The Serpentine Pavilion 2005 Case Study

and latent redefinition of the construction process itself. 4 Today, with digital production and continuous datasets comprising a practical approach rather than an idealised aim, the production of geometrically complex buildings and building systems from differentiated components appears a tangible, as well as feasible, proposition. Overall, the most relevant consideration for now is the relation between existing skills and tools and emerging techniques and technologies. The work of the leading manufacturing companies suggests that the transfer and integration of CAM in the field of construction requires the development of new production approaches in parallel with an understanding of

This article is based on an indepth research into the current possibilities and future perspectives of fully integrated computer-aided design and manufacturing. As part of this exploration, Achim Menges and Michael Hensel visited specialist manufacturing companies and their facilities in Germany to investigate and discuss the latest computer-controlled fabrication processes. Following this field trip, the Emergence and Design Group organised the symposium entitled ‘Manufacturing Diversity’, with representatives of the key companies at the Architectural Association in February 2005. The article reports on the work and projects presented by Dirk Emmer (Skyspan, Germany), Benoit Fauchon (Covertex, Germany), Michael Keller (Finnforest Merk, Germany), Thomas Spitzer (Seele, Germany) and Dr Karel Vollers representing Professor Mick Eekhout (Octatube, the Netherlands).

The Serpentine Pavilion 2005 case study Kensington Gardens, London

Architect: Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura by: Hizkia Irwanto Gouw (378785) Contemporary Digital Practice ABPL 90149 Lecturer: Bharat Dave

Figure view 1. Interior view of the Sepentine Pavilion 2005.

Interior of the Serpentine Pavilion designed by Álvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura together with Cecil Balmond of Arup and Partners, London, 2005.

Abstract 77 The Serpentine Pavilion 2005 (Fig. 1) is a result of combination between the aesthetic of architecture, innovative engineering, and advanced digital technology. Pritzker Prize winners Alvaro Siza and Eduardo Souto de Moura and Cecil Balmond of internationally renowned structural engineering firm Arup, collaborated together in this annual project, which was commissioned by Serpentine Gallery. Anyone who has tracked Siza and Souto de Moura’s architectural projects perhaps expected a ‘modernist’ building, with clean and straight line characteristics. In fact, although the Pavilion looks simple and straightforward in terms of construction, the form actually comes from complex geometries. The Pavilion was done by using contemporary techniques (such as script-definition for the geometry and robot manufacturing), which otherwise would have been impossible to accomplish. This paper will discuss how digital architecture and advanced manufacturing technique that were used in the Serpentine Pavilion 2005 realized the architectural intent. It will also look at how the engineering aspect could play an important role during design phase, even in the early design concept.

1

Introduction Since 2000, the Serpentine Pavilion has demonstrated a series of exploration on forms, materials and structure, started by Zaha Hadid’s triangulated steel frame structure to Jean Nouvel’s recent bold geometric forms in 2010. The Serpentine Pavilion 2005 was also an example of creative structural engineering. Siza’s contextual approach and Souto de Moura’s enthusiasm with over-craft were pushed to a new boundary by Balmond’s structural expression. The use of advanced computer technologies to define the precise geometry of the building’s form is a key aspect that makes the Pavilion being able to stand up. Digital Fabrication also plays a role to make sure all the elements of the building were made to the exact size and coordinates.

1. Project Outline The Serpentine Gallery is considered one of the London’s leading contemporary art venues. Each year, the gallery gives an internationally celebrated architect, who had yet to complete a UK-based building, an opportunity to experiment their innovative ideas on a small structure without a complex brief.

The main aim of the Pavilion is “to create an instant architectural exhibition” (Siza 2011). It will introduce the richness of contemporary architecture to the British public, so they can personally experience and engage with the building. The brief is always the same every year, which is a 300 square meters pavilion that can be used as a cafe or event space capable of accommodating up to two hundred people. In addition to that brief, as the pavilion would be open for approximately four months, Julia Peyton Jones, director of the Serpentine Gallery, asked for the pavilion to be designed as a demountable structure that could be sold or even rolled out as an edition later (Wilson 2005).

Figure 2. The evolution of Serpentine Pavilion, from Zaha Hadid (2000), Daniel Libeskind (2001), Toyo Ito (2002), Oscar Niemeyer( 2003).

Figure 3. Site Plan of Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005.

In 2005, Siza and Souto de Moura (Fig. 4) were selected by the Serpentine Gallery to design the pavilion. Cecil Balmond and the rest of the Arup team, just as in the past pavilions, joined the team to work on the ground-breaking structural solution.

Siza, Souto de Moura, and Balmond had to work on how to construct this Pavilion, quickly and economically, as the Serpentine Gallery did not provide any funding for the Pavilion.

Figure 4. Alvaro Siza (right) and Eduardo Souto de Moura (left).

2

Commisioner Serpentine Pavilion

Project Advisor: Peter Roger, Stanhope plc Lord Palumbo, Chairman Serpentine Gallery Zaha Hadid, Trustee

Project Manager Mark Robinson

Project Director Julia Peyton-Jones Serpentine Pavilion

Project Organizer Rebecca Morrill Serpentine Gallery

Landscaping Counsultant Arabella Lenno Boyd

Planning Supervisor: Bovis Lend Lease

Architect Alvaro Siza Eduardo Soto de Moura Tiago Figueiredo Tiago Coelho Atsushi Ueno

Cost Consultant Davis Langdon

Construction Management Bovis Lend Lease

Structural Engineer ARUP Cecil Balmond

Integrated Design ARUP Team: Hamish Neville Martin Self Lip Chong Charles Walker Steve Walker Andrew Hall AnthonyFerguson Andrew Lawrence

Contractor Ground Works and Welfare: John Doyle Group Ground Anchors: Screwfast Ltd Structural Steel: William Hare Site Equipment: Laing O’Rourke Structural Timber Frame and Covering: Finnforest Merk Lighting: Bay Plastic DB Construct Fixers Ltd Peri Ltd Sikken Solar Century Landscaping and blockwork: Bowles & Wyer WHAT IS KERTO? Bar Construction Irvine Whitlock KERTO is a laminated veneered Penten Group lumber and is a very Small Power environmentally friendly wood product, made from Finnish T Clarke spruce. It is produced by rotary peeling the spruce logs into 3mm thick veneersFurniture: which are then glued together, using a WBPDesign type glue, to form S. a continuous billet up to 2.4m wide by 25m Dismanting: long in 6mm incremental thicknesses from 21 to 75mm. The billet is hot pressedKeltbray to expedite the gluing process and Surveying: completes the production of the Kerto billet.

SES Ltd

project: pavilion

Kerto’s excellent structural and dimensional properties made it

very good choice for use as the load-bearing elements of the Figure 5. Project organizationapavilion system. structure. It derives these properties from the nature of

moment stresses were ally significant and ce and tenon joint. age is therefore less y but gives benefits in rection and demount-

tem consisted of 18 w-piles arranged g perimeter, typically umn. To pick up the mns, a continuous round beam spans in n between the screwments of steel channel ground beam to the les. The base Kerto lted connection to are angled to the the columns and are a baseplate to the

erection

o structural members Finnforest Merk’s near Munich. Each dually cut from large ck Kerto-Q, using a ly used in car manus fully articulate in ong 5 axes when used ting table. Therefore it h of the members to required with no or shaping required to the top of the member tenon connections. then reference ve treated, stained llets. ers were delivered to by lorry and pallets ele-handler. The cked in Aichach to d erection sequence was labelled with the rid reference for that elements were passed operatives in a scissor ember in the struc-

3

Architect Alvaro Siza Eduardo Soto de Moura

the homogeneous veneered structure, which also keeps the effects of any defective single veneers down to a minimum. It therefore produces a structural timber product that is approximately 100% more structurally efficient than the equivalent volume of spruce softwood, in effect producing a structural member that would have to be twice as large, if it was Sketches fabricated outStructural of solid spruceEngineer softwood.

ture. A third operative in a cherry picker followed the erection sequence, located and drilled a hole through the morticeand-tenon and then fixed the single location bolt that was used at each node to help hold the structure in position during the erection process.

As these node connections were completed a vertical and horizontally adjustable prop was fixed under the node point to support the temporarily free unsupported end of the member and hold the structure in position during erection.

Once each ‘arched rib’ of the structure was complete the node points were surveyed and the props adjusted for both height and alignment to ensure that the structure was kept within a strict erection tolerance of + or – 5mm at every stage of the erection. Once the structure was complete the temporary erection props were removed.

ARUP Cecil Balmond

.dxf files and text files 3d XYZ coordinates

Timber Manufacturer Finforrest Merk

Excel Based CNC

427 elements fitted perfectly on site. This Construction would have been impossible without using script-definition for the geometry and direct transfer of digital data to fabricator. These contemporary techniques Robot produced Manufacturing an innovative structure that se Aachen, germany realised the architectural intent.

• The authors will talk about the

Conclusion in more detail at a presentation Figure 6.complete Project’s data delivery system. Pavilion Erection was by the end of May hosted by the wood. for good campaign on 2005, less than 4 months after the first meeting about the structure. Despite this very fast programme, all but one of the

The finished structure (editorial photo)

the 15 September at the Pavilion; see website: (www.woodforgood.com/events/ bww_events_timetable.html).

Figure 7. The view of Serpentine Pavilion 2005 6 September 2005 – The Structural Engineer|21 with the existing neo-classical gallery

1.1 Project Team Organization In the Serpentine Pavilion 2005, there was a clear separation between the tasks of architects and those of engineers. There were already Arup specialists that worked in their areas, such as Martin Self, a structural designer that develops the project-specific script, which defines the individual geometry of each timber; Steve Walker, who provides an analysis for the solar-lighting system; and Andrew Lawrence, timber material analyst (Serpentine Gallery 2005, p. 14).

The support that was given by the Arup team allows Siza and Souto de Moura to do “what only architects can do” (Melvin 2005, p. 106). The architects can shift their focus on the development of ideas rather than trying to cover up wider areas.

The design for this pavilion was not made in London, but in Porto, where Siza and Souto de Moura’s office located. As a result, Balmond and the Arup team based in London, played a significant role in determining key decision which should have be taken during the fabrication and construction processes. The engineering team was also the one that communicated with the contractors, since Arup was responsible for the detailed documentation of the building’s complex geometries. In addition, as the project relied so much on digital techniques, almost none of the construction drawing was produced. This project shifted away from the conventional building documentation that utilized 2D documentation during the construction phase.

1.2 Design Concept The main concept of the Serpentine Pavilion 2005 was a building that reacts to the lawn located in front of the existing neo-classical gallery (Self et al 2005, p.

18). The Pavilion embraces the concept of genius loci by establishing a dialogue among trees, landscape, and buildings. The basic idea of the curved surface came from the half ellipse shaped that was formed by two hedges in front of the gallery’s building. Then, the distortion of timber grids in the Pavilion came from a reaction to the position of the surrounding trees (Siza 2011). Although these design thoughts seem to come about accidentally, eventually they provide a strong contextual characteristic to the building.

In one interview, Siza said that one of the architect’s tasks is “to make things look simple and natural which actually are complex” (Siza 2011). In the Pavilion, although overall it looks straightforward

in terms of form, material, and construction method, in reality it came through a very complex process.

The architects prefer to employ the vernacular architecture but present it in a modern way.

2 Physical Descriptions The Serpentine Pavilion 2005 is a columnfree enclosure approximately 300 meter squared.

The wall and the roof came from a single continuous structure, which is formed from an undulating, offset grid of timber beams. In general, the wall stood 3 meters tall, where the roof hit the highest point on 5.5 meters above ground. The Pavilion was made from 427 different timber beams that worked in unusual grillage structure, which produced an organic form.

All the timber elements were interlocked together in a mutually supporting pattern by using conventional mortice and tenon joints. Moreover, the external facade of the Pavilion is clad with 348 translucent polycarbonate panels, where each of them is integrated to a solar-powered light.

Figure 8. Serpentine Pavilion 2005 ground plan and Roof plan.

2.2 Materials 2.2.1 Kerto S LVL (Timber Beams) 550 x 69 mm Kerto S LVL grade Q, laminated veneers of Finnish spruce (Fig.10), was chosen as the material for timber beams. The reason is because the material has more load-bearing capacity than other traditional timber products (Wilson 2005).

Although it is considered as a lightweight material, it has the strength, consistency and dimensional stability that are needed for longer span. Kerto S LVL was produced by Finnforest in Finland and fabricated in Germany by Merk’s robot manufacturing technology (Powney 2005). There were approximately 60 meters cubic of this laminated veneered lumber used to create 427 beams for the Pavilion.

2.2.2 Polycarbonate Panels (Cladding) For the external cladding, 5 millimeters thick transparent polycarbonate panels (Fig. 11) were selected.

There were 348 individually shaped panels that used to cover the Pavilion. These panels were fabricated using CNC (Computer Numeric Control) machining by Finnforest Merk, based on computers model generated by AGU (Serpentine Gallery 2005, p.

126). The polycarbonate panel was chosen due to its weather-resistant capability, and its transparency,

Figure 9. Serpentine Pavilion 2005 west and east elevation.

Figure 10. Kerto S LVL grade Q, laminated veneers of Finnish spruce

4

which will let sunlight into the Pavilion during the day.

Figure 11. View to the polycarbonate panels with an autonomous solar powered light.

2.2.3 Solar Powered Light Each polycarbonate panels is incorporated with an autonomous solar powered light (Fig. 11).

The solar powered light will turn automatically during dusk, illuminating the interior space of the Pavilion, while also giving an ethereal glow from the outside.

Since there was no panel that covers the bottom 1.3 meters, during the night the Pavilion would seem to float over the ground. In addition, as each of the panels has a different orientation, the solar lights will glow one by one (Siza 2011).

3. Design Process

e Pavilion Figure 12. Alvaro Siza’s first skteches, which leads to the idea of grid shell.

ngton Gardens, gn challenge. Martin one (M), Finnforest

Siza’s sketches (left) and Balmond’s sketches (right) ng an autonomous solar-powered ht.

mella structure

e initial concept of a timber grid umed, by default, continuously spang members. However, this strategy uld have led to an unwanted hierarchy mary and secondary spanning direcns), with the scale and geometry proby requiring compromising splice ails in the members. At the early ign sessions, the potential for a handfted vernacular style of timber struction was discussed, and the cept of a contemporary structure ploying a traditional construction guage was proposed.

A solution with exciting potential ame apparent through a development The Pavilion’s amella roof structures. Here, short, completely free-form geometry to be built. distorted timber -ended, members are arranged to To achieve this, every element is unique grid (All photos ld up a structural lattice with a gridand varies in length and inclination. The 3D Model bymarked Arup’stoteam unless gth of one-half of the member lengths, structural action becomes a combination the contrary are ulting in a stable system. The interof arch (compressive) and grillage king members are arranged in a mutu- courtesy of Arup) (bending) behaviours. supporting pattern, allowing each In the roof, the elements are all ividual element to have simple oriented with their major-dimension rtice-and-tenon connections, yet able vertical. The walls use a similar system, maintain the overall bending stiffness but with elements oriented horizontally. he frame.

Because the system can accommodate Traditional lamella roofs, for example direction change in the grid, the strucse built by Zollinger in Germany in tural pattern is uninterrupted across the 1920s, are assembled from identical eaves. For example, two-bay elements ments and used to build barrel-vault ‘fold’ over the eaves giving one roof bay e structures, with in-plane forces. The and one wall bay. me structural arrangement can be The connection between elements is a d to form a grillage, in which the outsimple mortice and tenon connection, in plane force in each element is transwhich two tenons from adjoining Below left: ed in shear to the mid-point of the elements connect into the mortice at the moment forces neighbouring elements, building up a centre of the cross-element. To allow the 3D model mplex looping load-path. two tenons to fit side by side, each For the pavilion, this reciprocal grillage Below: shear element is alternately offset from the grid forces 3D model tem was advanced to allow a centreline by half the element thickness.

Structural Analysis in Oasys GSA

Figure 13. Design process overview. From sketches to 3D model and finally to strcutural analysis

005

5

3.1 Initial Stages (Sketches) Although the Serpentine Pavilion 2005 is considered as a digital architecture project, during the early design conception phase, Siza and Souto de Moura still employed conventional design development tool: hand-drawing. Siza’s sketches communicated his general vision for the scheme of the Pavilion. In his very first sketches (Fig. 12), he already began with a simple grid shell that was distorted, creating an organic form (Serpentine Gallery 2005, p.

13). Then, this design concept was developed further

by AGU using their advanced computing technology.

Furthermore, by looking at Siza and Souto de Moura’s sketch drawings and the end result of the building, we find them fairly identical. This early design phase is really decisive to shape the final outcome of the Pavilion.

There is an interesting story behind the design process of the Pavilion. Siza had yet to visit the site during this design stage. He only looked at the photos and the notes that were taken by Souto de Moura, and then they started to develop the ideas together. Siza only met Balmond once in Porto, while Souto de Moura went to London no more than three times, so most of the design decisions were collaborated via phone and email (Jodidio 2010, p. 126). It shows how useful technology is in recent architecture, where an architect can obtain detailed information about the site without having to be there personally.

T 3.2 Close Collaboration with the Engi- neer (Arup) Balmond and his Arup’s team are no stranger for Siza and Souto de Moura. They have worked together on the Portuguese Pavilion for Expo 2000 in Hannover, Germany (Siza 2011). In this Serpentine Pavilion 2005, their close collaboration was reflected in the final outcome of the Pavilion, a building that showcased the artistic aspects of architecture and the exploration of engineering solution. Arup already gave advice in structural solution since early design development. They did not just take Siza and Souto de Moura’s idea and translated. The ‘lamella’ system that is finally used for the final design came from the suggestion by Arup’s timber specialist, Andrew Lawrence. He suggested this thin grid system after the architects talked about their preference to more vernacular architecture by using timber (TRADA 2008, p. 22).

+

“It was a grid shell. If we just took at as a form and replied to that, it would have been just another grid shell.” -Cecil Balmond- (Serpentine Gallery 2005, p. 106).

Then Arup team is the one that developed almost all structural schemes for the Pavilion. They made a comprehensive structural analysis using Oasys GSA (engineering software) (Fig. 15), which ensured the whole structure stood up. AGU was responsible for defining the geometry of the structure, by using in-house project-specific scripts. The coordinates that were produced are critical for the fabrication of the timber beams and polycarbonate panels.

In this project, engineering is not only functioning as the mathematical solution, but most importantly, it provides a higher ‘scale’ to the design of the building.

3.2.1 Macroweaving To produce an organic form of the Pavilion, AGU used a technique called macroweaving (Fig.16).

Macroweaving is the “discrete bending or compression of shell elements, rather than macroweaving of fabrics to form tension only surfaces” (Bosia et al.

2006, p. 87). As timber do not bend easily, AGU use reciprocal beams, to allow compression, tension and a degree of bending. The macroweaving technique allows Arup “to produce new forms of geometric freedoms of the surface through the articulation of the woven elements” (Bosia et al. 2006, p. 88). This woven system also adds the structural benefit to the

he Serpentine Gallery’s programme rating an autonomous solar-powered of summer pavilions provides an light. annual laboratory for architectural Lamella structure and engineering experimentation. Since The initial concept of a timber grid 2000, the pavilions at the London gallery assumed, by default, continuously spanhave tested a series of forms and materining members. However, this strategy als – for example the sculptural would have led to an unwanted hierarchy aluminium stress-skin structure by (primary and secondary spanning direcDaniel Libeskind, and the algorithmtions), with the scale and geometry probgenerated steel box by Toyo Ito with Cecil ably requiring compromising splice Balmond. details in the members. At the early Top right Julia Top left Peyton-Jones, the gallery's director, maintains a curatorial approach Each piece of Planometric view, showing the pavilion to form anddesign existingsessions, gallery, the potential for a handcrafted vernacular style of timber inviting and exhibiting theprecinct architects. and the manipulation of the between them. construction was discussed, and the Bottom right She approached this year’s architects, concept of a contemporary structure Diagram show Portugal’s Bottom leftÁlvaro Siza and Eduardo a traditional construction of timber and Souto Moura, in December One ofDe Arup’s models developed 2004. to establish the employing structural form. language was proposed.

As in previous years, Arup’s Cecil A solution with exciting potential Balmond collaborated with the architects became apparent through a development in a design role, and the Advanced intellect.The Si hours after Therealised timber members fit roof together by the of lamella structures.

Here, short, Geometry Unitsundown.

(AGU) at Arup dist members the geometric and engineering design of andpin-ended, very traditional means of mortice tenon joints, and are thearranged toin the verna grid upare a structural lattice with the pavilion. Finnforest produced of the envir perfection of their fitMerk means that steelbuild bolts unnecessary – a gridunle length of one-half of the member lengths, and fabricated the timber material, Portugal we though they were apparently useful during erection. As Siza the resulting in a stable system. The interprovided specialist advice to Arup in the senior says: ‘Everything new has a lot of history in it.’ locking members are arranged in a mutu- coub designing the structure, and coordinated supporting allowing each its construction. influence of Technically, explains Balmond, theally structure is pattern, a reciprocal individual element have simple vernacular The architectural concept was for member a shell, where every structural ‘lives’ off thosetoto mortice-and-tenon connections, yet able building that responded to its location on whether de which it connects, and these interconnections are vital for to maintain the overall bending stiffness the lawn in front of the existing neo-clasprograms o stability.

The visual effect is arresting ofas, the rather frame. than the sical gallery. A timber grid was proposed, is a hallmar straightinand smooth much architects likeroofs, for example Traditional lamella distorted reaction to thelines gallery build-loved by thosenot builtquite

by Zollinger in but Germany in This sma ing, surrounding trees and landscape.

Foster, the ribs seem to wander around, aligned the 1920s, are assembled from identical The resulting pavilion is a column-free geography a nonetheless describing an overall homogeneous form. There elements and used to build barrel-vault enclosure approximately 25m × 15m in is perhaps a trite analogy between the indirect connections type structures, with in-plane forces.and Thewas fab plan. The walls are typically 3m tall and on an axis b between elements and Siza’s interpretation of the influences, same structural arrangement can be the roof reaches a maximum height of to form a grillage, in which thearchitects out5.5m above ground in is thecertainly domed middle a though the effect a senseused of unity through of-plane force in each element is transsection. The geometry is based on a (Souto de M complexity. Balmond refers to a shared interest in Arte Belo ferred in shear to the mid-point of the quadrilateral plan and has wall and roof hospital in T Povera,14. using the most materials and apparently simple Figure Balmond’s sketches show two alternative mom neighbouring elements, building up a curvatures defined by arcs in basic plan and afield.

But sm techniques to create a richness of expression through 3D complex looping load-path. elevation respectively.

The pavilion is clad strategies. It demonstrates Balmond’s role in the For the pavilion, this reciprocal grillage Belo externally with 248oftranslucent 5mm design process Serpentine Pavilion 2005. forc system was advanced to allow a thick polycarbonate panels each incorpo-

Figure 15. Shear force model by Arup in Oasys

18|The – 6 September GSA, toStructural analyze Engineer the structure of the grid 2005 shell.

Figure 16. One of Arup’s 3D model using microweaving technique to established the structural form.

6

rph. 070-077

pm

1/6/06

3:34 pm

Page 76 pavilion, due to the mutually supporting pattern (interlocking system) between each member.

3.2 Digital Fabrication

Page 76 Figure 17. Diagram showing the 36 geometriec control points of each structural member

Figure 18. Grid Location of each timber beam

3.2.1 Geometry Definition There were 427 timber beams; each had different length and inclination, so there was a need to define the exact size of every single element before fabrication. AGU resolved this difficulty by writing a Visual Basic Script that produced 36 points of XYZ coordinates for each beams (Fig. 17). The script will verify the geometry of each element by taking into consideration “its position relative to the neighboring setting out points (SOPs)” (Self et al 2005, p. 20).

There was a set of rules that was made by AGU to make sure all the timber beams will fit perfectly into the interlocking system (Fig. 18). Then, after AGU got all the exact geometries, they did a structural analysis of every single timber elements. They analyzed it by modeling each timber beam using two 1-D beam elements in a software called Oasys GSA (Self et al 2005, p. 20). This analysis checked the robustness of the timber grid structure to hold the building up.

3.2.2 Data for Fabrication As Arup digitally defined all the geometries, so they communicated those geometries definition using three-dimensional .dxf files and text files 36 XYZ coordinates to Finnforest Merk. Then the CNC (Computer Numerical Control) programmers at Finnforest Merk double-checked the data and converted it into the Excel-based CNC instructions (Self et al 2005, p. 20).This spreadsheet was the basis for the manufacturing process. Additionally, as the process of the manufacturing relies heavily with coordinates that were given, so there was none of 2D printed drawing that was produced for the fabrication.

Finn track prep milli timb rolle

Finnf timb is th of tim lattic con teno diff of tim such (righ

4.2.3sophisticated Fabrication (Robot Manufacturing) These CAM facilities, combined with solid All the timber beams were manufactured usmodelling CAD applications, allow for manufacturing consistent engineering ing robot technology (generally used in car manufacture) by Finnforest Merk in Aichach, and fabrication datasets that have enabled Seele to contribute Germany (Fig. 19). The Excel-based CNC instruction was buildings then translated into the machine-readable to the production of highly complex such as the manufacturing protocols (Mengez 2006, p. 76). This man Seattle Central Library designedmachine

by OMA In this project, was. directly connected with theSeele five-axis Robotic arm, which eventually did the cutting. The was responsible for the claddingrobot preconstruction services, the to c was fully articulated in 360 degrees (Self et al Figure 19. Robotic manufacturing process.

Fur production and installation of the 11,900 square metres 7 pos square feet)solid of exterior cladding is the usecomprising of a roboticmore manufacturin mbined(128,000 with sophisticated

+

shelter from the trees and succour from the existing gallery.

while picking u a way that can

2005, p. 21). Furthermore, by using the data that contained detailed coordinates, the robot automatically identified the exact position of each LVL timber that will be individually cut in two planes. During the fabrication process, these robots could change their tool heads mechanically depending on the task that was assigned (Mengez 2006, p. 76). The applicability of this robot manufacturing was really vital in an architectural project like the Serpentine Pavilion 2005 that needed accuracy and had small tolerance for error.

Thus, all 427 unique timber elements were manufactured within the time frame of only two weeks.

4.3 Assembly Process 4.3.1 Delivery Process The fabricated LVL timbers were transported from Finnforest Merk factory to the site in London in just two lorry loads (Spring 2005). Finnforest Merk took the control of construction management in an assembly process. The installation of the timber beams spent around one month to completely finish, with only ten joiners working on site (Wilson 2005).

By prefabricating all materials first, it increased the efficiency during the construction stage as it only takes small group of on-site labors, it consumed less construction time and there was no need to bring heavy machine and big truck to the site. Moreover, since there were 427 different size of timbers, labeling was crucial during delivery process. It enabled on-site labors to easily determine the location of each timber, which directly relates to the erection sequence. So, before transported, Finnforest Merk already labeled each member with “the unique structural grid reference for that member” (Self et al 2005, p. 21).

4.3.2 Erection Sequence Due to an interlocking structure of the Pavilion, a well-thought erection sequence had to be defined. The erection process (Fig. 23) started from one corner and radiated out to the opposite corner 106 + (Mengez 2006, p. 77). Each new piece of timber beam slotted into the pieces that already stand in place. The traditional mortice and tenon joints (Fig. 20) were used to join the timber together. At the end of the assemble process, every timber beams were fitted perfectly without any adjustment on site (Fig. 22). This illustrates how accurate the fabrication by robotic arm machine.

Figure 20. Mortice and tenon joints

the Portuguese. Stones used for ballast for ships found their way into churches in Brazil, replaced for the return voyage by gold. Ideas, circulated by travellers or magazines, have always eluded specific localities. ‘It’s globalisation,’ says Souto de Moura.

Figure 21. Exploding view of how each timber eleGiven that Siza, Souto de Moura and Balmond collaborate as ment. a trio and in each possible pairing, the relationship is a happy one. Siza enjoys working with engineers. At the Serpentine, he says, engineering ‘helped to give scale’ to the design, as well as expertise in timber performance. Such support frees him up

to do ‘what important a between the programma the overall be able to t constraints the Serpent the subtle c transforma

Figure 22. Joints in the real building

8

4.3.3 Demountable Process Since the early stages of this project, Serpentine Gallery had already asked about a pavilion that should be designed deliberately as a demountable structure, which could be sold after the exhibition is finished. In response to that brief, Siza and Souto de Moura only used mortice and tenon joints, without fixed connection, for the interlocking system of the timber grid structure. By using this method of connections, the Pavilion could be assembled and dissembled rapidly. As the building’s structure works just like a 3D ‘jigsaw’ puzzle, the demountable process needed to be completed in the correct sequence to avoid premature collapse (Wilson 2005). In addition, the Pavilion was already sold to a private buyer.

Figure 23. Assembly and erection process on site.

Designed

Engineered

Fabricated

Material source

FINLAND

Figure 24. Globalization map.

9

5 Globalization in Architecture There is an interesting fact behind this project: It was designed in Portugal by Siza and Souto de Moura, engineered in England by Balmond and Arup, fabricated by Finnforest Merk in Germany using Finish timber (Fig. 24). The Serpentine Pavilion 2005 shows the wider spread of geography and history in architecture. There is no longer a language barrier as every project speaks in only one language: the architecture language. With the emerging of technology, place becomes insignificant. Just like Alvaro Siza’s example in this project, where the architect could respond to foreign context, without having ever been to the site. “It’s globalization” says Souto de Moura (Melvin 2005, p. 106).

Conclusion “Structure, form and architecture become the same thing in these projects” (Pearman 2005, p. 70).

Architecture is not a stand-alone field; it should collaborate with other specialists from different areas.

In the Serpentine Pavilion 2005, we could see how a good collaboration between the architects and the engineers resulted in a remarkable building. Balmond and Arup developed a simple idea of the architects into something complex using their advanced technology. The involvement of Balmond in this project makes the Pavilion not only an artistic architecture but also shows the creative structural of engineering.

Moreover, in this Pavilion, the advance computing and fabrication technology could change the way building is designed and constructed. The Pavilion would be just a conceptual project without the use

of script-definition for the geometry, macroweaving techniques or robot manufacturing. During construction, due to the use of 3D modeling and its coordinates, there were no needs for traditional 2D documentation. So, all these contemporary techniques are there to facilitate architects realizing their intent.

It will drive their design into a new limit.

Although this project using high-technology, the basic idea came from simple form, using conventional techniques (sketches). The lamella system and the mortice and tenon joint are also a traditional construction method. However, in the Serpentine Pavilion 2005, these ordinary techniques are uniquely presented in contemporary way. Siza and Souto de Moura showed that architects do not have to afraid with the fast-growing of technology. The important point is how the architect integrates these new techniques and technology to their existing skills, knowledge and tools.

Bibliography Books Bonet, L 2006, Exhibition Design, Rockport Publishers, Gloucester.

Jodidio, P 2010, Architecture now! = Architektur heute = L’architecture d’aujourd’hui. 4, Taschen, Koln.

Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London.

Tsukui, N (ed.) 2006, Cecil Balmond, A + U Publishing Co, Tokyo.

Journal Articles Bosia, D, Self, M, & Simmonds, T, 2006, ‘Woven Surface and Form’, Architectural Design, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 82-89.

Gregory, R 2005, ‘Forms, Follies, Functions’, The Architectural Review, vol. 218, no. 1302, pp. 7278.

Melvin, J 2005, ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005’, Architectural Design, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 102106.

Menges, A 2006, ‘Manufacturing diversity’, Architectural Design, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 70-77.

Pearman, H 2005, ‘It came from sunny Portugal: exotic pavilion lands in London’, Architectural Record, vol. 193, no. 9, pp. 69-70.

Self, M & Stone, J 2005, ‘Serpentine Pavilion’, The Structural Engineer, vol. 83, no. 17, pp. 1821.

Newspaper Rose, S 2005, ‘Animal Magic’, The Guardian, 27 June, viewed 4 May 2011, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2005/jun/27/architecture.regeneration>.

Electronic Resources Powney, S 2005, Kerto in Kensington, Converting Today, viewed 1 May 2011, <http://www.convertingtoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=34149>.

Siza, A 2011, 2005 Serpentine Gallery, alvarosizavieira.com, viewed 3 May 2011, <http://alvarosizavieira.com/2005-serpentine-gallery>.

Spring, M 2005, Hail Siza, Building,co.uk, viewed 3 May 2011, <http://www.building.co.uk/buildings/hail-siza/3052451.article>.

The Timber Research and Development Association (TRADA) 2008, Reusable and Adaptable Wood Structures, Trada Technology Ltd & wood for good Ltd, viewed 1 May 2011, <http://www.trada. co.uk/>.

Wilson, P 2005, Engineered Temporariness, Edinburgh Napier University, viewed 4 May 2011, <http://cte.napier.ac.uk/publications/engineered_ temp.pdf>.

Images: Fig. 1 Menges, A 2006, ‘Manufacturing Diversity’, Architectural Design, vol. 76, no. 2, p. 77.

Fig. 2 http://www.phaidon.com/resource/zaha-6.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ojWtyH7yPvw/SIWTHp Wa k 3 I / A A A A A A A A B l E / a Wy X c h t b 2 h s / s 4 0 0 / serpentine+libeskind+2001.jpg http://magazine.art-signal.com/en/wp-content/media/ asm2_img_cecil_balmond2.jpg http://www.mimoa.eu/images/735_l.jpg Fig. 3 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 123.

Fig. 4 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 84.

10

Fig. 5 Gouw, HI. Fig. 6 Gouw, HI. Fig. 7 Self, M & Stone, J 2005, ‘Serpentine Pavilion’, The Structural Engineer, vol. 83, no. 17, p. 21.

Fig. 8 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 122.

Fig. 9 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 125.

Fig. 10 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 86.

Fig. 11 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 115.

Fig. 12 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 103.

Fig. 13 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 91.

Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 100.

Tsukui, N (ed.) 2006, Cecil Balmond, A + U Publishing Co, Tokyo, p. 29.

Self, M & Stone, J 2005, ‘Serpentine Pavilion’, The Structural Engineer, vol. 83, no. 17, p. 18.

Fig. 14 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 103.

Fig. 15 Self, M & Stone, J 2005, ‘Serpentine Pavilion’, The

11

Structural Engineer, vol. 83, no. 17, p. 18.

Fig. 16 Melvin, J 2005, ‘Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005’, Architectural Design, vol. 75, no. 6, p. 105.

Fig. 17 Tsukui, N (ed.) 2006, Cecil Balmond, A + U Publishing Co, Tokyo, p. 29.

Fig, 18 Tsukui, N (ed.) 2006, Cecil Balmond, A + U Publishing Co, Tokyo, p. 29.

Fig. 19 Menges, A 2006, ‘Manufacturing Diversity’, Architectural Design, vol. 76, no. 2, p. 76.

Fig. 20 Self, M & Stone, J 2005, ‘Serpentine Pavilion’, The Structural Engineer, vol. 83, no. 17, p. 20.

Fig. 21 Tsukui, N (ed.) 2006, Cecil Balmond, A + U Publishing Co, Tokyo, p. 29.

Fig. 22 Serpentine Gallery 2005, Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2005 designed by Alvaro Siza Eduardo Souto de Moura with Cecil Balmond – Arup, Serpentine Gallery, London, p. 116.

Fig. 23 Tsukui, N (ed.) 2006, Cecil Balmond, A + U Publishing Co, Tokyo, pp. 30-31.

Fig. 24 http://topuspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ map-of-europe.jpg