Deklee joseph 550060 partb

DESIGN STUDIO AIR 2014

JOSEPH DE KLEE

STUDIO AIR

1

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 6 2 STUDIO AIR

- PA G E 8 -

- PA G E 1 2 -

With in Technique: Development we refine our working selection criteria and focus on a more direct approach to our project

- PA G E 1 8 -

B.5

B.6

B.7

B.8

- Technique: Prototypes -

- Technique: Proposal -

- Learning Objectives and Outcomes -

- Appendix -

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 2 0 -

- PA G E 2 4 -

Having received feedback this section is a reflection and a chance to focus our project before moving forward into part C.

- PA G E 3 4 -

Over the past 4 weeks a set of algorithmic tasks have been set on rhino and this is the results of the 3D sketches

- PA G E 3 8 STUDIO AIR

3

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�.

4 STUDIO AIR

STUDIO AIR

5

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.

6 STUDIO AIR

B.1.1, B.1.2 Voussoir Cloud. IwamotoScott with Buro Happold, SCIArc Gallery, Los Angeles, 2008

STUDIO AIR

7

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

8 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

9

“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.

10 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

11

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 12 STUDIO AIR

B.3.2

B.3.3 STUDIO AIR

13

14 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

15

B.3.4

B.3.5

16 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

17

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

18 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

19

TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

20 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

21

.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 22 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

23

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 24 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

25

AQUATIC AMPHITHEATRE COMMUNITY SURFACE SOCIAL HUB JETTY

BUOY LOCATIONS 26 STUDIO AIR

.Macro Development. .design intent.

EDUCATION OSCILLATION LEISURE ENERGY SYSTEM

STUDIO AIR

27

28 STUDIO AIR

.Micro Development.

SiT

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

STUDIO AIR

29

PIEZO CONTACT PADS 30 STUDIO AIR

.Component Strategy.

TURBINES

STUDIO AIR

31

.Design Proposal.

SiT

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

32 STUDIO AIR

STUDIO AIR

33

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, with and 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.

34 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

35

.Refrences.

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

36 STUDIO AIR

STUDIO AIR

37

APPENDIX

38 STUDIO AIR

STUDIO AIR

39

40 STUDIO AIR

STUDIO AIR

41