DESIGN STUDIO AIR 2014
JOSEPH DE KLEE
STUDIO AIR
1
CONTENT Part A
Part B
Part C
- Conceptualisation -
- Criteria Design -
- Detailed Design -
The construction of a convincing discourse justifying the value of parametric approach to design.
Development of a particular technique or tectonic system using computational methods through casestudy analysis, parametric modelling and physical prototypes.
Within Part C all key design decisions are finalized, the development of a realistic and yet innovative design proposal justifying the importance of parametrics within contemporary architectural discourse.
- PA G E 4 -
- PA G E 2 4 -
- PA G E 6 0 -
2 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
3
PART A. CONCEPTUALISATIO
4 STUDIO AIR
ON
STUDIO AIR
5
CONTENT A.0
A.1
A.2
A.3
- Introduction -
- Design Futuring -
- Design Computation -
- Composition/ Generation -
An introduction on myself followed by a brief summary revealing my experience with digital design theory and tools, plus thoughts on what I perceive architecture to be to me
Using an ICD Stuttgart university project and a ecoLogicStudio project, design intelligence and parametric design is discussed under the parameters of design futuring outlined by Tony Fry’s in his book.
A discussion on how design computation effect design processes and benefits of computation in architecture with a focus on structural advantages
Looking at architectural theory and where computation fits in, plus the meaning of an algorithm using Karamba as an example to demonstrate the benefits of computation in design.
- PA G E 8 -
- PA G E 1 0 -
- PA G E 1 4 -
- PA G E 2 0 -
6 STUDIO AIR
A.4
A.5
REFERENCES
A.6
- Conclusion -
- Learning outcomes -
- References -
- Appendix -
A summary of part A with a overview of what is to come in part B with the groups mission statement.
What part A has done for myself and what I have learnt and plan on working on over the forthcoming weeks.
Any out sourced material that has aiding the making of this journal
Over the past three weeks a set of algorithmic tasks have been set on rhino and this is the results of the 3D sketches, Refer to second publication.
- PA G E 2 2 -
- PA G E 2 2 -
- PA G E 2 3 -
-ISSUE 2STUDIO AIR
7
INTRODUCTION
I
am Joseph de Klee, 21 embarking on my third year undergraduate degree, studying Architecture within the Bachelor of Environments at the University of Melbourne. I am British and moved to Melbourne for the duration of the degree and plan on staying longer to extend my studies to a Masters of Architecture at Melbourne University. Outside of University my passions our fine art, exercise and travelling. I have worked as a trainee sculptor for a majority of years and trained in metal and concrete works in order to complete pieces of art. I believe it is this creative side that has drawn my attention to architecture. As the more I have studied and looked into it the stronger the feeling I get to try and translate art work into the built form. Architecture to me is to create new exploratory experiences to the community that uses it in an efficient manner that is creative. One quote that has stuck with me for the last year was written by Richard Rogers which I think sums up what I want to try to achieve in my work in the future, “Beauty in architecture encapsulates the expression of place, efficiency, manufacture, art, fairness, opportunity and hope.” 1 Over the last two years in my design studios I have almost always hand drawn everything from perspectives to all architectural drawings. This I realise can be time inefficient but is what I consider my strongest skill. However this will change over the duration of this studio which I hope to take full advantage of 8 STUDIO AIR
to enable my to have another tool to my disposal. I have however completed ‘Virtual Environments’ which was a design studio that required me to take a 3D sculpture (themed on a nature related motion) into the virtual world using Rhino to later lazer print a panelled surface to create a desk lamp. Opposite is a few algorithmic sketches of this process. This subject was a challenge for me as I had never used 3D design software before so I felt at suppressed by my lack of knowledge. However I did really enjoy seeing the possibility of make virtual models a reality through fabrication. I hope I can build on the skills I learnt in Virtual Environments and create a better understanding for Rhino in Studio Air. The idea of parametric design to me is exciting and new with little understanding of it I am looking forward to creating the unknown and forms that are impossible to conceive with out it. The benefits of parametric design are endless with BIM technologies being introduced forms that used to be impossible to construct are slowly becoming reality along with the development of 3D printing. I do believe it is the architecture of the future however there are still constraints with building technologies, cost and society’s perception of it. By the end of the semester i hope to have a firm grasp on the concepts of where parametric design sits in today’s architecture.
�Beauty in architecture encapsulates the expression of place, efficiency, manufacture, art, fairness, opportunity and hope� - Richard Rogers
STUDIO AIR
9
DESIGN FUTURING ”Finding ways to curb our currently auto-destructive, world destroying nature and conduct” - Tony Fry
A
rchitecture today is evolving fast but is it evolving in the right direction? Currently the world is awakening to its own self destruction of climate change. Is it now to late to save our planet that we as humans have put a finite date on. Tony Fry believes it is the designers of society that shape our world2. Thus the designers of the world need to be educated more in the concept of design intelligence relevant to environmental sustainability, design futuring ethics. The following two precedence being looked at are two parametrically designed concepts that look at self sustaining energy mechanisms that can be translated into the built environment. Where parametric design comes into this is the ability to create the impossible and turn ideas into realism. This takes place through exploring new material properties and exploring new design methods to come to developing conclusions that cant be expected such as algorithmic design that relies on formulas to depict the most efficient outcome. Where Fry thinks (in his book, “Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice”3) design has become trivialised and too focused on culture and history and it can also be thought that parametric design has taken designing out of the hands of the de10 STUDIO AIR
signer. However the following two projects are prime examples to revoke this notion and show that design intelligence is being enhanced by parametric design and in a creative manner to that of the designer. Creating new forms that elude to culture-less structures and only focus on finding innovative ways to manufacturer a more sustainable future. The first of these is a project developed at the ICD Stuttgart University by Sonja Templin and Valentin Brenner under Prof. A. Menges. The project is called, “Cylindrical Membrane Morphologies” and looks at formation and the materialisation as one combined process through computational design4 (A.1.1). The second project is by ecoLogicStudio called Ka-care which looks at developing the most energy efficient city world wide using computation to optimise there designs (A.1.2)5. Each are strong evidence that design intelligence is taking place as well as using computation to strongly aid the projects is needed otherwise the designs couldn’t have been created.
A.1.1 Cylindrical Membrane Morphologies. Sonja Templin/ Valentin Brenner. ICD Stuttgar. 2010
A.1.2 King Abdullah CARE. ecoLogicStudio. 2011 STUDIO AIR
11
A.1.3
“The design of space, structure and climate can be synthesized in integrative computational design processes” - Prof. Achim Menges
T
he first project, Cylindrical Membrane Morphologies is a project that conceptualises form and materiality using a computation method that looks at a geometrical algorithm. In this particular study Sonja Templin and Valentin Brenner look specifically into developing a system/micro tensioned element that can change due to minor alterations. These alterations can vary but a good example is environmental conditions thus making it an interactive surface. Why this is relevant is if the algorithm is adapted or the material is changed to harvest energy or react with the environment then we have a sustainable structure that can be implemented in to the built form. Image A.1.3 shows computer analysis on the structure if it were to collect solar energy and if it were, what the most effective form would be. This project is a perfect example of design intelligence in the respect it combines materiality and form to create a sustainable outcome that uses computation to find the most efficient design. 12 STUDIO AIR
E
coLogicStudio has uses a digital algorithm to predict and accelerate traditional city growth and continually search for the optimum solution toward the environment and sustainable living6. What the Ka-care city proposes is that it will be a carbon negative city. How it achieves this is climatic analysis (solar radiation, wind direction, water proximity, landscape morphology) of the area are added to the algorithm which works out how it should be strategically placed, energy efficient and how to optimise sustainability within the proposed site. Opposite is some of this analysis which dictates the cities parameters. This precedents is relevant due to the focus on environmental sustainability which is design intelligence however it could not have been created if it wasn’t for computation. This clearly highlights the need for parametric design in Tony Fry’s ideals of sustainability , Ethics and new practice. This has to be where the future of design lies if the world is our primary concern.
.Ka - care. KaCare, “ offers a bold and beautiful solution, a carbon negative oasis...... nurturing a city from the nutrients of its own environment, growing like a plant from its soil�
- A.1.4 -
Topography analysis (steepness in the network system).
- A.1.6 -
Volumetric analysis of each block.
- A.1.5 -
Water system analysis.
- A.1.7 -
Wind patterns and Ventilation. STUDIO AIR
13
DESIGN COMPUTATION
W
hen considering architectural design and how computation has influenced it, we have to understand what the meaning of design. Jacob Bronowski a science philosopher believed it was analysing a problem and thus finding the means to solve this problem which equalled design7. This is correct in all situations but especially when using computation to aid or create design. This is because computational design is based on the idea of when a digital algorithm is used the program/computer will solve the algorithm and thus leaving a design solution. This is merely the essence on why using computers in design are important. Computers in design help speed processes up with drawings, repetitions, 3D modelling and testing, creating the unknown and solving problems. The key aspect of computation is how computers when given the right algorithm and informational parameters can create the most effective way of optimising aspects such as space to such precision that humans just couldn’t achieve. In retrospect society’s largest problem is the environment and how we use computation to solve this problem has to be where its is most needed in design. Seen in the Ka-care project computation was used to find the most efficient way of designing a city for it to optimise sustainability. Other programs can look at optimising space with in a structure, using geometric shapes to create form or repetitive computational scrip to give pattern. This is all summed up by a sentence from Theories of the Digital in Architecture, “formation precedes form, and design becomes the thinking of architectural generation through the logic of the algorithm”8. The only issue that has risen is with all this computational problem solving does it remain the work of the designer? Computers are not designers and cant be, they only answer to the algorithms set and not always can the computer find a solution. This is were it is up to the designers creative spirit and intuitive actions to design the solution or create a new algorithm. What Yehuda Kalay said was, “computers are totally incapable of making up new instructions they lack any creative abilities or intuition”9 thus highlighting that its human input only and making design computation just an important tool for designers.
14 STUDIO AIR
A.2.1 STUDIO AIR
15
A.2.2 16 STUDIO AIR
.Fibrous Tower-China .
T
he Fibrous Tower is a design project completed by Roland Snooks (Kokkugia), Robert Stuart-Smith and Juan de Marco proposed for Hong Kong in 2008. Why the Fibrous Tower is has been chosen is because it is a prime example of when computation is used to find a solution with a multitude of parameters. These are; structural, spacial, environmental and ornamental10. What the Fibrous Tower achieves is a skeletal shell structure made of insitu concrete that is the main structural component of the building. What this allows is for there to be a completely open plan interior. Why this is so amazing is that the algorithm has built the most effective external structure to enable this building to not only optimise internal space but to stand with no internal columns whilst creating at the same time sun-shading, a series of enclosed balconies and ornament. Its self-organised shell in response to its criteria is an example of exactly where computation should have its place in architectural theory. How the help of computation in this project shows that it is a puzzle making design method, puzzle making is when formulated goals are set to meet a solution11. In this case the goal was to achieve an open plan building in a high rise with a structures that will support it and its solution was a fibrous bundle of strands to achieve the strongest external structure possible. The building thus represents Oxman’s idea of digital architecture, “It is material fabrication technologies that are creating the characteristic stylistic preferences and expression that we are beginning to recognize as digital architecture”12. Overall what we can learn form this building is that computation as helped develop a new structural form that couldn’t have been conceived by humans but it was the intuative design thinking of Snooks and Stuart-Smith that created an algorithm and set the parameters in order to achieve the optimum space through an external structure.
STUDIO AIR
17
.Irapuato Bridge-Mexico .
T
his is also a project devised by Robert Stuart-Smith and Roland Snooks. It is a highway crossing bridge for pedestrians. The bridge is just reiteration on the argument that with computation design what can be achieved is so much greater and effective with current materials such as concrete that are not the inherent hierarchical structural system of separate elements that can be seen today on most construction sites13. By just using an algorithm new structural forms can be created and implemented that optimise structural strength through design. In this case an algorithm was created that looked at the formation of plant roots extending from a few focus points to distribute loads evenly and efficiently. Incorporating the entire structure and utilising the plasticity of in-situ Concrete14. This non-linear structure shows new ways of architectural design through computation that responds to all aspects of the design task/problem to create a optimal finished solution.
18 STUDIO AIR
“Using building performance quantitative and qualitative
e as a guiding design principle............it utilizes the digital technologies of e performance based simulation to offer a comprehensive new approach 15 to the design�
A.2.3, A.2.4 Irapuato Bridge, Mexico, Robert Stuart-Smith, Roland Snooks & Rojkind Arquitectos STUDIO AIR
19
COMPOSITION/GENERATION
C
urrently there is still debate as to where computation fits in to architectural practice. The idea of computerisation which is digitising existing design formulations17 through the likes of AutoCAD is not digital design but composition. Computation is when a program is written in-order to solve design problems using algorithms and an algorithm is, “a finite set of rules that are unambiguous and simple to follow”18 hence generation. It is argued that generation has its place in architecture for the vital reason it helps design processes, fabrication and construction. What computation is better at than any other technology is its ability to increase the capability to solve problems and generate a solution. In this precedence we are looking at how it helps solve issues of construction whilst combining materialisation. Karamba is a parametric 3D modelling plug-in to Rhino which focuses on spacial trusses and frames19. The project Gridshell Digital Tectonics has achieved what can be considered design intelligence through the program of Karamba as with the material analysis a structure was able to be devised in the most minimalistic way to cover that largest possible area whilst meeting, ornamentally what the group of the designers wanted. With the material properties of timber embedded with parametric design a group of students at a SmartGeomerty2012 workshop managed to manipulate straight wooden members and minimalism material waste to fabricate this 3D model created by an algorithm20. What this shows is that with the help of computation architects can use it to integrate geometry, structures and material performance and environmental factors or to what ever the rules of the algorithm may be. A concluding statement by Brady Peters supports the idea that computation has a place in architecture and definitely as a design tool, “when architects have a sufficient understanding of algorithmic concepts, when we no longer need to discuss the digital as something different, then computation can become a true method of design for architecture”21 20 STUDIO AIR
N .Gridshell Digital Tectonics. .Karamba. “Capacity to generate complex order, form and structure� 16
A.3.1
STUDIO AIR
21
CONCLUSION
T
he conclusion of part A evidently suggests that computation is a form of design, and designing stays with in the control of the designer. Computation can be seen as an accelerated design tool to help effectively solve problems and aid the intuitive nature of the designer. Computation allows for the develop of new forms of technology and the composition of materiality and structure to reach a more optimum solution. Thus making it necessity in today’s architecture if sustainability is our primary concern as computation is design intelligence. Having reached this conclusion the focus in part B for the design project will be on optimal form with minimal structure where materiality is concerned. In part B the mission statement that has been decided on is as such, “a naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating
electrical energy through kinetic motion�. With this in mind the energy technology that we are analysing is hydrokinetic21. How computation will help in this is by using an algorithm with certain parameters we can try create a form that will be environmentally sustainable whilst generate energy through movement, we can also use parametric design to find the optimal mesh that will give the most movement/energy.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
W
hat I have learnt over the last three weeks has really changed my perspective on digital design. To begin with I was sceptical towards digitally designed building believing that design was leaving the mind of the designers and becoming that of the computers design. However the big realisation for me was to see how in-fact design is about solving a problem not seeking the beautiful and in that respect computation is the perfect solution for this especially when it comes down to developing intelligent design to attach climate change.
22 STUDIO AIR
REFERENCES 1. Rogers, Richard. Richard Rogers RA InsideOut, 18 July 2013, wall print, Royal Academy of Arts, London. 2,3. Fry, Tony. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, Oxford: BERG, 2009. A.1.1/A.1.3/4. ”Cylindrical Membrane Morphologies,” Sonja Templin/Valentin Brenner, ICD Stuttgart University, last modified 2010, http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4703 A.1.2/A.1.4/A.1.5/A.1.6/A.1.7/5,6. “Ka-care,” Team: Carlo Rotti Associati, ecoLogicStudio (Parametric Urban Design), Akins, Atmos Studio, Accenture, Agence Ter. ecoLogicStudio, last modified 10 January 2011, http:// www.ecologicstudio.com/v2/project.php?idcat=3&idsubcat=4&idproj=121 7,9,11. Kalay, Yehuda E. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. 8, 12. Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds, Theories of the Digital in Architecture, London; New York: Routledg, 2004 A.2.1/A.2.2/9. “Fibrous Tower,” Team: Roland Snooks, Robert Stuart-Smith, Juan De Marco, STUDIO ROLAND SNOOKS, last viewed 15 march 14, http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/fibrous-tower/ 10. “Fibrous Tower | China,” Robert Stuart Smith, Roland Snooks (Kokkugia Ltd), Robert Stuart-Smith Design, viewed 20 March 2014, http://www.robertstuart-smith.com/filter/projects A.2.3/A.2.4/13, 14. “Irapuato Bridge | Mexico,” Robert Stuart Smith, Roland Snooks (Kokkugia Ltd) and Rojkind Arquitectos, Robert Stuart-Smith Design, viewed 20 March 2014, http://www.robertstuart-smith.com/ filter/projects 15. Kolarevic, Branko. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, New York; London: Spon press, 2003 16,17, 21. Peters, Brady. ‘Computation Works: The building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 2013 18. Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds, Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, London: MIT Press, 1999 19. “Karamba Parametric Engineering,” Clemens Preisinger in cooperation with Bollinger-Grohmann-Schnelder ZT GmbH, Last viewed 22 march 2014, http://www.karamba3d.com/about/ A.3.1/A.3.2/20. “GRIDSHELL DIGITAL TECTONICS,” Clemens Preisinger in cooperation with Bollinger-Grohmann-Schnelder ZT GmbH, Last viewed 22 march 2014, http://www.karamba3d.com/gridshell-digital-tectonics-sg2012/ 21.Ferry, Robert & Monoian, “A Field Guide to Renewable Energy Technologies”, Land Art Generator Initiative, Copenhagen, 2014 STUDIO AIR
23
PART B. CRITERIA DESIGN
C
riteria design is the exploration of many fields to then be selective of a finite few to manipulate and refine to meet expectation. In Part B as a group of three; Joseph de Klee, Nick Love and Antony Maubach hope to use this idea of criteria design to bring us closer to the design mission we set down in Part A in order to have a solid proposal for the LAGI competition in Copenhagen. The initial statement was as follows, “a naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical energy through kinetic motion�.
24 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
25
CONTENT B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
- Research Field -
- Case Study 1.0 -
- Case Study 2.0 -
- Technique: Development -
Case Study 1.0 looks at the selected project in ‘Research Field’ and looks at how it was developed computationally.
Case Study 2.0 looks at working out the algorithmic definition behind a computational project.
The section looks at analysing a particular ‘material system’ through a selected project. The elected project is Voussoir Cloud by IwamotoScott Architecture.
- PA G E 2 8 26 STUDIO AIR
- PA G E 3 0 -
- PA G E 3 4 -
With in Technique: Development we refine our working selection criteria and focus on a more direct approach to our project
- PA G E 4 0 -
B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8
- Technique: Prototypes -
- Technique: Proposal -
- Learning Objectives and Outcomes -
- References-
Within this section we are exploring the parameters of our own prototypes and developing an understanding of how to bring our project into reality
Nearing toward the end of part B we now are bring everything we have together to propose a solid design argument for are project, SiT.
- PA G E 4 2 -
- PA G E 4 6 -
Having received feedback this section is a reflection and a chance to focus our project before moving forward into part C.
- PA G E 5 6 -
Any out sourced material that has aiding the making of this journal
- PA G E 5 8 STUDIO AIR
27
RESEARCH FIELD
A
s a team we looked at a selection of material systems that could express our mission, through computational design. The system that best suited are intent of our project is Tessellation. Tessellation is the repeated use of a single unit to create a bigger more encompassing form. This is clearly illustrated by the precedence we have decided to too look at in detail, IwamotoScott with Buro Happold’s, ‘Voussoir Cloud’1. What tessellation does is break down a more complex surface into a more manageable state for fabrication purposes, not only is it for fabrication reasons but what tessellation achieves is the creation of ornament through functionality. As highlighted by Farshid Moussavi who wrote, “ornament is the figure that emerges from the material substrate, the expression of embedded forces through processes of construction, assembly and growth”2. Why this is important to our project is it gives what we foresee as a mesh base project a chance to effect the emotion of the users and spark human interaction with the space through ornament/tessellation. As well as making a complex surface constructable though tessellation which is a key element to the selection of this material system, another benefit to tessellation is the tessellated unit can be performative adding to the idea of functional ornament. A statement that sums these notions up is written by Branko Kolarevic and Kevin R. Klinger, “Decoration is increasingly seen as performative as well, as it can produce effects that can directly affect an emotional response”3. Having understood the design implications of tessellation the opportunities are clearly eminent, we can now explore any organic form knowing that fabrication is possible through tessellation of selected units. All of the above information is perfectly demonstrated by the Voussoir Cloud; Penalisation, repetitive elements breaking up a complex surface and ornament through structural function. For case study 1.0 the computational algorithm that will be used is that of the VoussoirCloud.
28 STUDIO AIR
B.1.1, B.1.2 Voussoir Cloud. IwamotoScott with Buro Happold, SCIArc Gallery, Los Angeles, 2008
STUDIO AIR
29
CASE STUDY 1.0
Stnrand A: original voronoi cloud model with settings: X,y,z forces set to 0. slider a 0.42, slider b -7.16 Stnrand A: original voronoi cloud model with settings: X,y,z forces set to 0. slider a 0.42, slider b -7.16
Stnrand A: original voronoi cloud model with settings: X,y,z forces set to 0. slider a 0.42, slider b -7.16
A5: slider A to 0.85
A2: z force changed to 78 Stnrand A: original voronoi cloud model with settings: X,y,z forces set to 0. slider a 0.42, slider b -7.16 A1: no changes from original voronoi cloud model
30 STUDIO AIR
A3: x50 y50 z78
Stnrand A: original voronoi cloud model with settings: X,y,z forces set to 0. slider a 0.42, slider b -7.16 A4: slider A changed to 0.42
Species 1
Species 2
Species 3
Species 4
Species 5
Species 6
STUDIO AIR
31
“a naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical energy through kinetic motion”
H
aving now explored the parameters of the algorithmic definition that enabled the Voussoir Cloud and as a group we tried to extrapolate them from the original design, we have developed a series of iterations to formulate the next step in our design process, the continual refinement. In response to the LAGI design brief and our initial statement we developed a set of criteria to analysis each iteration and select the four most viable to further develop with prospects of architectural application. The criteria is broken down into five key aspects that look at the iteration as an all encompassing form. The criteria is as follow; - How occupiable the iteration could be. - Viable points for buoys (wave energy). - How atypical the form is. - Possibilities of fabrication. - Oscillation capacity.
32 STUDIO AIR
1 2 3 4
(TOP LEFT) The first of our iterations selected takes an unusual form and tiles it with hexagons making prospects of fabrication its key quality. It would also make for an interesting instillation for human interaction. (TOP RIGHT) The second Iteration’s best aspect is how atypical it is and thus would draw people to visit it out of intrigue. The other aspect to its design is it as a collection of focused points where we could theoretically locate buoys. (BOTTOM LEFT) This iteration is the most organic of the selection making its perceived oscillation capacity to relatively high if fabrication were to occur. As well as having very interesting voids that we shall look into developing in an occupational sense. (BOTTOM RIGHT) The final iteration sees the most typical of forms yet the most occupiable. As well as a strong possibility for manageable fabrication. It”s best attribute is the elevated spikes that make it an interesting form to explore.
.Selection. Kalay, “This in an intuitive step, in which the designer finds an arrangement of forms ......... that come together into a holistic ensemble, where the parts support one another and have an intrinsic structure of their own.”4
Occupiable >>>> Points for Buoys >> Atypical/Typical >>>
Fabrication >>>>> Oscillation C. >>>
Fabrication > Occupiable >>>> Oscillation C. >>>>> Points for Buoys > Atypical/Typical >>>>
Occupiable > Fabrication > Points for Buoys >>>> Oscillation C. >> Atypical/Typical >>>>>
Occupiable >>>>> Points for Buoys Atypical/Typical >>
Fabrication >>>> Oscillation C. >>>> STUDIO AIR
33
CASE STUDY 2.0
T
he Constructive Geometry Pavilion by The Faculty of Architecture, University of Porto (FAUP) was developed and fabricated in 2011/125. The project focuses on dome structures and how they can be interpreted and redeveloped using computational methods. The structure itself is made of an array of cardboard hexagons that as a whole are self-supporting. The design intent behind it was to construct a rational self-supporting structure that uses mass customisation6 to allow for the most fabrication-al possibility. As well as designing a pavilion that allows light in, ventilation and meets the aesthetic criteria of the designers. The project to its credit has been successful in meeting its goal. One aspect of the project that is intuitive is the hexagonal panels that have varying central voids depended on heigh on the structure , not only does this allow light but aid structural integrity. The most important success to take from this forward into Part B is the possibility of fabricating a computational structural model by breaking it down into a smaller more manageable components.
B.3.1 34 STUDIO AIR
B.3.2
B.3.3 STUDIO AIR
35
36 STUDIO AIR
.Reverse Engineering. Create lofted surface using a selection of curves
No. Of Hexagons
Divide surface by Hexagons
Magnitude and Direction
Extrude
Offset Hexagon centre distance
Hexagon cells into frames
Combine the two STUDIO AIR
37
B.3.4
B.3.5
38 STUDIO AIR
.Analysis.
H
aving now reverse engineered the constructive geometry pavilion. We now have a better understanding on how it was created. What it enabled is the basis for a style of fabrication for a multitude of different forms. When doing the engineering there were many hurdles and discoveries. The simplest and most accomplishing way the goal was achieved is highlighted on the previous page, however the largest hurdle was focusing on panelling a surface rather than extruding a hexagonal frame. Overall the form has remained similar, the hexagonal panels are present and allow light into the structure but there is still room for change. The two aspects that were not achieved were varying central voids on the hexagonal panels and secondly the extrude of the hexagonal walls are only vertical not arrayed outwards perpendicular to the surface. In consideration with the team we looked at several case studies to reverse engineer. One that is important to highlight is that of the, ‘Green Void’7 by LAVA. Green Void was a project in 2008 in Sydney that used digital design to optimise a confined space. It had the slogan, “to create more with less”8 so using green lycra as there selected material they were able to fill the space algorithmically, that they maximised use of space with the least amount of material. Why it is important to consider this project is referring back to our criteria we chose, the result that best suited our project for further development was the organic form of the Green Void. What we hope to do is take this algorithmic definition and expand on it and try redevelop an unrecognisable form that will give us the basis of our oscillating mesh. An idea that arose within the group was later with in the project we could use what we have learnt with tessellation to fabricate the organic form that we hope to develop.
STUDIO AIR
39
TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT
40 STUDIO AIR
T
T
he development of case study 2.0 is represented in this table of iterations. Now to refine our new selection of iterations further our design criteria has to be revisited. Our initial five aspect of design criteria have remained the same however with more consideration to the LAGI design brief and what our personal aspirations are for the project. These new considerations are as follows; a space for social interaction, area for an aquatic amphitheatre, a jetty for accessibility and space for community surface. These more social aspects of design are features of the final form so when looking at these iterations they are important to consider. The four highlighted iterations are what we as a group will achieve these criteria. So the next step in our design process is to move these iterations forward and refine them to the brief.
STUDIO AIR
41
TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES
42 STUDIO AIR
H
aving now reacted the stage before prototyping we must consider how this is viable, we turn back to are preconceived ideas of tessellation to look for a solution to creating this large scale organic form manageable and possible to create. This diagram hopes to analysis this strategy, we also discovered a precedents by Kokkugia, ‘Morphogenetic Lattice’ that is conceptually similar to what we are trying to achieve with panels on a micro scale making up the organic form on a macro scale (B.4.1).
B.4.1
STUDIO AIR
43
.Prototypes.
T
he first of our prototypes was due to be a 3D print of how we could attach an oscillating mesh to a buoy. Thus we developed a ball and socket joint to facilitate for the natural movement that we hope to achieve in the mesh. The ball and socked was chosen as it allows a full range of movement unlike most two dimensional joint. This prototype though not yet made is still our most promising. Having a group of these made would enable a structural frame that can move as well as being load bearing on to the allotted buoys.
1
P
rototype 2 is a representational model that looks at how we can create a mesh that is self supporting yet still able to oscillate under tension and compression. The prototype is made up of many cable ties of different scales all strung together to form a tunnel like structure that can be seen on B4 iteration. The Prototype was to a degree a success iterating that such a form is possible we just need to discover a way to enlarge its scale.
2
T
his resin based Prototype looked at how if we use a hexagonal skeleton how the structure would come together. This design itself allows for rotational movement in several directions however come reality the model did not work as the fine mechanical aspects (connection points) were not present. This prototype is promising yet needs to be fabricated differently.
3 44 STUDIO AIR
P
rototype 4 is another way of subdividing the larger scale form into connectible/manageable units . what these units also looked at is the possibility of a second energy production with a rotational panel on the inside turning a small turbine. In practicality they could connect end to end and allow movement but not length to length restricting the meshes overall movement if installed. The central dynamic panel was functional and was an idea we decided to pursue for further development.
4
T
his prototype looked at the materiality of the mesh and how it could be draped/manipulated to fit over a skeletal structure on a larger prospective scale. This highlighted the trouble we were facing with fabricating such a complex organic form and making it retain its structure.
5
T
he final prototype is again looking at the design at a large scale and how it would fit on to our site. What this prototype enabled was for us to get a grasp on what we were trying to achieve and how a skeletal frame might be applied on top of the energy generating buoys. The frame gives us some direction on how we are going to achieve this fabrication as it suggest we may need some solid structure to enable an oscillating structure.
6 STUDIO AIR
45
TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL
“A naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical energy through kinetic motion”.
W
e have now reached a stage were as a group we can propose our idea and what we hope to achieve. We know how we want to produce energy, we know the social aspect we want to achieve at the site and we have come to an agreed architectural form. Starting with how our site will produce energy the previous aspects will be explained. The three types of renewable energy that we hope to utilise is wind, wave and kinetic energy. On the large scale wave energy is our primary energy source how this works is that our mesh structure will sit on top of a selection of buoys and when it oscillates due to human activity the buoys will oscillate with the structure moving up and down creating energy. On a micro scale we also would like to include wind and kinetic energy from peizo pad path ways and wind turbines that make up the greater mesh. Having established the energy source the next key aspect to us as a group is the social side to the project. Since the beginning we as a group have selectively ratted the importance 46 STUDIO AIR
of social interaction as number 1. What we hope to achieve is not only a energy generating structure but and educating site to motivate peoples consciences in the idea behind renewable energy. As well as create a domain where people are drawn to come visit and interact with the site so that Copenhagen has an architectural symbol of its progressive nature of the future. Thus we developed SiT, ‘The Social Interaction Terminal’ the holistic project that combines renewable concepts with human activity.
SiT
SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL
B.6.4
B.6.1
B.6.2
B.6.3 STUDIO AIR
47
AQUATIC AMPHITHEATRE COMMUNITY SURFACE SOCIAL HUB JETTY
BUOY LOCATIONS 48 STUDIO AIR
.Macro Development. .design intent.
EDUCATION OSCILLATION LEISURE ENERGY SYSTEM
STUDIO AIR
49
50 STUDIO AIR
.Micro Development.
SiT
SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL
STUDIO AIR
51
PIEZO CONTACT PADS 52 STUDIO AIR
.Component Strategy.
TURBINES
STUDIO AIR
53
.Design Proposal.
SiT
SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL
54 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
55
OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES
H
aving now presented and received constructive feedback our project will be refined further. What we as a group have managed to do is let our ideas run and not centralise them, and with an outside perspective on the project it is now clear we have to much going on and are trying to include to many aspect. How we hope to proceed with this is going back several stages and solely focusing on producing the one organic form as a whole, aside from breaking it up into micro panels that also produce energy that added to the complication of the strategy. Over we need to simplify the structural components and focus more on how we may include leisure areas and amphitheatres that may not oscillate which could lend itself to giving us a structural design solution.
56 STUDIO AIR
Having now completed part B upon reflection I feel that i have come along way in understand the design processes and selection processes of computational design. Part B has defiantly confirmed to me that computational design very much includes the designer and is not down to the computers creativity to reach the aspired goal, as there is so much input on my behalf to gain what I hope to achieve. The algorithms lead you to new discoveries but you the designer i feel dictate the direction. I still feel inhibited when generating an algorithm due to my lack of experience but that is a matter time and learning to develop my skills. In part C i hope to only further my learning on computational design but focus on refining and developing a solid LAGI submission.
SiT
SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL STUDIO AIR
57
REFERENCES 1. “Voussoir Cloud,” IwamotoScottArchitecture, last accessed 1 April 2014, http://www.iwamotoscott.com/ filter/INSTALLATIONS/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD 2. Moussavi, Farshid and Michael Kubo, eds(2006), The Function of Ornament (Barcelona: Actar), pp.5-14 3. Kolarevic, Branko and Kevin R. Klinger, eds(2008), Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture (New York: London: Routledge), pp 6-24 4. Kalay, Yehuda E. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. 5. ”Construction Geometry Pavilion @ FAUP”, SuckerPUNCH, last accessed 15 April 2014, http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2012/08/09/constructive-geometry-pavilion/ 6. ”Construction Geometry Pavilion Investigates Dome Structures Through Mass Customisation”, Lidija Grozdanic, eVolo, Published 13 August 2012, http://www.evolo.us/author/lidija/page/7/ 7,8. “Green Void”, LAVA, last accessed 22 April 2014, http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/green-void/ B.1.1, B.1.2. “‘Voussoir Cloud’, by IwamotoScott with Buro Happold”, ARCHIVENUE, published 22 September 2009, http://www.archivenue.com/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott-with-buro-happold/voussoir-cloud-byiwamotoscott-with-buro-happold-5/ B.3.1, B.3.2, B.3.3. ”Construction Geometry Pavilion Investigates Dome Structures Through Mass Customisation”, Lidija Grozdanic, eVolo, Published 13 August 2012, http://www.evolo.us/author/lidija/page/7/ B.3.4, B.3.5. “Green Void”, LAVA, last accessed 22 April 2014, http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/green-void/ B.4.1. “Morphogenetic Lattice”, Kokkugia, last accessed 8 March 2014, http://www.kokkugia.com/ B.6.1, B.6.2, B.6.3. “A Field Guild To Renewable Energy”, Land Art Generator Initiative (LAGI), http://www. landartgenerator.org/LAGI-FieldGuideRenewableEnergy-ed1.pdf
58 STUDIO AIR
.LAGI Brief. A qualified entry to the LAGI 2014 design competition must fulfill the following criteria: - Consist of a three dimensional sculptural form that has the ability to stimulate and challenge the mind of visitors to the site. The work should aim to solicit contemplation from viewers on such broad ideas as ecological systems, human habitation and development, energy and resource generation and consumption, and/or other concepts at the discretion of the design team; - Capture energy from nature, convert it into electricity, and have the ability to store, and/or transform and transmit the electrical power to a grid connection point to be designed by others. Consideration should be made for artfully housing the required transformer and electrical equipment within the project boundary and restricting access to those areas for the safety of visitors to the site; - Not create greenhouse gas emissions and not pollute its surroundings. The work must not impact the natural surroundings negatively. Each entry must provide a brief (approx. 300 words) environmental impact assessment as a part of the written description in order to determine the effects of the project on the natural ecosystem and give reference to a mitigation strategy addressing any foreseeable issues; - Be pragmatic and constructible and employ technology that can be scalable and tested. There is no limit on the type of technology or the proprietary nature of the technology that is specified. It is recommended that the design team make an effort to engage the owners of proprietary technology in preliminary dialogue as a part of their own research and development of the design entry. The more pragmatic the proposals are, the greater the likelihood will be that one of them may get built; - Be well informed by a thorough understanding of the history, geography, details of the design site, and the broader contexts of Refshaleøen, Copenhagen, and Denmark; - Be safe to people who would view it. Consideration must be made for viewing platform areas and boundaries between public and restricted areas; - Be designed specifically to the constraints of the design site at Refshaleøen as shown in the Location Plan (available for download); - Designs must not exceed 125 meters in height; - Entries must be in English and metric scale.
STUDIO AIR
59
PART C. DETAILED DESIGN
60 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
61
CONTENT C.1
C.2
C.3
C.3
- Design Concept -
- Tectonic Elements -
- Final Model 1 -
- Final Model 2 -
An aim, resolution and concept of the new Socio HULL having evolved Part B (The Social Interaction Terminal) into a new more refined design having received feedback from an interim presentation
The rationalisation of component design and how that influenced the progress of the Socio HULL.
- PA G E 6 4 -
- PA G E 7 4 -
62 STUDIO AIR
The production method and final construction of final model 1. A model at 1:25 scale showing the combination of an array of ribs.
- PA G E 8 2 -
The production method of this 3D printed site model at 1:800. Showing the relationship between the Socio HULL and the site context.
- PA G E 8 4 -
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.5
- Final Model 3 -
- Socio HULL -
- Further development -
- Learning Objectives and Outcomes -
The final component fabricated using computational methods. The component represents the 1 rib and spine connection and how the energy harvesting system works.
The statement of the Socio HULL in response to the LAGI brief. Including a description of the project, technology break down, materials list and environmental impact statement.
Further development looks at feedback given in the final semester presentation and how we hope to resolve issues that have occurred.
This is a conclusion drawn from the whole semester on how parametric design and computational methods have effected the Socio HULL and the means to be in a group project.
- PA G E 8 6 -
- PA G E 8 8 -
- PA G E 9 4 -
- PA G E 9 6 STUDIO AIR
63
DESIGN CONCEPT
T
he aim now having received an interim critic has considerably changed to the proposed direction presented in part B. Part C hopes to generate a innovative project that will be refined to a point of completion with the prospect of possible construction. The key points that where highlighted where there was to many unrefined ideas all coming together to create an incomprehensible and complicated project. The response to this was to simplify our project and focus on one coherent direction. The first step forward was to go two steps back and remove the structural system of many varying hexagonal components that all interlock whilst retaining the oscillation of the all encompassing form. The next step was to let go of any preconceived notions of how the form may appear and let that aspect of the design follow having established a new system, where as before the form had dictated our direction. With this new direction we looked to a new structural system, a new way of harvesting energy, a new approach. What remained as a backbone of the project was the concept of human interaction in a oscillating structure. The proposition that arose was looking to a ribcage and spine for inspiration, where the spine remains the key structural component and the ribs become the oscillating aspect of the design that harvests kinetic energy. The ironic step toward this new spine/rip concept is that it has reversed our strategy completely, now we look to the form not being structural where as before the form was predominantly the structure. What this plan of action enables is for the form to be dictated by the system through fabrication which is the next step in the design process, whilst still keeping elements of the much desired sinuous natural form. The Diagram opposite tries to give a visual analysis on what the computational goal and fabricational goal, where the devised form is sectioned into multiple ribs supported by a structural spine. The systems gives premise to the possibility to form change through minor alterations to the ribs. The next step in our new direction was to prototype a feasible mechanism that shows the tectonics of the spine and ribs to see how it will effect our design guided by computation . 64 STUDIO AIR
.Aim.
STUDIO AIR
65
Generate Sinuous Organic Form
Trim Entry/Exits (Anchors)
Apply an Exoskeleton
Relax Form (Kangaroo Mesh Relaxing)
Create Spine Line
Apply Section Pipe Line
Thicken to Suggest Material
Sweep with 3 sided polygon
Determine Width of Segments & Gaps (Populations of Curves)
Social Hull 66 STUDIO AIR
.Resolution. EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
SITE PLAN
STUDIO AIR
67
SOCIO HULL CPH.
OCCUPIABLE. SOCIAL TERMINAL. EDUCATOR
EVENTS & FESTIVAL - SHIPBUILDING. 68 STUDIO AIR
T
he new strategy of our design concept has been resolved by fabrication in-conjunction with computational design. On pg 66 is a broken down flow diagram illustrating how the project has been altered and the steps we have taken to reach our final design though computation. What parametric design has allowed is control over the entire structure making it incredibly easy to change and manipulate to site conditions and brief parameters. Before fabrication we had to decide on the materiality of our structure. Trying to remain in tune with the sustainability side of the brief we looked to timber and how we could harvest the natural spring (kinetic energy) of tensioned timber. This solution soon became our focal point for the rest of the project explored through prototyping. The design has also had to respond to the LAGI brief introducing more parameters to apply. We have been able to resolve these parameters though computational manipulation. The following have changed the form; one criteria to be met was the response to site and how the design has catered for the main bus entry point and access by water. What can be seen in our design is that the whole structure arcs and at each end
of the arc (anchor points), the tunnels (ribcage) are directed to the bus stop and the other to an incorporated jetty. The second aspect that has influenced the design is the need for transformer housing. On either side of the design there is half a ribcage that is not capable of generating energy however works in accordance to the aesthetics of the project to home the generators. Both these points are best represented on the site plan (pg 67). Other changes we have made to part B that are important to note is the addition of a view point looking out to the mermaid and Copenhagen to stimulate the viewer into understanding where the energy generated is going. Finally another change we have made is that rather than cutting the reclaimed land that we na誰vely proposed in part B we plan on keeping it and creating as minimal impact to site as possible lowering the environmental impact.
STUDIO AIR
69
CPH
Socio Hull.
Copenhagen ANTONY / JOSEPH / NICK
70 STUDIO AIR
.Concept.
SOCIAL HULL is an interactive oscillating structure that harvests the kinetic energy of visitors in addition to fostering their creative sustainable ideas.
H
aving followed a set of design steps to reach our new proposed concept, we arrive no longer at SIT Social Interaction Terminal but rather Copenhagen’s Socio HULL. A name generated by its intentions and the ribs referencing the historical significance of the area as a former shipyard. The Socio HULL ‘s concept is that is harvests kinetic energy from the natural flex of locally sourced recycled timber that is only activated by human participation. The Socio HULL hopes to stimulate, educate and challenge the mind of the viewer in the concepts of clean energy. The Socio HULL also hopes to facilitate social interaction and create a desired destination for Copenhagen’s population. The project also aims to act as a large multi-purpose function space, for example music events. How the Socio HULL works is that it is made up of roughly 200 timber ribs that are all connected to a structural spine holding them above the ground. The ribs form a series of tunnels that when walked through generate electricity. The electricity is
obtained by the weight of a human applying downward pressure to a rib causing the rib to flex. What the Socio HULL will harvest the kinetic energy of the flexing timber (oscillating). The target of the Socio HULL is to bring this idea into reality. The following pages in C.2 will focus on the functionality and reality of such an idea and whether it is feasibly possible by taking the model form the computational world into the real word though prototyping. Our envisioned construction process is developing a simple set of components that can be assembled as a kit of parts. Thus making the project flexible to site and also easy to construct whilst remaining innovative.
STUDIO AIR
71
SOCIAL HUB OSCILLATING RIB OCCUPIABLE
72 STUDIO AIR
SPINAL ENE
EDUCATION
ERGY SYSTEM LEISURE EVENT VENUE
STUDIO AIR
73
TECTONIC ELEMENTS
T
ectonic Elements will look at developing a functional prototype of our idea whilst remaining flexible to the prospect of it influencing or even changing our preconceived ideas of the design. The study will also look at the detailing of joints, functionality, practicality and aesthetics.
74 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
75
“Socio HULL has the potential to generate 20kWh of power per visitor to the site , which is four times the average amount used by one person per day in Copenhagen”
W
ith the new concept to harvest kinetic energy from the flex in timber with a spine and rib notion as well as have these components dictating the form through fabrication it was vital to get a working solution. The next step was do develop a spinal mechanism that allowed the timber to flex and house a mechanism to generate energy. Over the page is the design development of how we rationalised, optimised and refined this component to a final model. There was also an emphasis on keeping the system simple and manageable thus deciding on a kit of parts approach that can be assembled simply from a few key components. The first prototype (Top Left) was a kit of wooden parts designed to fit together and explore material properties (materiality will explored in depth later in part C). When analysing the detail of the spinal system. What could be ascertained is that wood was not ideal for making this structure a reality if used as the spine. When pressure was applied it broke with ease. The knowledge of wood not being feasible the second approach was to turn to 3D print76 STUDIO AIR
ing. The First attempt (Top Right) was short lived after later realising the designed component would fail entirely in harvesting energy. With rotating arms to fasten the timber to, the timber would automatically slump into a tear drop shape making the oscillation of the timber nigh impossible when suspended bellow. Finally we arrived at a solution of how to harness the energy as well as optimise it. With a Fixed component fastening the wood together achieves maximum flex, with cords running from spine to floor that mimic the oscillation we could use Faraday’s Law of breaking a magnetic field to harvest the kinetic energy. With this break through our third model was designed. In terms of practicality it would be functional however it had several issues. Firstly it had to many components which gave an unsophisticated engineering solution, secondly it had the structural component on the inside of the tunnel which again wasn’t ideal for spacial aesthetics to the viewers experience. The remaining component is the final design resolution. This answers each of the criteria set out outlined over the page.
.Rationalise. The development of this critical tectonic element that results in a fabricational, efficient, possible element that can be repeated in multitude to attain the complete structure of the Socio HULL
Structural Rigidity > Energy Efficient Realistic
Kit of Parts >>> Aesthetic >>
Structural Rigidity >>> Kit of Parts > Energy Efficient >> Aesthetic Realistic>>>
Structural Rigidity > Energy Efficient Realistic
Kit of Parts >> Aesthetic >>
Structural Rigidity >>> Kit of Parts >>> Energy Efficient >>> Aesthetic >>> Realistic>>> STUDIO AIR
77
.Spine Component.
T
he decided spinal component has several advantages the previous models did not. The first and most important is that it is vastly more energy efficient. This is accomplished by the component allowing for the timbers curvature at the joint, what this does is create a natural curve in the wood optimising flex-ability thus oscillation capacity increases, increasing energy generated. Secondly it is one all encompassing component the assemble easy with only a few elements. This component also is not only very strong but uses the minimum mass of material required making the tectonic light weight, this was achieved though parametric aid. Finally it shows a level of design consideration and also acts as form of practical ornament aiding the aesthetic properties of the Socio HULL. The technicalities of the Socio HULL rely on human interaction. How it all works is as follows; There are approximately 200 spine and rib components, the illustrated diagram opposite. These components are assemble together to make range of tunnels elevated of the ground. When a participant walks through one component there weight creates downward pressure on the tensioned timber making it bend downwards, much like a bouncy sway bridge. This in-turn pulls the two cords attached downward. The cords pull a magnet against a spring through a copper solenoid. What this does is by cutting a magnetic field (magnet movement through a coil) generates a current that can be stored in capacitors as electricity. When the occupant steps of a component the spring and timber work of each other and remain oscillating until all energy is lost. The energy generating mechanism is already developed and is called a ‘Permanent Magnet Linear Generator (PMLG)’2 which uses a neodymium magnet and a copper solenoid. We estimate that one PMLG has the ability to produce approximately 100W when activated, of course dependent on the magnitude of force applied. If an occupant is jumping up and down this will invariably create more electricity. The component as a working prototype will be 3D printed to test the viability of these concepts. 78 STUDIO AIR
Magnet Compression Springs
Copper Solenoid
Struc
ctural Beam/Spine
Tensioned Timber
Pulley Rope Eye Hook Downward Pressure STUDIO AIR
79
.Rib Component.
W
ith a mechanism on how to harvest kinetic energy from the timber the next step was to explore the material behaviour of timber and see if we could make it ever more energy efficient. What was discovered was that the timber could be manipulated in such a way that could aid our design however at the cost of structural integrity. Having tested regular plywood it was noted that it needed to be soaked in order for it to bend and take the shape of a rib and once dried its flex was minimal. Following the logic of the thinner the ply the easier to bend, timber perforations seemed like a resolution. The photograph top left was the first of this exploration, the result was positive in that it gave the wood more flex but only marginally (10 - 20degrees). To pursue the concept further, more perforations were made second time round which was only achievable by the accuracy of the laser cutter. This time round the results were a vast improvement, looking at creating more than a 90degree angle without soaking in the ply. However with this new discovery came a compromise, the structure lost strength and when downward pressure was applied the timber broke at the points of perforation. However non the less on a larger scale (1:1) this may not be an issue if the forces applied are less than the breaking point of the perforated timber. What the perforations allow is for us to have a stronger power of manipulation on how the form will take shape. If each rips shape can be dictated the number of perforations , we can start dictating flat walk ways, width and height of tunnels and as well as all this it creates an interesting internal atmosphere by fragmenting external light. In a further development of this idea we looked at parametric design to influence the perforations variations. In the final model we looked at circle perforations of varying sizes dictated by a computational algorithm. In the end it gave for an interesting form and internal ambiance but again weakened the structure integrity of the material. In the end we looked to Aeroply a flexible timber that although costly is ideal for attain the results of our perceived ideas of harnessing kinetic energy from the natural flex of timber.
80 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
81
FINAL MODEL 1.
T
he first of the final models was a 1:25 scale model that showed 26 of the independent ribs and how we hopped they would work together with a focus on materiality, the form the ribs should take when considering light and the design intent in its entirety. The model was created by firstly using parametric design to influence the array of circle perforations in the ribs to see if they aided the flex in the timber as well as acting as design intent to lighten the tunnel when assembled. What was also explored was the varying width of the rib to create openings for views and light. In order to create the components we used a template of the unrolled ribcage and sent this to the FABLAB to be laser cut. Problems that were encountered included material flexibility and strength, this was primarily due to the FABLAB being unable to cut plywood at the time of prototyping due to a bad batch of wood. So the alternative option was to have it cut in card (the next most similar/applicable material). The problem was when bent it would snap at the detailed perforations and being card, soaking would have crippled its quality. However visually the perforations make for an intriguing aesthetic, provoking the mind of the occupant to the design intent. The key aspect to this model is to show a representation on how the overall form and how light manifests its self with in the structure through the defined shape of the ribs.
82 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
83
T
FINAL MODEL 2.
he site model is a 3D powder print set on a wooden laser cut site map. The model illustrates the design intent of a desired natural form and of how the Socio HULL plans to use the site, considering the LAGI brief outlined earlier. The model invades the space and branches of the ground showing how the structure works. What can be seen from this model is fluidity of the design to guide and manipulate occupants to interact with the site as well as highlighting the desired zones of the socio HULL, such as the view point, event space, jetty and entrance. It is an example of how one would experience the space. Computational methods have made this model possible as it is to complex a design on such a small scale that to accurately capture the design computer precision was needed. The hurdle to create this was turning what was a complicated mesh with many open surfaces in to an air tight mesh for printing.
84 STUDIO AIR
“Using building performance a quantitative and qualitative pe
as a guiding design principle............it utilizes the digital technologies of erformance based simulation to offer a comprehensive new approach to the design�3
Socio HULL 1:800 A view from the water/Copenhagen city. A birds eye view. STUDIO AIR
85
FINAL MODEL 3.
T
he final model is a working product of the designed tectonic element at 1:10. The main assemble piece is a plastic polymer 3D printed making fabrication simple and effected. The kits of parts came together to make one whole rib with the aid of several screws and a precut sheet of aeroply. The only problem faced was the unequal strengths of the materials. The spring is to strong so it does not allow the areoply to flex in a vertical motion when downward pressure is applied. However excluding the spring component and assuming that it was of effective strength, what this model does illustrate is the flexibility and capabilities of ply and how we perceive the material properties of the structure. Granted the aeroply is overly flexible but for the purposes of the model it demonstrates effectively how the system functions and where the energy is generated. In reality we would hope the springs weaker and the timber stronger to optimise kinetic energy harvested, but what this model proves is that our concept is possible.
86 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
87
Social HULL Statement
S O
OCIAL HULL is an interactive oscillating structure that harvests the kinetic energy of visitors in addition to fostering their creative sustainable ideas. SOCIAL HULL recognises that the long-term rise of sustainable technologies and practice is inherently linked to education and the strength of community networks (social capital). As such, community engagement is SOCIAL HULL’s guiding principle. ccupants experience the structure through a series of sectioned ribs, which oscillate much like a sway bridge. Composed of architecturally formed recycled plywood timber, these ribs reference the historical significance of the area as a former shipyard. The ribs conjoin to form a structure that initially presents itself as a serious of mysterious passageways fit for the adventurous adult or child alike. These passageways then propagate into a series habitable nodes that programmatically function as educational and event spaces. The energy of visitors is harvested tangibly as electric energy and metaphorically through the generation of ideas and discussions. SOCIAL HULL is envisioned as a space for a variety of formal events including public lectures and discussions, music concerts (for example Distortion Music Festival) and markets, in addition to everyday leisure activities. SOCIAL HULL aims to support Copenhagen’s long-term commitment to sustainability (carbon neutral by 2025) by providing an ongoing and flexible events based relationship with the city. ollectively the oscillating ribs utilise the structural properties of locally sourced recycled timber sheeting. The natural tendency of this material to flex when subjected to perpendicular forces compliments the requirements of an oscillating platform system. The rope and spring system used to harvest the kinetic energy are the lungs that allow the ribs to breathe and animates the system.
C I A
n harnessing the kinetic energy of the suspended timber ribs, SOCiAL HULL adopts the use of ‘permanent magnet linear generators’ (PMLG). The generators use a neodymium magnet within a copper solenoid which transfers kinetic energy into a changing current (flux) that in turn outputs a voltage. n estimate of the Social HULL’s energy generating capability, we assume that every visitor will interact with 50% of the structure’s 200 ribs, with two PMLG’s affixed to each rib. One PMLG produces approximately 100W when activated, which can vary depending on the frequency and magnitude of force applied. As a result, Social HULL has the potential to generate 20kWH of power per visitor to the site, which is four times the average amount used by one person per day in Copenhagen (as specified by City of Copenhagen, ‘Copenhageners Energy Consumption’, 2008).
L
ow embodied energy of the Social HULL’s design will be achieved due to the use of reclaimed timber. This timber is sourced from local building sites and shipyards (for example freight pellets) thus reducing carbon emissions from transportation of materials. The structure harvests human kinetic energy and converts it into electricity. This electricity is then used to power all services associated with the site (for example lighting for evening events), with excess energy directed back to the grid. As such, the overall system results in no net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A sustainability plan will be implemented regarding all public events at the site, which will result in efficient public transport access to the site during events (via a ferry service to the structure’s jetty) as well as a rubbish recycling system. In line with the site’s community engagement principles, composting systems will be established on-site as a means to educate the public on sustainable living practices. This will compliment the existing community garden at the site that will be retained. The site will be managed by corporate body group (environmental group) that will run events and promote the usage of it to keep it occupied and a focal point for Copenhagen’s public. Overall estimated material usage is as follows; 2,490 square metres of recycled plywood timber (249 ribs, on average 10 square metres of timber per rib), structural steel spine (290 metres in total for the whole structure), 498 Steel springs, two per rib (energy harvesting components), 498 Copper solenoids, two per rib (energy harvesting components), 498 Neodymium magnets, two per rib (energy harvesting components), Generator Housing (reclaimed steel). 88 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
89
90 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
91
92 STUDIO AIR
STUDIO AIR
93
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
T
he final presentation of our project left us with several points for further development. The three problem aspects that were discussed were; scale, structural integrity and the gaps between each rib component that forms a path. The devised solutions are as follows. The first issue of scale was simply resolved and can be changed in the algorithm generated, so if we were to re-present the Socio HULL it would be smaller with in the site. The second issue of structural integrity and whether the elevated form could be self supporting gave for a devised response that can be seen over the page at a couple diagrams showing a new component. The component is a structural column that mimics the form of the spin and rib cage to stay in tune with the aesthetics, but most importantly this assumed structural steel component acts as a support to the spin adding to the realistic possibility of this project proposal. Finally when considering safety and the gaps between the ribs our solution was to simple narrow the gaps by increasing the width of the ribs, as seen in this new section. Another idea of resolving this issue would be to have each rib interlocking/overlapping disposing of all gaps. However this development decreases energy efficiency so we have stuck with the prior.
94 STUDIO AIR
Structural Columns
STUDIO AIR
95
LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND
O
ver the period of twelve weeks I have witnessed a lot of development in my own understanding for computation and parametric design, the difference between the two, the place they have in architecture today and how to manipulate and use it to create design. With out it I believe the project that has been presented in this journal would not be as refined, achievable, innovative and developed with in the time frame. The role of computation and parametric design in architecture as i now understand it, is to act as an additional tool to solve and combat as well as accelerate design hurdles with in a brief. This conclusion was influenced by the progress of our project in conjunction with the analysis of the selected precedence. Why the project has influenced me, is through learning and developing my skills in algorithmic design and computation which has forced me to let go of having a preconceived notion of a design outcome. What parametric design allows for is an unforeseeable result that the designer can still master and control once generated. This concept arose following Part B and the interim submission when our design was crowed with ideas of how it should be, work, look and we were being dictated by the confines of our own intent rather than being lead into a single design solution that we have ended with. Consequently within architectural discourse i personally believe that parametric design not only enhances the generation of new architecture but the design is still acclaimed to that of the architect who holds the reins of the design direction. Thus i stand by my statement in the conclusion of Part A, that computation is a form of design, and designing is done by the designer, not the computer. What the computer does is accelerate and most importantly optimises the designers intuitive nature as well as the project its self. Having reached the end of semester my own personal skills within computational and parametric design have come along way. I now see my self using it as a tool in future projects and studios. There is still a large area for improvement and understanding of the programs but what the subject has done is give me more than just a kit start but a reason to pursue it further 96 STUDIO AIR
in the future having seen how beneficial computation can be within design. For example computational models and how it sped up our process of reaching a resolution to design problems as seen in part c with fabrication. What I think is the most beneficial factor to parametric design is how it embodies an input of a problem and produces the most efficient result having the ability to run all other possibilities with in the algorithm to arrive at a solution. Such as using a relaxed mesh to optimise spacial properties, a prime example being the ‘Green Void� project looked at in Part B. The form we arrived at was only achievable though parametric design, that also allowed for flexible manipulation. Another reason I think parametric are a good tool as they allow for easy effective change that make projects dynamic. Our project now I think could be easily be adapted to any site and adopt a range of forms only enabled by computation. On the theme of flexibility my strongest aspect in computation is modelling and using that to influence the design journey. Computational modelling has influenced our design by raising our awareness to design problems (developed on pg.76) thus teaching me about remaining flexible and receptive to change to new occurring problems along the design path. Modelling I think is the most effective way of representation and testing ideas both in the realms of computation and also fabrication. Both with increased chance of creating a resolution for a design, for example in Part C model 3. Rather than asking how has computation influenced the design but rather see it that computation has given us a design that we as the designers are in control of. Aside from computation the semester has also taught me about group work and how when a team is compatible the advance in development of an idea can be so much quicker and the critical eye of three different opinions rather than one can either work or fail. I think it worked to gain a more refined compelling presentation and a project that met the criteria of each of us as well as the LAGI brief.
D OUTCOMES .References. 1. “The Design Guidelines” , Land Art Generator Initiative, last accessed 7 May 2014 2. “OCEAN WAVE ENERGY GENERATOR”, Professor Sabri Tosunoglu, Florida International University, last updated 10 April 2011, http://www.eng.fiu.edu/mme/robotics/EML4905SeniorDesignProject/SampleSeniorDesignProjects/2011Spring/2011spr-T2-OceanWaveEnergyGenerator-FinalReport.pdf 3. Kolarevic, Branko. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, New York; London: Spon press, 2003 4. “Copenhagener’s energy consumption”, City of Copenhagen, date accessed 16 May 2014, http://subsite. kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/ClimateAndEnvironment/CopenhagensGreenAccounts/EnergyAndCO2/Consumption.aspx
STUDIO AIR
97