a i r i n d i a
m c k e n z i e
6
9
3
2
3
4
S1_2017
C
p a r t
detailed design
C.1 design concept C.2 tectonic elements + prototypes C.3 final detailed model C.4 design outcome C.5 learning outcomes
C.1
design concept
C.1 design concept CLIENT CRITERIA | safe | shade cover | buildable
OLD DESIGN SITE
NEW DESIGN SITE
Before launching into concept designs for Part C, it was imperative to shape our path forward based on the feedback from the client from our individual Part B design proposals. The most consequential feedback was the preference for location. The rest of my group had been designing a structure for the Global Village Amphitheatre, however, the client insisted that the shade structure for the sandpit was a priority structure. The change in location altered a number of design parameters for us and we had to adapt our design concepts to suit the scale, user demographic and function of the new site. We established a series of key functional criteria based off the client’s brief that would inform the potential of our designs. SAFE | Given that the structure was to be built in a children’s play area, it was imperative that the structure was safe and appropriate for the context. In particular, the client expressed the need to make it as ‘unclimable’ as possible. Not only did we have to consider conventional play methods, but also anticipate alternative and unintended use of the installation that may be considered dangerous. SHADE COVER | As the primary function of the shade structure, it is important that our design creates appropriate shading coverage during the period of the day that the users primarily occupy the space. This will be a significant consideration in our form iterations in order to cast an effective shadow over the play area and its surroundings too. The client suggested that the busiest time was the mid-morning to early afternoon period. BUILDABLE | In order to create a visually and costeffective installation, our design must present a logical building sequence that doesn’t require particular construction expertise or skill beyond our means in order to erect a safe structure.
C.1
C.1
concepts | biomimicry | materiality | reciprocity | biodiversity
Based off the client’s key criteria, we drew upon our various Part B design proposals to come up with a strong theoretical design narrative that could inform our structural design concept. The client provided feedback that he was most intrigued by Merijn and Olivia’s designs therefore we used these as a starting point for the form, pattern and structural generation of our design. By identifying the key design characteristics of these designs we proceeded to gather external precedents as resources to inform the possibilities of our design. Each of the design concepts will be explored individually in subsequent pages in order to show our process of creating a structurally sound design with a strong design narrative that would satisfy the necessary functions of the site.
C.1
PA R T B P R O P O S A L OLIVIA GOODLIFFE - Mushroom form/ biomimicry theme - Sectioning/waffle technique - Plant growth for animal habitat
PA R T B P R O P O S A L MERIJN BRAAM - Materiality - Patterning effect - Connection details
C.1
concepts | BIOMIMICRY | materiality | reciprocity | biodiversity
A strong value of the CERES park seen through many of its existing structures is this notion of biomimicry which we wanted to incorporate into our shading structure. In particular now that our shade structure will be installed next to the children’s playground which is the primary educational tool for biomimicry, therefore the symbolism can, and perhaps should, be more literal. The most notable shading system in nature is the tree. The structural premise of every tree is roots that anchor it to the ground, a strong trunk as the core that branches out to the leafy canopy that stretches out above our heads. Our intent is to incorporate a load bearing structure starting from the ground which interconnects with and in turn supports the shading system above to ensure a structurally sound system that performs to our criteria. The flower has the same core system as the tree - but what is key to many flowers is their colourful nature which attract birds and insects for pollination. Our intent is to have a colourful canopy to attract children as they play, letting them become birds and bugs beneath the structure. We want to incorporate the notion of biodiversity within our form so a strong idea is to use a flowering climbing plant which would not only attract children, but real birds and insects to promote the cycle of life. This would also enhance our ideas of offsetting biodiversity as the sustainability and ethics behind this approach line up with the values of the park and could potentially promote education on this topic to young school children and act as an interactive example of it.
C.1
C.1
c o n c e p t s | b i o m i m i c r y | M AT E R I A L I T Y | r e c i p r o c i t y | b i o d i v e r s i t y
One of the key criteria expressed by the client after Part B was the requirement that the structure must source sustainable materials. When considering the constructability of our various designs, we quickly discovered that availability of high quality materials in regular forms and in sufficient quantities would be a costly and difficult process. Given the nature of parametric design whereby one singular unit can be repeated throughout a structure, we were hesistant to base our entire concept on a potentially unattainable building supply, therefore we devised a structural system that would cope with varying lengths, widths and strength timber members. This allowed us to alter parameters in our structural simulation that would predict the structural integrity of the shade structure with various different material input data. We sourced vast quantities of recycled timber from GHG recycled timber yard yet even then found that between our group we had access to a substantial amount of off cuts and scraps from previous home renovations and building sites. We were essentially saving waste products from land-fill and repurposing them into small prototypes for our studio project. The timber yard aleviated our supply doubts and in the end, we need not have been so worried as we had plentiful and free sources aplenty. Our precedent studies into pavillions lead us to an investigation of Krager’s ‘The Dream House Project’ (pictured) that was not only theoretically in line with our design concept of sustainability but also showed the effect of our material selection in a slightly more haphazard way. The effect of the timber arching up into a canopy mimics a forest of trees creating a canopy of shade above it, very similar to our structural concept. The angles of the timber members was also interesting as the long slender trunks meant that the structure would remain largely unclimbable but as it soared higher, they began to rotate and interlock- this patterning system could be extrapolated into our own designs to ensure the shade structure is safe for users at ground level but also able to arch out above head height to create the canopy and shade elements above.
C.1
The Dream House Project Gregor Krager Te Tu h i C e n t e r F o r T h e A r t s , Auckland NZ, 2012
C.1
concepts | biomimicry | materiality | RECIPROCITY | biodiversity
Once we had established our material input of recycled timber, we devised a pattern for construction that would work with varying lengths, widths of timber that would not affect the structural integrity of the pattern. After our geometry team developed an overall form of the structure, the patterning and structural teams worked in conjunction to establish a reciprocal structural pattern that merged the two research fields in a poetic fusion of structure and aesthetics. The use of parametric design was key as the geometry team was able to run multiple solar analyses to optimise the structure that could be simply input into the script even whilst the reciprocal patterning simulations were undergoing amendments. The parametric script also allowed us much more design flexibility with multiple teams working on optimising various parts of the script simultaneously that could simply be reinstalled into the script. The structural reciprocity of the structure was also mirrored in a theoretical sense and we felt it was an appropriate symbol of the simbiotic relationship of humans and non-humans. The CERES value of sustainability of the environment exemplifies the co-dependency of humans and our natural environment and how we all share the one planet in the life cycle of reciprocity. We acknowledge that small children are not the only user of the site and we sought to recognise the animals and insects, large and small, that may use our structure as habitat. It’s a cycle of reciprocity, where by the structure is a shared habitat for humans and non-humans that rely on each others presence in order to live harmoniously in nature. The structure is both literally and symbollically reciprocal with the self-supported timber members leaning on each other for support just as animals and humans depend on each other for survival.
C.1
Structural and symbolic reciprocal relationships
C.1
concepts | biomimicry | materiality | reciprocity | BIODIVERSITY
Creating habitat. Drawing from Olivia’s Part B with the trailing ivy tendrils, we propose the inclusion of a climbing plant that will not only assist with human needs by creating in-fill for the structure to provide additional shading but also serve the animals of CERES by providing a leafy green canopy and additional habitat. This concept was borne from the presentation we were given in class on the topic of offset biodiversity. We applied to the concept to the scale of the project and in doing so fused our structural and theoretical themes. Using the University of Melbourne’s Burnley Plant Guide as a our primary research tool, we investigated a number of native and exotic plant species and eventually settled on: Kennedia macrophylla A U G U S TA K E N N E D I A With its fast growth rate this evergreen, robust, low maintenance native climber is the most suitable plant species for the climate and function of the site. Being able to tolerate climatic conditons of full sun as well as temperatres down to -3 degrees, Augusta Kennedia will provide excellent shading/screening coverage over the shade structure. Not only does it perform a human function in shade and aesthetics, this plant is also known for its ‘bird-attracting’ characteristics, thereby creating habitat for birds and associated species. With rich, rusty coloured flowering habits from September through to December, this species will provide appropriate shading and additional habitat which enhances the biodiversity of the site.
C.1
Installation of plant species enables a dual function: S H A D E F O R H U M A N S + H A B I TAT F O R A N I M A L S
C.1
concept sketch
C.1
C.1
research field integration | geometry | patterning | structure
CLIENT CRITERIA safe | shade cover | buildable Being team leader, my primary task was the ensure that all team members were contributing to the script and engaging with the criteria and the design concepts we established in our research phase. The accompany diagram represents the stages of the design process that each of our three sub teams were primary concerned with. The geometry team worked closely to create a form that represented our design concept based on our design sketch. Variations on the form were critical in optimising the appropriate canopy form to maximise sun protection. The structural and patterning teams worked closely (and non-linearly) to develop and optimise the reciprocal structure in order to create something that was constructable and safe. The integration of the teams was made possible through the algorithmic design process that enabled each of the teams to work simultaneous on their individual tasks and simply input them back into the base script. The communication of the teams was critical and beyond each of the research field teams, we worked as one big unit to create a design that satisfied the client criteria and reflected our design concepts.
geometry
stru
ucture
C.1
patterning
C.1
research field integration | geometry | patterning | structure
CLIENT CRITERIA safe | shade cover | buildable
The basis of the geometry teams mission was to satisfy the first two crtieria established from the client feedback beingsafe and providing appropriate shade cover. SAFETY: The overall form of the structure, but inparticular the central core, was key in creating a safe structure for the context. The tree- life form was chosen as it had one strong central core that we could ensure was unclimable and then branched out above head height where children could not reach. The geometry team altered a number of parameters to create an appropriate form and had to consider the dimensionality of the space when creating iterations of the roof structure. Some of the iterations shown include the tilted cantilever which may have interfered with the hill context that the sandpit is built into, therefore a straight canopy was a more appropriate choice. SHADE COVER: The form of the canopy structure was key in ensuring that the shade structure performed as intended throughout the periods that the sandpit was most frequently occupied. Therefore the solar analysis was conducted between 9am-2pm as these were the primary hours of occupation as informed by the client. We based our iteration changes on the premise that the sandpit area must be shaded at all times between these hours with any additional shading in peripheral areas to be considered a bonus, but not a priority. Therefore, our canopy structure arched out from both sides of the core to create an all encompassing shade coverage over the sandpit.
Circle 43.0.-10
Circle 43.5
C.1
Circle 43.15
Circle 43.0.-5
Circle 43.10
Circle 45.0
C.1
research field integration | geometry | patterning | structure
CLIENT CRITERIA safe | shade cover | buildable
The iterations developed were assessed for suitability against the client criteria above. Using both circles, and elipses and base geometrys, the iterations were primary based on function and performance.
Ellipse 25.49.20.-5
After multiple exploratory iterations, we decided on a very simple base geometry of concentric circles. This was primarily selected as the cantilever was the most balanced and proved to be satisfactory in shading ability whilst also being the most effective for buildability.
Ellipse 49.25.20
C.1
Ellipse 50.60.20
Ellipse 50.60.20.-5
Ellipse 49.25.20.-5
Ellipse 25.49.20
C.1
research field integration | geometry | patterning | structure
C.1 The primary considerations for assessing the feasibility of each of the reciprocal pattern iterations were: Buildability We assessed the buildability scale using the karamba structural simulation plug-in that calculated the weight of the members and highlighted areas of weakness that may suggest the pattern was not structurally feasible. Material efficiency The karamaba plug-in also allowed us to calculate the total length, and weight of the materials used in each pattern generation which allowed us to gather an effective cost estimate for the given design. By altering various parameters, we were able to minimise required materials to keep costs down whilst also ensuring that it was still buildable. Plant growth support Incorporating the plant growth as an additional shading mechanism meant that the timber structure could be lightened to a purely structural function without being assessed for its shading performance alone. However, the structure needs to be of a certain density to enable effective plant cover. Increasing the density of the beams to create a tight trellis network made the structure too top heavy so instead we relinquished this selection criteria with the suggestion of a light wire mesh that would support plant growht and eventually vanish into the foliage so as to not detract from the aesthetics of the structure.
C.1
research field integration | geometry | patterning | structure
CLIENT CRITERIA safe | shade cover | buildable Through a series of karamba stress analyses, we were able to assess the construction feasibility of each of our iterations and thus optimise the structure for maximal material efficiency and safety. Using a variety of pattern generators, the stress simulation showed tension and compression through colour charts that indicated the feasibility of each of the designs. Through this method we selected the design featured below to develop further. Although it was one of the simpler, more regular designs, the symettrical cantilever minimised unwanted deflection and also ensured that all members were reciprocally aligned.
C.1
C.1
research field integration | geometry | patterning | structure
CLIENT CRITERIA safe | shade cover | buildable
The karamba stress analysis allowed us to alter the density of the beams to ensure maximal material efficiency whilst maintaining buildability. The iterations on the left show a range of beam densities that we explored however, with less total number of members, the beams become extremely long and cumbersome. In our materialr research we struggled to find appropriate size members greater than 3.0m long so we entered this as a maximum lenght of the members and the algorithm generated a design from this input. The final design selection (right) was chosen as it outperformed all other iterations in terms of buildability and material efficiency as the two primary considerations of the structural simulation. Another key aspect of the client criteria was safety/unclimability and this design generated a long slender trunk with lateral supports above head height therefore making it a suitable design to minimise undesired play.
C.1
FINAL DESIGN SELECTION
C.2
tectonics + prototyp
es
C.2 tectonics + prototypes
Our prototpying phase consisted of assessing the feasibility of various different connection types. Merijn’s Part B assignment focused closely on the bamboo connection device and we draw us on this design methodology when trying to devise a simple connection style that could be used across the entire stucture with minimal customisation. With such a large number of intersecting members, the junction of each of them is a key design opportunity as well as an important consideration when creating a stable and safe structure that will withstand the test of time. We assessed each of the connection types on the following criteria: cost, equipment required, rigidity, as well as considering the time, skill level and labour required to complete the connection on site. From our research we concluded that a bolted connection would provide the strongest guarentee of rigidity with the minimum level of skill level required to secure them. Whilst it was one of the more expensive options, the rigidity was considered more valuable to ensure the structure is safe. We also suggested that the connections could be brought to greater attention with coloured rope tied around the connection points to add an element of handcraft to the structure and highlight the junction points in a colourful, artistic but humble manner. It would also provide the dual function of protecting potential sharp edges from the bolts protruding.
NOTCHES
Conclusion: ae connection type an Conclusion = would be used better in conjunction with another connection type
Cost = none
+
Equipment = power saw
Rigidity = poor
-
Time = high (15 minutes per member) Skill level = intermediate Labour = intensive
same material for the w not need
+
Rigidity = high Cost = $100 Time = 5 minutes per c
-
Equipment = power sa drill, hammer, Skill = medium Labour = intensive
C.2
ROPE
DOWELS NUT +
esthetically pleasing nd a way to use the
connection
aw/hand saw,
Conclusion: option for further bracing element plus aesthetic feature
Conclusion: Extremely rigid and does not need further bracing.
whole structure. Do any further bracing.
+
B O LT
Rigidity = high
+
+
Time = 5 minutes per connection Skill level = low
Cost = $120
Labour = non-intensive
is stabilised against UV radiation; unaffected by water; rot resistant; lightweight (suitable for the outdoors) Time = low (3-5 minutes per knot)
Cost = $693 Equipment = drill, nut, bolt, hammer,
Skill level = easy
-
Equipment = polypropylene rope
wrench
-
Rigidity = moderate. Dependant on knot tying skills
C.2 tectonics + prototypes
C.2
EXPERIMENT WITH LIGHT AND SHADE
C.3
detailed model
C.3 detailed model
Using a simple palette of balsa and white core board for the primary structure, our detailed model is intended to show the form and effect of the structure in the context of it’s surroundings. The incorporation of the vegetation was essential to illustrating the shade cover under different lighting conditions and also highlighting the density of the timber members that act as a trellis for the vegetation growth. The primary lighting effects show the beautiful dappled light that protrudes through the leafy canopy, highlighted by the strips of shade created by the timber ‘branches’. The reciprocal structure also becomes evident in the details of the overlapping beams. Whilst the full scale construction will use bolted connections, the model is intentionally omitting this feature as it would detract from the beauty and simplicity of the overlapping features that create the structure and pattern of the design.
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.3
C.4
design proposal
C.4
B A J E E R
A N G
C.4 design outcome: elevation
...meaning ‘tree’ in the language of the Wurunjeri people- the original owners of the lands upon which our structure stands- our branching tree-like structure represents the unison of animals and humans coming together for protection and habitat under one structure. The pavillion is not only theoretically reciprocal but also structurally, using 143 timber members ranging from 0.7-3.0m. Using nuts and bolt connections to secure them each piece of the structure is integral as they rest upon each other in a symbiotic relationship. It is both a figurative and literal reciprocal structure that is highly functional, environmentally conscious, thoroughly considerate of its context and user and has a deep connection with the values of CERES.
C.4
C.4 design outcome: top view
C.5
learning outcomes
C.5 learning outcomes
After an unsatisfying design outcome in Part B, this segment of the subject has thoroughly enriched my appreciation for parametric design techniques and I feel like I have achieved many of the learning objectives primarily through learning from, and with, my peers. Our team of eight worked effectively to capitalize on our respective strengths that together created something greater than any one of us could have done alone. This design project has given me great insight into the role of computation in industry practice with parametric modelling facilitating multiple inputs simultaneously. The nature of the computer program enabled a non-linear, dynamic work strategy that we fused into one script to produce a design. The integration of the research fields was made possible through the input of various components that altered the script to produce an efficient, effective and feasible design that satisfied the clients key criteria as well as highlighting our own design concepts.
Objective 1. “interrogat[ing] a brief” by considering the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering enabled by digital technologies;
Much of the feedback we received, rom our presentation in Week 12, related to our presentation of information that would strengthen our design narrative and provide a more cohesive and convincing proposal. Particularly given that the audience of the crit altered on the day with the client being absent and a new guest assessor coming in, we could have improved in setting the context of the site and providing more theoretical depth and sequence in order to strengthen our proposal.
Objective 2. developing “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” by introducing visual programming, algorithmic design and parametric modelling with their intrinsic capacities for extensive design-space exploration;
We also noted that when it came to the diagrammatic structural assessments we should reduce the ‘data’ impression and reinforce the criteria selection so as to guide the viewer/client through our successes and highlight our decision making process through the narrative. With so many iterations occurring, we needed to take a step back and assess how our design decisions were affecting the outcome and highlighting a logical sequence throughout the extensive refinement process.
The segmented nature of the subject structure allowed us to re-evaluate the brief at each stage of the design process. In particular, the client feedback we received after Part B played a huge role in our eventual design. When coming together as a group, our first step was a discussion on the client feedback and we used this as a starting point to create a design strategy and developed our own design concepts based on these principles. At every stage of the design process, each team assessed the viability of the iterations against the client criteria and our design concepts which helped to guide us to an effective design that satisfied all of the criteria established in the brief.
The use of parametric modelling allowed us to break down the script into various components that could be worked on by the various teams and input back into the script for assessment. The various plug-ins that we used enabled us to alter a vast number of parameters that allowed an inexhaustible range of design possibilities to counteract any issues we ran into such as material availability, an unclimbable form, adjusting the canopy height and cantilever to avoid excessive distortion etc. The Karamaba plug-in with the stress simulation was key in assessing the construction feasibility of our design and we were able to counteract a number of structural issues that would have made the actual construction phase very difficult, near impossible.
C.5
Objective 3. developing “skills in various three- dimensional media” and specifically in computational geometry, parametric modelling, analytic diagramming and digital fabrication; We used a range of rhino and grasshopper plug ins throughout each of the design teams (geometry, pattern and structure) that enabled us to achieve different design outcomes. The Grasshopper forum was particularly helpful, in particular with the reciprocal structures which proved to be significantly more complex than we first anticipated. Our ability to develop these source scripts and apply to our own geometry proved a triumph of our newly learned digital modelling skills. Objective 4. developing “an understanding of relationships between architecture and air” through interrogation of design proposal as physical models in atmosphere; In such a conceptual, computationally driven subject, I struggle to conceive the “atmospheric” tactile quality of the design process and I feel like my understanding of this is still disjointed. Given that the majority of what we produce is in an unknown, unquantifiable parameter space, the concept of air in architecture seems far away. The way that we conceptualized air in our design was through the integration of growth and life into our structure. The symbolism of the tree like form and the growing canopy of vegetation highlights a literal interaction of the architectural space with air. Whether or not this relates on a conceptual level to design computation, I’m yet to be convinced, but we were able to ground our design in the physical world by creating a symbiotic relationship of air and the living shade structure. Objective 5. developing “the ability to make a case for proposals” by developing critical thinking and encouraging construction of rigorous and persuasive arguments informed by the contemporary architectural discourse: I believe that our presentation proposal was one of our strengths and this was due to our close integration of criteria in our design process that enabled to achieve a logical outcome based on established requirements. Through a thorough interrogation of the brief and ongoing assessment against the criteria and design concepts, we were able to process a strong design narrative that culminated in a design that represented our objectives in a functional and aesthetic manner.
Objective 6. develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analyses of contemporary architectural projects; We used a wide range of precedent studies to inform our design process. Our research into pavilion structures, material selection, structural forms, usage patterns and conceptual installations lead to a comprehensive understanding of the building typology and prompted us to question, and therefore shape, our understanding of what it is we were trying to create. By using contemporary architectural projects as precedents we were able to get a sense of scale and context to our brief and prompted a myriad of design opportunities for us to explore within our own design concept. Objective 7. develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming; Having started with almost zero knowledge of computational design, I can comfortably say that my understanding of this area has grown exponentially throughout the semester. In particular, working alongside my peers throughout Part C has helped me to develop confidence in my own skill as our discussions have helped to reinforce our understanding. Objective 8. begin developing a personalized repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application; Throughout the design process we utilized an innumerable amount of plug-ins and components, not all successfully, that helped us to better understand the application of computational methods and their relative effectiveness. In particular, using the grasshopper forum opened up a world of knowledge and expertise that was openly shared with us and proved an invaluable resource in helping us to better understand the relationship of various components, plug ins and even the software itself. The techniques we used in this design will provide me with a strong foundation for further exploration into computational design and I look forward to delving deeper into the endless possibilities that this kind of software allows.
a i r i n d i a
m c k e n z i e
6
9
3
2
3
4
S1_2017