STUDIO AIR JOURNAL PART B by Jonathan Leong

AIR

AIR STUDIO

JOURNAL PART B

JONATHAN LEONG 674599

CONTENTS PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN..............................

B.1. Research Field............................................. 6 B.2. Case Study 1.0............................................ 12 B.3. Case Study 2.0............................................ 20 B.4. Technique: Development............................. 28 B.5. Technique: Prototypes ................................ 36 B.6. Technique: Proposal.................................... 44 B.7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes............. 57 B.8. Appendix â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Algorithmic Sketches................. 58 Bibliography......................................................... 60

PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN

B.1. RESEARCH FIELD

BIOMIMICRY As mentioned in my conclusion for Part A: Conceptualization, the availability of parametric designing has given us such a powerful tool, that can really shape our future. The big question we should ask ourselves then, is what kind of future do we want? With global warming and climate change becoming more and more drastic as the years go by, I believe the future we should strive for is one that is sustainable. So, how can we develop a sustainable future? Where can we look to for guides to sustainability? Nature has always been around and remains the source from which everything comes from. It thrives and survives, supporting itself throughout millions and millions of years. From the structural intricacy of the bee’s honeycomb to the tensile properties of a spider’s web, nature has always mesmerized us through the way it evolves and resolves problems. To add on, nature does all these without bringing any damage to its surroundings. As such, nature would be the best guide and precedent for sustainable design. Mimicking and designing based on natural principles should help us to create a future that is more sustainable. Therefore, the research field that I have chosen to undertake is biomimicry. Based on the Biomimicry Institute, biomimicry is defined as an innovative approach that pursues sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies1 . To this current age, biomimicry still remains a research field that is fresh, developing and open to many opportunities. While some biomimicry designs simply take on patterns from nature, some designs have proved to be functional (sustainable) as well by adopting the strategy behind the natural patterns. The following pages showcase some designs that have taken on biomimicry as their inspiration. By understanding and exploring these projects, I hope to eventually design a water filtration system in the river that would act as a rubbish catchment at Merri Creek (this will be explained in part B.5. Technique: Prototypes)

1. “What Is Biomimicry? – Biomimicry Institute”, Biomimicry Institute, 2016, https://biomimicry.org/what-is-biomimicry/.

THE EDEN PROJECT BY NICHOLAS GRIMSHAW

This project is located in a reclaimed Kaolite mine that was excavated in Cornwell, England, United Kingdom1 . It is a visitor attraction of artificial biodomes that houses an assortment of plants from around the world. The overall structure comprises of two large enclosures of adjoining domes that function as a greenhouse for the plant species inside. The environment within each enclosure is adaptable through varying environmental parameters (e.g. natural light intensity and humidity), emulating various natural biomes as necessary. The first dome mimics a tropical environment, while the second takes on a Mediterranean environment. The superstructure of the biome consist of hexagonal and pentagonal patterns, and inflated plastic cells, supported by steel frames2 . The Eden project was actually built on a site that was irregular and also frequently shifting because it was being quarried. As such, a challenge arose in how to create a form that would respond well to the site attributes. Designers turned to nature for an answer. In fact, many ideas to counter problems were inspired from nature. For example, the “soap bubble” arrangement generated a building form that would work regardless of the different ground levels. Furthermore, studying pollen grains, radiolarian and carbon molecules helped create the most effective structural solution of hexagons and pentagons3 . To maximise the size of the hexagons and pentagons, the designers used an alternative material besides glass because it was very limited in terms of its unit sizing and material performance. In nature, there are a lot of examples of efficient structures based on pressured membranes. This understanding led to the investigation and use of the high strength polymer called ETFE (which was the same material also used in the “Watercube” project as discussed in Part A). Overall, the Eden Project proves that structural and material performance issues in architecture can be resolved by studying similar occurrences in nature itself. Even if the issue may not be exactly similar in nature, the qualities of nature can be mimicked to produce a desired design outcome.

1. "Timeline", Edenproject.com, 2016, https://www.edenproject.com/eden-story/eden-timeline. 2. Ibid. 3. Michael Pawlyn, "Using Nature's Genius In Architecture", TED, 2016, https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pawlyn_using_nature_s_genius_in_architecture.

ICD-ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION BY UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART

The pavilion was inspired by the morphology of the beetles’ lightweight protective shell known as the ‘elytron’1 . The performance of the beetle’s shell relies on a geometric double-layered system connected by the ‘trabeculae’, a column-like doubly curved support element that allows the top and bottom layers to be continuously connected2 . This form is found to give an optimum strength-to-weight ratio for the beetles’ shell. As such, the structural principles of the beetles’ shell was modified into the pavilion’s design strategy. Materiality was also carefully considered to closely represent the fibres of the shell. Glass and carbon fibre reinforced polymers were selected due to their exceptional strength-toweight ratio. Reinforced polymer also had the potential to produce differentiated material properties through the variations in fibre arrangement. The strings of fibre polymers were weaved into a fibrous network. For the chosen material to be shaped into the desired form, a modern fabrication technique of robotic coreless winding was used (without molds or formworks). This method utilises two collaborating 6-axis robotic arms to wind fibres between two custom made steel frames3 . The fibres are tensioned linearly against each other creating a reciprocal deformation. Then, the resin impregnated fibre bundles are woven in accordance to the winding syntax. The conception of ideas to the resulting pavilion is truly amazing. The fabrication method, the coreless filament winding, erases the need for individual formwork to create complex fibre polymer forms, saving the use of resources. This technique also allows for no waste or cut-off pieces. Overall, the fabrication method of the pavilion aligns well with the idea of material sustainability. Meanwhile, the geometric form obtained from the precedent of beetle shells opens up new possibilities for lightweight, high-strength tensile architectural possibilities. For example, the biggest element of the pavilion has a diameter of 2.6 meters but only weighs 24.1 kilograms4 , a surprisingly material efficient load bearing system.

1. "ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 / ICD-ITKE University Of Stuttgart", Archdaily, 2014, http://www.archdaily.com/522408/icd-itke-research-pavilion-2015-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart. 2. Ibid. 3. "University Of Stuttgart Unveils Woven Pavilion Based On Beetle Shells", Dezeen, 2014, http://www.dezeen.com/2014/06/26/icd-itke-pavilion-beetle-shells-university-of-stuttgart/. 4. Ibid.

B.2. CASE STUDY 1.0

VOLTADOM ADAPTABILITY + FLEXIBILITY

VOLTADOM BY SKYLAR TIBBITS

I have chosen the VoltaDom as my first case study project because of its unique overall form and its relationship to the Voronoi pattern, a recurring pattern that can be found in nature. I believe that studying the VoltaDom would stimulate ideas to create a biomimicry design. The VoltaDom is an installation that populates a corridor in MIT’s campus. It lines the concrete and glass hallway with many vaults, reminiscent of the great vaulted ceilings of historical cathedrals1 . The vaults provide a thickened surface articulation and a spectrum of oculi that penetrate the hallway and surrounding area with views and light. VoltaDom expands the notion of architectural “surface panel”, by intensifying the depth of a doubly- curved vaulted surface while maintaining relative ease in assembly and fabrication. This is done so by transforming the complex curved vaults into developable strips that are rolled into shape. Overall, it resembles a cell group that will multiply and grow in a relationship of interdependence between cells, to build a solid border. As a self-replicating system, adaptable to a given space. Studying the Grasshopper definition given, it seems that the principle behind the VoltaDom is very simple. It is basically a collection of overlapping cones that are split at each of its sides respectively. Using Grashopper, I was able to explore the forms of the VoltaDom by changing its parameters and mass producing many iterations for form studies. The matrix on the next page illustrates the different species that were produced in my explorations. The first species was an exploration of the original cone shape given in the definition. Next, the second species investigated using spheres instead of cones. Meanwhile, the third species was a unique polygonal version which utilised the expression formula provided in the ‘Aranda Lasch – The Morning Line’ definition. Lastly, the final species uses a cylindrical geometry combined with an expression component to produce ripple-like forms.

1. "Voltadom By Skylar Tibbits | Skylar Tibbits - Arch2o.Com", Arch2o.Com, 2013, http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/.

ITERATION MATRIX Cones

Spheres

Polygons

Cylinders

SELECTIONS These iterations have been selected due to their overall reﬂection of the random patterning of nature. Every creation in nature follows a set of rules (eg. branching, pollination, cellular growth), but no two products of nature are the same. This is because of the randomness effect, nature’s way of aesthetic display. Nature’s computational design creates complex patterns, shapes and forms which people describe as delightful and psychologically reinforcing1 . If architecture mimics this mode of design, it could result in something independent of culture and age, something delightful, intriguing and natural2 .

1. Brad Elias, "Studio Air Lecture 5 - Patterning", (Lecture, University of Melbourne, 2016). 2. Ibid.

CRITERIA

Filtration – Would it be an effective ﬁltration system for water rubbish? Adaptability – Would it respond to changing environmental conditions? Interactivity – Would it be user friendly and attractive? Constructability – Would it be easy to fabricate?

B.3. CASE STUDY 2.0

ZA11 PAVILION CELLULAR STRUCTURE

ZA11 PAVILION BY DIMITRIE STEFANESCU, PATRICK BEDARF,

BOGDAN HAMBASAN The ZA11 Pavillion was a temporary installation in the town of Cluj, Romania, designed for an architectural event in 2011. Their objectives were to create a scalable structure, showcase the potential of computational design and provide an attractive event space and shelter for the festival1 . Its form takes on a circular amoebic fence of lopsided hexagons extruded outwards. The ‘fence’ was lifted up at two points to form arches for entryways. Each of the extruded hexagons were connected by a series of small notched hexagons. Meanwhile, the flat panels had triangular holes in them to allow visibility, light and wind penetration. The whole structure was fabricated from CNC milled plywood. While not explicitly stated by the designers, the pavilion can be seen as an example of biomimicry through its use of the hexagonal honeycomb structure. The honeycomb conjecture states that when dividing a field into regions of equal area, using regular hexagonal grids would result in the smallest possible perimeter length of each region2 . This is relevant because the project had a very limited budget and efficient use of materials was a concern. As such, applying the knowledge from the honeycomb conjecture enabled material efficiency. In terms of satisfying the brief, I believe that the pavilion has achieved partial success. Its form truly is one that can be replicated easily at different scales in many different places, demonstrating the capacity of computational design and digital fabrication. Photographs of its use during the event also display its success in attracting people. However, there are some failures with this project. The final structure was actually not self-supporting and required timber props at specific points. Besides that, the pavilion was also opened at the top and sides, leaving users exposed to environmental conditions. This made it function more like a “boundary” than a “shelter”. Nevertheless, it is this function as a “boundary” that got me interested in this project’s potential as a rubbish filter in the water.

1. "ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan", Archdaily, 2011, http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan. 2. "Honeycomb Conjecture -- From Wolfram Mathworld", Mathworld.Wolfram.Com, 2016, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HoneycombConjecture.html.

REVERSE EN

1. CREATE BASE STRUCTURE

2. SUPERIMPOSE VORONOI DIAGRAM

Draw a curve in Rhino3D to represent the Pavilionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s footprint. Move and scale the drawn curve to create the external boundaries of pavilion. Loft the curves to get the overall outer surface.

Populate the lofted surface with points. Create a three-dimensilanl Voronoi diagram using these points.

3 MAKE VO OUTER

Find the intersections gram and the lofted ba intersections with the the top and bottom cho tur

MOVE & SCALE CURVE

LOFT MOVE & SCALE

SURFACE

POPULATE GEOMETRY

VORONOI

BREP INTERSECTION

NGINEERING

3. ORONOI R SKIN

of the 3D Voronoi diaase surface. Join these curves that represent ords of the base strucre.

JOIN

4. MAKE VORONOI INNER SKIN

5. LOFT BETWEEN TWO SKINS

Scale the joined elements to form the inner skin of the Pavilion.

Loft between the inner and outer skins. Ensure that the ‘Join’ component has been grafted otherwise lofting does not work as intended.

SCALE

LOFT

BREP

REENGINEERING DIFFICULTIES One of the difficulties encountered was the creation of a set of irregularly shaped hexagons. To overcome that, I utilized the Voronoi diagram instead to replicate this effect. It was also tricky to get the final loft between the inner and outer skin right. The solution was to simply graft the inputs to the ‘Join’ component as mentioned in Step 3 previously, enabling the correct data flow. I also struggled a lot trying to recreate the triangular perforations in the panels but failed to do so finally. In my attempt, I exploded the ‘Brep’ from Step 5 into component parts (faces, edges and vertices) and connected the ‘faces’ output to the recipient ‘surface’ input for the ‘surface morph’ component. A mock up rectangular surface with triangular subtractions in Rhino was made an imported into Grasshopper as a geometry. This was then connected to ‘geometry’ input of the ‘surface morph’, and a bounding box delineating the perimeter of the imported geometry was connected to the ‘R’ input. The domain of the faces were deconstructed to ‘U’ and ‘V’ inputs. Meanwhile, the domain of the geometry bounding box was set as the ‘W’ input. A problem then occurred with the ‘U’ and ‘W’ extents in which ‘no data could be collected’. The last difficulty I experienced was the creation of the small hexagonal notches that connect each plate together. The problem that occurred was that some of the lofted plates were ‘non-planar’ resulting in several missing notches that could not be auto-generated by the grasshopper script. After many dedicated hours of attempting to resolve these issues, I had to finally accept the form I have created due to time constraints. Given more time, I would love to be able to learn how to automatically generate the joints in this project and the perforations as well.

FINAL FORM

B.4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPMENT The following pages will display a set of 54 iterations of Case Study 2.0. - ZA11 Pavilion. It consists of 4 different species. The ﬁrst species focuses on the manipulation of the voronoi cells through its population, culling patterns, scaling and attractor points. Meanwhile, the second species is an exploration into the mesh triangulation properties of the ‘Delaunay Edges’ component, combined with the ‘Pipe’ component. The third species investigates hexagrids applied to the form, changing the population, size, and number of hexagons in the grid. Lastly, the fourth and ﬁnal species studies the application of geometries to the form; spheres and cylinders (capped and opened).

ITERATION MATRIX Voronoi

Delaunay Edges

ITERATION MATRIX Hexagrid

Geometry

SELECTIONS Drawing from the selection criteria in B.2. Case Study 1.0, the same criteria are applied to the selection of iterations of Case Study 2.0.

CRITERIA

B.5. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

PERSONAL PROPOSAL As mentioned earlier, my aim is to design a water filtration system that acts as a rubbish catchment for the river at Merri Creek. I envision my design to be a ‘boundary’ within the river just like how the ZA11 Pavilion in Case Study 2 acts as a ‘boundary’ rather than a shelter. Therefore, the extruded Voronoi cells would be placed in into the river with its large cellular gap facing the water flow direction while the smaller cellular gap is at the other end (depicted in the picture above). This way, rubbish can get trapped within the cells. Also, I am considering the opportunity that my design could be singular cells that act as movable filters to be placed in the river where necessary rather than a series of interconnected cell wall. The prototypes that follow were inspired by my explorations in the cellular structure of the ZA11 pavilion, the adaptable/flexible/malleable look of the VoltaDom, tensile properties of the ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion, and inflated bubbles of the Eden Project and Watercube. There are 3 versions of prototypes (V1. Rigidity, V2. Flexibility, & V3. Inflatables) with possible iterations in the versions.

V1.0 RIGIDITY This prototype follows the principals of joint detailing that can be seen in the ZA11 Pavilion. As stated before in B.3. Case Study 2.0, there were difﬁculties encountered in attempting to automatically generate the joints in Grasshopper due to the ‘non-planar’ surface error. As such, this prototype was modelled fully in Rhino3D. An issue that occurred with the product was that the notches were not deep enough to hold the structure ﬁrm. As a result, I had to apply adhesives to the notches to keep the cell rigid.

Cell panels connected with rigid joints

Detailed view of notches that failed to stay ﬁrm

V2.0 FLEXIBILITY Inspired by the fabrication method of the VoltaDom in which the fabricated strips were rolled into vaults, I began to experiment how I could make an extruded cell become collapsible and flattened. The following paper models show my prototypes on the relationship between the number of sides of a cell and its flexibility. After a series of experiments, it can be concluded that all cells that have even-numbered sides (hexagons, octagons) are more flexible and able to collapse into a flattened surface compared to cells with odd-numbered sides (pentagons, heptagons).

Even-numbered sides are able to ﬂatten more effectively

Odd- numbered sides fail to fully ﬂatten

V2.1 FLEXIBILITY This prototype is a detailed experimentation in materiality of ďŹ&#x201A;exible joints. It applies a continuous string throughout holes in each extruded plate of the cell, making the cell become really collapsible. This prototype was so collapsible that the cell could not retain an open gap unless there was a solid/frame supporting it from within.

Cell panels ďŹ&#x201A;attened

Cell required a solid within it to stay open

V2.2 FLEXIBILITY The last ďŹ&#x201A;exible prototype was a test on the elasticity of the joints. Instead of a string, rubberbands were used to connect each of the extruded cell plates together. The rubberbands were tied loosely in the large gap of the cell while the smaller gap behind was constricted, tied really tightly, creating a cell that could open up bigger at its front by force and eventually close again. This could potentially catch rubbish better as the elastic plates clamp onto rubbish trapped within.

Cell panels ďŹ&#x201A;attened

Elastic bands trap objects within the cell

V3.0 INFLATABLES Inspired by the inflated bubbles of the Eden Project and the Watercube, I begun to explore the possibilities of tensile and inflatable properties in surface materials. The first inflatable prototype applies the flexible joints studied in the previous version but converts the plates into skeletal frames instead. A flexible surface material, was placed within the frame as a filtering bag. For this prototype, I have used a plastic bag to represent the filter bag although I envision it to be made out of porous, stretchable cloth. Florist wires were used for the flexible joints between each plate instead of strings or rubberbands to give the cell more rigidity.

Cell panels ﬂattened

Cell frame with inﬂated bag within it

V3.1 INFLATABLES This last prototype shows a cleaner, modified version of the previous inflatable. Instead of a single filter bag, the bag was separately attached to each plate of the cell, creating pockets of inflatables. This creates a more aesthetically pleasing look to the cell.

Cell panels ﬂattened

Cell frame with inﬂated pockets

B.6. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

SITE ANALYSIS In this part, we were asked to work together with a partner to form a more specific proposal. Together with my partner, we have agreed that we would like to collectively design a rubbish catchment system for the river at Merri Creek. Our specific chosen site is Dight Falls, which features a manmade waterfall and a silurian sandstone hillside. With this specific site in mind, we carried out some preliminary research on the water conditions on site and the rubbish that may be found there. The following pages will show the water levels throughout the year, the analysis of waterflow in the river and types of rubbish in the river.

SITE AN WATER

From our site visit observations, there were signs set up to warn people abou changes that occur at Dights Falls throughout the year. Overall, the maximum water level only reaches approximately 0.2 metres1 . This has inspired us to d levels.

1. "Rainfall And River Level Data - Melbourne Water", Melbournewater.Com.Au, 2016, http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/rivers_and_creeks/rainfall_and_river_level_data/rainfall_and_river_level_data.asp.

NALYSIS

LEVELS

t the ďŹ&#x201A;ooding of the river. As such, we decided to research on the water level m water level at Dights Falls will rise up to around 1 metre while the minimum design an adaptable ďŹ ltration system that would react to the changing water

SITE AN

WATER

This simple diagram represents our research and understanding on the streng river as depicted by the intensity of the lines. This happens because of the angle to attract fishes to the left side of the river where there is a fishway (shaded gre the bottom, enabling fish to move through the river even though it has been dis positioning of our ‘platform’ design so that we do not interfere with the fish migra

NALYSIS

RFLOW

gth of waterflow at Dights Falls. Water flows are stronger at the left side of the ed slope created at the left side of the falls. It is an intentional manmade design ey). A fishway is a manmade river tunnel for fishes. It links the top of the falls to rupted by the fall. This is something we have considered in the orientation and ation in the river.

SITE AN

RUBBISH BIG + HEAVY

FLOATING

SUBMERGED

Through observation, we realised that the rubbish in the river can be classiﬁed i bish that can be found in the river. This understanding of varying sizes of ﬂoating system that responds to the different levels of rubbish.

NALYSIS

H TYPES SMALL + LIGHTWEIGHT

nto a few categories. The matrix above shows the types of possible rubg and submerged rubbish has informed us in creating a layered ďŹ ltration

GROUP PR

Based on the cellular system that I have explored an systems to form a rubbish catchment boundary that a and diagrams.

In my previous personal proposal, I envisioned a ‘boundary wall’ of cells as a ﬁlter. For this new group proposal, the ‘boundary wall’ has been rotated to become a platform instead in which there will be perforations in the cell panels.

A single layer of 3D Voronoi cells are extract

ROPOSAL

nd the hexagrid mesh system explored by my partner. Our proposal involves a combination of the two also acts as a platform. This proposal will be demonstrated better through the following series of images

ted to form the platform, which is then supported by a strong hexagrid system below it.

SITE PLAN

The platform follows the form of the manmade fall and in ‘delineates’ it to a certain extent through its randomly generated cell shapes. The filter itself works in 3 layers to be able to filter varying sizes of floating rubbish in the water. The first layer of cells (facing the waterflow direction) will be left empty to be able to trap the big sized floating rubbish. Then, the second layer of cells will be fitted with a hexagrid mesh that enables it to capture medium sized floating rubbish while the final layer of cells will consists of a dense, tiny hexagrid mesh that will stop any small floating rubbish from passing through.

SECTION DIAGRAM The following section diagrams show how our proposal will respond to the changes in water levels and also capture submerged rubbish in the water.

WATERFLOW DIRECTION

LOW WATER LEVEL

During low water levels, the hexagrid mesh takes the main role of ﬁltering the river. The mesh is designed such that it becomes increasingly denser towards the back mimicking the principle of the layered cell ﬁlters as mentioned before, able to capture varying sizes of rubbish. This underwater mesh also serves as a support for the platform.

WATERFLOW DIRECTION

HIGH WATER LEVEL

When the water level rises, our platform would be able to rise with aid from inflated floaters (shaded circles) attached to the sides of the platform. This enables our design to continuously capture floating rubbish. The platform would also be held in position by chains (dashed lines) so that it would not float away and would rest back onto the supporting hexagrid mesh when water levels subside.

INTERACTION One of the added features of our platform is that the rubbish trapped within the top layer of cells can be observed. Transparent glass panels will cap the top of the platform so that as a person walks over the platform, they can observe the rubbish trapped within the cells and contemplate about river pollution. These glass panels will also be able to open so that the trapped rubbish can be periodically removed, ensuring that the river ďŹ&#x201A;ow is not restricted and more rubbish can be ďŹ ltered.

Openable glass panels cover the top of the platform

Mesh with trapped rubbish can be removed from each cell respectively

B.7. LEARNING OUTCOMES Overall, Part B has really pushed my boundaries in my digital designing knowledge. Each weekly task and tutorial videos have really guided and inspired me on how I can utilize parametric modelling to my advantage. The reverse engineering process has really engaged me with self-directed learning of algorithmic construction. It has trained me to develop a personalised repertoire of computational techniques related to meshes, triangulation, grids and geometry. Meanwhile, the iteration process has also pushed my capabilities in generating a variety of design possibilities for a given situation. Investigating forms through parameter manipulation, versioning has really helped to provide a plethora of options in designing and generate new ideas. The comparative analysis through selection criterias has also enabled me to sift out potential designs, critically thinking about the effectiveness of a design form and how it can be applied to the brief. One of the best learning outcomes I got from Part B is that prototyping is a very effective way of research and learning. Even through simple paper prototypes, I was able to understand the rules behind collapsible structures. Furthermore, digital fabrication was an efficient way to quickly produce prototypes. It also made me realised that although some joints may seem like they work well in the digital realm, the real product may not connect as expected. Also, experimenting with different types of flexible connections has made me consider the different material qualities in joints. Creating physical prototypes have also allowed me to investigate the material properties and effects of inflatable plastic bags and tensile cloths and I could not precisely digitally simulate. All these have developed my skills in various 3-dimensional media from digital to physical. Based on the cellular system I explored, a potential issue that may arise is that non-modular Voronoi cells are very hard to fabricate due to its individual, unique pieces. Rest assured, I truly believe that it is this “random” effect that makes something more ‘natural’. I hope to be able to maintain this quality even as I progress into Part C for the detailed design. Keeping that in mind, I am constantly thinking about methods to portray the randomness of nature even in a modular system. In preparation for the interim presentation, I have learned the ability to make a proper case for proposals. This was done through carrying out a site analysis and identifying the aspects we would consider in our design. Then, through a very thorough discussion with my partner and criticism from other friends out of this course, we able to anticipate and foresee potential issues in our proposal and try to resolve them as much as possible. The presentation has also helped me to develop my diagrammatic skills, presentation timing and presence.

B.8. APPENDIX RE-ENGINEERING ICD-ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION

GRAPH CONTROLLERS ODD NUMBERS

EVEN NUMBERS

EXPRESSIONS [sin (x) + cos (x)]

BIBLIOGRAPHY Elias, Brad. “Studio Air Lecture 5 - Patterning”. Lecture, University of Melbourne, 2016. “Honeycomb Conjecture -- From Wolfram Mathworld”. Mathworld.Wolfram.Com, 2016. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ HoneycombConjecture.html. “ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 / ICD-ITKE University Of Stuttgart”. Archdaily, 2014. http://www.archdaily. com/522408/icd-itke-research-pavilion-2015-icd-itke-university-of-stuttgart. Pawlyn, Michael. “Using Nature’s Genius In Architecture”. TED, 2016. https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pawlyn_using_nature_s_genius_in_architecture. “Rainfall And River Level Data - Melbourne Water”. Melbournewater.Com.Au, 2016. http://www.melbournewater.com. au/content/rivers_and_creeks/rainfall_and_river_level_data/rainfall_and_river_level_data.asp. “Timeline”. Edenproject.Com, 2016. https://www.edenproject.com/eden-story/eden-timeline. “University Of Stuttgart Unveils Woven Pavilion Based On Beetle Shells”. Dezeen, 2014. http://www.dezeen. com/2014/06/26/icd-itke-pavilion-beetle-shells-university-of-stuttgart/. “Voltadom By Skylar Tibbits | Skylar Tibbits - Arch2o.Com”. Arch2o.Com, 2013. http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/. “What Is Biomimicry? – Biomimicry Institute”. Biomimicry Institute, 2016. https://biomimicry.org/what-is-biomimicry/. “ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan”. Archdaily, 2011. http://www.archdaily. com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan.