journal B

Architecture Design Studio: Air | Part B Journal Semester One, 2015 Jaime Lee

B1. RESEARCH FIELD

Departing from the research-based exercises completed in part A, it has come to a stage where things are put into practice and it’s the initial process for finding a form for the main design project in part C. A research field was required to be chosen to focus on for the design and since there were quite a few availble for picking, I personally have kep an open mind about each field and am flexible for any change of minds later on in the process.

The research field I chose for this sectiion is material performance, this form of algorithm has been featured in one of the weekly tutorial videos and it was more appropriate and comfortable for myself to start off the section with something relatively more familiar while still getting the hang of manouvering in Grasshopper.

Material performance puts focus on the outcome of forms under the influence of forces such as gravity and lateral forces, using computational designing softwares like Grasshopper is particularly beneficial in producing such forms as more precision to the outcome can be obtained, while also giving more control to the designer in choosing how the forces could act, exploring unexplored

possibilities at a distinctively more efficient time frame. The case study chosen to explore this scope of technique is the installation art, Voussior Cloud designed by Iwamoto Scott. The geometry and form of this installation is generated through computational techniques as the arcs , which are the main outstanding features of this artwork are generated through inputting the base geometry and anchor points then inserting gravitational forces to observe the effects it’s influenced what would have been a rigid and planar form. This introductory exercise reinforced the conclusion summed up in the research based part A of how computational designing softwares should act as a tool to push architectural forms and structures, to use ‘the greater mind’ to assist designers in achieving unpredictable yet utterly controllable outputs. Another up side of such that have not been thought of before this case study is the ability to check if a form is actually practical and would perform the way designers expected them to perform, this takes out a lot of guess work or extra research in a design process .

Varying Column Sizes

scale-base factor mvmt

Varying Point Positions

# of points scale-base factor mvmt

Mesh Bending

Mesh Thickening

6 arcs

distance offset type

1 arc

2 arcs + Mesh Blur

B2. CASE STUDY 1.0 Case study 1.0 is a foundational exercise in producing unexpected outcomes of a definition using Grasshopper. The project chosen is the Voussoir Cloud by Iwawmoto Scott, the forces applied through Kangaroo physics in the process of generating a form created very smooth and expressive outcomes and in this exercise I would like to generate something that is unrecognisable in a way that the emotions projected by these forms are more rigid and ‘dangerous’. The first two species generated are variations using the mesh produced before Kangaroo Phyiscs was applied, the Patching

changing of points, sizes of the base and their cooresponding movements on the Z axis have achieved a series of forms that look different yet hints of the original form can still be seen. These two species of generations allowed a clear observation in what the definitions in this algorithm are doing, hence being able to push the forms further choosing other definitions to input such as, mesh bending and thickening and weaverbird etc.

span flexibility

Weaverbird’s Sierpinski Carpet

distance inset type

SUCCESSFUL ITERATIVE SAMPLES Selection Criteria 1) Aesthetically appealing 2) Grant designers control over the form 3) Flexibility 4) Practicality The four selection criterias are general guidelines when deciding when to settle on a final outcome and what, to me, defines a ‘successful’ output. Aesthetically appealling should be in all selection criterias of designers as design is all about visual communication and what’s pleasing to the eyes. Granting designers control over form is equally important especially in the world of computational design.

Outputs can usually go all over the place when too much information is inputted and sometimes designers lose the control they are suppose to have in order to alter, reproduce and improve their designs. Flexibility is somewhat similar to the control the form gives to its designer, having more control means more flexibility, the lack of development in a form would result in possibly a not-too-interesting design.

The last criteria is the practicality of it. This architecture studio requires a physical fabrication of a generated form, converting something digital to physical, allowing actual experience and touch can be quite a challenge, hence it is crucial in selecting forms that potentially is fabricatable.

Outcome of the mesh bending definition. Different locations of arcs and amount of arcs have been inputted and put into trial for a successful form production. A ‘successful’ outcome is deemed to be controllable and practical in a sense that it can be potentially fabricated.

The above output form, to me is a very sleek and simple with a twist. This is also the first time for myself in using this definition and the ability for it to generate unexpected forms is quite high and therefore I find this iteration successful.

The mesh thickening definiti series of inputs and this is th terms of it’s versatility while its original form. This outpu fabricatable and that more d done. The factors affecting distances, the offset type an form shows the output of a explains it’s recognability

ion has been added to the he most outstanding one in still holding some traces of ut can be seen potentially developments on it can be this series of outcome the nd also the mesh itself, this small offset distance which of the pre-derived form.

This is another successful iteration using mesh thickening, however showing contrasting effect to the other similarly generated forms. Although it is safe to say this cannot be fabricated to the utmost precision but it is considered successful before of how different this result is from it’s primitive form

The above form is produced using the Weaverbird’s Sierpinski Carpet definition, which is derived from the formula haveing a square divided into nine smaller squares and having the central one removed and repeating such process indefinitely. Thisformula can be a starting point to the fabrication process while the form also allowed further conceptualisation in development it into a suspended structure having the base of the ‘columns’ as anchor points and strings could be pulled in tension to achieve such form.

B3. CASE STUDY 2.0

top: interior of the pavilion left: close-up perspective of the connection method used to tie two intersecting paper tubes together right: PVC membrane covers the paper tubing structure for fire safety protocols

ARCHITECT: SHIGERU BAN LOCATION: HANNOVER, GERMANY CONSULTANT: FREI OTTO YEAR: 2000

The Japan Pavilion is designed for the Hannover Expo where Shigeru Ban showcased once again his skillful incorporation of recycable materials in architecture. The pavilion features a gridshell structure constructed simply by tying paper tubes together and layering the entire structure with PVC membrance for fire safety reasons. The backbone of this design would be the arches positioned at an even spacing across the structure, they also assist in forming the overall triple hemispherical shape. Secondarily, there are ribs intersecting diagonally to provide rigidity and strength to the entire gridshell structure, the intersection points are where ties are used in order to secure the two coinsiding components.

B3. REVERSE ENGINEERING

plot points using vector to create a set of lines

point 1 point 2

line

divide lines in segments, set up a series of arcs

count

loft surface

divided arc

point 3 point 4

line

count

divided

vector curve

point 5 point 6 point 7 point 8

line

count

divided arc

line

count

divided

vector

move

list items

loft

subsurface

2.

1.

3.

4.

divide surface into panels

draw lines between 1 and 3, 2 and 4, draw curves on lofted surface

cull curve1 cull divide subsurface

pipe cull curve2

radius

cull

pipe surface alone curves

The reverse engineering exercise aims to strengthen students’ ability to produce a managable and controllable algorithm through studying a particular precedent of our choice. This stage is particularly crucial as the later design development would most likely be based of take off from what is produced in this section. The exercise, personally involved a long process of trial and error, from analysing how the gridshell structure would be originally based from, to trying to write algorithms that match the given outcome. The resulted algorithm was successfully completed with no dependence on Rhino at all, producing points, that create the series of lines that later on create the arcs of the gridshell structure by defining point locations through vector. The independent use of grasshopper allowed more form variations and to have the flexibility to push definitions to the max by having full control of it at the same time.

varying widths

Arc Heights

Division on arc

subsurface division

B4. TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

Point variation

Lunchbox Plug-in

pipe radius

Kangaroo Physics

B5. TECHNIQUE:PROTOTYPE In this section, I explored the materialisation and fabrication of some of the generated outcomes I’ve produced in previous parts of the journal.Apart from only testing out the forms, it is also to my concern that the foundation of the fabricated method is practical and will allow optimisation of further development, hence not only aim to create the ‘form’ but to create a sub-form that builds the form.

The objective of this fabrication process is to achieve versatile surfaces which they correspond to external fores acting upon and the various anchor points that could be connected with. The brief requires the end product to be a suspended form and hence the anchor points and forces mentioned above is a crucial element to consider when prototyping.

However at this initial process of experiementation with fabrication, it is my focus in seeking the most appropriate technique in achieving the form explored throughout the design development stage.

Therefore the prototypes I produced at this stage are of covering as big of a scope of materials and connection techniques as possible.

The prototype on the right is an initial fabrication inspired by the case study on Shigeru Ban’s Japan Pavilion, using pin to secure the two coninsiding components. A collapsable structure has been produced, where force is applied to one side, the other side would have similar reaction. In progressing with the development of this sketch model, it would be challanging to produce a similar but suspended prototype that involves interactions with forces.

cable ties | tension Cable ties are used for one of the technical fabrication prototypes, the loops are interconnected letting potential forces to be transferred across, producing a similar effect like in the balsa wood model where the reaction of force can be visualised through the movement of different components of the structure. Cable ties are looped together in tension, being a desirable material to be used in a suspended system. However during the process of fabrication, the loops would get somewhat messy that increases the difficulty in producing an accurate model in a larger scale.

strings | network A prototype is dedicated to strings, using a particular knitting technique to knit a net that could be of whatever shape and form, with optimised opportinity and potential embeded in it. For the purpose of prototyping, I only tested the knitting techniques which would allow the most variation of form to be done. The method I used basically is what produces common fishing nets or baskets which the planar surface of a network is knitted together to form a fishing net, the fabrication process is relatively simple yet the resulted form could potentially be endless, suspension could easily be attached within one of the loops, responding to controlability of a form I wish to put some focus on.

mesh | versatility With intentions in constructing a sketch model of the more successful outcome from the iterations generated in part B4, I explored the geometry and the behaviours of such form using a simple piece of mesh (cut out from a laundry bag). The columns are not acting as columns in this scenario but temporary proppings that would allow me to investigate first-hand the form I have generated digitally physically. The result of this sketch model has made me realise that the mesh is not just one single component but is composed of the small cells and one alteration of such cells will affect the behaviour and appearance of the entire form. Through this fabricative process, I see the opportunity in not letting the force and natural performance of materiality but to take control over these factors to create a new form, generating a form that explains why it behaves that way in particular, and why control it to perform in this way. This concept is intriguing to me and I plan to continue pursuing in this direction for the next part of the design process.

B6. DESIGN PROPOSAL

CONCEPT The concept for my design is all about exploiting the complex relatioships between technology, culture and nature, how they all contribute in affecting local ecosystems. Although in the recent years, societies have started to inject ideas that the environment we’re living in is decaying, human behaviours are causing serious damage to nature and to sum it up, we are responsible for pollution, over the top energy consumptions that the nature, the living organisms around it is largely affected so we need to make a move, to make a change. But behind all these advertorial messages, do we, one of 7 billion earthlings around the globe really know and understand what we are facing? Do we really get the idea that every little thing we do can affect organisms living around us, changing local ecosystems completely? My area of interest is in the personal interactive realisation of this issue, although the scale of influence is small, but I stand by that a small change is still a change. I hope to create a utopian, if not close to, and constrained environment for potential users to slow down at one point on the site and to feel the constrasting environments of the good and the bad.

The site chosen for my project is under the Eastern Freeway bridge, which is highly polluted compared to other areas of the Merri Creek, the plants and vegetation there are at a dreadful state where dead trees are seen to be lying on the river. With so little water flowing along the creek most days of the year, not many wildlife choose to make that location their home, but some every now and then would stop by for resting or a drink of water. I see this as a perfect opportunity to create something conflicting in this location, through the form and the interactive features of my design. Terrariums have an impeccably self efficient ecosystem that is easily maintained while being pleasing to appreciate. A similar idea of such can be featured in the design to encourage users to slow down and be emotionally acknowledged to the subject matter.

The use of parametric design would be a metaphorical representation of the connection between systems while also showing the unpredictability of form. Outcomes of parametric generations are usually considered more ‘futuristic’, this could assist in the representation of that the environment wrapped by the design is a place that’s speculated, something for people to look forward to, to see light in the future, to have faith in what can be achieved.

Ecology encompasses so human subjectivity as well Felix Guattari

ocial relations and as environmental concerns.

SITE The site chosen is approximately around the intersection of the Yarra river and the Merri Creek, just under the East Freeway bridge. There are a few factors as to why I chose this site. The relationships between technology, nature and culture is diverse in this particular site. Technological systems present are automobiles, infrastructures like the freeway bridge itself; natural systems covers the plantations and local ecosystems; cultural systems are defined in this case as what stereotypical meaning human in the society, espeically the Australian society has inserted into things. For example, the site located under the bridge would usually give out the feel of unsafe and filthy, the graffiti sprayed onto both sides of the under bridge would also make people link to the idea that filthy things might happen in this area at night, reinforcing the unpleasurable feeling they already have. My design concept is all about experiencing the good while you’re actually in the bad, this grants the site a more developable potential in it’s speculative design.

As mentioned previously, the site chosen is one of the more polluted one along the Merri Creek, the diagram on the left explains some of the human traces left on the site. Firstly there’s two road traffic of different densities, one high (Eastern Freeway), one medium (road next to the walking trail). Secondly, foot traffic. The site is not only the intersection of the Yarra river and Merri Creek, but is also the intersection of three walking trails, making it a location of high visibility.

PRECED

Title: Biosphere Designer: Tomas Saraceno Year: 2000 left: biosphere. Main sphere filled with small plants connected to bubbled sitting on the ground inflated with water middle: close up image on the network of curves right: close up image on the main sphere (all photographs taken by Jaime Lee)

DENTS

B7. LEARNING OUTCOMES The objectives of the studios and this section of the design profress is to depart from the research and text based work that we did in part A, and to get fully hands-on and interact with Grasshipper, experience the power and limitations of computational design first-hand. These five weeks have also been very helpful in pushing students to develop the computational design skills of their own, skills of not only altering a pre-defined algorithm, but also creating a complete and successful algorithm of our own.

Personally, I spent the most time on reverse engineering becaue it was the first time for me to have to generate a digitial model merely using softwares, that feeling of creating something without using pen and paper or fiddlearound with objects is really strange to me, but the sense of reward and success after the algorithm is generated is truly overwhelming. This is the point in time when I actually started to enjoy the process of generating a form. Through this exercise, it made me see architectural projects in a different perspective, I now would look at a weirdly-shaped building and think ‘hmm, how would they generated that in Grasshopper...’. This transformation opened the door of parametric wonders that I would never have opened before and have allowed me to explore things in a broader context.