Ito Toyo. The main structure consists of several connecting curved walls, inlaid floors, inlaid interior and exterior walls, and a core service wall. The curved wall structure is formed with 58 curved wall units. The whole inner curved structure is an example of minimal surface. The constructibility is always considered during the form generation process. The building itself does not have any columns, and all supported by the curved walls. The most challenging part of is the spray of concrete since no linear elements can be found in the building.
45
REVERSE ENGINEERING
Sketches to describe the basic structure of the project, and try to figure out the curving patterns of the project.
Form the voronoi as the primary platform for later operation. The voronoi control points are manual and adjusted based on the floor plan of the project.
46
Single elements from the voronoi to loft to form the basic structure of the whole project. Loft control as loose for further join of the elements. List of elements should be graft to loft.
Mirror the whole structure in multiple levels to form the final outcome
47
Find the void part between each voronoi extrusion elements, and form a plane or brep
SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE The core principle of the opera house is the application of minimal surface that generate from the voronoi. However, I don’t know the exact patterns of voronoi of the opera house, so I just adjust each point of the voronoi based on a floor plan I found from the internet. The curved part on the exterior facade of the opera house is symmetrical, so I tried to adjust those loft surface and voronoi shapes to make them look symmetrical. Through the revers-engineer process, I realise that digital tools also have limitation and I can hardly understand all required digital skills during design. So I think I need to pay more attention on investment of other aspects, such as material and constructibility, rather than trapping by digital tools.
48
B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT ITERATION MATRIX 2.0 BASIC FORM CONTROL POINT CONTROL METHOD CELLS TO EXTRUSION
25
20
15
10
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
ODD
ODD
ODD
EVEN
SCALE CHOICE HEIGHT LINE POINT CONTROL SCALE LOFT OPTION
1000
2000
3000
4000
12 0.9 LOOSE
12 0.7 LOOSE
12 0.5 LOOSE
15 0.3 LOOSE
PATTERN OPTION
PATTERN U/V VALUE DIRECTION
TRIANGULAR PANEL 35 -
TRIANGULAR PANEL 2 27 -
HEXAGON 27 -
TRIANGULAR PATTERN 3 35 -
MINIMAL SURFACE GENERATION
ITERATION
PARAMETERIC MIX
53
2
4
6
8
5
25
20
15
10
5
MANUAL
POP 2D
EVEN
MANUAL
POP 2D MANUAL
POP 2D MANUAL
POP 2D MANUAL
POP 2D MANUAL
5000/1500
5000/2000
5000/1000
5000/500
5000/1500
13 0.2/0.7 LOOSE
13 0.3/0.4 LOOSE
13 0.5/0.9 LOOSE
13 0.6/0.1 LOOSE
15 0.8/0.3 LOOSE
5000 15 0.1 LOOSE
TRIANGULAR PATTERN 4 35 -
10
SPUARE 27 -
12
CONTOUR Y AXIS
14
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
CONTOUR
X AXIS
MANUAL
MANUAL
16
18
20
54
TECTONIC ELEMENTS ANALYSIS
REASEON FOR EVOLUTION DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA The work of case study brought me huge interest to explore its potential on materiality and design performance. For the previous matrix in case study, I only tried to adjust some really simple definition for make the object adjust. But in this one, I considered the patter and tessellation of the object in various types. More parameters are added: lunchbox patterns, minimal surface and contour. The tectonic analysis explains the functional reason of incorporating these elements. I still tried to adjust the outcome based on the practicality, and attempt to make the pattern/tessellation pattern to be more constructible.
Based on the previous criteria, I add some new considerations.
Aesthetics
Patterning and tessellation and structure performances need to be considered. However, to complex pattern should be avoid in case causing a aesthetic boredom.
Constructibility
The consideration of tectonic logic and constructibility should be more developed and adapted.
Materiality
Material that if it is suitable for the pattern and design need to be consider. The difference of material choice for structure that either with or without the pattern.
Innovation
The design should be developed gradually from the principle of minimal surface and mesh relaxation. So I picked some outcomes with most potential from the iteration. 55
OUTCOMES WITH MOST POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP
CONCLUSION After generating more iteration and possibilities from case study 2, now I am getting more familiar with parametric design the the logic of Grasshopper definition. In the further step, material consideration should be incorporated with the outcomes. Meanwhile, I need to think about the constructibility of the structure with a good performance through material. So, basically these two things need to be adapted for the next part. But the pattern can be only tested on surface via using lunchbox. In this way, minimal surface definition is applied.
56
B.5. TECHNIQUE: PROTPTYPE MATERIALITY TEST
59
CONNECTION TEST
60
61
62
LESSONS FROM PROTOTYPE
For the connection of wire, I bended the wire at two sides to form a ring that can connect each other. Also, I used thin wires to wrap two different part as a connection. For the fabric part, sewing is used to connect the wire and fabric. However, I am thinking more possibilities for this connection.
63
The thickness of the wire may directly affect the constructibility of the prototype. Thicker wires are hard to bend without tools but give strong support. Thinner wires are excellent materials for connection because they are soft, but cannot provide large support.
The fabric should be really tensed to give a sense of minimal surface. And for the next part, more materials selection should be considered
No patterns consideration in this prototype, only plain material, but it will be developed in the next section.
64
B.6. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL INTRODUCTION The project is not named yet in order for further development. It is generated by a basic manual voronoi pattern and then used to generate minimal surface and mesh relaxation from it. Very similar to the Voussoir Cloud; however, some holes from the surface are facing outwards, and not completely close to give visitors a sense of outside environment. Since there is a large tree in the middle of the site, the largest “hollow column� is created to surround the tree and give the mean structural support of whole project. Some hollow columns are suspended from the ceiling to direct sunlight in. The expanding part of the ceiling can prevent visitors from the rain.
PLAN FOR THE NEXT STEP
In the next section, I am going to work within a team to develop more abilities and opportunities of the structure. Also, I am thinking to work with somebody that choose a different research field from me. In this case, ideas collision will create more possibilities. Meanwhile, I am going to focus more on the constructibility and materiality of the structure that relates to the brief. Also, aesthetics will be more explored through the using of patterning or contour, and study in light reflection and projection will be covered more. 65
66
B.7. LEARNING oBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES OBJECTIVE 1 “INTERROGATING A BRIEF” Brief is something that concluded from both client’s requirement and designer’s ambitions. It is also an equilibrium between designers and clients in the project. In part B, I focused more on my own ideas and projects instead of considering the brief. But other student’s works during the presentation remind me to concern more on the user’s experience and the form itself. I should keep adjusting the brief in Part C.
OBJECTIVE 2 “GENERATE DESIGN POSSIBILITIES”
I think I achieved this objective in a very shallow level since I feel hard and difficult when I challenge the limitation of the algorithm. However, in the technical development stage, I tried to add new elements to my design to make more generation. I think for the next part, I should not only fully focused on generating more possibilities, but also need to consider if the possibilities are related to the brief.
OBJECTIVE 3 “THREE DIMENSIONAL MEDIA” I am getting familiar with the workflow from the algorithm to a digital model. Also, from the group site analysis, I become familiar with some online data collection and formation tools that can help me on visualise data precisely during the work. When I tried to make the iteration matrix, I tried to avoid failure in grasshopper. And I think I should look for more precedents and the logic behind it so I can understand the whole thing better
OBJECTIVE 4 “RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND AIR” I believe I somehow understand this objective when I placed my macro-scale structure on the site. But this is not enough, I think I should consider this more deeply in the next part with my group mate. Thos objective should always be noticed.
67
OBJECTIVE 5 “CASE PROPOSAL” This objective is not fully developed in my project because I just put what I have in the place. I think I should concern more on the tectonic and the form itself to respond the brief. I am going to improve my ability in making proposal in next part because I will work with others.
OBJECTIVE 6 “ANALYSING PROJECTS”
I think I am doing a good job in analysis of precedents, and I think it is pretty success for the reverse engineering part. Rather that simple outcomes, I studied the logic behind the design and can apply this to the other parts in many ways. In the next part, I should keep this learning method and analyse more related precedent case that can give me ideas.
OBJECTIVE 7 “FUNCTIONAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF COMPUTATION” I think it is one of the most challenging objectives as sometimes I cannot really understand the Grasshopper definition really well. I realised that Grasshopper is just a start point of the design. I should always think what I really want for the outcome and what design is suitable for the brief at first. When I go further, to create my own Grasshopper definition rather than being tricked by Grasshopper at the beginning.
OBJECTIVE 8 “PERSONALISED REPERTORIE” Through the using of grasshopper and other interrelated computation tools, I realised this objective. I should develop my own interest in parametric design and always try to visualise the ideas in Grasshopper rather then simple copy and paste. The sketchbook is the thing that can motivate me to do such thing. I think I still lack of the abilities in this part, so I should try harder on those sketches and skills for generate more designs and possibilities.
68
B.8. APPENDIX
69
70