Implementing Advanced Knowledge
bits
6.4.2 IaaC Lecture Series Jan Knippers
IaaC Lecture Series:
Biological Design Strategies fro Integrative Structures / Jan Knippers (IaaC Lecture Series 18th Novembers 2014; synopsis by Jordi Vivaldi)
There is a very different approach among architect and engineers in relation to buildings. Traditionally, the initial design intention is proposed by architects, then engineers calculate the structures and finally the constructor build on site. In our case, from the beginning it was quite clear that we needed to have certain discussions with a 3d model on the table in between engineers, architects and constructors. It is very important to notice that there is a constant process of developing the informational geometry of each of your projects, and this point is one of the hardest points to communicate to the client. We have to convince him to be patient. In most of our projects, it took more than one year to adjust all this information and achieve a proper model, specially some years ago when we were usually working only with rhino and excel. Obviously, there are many differences in between architects and industrials, and in this sense, it is very pertinent to pose us the following question: How do engineers design? In the XIX century, some big structures as bridges were designed without any structure calculation, including few innovations. Because of that, and taking in account that for engineers the notion of predictability is extremely important, at that time they were constantly using the same system. And today, even if we are able to calculate and predict, we are still using the same methodology, and that’s why all what most engineers do is look at a graphic of stresses and just pick out one of the typologies that are already proposed in the graph. So, in a certain manners, what we are doing today is using computation and digital fabrication to Cover - Moss Voltaic Prototype, IaaC Archive Figure 1 - Moss Voltaic Prototype, IaaC Archive Figure 2 - Moss Voltaic Prototype, IaaC Archive 2
4
Figure 4 - Moss Voltaic Prototype, IaaC Archive 6
generate crazy shapes and systems, but proceeding in the same manner as before. The question now is: how to overcome the typologies of the XIX century? In our works, we are not using formal solutions just with mere artistic intentions, but we are disposing all the elements with the intention to achieve structural integrity, even if a fast view would revel a messy or random disposition. What is important is to understand the shift of paradigm: we are moving from a linear sequence of identical elements to a general and complex set of arrangements. This should allow us to produce not only complex geometries, but new structural systems as well. In the Fiber-composite materials project, back in 2012, we were mainly interested in the mechanic properties of the materiality. In this sense, we had a capital reference: the lobster. Its body is done by the same material almost everywhere, but according to the local organisation of the fibbers it can perform as a rigid material or as a soft material. Our goal is to study how can we import this natural principle to our structure. Simulation was quite complex, because fibbers are constantly changing its performance according to its thickness, varying its stress. Because of this complexity, software had to be produced according to these particular characteristics, and in this sense it was very interesting to see how formula1 and sails boats are already implementing it. In our case, we were working in the opposite manner as a Formula 1 is woking, which generally consist in a very precise and manual set of operations. On the contrary, our fibbers were following a fully automated fabrication process, with very rough surfaces that were far away from any smooth and shiny product, becoming very clear how the process has been done. However, one limit was that this system could not be transported, it was just in site. At the end, it was a modular structure that increase the robustness and capability of the system. Another field in which we were highly interested were the crickets. We deeply study all the varieties of them, and we were surprised about how stiff they are taking into consideration how light they are. We placed them in a particle accelerator system and we shot X-rays to them, transforming the results in computer images. We realised which were their main principles to have this properties, and the potential to transfer this images in real 3d models.
Figure 3 - Moss Voltaic Prototype, IaaC Archive Figure 4 - Moss Voltaic Prototype, IaaC Archive Figure 5 - Moss Voltaic Prototype, IaaC Archive
Finally, the kinematic structures have been another crucial project in our development. The target was to erect an entire bridge in 3 months using many different elements that needed to be placed in a very exact and well defined position to make the whole work. Thinking about kinematic structures without joints, we realised the importance of the bird-of-paradise flower as a reference. The specific point about this flower is that it is pollinated by a bird, which has a very heavy relation with an insect. Its poche bends, and in this bending process the petals are opening and exposing the pollen, which until now was very well protected from wind and rain. When you deeply study this process, you realise that there are many aspects
8
of it that you don’t really need, and therefore it could be way simplified for application. Actually, this is a torsional system, which is something that from our first year we are trained to avoid, mainly because it has to be studied with very complicated analytic methods. However, biology performs on the opposite manner, using this torsion phenomena as a main system in a very smart way. That’s why in a certain manner, we should change our perspective in relation to how do we work with structures, taking advantage of the potential that new technologies of computational calculus can offer to us, not just in order to acquire more complex shapes but also to imagine and develop new structural principles.
Copyright © 2014 Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia All rights Reserved.
IAAC BITS
IAAC
DIRECTOR:
IAAC SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE:
Manuel Gausa, IaaC Co-Founder
EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Jordi Vivaldi, IaaC bits Editorial Coordinator
EDITORIAL TEAM Manuel Gausa, IaaC Co-Founder Silvia Brandi, Communication & Publication Jordi Vivaldi, IaaC bits Editorial Coordinator
ADVISORY BOARD: Areti Markopoulou, IaaC Academic Director Tomas Diez, Fab Lab Bcn Director Mathilde Marengo, Academic Coordinator Ricardo Devesa, Advanced Theory Concepts Maite Bravo, Advanced Theory Concepts
Nader Tehrani, Architect, Director MIT School Architecture, Boston Juan Herreros, Architect, Professor ETSAM, Madrid Neil Gershenfeld, Physic, Director CBA MIT, Boston Hanif Kara, Engineer, Director AKT, London Vicente Guallart, IaaC Co-Founder Willy Muller, IaaC Co-Founder Aaron Betsky, Architect & Art Critic, Director Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati Hugh Whitehead, Engineer, Director Foster+ Partners technology, London Nikos A. Salingaros, Professor at the University of Texas, San Antonio Salvador Rueda, Ecologist, Director Agencia Ecologia Urbana, Barcelona Artur Serra, Anthropologist, Director I2CAT, Barcelona
DESIGN: Ramon Prat, ACTAR Editions
IAAC BIT FIELDS: 1. Theory for Advanced Knowledge 2. Advanced Cities and Territories 3. Advanced Architecture 4. Digital Design and Fabrication 5. Interactive Societies and Technologies 6. Self-Sufficient Lands
PUBLISHED BY: Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia ISSN 2339 - 8647 CONTACT COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLICATIONS OFFICE: communication@iaac.net
Institut for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia Barcelona
10
Pujades 102 08005 Barcelona, Spain T +34 933 209 520 F +34 933 004 333 ana.martinez@coac.net www.iaac.net