Ji Shi Research Portfolio 14-16 by Ji Shi

Research Projects 14-16 Ji Shi

Critical Manipulation /Ji Shi Architectural robotics, though novel in general, developed a safe side already. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m not in this side. Being safe is too dangerous. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m avoiding two things: a). applying robotics to conventional approaches arguing something is better; b). doing digital stuff and suddenly call it architecture at the last minute. My works are highly digital based, they are also highly architectural based. I believe that digital provides us with fundamentally different design approaches. In a more technical level, I believe in the value of physical things. My research is highly associated with physical prototyping and modeling, as well as study of materials. My obsession with machines gives me new perspectives when analyzing a problem, and new format of iterating a design. This portfolio presents my thorough reflect on several underlying questions of the filed, respectively the critique of dependency on high-resolution material in construction, new social scenarios of human-robot cohabitation, and the question of the function of machine. With a belief that digital computation actually has a larger value to architecture than the way it being used today, these researches are presented in this portfolio to remind myself that architecture involving digital computation should think thoroughly an entire set of questions that are as social, cultural, political as they are technological. The digital manipulation should be critical.

Contents Research In Robotics And Computational Design // Social Engagement Through Programming: A Room For A Head & Rooms In An Autonomous Community // Augmented Materiality: Robotic Controlled 3D Manipulation Of Chemical Reactions // Design Orientated Fabrication: Robotic Manipulated 3D Printing Based On Structural Performance

04 16 26

Design Projects // A Completely 3D Printed Pavilion // A Thermal Machine: Urban Canopy Kills Smog // Machine/Luxury: Re-Imaging Of An Artist Studio // Post-Human #1: A Knock Off City // Post-Human #2: Human Wiped Out By Robots

38 42 48 52 56

Appendix: A Digital Taxonomy Of Archi-Machines

Research In Robotics And Computational Design // Social Engagement Through Programming: A Room For A Head & Rooms In An Autonomous Community // Augmented Reality: Robotic Controlled 3D Manipulation Of Chemical Reactions // Design Orientated Fabrication: Robotic Manipulated 3D Printing Based On Structural Performance

Social Engagement Through Programming: A Room For A Head & Rooms In An Autonomous Community Architectural Robotics: More Than a Technological Issue! Robot assisting human construction work is not novel anymore. A lot of precedents1, either conceptual or realized, has demonstrated this scenario already2 . This section discusses the new social scenarios developed through the human-robot cohabitation. Under this notion, the definition of “architecture” here is far more than a passive spatial container, while the meaning of “robotic” doesn’t merely refer to a series of motion manipulation - architecture robotics has its own significance in both technological and social level. Antoine Picon argues that digital technology brings a new set of codification covering both social and technological filed, and under this circumstance the decision made by the designer is more important than ever before3. François Roche claims that machines are linked closely with our bodies and minds as well as our own biotopes or habitats4. There are more than enough handy digital tools available in design, the key is to believe that autonomous qualities 4

/* Fall. 2015, Princeton SoA. Individual work of ARC505B Design Studio Studio Professor: Axel Kilian All conceptual work, programming and prototyping done by author independently. */

1. The first “machine assisting human construction” scenarios can be found in Villemard’s 1910 drawings Chantier de construction électrique. The “first robot in real construction” dated back to 1984 when Shimizu Construction Company – one of Japan’s largest construction firms – applied Shimizu Site Robot-1 (SSR-1) to do the spraying of fireproofing of the floor (See T. Yoshida et al., “Development of spray robot for fireproof cover work” (paper presented at the 1st International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Pittsburgh, USA, 1984)). In the design filed, first robotic laboratory for the research of architecture design and fabrication was built in ETH Zurich, 2005, has contributed a lot digital fabrication work to the filed over the past decades. 2. This doesn’t mean robot assisting human construction is conventional. Actually, this scenario is also dramatically changing. Gramazaio and Kohler refer this change as a “second digital age” of architecture. “It is now possible to regard computer programming and architectural construction as con-

ditional upon each other, and to see their reciprocity as fundamental to architecture in the digital age.” (See Kohler, Matthias, et al. The Robotic Touch: How Robots Change Architecture. Park books, 2014.) 3. See Picon, Antoine, Emmanuel J. Petit, and Lucia Allais. “The ghost of architecture: the project and its codification.” Perspecta 35 (2004): 8-19. ”… buildings must obey an entire set of prescriptions that are as social as they technological.” And “When manipulation becomes so easy that it can cycle indefinitely, even without the direction of designers since machines can run all by themselves, the decisions actually made by this designer emerge thoroughly reinforced. Here again, this reinforcement plays in favor of a codification of procedures of design more advanced than ever before.” 4. See Roche, François, Camille Lacadee, and Stephan Henrich. “Psychaestenia.” Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design 2016. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 16-31. “…However, it seems very naïve to reduce the machine to this … purely functional and mechanical approach; limiting it exclusively to a Cartesian notion of productive power, located in the visible spectrum of appearance and fact. In parallel, machines are producing artefacts, assemblages, multiple associations and desires, and are infiltrating the very raison d’être of our own bodies and minds that are codependent on our own biotopes or habitats.” 5. Roche criticized the current use of machine as being overrated since some of them still remain in elaborating existing techniques as the extension of the hand, while at the same time being considered as something novel to architecture. Roche mentioned that “There are many machines, so many desirable machines that in fact pretend to do more than they are doing.” (Roche, François, Camille Lacadee, and Stephan Henrich. “Psychaestenia.” Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design 2016. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 16-31.)

embedded in these tools are capable of (and actually are) dramatically changing everyday social experience and creating fundamentally different living scenarios. What architecture robotics really brought into the filed is the opportunity to fundamentally rethink architecture design from bottom-up, instead of a magic box of moving/transforming/blinking/beeping accessories that can be added to architecture and make it “wow, amazing” all of a sudden5. Motivated by this notion, I consider architecture to be the initial physical setup which allows complex behavior to be developed by other equally important agents (algorithms, machines, robots, etc.)6. Only knowing the latter part is not enough since we can’t just adapt a random digital feature to building and call it architecture design. What considered as conventional architecture knowledge is still important (even more important) since it tells us which technology to choose, which social problem to deal with, etc.7. The following research-based project, “A room for head & rooms in an autonomous community”, aims to develop a human-machine cohabitation with a focus on the relation between human sensory awareness with architecture social implications.

6. Axel Kilian refers this physical initial set up as “physical memory” of architecture which provides space for algorithms to develop further complexities for the architecture. See Kilian, Axel. Defining digital space through a visual language. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000. 7. The emphases of physical setup here is nothing against the significance or the autonomy feature of digital and computation. The latter is equally important and being discussed a lot already.

Physically alter vision

Distance sensing (HC-RR04)

Vision repressed during heightened emotional states Vision fused with tactile sense during actual lived experience

Project 1: A room for a head The Room for a Head project aims to encourage social engagement. There are two basic social patterns, namely sociofugal and sociopetal, which further forms multiple social stereotypes. These prejudgments are produced mostly based on our vision inputs. What interesting is once vision is blocked, people are more sensitive in other channels. What we propose is a room on people’s head which decides when to block/open the vision channel for its owner. The project is a goggle-shape machine carried by people on their head. There are two sets of shades covering two eyes. These two sets of shades are controlled separately by two groups of servos . Two ultrasonic 6

^ // Physical prototype of “a room for a head“ proposal with conceptual collage of targets that aims to achieve > // Rule of interaction and different scenarios of this autonomous object. // Photos are the real demo of design

distance sensors are placed facing front left and front right direction. When the system works, it performs different patterns based on whether the distance sensor detected people inside the desirable communication range or not . If there are no existence of human, the shade will remain closed and this will force people to wander arbitrarily. Since people are not seeking their “communication partners”, we assume that fewer prejudgments and stereotypes will exist in the situation. And when there are people showing up while the host is wandering, the shades at the side where people appeared will be open. (the two groups of shades are controlled by two distance sensors separately). This drives people to turn to meaningful directions since there actually are people around. And when people have selected direction and go approaching each other, both of the two shades will open since both distance detection meet the requirements. And finally, people will enter a “allowed to talk” state after going through the “forced to wander” and “being directed” process, and this re-direction provided by the room on their head reduces negative social stereotypes and encourages social engagement. 7

Moment of private space

Moment of communal space

Avoid human failures

Project 2: Rooms in an Autonomous Community The Room for a Head setup was scaled up to a cubic room. 4 groups of shades are set at 4 vertical sides of the cube functioning as doors. And the overall setup contains multiple rooms placed next to each other in a field. There are totally 9 state variations for each door considering the combination of door states and agent states. For each corridor, there are totally 81 different states considering the combination of two doors on each side. These 81 variations are the physical memory of this setup, and they provide great freedom of transformation for the whole filed. The problem we want to solve is to flexibly change the configuration of the space, 8

// Physical prototype of â&#x20AC;&#x153;rooms in an autonomous communityâ&#x20AC;&#x153; proposal with conceptual collage of targets that aims to achieve

Physical Memory 1

Physical Memory 2

Physical Memory 3

// The combination of states provide great potential for further behavioral programming // The variations are encoded into digits

mostly based on the variations between publicity and privacy. The trade-off between public and private space is always considered to be a important topic of architecture. A lot of human failures occurred on this issue when people tried to solve a question which is beyond their intelligence . These qualities are so crucial that the best way to rule out human error is to leave this problematic issue alone and let it be designed by some smarter guys, namely computational algorithm. Although we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need to set up every possible situation, we still need to set a basic principle of interaction. The basic interaction rule focuses on encouraging people to meet while at the same time maintaining necessary privacy for each individual. 9

Interaction Modeled with Finite State Automata (FSA) Mathematically complete Permutation (81 states) Sensor: "00"=Neither Center nor Door sensor activated; "10"=Center Activated; "01"=Door Activated; Door: "100"=Close; "010"= Half Open Half Close; "001"=Open ID DESCRIPTION PRE-ID Encoded String AFT-ID SensorA SensorB RoomA RoomB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01

00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10 00 00 00 01 01 01 10 10 10

00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10 00 01 10

00000000 00000001 00000010 00000100 00000101 00000110 00001000 00001001 00001010 00100000 00100001 00100010 00100100 00100101 00100110 00101000 00101001 00101010 00010000 00010001 00010010 00010100 00010101 00010110 00011000 00011001 00011010 10000000 10000001 10000010 10000100 10000101 10000110 10001000 10001001 10001010 10100000 10100001 10100010 10100100 10100101 10100110 10101000 10101001 10101010 10010000 10010001 10010010 10010100 10010101 10010110 10011000 10011001 10011010 01000000 01000001 01000010 01000100 01000101 01000110 01001000 01001001 01001010 01100000 01100001 01100010 01100100 01100101 01100110 01101000 01101001 01101010 01010000 01010001 01010010 01010100 01010101 01010110 01011000 01011001 01011010

Not all permutations make sense, some of them are ruled out due to the architectural interaction scenarios. For example, the string “10100101” doesn’t make sense. It means both A and B are in the center of their room while both of their doors are half open. The doors don’t need to half open (or open) since none of them want to meet.

10 27

Architecturally meaningful Permutation (22 states) 27 28

Sensor: "00"=Neither Center nor Door sensor activated; "10"=Center Activated; "01"=Door Activated; Door: "100"=Close; "010"= Half Open Half Close; "001"=Open OLD-PRE-ID NEW-PRE-ID

28 37 37 37

* 47 47

47 63

63 67 67

1 10 18 19 27 28 36 37 38 40 46 47 54 55 63 64 67 72 73 74 76 81

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Encoded String 00000000 00100000 00101010 00010000 00011010 10000000 10001010 10100000 10100001 10100100 10010000 10010001 10011010 01000000 01001010 01100000 01100100 01101010 01010000 01010001 01010100 01011010

NEW-AFT-ID OLD-AFT-ID 0 1 1 4 4 5 5 7 7 7 11 11 11 14 14 16 16 16 21 21 21 21

1 10 10 27 27 28 28 37 37 37 47 47 47 63 63 67 67 67 81 81 81 81

*the string “10010001”, for example, should be comprehend as “10(agent state of room A) - 01(agent state of room A) - 00(agent state of room A) - 01(agent state of room A)”, which means agent A is staying at the center of room A while agent B is approaching door in room B. And the door in room A is close while the door in room is half-open.

67 81 81 81

< Interaction scenarios presented through Look-up table > Interaction scenarios presented through FSA model with actual spatial typologies visualized

00000000

00100000

00010000

00011010

01001010

00101010

10001010

10000000

01000000

10100000

01100000

10010000

01010000

10010001

01010001

10100001

01011010

10011010

01100100

10100100

01101010 The blue arrow means the subsequent string is caused by agent state change. The red arrow means the subsequent string is caused by door state change action.

01010100

Processing simulation

Lookup table (.csv)

Simulation of the scenario (with time-based agents program) Model: Finite State Automata (FSA)

Simulation Underlying agent system

Agent triggering states

Processing ---> Arduino Firmata protocol

Proposal implementation After a selection of architecturally meaningful states, 22 of 81 states are the real states for the possible spatial variations. We used a mathematic model known as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Finite State Automata (FSA)â&#x20AC;? to model the complex behavior in relatively simple programs by thinking the overall scenario as a combination of different states among which each state constantly jumps from one to another. Based on this model, we wrote a simulation program on Processing. A lookup table (.csv file) is imported to the program which contains all 22 encoded states and corresponding subsequent lookup item index. A time-based agent program is created to activate the state changes and let the program run autonomous12

// Processing simulation of the autonomous system

// Physical demonstration of the community in a model scale // The system is driven by processing simulation

ly. The Processing simulation shows multiple spatial differentials which can not be imagined through conventional architecture design techniques. A physical model that contains 16 units of rooms are made to demonstrate the different patterns generated by the Processing simulation. The rotation of the door is driven by servos controlled by an Arduino Mega. Since it is very hard to physically build an agents system which contains autonomously wandering individuals, we decided to use the Processing simulation to control the physical demonstration of the model. The communication between Processing and Arduino is done with Firmata library.

Further Speculation: Building’s Personalities Now the model can be described as a happy machine in which everything works perfectly just as designed – every time someone meets the requirement of doing something, the machine will let this thing happen. However, the machine can also enter bored state – even if you meet the requirement of triggering something, the machine may not respond to you since it is bored; The machine can also become angry - it will override the existed principles and do its own things no matter how you interact with it. Under autonomous thinking, architecture should have its own personality and the building is an equally important agent as human. Space is an active representation of building’s personality. 14

^ // Further speculative arguing the different “personalities” of the space > // Fragments comparing different “personalities“ of the space. // The embodiment of personality of space can be presented by multiple degrees of freedom (DOFs) of building

Personality of building presented spatially Personality of building programmed algorithmically

I’m confused...

I’m bored...

“I’m bored.” DOFs of “bored“ state door_1 state = 1 door_2 state = 0 door_3 state = 0 door_4 state = 0 orientation state = X furniture state = Y agent state = Z ... ... I’m angry!

I’m happy!

Augmented Materiality: Robotic Controlled 3D Manipulation of Chemical Reactions A Dematerialized High Resolution Does high resolution fabrication require high resolution material? Conventionally speaking, the answer is yes and this describes most traditional craftsmanship - a process that requires high level precision from the very beginning. And this indeed brings challenges to architecture since building contains a series of materialization process in multiple scales with different material. People have developed two solutions for this: On one hand, people have developed techniques that guide them going through this difficult process by making things as high resolution as they can1. On the other hand, people have developed a whole set of error-correction method, leaving reasonable redundancy for potential imprecision or deflection to compensate the low resolution fabrication process2 . And this actually implies how digital technologies were introduced into fabrication filed. On one side, with precise fabrication tools like Computer Numerical Control (CNC) or industrial robot, architects are capable of easily iterating the fabrication process and pushing the 16

/* Fall. 2015, Princeton SoA. Group work of ARC574 computing and imaging in Architecture, instructed by Ryan Johns Collaborated with Wan LI, Ivy FENG */

1. Stereotomy, for example, was the technique of stone cutting which helps people realize complex geometries. To design and realize delicate forms, Stereotomy is mainly planned and developed by using layout drawings, the so called ”traints”, which show the orthographic projection of typically complex and expressive stone structures. See Evans, Robin. The projective cast: architecture and its three geometries. MIT press, 2000. 2. Chinese traditional carpenters shared a proverb goes like “super tight joints for vehicles, very loose joints for buildings, push-to-fit joints for furniture”, which precisely described how people leave reasonable redundancy in different fabrication process as a response to the limitations caused by low resolution techniques. 3. There are a lot of digital fabrication work showing the pursuit of high resolution process. The MIT Sean Collier Memorial by Höweler +Yoon showed the combination of traditional stereotomy crafts method with digital manufacturing. The

precision of tools and the continuous re-calibration process produced final stone pieces that are within a 0.5-millimeter tolerance between the actual stone and the digital model; The fabrication of Passion Façade Narthex Columns of the Sagrada Familia basilica in Barcelona by Mark Bury (executive architect and researcher) used a 7-axis robotic saw to cut the stone with absolute precision within 1 millimeter. See Yuan, Philip F., et al. Robotic Futures. Tongji University Press, 2015. 4. In 2005, the world’s first robotic laboratory for the research of architectural design and fabrication process was built at ETH Zurich by Prof. Fabio Gramazio and Prof. Matthias Kohler. As far as I observed, among their primitive practice, the novel implications were largely associated with high resolution fabrication technique brought by robotics. The smoothness of parametric surface of the Programmed Wall (2006), the stability of the Structural Oscillations (2008) won’t be achieved without the super precise manipulation of the robotic arm. These projects are largely different from their later researches involving New Physic, algorithm codes and reality matters. See Kohler, Matthias, et al. The Robotic Touch: How Robots Change Architecture. Park books, 2014, pp. 25-99. 5. One of the most important principles of feedback control is to build reliable components from unreliable parts. To be specific, this notion relies on the closed loop control system in which newly occurred errors become part of input to the system and particular mathematic models (A proportional-integrated-derivative control model, for example) will process the errors and eliminate it to make the system stable. See Rowley, Clancy, Introduction to Feedback Control. Lulu, 2016, pp.1-20. 6. The Rob-Arch 2016 conference stressed the transformation from robotic fabrication to creative robotics emphasizing the integration of human-robot interactions informed by sensor input and real-time feedback under diverse environmental conditions. See Reinhardt, Dagmar, Rob Saunders, et al., editors. Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design 2016. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 7. See Kohler, Matthias, et al. The Robotic Touch: How Robots Change Architecture. Park books, 2014, pp. 9. 8. See Ibid. pp. 381-87. The difficulty here doesn’t simply refer to the functional problems brought by algorithm, code and language. It’s about the cultural significance that these technologies may obtain during the process that they are developed and used. These technologies, like the traditional crafts, are not ready-made for design

resolution to a level below 1mm3. This methodology has been tested and developed through the past ten years4 and has brought incredible achievements. However, on the other side, the control and feedback concept commonly used in automatic control system raised the question can we build “good” things with “bad” parts5? This inspires the fabrication process by introducing live feedback and interaction into the filed, and the focus is no longer the frozen model but the dynamic fabricating process. This tendency gradually became the current fashion of robotic research6, and the novel part of robotic fabrication is no longer about the industrial efficiency or the high-level resolution, but the intelligence that locates at somewhere else. In other words, we can say that high resolution features always exist, but has transformed from the obvious material realm to more invisible areas. Gramazio & Kohler claims the digitalization of architecture to be the dematerialization of architecture and argues that intelligence dissolves into the infinite realms of data flows and networks7. Hence, technology didn’t simply remove the resolution requirement. However, we are facing an equally difficult topic - a dematerialized high resolution8.

to solve a “bake-and-shake” problem. There must be a long and painful process of iterations before it can actually “make sense”, And this is where the resolution requirements locates and why they are difficult.

Low-res material Chemical Garden Study by Chemist

How much resolution can we get? ?

A high-rs fabrication High-res material

Setting up experiment in Embodied Computation Lab, Princeton University School of Architecture

Low-Res Machines To Iterates Design Concept In this experiment, we choose to use sodium silicate solution with a volume ratio of water: sodium silicate = 4:1. And we selected white color calcium chloride (CaCl2) as main reaction metal salts. The dominating feature of natural growth is that the chemical will always follows the direction of gravity - Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vertical. In order to control the formation of the crystal growth and transform it into a relatively high resolution form, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s crucial to get rid of the limitation of vertical direction. We also found that the growth is a relatively slow process and this gives us the window to control if we can slowly change the direction of the growth while the structure is growing. The hypothesis is: If we con18

// Setting up the experiment in embodied computation lab, SoA, Princeton University // Collage of the concept

Hypothesis of Control: An Analog of Alternating Gravity

Tested With A Low-Res Machine: Hypothesis Proved

Growth direction relative to base is oriented

Rack-pinion actuator

Maintain vertical due to the free convection of buoyancy Sodium silicate Metal salts

// A hypothesis about manipulating chemical growth direction // Using machine to iterate and prove the hypothesis

Tilt!

stantly change the orientation of this base plane, every newly grown structure is supposed to have a different angle compared to the previous ones. We designed a machine to test this idea. In the front is a platform carrying a vessel containing the solution and the chemical; in the back is a servo driven rack-and-pinion actuator which can tilt the platform by lifting one side up. This tilting mechanism constantly changes the orientation of the vessel hence changes the orientation of the base plane of the growth. It is analogous to growing the chemical under different directions of gravity. The experiment results proved our hypothesis that the direction of growth can be manipulated by re-orientation of the base plane level. 19

Ideal illustration

Actual machine

High-res Mahcines with More DOFs In order to use this concept and make more complex form, we need actuations that have more degrees of freedom (DOFs) instead of just doing 2D tilting actuation. We designed and calibrated a robotic setup for further experiment. We applied an ABB IRB 7600 Robotic Manipulator to implement the motion control. The end-effector of the robot is a mobile platform made with plexi. The end-effector works only as the base plane for the growth and is completely manipulated by the robot. Next to the robot is the working space, a desk was set as working object. An external material extruder was placed on the working desk next to the container of the solution. The extruder contains a push-pull solenoid actuator which is programmed to constantly hit a funnel fixed on a cantilever slab. The funnel contains the chemical and when being hit, the vibration of the funnel will make the chemical dropping into the solution. Apart from these, there are also tools and materials for solution refilling, filtration, photo/ video documentation, etc. 20

A previous iteration

Detail

push-pull solenoid Dropped chemical

Ideal illustration

Actual machine

Most crucial: dropping point

ROBOT & END EFFECTOR 1.1 ABB IRB-7600-400 Robotic Manipulator (Courtesy of Princeton SoA Lab) 1.2 Adapter for Robotic End Effector (Courtesy of Princeton SoA Lab) * End effector was mounted with double 40mm t-Slot Track. 1.3 End Effector (Material : 1/8’’ transparent plexi) * A mobile platform for crystal growth. 1.4 Metal Mesh on the platform (Material: iron) *Metal mesh provided more friction for crystal 1.5 structure to attach. Origin Point of End Effector (Central point of the platform) *This point was measured by robot and reentered to the program *Tool data absolute coordinates [96.81, 32.55, 604.56] (Exp. Jan.22 2016) CHEMICAL REACTOR 2.1 300mm*300mm*300mm Solution Container (Material: 1/8’’ transparent plexi) 2.2 78000 ml Sodium Silicate Solution (Water : Sodium Silicate = 4:1)

2.3 Solution Level Height: 260mm (Relatively to the work object coordinates system) 2.4 Chemicals Dropping Point *Dropping point work object coordinates [100,150,260] 2.5 Work Object Coordinate System Origin (XYZ Vector as showed) *Absolute coordinates of this origin [-1374.60,915.50,559.50] (Exp. Jan.22 2016) EXTERNAL MATERIAL DROPPER (Showed in Fig. Detail) 3.1 Central Control Circuit and Battery *Arduino UNO R3 + 1602 LCD Screen + 3.2 Breadboard + 4 AA Batteries Material Dropping Control Panel *Potentiometer + Press Button + 2 9V Batteries 3.3 Solenoid Push & Pull Motor 3.4 1st Material Funnel (Material: Plastic) 3.5 Bendable Connection Pipe (Material: Plastic) 3.6 Small Cantilever Piece as a Spring (Material: 1/8’’ MDF) 3.7 2nd Material Funnel (Material: PVC) 3.8 3rd Material Funnel (Material: Paper)

3.9 Base, Frame & Support of the External System (Material: 1/4’’ MDF) 3.10 Support of the system (Height Adjustable) DOCUMENTATION 4.1 Front Light with a Studio Light (Courtesy of Princeton SoA) 4.2 Nikon D300s Camera to Take Images of the Fabrication 4.3 Back Light with a Studio Light (Courtesy of Princeton SoA) 4.4 Frame of Backdrop (Material: 30mm t-Slot Track) 4.5 Backdrop Cloth (Material: Cloth. Color: Black) WORKING AND MAINTENANCE 5.1 Selected Chemicals of the Experiment *Chemicals including xxx. Purchased from xxx 5.2 Water Pipe for Purifying the Solution after Experiment 5.3 Wasted Solution Container 5.4 Clean Water Bucket 5.5 Other Tools Used in the Experiment Table (Work Object Base)

Start directly from toolpath and iterate it thourgh machine test!

end

Initial input

The forth iteration of growth

All 7 iterations of growth

Stari Design With Toolpath And Iterate During Fabrication We drew a 3D spiral curve in Rhino and converted it into polylines with 7 segments. For each segment, the normal plane about this segment is extracted at the end point, which implies the correct orientation of this segment during growth. As shown in diagram, the key is to orient the preceding base plane to rest level with the top of the solution in Z-axis while keeping it under the material dropping point. So, the preceding segment is in vertical orientation and can be grown based on the natural growing pattern. Since in the experiment we are always manipulating the base plane of the first segment, which is also the plane of the end-effector, we need to figure out where this plane should go and this decides the toolpath of the robot. So, we compared the orientation differential between the preceding base plane with the very first base plane, and orient the preceding one to level under the dropping point. The overall motion of the robot is about repeating this orientation method for every segment in the growth. 22

Fluffy edge: Limitation of this method

The central axis of the result matches the digital model

Fillets edge: Limitation of CNC-milling Precision is always a relative definition.

Photo of fabrication

Screenshot of digital animation of the motion of robot

Precise Core vs. Fluffy Edges The most obvious achievement of this research is that the final outcome of the experiment showed great formal coherency with the digital input. This can be observed if we extract the center axis of the overall from and compare to the ideal curve we drew in the Rhino model. We consider the result to be a relatively high resolution outcome compared to all the original material experiments we did at the beginning. And this has largely proved our hypothesis that we can fabricate a relatively high resolution form using loose and low resolution material. The crucial part is the precise and smart work-flow with machines and robots that helps compensating the imprecision of the material itself. 24

// “High resolution“ of the central axis, “low resolution“ of the exterior edges

Uncontrolled growth result

Controlled (robotic manipulated) growth result

// This method makes the selective chemical formation much more controllable conpared to the previous uncontrollable result

What remains interesting is the edge of the growth, which still remains to be largely uncontrolled and low resolution. These blurry edges are the result of multiple reasons due to the experimental conditions of the chemical reaction , and it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t weaken the obvious implication of the precise central axis of the overall form. Also, even for well-developed fabrication tools, CNC for example, the close up look of the edge is always not as satisfying as the overall form. This is the limitation of the tool/material itself and is definitely part of the pursuit of fabrication, but apart from this part, the method of controlling the whole system is where the big potential locates and is the thing architects should design with. 25

Design Orientated Fabrication: Robotic Manipulated 3D Printing Motivation There are two types of machines - standard machines and non-standard machines. The computer numerically controlled (CNC) fabrication tools, such as routers, mills, or laser-cutters are standard machines. They are not intelligent devices though containing a series of complex physical execution. These machines have been adopted in the architecture realm over the last decades. On the contrary, architecture design and production are also obsessed with non-standard machines since they open up new possibilities which make a direct link between architectural objects and specific given objects. Today, architects focus on another approach of machines, namely the industrial robots. The commonly used 6-axis articulated arm robots, though containing complex control program, are not intelligent device either. They are also programmable machines with similarities to CNC – both of them show the universal qualities that can perform multiple jobs following similar procedures. However, the industrial robot has more freedom of being equipped with non-standard tools, commonly known as end-effector. This makes robotic fabrication different from CNC machine fabrication – the former focuses on the actual physical fabrication process while the latter focuses only on the control of movement.

/* Aug. 2014, Shanghai. 4 week group work during “Digital Future” Shanghai Summer Workshop Project team led and instructed by Lei YU, collaborated with Xun LIU, Ruihua LUO, Yuqi CUI. Fabrication work assisted by Archi-solution Workshop (AsW) and Digital Lab of School of Architecture and Urban Planning (CAUP), Tongji University. Related Publications: Yuan, Philip F., et al. “Robotic Multi-dimensional Printing Based on Structural Performance.” Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design 2016. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 92-105.APA Yu, Lei. “Intersection or Complementation - Robotic Technology in Autonomoy of digital Tectonics.“ Architecture Journal. 552(2014):32-33 https://vimeo.com/117134365 */

//Conventional fabrication oriented process: 3D printing work as a closed black box

//Design oriented process: 3D printing work as open hackable design process

Self-supported printing (ABS)

Structure reinforcement strategy inspired by spider thread

Microscopic structure of spider thread

// Printing experiment of spider-net structure // Collage of concept

New Printing Nozzle Inspired by Nature The research aims to develop a new 3D printing strategy other than the generic fused deposition modeling (FDM) typology. The key is to rethink the printing process as something more than the linear extrusion of material. We found spider web very inspiring since each thread actually contains more complexity than its simple look from macroscopic view. A spider thread is normally made up of two parts, respectively spindle-knot and joint. These two parts have different structure patterns which work together to guarantee the overall structure performance of the cobweb. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proved that this sectional morphology makes the strength of thread four times stronger than that of steel in the same diameter (about 1/10000 mm). This fact gave us the idea of making the extrusion forming a 3D spatial structure instead of a 2D linear structure. The additional sectional reinforcement will compensate the bending moment of the linear structure and as result brings better structure performance. We extracted the microscopic morphology of the spindle-knot and decided to 28

// Study of different section typology using finite elements structural analysis

add multiple sinusoidal-shape auxiliary thread along with the main thread. In this way, the overall sectional area is increased, and we assume that the overall structural performance will be improved. In order to figure this out, we did a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) in Autodesk Simulation Mechanical. The typologies are set as following: Type-A: linear (un-reinforced); Type-B: single reinforcement at 180°; Type-C: single reinforcement at 0°; Type-D: double reinforcement at 0° & 180°; Type-E: triple reinforcement at 0°, 120° & 240°; Type-F: triple reinforcement at 60°, 180° & 300°; Type-G: quadruple reinforcement at 0°, 90°, 180° & 270°. Two simulations were created: a point load of 200N vertical force and 40 N·m external torque. By comparing the deformation (deflection and buckling) of Type-A (linear unreinforced type) with deformation of Type B-G, as well as comparing the material consumption, we can conclude that Type F (triple reinforcement at 60°, 180° & 300°) is relatively better than other typologies.

Nozzles angle 1: Open

Nozzles angle 2: Close

Crucial component: turn plate

Precise Core vs. Fluffy Edges Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intuitive to draw a rough sketch of the end-effector - one fixed printing nozzle in the center and three pivoting printing nozzles around. The key is to design a mechanical system that controls the motion of these nozzles. We decided to use only one stepper motor to drive the system while using a set of linkage systems to coordinate the motion of all three pivoting nozzles. The final end-effector design is done after several iterations. The core component of the system is a hexagonal turn plate with petaloid fillet comers slightly sticking out of the main part. The outer boundary of this sophisticated shape traces a sinusoidal curve. The turn plate is linked to a stepper motor sit on its back through an embedded gear system. Each auxiliary nozzles sits on a pivot which has direct physical contact with the turn plate. When the whole system works, the rotation of the turn plate pushes the pivot back and forth (the pivots have spring mass to push back). This oscillation pattern is associated with the shape of the turn plate. In this way, the pivots 30

work as angel switches which can be controlled to open and close. If we â&#x20AC;&#x153;unrollâ&#x20AC;? this oscillation through time, the trace of the nozzle will show the sinusoidal pattern. The nozzles use standard 3D printer component which contains heating module and temperature sensor inside. Since there are four printing nozzles placed in a very close position, the commonly used cooling typology are neither capable of efficiently cooling the whole system down nor being able to fit in the relatively small space. So, we applied an air compressor to provide compressed air from an external source and used tubbing and fittings to guide the air towards right position. All the material delivering systems apply same principles used in conventional 3D printers, but they are integrated in a compact external station with LED screens allowing people to control different variables. The non-standard end-effector was carried by a KUKA KR6 R900 sixx robot. We setup the robot inside an aluminum framework which helps to stabilize the robot. This framework represents the intention of integrating all machines into a work station which provides designers with unique design experience. 31

More (non-standard) DOFs The toolpath was generated using KUKA|prc on Grasshopper platform. As the first prototype, we controlled most variables manually. The work-flow goes as follows: we manually set the printing temperature and pre-heats the nozzles. And then we switch on both extrusion steppers and air compressor, and now the nozzles on the end-effector starts printing out the material; Meanwhile we need to quickly switch on the rotation of the central turn plate before the material jams the nozzle; And after making sure every step is done correctly, we can run our code (.src) of robot. After several iterations of the test, we found this process implying much more degrees of freedom (DOFs) than we though. The speed of the robot influences the shape of the section in a large degree. For example, if we want to print a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sâ&#x20AC;? shape structure, we better slow down the robot when it approaches two turning points. The slow printing speed makes the sectional oscillation denser near this point and better structural performance is created. The cooling air is also a crucial issue, the pressure of the air 32

// Industrial robot being integrated into a work station

compressor and the distance between the air nozzle to the printing nozzle are very critical things. The ideal situation is the printed structure being “frozen” once they go out of the nozzle. In practice, the weight of the printed segment influences the preceding printing as well. Imagine we are printing a “U” shape, the more we go to the end, the more dragging force there will be and this influences the printing quality. If we consider the common concept of degrees of freedom (DOF), the KUKA KR6 R900 sixx has 6 DOFs already. Different Number of printing nozzles (the nozzles can be switched off separately) provides another 4 DOFs. The rotation speed of the central turn plate (the motion of the linkage system) is another DOF. The cooling air condition also provides a DOF as well. So technically speaking, there are totally 12 DOFs of this system. I’m not arguing the more DOFs , the happier we are. But it worth knowing that apart from the existing 6 DOFs of the industrial robot, we have equally valuable space to design with. The real potential of robotic fabrication appears once we open up this non-standard area. 33

A Functional and Performative Machine! A important quality of this research is that the integrated robot station is as performative and representational as they are functional. We want to show the personality of the machine, for example, the machine requires people to run around switching on/off different switches, the different color of printed material in relation with different printing patterns, etc. Our machine doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to be universal, like a new factory technique that can be quickly adapted to multiple designs. Factory process is supposed to be hidden - itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s generic and predictable. The printing process in our machine is supposed to be exposed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it works as a clue telling people that the manufacturing process can be altered, what 34

// the end effector prints structure with desirable structural performance as well as a enjoyable visual effects

// Exhibition

used to be considered as rigid and boring actually can be done through a more recreational and performative way. What we presented at the final review was several live demonstrations of printing process. We think the meaning of the machine itself is as important as what it can produce. The machine here is like a novel work station - it neither falls into the trap of conventional factories which are separated from designers and placed far away, nor works as highly un-hackable 3D printers that are placed just next to designers but provides limited accesses. This station shows an integration of design and fabrication process in which the idea can be implemented through a programmable and visible process.

Design Projects // A Completely 3D Printed Pavilion // A Thermal Machine: Urban Canopy Kills Somg // Machine/Luxury: Re-Imaging Of An Artist Studio // Post-Human #1: A Knock Off City // Post-Human #2: Tech Is Gonna Die And End Up In Museum

A Completely 3D Printed Pavilion // completely 3D printed. // span of 5.5m with highest point reaching 2.4 m // Rhino Vault form finding // Silk worm printing path

Summer, 2015, Shanghai. 1 month work shop organized by Digital Architecture Design Association (DADA), China Project led by Lei YU (AsW), Collaborated with incredible team: Zhongyuan LIU, Yidong MA, Yuan YAO,Yijiang HUANG, Yang LIU, Qingyu LIU, Zhaohua ZHENG, Xiaofei WU, Ruihua LUO.

<^ < ^^ ^

Overall form further optimized into 166 panels Close up view of special printing path generated using silk worm 3D printed material created a semi transparent effect under sun light Close up view of the vault

A Thermal Machine: Urban Canopy Kills Smog // design for real problem in real site with real technology // 100% natural driven by solar chimney // efficient pollutant removal by GPAO method // minimum demolish and light structure by ETFE pillow and tensile membrane

Spring, 2016, Princeton SoA. Individual work of ARC506A Design Studio led by Professor Alejandro Zaera-Polo Technological support and consultant by INFUSER, Denmark. Special thanks to Prof. Matthew S. Johnson, AIR-Lab, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

satellite image of smog in Beijing

wind velocity analysis of site

wind profile data at height of 2m

patent of GPAO system

pollutant removal of atmosphere

schematic diagram of GPAO

technical diagram of GPAO

Lab of INFUSER

GPAO reactor

Ozone generator in GPAO

solar chimney in Manzanares

building ESP system

< ^^ ^

Technology catalog of this project Machine system and architecture systems of the canopy Technology catalog of purification process

< ^^ ^

Design of air diffuser (end of the purification system) Spatial axon of the canopy Mechanical/ structural axon of the canopy

Machine/Luxury: Re-Imaging Of An Artist Studio // the interior design project existed already. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m re-imaging it. // exam how representational drawing can push design thinking without an functional goal // combine machine aesthetics with high-end luxury aesthetics

Summer, 2016, New York. Intern work in KERMANSHACHI Design led by Donn Kermanshachi This representational drawing is based on the built project done by Kermanshachi

< ^

Photo of the built project Re-imaging the vanity into highly mechanical and luxury product.

Post-Human #1: A Knock Off City // a data base of digital taxonomy // dis-assembly -> re-assembly -> knock off

Spring, 2014, Tongji CAUP, Shanghai. studio project of Tongji-RPI joint studio led by Kyle Stover (RPI) and Hongwei LIU, Wei WEI (Tongji) collaborated with Erica Barrows (RPI)

a simple heart. DOGMA. 2002

stop city. DOGMA. 2007

non-stop city. Archizoom. 1969

Universitat PolitĂŠcnica de Valencia. L35 Arquitectos. 1974

centre of Frankfurt-RĂśmerberg. Candilis, Josic, Woods and Scheidhelm. 1963

Free University of Berlin. Candilis, Josic, Woods and Scheidhelm.1963

walking city. Archigram. 1964

plug-in city. Archigram. 1964

A knock off city a city coming from no where

< ^^^ ^^ ^

digital taxonomy of existing urban strategies re-assembly knock off city. interior view re-assembly knock off city. aerial view re-assembly knock off city. exterior view

Post-Human #2: Human Wiped Out By Robots // we actually know things or we just donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know that we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know things? // unpack digital through speculation // design through narratives and story-telling // representations through high-resolution digital drawings

Spring, 2015, Tongji CAUP. Individual undergraduate thesis advised by Ercument Gorgul

HUMAN

library: human intellegience

office: human productivity

conventional logistics of efficiency

technology boom and left in warehouse

artificial landscape

are we happy?

human-machine cohabitation

new power

new non-human control center

more new non-human things

factory: human productivity

conventional museumology

human democracy collapse

human space minimized

fase assistance by robots

special space for robots

huamn rely on machines

are we still happy?

large non-human dominant objects

POST-HUMAN

autonomous robots

a totally digital void field

Following story assumes that “human being wiped out by technology” scenario has happened. First, human lost productivity. Lots of spaces which were considered to be crucial became useless. Office, factory became nothing but for memorizing. They became museums. And after loosing productivity, human lost authority. Human intelligence was gone. So as human democracy and politics. New spatial and political architecture was created. It was a filed for fast-iterating technologies - what we once considered to be “Yey! Amazing!“ suddenly died and were left behind in warehouse. This formed a new type of museumology. It’s cool. We were happy. Then, there was a short period during which human and machine lived together. We thought we were controlling technology, we drew this conclusion based on what we have learned through past thousands of years. And we were still happy. However, machines are able to and more likely to learn. They are good. They are better than us. “Yey! Amazing!“ suddenly switched to “What’s going on?“ Suddenly we found we have built up a machine-oriented society. These architecture were non-human already. And we don’t even know we are confused by this. Finally, we unconsciously developed a both physical and socio-political structure for non-human occupants. And in their side, they finally became autonomous. We ended up in prison of technology and being controlled by technology that we created and once worked for us. < ^

post-human narrative through drawings post-human narrative through story-telling

Appendix

A Digital Taxonomy Of ArchiMachines

Name: goggle #1 Description: block vision

Name: goggle #2 Description: block vision better

Name: floppy room Description: door open/close autonomously

Name: less floppy room Description: door open/close autonomously

Name: tilter Description: continuously tilt to mix things

Name: dumb dropper Description: drop things through shaking

Name: better dropper Description: drop things by better hitting

Name: mirror sets Description: to reflect light?

Name: 4 nozzle extruder Description: 4 nozzle extruder

Name: platform #1 Description: a platform for material test

Name: platform #2 Description: another platform for test

Name: aperture #1 Description: shade close/open for fun

Name: soft #1 Description: a thing that can stand

Name: soft #2 Description: a thing that can move

Name: funny walker #1 Description: walk awkwardly

Name: soft #3 Description: a thing that can contract

Name: set for 6 power sockets Description: a set for 6 power sockets...

Name: air manifold Description: an air manifold...

Name: humidity cube Description: a cube with moisture sensor

Name: creepy air diffuser Description: air diffuser on column

Name: LED blinker #1 Description: super bright led

Name: LED blinker #2 Description: work like lightning

Name: electro-filed generator Description: generate adaptable fields

Being Digital Winter, 2016, Princeton SoA