Topological Optimization - Arctic Shed. ADDT

ADDT Option Module 2017-18

Advanced Digital Design Technology AR7043 Jonas Bertlind Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

‘...“the designers simulated not just one, but a huge number of very similar structures, and they tested all of them on the screen. Which is the same as saying; in fact they made them, and broke them, on the screen in simulation. They broke many of them, hundreds of them, on the screen, until they found one that didn’t break, and that was the good one. The one they built. This is what they would call a new science. Some call it simulation optimisation.’ ...’ This new scientific method is also called science of emergence, self organising system, form finding, generative or evolutionary algorithm, etc. etc., etc.. But in fact, and in short, this is the new science of “Google; search, don’t sort”.3’ - Mario Carpo

_01 |_Carpo, Mario, The Second Digital Turn, Vimeo, 2016 [Online]

ABSTRACT _Introduction Today we have entered an age that Professor Mario Carpo calls the Second Digital Turn; this is the age of Big Data. In this Second Digital Turn we have started using computational design, where as before we used software’s only to draw and model. What impact has this on the design professions of architecture and engineering?1 _Objectives I mean to have a closer look at how this new computational science can benefit us in terms of time, cost, amount of material used, which leads to what is perhaps most interesting to me; how it can have a desired positive impact on the environment over time. _Examples A few years ago Arup along with an independent design team set out to create many bespoke nodes for an architectural installation, a canopy, in a public space in Germany. They managed to reduce the metal used in these nodes by some 75% and the cost by around 40% by making them with Additive Manufacturing.2 In Unit 4 this year we are working with CLT. We are also interested in the messiness of Big Data. CLT elements are structural in themselves, but I feel there is still room for optimizing interior load bearing elements and structure, but also joints, and exterior elements, that determine where openings goes, and can go according to the optimum calculations.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

Carpo says that ...”digital technologies are at their best when we use them to customize, not to standardize, the things we make.”3 Topological Optimisation can reduce the time spent on designing specific, and bespoke, structural parts and elements used in architectural design.

This is how I intend to explore this topic for the ADDT option module this year. _Aim My aim is to be able to reduce large bespoke parts of a building structure; reducing the material used which ultimately will have a positive impact on the environment on a larger scale over time.

By doing this I am trying to embrace the new way of using design tools in the age of Big Data, and new ways of designing using free software’s that further takes us into the ‘Second Digital Turn’.

What am I going to find? One interesting thing with Topological Optimisation is that you know what you are asking the software to do, but you do not know what it will look like.

Gross, who in his book Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society, and Ecological Design, advocates more of experimental strategies to reach, what he calls ‘ecological design’, and he says; ‘Precaution suggests what should not be done, not what should be done. Critics of the precautionary principle thus claim that it is contradictory and, if taken seriously, will block desirable changes and stop us from adopting better technologies.’4

_Methodology For this task I will have a closer look at Millipede - a plug-in for, or an extension of, Grasshopper for Rhino. This software will test a huge amount of forms, to find the most suitable one, depending on parameters that are provided for each computation.

How is this related to Big Data? Carpo gives an example of a small pavilion built in a German city; ...“the designers simulated not just one, but a huge number of very similar structures, and they tested all of them on the screen. Which is the same as saying; in fact they made them, and broke them, on the screen in simulation. They broke many of them, hundreds of them, on the screen, until they found one that didn’t break, and that was the good one. The one they built. This is what they would call a new science. Some call it simulation optimisation.’ ...’ This new scientific method is also called science of emergence, self organising system, form finding, generative or evolutionary algorithm, etc. etc., etc.. But in fact, and in short, this is the new science of “Google; search, don’t sort”.3

_01 |_Carpo, Mario, Breaking the curve, Artforum, 2014 [Online] _02 |_Arup, Additive Manufacturing ,Design method for critical structural steel elements, (Online) _03 |_Carpo, Mario, The Second Digital Turn, Vimeo, 2016 [Online] _04 |_Gross, Matthias. (2010). Ignorance and surprise.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, p.4.

INTRODUCTION _Introduction To begin with many of the texts I have read does not actually refer to topological optimisation. At least not solely, but I have often read this into the text, which has perhaps not always been correct.

These texts have more broadly speaking of the concepts of generative design and self-organising systems, that are often also linked to biology, nature and evolutionary algorithms. These systems are highly flexible in short-term and in long-term, and are designed to deal with motion/movement, shifting forces, and ware and tear. These generative systems are interlinked to topological optimisation, or more accurately; topological optimisation is one part of generative design systems, just as size optimisation and shape optimisation are.

Kristina Shea, in her chapter Directed Randomness in the book Digital Tectonics, says that;

‘...truly computational making entails the unfolding of an explorative process of materialisation driven by cyber-physical feedback, which extends design rather than merely realising it.’2 - Achim Menges

‘The theoretical foundation behind generative design methods generally stems from two triggers: natural analogy and logical basis.’1

Fig_01

_01 |_Shea, K. (2004). Directed Randomness. In: N. Leach, ed., Digital Tectonics _02 |_Menges, A. (2015). The New Cyber-Physical Making in Architecture: Computational Construction. AD Architectural Design Fig_01 |_Wang, M. and Qian, X. (2015). Efficient Filtering in Topology Optimization via B-Splines.

[ONLINE]

MOTIVATION _Expectations For this research I will use the plug-in to Grasshopper for Rhino called Millipede.

With this software I hope to eventually be able to produce unexpected form in a designated volume, according to input data in the form of forces, materiality and its properties, and support. I hope Millipede will produce complex forms that will be made from less but be equally efficient as a solid element.

I mean to eventually be able to use this software while designing an arctic shelter, which is the brief for assignment 3 in Unit 4. I hope to be able to reduce weight to ease transport onto site, and perhaps use the stripped material of the CLT elements for other purposes in the design.

My initial search for tutorials on the software has been fruitless though, and the software is not discussed in any forums online. However, in the few, very short online videos that exist, I have seen some really interesting things. I also have a .pdf file that is written by the programmer Panagiotis Michalatos that explains the different components (scripts) and some example files that goes with it. I hope I can get my head around this software and start testing it in various ways to begin with.

_01 |_Leach, N. (2004). Digital tectonics. _02 |_Spiller, N. (2009). Digital architecture now.

Fig_01 |_Sawapan (n.d.). Michalatos Panagiotis.

[ONLINE]

The unexpected is interesting. There are countless illustrations and models online that show what is often referred to as ‘emerging’ design. However, although many of them might be aesthetically pleasing, the most interesting bit has not got solely to do with aesthetics, but with the motive behind it.

This is where my interest lies; to be able to produce high performing, aesthetically pleasing architecture that has as low impact on the environment as possible.

Without a doubt this also incorporates complex structure and engineering, and I am convinced that the more engineering skills you have as an architect, the better designer you can become. Leach says; ‘What we are beginning to witness is a ‘‘structural turn’’ within architectural culture’1 If I manage to operate Millipede I might have started to get an understanding of a way to go about constructing architecture in a more ‘natural’ way. Or as Leach puts it, when referring to generative design and evolutionary algorithms; ‘These programs represent a significant development within the evolution of the digital process. Here the designer is recast not as some demiurgic figure who imposes form on the world, but rather as the controller of processes who allows formations to emerge.’1

Engineering is very much part of the future of architectural production, and we have seen firms like Arup design quite extraordinary projects without a foreground architect.

‘This ‘structural turn’ has inaugurated a new spirit of collaboration between architecture and engineering, which looks set to influence the production of buildings for some time to come. New dialogues are beginning to emerge, as these two professions, which have often been perceived as quite separate areas of concern, are coming together within a culture of mutual respect.’ ... ‘This may lead to a new hybrid between the two professions. We are even seeing the emergence of a new hybrid practitioner - a kind of architect-engineer of the digital age.’1

I think one way of answering Spillers ten year old question can be using softwares like Millipede, where the structure is not limited to the architects knowledge of engineering while drawing up the scheme. Nor would it be up to the engineer to design a perhaps impractical structure because it was not considered while drawing the geometry and spatial layout by the architect, but they can now be part of one homogeneous process.

Millipede

In Neil Spillers book Digital Architecture Now from 2008 we can read; ‘Increasingly, building complexity and the limits of time and budget are seen as requiring earlier interaction between architects and engineers, at a stage when design information is incomplete and relatively imprecise but the benefits of such interaction are greatest. Getting the engineers in early is something that is increasingly desired, perhaps even required, but the role they might play in enabling design exploration and the processes that support it are relatively undefined.’2

Fig_01. Panagiotis Michalatos is a Principal Research Engineer at Autodesk. Along with colleague Sawako Kaijima he has developed Millipede, Monolith, and other applications for digital engineering and design.

DEFINITION Topological Optimisation could be described as a mathematical method of organising material distribution within a boundary to achieve sufficient support for a specific load case, while using the least amount of material possible in a specific moment. It is the least structure needed to deal with a specific task.

This moment is often part of a series of sequences defined in a schedule. In this schedule the structure thus needs to cope with a series load cases (or the transformation of the load case throughout the sequences in the schedule), but might also have to deal with its own physical position and location within this schedule. Here also self-weight plays a role as it become part of the load-case.

External support also matters as it can change, and its position can change throughout the schedule.

In more technical terms topological optimisation uses the Finite Element Method (or Finite Element Analysis). The mathematical problem is manifested in the production of point clouds and voxel clouds (3D gradients) within a bound form. The clouds are produced by different value inputs within that boundary. Finite elements are smaller parts (smaller algebraic equation problems) within the larger mathematical problem (the cloud). Finite elements are thus the different parts that emerge from subdividing the boundary into smaller bits. Each finite element will have a different mathematical problem since their location is affected by the density of the cloud. The process deals with each finite element separately, but

_01 |_Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2018). English Dictionary [ONLINE] Fig_01 |_Borello, F. (2013). Architecture | Computational Design | Digital Prototyping. [ONLINE]

comes up with several combinations of all of the calculations of the finite elements within the boundary together. Once it has several solutions it uses the variations to approximate the best solution for the over-all problem. It is a generative system tool since it generates mathematical solutions to come up with an optimised form.

Topological optimisation is widely used in a range of fields, such as mechanics, bio-chemics, aerodynamics and engineering. What interested me was the bridge between architecture and engineering, and emerging technical common-grounds between the two.

I was interested in the latest achievements by firms such as Buro Happold and Arup, within the field of the built environment, and I wondered if I could both gain some more engineering knowledge, while pushing new accessible digital tools and their potential impact on architectural design.

There is a range of interesting new projects that uses generative design, and form finding methods to produce very useful, interesting and aesthetically pleasing structures. And with new accessible softwares I hope to get some interesting results, without having to do complex mathematical calculations.

Topological Optimisation is much related to 3D printing techniques, that broadly goes under the term ‘additive manufacturing’. Examples that I have looked at has been of various size and material, but 3D printing normally refers to printing

Topology 1. The study of geometrical properties and spatial relations unaffected by the continuous change of shape or size of figures.

2. The way in which constituent parts are interrelated or arranged.

Optimisation The action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource.1

with plastic or metal. In terms of size these examples have shown items like small brackets, to medium scale objects, such as bike frames and car chassis, but also infrastructure, I have seen a couple of examples of bridges.

My idea here is to explore form with digital topological optimisation methods, but instead of adding material, I’m looking to cut and CNC mill away what is not needed.

Fig_01

RESEARCH _Precedent Arup together with a designer team created a metal node to hold up a canopy-like structure above a street in The Hague, Holland, with topological optimisation.

‘The design method with topology optimization and the production freedom of the AM technique allow for many new possibilities. However this also raised high level demands on computational skills together with the implementation of complex computational design tools.

The topology optimization program that has been evaluated and used during our design process has shown robust performance with affordable design and computational time. On the other side, the post-optimization activities are still a time-consuming process. Better software support could well improve the efficiency of this process.’

‘The three structural elements shown are all designed to carry the same structural loads and forces. The difference is that the far smaller item on the right is designed using the very latest optimisation and manufacturing methods applied by Arup.’

When reading the design research report released by Arup, it becomes clear that this process was quite complex, and involved many digital tools; ‘The design process covers a wide range of techniques from parametric modelling, FEM analysis, optimization iteration, organic form modelling, digital sculpting, and mesh topology editing. It is obvious that no single design or analysis tool combines all of these different aspects.

Closely coupled with the design process, various tools with different functionalities were evaluated and used for each design stage.’

However, the outcome must be regarded a successful test, and holds promising potential as technology improves;

Fig_01

‘The latest optimized node is 75% lighter than the original and half the height. Taking weight reductions from the reduced struts and the now integrated connections into account, the structure as a whole could be more than 40% lighter because of these optimizations.’

This is a bit of a set-back in my initial research, as I had hope to be able to use Millipede for all digital operations. It seems the short films that show results from Millipede was perhaps not made exclusively with this software.

_01 |_Niehe, P. (2015). 3D makeover for hyper-efficient metalwork. [ONLINE] _02 |_Arup (2015). Additive Manufacturing , Design method for critical structural steel elements. [ONLINE] Fig_01-03 |_Arup (2015). Additive Manufacturing , Design method for critical structural steel elements. [ONLINE]

Fig_02

Fig_03

PROCESS ESSENCE ‘Broadly speaking, the Gothic is based primarily on understanding architecture in terms of materiality and structure, while the Classical is based primarily on understanding architecture in terms of visual composition. The Gothic is concerned more with process, the Classical more with representation.’1 Leach is here highlighting the difference of the what can perhaps be referred to as a metaphor for the Engineer and the Architect, where the Gothic represents the former.

The aim of Gothic architecture was to strip the structure to the bare minimum, while keeping it sufficient, and it was in many cases wonders of science that they actually still stood. In some cases they didn’t. At least not for very long in comparison to more volumetric classic design.

Today we have started to produce tools that can help us determine where the limit is. The benefits are many, but especially the reduction of the carbon footprint of buildings can eventually be heavily reduced, when the amount of steel that needs to be produced is reduced. As we know to produce steel, and concrete is not particularly environmentally sustainable, nor is transporting it.

Mario Carpo accuses his own profession (architect) to have been far to slow in embracing new technology in order to push the evolution of production of architecture for centuries. We have historically even reversed in technical aspects several times according to Carpo; ...’when Renaissance classicists and their Italianate style took over , the technical skills of the medieval master builders [gothic construction engineer] were abandoned, and early modern architecture fell back on the good old post-and-lintel structures of classical antiquity’2...

Materialisation thus becomes an active driver of design, not only through the anticipation of its accordances and constraints in the domain of virtual design computation, but also by extending this towards the physical computing form, structure and space during ongoing material unfolding.’3

and calculations should almost, in theory, not be needed anymore. Menges designed a very complex pavilion in Stuttgart, and Carpo explains that Menges used a ‘heuristic design process’ that ‘is functionally equivalent to the big data, search-based alternative to modern science’. Carpo further claims;

Menges further says that; ‘As materialisation becomes more computational and generative, design becomes increasingly physical and procedural, leading to a potential point of convergence where design and construction merge.’3

‘This is a far cry from how a modern engineer would have designed that structure - which is one reason why no modern engineer could have designed it.’ ...

‘Through computational form-searching we can already design new structures of unimaginable complexity.’1

We should now embrace the new technologies and make use of them, rather than keep fighting against the common good. Generative design is part of a larger concept - Big Data - which in this case means that all the skills of the engineers are accessible via precedents, and mathematical formulas are baked in often free softwares (such as Millipede). Carpo does not separate these things, but sees them as parts of the larger phenomenon of Big Data. In the magazine Architectural Design, Achim Menges too advocate the benefits of these generative processes used by architects and designers in form finding, but also speaks of production process;

What is uplifting and positive about using generative processes, when searching for an optimised structure, is the fact that the complicated mathematical formulas

‘Gone is the idea of dump machines that simply execute static and predetermined tasks, replaced with that of production environments that allows the processes of fabrication, assembly and construction to have a say in the forms we create. _01 |_Leach, N. (2004). Digital tectonics. _02 |_Carpo, M. (2017). The second digital turn. _03 |_Menges, A. (2015). The New Cyber-Physical Making in Architecture: Computational Construction. AD Architectural Design Fig_01 |_ArchDaily (2018). Gothic cathedrals. [ONLINE]

Fig_01

This is precisely why I have high hopes for my coming ventures with Millipede and topological optimisation.

PRECEDENTS _Efficient Structures I have long marvelled over Gaudi’s designs; his blending of gothic structures with natures organic forms. The essence of gothic architecture was to strip away as much material and self-weight as possible, while making the structure as efficient as possible. What was sought after was natural light and less dense framing of spaces, and to allow taller structures. Flying buttresses, ribbed vaults and pointed arcs are all part of highly sophisticated medieval engineering, and in a sense this was indeed optimisation of the structure at the time.

‘Gaudi recovered efficiency in both the spatial distribution of material, and in the descriptive methodology within a rich and non-standard vocabulary. Far from sanctioning rationalist imperatives, he waltzes in sustained formal virtuosity, culling the effects of a heightened rationalist articulacy.’1 Although Gaudi’s architecture is inspired by gothic structures, it is highly ornamented, but not only as imposed cladding-and-adding, but it is incorporated into the structure already from the beginning. I realise of course that Gaudi’s architecture is ‘less optimised’ than pure gothic architecture, but I bring it up as it is a brilliant precedent for what is possible when an architect is very skilled in the art of complex engineering.

_01 |_Goulthorpe, M. (2004). Gaudi’s Hanging Precence. In: N. Leach, ed., Digital Tectonics. _02 |_ Cook, M. (2004). Historical Perspective - Future Prospect. In: N. Leach, ed., Digital Tectonics _03 |_ McKittrick, J. (2013). Tough, light and strong: Lessons from nature could lead to the creation of new materials. [ONLINE] Fig_01 |_ Dark Roasted Blend (2008). Architectural Genius of Antoni Gaudi. [ONLINE] Fig_02 |_Drachen Wiki (n.d.). Vogel Knochen. [ONLINE]

Gaudi took much inspiration from nature, and the structures that exist in nature should be considered valuable precedents worthy of extensive analysis. The evolution of naturally occurring structures is a valuable resource of information.

Engineer Joanna McKittrick of University of California have done extensive analysis of some bird skeletons, amongst other things. In some wing bones she found ‘strut-like structures inside them as reinforcements. In an interview with science-daily engineer McKittrick said that ‘natural systems are built from so few elements, yet they use ingenious ways to assemble all these different materials to maximize their properties’.

‘We need to take note from nature.

Nature has a way of minimising its use of material - material is expensive in nature.

It uses valuable resources and energy.

Nothing is wasted. This alone is reason to take heed.’2 But nature is not static, and the structures that has evolved in nature have been optimised to withstand varying forces.

The skeleton of any living animal or human, for instance, is evolutionary optimised. It has been formed to deal with ever changing load-cases, and its self-weight is part of that. On a micro scale the skeleton is not solid at all, but very porous, to make it lighter. It has to be able to take some hits, (extensive forces) but also deal with the forces that contracting muscles bring.

Different bones also need to meet at some point, and in certain sequences a bone might all of a sudden be responsible for a whole lot more weight than just its own. They are also cylindrical, and the inside is not solid at all, to further reduce weight. A bone of course also needs to work well in both tension and compression.

Fig_01

Fig_02

PRECEDENTS _Spider Bracket Project Arup made the metal node with a digital tool called OptiStruct, by engineering software developer Altair. This project was a collaboration between Altair, Materialise and Renishaw, with the objective to produce a successfully 3D printed spider bracket, that had been topologically optimised.

‘The amazing thing about this bracket is that it contains hybrid lattice structures and is successfully 3D printed in Titanium.

This design could not have been created with conventional manufacturing methods. The success of the finished part is due to expert application of Altair’s lattice-based optimization software, Materialise’s Magics, 3-matic and Build Processor software, and advanced settings of the Renishaw metal AM system.’1

The images show the finished printed bracket, a section through the bracket, and an image from the digital model revealing where lattice structure has been cleaned up and redesigned.

Fig_01

Fig_03

In this project the optimised form from Altair was smothered with the software from Materialise. Altair used a specific software which is a lattice hybrid topological optimisation digital tool. The outcome is redesigned with Materialise, to reduce the weight of the model before it was sent to Renishaw for AM 3D printing in titanium.

Fig_02

_01 |_Materialise. (n.d.). The Spider Bracket: A Topology Optimization Project by Altair, Materialise and Renishaw. [ONLINE] Fig_01-03 |_Materialise. (n.d.). The Spider Bracket: A Topology Optimization Project by Altair, Materialise and Renishaw. [ONLINE]

RESEARCH _Additive manufacturing ‘A hollow closed-cell structure – reminiscent of bird bones – provides a good combination of strength and weight.’

Foster + Partners has teamed up with European Space Agency (ESA) to develop techniques to 3D print lunar soil on the moon. The goal is to have enough technical knowledge to build a lunar base on the moon.

‘Foster + Partners devised a weight-bearing ‘catenary’ dome design with a cellular structured wall to shield against micro-meteoroids and space radiation, incorporating a pressurised inflatable to shelter astronauts.’1

‘The geometry of the structure was designed by Foster + Partners in collaboration with consortium partners – it is ground-breaking in demonstrating the potential of 3D printing to create structures that are close to natural biological systems.’2 If these blocks are topologically optimised or not, I do not know. However, I do find it interesting that the model for these blocks are found in a birds bone.

Fig_03

Fig_01

The idea is to inflate large cushions. On top of this a robot is meant to spray a binding solution onto soil. This is made with a 6m long robotic print arm, that builds the blocks in their right position.

Weight is relative and on the moon matter weigh less. The prototype block made weighs 1.5 tonnes.

Fig_02

_01 |_De Kestelier, X. (2013). Foster + Partners works with European Space Agency to 3D print structures on the moon | Foster + Partners. [ONLINE] _02 |_ ESA (2013). Building a lunar base with 3D printing. [ONLINE] Fig_01-03 |_De Kestelier, X. (2013). Foster + Partners works with European Space Agency to 3D print structures on the moon | Foster + Partners. [ONLINE]

PRECEDENTS _Dreamcatcher Project This digital generative design research project was initiated by Autodesk. This project seeks to explore generative design with a slightly different approach.

It is not topological optimisation per se, but here the designer optimise an already predetermined part, or the whole of many parts. It is also intended as a live performance analysis tool.

‘Traditional optimization work-flows like that of the NASA ST-5 antenna are ‘bottom-up’ where a design space must be defined by the user and then searched by a genetic algorithm or similar optimization function. By contrast, Dreamcatcher uses a ‘top-down’ approach where higher level goals are specified. This is the major differentiator between design optimization tools and Dreamcatcher’s exploratory design synthesis process.’1

_01 |_Autodesk (2018). Project Dreamcatcher | Autodesk Research. [ONLINE] Fig_01 |_Autodesk (n.d.). [ONLINE] Fig_02 |_ Mogk, C. (2014). What is Project Dreamcatcher?. [ONLINE]

Fig_02

Fig_01

BARTLETT B-PRO SHOW _Extract What I am interested in on a larger scale is exploration of logic structures.

In the B-Pro show at the Bartlett there are several units that touch upon this matter in a slightly different, and more comprehensive manner. BiotA Lab for instance investigates how biological structures can be interpreted, adapted, transformed, or controlled on a building scale1. Although I have only had a brief look at evolutionary algorithms and definitions, this also relates to topological optimisation.

Since we are living and building in the same world that nature has operated in over millions of years I am absolutely convinced that the structures that has evolved is in many ways more optimised than the conventional structures we have been limited to construct. Our structures are much less flexible, often contain more materiality than necessary, and they aim to solve almost static physical problems under more or less fixed circumstances.

In my research I try to strip solids of materiality but keep, or even enhance, its structural properties. BiotA Lab’s work evolves around starting with little to nothing in order optimise and control the growing of structures.

_01 |_UCL The Bartlett (2017). Bartlett B-Pro Show.

[Various] Fig_01-04 |_UCL The Bartlett (2017). Bartlett B-Pro Show.

[Various]

Fig_01

Fig_02

Fig_03

Fig_04

LECTURE _By Francis Aish of Foster + Partners As Head of Applied Research and Development, and partner at Foster + Partners Francis Aish is part of truly progressive technology in the field of architecture and engineering. This lecture was very inspiring and we got a glimpse at many cutting edge techniques used in the office for several different purposes, for example communication, analysis, structural engineering, and generative design. We were asked not to take images during the presentation.

Communication: Francis showed us how they can interact with clients via colour coded, back lit/ambient surfaces which calculate the relation between objects placed on the surface. In his example the planning of an office floor was displayed. Colours showed the intensity of analysis of physical collaborations between different departments in the office space, to find a good solution where to place them in relation to each other. The client can now see the result of the analysis, and how and where there will be most movement of people between the departments across the floor. By moving physical objects representing a department the flux of people change. A client-desired positioning solution can be reached right in front of the client.

_01 |_Francis, A. (2017). Human Intuition, Computational Rigour.

Analysis: Francis also showed us how wind had been measured at a large site in central London. This analysis helped determine the most suitable form for the design, but also what impact the wind would have with various iterations of building bodies in this space.

Virtual Reality: AR and VR has also been used successfully by Foster + Partners as a tool to make the client truly understand the size, form and design of a space that Fosters + Partners were commissioned for. It has also been used together with unity as a design tool.

One example of this was where a small model of a floor with walls were placed in front of you in VR. This same virtual space, along with the model, existed inside the same very model that was in front of you, but on a 1:1 scale, and while you manipulated the smaller model, the space you were in transformed accordingly instantly.

Another example showed how you could model a 3D volume in VR, you can manipulate it, and you can zoom ‘yourself’ in and out of the model. This allow you to orbit the model but also to experience what you model from street level in scale 1:1.

Scanning: For the UAE pavilion in Dubai they managed (at least partially) to scan sand ripples on a sand dune, which were then analysed digitally. This translated into a script to find a rhythm in the design that made it look less repetitive, and feasible to manufacture.

Structural Engineering: Foster + Partners have many different ways of designing the structure of buildings, and to find the most suitable and desired kind.

Francis showed us several softwares and images of physical samples of structural elements, and techniques they use. This includes stress analysis and choice of material for example.

Generative Design: Topological Optimisation was used to find the best structure for a high-rise building, but there were several different examples in this lecture which showed various ways to use algorithms to generate design.

Workflow: Francis also showed us a highly efficient workflow developed by the practice, this was interesting since this is what we have been struggling with this year.

EXHIBITION _Why is this relevant?

DCW is the corporate side of cutting edge of technology in the field of construction. This is the representation of what progressive technology within construction looks like formally. It is mostly directed at developers and investors, and tries to deal with computation and digital means to deal with logistics and to increase control and profit.

This exhibition tries to deal with six trends within digital media and construction.

Each of these trends had their own theatre and a speakers program. These wore: 1. Industry Transformation - Technology 2. Building Information Model - BIM 3. GEO Spatial 4. Industry 4.0 5. Smart Buildings 6. Visualisation Unfortunately we only had time to come to this free exhibition on the second day in the afternoon. I went to two talks at the Visualization Theatre.

_01 |_ExCeL (2017). Digital Construction Week London 2017.

We stopped at a stall with a robotic arm, and had a go at program it to do simple tasks, with instructions from and exhibitor. Mesmerizing but not in our field of expertise but perhaps a future field of work.

Overall this was a very formal exhibition mostly directed at business and sales. It was quite disappointing in that regard, but it is always useful to see how these event works, and what they look like.

GRASSHOPPER _Initial workshops In the beginning of the module we had several workshops as a presentation of what is possible to do with this software.

We begun with some simple exercises; here dividing curves into segments, arching them and lofting the arcs.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

What is striking is how fast you can get to a somewhat complex form. The definition consists of just 15 components, but is highly flexible. It is easy to see how this could be built upon.

_Initial workshops In this exercise we were introduced to circles and radial forms. We then tried to manipulate the form with a soft of attractor to alter the small spheres sizes.

A play with 3D pattern and colour.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

CLT PRECEDENT Description: Rundquist Architects was awarded a price for their CLT exhaust tower in Stockholm. The towers main function is to divert air from the Norra Link road underneath; it reduce the emission levels in the tunnels. It is designed in stacked CLT and cladded with cedar panels in conjunction with the surrounding environment, which largely consists of trees.

The tower seeks to challenge the idea of how technology functions usually are styled. It is made from locally sourced timber, which serves as a symbol of a environmentally friendly alternative. The towers have been optimized for function in interaction with architectural form. Natural wood material represents low-tech but at the same time high-tech, as the modern day timber construction technology has evolved with the CLT, and other forms of engineered timber, and prefabrication and assembly methods.

The twist gives the towers a slimmer and more interesting gestalt, and the sweeping shape accentuates the sculptural impression and gives a varied and beautiful expression that changes over time and with the viewing angle.

The towers have been modelled parametrically in 3d programs in order to be optimized and adjusted late in the process. The components have since been taken out of the model, littered and sorted on workpieces in an automated process before files were exported to the CNC machine that cut out the parts of cross-laminated slabs. The items have then been delivered on site and assembled into super-triangles stacked to each other and tied together with vertical steel spring-rods so as not to break the structure when the wood moves.1

Fig_02

The tower is 20 meters high and is shaped like a supertriangle that turns upward along its own axis. The internal geometry and design affect the resistance to exiting air and the airflow can be optimized, more space in the bend into the tower and at the top where the triangle area is larger which reduces the air resistance.

Fig_02

_01 |_Svenskt Trä (2016). Trätorn Norra Länken Svenskt Trä [ONLINE] Fig_01-03 |_Svenskt Trä (2016). Trätorn Norra Länken Svenskt Trä [ONLINE]

Fig_03

Project Summary: Architects: Rundquist Arkitekter AB, Henrik Rundquist, Jonas Nyberg, Anna Undén, Peter Sundin, Johan Kronberg.

Constructor (request form): Ramböll, Bengt Pettersson.

Constructor (contracted): Martinsons, Greger Lindgren.

Contractor: Martinsons, Daniel Wilded.

Other consultants: Ramböll.

Gross area: 44.8 sqm / tower.

Construction cost: 7 million sek / tower.

Year built: 2013-2015.

Foundation: Concrete.

Construction: Prefabricated solid wood elements of CLT. Surface treatment: Transparent swab protection. 1

Fig_01

Fig_02

In Unit 04 we are dealing with computation and digital design. We aim to explore contemporary and new ways of environmentally friendly CLT construction. Here the structural concept of Stacking appealed to me. What is also interesting is that it has been modelled in 3D software, and the computer file has served as cutting instructions for the CNC machine.

Moreover the project is situated in Sweden which implies that the technological skills already exist in the country where this years project is located.

Fig_03

_01 |_Svenskt Trä (2016). Trätorn Norra Länken Svenskt Trä [ONLINE] Fig_01-03 |_Svenskt Trä (2016). Trätorn Norra Länken Svenskt Trä [ONLINE]

RE-IMAGINED TOWER To further engage with this case study I imagined that this was not just an exhaustion tower, but an actual inhabited building. I quickly modelled it and sketched out a few basic features, such as construction method and imagined bioclimatic features: Inspiration - Narrative: Plupp is a bluehaired, clown-like cartoon creature created by author Inga Borg. In a series of children’s books Plupp teaches us about the animals, landscape, history and culture of the very north of Sweden and Lapland, and the indigenous Sami people.

Peter Cook was advocating a more fun side of architecture in a lecture at the Bartlett on Friday the 13th 2017, that I attended.1 Inspired by the beloved children’s books about Plupp, and Peter Cooks call for a more humoristic architecture, I set out to reiterate this precedent. My aim was to transform it into an inhabitable structure, with more human features interpreted in a humorous, cartoon-like manner; The doors and windows have the form of the very super-triangel shape that makes out the original form, designed

by Rundquist Arkitekter; one balcony per floor - they are gradually moving from one side of the triangle to the next (on the next floor) in a clockwise manner, in the same direction as the tower is slowly twisting around its own vertical axis;

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

At the top one of the three corners of the triangle is lifted to create an interesting and useful end of the form.

This creates a practical slope of the roof.

The sloping roof is then punctured by a smaller version of the triangular shape.

This shape holds a window in the same triangular form and works as a “skylight”, but is in fact a vertical window facing south (South is where direction you are most likely to come from when going to Kiruna too!). This feature of the top of the tower is meant as a comical reference to a lighthouse-top, with its fire, or optical lens, that is meant to attract attention from a far, and guide you under dark conditions.

The stacked CLT structure is insulated externally and dressed in the same cedar shingle skin as the precedent. Alternatively it can be dressed in Siberian Larch, which is suitable in these conditions. This skin gradually shifts from closely dressing the structure to enshroud the balconies, leaving a much larger cavity behind.

The tower was modelled in Rhino.

‘Simulations of various CLT-layer compositions taking into account different climatic conditions confirmed the unproblematic and solid hygrothermal building element-behaviour of CLT-constructions!’ 1 ...‘comfortable and healthy indoor climate’ 2 Timber has preferable properties in terms of thermal bridging - it is more favourable in cold climates as it does not lead cold nearly as well as concrete or brick/ block-work. In summer though it cannot cool internal spaces in the same way as concrete because if its less thermal mass. But up north the summers are generally much colder which makes this property more suitable there.

Solar panels on the roof can convert sunlight into electricity. In this case the tower has relatively little roof area, but several floors. It is harder to gain electricity from sunlight in a tall and slim building, but imagining this building quite far north also makes the summer days longer, and during summertime a significant amount of electricity can be generated.

The roof is tilted to the south to give a better angle towards the sun. This is also preferable in the north since the weight of snow can be significant. A sloping roof allows the snow and rain to slide off and the lateral load is reduced.

Glazing in all directions is perfectly fine, but larger windows and glazed doors should face east or west or preferably south to help heat internal spaces. The days that risk overheating internal spaces are much fewer in the north, then in central, or southern Europe.

Winter-times there is only daylight for a few hours and to get the most out of the low sun, more and larger windows can with benefits be placed facing south. All windows in north Europe should be at least double gracing, but triple glazing is preferred.

Facade cladding could be made from Siberian Larch which is both hard and durable, which translates into low maintenance. It is also a renewable natural recourse and is reusable. It is grown in Siberia and is considered a very sustainable material. Ecoforestry is not only good for the built environment but for the actual site where it is grown.

Heat recovery ventilation system is operated by two fans; one that extract stale air from the building - hot air rises in the building, and another fan that supplies fresh air from outside. The system intertwine; the two airflows pass through a heat exchanger to regain some of the heat of the stale air and transfer it to the fresh air from outside. This is a good way to ensure less energy use in the household in the North of Europe, especially wintertime.

A geothermal heat pump also helps reducing energy consumption. This is a somewhat expensive installation, but the cost divided on the, practically maintenance-less, system over the years makes it a good investment. Heat from deep down (in Scandinavia usually between 90-200m) the mountain is pumped up to the building, to ease heating the building. The system can also help cooling the building, but this is rarely necessary in the north.

The system is normally used to heat water, that is then run through pipes to radiators. It also increasingly common to put in pipes that run hot water for underfloor heating. It makes sense that the applied heat comes from the floor since hot air rises, making the distribution optimal. However this works better with a high thermal mass, i.e. concrete slabs, tiled floors. Timber does not lead heat as well. There are solutions for this. For example in conjunction to soundproofing of CLT structures, which can sometimes be an issue; ‘ScreedBoard 20 dry screed boards, HEXATHERM XFLOOR routed insulation panels and FIBREfon 8 resilient layers the system was recognised as the ideal soundproofing and under floor heating floating floor system for the modern development.’ 3

GRASSHOPPER _Initial workshops In a workshop shortly after I modelled the exhaustion tower, we tried a similar exercise. Here we divided a few random curves into equal amount of segments.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

To begin with one of my random curves was directed the other way in relation to the rest. This caused a twist when lofting them, but it was soon sorted.

_Initial workshops With more skills it is easy to see that if I had modelled the exhaustion tower with grasshopper instead of Rhino, I could have saved a lot of time, while gaining a lot of flexibility.

This definition though is starting to get long and I have seen examples of more extensive designs, where the definition becomes enormous. One must be very organised in the build up to be able to orientate within the definition. Different strategies of this was discussed during the session.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

LADYBUG _Initial workshops One plug-in that can be really useful is Ladybug. Here you can collect climatic and meteorological data and test your model towards this.

We had some complications with a very strange error, but was eventually sorted.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Initial workshops We got to test dividing a surface into panels and give them thickness, as well as how you can separate them from each other, and evaluate them.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

We studied panellisation and radiation of these. What can be seen from the final definition is that it is very organised and tidy.

GRASSHOPPER _Initial workshops In this session we tested using Gaudi’s structural techniques, but digitally. The form is designed upside-down, to make use of gravitation. Of course that is an abstract expression in the digital modelling space.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

LYNDA TUTORIALS _Online tutorials To begin with I thought it would be very beneficial to know the basics of Grasshopper before jumping into Millipede.

Although the in-class seminars/tutorials were very good, it was more about try to follow along, than actually understanding exactly how Grasshopper works.

I ran though all the basic tutorials on Lynda.com to try to get a better understanding of the software. I must say I was quite amazed by how complex forms and patterns can be generated through really quite simple definitions.

This gave me good hopes before my endeavourers with Millipede, I became really excited.

Here is a basic tutorial exploring attractor points.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Tutorials There are several hours of tutorials in Grasshopper on Lynda.com. It is an amazing source when designing. Not only do you understand the basics, but you can also see how you can combine different definitions to achieve quite complex forms.

Here I looked at; 1. Curve data analysis 2. Polygon surfaces 3. Diagonal grid system

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Surface and spheres

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Polygonal mesh data

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

MILLIPEDE EXAMPLE FILES _Example files In most of the example files provided along with the download of the .pdf file.

Eigen smoothing is a definition that quire radically change the geometry of an input mesh. In the .pdf we can read; ‘The smoothing component reconstruct a shape from its eigenmodes allowing you to filter out certain frequencies. It is equivalent to a low-pass or high-pass filter used in signal analysis.’ I am really not sure what this means actually.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Eigen Displacement This is another eigentool definition, named Eigen Displacement. In the .pdf it says; ‘We can use superposition of eigenmodes to define generalized deformation and displacement functions over any geometry. The scrollbars determine the strength of each frequency component in the final shape.’

The definition transform the geometry quite drastically when pushing the scrollbars to (what seems to be) extreme values. I do not understand this language, and it’s really hard to make sense of this.

More research might have to be done into the technical terms.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Iso Surfaces This definition create curved surfaces within a bounding box, and the 3D pattern created can be warped with the sliders proveded in the definition. The size and amount of verticies can also be controlled.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Object Contours ‘Using the object wrapper component you can generate meshes that smoothly wrap around different types of geometry.’ The starting point of in this example file is two circles that intersect with a box. The meshes that wraps around the curves (circles) can easily be controlled with the sliders in the definition.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

RESEARCH & CONCEPT _Brief The brief that was my starting point was the brief of assignment 3 for the design module; The arcitc shelter When typing in ‘shelter’ into Google, primitive temporary dwellings come up that brings thoughts to the traditional Sami dwelling Goahti.

Shelter ‘A place giving temporary protection from bad weather or danger.’1

Looking at the definition of a shelter led me to investigate the definition of a shed, because these are often used in the same context.

When typing in ‘shed’ into the web browser a more permanent, and slightly more sophisticated, yet simple, structure shows.

Fig_01

Fig_02

Shed ‘A simple roofed structure used for garden storage, to shelter animals, or as a workshop.’1

_01 |_Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2018).

English Dictionary [ONLINE] Fig_01 |_Grafton Lakes State Park (n.d.). shelter_0.

[ONLINE] Fig_02 |_St. Edwards (n.d.). Shelter Project.

[ONLINE] Fig_03 |_Homefix Handyman. 2018. Finding the Perfect Shed to Erect in Your Garden Homefix Handyman. [ONLINE] Fig_04 |_Emaze presentations. 2018. slave catchers. [ONLINE]

Fig_04

Fig_03

_Conceptual form This quick research further led me to reinterpret the word Shelter as a combination of the two in the context of an arctic environment. I imagine this is located in the north of Sweden where our design projects are located. My definition thus became; Artic Shed A simple roofed structure giving temporary shelter from bad weather or danger.

I extended my research parallel with my initial sketches. The initial coneptual approach was I imagine that I had a few CLT elements. I lean them onto each other in a primitive way, but organised to address climatic specifics that my research has led to. I then start deleting the the bits that is outside the intersecting area to get to a form which purely responds to the climatic circumstances.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

RESEARCH _Vernacular Arctic Design Traditionally inhuits have sought a round footprint, the base is a polygonal shape of finite chain of straight line segments.

The more segments, the rounder the base. This is useful to reduce cold corners, to reduce the surface in contact with the cold outdoor air. It is also befeficial structurally to centre the support.

Below is a sketch explaining the low winter sun’s impact on design. Note the pliths the building sits on.

A Mongolian Yurt are more round than the traditional Sami Goahti but share the pricipal design. However, in the colder arctic, the weight of snow must be considered too. Hence the pyramid form. This also allow to pary and redirect cold wind (see next page diagrammatic sketch by Ralph Erskine)

Ralph Erskine made extensive research and analysis of the arctic climate, and created strategies of how to build in these harsh conditions. Below is a sketch explaining the low winter sun’s impact on design. Also note that the building sits on pliths to be lifted off ground.

Fig_02

A non-arctic based architecture still has to deal with real winter conditions. One example of how this has been addressed is to put the building on granite blocks to elevate it off ground. In this way the timber will not be able to absorb water from the ground, thus preventing it from rot. This will also prevent cold bridging from the ground.

Fig_04 Fig_01 Fig_01 |_Sv.wikipedia.org. (2018). Ralph Erskine.

[ONLINE] Fig_02 |_austinbuntondesign (n.d.). Yurts. [ONLINE] Fig_03 |_Jin, J. (2014). ZONE OF ABSOLUTE DISCOMFORT. [ONLINE] Fig_04 |_Tham, B. and Videgård, M. (2017). RIBA | Europa 3: Nordic Countries.

Fig_03

_Ralph Erskine & actic design Ralph Erskine was not just active on the architectural scene in Sweden but also in Italy, UK and Canada for example.

He did master plan for a new town in Canada in 1972-1973; Resolute Bay. In the 70’s there were several master-planning projects in the undertaking, aiming to ‘integrate’ indigenous people of the Arctic region into the southern society.

He fell in love with the northern nature and stayed in Sweden with his wife Ruth Francis whom had come with him from England, and they married in Sweden in 1939. He was facinated of how the climate and nature dictated the buildings and he used the sunlight more than anything to form his buildings and town planning. The light and heat from the sun was effectively used in placing and directing buildings in the landscape. He used deflectors to catch the low winter sun, and to lead light into the buildings.

He became one of the most influential architects of Sweden and had great influence on the architectural debate domestically and internationally.

climate towards the south. On top of this micro climate zone, which included housing for inuits, library, shops and leisure, a “bubble roof” were drawn to further protect from the cold winter.

‘Both houses and cities must unfold itselves as flowers do in the summer sun, but also like flowers should turn away from shadows and cold northern winds, providing the warmth of the sun and wind protection to the terraces, gardens and streets.’1 In his sketches the strategy how to deal with cold northern winds is clear. He also shows how the natural phenomenon of snow drifting should be dealt with, and how snowloads must be considered.

Erskine’s scheme for Resolute Bay included a long crescent house body that was sketched out as a windscreen towards the north, which would enable a micro Fig_02

_01 |_ Sv.wikipedia.org. (2018). Ralph Erskine.

[ONLINE] Fig_01-02 |_ Sv.wikipedia.org. (2018). Ralph Erskine.

[ONLINE]

Fig_01

CLIMATICALLY OPTIMISED FORM _Initial form for optimisation Considering the afore mentioned strategies by vernacular precedents and Erskine’s sketches I came up with this form. It is intended to be made from large CLT elements and sits on corner stones, or plinths to lift it off ground. The angles are intended to deal with snow drifting, and cold north/north-west winds, that usually come from the mountains towards the border towards Norway.

And just like Erskine’s designs, it is meant to create a sheltered front towards the south/south-east, thus allow for the low winter sun to shine far into the building, while taking advantage of the form to reduce the amount of snow gathered via snow drifting in front of the building.

My hope with this collection of tilted elements is that I can reduce the amount of material in each element via topological optimisation. This to reduce weight for transport and assembly purposes.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Arctic Climatic Strategy The strategy follows Erskines analysis of the arctic climate. As a Swede myself, I can confirm his diagrams are very accurate of how snow and wind behaves.

A lot of daylight on this longitude is never a real problem. It rarely gets too hot, and if it does it is just for a few days, and not even every year, which is why large windows to the south is desireble, and practically standard when possible.

N

N

ARCTIC SHED & MILLIPEDE _Initial form for optimisation As an absolute beginner with Grasshopper, it seemed to me as if it would not be too hard to work with it. After some hours in tutorials, nothing seems to be impossible.

One of the earliest tasks I set myself was to try to adapt a haxagonal pattern onto the south facade of the initial shed.

Understanding how to make it in Grasshopper and adopt it to the form of the south-facing facade was easy, but when trying to pipe the pattern with a square pipe defininition, I had some issues on specific parts of the grid for some reason. But instead of spending time trying to solve this I decided to move on to Millipede.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Initial testing I started running some initial test to try to understand the Millipede plug-in for Rhino. I ran a stess analysis on an imagined floor slab.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Initial testing Further I tried testing stress analysis on the roof elements (1).

But I eventually ran into complications when trying to combine definitions, and testing stress analysis on more than one element at a time. Even though the definition did not give me any errors (as can be seen in image 2) I was unsure if it actually acknowledged both surfaces and their relation and support (very little indicated this).

1

2

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Testing evolutionary algorithms I moved on to a test of evolutionary algorithms using the plug-in Galapagos.

There is only one tutorial online of this plug-in and I had to let the solver run all night to finish. The column to the right is supposed to find the optimum position to support the roof, and after the process it gave me a long list of possible coordinates for this. They were all the same number so I must have made a mistake somewhere. But when selecting one and minmizing the pop-up window, all the data generated by Galapagos dissapered.

Since this test took many hours I decided not to continue exploring this plug-in right now.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

Galapagos

_Stress analysis I then moved on to testing the stress analysis on beams. I tried to provoke the software with strange looking support and form of the beams to see what the response would be, but initially had very little success.

I decided to change the example file from an I-beam to my own square beam, and that worked. I could then try to transfer the definition and apply it to the beam in my model file.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

Eventually I managed to get a satisfying response from the software.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Toplological Optimisation with Millipede The online .pdf is around 80 pages and seems quite comprehensive. It runs through the example files and has a description of each component that is incorporated in the plug-in. There are however many words in here that I am not familiar with, and when researching them, you quite quickly end up reading about really advanced physics and mathematics. Although I have tried to embrace this too, it has meant I have spent many hours reading about things I can not show, nor have they really helped me in the end, since they are just scattered fragments in the world of engineering and physics.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Attempting to generate geometry I tried the definition for generating geometry via topological optimisation on my own problem, which is the small back gable to the north on the arctic shed. But I kept getting this error no matter what I did. The load (red box on top) clearly shows the load downwards but it stops even before it leaves its own boudry box. There is also an indication on the support (red triangular from at the bottom) that it gets fed some sort of load, even if it is suspiciously lonely. Either way the error would not go away no matter how much I tried to manipulate the sliders in the definition.

A

A. Load region B. Boundary for generative geometry C. Support region B

C

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Generated geometry The example file has one problem, with a solving definition prefabricated. I tried to manipulate it but could not figure out why I could not make it work. The sliders numbers are very abstract so it is very hard to understand which one, or ones, needs to change and in which direction, more or less?

A B

A. Load region B. Boundary for generative geometry

C

C. Support region The preset works though, and I generated this geometry.

1

1. The vertical load is displayed by the blue vertical lines. The support that absorbs the load is marked by red x-points.

2. The definition shows the voxel cloud, the 3D gradient. This cloud is divided into several FEA’s. The software does not display these different areas, but according to how topological optimisation works, this is how it should work.

3. Mesh geometry produced.

2

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

3

4. The mesh geometry produced comes automatically textured with stress analysis gradient, where red is shows the more affected areas and aqua-green shows areas of less stress and more relaxation.

5. Clarification of geometry.

5

4

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Towards successfully generated geometry After many many hours of errors and unsuccessful tests and trials, I returned to the example file.

I then started to manipulate the boundary boxes and move them into a similar position as my own element. When rescaling these boxes an error will soon occur. Since I could not get the definition to work with my own element, I had to reverse, or transform the working example file step-by-step until it was relatively similar as my own problem. It was then apply the definition to my own problem.

1-9. Images show how I gradually scaled load-, and support-regions, as well as the boundary for generative geometry, step by step to get it similar to my own problem.

5 1

6

2

9 7 3

8

4

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

When changing the size of the load bounding box (A) an error occur in the definition (B) and it stops working, as can be seen here. The generated geometry then disappears (C), not gradually but all of a sudden. I cannot make sense of this, despite reading the instructions, or by pushing sliders.

C

But when making only small changes to one box at a time, the whole gets gradually smaller and starts to resemble my own problem more and more, as can be seen in images 1-9.

A

C B

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_First successfully generated geometry I finally got to the point where the problem looks very similar to my own, where the solver still running without error.

A-C. Support and load regions.

A 1

B C

1

2

3

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

After a few more adjustments I applied the definition to my own problem, and for the first time I got my own geometry out from the definition.

A-C. Load and support regions

A

B

C

RESEARCH _The process of generating To go through the process of topological optimisation and generating geometry is a real test of patience. I have found the process truly frustrating, and I have experienced countless crashes.

While the FEA solver is running, Grasshopper and Rhino is frozen. In the beginning I tried to do other tasks while the solver was working, but I realised many crashes was caused by the computer having to deal with several softwares running at the same time as the topological optimisation process. In these cases I often tried to search for information about Millipede, topological optimisation, and the process, and searched for threads in online forums where this was discussed.

But found little to nothing.

I also tried to understand some of the technical mathematical terms and expressions that is related to this process, with hope of getting better understanding of the different inputs in the definition.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

Generative = Slow Architect student producing work

Me reading about producing work

_Technical terms Even though I had access to the example files and they worked fine, I experienced a lot of issues when trying to adopt them and apply them to my own models. In an attempt to better understand I spent time reading about the technical terms that is part of the vocabulary realm in which Millipede operates. Most of this reading was made on Wikipedia. Since I don’t expect to master advanced maths at the end of this option module this source seems more than capable of providing me with sufficient explanations for these terms.

Here is a list of matemathical terms I have read a bit about, that I found really relates to Millipede and its components, definitions, and problems.

Differential equation: A mathematical equation that relates function with deratives. Function represent physical qualities whereas deratives represent the change within them. Common in engieering and physics.

Numerical analysis: Numerical approximation in the studies of algorithms.

‘Numerical analysis naturally finds applications in all fields of engineering and the physical sciences, but in the 21st century also the life sciences and even the arts have adopted elements of scientific computations.’

Boundry value problem: Boundry conditions are a set of rules together with a differential equation. The solution to the diffetential equation also satiesfies the rules of the solution of the boundry conditions.

Eigenfunction: ‘In general, an eigenvector of a linear operator D defined on some vector space is a non-zero vector in the domain of D that, when D acts upon it, is simply scaled by some scalar value called an eigenvalue. In the special case where D is defined on a function space, the eigenvectors are referred to as eigenfunctions. That is, a function f is an eigenfunction of D if it satisfies the equation.’

Fourier transform: Decomposes a function of time into frequences, much like notes are definitions of chords in a time frame; ‘The Fourier transform is called the frequency domain representation of the original signal. The term Fourier transform refers to both the frequency domain representation and the mathematical operation that associates the frequency domain representation to a function of time.’

Furthermore I have tried to sort out the term Lattice, what its meaning is in different contexts. Lattice Parameter, for instance, which refers to the relation between the angles of a triangle within a cell. The relation between a mesh and a lattice structure is of importance in the realm of 3D printing for instance.1

Fig_01

_01 |_Wikipedia. (n.d.). Main Page. [ONLINE] Fig_01 |_Wikipedia (n.d.). Fractional Coordinates.

[ONLINE]

SOFTWARE _Monolith When researching further on the topic, while waiting on the FEA solver, I found that Panagiotis Michalatos is working on a new software called Monolith. This exists both as a plug-in for Grasshopper, but also as a free-standing software, which has recently been bought by Autodesk. As I have had a hard time working with Millipede I decided to give Monolith a try. Where Millipede are aimed towards strictly structural analysis and generative design, Monolith is mostly aimed at 3D printing. However, topological optimisation is largely used with the intention of ultimately 3D print generated optimised geometry, and Monolith also deals with generative structures, before going into the actual printing technology.

What was also encouraging was the fact that there are more, and longer, videos of how the software works, and how to manoeuvre the interface. There are also a few posts in an online forum, which is not the case with Millipede, but just like with Millipede, there are a .pdf that explains the software available online.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

I downloaded Monolith to see if I could have better luck with my process of topological optimisation in this software.

Perhaps I would understand the functions better with another interface, or perhaps the functions was more pedagogical in Monolith?

I managed to get a wall element into the software after some initial trial and error, and some rescaling. I also managed to add supports and loads, and I got some type of reaction from the software. But unfortunately the interface and components in the software on my computer did not match the online videos. After many hours of trying to find the right function I had to give up. I decided to go back to Millipede, since at least I can get to some sort of end-product from the process by using it.

Successfully generating geometry I moved on to the east wall element to try to run it through the process. This wall element is also slightly tilting inwards. I figured this feature could potentially provoke the software to produce something unexpected.

1. Image shows overall composition of the problem. In this case the roof is the only load, while there are two supports - one on each side of the span of the element to undergo optimisation.

2. Here we see the loads from the roof and how they are being absorbed on the support (red dots). Because the element is tilting, the loads will travel through the boundary box (where the optimised form will be generated) onto the support, but this cannot be straight underneath since the boundary box is tilting.

1 2

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

Successfully generating geometry The result took many hours to generate because of the tilting element. We can also see that the arch created is more slim above the central void (3). From the outside we can see that the strange mirrored arch that runs underneath the central void (4) is more slim on the outside. The software is trying its best to organise ‘material’ to attain vertical balance.

4

3

5. The definition of the problem shows that despite only three iterations it took many hours to generate the form. The green support box in fig. 2 is highlighted.

5

Successfully generating geometry The south facing element is the front.

Here I would like to determine the most suitable place aperture, to determine where a door and windows can be placed with purely structural logics.

I first decided to divide the front element into two, to reduce the complexity of the problem, to be able to get a result faster.

A-B. Load boundaries. Imagined loads from the roof (B) and a tilting wall( A) A

C-D. Supports. Here we can see where the loads are absorbed.

After the solver finished generating geometry, it seems something makes little sense. For some reason the software prefer to strip mass in direct contact with load A, before many other more logic places. In this state load A has no direct support at all, which is very strange.

B

C

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

D

I decided to do another test, where the whole front wall was considered one element, i.e. one whole boundary for generated geometry.

A-C. Loads. A and C are loads from tilting walls, whereas load B is load from roof.

D-E. Supports.

This time the tilting wall element (A) is longer and gets support from the generated geometry. Load C is also getting a lot of support. This time it makes more sense.

C A B

E D

Successfully generating geometry The fourth wall element, the one facing west, is the largest, and most demanding.

It is very tilted and the problem holds oddly positioned loads and supports. It took many hours and this crashed my computer a few times before I decided to straighten it up, to make it vertical - it just wasn’t possible to run the definition.

Originally it shared support with the south facing element, but when I straightened it up, I decided to use support from the south element instead of adding another support on ground level.

A

A. Load of roof.

B

B. Load from interior floor slab C. Support shared with small north gable.

D

D. Support from south facing wall element.

E. Unused support by the final generated geometry

C

E

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

This diagram shows loads (red), supports (green) and the boundary where the optimised geometry will be generated (purple).

A-C. Loads affect the generated form of element X

F

D-F. Loads affected south wall (Y) displayed as an outline

A Y

G-H. Support affect the generated form of element X I-J. Support affected south wall (Y) displayed as an outline

B

X

D

C H

J

G

E

I

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

Here We can see how the west wall element (A) takes its support from the south wall element (B). We can also see that it share its other support with the small north gable (C).

C

A

A

C B

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

B

All four wall elements has now been run through the optimisation process.

C

A. North facing gable B. East element C. South facing element and front.

D. West facing element

B

A

D

INTERIM EVALUATION _What has been found?

When I set out to optimise a structure like the shed, I first imagined that I would get results of something like the drone, made in Autodesk Dreamcatcher project. I soon realised that I did not have the skills to attempt an optimisation of the whole volume, so I set out to test separate wall elements.

However, the more I looked around my hopes were enhanced, and I started hoping that I could get to a point similar to the Spider Bracket project, especially since I learned how to direct forces. I imagined that the wind loads from north west could cause the need for a complex 3D structure (even if very exaggerated to cause a dramatic reaction from the software).

But as I kept working, and studying I realised it was very unlikely, but I still imagined that I at least would end up with something like this project in Neil Spillers book Digital Architecture Now, from 2008. The project Performing Arts Centre in Seoul was imagined to be using structural lattice system inspired by nature and adopted to the programmatic need of the project.

‘Contrary to a conventional three-dimensional truss structure, this proposal suits the force paths within the system by using computer-aided structural optimisation techniques.’1

Fig_01

_01 |_Spiller, N. (2009). Digital architecture now. p. 286 Fig_01 |_Spiller, N. (2009). Digital architecture now. p. 286 Fig_02 |_Spiller, N. (2009). Digital architecture now. p. 287

Fig_02

OTHER SOFTWARES _Searching for other ways My frustration at this point was severe.

I felt I had come nowhere near where I wanted to be, and where I thought I would be. The outcome of optimising the wall elements is also a quite expected. The software creates arcs, it tries to bridge between the supports, and extends towards weights that is not immediately supported by the arc. It’s also quite crude, and quite frankly, ugly.

So I desperately started to look around for other softwares, to see if I could get help elsewhere.

Dreamcatcher is not officially an accessible software yet. It is used and tested by a research group at Autodesk.

Altair’s Optistruct seems to be a somewhat user friendly and I watched several tutorials until I realised that the outcome would not be much different. The Spider Bracket Project was made with an unspecified software from Altair, but also with the software from developing company Materialise, before sent to print.

With this technique I could potentially get the aches to be more smooth, and fill in the uneven surface with lattice structure. However, this is not possible to CNC out of the CLT elements.

_01 |_Altair (n.d.). Altair Optimization Technology. [ONLINE] _02 |_Michalatos, P. (n.d.). topostruct. [ONLINE] Fig_01 |_Cunicode Design (n.d.). Structures & Lattices. [ONLINE] Fig_02 |_Michalatos, P. (n.d.). topostruct. [ONLINE] Fig_03 |_SolidThinking (2017). Inspire. [ONLINE]

Fig_01

(Fig_01) In Altair’s description we can read; ‘OptiStruct has a unique solution to design such lattice structures that is based on topology optimization. Subsequent to the topology optimization phase, large scale sizing optimization studies can be run on the lattice beams while incorporating detailed performance targets such as stress, buckling, displacement and frequency.’

‘Design fine-tuning is used when design changes are limited to changing dimensions (height, length, radii, thicknesses), model parameters (material properties, loads). Parametrization is done depending on the parameter type; i.e. if the parameter is a value in the input deck such as thickness; you can use size optimization; if the parameter does not have a corresponding value but needs modification of the model instead such as radii in a finite element model, you can use shape optimization.

HyperWorks offers several options that will improve efficiency while setting these studies while making sure that you achieve the best outcome from them.’1 (Fig_02) I also downloaded and begun familiarise myself with Topostruct. It is yet another software

by Panagiotis Michalatos and his colleague.

Fig_02

‘Topostruct is a program for structural topology optimization.’ ... ‘This software is intended primarily towards designers and non engineers that want to familiarize with topology optimization as well as develop their intuition regrading the structural behaviour of materials. Topostruct supports both two and three dimensional models. The user will input the dimensions and resolution of an orthogonal region in space which will be assigned certain material density. Then the user must place different support conditions and applied loads within this region and finally run the optimizer which will yield a distribution of material that best meets these conditions.’2 However, this software is the predecessor to Millipede, and should not be more intuitive.

(Fig_03) Finally I had a look at some tutorials of Inspire by Solid Thinking.

Fig_03

RESEARCH _Searching for relevant precedents It seemed to me as if there were really no clear use for topological optimisation on a building scale, rather than in smaller components, or trusses. However, I did find an online article from Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Illinois. Here Professor Glaucio Paulino was interviewed on the topic of topological optimisation within the construction realm. In a research paper by him I found this example (Fig_01).

‘One of the first built examples unitizing topology optimisation in the design and construction of a building structure in the Akutagawa West Side office building designed and built by f-tai architects and structural engineer Hiroshi Ohmori in 2005.’1

Fig_01

In the article he furher says that; ‘Traditional methods of structural engineering are mostly associated with buildings that look like boxes. With topology optimization, we can address unique designs—for example green buildings and organic designs such as buildings that might be bio-inspired by an animal shape—and functionality.’2

01 |_Donofrio, M. (2016). Topology Optimization and Advanced Manufacturing as a Means for the Design of Sustainable Building Components. [ONLINE] 02 |_Paulino, G. (2013). Topology optimization connects architecture and engineering.

[ONLINE] Fig_01 |_Donofrio, M. (2016). Topology Optimization and Advanced Manufacturing as a Means for the Design of Sustainable Building Components. [ONLINE] Fig_01 |_Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2013).

Spiderwebbldg. [ONLINE]

The model (2) is made by his research team in collaboration with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

Fig_02

NEXT STEP _How to design with this?

My initial idea with any kind of finding was to display it, I want it to be seen.

When going through all this processes of optimising the structure, I might as well show how the building works, to allow for it to be read. But the elements cannot be totally stripped where structure is not needed. So how do I dissolve the element, without getting rid of it?

I thought of using the form from which the volume of the shed derives from - a hexagon. By using some of the skills I got from using Lynda.com I used attractor points to gradually go from a solid element to a more dissolved element.

However, I could not make this pattern gradually dissolve the CLT element enough.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

Instead I turned to voronoi. This pattern allow to resolve the material to almost nothing, while still allowing the element to be read as one. Moreover the pattern is structurally weak in a vertical position, which then works well as a metaphor that it is really not needed as a support at all. That the pattern exist on many places in nature also becomes part of the metaphor and wink to Gaudi’s architecture, that I have previously mentioned.

_Daylight from the south The pattern is nice and could work quite well when CNC’ed out from the CLT element. The element is perceived as a whole, but is efficiently dissolved where it does not need to be solid. The large punctured holes towards the south allow for a lot of natural light inside the building.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

The structure can now very clearly be read from both inside and outside, while allowing for plenty of natural light inside the building.

_Protection towards the north To dissolve the elements all the way around the edges though, causes issues.

To the north and west the pattern does not necessarily need to run all the way though the facade. From these directions, there will come less sunlight and cold winds and snow will come drifting, which is why openings in the facade is not needed to a great extent. Furthermore causes problems when snow and dirt collects in the cavities. I would make more sense to have these parts insulated and properly protected.

Instead it could simply mark out the structure, and add some variation to the facade.

Showing the structure as a feature is not uncommon, and to me it allows for a more interesting read of a building.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

N

PRECEDENT _Durotaxis Chair I am testing voronoi pattern to dissolve the CLT element where there is no need for structure. There is however, perhaps a link between topological optimisation and the voronoi pattern. In this project the designer Alvin Huang (Synthesis Design + Architecture) used another plug-in, Karamba, for Grasshopper when designing the Durotaxis Chair (Fig_01).

This plug-in is not free, and so I have not been able to test it, but it seems similar to Millipede. The inspiration for the chair comes from the microscopic scale of a skeleton.

Fig_01

‘Bones are thought of as solid homogenous elements, yet at a microscopic level they are anything but. They are actually a variable density structure of spongy cellular tissue, with increased material and density placed in areas of the greatest principal stress. This is defined as a hierarchical rather than homegenous structure.’1 Even though this 3 dimensional pattern is not voronoi, but more tetragonal lattice structure (Fig_02) that turns into a less structurally strong, voronoi-like form (Fig_03), when the registered stress allows, the idea of a 3 dimensional gradient is very much what topological optimisation deals with.

Fig_03

_01 |_Huang, A. (2014). Durotaxis Chair. [ONLINE] Fig_01-03 |_Synthesis Design + Architecture (n.d.).

Durotaxis Chair. [ONLINE]

Fig_02

Huang and his design team also share their methods of designing the chair (Fig_04). But just like for me, it was not a very smooth process as can be seen here (Fig_05). However, as technology improves and our machines gets more powerful, it will not take too long before these kind of experiments can be undertaken by others than software developers like Materialise and companies like Arup.

For me this is interesting reading, but it is not directly compatible with CLT elements, and CNC milling of these.

Fig_04-05 |_Synthesis Design + Architecture (n.d.).

Durotaxis Chair. [ONLINE]

Fig_04

Fig_05

FORM DEVELOPMENT _Diagrammatic sketches I wanted to evolve the form of the building, so I went back to the hexagonal form in plan to see if I could find another way to make the shape of the shelter respond even better to the climatic strategy Erskine has developed.

I started trimming sides of the hexagon while making larger and smaller versions.

I then tried different ways of connecting them while staying true to the climatic strategy.

I ended up with protective barricades for snow-drifting, while the north/north-west side that is exposed to the most harsh weather, stayed part of the back of the building.

Protected entrance

N

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

The form responds to the climatic strategy and allow the northern wind and snow-drifting, to pass in a turbulent manner over the top of the building.

The front lower barricade/wall does not block the sun from the south too much because of its height, while blocking snow drifting along the ground, when necessary.

The form breaks up, or rather redirect, the wind with its tilted elements and closed form (1-3). With the wind barriers in place this feature becomes even more efficient (3).

1

2

3

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

The south elevation (1) shows the protection to the north, while the south facade, by being quite tall, allow for a lot of exposure to the sun. The lower front wall frames an open space in front of the building.

The entrance to the west is protected towards the north and west.

The outward tilting front prevent the turbulence above the roof from reaching the open space in front of the building.

GENERATIVE STRUCTURE _Diagrammatic sequence I first intended to topologically optimise the volume as a whole, but I was unsuccessful despite many attempts, and eventually gave up on this idea.

I tried to use one big support-slab to begin with (A), but it just shrunk the geometry, rather that trying to branch off in different directions. This despite the fact that I applied lateral loads along side the vertical one, in an attempt to provoke a reaction.

I moved on to using plinth-support (support boundary boxes) but it kept crashing Rhino and Grasshopper, or it did nothing at all.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

I during the optimisation process of this iteration of the Arctic shelter, I have encountered countless crashes. It has also taken a lot of time to generate elements that are affected by different loads, when tilted.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Diagrammatic sequence Generally speaking this is the method used for topological optimisation of the different elements in the constellation.

Red boxes are loads, green boxes are support and each blue triangular form, that makes up the volume, is a boundary for generating sufficient and optimised support for the different loads.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

However, element A is being exposed to load from its neighbour to the east (element B) too. Since I still want a lot of openings towards the south, I decided that element A will only deal with the load of element B on the lower-, and mid-height level. This could potentially leave less generated geometry higher up, which in turn can allow for fenestration which leads to more daylight in the building.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Diagrammatic sequence The topologically optimised element is generated. The stress can be read on the generated geometry.

This means that the neighbouring element B now has support from element A according to the geometrical form.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

When generating element B I thus need to place a support region where element A is located. Moreover I already know that element C will use the same support as element B, which means I can add an extra support boundary here.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_ Application of Millipede definitions I though I’d test the definition of the example files accompanied with Millipede.

Here I test the Iso Surface definition to see what would happen to the generated geometry during the optimisation process.

I tried pushing sliders and although a lot happened, nothing really came out that made sense. Anything between small fragments and super-dense mesh that covered the whole element showed, but perhaps this is the result of the irregular boundary box (which the element mesh)?

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

I wanted to try to make the element less crude so I tested the Object Contours definition. In the example file geometry is smoothly wrapped around a set of curves that intersect with a solid.

However, despite several attempt and constellations I did not manage to make anything happen in my own file, even though I did not recieved an error from the Millipede definition.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Smoothing the mesh?

I had an idea that I could try to smoother the quite crude wall element mesh generated, but had big issues trying to get Rhino and Grasshopper to adopt the mesh for this process.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

After many trials and errors I finally got the mesh accepted (1). However, neither the eigen smoothing, nor the eigen displacement definitions made much difference despite quite radical inputs.

Eigen smoothing (2) caused only minimal adjustments to along the ‘edges’ but it did not change the overall expression at all.

The eigen displacement (3) did nothing but sent off some random vector lines away from the main body.

1

2

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

3

_Applying structurally weak pattern Using this optimising method I end up with ten different wall elements. I then use a thin voronoi structure to fill the areas stripped from geometry through the process of topological optimisation on the south- and south-east facing elements, as well as the west elements around the entrance.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Between diagram and visual I eventually managed to use get the voronoi pattern onto the building and use it to punch holes in the elements.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

For a while I entertained the idea of flirting with Gaudi; Gothic design aimed at reducing the materials to the bare minimum to allow more light into the building. Something I have tried too, with new digital techniques. Gaudi was very influenced by nature in his neo-gothic, and highly individual style. The voronoi pattern is, in my case, used to reduce, and dissolve the element as much as possible where structure is not needed. It is also a metaphor; voronoi is not a very structurally strong pattern in a vertical mode. So by using voronoi I am trying really underline that ‘here no structure is needed’.

Moreover voronoi can be found naturally in nature, and on that theme I tested to insulate and clad the facade in a very nature-inspired way.

However, it was not very successful in my opinion, and awfully hard to work with.

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Final Images

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

_Final Images

Jonas Bertlind | JEB0634 Advanced Digital Design Technology 2017/2018 London Metropolitan University Professional Diploma in Architecture | RIBA part II

CONCLUSION & SELF ASSESSMENT _Reflection The Abstract was written during the initial research about Topological Optimisation, and it is a clarification of the very first abstract (lets call this Abstract A) I wrote in the beginning of the term. It was rewritten because abstract A was pointing in too many directions and was unspecific, i.e. it did not solely talk about Topological Optimisation, but was also speaking of the general opinion of digital design. In that sense it was quite naive. The rewritten abstracts (Abstract B) focus is a bit more specific and directed towards my intended strive with this option module research, and the references makes more sense as links to the intended research that laid ahead. However, now, when looking back, I feel abstract B was perhaps even more naive than abstract A. This is because I have now realised two things; For one, abstract A might have a naivety to it, but it tries to argue the benefits of digital design tools, and how we should try to communicate its advantages to the public in other means than rendered images of morphed structures. It is naive because it is almost impossible to define this without sufficient knowledge on the topic (at this time I had hardly any knowledge in this field). It is also a display of my own struggle to pin down the specific area in the generative design realm that I wanted to focus on. Abstract B tries to be more specific, and I thought I knew more on this field when it was written. But in fact I have realised that I had advanced my understanding very little, which is why it now seems more naive than abstract A. With abstract B I was trying to make a point that I really only knew vaguely; I though I knew more about it than I actually did.

Secondly; as time has passed, and my research has been going on, I have now, at the end, realised that it was perhaps not specifically topological optimisation I was interested in, since this area is so very much related to maths, physics and engineering; especially smaller moving parts, or members of a larger dynamic whole. When reading specifics and methods regarding topological optimisation you quite quickly end up reading complex expressions such as finite element method and analysis, and algebraic equations. As a novice it was more basic understanding of the processes of generative design and self-organising systems that I wanted to get a grip on, and how they are, and can be really useful with new technology within the field of architecture. I wanted to understand this better, through using digital technology available, but it has taken me some time to realise my own (unintended) ignorance, or lack of knowledge of the field, and how vast this field really is. I feel I still need to get even more knowledge of the field as a whole to be able to get to a point where my understanding

is sufficient for useful deeper analysis and research. What I am trying to say is that if I would have had more time, I would have liked to read and researched broader to begin with, and possibly dug deeper into topological optimisation further ahead, since I feel I would have grasped its potentials and its limitations a lot faster. This would likely have resulted in a more accurate, useful, interesting, and more profound outcomes than what I feel I have achieved. Abstract A was in many ways true to my lack of understanding, while with abstract B I feel I was trying to force myself into taking shortcuts. When looking back it feels as if these shortcuts have in many ways prevented me from advancing more than I could have.

I have found the biggest challenge to be the decision-making of when to abort, when to reset, and in which direction to go. What do you do when you don’t make the desired and satisfactory progress? I have tried harder, but many times without a clear strategy. But since I had so little knowledge, and since there is so little accessible information out there it has been a very tough task - the hardest thing I have done in higher education actually. I have had good help from my tutors, but I think there has been some misunderstandings along the way, and I think my lack of basic understanding of the field has inhibited and cramped me in my quest, and perhaps also confused and frustrated my tutors.

Even if I am not going to try to incorporate topological optimisation to my final design project, I have still gotten in touch with other really interesting topics in the realm of generative design. Perhaps I will immerse myself into another branch for the final design project. At least I know that I will not drop this field entirely, but will keep reading, testing and researching to get more understanding of the potentials this emerging computer science brings. I am also convinced that more structural engineering skills will lead to a more competent architectural designer, and I am motivated to eventually get more engineering skills, most likely via further studies. This advanced crash course though has been overwhelming.

Kristina Shae has put words to my own motivation for perusing more knowledge about engineering and the field of generative structures; ‘The aim is to use generative design tools to aid in achieving a balance between aesthetic intrigue, innovation and efficiency in new structural forms.’

_Conclusion & further potential of topological optimisation I suppose Millipede is for academia and hobby enthusiasts only because the authors cannot/will not take full responsibility if something made with it breaks and causes damage. In the world today, the sharing between enthusiasts are a truly great feature, and I’m really grateful for talented people wanting to share their creative digital tools. Millipede has been a true struggle, but then I was also naive, and a bit ignorant when I set out for this research. I am a bit more enlightened now, and I realise that this tool can be very useful for additive manufacturing for smaller parts that deal with dynamic forces, rather than static architectural elements. I have also looked into additive manufacturing with pulp. It exist (Royal Technical University, KTH, in Stockholm has a department that research this), and perhaps this field could produce strong and light parts that we can find use for.

By the time I decided to pursuit research on topological optimisation I was influenced by a text that is on the reading list of Unit 4 this year; Matthias Gross’ ‘Ignorance and Surprise’. Gross cites Ludwik Fleck concluding; “every new finding raises at least one new problem: namely an investigation of what has just been found”. (p.1) By this he means that even if you think you know the outcome from an experiment, you still will be surprised by the result. Therefore an experiment is always legitimized in a way; “new knowledge also means more ignorance”, as Gross puts it. “Thus, surprising events will occur more frequently and become more and more likely.”

This text further encouraged me when I had my many setbacks, and in the end I am a little more aware, but also equally curious to what I was when I started.

As robotics advance and claims new ground all the time I cannot help wonder how long it will take before it is a common feature in our buildings. When will they become mechanical? I guess in many ways they already are, and has been for some time now (lifts, escalators, automatic doors, etc). But if we take it a bit further - how long before a facade is the sole automatic shutter, how long before wind-turbines are integrated in every new building, or when does solar panels turn to catch as much sunlight as possible, just like flowers do? How long before the average man transform his living-room into a bedroom as it is time to go to bed? I think topological optimisation definitely has an exciting future and will become a more common tool used to create bespoke parts in our daily lives. But its greatest potential is of course within space travel, or situations where objects, or an ensemble of objects are exposed to a lot of dynamic forces.

In the beginning of this document I speak of the benefits of having really good engineering skills. This feeling has definitely been consolidated, even cemented I would say. Heino Engel says in the introduction of his book Structure Systems;

I set out to optimise CLT elements, but I have also realised the issues with that; namely that they are made from timber with fibres and they are laminated in two directions. This means that every second layer will not add as much structural properties as it would in the other direction. Especially since timber is quite weak in compression in a horizontal direction (think of how easy it is to snap a match for instance, or to crush it with a weight). Moreover when the optimisation process creates arcs, it automatically cuts most of the fibres that otherwise would hold most of the load. In other words - optimising CLT elements does not make much sense.

At some point I actually looked into adding CLT as a material script for Millipede, but I gave up quite fast, partly because I realised if would not make sense to optimise it, but also because of the mathematical and physical formulas that needs to go into such a script.

Structure is the most fundamental part of architecture and it is great that I have started a research and found an interest in complex and intricate structural concepts.

‘The arguments, being cause of this work and substantiating its postulations, are categorical.

1. Structure occupies in architecture a position that does both, bestows existence and sustain form 2. The agency responsible for architecture, its design and its realization, is the architect 3. The architect develops the structure concept in his designs out of professional property’

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books, Lectures, Exhibitions & Online Sources _01 |_Altair (n.d.). Altair Optimization Technology. [online] Altairhyperworks.com. Available at: http://www.altairhyperworks.com/solution/Optimization [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_17 |_Menges, A. (2015). The New Cyber-Physical Making in Architecture: Computational Construction. AD Architectural Design, (Nov 2015), pp.28-34.

_02 |_Arup (2015). Additive Manufacturing , Design method for critical structural steel elements. [online] Arup.com.

Available at: https://www.arup.com/projects/additive-manufacturing [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_18 |_Michalatos, P. (n.d.). topostruct. [online] Sawapan.eu. Available at: http://www.sawapan.eu/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_03 |_Autodesk (2018). Project Dreamcatcher | Autodesk Research. [online] Autodeskresearch.com. Available at: https://autodeskresearch.com/projects/dreamcatcher [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_19 |_Niehe, P. (2015). 3D makeover for hyper-efficient metalwork. [online] Arup.com. Available at: https://www. arup.com/news-and-events/news/3d-makeover-for-hyperefficient-metalwork [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_04 |_Autodeskresearch.com. (2018). Project Dreamcatcher | Autodesk Research. [online] Available at: https:// autodeskresearch.com/projects/dreamcatcher [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018].

_20 |_Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2018). English Dictionary, Thesaurus, & grammar help | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_05 |_Carpo, M. (2017). The second digital turn. Cambridge: MIT Press.

_21 |_Paulino, G. (2013). Topology optimization connects architecture and engineering. [online] Engineering.illinois. edu. Available at: https://engineering.illinois.edu/news/article/2013-01-23-topology-optimization-connects-architecture-and-engineering [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_06 |_Cook, M. (2004). Historical Perspective - Future Prospect. In: N. Leach, ed., Digital Tectonics. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, p.45. _07 |_De Kestelier, X. (2013). Foster + Partners works with European Space Agency to 3D print structures on the moon | Foster + Partners. [online] Fosterandpartners.com. Available at: https://www.fosterandpartners.com/ news/archive/2013/01/foster-partners-works-with-european-space-agency-to-3d-print-structures-on-themoon/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018]. _08 |_Donofrio, M. (2016). Topology Optimization and Advanced Manufacturing as a Means for the Design of Sustainable Building Components. [online] Topology Optimization and Advanced Manufacturing as a Means for the Design of Sustainable Building Components. Available at: https://ac.els-cdn.com/ S1877705816300595/1-s2.0-S1877705816300595-main.pdf?_tid=fe36e832-fe95-11e7-8670-00000aacb361& acdnat=1516530762_09c9bb6bf19794e980f5be6a64d89a16 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

_22 |_Shea, K. (2004). Directed Randomness. In: N. Leach, ed., Digital Tectonics. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, pp.89-100. _23 |_Spiller, N. (2009). Digital architecture now. New York: Thames & Hudson. _24 |_Sv.wikipedia.org. (2018). Ralph Erskine. [online] Available at: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Erskine [Accessed 13 Jan. 2018]. _25 |_Svenskt Trä (2016). Trätorn Norra Länken - Svenskt Trä. [online] Svenskt Trä. Available at: https://www.svenskttra.se/trapriset/traprisbockerna/tratorn-norra-lanken/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018]. _26 |_UCL The Bartlett (2017). Bartlett B-Pro Show. [Various] London: The Bartlett.

_09 |_ESA (2013). Building a lunar base with 3D printing. [online] European Space Agency. Available at: http:// www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Building_a_lunar_base_with_3D_printing [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018]. _10 |_ExCeL (2018). Digital Construction Week London 2017. _11 |_Francis, A. (2017). Human Intuition, Computational Rigour. _12 |_Goulthorpe, M. (2004). Gaudi’s Hanging Precence. In: N. Leach, ed., Digital Tectonics. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, p.34. _13 |_Huang, A. (2014). Durotaxis Chair. [online] Synthesis-dna.com. Available at: http://synthesis-dna.com/ projects/durotaxis [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018]. _14 |_Leach, N. (2004). Digital tectonics. Chichester: Wiley-Academy. _15 |_Materialise. (n.d.). The Spider Bracket: A Topology Optimization Project by Altair, Materialise and Renishaw. [online] Available at: http://www.materialise.com/en/cases/spider-bracket-a-topology-optimization-project-by-altair-materialise-and-renishaw [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018]. _16 |_ McKittrick, J. (2013). Tough, light and strong: Lessons from nature could lead to the creation of new materials. [online] ScienceDaily. Available at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130214141800.htm [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018].

_27 |_Wikipedia. (n.d.). Main Page. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page [Accessed 23 Jan. 2018].

Images Fig_01 |_ArchDaily (2018). Gothic cathedrals. [image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/879028/how-anovel-saved-notre-dame-and-changed-perceptions-of-gothic-architecture [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_02 |_Arup (2015). Additive Manufacturing , Design method for critical structural steel elements. [online] Arup. com. Available at: https://www.arup.com/projects/additive-manufacturing [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_16 |_Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2013). Spiderwebbldg. [image] Available at: https://engineering.illinois. edu/news/article/2013-01-23-topology-optimization-connects-architecture-and-engineering [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_17 |_SolidThinking (2017). Inspire. [image] Available at: https://solidthinking.com/ProductExperience.aspx?item=Inspire%20Experience&category=Products [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_03 |_austinbuntondesign (n.d.). Yurts. [image] Available at: http://www.austinbuntondesign.com/yurts.html [Accessed 12 Jan. 2018].

Fig_18 |_Spiller, N. (2009). Digital architecture now. New York: Thames & Hudson.

Fig_04 |_Autodesk (n.d.). [image] Available at: https://autodeskresearch.com/projects/dreamcatcher [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_19 |_St. Edwards (n.d.). Shelter Project. [image] Available at: http://sites.stedwards.edu/jdudasko/2016/04/04/ shelter-project/ [Accessed 12 Jan. 2018].

Fig_05 |_Borello, F. (2013). Architecture | Computational Design | Digital Prototyping. [image] Available at: https:// federicoborello.com/2013/12/18/topology-optimisation/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_20 |_Sv.wikipedia.org. (2018). Ralph Erskine. [online] Available at: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Erskine [Accessed 13 Jan. 2018].

Fig_06 |_Cunicode Design (n.d.). Structures & Lattices. [image] Available at: https://www.cunicode.com/works/ structures [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_21 |_Synthesis Design + Architecture (n.d.). Durotaxis Chair. [image] Available at: http://synthesis-dna.com/ projects/durotaxis [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_07 |_Dark Roasted Blend (2008). Architectural Genius of Antoni Gaudi. [image] Available at: http://www. darkroastedblend.com/2008/07/architectural-genius-of-antoni-gaudi.html [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_22 |_Tham, B. VidegĂĽrd, M. (2017). RIBA | Europa 3: Nordic Countries.

Fig_23 |_UCL The Bartlett (2017). Bartlett B-Pro Show. [Various] London: The Bartlett.

Fig_08 |_Drachen Wiki (n.d.). Vogel Knochen. [image] Available at: http://de.drachen.wikia.com/wiki/Datei:Vogel_Knochen.jpg [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_08 |_emaze presentations. (2018). slave catchers. [online] Available at: https://www.emaze.com/@AOWWQOCO/slave-catchers [Accessed 13 Jan. 2018].

Fig_09 |_Grafton Lakes State Park (n.d.). shelter_0. [image] Available at: http://albany.kidsoutandabout.com/ content/survival-skills-shelter-building [Accessed 12 Jan. 2018].

Fig_10 |_Homefix Handyman. (2018). Finding the Perfect Shed to Erect in Your Garden - Homefix Handyman. [online] Available at: http://www.homefixhandyman.com/finding-perfect-shed-erect-garden/ [Accessed 13 Jan. 2018].

Fig_11 |_Jin, J. (2014). ZONE OF ABSOLUTE DISCOMFORT. [image] Available at: http://www.justinjin.com/portfolio/ photography/arctic/ [Accessed 12 Jan. 2018].

Fig_12 |_Materialise. (n.d.). The Spider Bracket: A Topology Optimization Project by Altair, Materialise and Renishaw. [online] Available at: http://www.materialise.com/en/cases/spider-bracket-a-topology-optimization-project-by-altair-materialise-and-renishaw [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018].

Fig_13 |_Mogk, C. (2014). What is Project Dreamcatcher?. [image] Available at: https://www.autodeskresearch. com/blog/didnt-use-dreamcatcher [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_14 |_Sawapan (n.d.). Michalatos Panagiotis. [image] Available at: http://www.sawapan.eu/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_15 |_Sawapan (n.d.). topostruct. [image] Available at: http://sawapan.eu/sections/section79_topostruct/ download.html [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_24 |_Wang, M. and Qian, X. (2015). Efficient Filtering in Topology Optimization via B-Splines. [online] The ASME Digital Collection. Available at: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=2085411 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

Fig_25 |_Wikipedia (n.d.). Fractional Coordinates. [image] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure [Accessed 23 Jan. 2018].

_Thanks To George Tsakiridis Tutor ADDT

Arrash Fakouri Tutor ADDT And to

Jonas_Lundberg Tutor Unit 04 at London Met, Professional Diploma in Architecture - RIBA2