Feng jingyi 743171 Final Air Journal

ABPL30048

STUDIO AIR Journal

Semester 1, 2017 Jingyi Feng 743171

A. COMCEPTUALIZATION

A.CONCEPTUALISATION

A.0 INTRODUCTION A.1 DESIGN FUTURING -Case study 1: AEQUOREA, The Floating City -Case study 2: Walt Disney Concert Hall A.2 DESIGN COMPUTATION

Conceptualization is the process of determining what is to be built and how it will be built.

Different from the traditional way of responding to the situation and solve problems, conceptualization is the process of forming an abstract idea or concept that reflects the architect’s design philosophy into the design as the theme of the project.

-Case study 1: Lumen -Case study 2: Dragon Skin Pavilion A.3 COMPOSITION/GENERATION -Case study 1: AA Driftwood Pavillion -Case study 2: The Morning Line A.4 CONCLUSION A.5 LEARNING OUTCOMES A.6. ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

I'm Jin, a third year student doing a double major in Architecture and Property at the University of Melbourne.

INTRODUCTION About ME

I developed a interest in architecure under my family's influence. I have a great interest in architectural history. Besides craft and design, I also have a passion in films, languages, photography and traveling. I've been to 25 countries already and have visited plenty of architectural masterpieces in person.

My architectural experience were mostly based on hand drawing and sketching. Because of doing a double major, I didn't get the chance to do lots of studios or fabrication workshop so that I have limited experience in digital design and fabrication. Studio Air to me is a huge challenge and also my first step into the digital design realm.

A.1. DESIGN FUTURING “Their(the idea of possible futures and using them as a tool of design) fictional nature requires viewers to suspend their disbelief and allow their imaginations to wander, to momentarily forget how things are now, and wonder about how things could be1.”

- Anthony Dunne & Fiona Raby

A

nthony Dunne and Fiona Raby stated that

Jobes once said: “People don’t know what they like

“when people think of design, most believe

until you show them.” It is also applicable in the

it is about problem solving. Even the more

architectural fields. Designers are to keep creating

expressive forms of design are about solving aes-

things that other people can’t think of and that the

thetic problems2.” Although I view architecture as

new ideas could possibily invoke changes to our

a great tool of providing human with comfortable

current way of life. It is the idea of possible futures

living spaces, architecture is more than fulfilling

and using them as tools to better understand the

the need of living and saving humans from over-

present and to discuss the kind of future people

population. Architectural design is more of imag-

want. There’s no certain answer what future will be

ing, creating and opening up minds than solving

like, but thinking radically and creating revolution-

problems.

ary design could make a start of exploring new typologies and hence instigate changes to the built environment.

1. Anthony Dunne & Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming (MIT Press, 2013) , 3.

2. Dunne, & Raby, Speculative Everything, 2.

CASE STUDY 1 AEQUOREA, The Floating City/2015 ARCHITECT : Vincent Callebaut PROGRAM : A multi-use oceanscraper printed in 3D from garbage LOCATION : The 5 Ocean Gyres and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil STATUS : Research & Development

T

he Floating City is a great example of design futuring in terms of its bold attempt in building architectures on places other than “land”. The design was inspired by the Jellyfish. The project is proposed for future refugees of current sea level rise caused by the global warming. It provides a possibility for human to live on the sea and can float around. The architect also proposed that the project will be made out of garbages and will produce zero carbon emission.

Although this project haven’t been built yet, this is a revolutionary and radical design at the time. It is not that important to discuss whether the project is built, becasue at the time when the architect pops up the idea, scientists and engineers would do research and investigate its feasibility. As long as there is a way of constructing it, the design insitgate changes to the world. Even if it is not possible to build now, it has already brought a new perspective of architecture to people. image source: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/24/aequorea-vincent-callebautunderwater-oceanscrapers-made-from-3d-printed-rubbish-ocean-plastic/

CASE STUDY 2 Walt Disney Concert Hall/2003 ARCHITECT : Frank Ghery PROGRAM : Concert Hall LOCATION : 111 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California U.S.A. STATUS : Built

D

ifferent from modern architectures that emphasized on the functional aspects and conventional design elements such

as right angles and grids, the concert hall broke away modernism and changed into deconstructivism. Deconstructivism first emerged in the 1980s, which encourages radical freedom of form. According to Curtis, deconstructivism is an “assemblage of different fragments1” that form unconventional spaces through the expression of fragmentation.

In this case, Frank Ghery started with some crude sketching to form an basic idea and then moved to 3D modeling through com-

puter programs. The design was to put different shapes and volumes of elemnts together to form an unconventional space.

The highly complex structure with a range of curved surfaces made the construction process a huge challange. With the aid of computer softwares and the employment of steel framed trusses, the Concert Hall was a huge succes. It was one of the first projects in the US that was designed with the aid of three dimensional model during the nighteen’s century. The project was pioneering at that time and has lead the trend of an unconventional design method. image source: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/24/aequorea-vincent-callebautunderwater-oceanscrapers-made-from-3d-printed-rubbish-ocean-plastic/

In order to explore more future possibilities and to step further in design futuring, a new form of design was emerged. Design computation is a new way of formulation and enables the creation of variations through the writing of rules or algorithmic procedures.

Although many people still view design computation as ‘just a tool’1, it can’t be denied that it has provided a new way of thinking and processing through the logic of the algorithms2.

A.2 DESIGN COMPUTATION

CASE STUDY 1 Lumen/2015

ARCHITECT : Jenny Sabin PROGRAM : tubular structures in a lightweight knitted fabric LOCATION : MoMA PS1 courtyard STATUS : Built

T

hrough design computation, architectures can now be performative and responsive to the natural factors. For in-

stance, the Lumen pavilion is a tubular structure made out of lightweight knitted fabric material.

It is socially and environmentally responsive to the densities of bodies, heat, and sunlight through using materials such as recycled textiles, luminescent and solar active yarns that absorb, collect, and deliver light1.

Computational design instigates architects to design in a more formulative way and create a more comprehensive outcome regarding complex situations. In this case, the Lumen Pavilion was generated through form-finding program that responses to the sun, site and materials. The computational design has now created a new path for architecture, that is towards biological and organic considerations other than functional and structural performance.

1. “Lumen,� Jenny Sabin, last modified 2017, retrieved from http://www.jennysabin.com/lumen/ image source: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/24/aequorea-vincent-callebautunderwater-oceanscrapers-made-from-3d-printed-rubbish-ocean-plastic/

CASE STUDY 2 Dragon Skin Pavilion/2012 ARCHITECT : Emmi Keskisarja, Pekka Tynkkynen, Kristof Crolla and Sebastien Delagrange PROGRAM : light-absorbing knitted textile pavilion LOCATION : Kowloon Park, Hong Kong STATUS : Built

T

he Dragon Skin Pavilion is a typical project that used computational design method to challenge and explore the spatial pos-

sibilities. The revolutionary digital fabrication technology has made the production of the pavillion more accurate and much easier through

precisely calculate the slots for the sliding joints under the instruction of the algorithmic procedures that were scripted into the computer in advance. The gradually shifting and accurate positions of the slots gives the assembled pavilion its curved form2.

the repetitive pattern of framework without the need of conventional on-site methods1.

The wooden rectangular pieces are to preheated and bent into certain shape. A computer programmed machinery would

It can be concluded that the fabrication of the Dragon Skin Pavilion was mainly based on the computerisation process. image source: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/24/aequorea-vincent-callebautunderwater-oceanscrapers-made-from-3d-printed-rubbish-ocean-plastic/

Computerisation is benefiticial to architectural design in terms of its accuracy and constructability. It is now emerging and also redifining architectural design. The digital tools are broadly used in helping to create more opportunities and potential in design.

However, computerisation and computational design are still distinctly different. Design computation is more of processing and formulation whereas computerisation is more likely to be the translation of ideas into outcome. Computation allows architects to extend their thinking abilities and computerisation simplifies the production procedues and increases the precision of drawings.

A.3 COMPOSITION/GENERATION

CASE STUDY 1 AA Driftwood Pavilion/2015 ARCHITECT : Architecture Association student Unit 2 PROGRAM : plywood pavilion LOCATION : London’s Bedford Square STATUS : Built

C

omputational tools have introducted innovative form-finding techniques that is revolutionary to the architectural prac-

tices. “Generative design”, “parametric design”, “algorithmic design” are all the terms that have been used to name the computational tools.

These techniques have moved conventional “form-making”principles to “form-finding”1.

The AA Driftwood Pavilion is a strip geometry that used sectioning as their main design method. The design focus on creating variations in the thickness of the geometry, articulations in the skin surfaces and the generation of the sectioning effect. Computational tools are very handy to use in order to achieve this effect.

The form of the pavilion is to be generated through form-finding programs, for instance, NURBS and Bezier etc. Thesse programs could offer a range of solutions and the designers could choose one of the best outcomes. After the poly-surface geometry has been created through 3d modeling softwares, designers could simply achieve section lines through offset and extrude a series of curves and deduct the components that are redundant. Computational tools has provided the digital design much more possibile solutions and made the fabrication a lot easier. image source: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/24/aequorea-vincent-callebautunderwater-oceanscrapers-made-from-3d-printed-rubbish-ocean-plastic/

CASE STUDY 2 The Morning Line/2008-2013 ARCHITECT : Matthew Ritchie PROGRAM : light-absorbing knitted textile pavilion LOCATION : Seville, Spain; Istanbul, Turkey; Vienna, Austria; Karlsruhe, Germany STATUS : Built

G

enerative designing can be seen in the Morning Line Pavilion in the way that

while maintaining architectural engagement.

biomimetic form was explored with the

aid of algorithm. The Morning Line Pavilion is a drawing in space where lines connects to each other to form a network of intertwining figures.

There is no single start or end of the line, but only movements around multiple centers that together trace out a dense web1.

The architect was trying to move drawings into the built environment and achieve an idea of accident and chancing counter

The Morning Line engages a strong dymanic between the forces of chance that might be able to control or not able to control.

To achieve the randomness, which is the theme of the design, architect explores all of the possible permutations of a solution to find the best option. image source: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/24/aequorea-vincent-callebautunderwater-oceanscrapers-made-from-3d-printed-rubbish-ocean-plastic/

Algorithmic and computational design technologies have definetely afffected how architects think and design nowadays. It offered new design paths for architects from form-making to form-finding and enabled the form generation of complexities.

As for my design approach, I intend to design stuff that will be sustainable and highly related to the environment.

Biomimicry is the design approach that I would probably be focusing on. Material performence is also something that I would explore. I'll probably be using illuminating materials that are responsive to the environment such as phosphorescent. The Lumen Pavilion would be a good precedent for me in terms of its comcept, form and material selection.

A.4 COMPOSITION/GENERATION

Part A has introduced new method of design and has updated my way of critical thinking. It has also allowed me to explore a range of innovative, generative architectural case studies. By practising algorithm sketchs, I could manage to build some complicated forms that I could only imaging through building algorithms.

A.5 LEARNING OUTCOMES

A.6 ALGORITHM SKETCHES

CURVE & LOFT

POINT ATTRACTOR

PAVILION

References

Dunne, Anthony & Raby, Fiona, Speculative Everything: Design Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Boston: MIT Press, 2013.

Curtis, Alex. Modern Architecture Since 1900, Oxford: Phaidon Press Limited, 1987.

Frazer, Alex. The Generation of Virtual Prototypes for Performance Optimization, Rotterdam: Episode Publishers, 2006.

Oxman, Rivka & Oxman, Robert. Theories of the Digital in Architecture, London; New York: Routledge, 2014.

Agkathidis, Asterios. Generative Design: Form-finding Techniques in Architecture, London: Lawrance King Publishing Ltd, 2015.

B. CRITERIA DESIGN B.1. RESEARCH FIELD

B. CRITERIA DESIGN

B.2. CASE STUDY 1.0 -The Morning Line -Iterations -Criteria selection B.3. CASE STUDY 2.0

During this Criteria Design section, I’ll be analysing case studies, evaluating, testing and selecting major options and develop a technique using computational methods through parametric modelling and physicalprototypes.

-Green Void -Reverse engineering B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT -Matrix -Criteria selection B.5. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES B.6. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL B.7. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES B.8. APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

B.1. RESEARCH FIELD -BIOMIMICRY

“Biomimicry is an approach to innovation that seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies. “ - Biomimicry Institute

A

nimals and vegetations are the “engineers” of the nature. After thousands of years’ evolution, they have faced challenges and solved problems in order to survive. For instance, fish has grown in this shape with fins is to swim faster and not get eaten by enemies. Their strategies were well-adapted and has been tested by time. Therefore, emulating the strategy of nature is an efficient way of achieving a sustainable and environmental friendly solution1.

stand and apply the principles behind into the design. The nature has provided humans enourmous inspirations.

We chose biomimicry as our research field becuase our group favors the idea from Romanesco broccoli in a way that smaller pieces are repeated to form up a whole.

Moreover, we want to propose a design that would provide functional usage

Biomimicry is not simply emulating the form to just look like it, but it is to under-

1. “Biomimicry,” Biomimicry Institute, 2017, retrieved from https://biomimicry.org/what-is-biomimicry/

ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion (2013-14) University of Stuttgart Image source: http://www.archdaily.com/522408/icd-itkeresearch-pavilion-2015-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart

T

The Morning Line/2008-2013

he Morning Line Pavilion is a space made up with lines connecting to each other to form a network of intertwining figures. Its idea of “continuous line” determines that there is no single start or end of the lines.

ARCHITECT : Matthew Ritchie PROGRAM : light-absorbing knitted textile pavilion LOCATION : Seville, Spain; Istanbul, Turkey; Vienna, Austria; Karlsruhe, Germany STATUS : Built

It reflects the idea of biomimicry in terms of achieving “randomness” through exploring all of the possible permutations of a solution to find the optimal outcome.

B.2. CASE STUDY 1

The morning line has similar characteristics to the Romanesco broccoli, however, with a bigger item truncated into smaller fractals as a whole structure. We think that this idea fits in the vaue of our site “CERES” as in people are the smaller components that gathers together forming up the COMMUNITY. Its idea of “randomness” but at the same time “continuous” gave us inspirations. We took the ‘continuous line’ concept as a means of pattern making and fractal extraction to find interesting shapes.

Image source: http://www.neo2.es/ blog/2008/09/the-morning-line/

ITERATIONS

SPECIES 1 Fractal Truncations Box Trucation,0.4, 0.6,0.4

Box Trucation,0.4,0.3,0.2

Truncated 5 sides pyramid Trucation,0.3,0.25,0.2

8 sides pyramid Trucation,0.45,0.3,0.2

Truncated 3 sides Trucation,0.3,0.25,0.1

5 sides pyramid Truncation,0.3,0.3,0.2

Truncated 6 sides pyramid Trucation,0.3, 0.6,0.6.

3 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.02 Eval. Pt.: 0.2 Seed: 11

3 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.02 Eval. Pt.: 0.6 Seed: -5

4 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.02 Eval. Pt.: 0.3 Seed: 15

4 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.03 Eval. Pt.: 0.6 Seed: -5

4 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.05 Eval. Pt.: 0.6 Seed: -5

4 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.03 Eval. Pt.: 0.6 Seed: -5

Geo-4 point non planar geometry Divide curve count 2 Pipe 0.01

Geo-Fractal Divide curve count 2 Point attractor unit xy 0.5 Pipe 0.01

Geo-Fractal Divide curve count 8 Point attractor unit xy 0.5 Pipe 0.01

Geo-tetra 5 sided shape_2 pt atra + false false false true

Geo-tetra 5 sided shape_2 point attractors + false true false false true true

Truncated 6 sides pyramid Trucation,0.3, 0.4,0.3

SPECIES 2 Piping 3 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.02 Eval. Pt.: 0.5 Seed: 11

3 sided segment tetrahedra Pipe Radius: 0.05 Eval. Pt.: 0.5 Seed: 11

SPECIES 3 Referencing Geomety Geo-Fractal Divide curve count 2 Pipe 0.02

Geo-Fractal Divide curve count 8 Pipe 0.02

Geo-Fractal Divide curve count 10 Pipe 0.01

Geo-Fractal Prep frames - Deconstruct plane Count 1 Pipe 0.02

Geo-Box Divide curve count 2 Pipe 0.01

Geo-tetra 3 sided shape_2 point attractors

Geo-tetra 5 sided shape_1 point attractors +cull true false false true true false true true true false

Geo-tetra 5 sided shape_2 point attractors + false false false true

Geo-tetra 5 sided shape_2 point attractors + false true false false true true

SPECIES 4 Gridshell Geo-tetra 5 sided shape_2 point attractors

1. Geometry reference

CRITERIA SELECTION & SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME

This iteration explores how a geometry is repeated along the continuous and consecutive lines. The referenced geometry is a non-planar surface which could be potentially used for flexible shading components.

Aesthetic Innovative Potential

Aim of Iteration The process of creating iterations were to explore the possibilities of the definition. By changing theexisting parameters, input geometries and options, the parametric modeling tool would produce unexpected outcomes, These investigations provide larger and push the capabilities of the definition.

2. Piping This iteration is great in its aesthetic and interactive performence. I can see the potential of children climbing on and crawling through it.

Aesthetic Innovative Potential

Selection criteria

3. Piping This iteration isn’t so good looking, but its form is absolutely

Four successful outcomes are to be selected from all the iterations for futher development. Therefore, development potential would be the major consideration of this selection. Responding to the site, innovative and interactive solutions in contrast with the site are to be selected. Therefore, the 3 selection criteria for Morning Line iterations would be:

unique and innovative that could be further developed into something striking.

Aesthetic Innovative Potential

-Aesthetic performance

4. Gridshell

-Development potential

This iteration is very different to the other iterations.

-innovative attribute Aesthetic Innovative Potential

3

B.3. CASE STUDY 2

“The shape of the installation is not explicitly designed; it is rather the result of the most efficient connection of different boundaries in three-dimensional space, which can be found in nature in things like plants and corals. We only determined the connection points within the space and the rest is a mathematical formula, a minimal surface.�

GREEN VOID/2008

- BioLAVA Asia Pacific Director Chris Bosse

ARCHITECT : LAVA PROGRAM : 3-dimensional lightweight-sculpture LOCATION : Central atrium of Customs House, Sydney, Australia.

STATUS : Built

image source: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/24/aequorea-vincent-callebautunderwater-oceanscrapers-made-from-3d-printed-rubbish-ocean-plastic/

T

he Green Void is a minimal surface tension structure that is freely stretching between wall and ceiling and floor.

tween man, nature and technology. This is exactly what we want to achieve on CERES Community park.

It is 20 metre tall and spans over 5 levels of floors. It is constructed with lightweight fabric suspended on stainless steel cables.We chose this structure as case study 2 because the structure provides an intense contrast to this heritage building and that is what effect we want to have on CERES site.

We chose this precedent because we knew we wanted to explore something in contrast to the geometric shapes and texurally rough materials on site.

According to the designers, the Green Void installation is inspired by the relationship be-

The reuslt may be curved, tensile forms.

It would be something interesting, striking, even unrealistic like the Green Void.

1. Create alternative meshes Either create a mesh in Rhino or reference a geometry in Grasshopper

GREEN VOID REVERSE ENGINEERING

2. Springs / Rest length Change the rest length is one way of smoothing the mesh

Use Boolean Union to get rid of the consercutive surfaces

Regular mesh

Consdidale mesh Weld Geometry

Custom mesh setting Chnage minimum quads

Divided edges into line

Object to have force applied Force objects

Length of line X slider = Rest length

Spring load is applied is applied to the forced objects

Construct mesh/ componants List which will be anchor point (Anchor points) Extract naked edges

Kangaroo mesh relaxation

5. Weaverbird panelisation

3. Mesh minimum quads Increase the number of mesh quads would furthur smooth the mesh

4. Anchor points / Kangaroo Mesh relaxation Could use the edge points or the divide curves to input the anchor points Could use “jitter” or “shift” or “cull” etc. components to get random sets of anchor points Can also bake the points and choose whichever points and move around

Use weaverbird picture’s frame and polylines to panelise the mesh and change the mesh into wireframe, which is fabricatable

Weaverbird panelisation

ITERATIONS

B.4. TEHCNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT 1 Alternative Meshes

2 Spring Rest Length

3 Mesh Minimum Quads

4 Kangaroo Anchor Points

5 Weaverbird Panelisation

MESH 1 REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 1.0/0.0

MESH 2

MINIMUM QUADS 30

ANCHOR POINTS JITTERED,J 1.0,SEED 2.0

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 20

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 0.125/0.9

MINIMUM QUADS 350

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFTED 10

WEAVERBIRD SIERPINSKI 1.0

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 1.0/0.0

MINIMUM QUADS 20

ANCHOR POINTS JITTERED,J 0.5,SEED 5.0

WEAVERBIRD STELLATE DISTANCE 0.219

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 0.125/0.9

MINIMUM QUADS 350

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFTED 3

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 20

1 Alternative Meshes

2 Spring Rest Length

3 Mesh Minimum Quads

4 Kangaroo Anchor Points

5 Weaverbird Panelisation

MESH 3 REST LENGTH FACTOR 0.9

MINIMUM QUADS 50

ANCHOR POINTS MOVED

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 10

REST LENGTH FACTOR 0.0

MINIMUM QUADS 200

ANCHOR POINTS MOVED

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 20

REST LENGTH FACTOR 0.9

MINIMUM QUADS 50

ANCHOR POINTS MOVED

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 10

REST LENGTH FACTOR 0.0

MINIMUM QUADS 200

ANCHOR POINTS JITTERED J 1.0, SEED 2.0

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 20

MESH 4

1 Alternative Meshes

2 Spring Rest Length

3 Mesh Minimum Quads

4 Kangaroo Anchor Points

5 Weaverbird Panelisation

MESH 5 REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 10/0.0

MINIMUM QUADS400

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFED+1

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 18, MESH QUADS 400

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 0.125/0.5

MINIMUM QUADS 600

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFTED -2

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 18, MESH QUADS 600

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 1.0/0.0

MINIMUM QUADS 200

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFTED +1

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 18, MESH QUADS 400

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 0.125/0.5

MINIMUM QUADS 400

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFTED -1

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 18, MESH QUADS 200

MESH 6

1 Alternative Meshes

2 Spring Rest Length

3 Mesh Minimum Quads

4 Kangaroo Anchor Points

MESH 7

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 10/0.0

REST LENGTH FACTOR E1/E2 0.125/0.6

MINIMUM QUADS15

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFED+1

MINIMUM QUADS 50

ANCHOR POINTS SHIFTED -2

5 Weaverbird Panelisation

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 11

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 35

WEAVERBIRD FRAME DISTANCE 100

1This iteration uses corner points from a cubic frame as the anchor points. Its forms looks harmonious. The

CRITERIA SELECTION & SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME

opennings are the cut off of the overlapping of two columns, which is quite innovative. It could be potentially used as a kiosk, but would be hard to construct.

Aesthetic Function Constructability

Aim of Iteration 2 This iteration is unique in its form with Kangaroo relaxation.

In this part of the iteration, we did a matrix that has both the basic mesh and also the input parameter as variable. We did a range of mesh relaxation and also changed input parameter for each of them. By doing that, we explore the possibilities of the definition.

By changing theexisting parameters, input geometries and options, the parametric modeling tool would produce unexpected outcomes, These investigations provide larger and push the

It looked like a curvaceous lady wearing a dress. However, it is rather weak interms of functionality and constructability.

Aesthetic Function Constructability

capabilities of the definition.

Selection criteria

3 This iteration is derived from the morning line. It has seperated the truncation and used jittered anchor points to create this randomness. It could be used as some interative space,

While experimenting the definition, I was aiming to create structure that would create interactive space as in the CERES energy park is a place where a lot of family gatherings take place. Therefore, we value the functional aspect of the pavilion. We also preferoutcomes that would have the potential to be fabricated. The selection criterias are:

however, fabrication would be a huge problem.

Aesthetic Function Constructability

4 This iteration is also derived from the morning line, which took out the continuous curve as the frame and create the

-Aesthetic performance -Function -Constructability

surfaces in between. This iteration is absolutely stunning in its from. It has the potential of being used as a sheter, pavilion, or a kiosk.. Best of all, it is relatively easier to fabricate.

Aesthetic Function Constructability

B.5. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPE

Panel connections

Waffle frame

We made a few prototypes to test the connections between

The panels on top would be fixed

the panels and the frame. The bottom two are the most suc-

to the frame for shading purpose,

cessful ones that would allow panels to flip when wind blows.

therefore, a waffle frame is preferred.

A few prototypes are made to test materials, constructibility and effects of our ideas.

Reflective material

Glow material brightness

The panels will be light emitting on only one

The color and birghtness of the glow material

side with the other side reflective material. The

are tested because they determines the effect of

prototype is to test the effect.

our glowing panels.

B.6. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

SITE ANALYSIS

Design brief To design a paramatric structure that is highly reponsive to the site parameter, provides shading during the daytime and lighting during the night-time.

Drivers (Site parameter)

Summer

Winter

Sun path CERES park opens from 9am-5pm. There are shading provided by existing vegetations.

Prevailing wind Most of the time, the wind comes from South, but the wind coming from North is faster and stronger.

Sun path & Wind diagram

Ac�vi�es & Circula�on

Site map & Loca�on of Pavilion

Activities The site is mostly used for gatherings on weekedns and educational purposes. Therefore, the main users are in groups (families, friends) instead of individuals. From our observation on site, there are lots of children playing football. Therefore, the location we choose must not disturb football playing and the shape of the structure and access channel must be safe for children.

Site loca�on

Site loca�on

Site Loca�on

Sun Path

Communal Areas

Si�ng

Sun Rise

Walking Trail

Standing Areas

Sun Set

Merri Creek

Children Playing

Wind

Surounding building

Circula�on - Foot Traffic

Contours

Contours

Contours

Metres 0

15

30

45

SITE SURROUNDING

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

FRAME (CONTINUOUS LINE)

(SURFACES)

MEMBRANE (MESH RELAXATION)

South East

Top The four elevations are different becasue the different sizes of mesh respond to different site parameter. The larger surfaces are facing the strongest mid-day sun to provide larger area of shading.

North West

DAY-TIME DESIGN STRATEGY -Environmentally responsive parametric controls -Sourcing inspiration from case studies

FORCES DRIVING OUR DESIGN -Keeping the space clear and open for existing activities including family gatherings, birthday parties, etc.

-Shading from the exposed northern midday sun -Frequent winds from north in winter and south in summer

South West

North East

-Existing Surrounding Programmes: Yoga, Teaching, Play, Crafting, Farming, Socialising

NIGHT-TIME Users’ experience The glowing panels draws people’s attention at night and attracts people to come around and discover. Being inside the pavilion would be a dreaming experience.

Gradient of glow panels The glowing panels absorbs sunlight during the daytime. Due to the sun path moving and that panels facing different directions, the panels are not evenly charged, so in real life they will be having different level of brightness.

Functional ornamentation Our intention was to design a kiosk/pavilion like structure that would fulfill the need for gathering events such as musical festivals.

The panels would be providing shadings during the daytime therefore the pavilion is a portable shade tail. The panels would provide shading The glow panels would allow the pavilion to be functional during the night as well. It could be used as a DJ booth

Design development We tried to involved everyone’s idea into our design and we intended to create an outcome that combines the ideas from the case studies we did. Using parametric tools to make our design responsive to the site parameters. However, our design was restricted by this continuous line concept and form that we dont have much potential in developing more interesting forms.

Prototyping Prototyping is different from previous model making. It is more of a testing of ideas, materials, constructibility and effects rather than conveying the whole project. Constructibility and fabrication is what we valued when developing the idea. As the prototyping goes, we encountered problems and that design is to be changed accordingly. In our case, we have experimented the connection joints to make sure it flips well when wind flows. We’ve also tested the frame, however, it wasn’t that convincible in terms of constructability, becasue we should be testing using the real material that we decide on for the final pavilion rather than this fragile material. Doing prototype as the way of building the real pavillion is how we could encounter problems and solve them. This is what we will be improving in Part C.

B.7 LEARNING OBJECTIVE & OUTCOME

B.8. APPENDIX - ALGORITHM SKETHCES WEEK 6 ARM FACE BUILDING (Image sampler) WEEK 5 Graph sections (Field)

WEEK 4 BOX MORPH

C. DETAILED DESIGN

C. DETAILED DESIGN

C.1. DESIGN CONCEPT C.2. TECHTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES Prototype 1 - Teeth joint (Perspex black & clear) Prototype 2 - Teeth joint (MDF)

During this Detailed Design section, I’ll be redesigning the project with a new concept , doing prototyping and creating a final model. As realised that we didn’t do well in Part B prototyping, we are going to design with constructability in mind, push harder in the fabrication part and prove that our design is constructable.

Prototype 3 - PLATE (MDF + TAMIYA Epoxy Putty) Prototype 4 - Tabs (Optix card) Prototype 5 - Tabs (polypropylene) Prototype 6 - LOOP INSERT (polypropylene) Prototype 7 - Eyelet Prototype 8 - Chicago screw Prototype 9 - String (Cotton/Elastic) Prototype 10 - Silver metal plate

C.3. FINAL DETAIL MODEL C.4. LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOME

C.1 DESIGN CONCEPT After playing with iterations and forms, most design decisions have been finalised in Part B. In Part C, the subject site has been changed, therefore, the whole project needs a new start. Our new project starts with the concept of

“GROW & GLOW”

In regards to CERES site, a communal envrionment park which advocates environment protection and sustainabillity. Therefore, we thought of making reference to the coral reef, which has been suffering from serious environment problems such as global warming.

The dead corals got bleached, which made them looks like “glowing” in the sea. It is a warning sign. We want to draw connection to this environment problem in our design by apply glow materials on strings to represent the bleached corals.

Image source: http://www.markgray.com.au/images/gallery/large/reef-dreaming.jpg

GROW & Starting with “grow”, it links back to our first research field: “biomimicry”.

Grow, literally means “growth”. It is a natural process of every lives including human, vegetation, and even cells. “Grow” reminds people of “youth and vitality”.

In terms of design, we intend to create an organic form that mimics and abstract our precedent “coral” and develop the structure through “growth”.

Something special about coral is that corals obtain the majority of their energy and nutrients from photosynthetic unicellular dinoflagellates in the genus Symbiodinium that live within their tissues. At the same time, corals allow other creatures to parastize and inhabitat on them.

Inspired by this special characteristics,, we want to design a pavillion that allows people to “parastize and inhabitat” on.

GLOW In terms of glow, many creatures are light-emitting themselves due to their biological characteristics so that they would be able to see in the dark sea, such as jellyfish, As we want our pavillion to provide lighting during the night, for both inside and outside the pavilion, we decided to apply glow material to strings. Expect for that, variations in the density of strings will take place responding to the site tectonics.

Image source: https://www.greenme.it/immagini/2017/informarsi/ambiente/barriera_corallina_greenpeace_1.jpg

SITE

- ORGANIC GROCERY

Bee Group

Merri Table Cafe

N

Food Forest & Chooks Van Raay Centre

Visitor Centre

Organic Grocery

Propagation

Honey Lane Market Garden

Nursery

Energy Classroom

Social Enterprise Village Rural

0

15

30

45

Metres

60

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

The original form comes from client’s preference of “umbrella shape”

Vary in size

Growth in width

Stretch on the side

Asymmetric

The hexagonal panalisation allows curvy surfaces through variation of sizes.

Thickness added to the skeleton

The facade provides better shading with point attractor changing the size according to the sun

“BIOMIMICRY”

This part focuses on the fabrication aspect of the project, therefore, buildability is one of the main concern. We have to prove that our project is buildable and to achieve that we need to experiment different materials, connection method and also fabrication tools. We managed to make a few fragment prototypes of the skeleton, cladding, connection and glow mateiral and use these prototypes to test whether the fabrication methods are sufficient .The process of testing, making different prototypes and solving problems and challenges encountered is documented.

C.2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES

PROTOTYPE 1 - TEETH JOINT (Perspex black&clear)

The first prototype that we made was the teeth joint made of black and clear Perspex.

As our project has the non-planar polygon as the skeleton structure, the major challenge that we faced was to define the angle between plates. At the stage, figuring out the method for the skeleton structure is the most important. Therefore, this prototype is just a starting point of testing the connection joint.

The results are quite good in terms of connection, but the main problem is that there’s too little friction in this material so that the connections are not stabled enough

PROTOTYPE 2 - TEETH JOINT (MDF) Due to the materiality of perspex, it is too smooth to make teeth joint. Therefore, we thought of another material which has bigger friction: MDF. We are aware that MDF is a material that is not environmentally friendly, which is not suitable for the site CERES. MDF is just used to test theconnection joint, so that materials with similar characteristics will have similar result and hence could replace MDF Our ideal material is all types of timber materials, preferably bamboo veneer.

However, the prototype didnt quite go well, Due to a tiny error in aligning the teeth, the whole plate failled to join another one. Therefore, we thought that it is not quite suitable for our project as it is getting extremely complicated and time consuming creating teeth joint for every plate, especially when a small mistake would ruin the whole project.

PROTOTYPE 3 - PLATE (MDF + TAMIYA EPOXY PUTTY)

MDF is a rigid material and we were qutie satisfied with the materiality from previous prototype. So again we used it to test the plate component of the structure. Holes are cut for furthur installation of screws.

We also tested a new type of quick dry adhesive - Tamiya Epoxy Putty. It is very simple to use. Simply just stick it and applies some water, it will quickly dry out and become rigid. It is strong, but it doesnt look so neat on the model.

Dried out Before usage

PROTOTYPE 4 - TABS (Optix card)

The fourth prototype that we’ve done was made of black Optix Card. The material is slightly thicker than paper, which would be considered as too fragile for a pavillion.

But we managed to test another type of facade, which is light-proof with some holes cut to let light in. We put sprayed-paint porlyproperlyne underneath two panels and the glow effect was excellent.

With tabs, it is pretty handy to make. We achieved this by using paneling tools on Rhino. It creates tabs automatically and we get to change the width and recession. Most amazingly, it automatically labels all the panels for us so that we know which plate is connecting with which. We created the tabs by putting dashed lines, so that it is easy for us to fold and at the same time doesn’t cut the whole tab off. By drilling wholes on the tabs, we are able to connect different plates by using screws or bolts.

We chose polypropylyne because its materiality allows it to fold the tabs easily. Moreover, the semi-translucent materiality is perfect for revealing the glow material underneath.

We are aware that polypropylene is not environmentally friendly, therefore, we intend to replace it using recycled plastics which has similar materiality.

PROTOTYPE 5 - TABS (POLYPROPYLENE)

PROTOTYPE 6 - LOOP INSERT (POLYPROPYLENE)

PROTOTYPE 7 - EYELET This connection joinery was insipired by the birthday cake hat, which you insert one end into another and forms a loop. The joinery are designed to be slightly wider than the dashed line, so that when inserted, the joinery will be locked.

Polypropylene works well in this connection becasue its materialiity allows it to twist a little so that the joinery could be inserted. However, the problem with this connection is that, it works well in small objects such as prototypes, but not with large projects

After comparing a range of screws and bolts, we found eyelet pretty suitable for our project. It is handy to use: just put one into another through the whole and use a hole punch to lock it. Then the connection is very secure.

The hollow inside the eyelet could also allow stings to go through.

However, the disadvantage of eyelet is that the thickness (3.5mm) that we bought wasn’t enough. It works perfectly fine on card, but doesn’t work on thicker materials such as MDF and Perspex

PROTOTYPE 8 - CHICAGO SCREW As encountered the thickness problem with eyelet, we tested another screw which is called Chicago screw or Interscrew. It has the screw on both ends. The connection is secured by simply screwing one end on another, Chicago screw has great tolerance to thickness and it works well with MDF and Perspex. It is a very effective connection joint and could definetly be used in final model.

PROTOTYPE 9 - STRING (COTTON/ELASTIC) For the light-emitting strings, we have experimented 3 tytpes of strings.

Cotton string seemed to be have better quality, but the doubled strings can get fluff. Shimmer string has better aesthetic value. It is also easier to make it into the shape we want, for instance, straight or folding. The problem with shimmer string is that it doesn’t absorb the glow material that well. However, shimmer string is still more suitable as it doesnt get fluff.

COTTON STRING (SINGLE)

COTTON STRING (DOUBLE)

SHIMMER STRING (SINGLE)

The glow effect was impressive. 1-2 hour’s natural light would be able to make the string glow brightly.

PROTOTYPE 10 - SILVER METAL PLATE

Although teeth joint wasn’t successful, we found another way to define angles between plates.

Inspired by hinge and also angle bracket, we bought an aluminium metal plate and managed to cut it into pieces. By drilling holes and connecting using Chicago screw,

The problem with the metal plate is that, it is very effective and stable in defining angles, but it is not stable enough connecting panels together.

Ideally, we would be purchasing angle bracket from bunnings for panel connection.

“10 PROTOTYPES”

C.3 FINAL DETAILED MODEL After the few testings with prototypes, we made our decisions on the final model.

Skeleton Material Optix Card works fine in prototypes, but it is too fragile to be used for a real structure. Thicker materials such as MDF (substituted with timber or bamboo) and Perspex is favored.

Connection The connection method that works best in prototyping is using Chicago screw to connect prolyproperlyne tabs to perspex skeleton plates and use metal plate to define angles between plates.

Glow material We decided to use spray paint can for the strings becasue it is easy to get and relatively cheap. However, the phosphorescent might not be sprayed evenly on the strings and would hence affect the glow effect. Ideally, we would like to use Dr. David’s phosphorescent string.

COST ANALYSIS

Connection

24 per panel 6 per panel

$780 $300

4 panel per sheet

$240

Polypropylene 0.6mm 600x600 (Recycled, assume half price) $4.7 ea

4 panel per sheet

$30

Shimmer string - $0.35/m

1.5m per panel

$26

10 can

$320

2 hrs printing 20 hrs constructing

$120 $300

5% of construction cost

$106

Chicago screw - $0.65 ea angle bracket - $1 ea

Skeleton Bamboo Board Natural 4.3mm 600x600 (25% discount) $25.30 ea

Panelisation

Glow Material

Glow Spray Paint 300g $31.9/can

Extra

Laser cut fee - $1/min Labour - $15/h Contingency - 5%

TOTLA COST ESTIMATED:

$2,222, say $2,200

DAY-TIME

We intended to create a “cozy, comfortable” atmosphere.

We expect people to be inhabiting the structure. With the curvy surface that fits with human spine, people could comfortably sitting or lying on.

Husbands could be able to get a nap on the pavillion while waiting for their wives who’s doing groceries. Children would be able to climb around. Lovers could snuggle with each other and feeling not only each other’s but also the pavilion’s embracing.

NIGHT-TIME

The night time use is mainly for gathering and events. Although might not be suitable for DJ booth as there’s no place for machine, it can be used as a night bar which people could grab one or two drinks.

FRONT

The technical drawings not only indicates the scale of the pavillion, but also shows how people use and occupy the structure.

RIGHT

LEFT

BACK

FINAL MODEL -

DAY TIME

FINAL MODEL -

NIGHT TIME

DIGITAL MODELLING The most significant improvement that we have achieved since part B would be the parametric design using Grasshopper. With the hexagonal panalisation, we were able to produce any forms with the same technique. It helped us generate forms which would best suit our site in terms of aesthetic value and site response. We’ve taken into consideration of site attributes, form-finding techniques, environmental sustainability and that algorithm modelling helped us to build a digital model with sophistication and variation.

PROTOTYPING Through the whole semester, the best thing that I’ve learned was to take into consideration of “constructability” and to fabricate the digital model into real ones. I didn’t understand the importance of fabrication until we encountered fabrication defects such as the teeth joints failled due to a minor error. I realised that the challenges and problems that we encountered during prototyping process could never be realised with everything done in digital modelling.

Therefore, prototyping really helped us understand the material and structure of our design. Most importantly, it keeps in mind the design restrictions and made us thinking about constructability through the design.

C.4 LEARNING OBJECTIVE & OUTCOME

JIN 2017