JV ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO 2 (CONSTRUCTION)
Jordan Veniamakis Page 1
Contents
Contents
02
This Folio;
03
1. Cyclonic 3D Model
04-13
2. Mid-Semester Group Project
14-39
3. Group Project - Lattice Pavilion
40-65
4. AMDC Zip Tie Construction
66-81
5. Personal Experimentation
82-97
Page 2
THIS FOLIO;
THIS FOLIO... includes a collaboration of the work that was conducted and completed over the course of the semester. It is a representation of the thinking and design processes that were explored...
Page 3
1
CYCLONIC 3D MODEL
The purpose of this exercise, was to create and begin a skill that involved a different way of thinking. It involved working in a group to create some form of geometric base shape to congregate together and create something beautiful.
It was a process of learning basic tools in Rhino and Grasshopper to be able to have the ability to put ideas into digital form and represent a design. This design is a beginners form of exploration and design process, just to get the ideas flowing.
Page 4
Digital Construction
This process involved trying to create some form of interlocking geometric shape that could easily be interlocked with one another universally to create some form of 3D shape.
After a bit of prototyping and experimenting with the pieces digitally, it was evident that it would not work to be able to come up with a 3D shape that was lofted and cyclonic in shape.
Page 5
Inspiration
Digital Exploration Shape 1
(01 )
We thought to take more of a natural inspiration and something simple to tie in to the project that we had began. It was obvious that the inspiration that influenced our design of the desired shape was a cyclone or a hurricane. Cyclones and hurricanes are rare, destructive but in a peculiar way, beautiful. It is an organic form that can change and manipulate it’s appearance with a change of the wind or the environment it is in. We decided this would be a great inspiration to derive something from, and create something that can set it in stone, unmoved by anything, and replicate a cyclone.
To create a 3D form, we used three separate enclosed curves spread equally apart from one another and then lofted them together to get an idea of a form. This was the first experimental form that we used to come to our final design.
Page 6
Digital Exploration Shape 1
(0 1 ) U D I V I SI O N S: 3 V D I VI SI O N S: 5
(02 ) U DIVISIONS: 4 V D I V I S I O N S : 10
(0 3 ) U DIVISIONS: 5 V DIVISIONS: 15
This process involved using the lofted space in the digital design, and applying a triangular geometric surface to it. We wanted to use triangles to follow the shapes that we first tried to develop. It was just to now figure out how to build it physically with the triangular pieces.
(0 4) U DIVISIONS: 6 V DIVISIONS: 20
(0 5) U DIVISIONS : 7 V DIVISIONS: 2 5
(06 ) U DIV IS IONS : 8 V DIV IS IONS : 30
(07 ) U DIV IS IONS : 9 V DIV IS IONS : 35
Digitally in Grasshopper, we used Triangle Panels B to connect all of the curves together into one form with a triangular surface. We then used the U and V Division sliders to move across how many triangles would appear in each direction, to create a more dense and curved surface, or a more spread out and sharper angled surface. This was to experiment with surfaces and see how it worked.
Page 7
Digital Exploration Shape 2
1 - WIRE-FRAME
2 - TRIANGULAR
3 - LOFT SURFACE
Shape 2 was a more realistic design for a shape that we could build. It resembled a cyclone which is the kind of shape that we wanted to replicate and derive from. This shape had a smaller surfaces space which made it easier to manipulate the design and experiment and prototype.
Page 8
Design Exploration Shape 2
We experimented with Shape 2 like we did with Shape 1 with the surface space of the triangles and how many triangles could be placed on to one surface.
1- LOF T SURFAC E FORM
2 - T RIANGUL AR PANEL SURFAC E FORM
This was the final design. It takes a wider start from the bottom than a normal cyclone shape and then takes on a rounder mid-rift area to then sharpening and spinning more intensely towards the top. We achieved this shape and design from modifying the original curves in the loft form to gain an idea of what the final form would look like.
3 - WIRE-F RAM E SURFAC E FORM
These images represent the design from each angle and in each form of loft, triangular and wire-frame to show the different forms that it will take.
Page 9
Construction Process Example of a single triangular piece that maps out to join with all the other pieces to create the 3D object.
For construction, we chose to use cardboard because it was the easiest method to manipulate the materials and cut to make appropriate pieces. We used Rhino and Grasshopper to map out the individual triangular pieces that cover the surface of the cyclonic structure and add tabs on each edge to attach to one another, There were 97 triangular pieces in total that were laser-cut from a cardboard sheet. We used different line-weights in Rhino to communicate with the laser-cutting machine to create a solid cut edge and a perforated edge to bend the tabs.
Page 10
Construction Process The construction process was easier than we anticipated. We used Rhino to maneouvre around the digital 3D object to be able to see all the numbered triangular pieces. All the pieces were pre-cut out of cardboard by the laser-cutter accurately ready to be glued together. The pieces then just went side by side in numerical order to make the construction process easy. We trialled standard PVA glue but it took too long to dry, so began using a hot glue gun because it would dry instantly and allow us to construct the model accurately and quickly. Each tab was easily able to be folded down so that all the tabs could glue together. They were able to be folded down easily because the laser-cutter laser cut the tab lines perforated so that they would fold down without bending the cardboard. This process took about an hour to complete.
Page 11
Finished Form
This is the final form of the 3D cyclonic structure. These images are showing the final form in a rotating fashion, to show that the triangles are all communicating with one another and combining together to create a curvaceous structure that resembles a cyclone. The form gets sharper and sharper as it rises to the top.
Page 12
Page 13
2
MID-SEMESTER GROUP PROJECT
This project involved being in a group of four, and exploring the idea of creating a pavilion in any way, shape or form.
It was another process of using Rhino and Grasshopper tools to achieve this to be able to present it in an architectural presentation.
Page 14
Inspiration Japanese Joinery and Woodwork
We took a lot of inspiration for this project from Japanese joinery and Japanese woodwork techniques. The way that these techniques involve interlocking pieces of wood with intricate cutting details intrigued us and was something that we wanted to achieve in our design.
One project that was looked at a lot was the Garden House Concept by Penda. The reason that this caught our attention was because in this instance, the structure is made from a replicated joint that is universal across the whole structure. This is something that we wanted to achieve in our design also.
Page 15
Digital Exploration & Physical Prototyping
We experimented digitally with so many different joint types, to try and figure out which was the best looking, most structurally sound and what would interlock best with itself. We also experimented with physical prototypes to gain more of an insight as to how the process would work when constructing. There were many different ideas.
Page 16
Digital Exploration Joint Type 1
In this joint type, we experimented with the idea of doweling the pieces together. This involved pre-drilling lengths of timber and then slotting them all into place on top of the dowels. This idea we found to be one of the most structurally sound, it was quite aesthetically pleasing also. But, the major design flaw with this was that is wasn’t as expansive as it could be. There wasn’t a way to be able to extend out the structure if need be and there wasn’t as much flexibility when designing a shape. Also there wasn’t enough of a ‘criss-cross’ pattern within the structure to allow it to be dense enough.
Page 17
Digital Exploration Joint Type 2
In this joint type, we experimented by cutting parts out of each block so that they could interlock with one another once chiseling parts out of them. This required us to measure out each block and find where all the intersections would be and then interlock them with one another to hold the structure in place. We found this to be a decent idea, however it was far more complex than we needed. In real construction, figuring out what piece would go where and interlock with what would have been time consuming, and overall time wasting because the same outcome could have been achieved easier.
Page 18
Digital Exploration Joint Type 3
This joint involved a lot of stacking and interlocking with full length pieces of timber. We wanted to experiment with the way of just criss crossing different lengths over the top of one another to create a solid structure. This was a good type because it gave us a foundation for where we wanted to be and this type proved to be the most structurally sound, purely because of how dense it was. The issue was though, because it was so dense, the open feel and the appreciation of the design behind it and the raw exposed joints, was all lost. We wanted something more open and breathable.
Page 19
Digital Exploration Joint Type 4
This joint type brought us closer again to the type of joint that we needed for our structure. This was very similar to joint type 3, because it involved overlapping pieces, but it just spread the joints out from one another, rather than being next to each other. This joint proved to be okay, in terms of looks. But to manufacture these joints was harder, because they lengths didn’t rely on one another as much to hold itself together. It would have needed too many, nails, screws of glue to hold together, rather than capturing the true inspiration from Japanese joinery of interlocking wood.
Page 20
Digital Exploration Joint Type 5
This joint was the last joint that we designed, and it was the most favoured joint. We used what we had learnt from the previous experiments with the other designs and basically combined a lot of elements from the others into the one. This joint, from each side you look from, it looks the same. So when used in the construction process, there would be no part of the construction that would look different or like it shouldn’t be there.
This was the joint that we finally all came to agreeance on.
It is the perfect combination of ‘criss-cross’ to create a larger structure.
We had the Rhino and Grasshopper files to assist us with physical prototyping and construction, and it was time to create different iterations of large combinations of the joint within a structural form.
The joints can be spaced out as far as desired from each other to create a more dense or more spaced out creation.
There picture above shows a perspective view of a mock-up structure in the shape of a cube with the joint repeating itself next to each other over and over to achieve a denser form.
Page 21
Physical Prototyping Type 1
We began physical prototyping joint type 5 from our digital exploration in the joint connections. We used 5 x 5mm balsa wood in this instance, to try and replicate what we had created digitally. Using balsa wood allowed us to create this joint easily as balsa wood is relatively cheap and accessible, but it is also really light weight, and easy to cute and use. This was a good start for prototyping as it was a low budget and low effort way to get a real life model to hold ourselves and get an idea on how the real structure would construct.
Page 22
Physical Prototyping Type 2
This prototype was a physical replication of joint type 3. This physical construction was also created out of balsa wood so that we could do it quick and easily. It may not look like it, but the joint construction is actually the same as the joint that we had chosen, but because the cube is so dense it doesn’t look like it,. This was to test how it would look in real life as such a dense object and not spread apart like intended. We found after this that once it is constructed, the joint expansion isn’t as flexible as the previous one, as you cannot extend off of it once constructed, at least not easily.
Page 23
Physical Prototyping Type 3
Prototype 3 is a replication of type 1, just at a larger scale, and build out of thicker, harder and stronger wood.
Trying to combine the joints together proved to be difficult to figure out a good way to do so. We created a few pieces to try and dowel the ends to one another.
This wood is 10 x 10mm treated and coated pine and is much more structurally capable than balsa wood is. In this prototype, our main focus was to try and decipher how we were going to piece all the joints together and get them to hold together to create a desired structural shape
In theory this was a great idea because it would allow for maximum flexibility to just add and remove any joints from wherever in the structure, However, when actually doweling the joints together, it showed us that it was too hard to pre-drill accurately enough to achieve a flush edge, and the whole experiment just ended up looking messy.
Page 24
Physical Prototyping Type 4
This became the solution to our doweling problem. We figured out that the only way that we were going to be able to put all the joints together to create something, was to do the timbers in full lengths, pre-measure, pre-cut, pre-drill and then put it all together so that there are not individual joints. This was difficult to do, it required a lot of planning, measuring and patience. This model in particular was a 1:3 scale model of a corner of the hypothetical structure that was going to be created. We used 18 x 18mm treated pine to do this to gain a better perspective of how the construction process would work.
Page 25
Design Process & Iterations
Once we had decided on a joint that we were happy with. It was time to work closely with this and create something intriguing, attractive and captivating to represent a pavilion.
Page 26
Design Process
The idea behind these images is simple.
By using these cone shapes, they took different parts of the cube out,
We started off with a full cube. This cube included 1000 joints in total inside. That’s 10 x 10 on each layer. Then we would use rhino and Grasshopper to negate parts of the cube out or add parts on by using
Instead of making a clean cut through the cube of where the cones intersected the joints, we made it so that any joint that intersected the cone,
different geometric shapes.
would be taken away, so that we didn’t have such a clean cut through, and still remained to have that geometric squared off shape.
What this did was allow us to explore new possibilities of how our pavilion were to look. We wanted it to be based off of an initial complete cube but have parts taken out of it to be unique and not so dense.
Page 27
Design Iteration
Page 28
This is the result of the cone shapes interacting with the existing cube. There are two main holes or chunks that are taken out of the cube to create an obscurely shaped pavilion.
The aim was to create something that people could be a part of, or have more of an interaction with the pavilion, which is a result of taking parts out of it to create a more immerse experience being inside it.
Page 29
Design Iteration
At this stage we had achieved what we wanted in terms of structural components. We had a design that incorporated our joint throughout the whole thing, it had space throughout it that allowed a lot of light and air-flow through it, and it was possible to enter the structure and be inside it to an extent. The repetition of the joints appeared to be beautiful and presented well within the structure.
Page 30
Page 31
Site Placement
The site that we had chosen was one that was central to Swinburne University’s buildings. We chose this specific site because it is an area where a lot of students a staff collaborate to eat, study, drink coffee, or even sun bake. We thought that it would be a good spot for a unique pavilion to liven the area and create an ornament for admiration. To the right is a satellite image of the site within the university. It is shown that there is a lot of vacant grass space and landscaping. There are some existing shades/pavilions within the area already that are quite bland. Our chosen space within the site is basically in the middle, amongst some trees to tie in with the naturalism of the wood. We chose this positioning so that it was something that people would walk past regardless of what direction they would take.
Page 32
Digitally generated artistic render of proposed pavilion in proposed site and environment.
Image of actual site with digital rendition of proposed pavilion in site environment.
Page 33
Construction Process 50 50 50 50
22 44 44 12
32
6
6
50 50 50 50 25
22
6
44
6
44
6
44
6
44
6
500
6
50
6
44
6
44
6
44
6
25
x-axis FRONT VIEW LAYOUT 6
GRID LAYER 9
GRID LAYER 8
GRID LAYER 7
GRID LAYER 6
GRID LAYER 5
GRID LAYER 4
GRID LAYER 3
GRID LAYER 2
GRID LAYER 1
GRID LAYER 0
y-axis PLAN VIEW LAYOUT Y21
Y1
Y41
Y61
Y91
Y101
Y141
Y121
Y161
Y181
X1 Z1
Z2
Z3
Z7
Z8
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z21
Z22
Z23
Z24
Z25
Z26
Z27
Z28
Z29
Z30
Z31
Z32
Z33
Z34
Z35
Z36
Z37
Z38
Z39
Z40
Z41
Z42
Z43
Z44
Z4
Z45
Z5
Z46
Z6
Z47
Z48
Z49
Z9
Z50
Z51
Z11
Z52
Z53
Z54
Z55
Z56
Z57
Z58
Z59
Z60
Z10
Z12
Z13
Z17
Z19
Z18
Z20
X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 Z61
Z62
Z63
Z64
Z65
Z66
Z67
Z68
Z69
Z70
Z89
Z90
Z71
Z72
Z73
Z74
Z75
Z76
Z77
Z79
Z78
Z80
X8 Z84
Z85
Z86
Z92
Z93
Z94
Z96
Z97
Z101
Z102
Z103
Z104
Z105
Z106
Z107
Z108
Z109 Z110
Z111
Z112
Z113
Z114
Z115
Z116
Z117
Z118
Z119
Z120
Z121
Z122
Z123
Z124
Z125
Z126
Z127
Z128
Z129 Z130
Z131
Z132
Z133 Z134
Z135
Z136
Z137
Z138
Z139
Z140
Z81
Z82
Z83
Z87
Z88
Z91
Z95
Z98
Z100
Z99
X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15
Z141
Z142
Z143
Z145
Z144
Z146
Z147
Z148
Z149 Z150
Z151
Z152
Z153 Z154
Z155
Z156
Z157
Z159
Z158
Z160
X16
12
X17
Z161
Z162
Z181
Z182
Z163
Z164
Z183
Z184
Z165
Z166
Z185
Z186
Z167
Z168
Z187
Z188
Z169 Z170
Z171
Z172
Z191
Z192
Z173 Z174
Z175
Z176
Z195
Z196
Z177
Z178
Z197
Z198
Z180
Z179
Z189 Z190
Z193
Z194
Z199
Z200
X20
6
6
X19
6
32
X18
The way that we decided would be best to resolve this, was to break every layer into it’s own. This was we would be able to see how each layer would need to be constructed, and then construct upward, rather than trying to build on all axes at once.
X9
We had to develop some sort of system that would make the construction process a lot easier. This was a necessity as the construction wouldn’t be easy with out some form of instruction booklet.
22
25
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
22
25
500
GRID LAYER 9
GRID LAYER 8
GRID LAYER 7
GRID LAYER 6
GRID LAYER 5
GRID LAYER 4
GRID LAYER 3
GRID LAYER 2
GRID LAYER 1
GRID LAYER 0
Page 34
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z21
Z22
Z23
Z24
Z25
Z26
Z27
Z28
Z29
Z30
Z31
Z32
Z33
Z34
Z35
Z36
Z37
Z38
Z39
Z40
Z41
Z42
Z43
Z44
Z45
Z46
Z47
Z48
Z49
Z50
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
Z1
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
Z9
Z10
Z11
Z12
Z13
Z14
Z15
Z16
Z17
Z18
Z19
Z20
12
Z3
Z161
Z162
Z163
Z164
Z165
Z166
Z167
Z168
Z169
Z181
Z182
Z183
Z184
Z185
Z186
Z187
Z188
Z189
X20
6
6
X19
6
32
X18
Z2
X17
Z1
22
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
50
6
44
6
50
6
6
6
32
12
25
6
Technical close up of the measurements for the 1:10 scale model to follow.
Page 35
1:10 Scale Model
This scale model was an attempt at experimenting with how a real construction process would function. The construction of this model taught us a lot as a group in how construction processes work and the kind of thought that is needed to be able to effectively construct something at a scale and with precision. We experimented by using 6 x 6mm Tasmanian Oak lengths that were pre-drilled then used 2mm nails to try and hold the structure together. We soon realised that using nails and pre-drilling was far too difficult and tedious to be able to construct such a detailed model in such a short period of time. The nails were too long for the thickness of the wood meaning that they were protruding from the other side of the wood and not holding together properly. Our solution to this was to use hot glue. The advantage of doing so was that the hot glue would dry quick enough to be able to move on to placing in the next piece and keep the model expanding quickly. We did not complete the whole model by midsemester, which left us to further explore and experiment for the end of the semester.
Page 36
This group project continued on throughout and later on into the semester.
Page 37
Reflection
Limitations
We experimented with a few different composition, but in hindsight we realised that we didn’t experiment enough. We came up with a composition that reflected what we wanted, some sort of negated form being taken out of the cube, but it just presented as a sculpture and not as something that was user friendly, or readily available for human use.
There were a few hurdles that we came across when prototyping and designing. The first big hurdle for us was cost. We decided to go with 6x6 Tasmanian oak timber lengths to create our prototype model and we soon figured out that the material was quite expensive. We used it quite sparingly so this limited us to the amount of precise and accurate prototyping methods that we could experiment with so we didn’t want it to go to waste.
It looked really cool when looking at it, but why not walk in it? Why not sit in it? Why not use it as a collaborative work space, study space, spot to eat lunch or have a coffee? There was so may opportunities that we could have missed. The design and design process that we came to and went through really made a good foundation for where we needed to end up with the final design. We had our joint connection after a series of prototypes, we had our overall basic shape, we just needed to decide on some sort of unique form to put in, or take out of the guts to create something different to put into the university’s campus.
We used different kinds of material like pine and balsa wood for prototyping different joints and connections We saved all of the Tasmanian oak for the final design.Another limitation that we came across was like I mentioned before, the accessibility to inside or on to the sculpture so that people could make use of it rather than just look at it. It would be a missed opportunity if we were to create something that looked really beautiful, that couldn’t be enjoyed by the people that would be living and working around it. Why not live and work in it? Or under it? So we took this as a lesson and an opportunity to change it and create something that could work as a sculpture and also as something like a room or space.
Page 38
Page 39
3
END OF SEMESTER GROUP PROJECT Lattice Pavilion
This is the continuation of the first part of the group project.
It was a follow-up of what we had previously explored, researched and designed to then further refine our work and decide on a finalised product.
Page 40
New Inspiration
Curtis and Davis - United Steel Workers Building
This building features a diamond lattice design, which is not constructed out of timber (which is what we were looking at) but actually made from steel. This lattice feature is not only a dramatic effect to the building but it also serves structural elements too as an exoskeleton that acts as load-bearing. We want to be able to create and achieve something that is structurally sound through just the main elements that we put together to create an intricate design.
Page 41
New Inspiration
Frank Fantauzzi - Hollow
We found this as an inspiration because it made use of raw colours and has a sense of exposure with the material’s natural forms and colours. This was a collaboration between Fantauzzi and one of his students Charlie O’Geen. It shows a simple design and thought process that can also be seen as intricate and detailed. This influenced our work in the sense of having a repetitive shape and form and using negative space of shapes inside the design to create a space and form.
Page 42
New Inspiration
Kengo Kuma - Prostho Museum Research Centre
Kengo Kuma uses Japanese Architectural styles through Japanese joinery. The inspiration behind this design was from an old Japanese game called cidori which involved the combination of wooden sticks to make a joint and make an intricate shape. We thought that this would work well as an inspiration for what we were trying to achieve through repetition and wanting to draw from Japanese joinery and architecture to achieve something great.
Page 43
Digital Exploration and Prototyping
This time around, we decided that it would be better if we did more digital exploration, rather than just settle on the first idea that we came to. We had already decided on our joint, and we didn’t want to change this. Our 1000 joint cube we stuck to, we just changed how we manipulated the shape and form of it in a few different ways to compare them.
Page 44
Digital Exploration Pyramid
The exploration idea behind this digital export was by using a pyramid shape to intersect through the middle of the cube, to take a large chunk out. We like the geometric aesthetic of this pavilion, but it wasn’t as accessible as some of the other explorations we produced.
Page 45
Digital Exploration Oblong Sphere
This digital exploration involved using an oblong sphere shape to protrude into the cubed structure. The idea behind this was to create more of an immerse experience and to be able to be inside the pavilion. This involved creating a sphere shape and manipulating it into more of a flatter shape to spread more across the structure and take more joints out.
Page 46
Digital Exploration Inverse Pyramid
This is the same technique as the pyramid exploration, however it is just inversed. This was just to see how much of the structure had been taken out and how it would look as a stand alone object. This could have been used as a stair type seating, by putting paneling on each layer for people to sit on.
Page 47
Digital Exploration Cylindrical
For this we used a cylindrical shape and injected it into the cube on an angle. This took out a decent amount to allow people to enter and sit inside of it. Something that we didn’t like about this is that it was just on one side of the object. There was the feature of the cylinder but from every other angle, it just looked like a cube. We wanted to achieve something more eye catching.
Page 48
Digital Exploration Donut
Because we wanted something that was a lot more eye catching from all angles, we used a donut geometry that would take action on the cube from all sides. We placed the donut into the middle of the whole structure so it would take a tube out around the whole x-axis of the pavilion. This was great visually, but it wasn’t user-friendly. People couldn’t go inside of it or sit on it because of the obscure shape.
Page 49
Digital Exploration Final Iteration Lattice Pavilion
This was our finalised design after experimenting with a lot of different geometries and styles. We thought that for this one we would try and incorporate at least two different geometries that we had experimented with previously. In this instance, we used a cone and a cylinder to take two seperate parts out of the cube. The cone was used as a decorative effect on one side of the cube, it also created a window on one side. The cylinder was used similarly before to negate out the bottom of the cube to create a shelter and interior aspect to the pavilion and allow access to and from.
Page 50
Construction Technique x-axis
To construct this pavilion, like in recent research, we had previously learnt that the construction process would be difficult and require a lot of planning. Once we had decided on a final form of the pavilion design, we exploded the layers and layed them all out flat to see which layers had which joints missing from it.
y-axis
After this, we mapped them all so that we could easily identify measurements and intersections so that we could build layer by layer, then connect them all through the y-axis by intersecting y-axis lengths of timber.
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Construction Technique
LAYER 1
LAYER 2
LAYER 3
LAYER 4
LAYER 6
LAYER 7
LAYER 8
LAYER 9
LAYER 5
LAYER 10
This is a 3D representation of the layers being segregated from one another ad isolating them to see the construction process.
Page 54
Construction Technique 1:10 Model
Constructing each layer involved creating a jig that was 500 x 500mm to keep every layer the same size and shape. We marked out each position of each length of wood. This was the best solution to getting all of the layers identical to ensure that the model would be as accurate as possible.
Page 55
Construction Technique 1:10 Model
After we had all of the layers in order and ready to be constructed upwards on the y-axis, we started to slot them into place with the necessary lengths of timber vertically and then glued them together. Slowly we added each layer on top of one another and filled in all the areas that needed support and vertical lengths.
Page 56
1:10 Model
Once completed, the model allowed for a lot of natural and artifical lighting to pass through the create drama within the model. It allowed for depth affects and texture to show. This model shows the real life scale of what the pavilion would look like with the cut outs accurate to shape and size. Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Site Placement
We decided to stay with the same inital site within Swinburne University’s campus. We didn’t want to change the direct area because it is still very central and there is a lot of foot traffic in the area. With our new design, it allows students, visitors and faculty to interact with it easier than the previous design from the mid-semester project. This new model would be more attractive and more interactive with people. It is almost more welcoming to people, encouraging people to walk in and sit inside it. We chose to move it within the site, because the original spot was on a hill which would make it more difficult to construct, without cutting and filling the land. We moved it not too far from it’s original spot, to a more flatter surface and to a spot with more sunlight out from underneath a tree. Moving it to this position gets to take more advantage of the natural light in the area, which there is a lot of. The shadows that cast would be quite dramatic and show off the beautiful form of the pavilion. The old positioning is shown on the digitsl map to the right with the white square, the new positioning is represented by the red square.
Page 64
Digital Scale Model
This is a digital representation of the finished model in it’s proposed site positioning. We used a person to put inside of it to get an accurate idea of the scale of the pavilion and how accessible it is for people to go sit underneath it.
Page 65
4
AMDC ZIP TIE CONSTRUCTION
This project was a small class discussion and brainstorm for ideas for an architecturally designed structure to hang in the void of the AMDC Building at Swinburne University.
It involved a collaboration between class peers and each manipulating a Rhino file and Grasshopper script to create our own iterations of what we would deem as satisfactory to hang in the void.
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
AMDC ZIP TIE ITERATION 1
This iteration was purely just experimentation with no drive or inspiration. It was just a matter of manipulating the curves into different shapes, angles and lengths. By randomly moving them around and playing around with the Grasshopper script, this was the result shape of the proposed zip tie structure.
TIGHTNESS: 0.132 SPREAD: 30
Page 70
AMDC ZIP TIE ITERATION 1
These images are Photoshopped images of iteration 1 of the Zip Tie structure in the AMDC void.
Iteration 1 was the first of the three iterations that I completed. This one makes the most of sharper angles and a thinner body than the rest. I think that this one being in a design faculty really targets the design students of AMDC. It’s an intriguing shape in how organic it is, it allows a lot of thought process as it is open to any interpretation.
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
AMDC ZIP TIE ITERATION 2
This one in particular, I thought that I would take more of an inspired approach. I wanted to channel some kind of representation. Butterflies are a quite harmonious species and I wanted to derive a design from this. The curves I began with were quite geometric, and they had sharp edges and corners. When processed through the Grasshopper script, the flow and curvaceousness evolved. The symmetry of this iteration as opposed to the first one is soothing and relaxing.
TIGHTNESS: 0.076 SPREAD: 40
A design like this might inspire students in the AMDC building or even calm them.
Page 74
AMDC ZIP TIE ITERATION 2
These images are Photoshopped images of iteration 2 of the Zip Tie structure in the AMDC void.
This Zip Tie iteration brings a different sense of space to the direct area. The butterfly shape almost even resembles a set of lungs within the space which can also refer to the central point of AMDC. In comparison to iteration 1, this model has more of a sense of openness with more space being inside the actual structure itself.
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
AMDC ZIP TIE ITERATION 3
This iteration was a combination of a few different curves. I personally have a great apprectiation for symmetry or asymmetry. So in this instance I used the same curves and multiplied them and rotated them to almost make an open sphere. I did this because I wanted to experiment with something that would be more repetitive and spherical. I thought that this would look most attractive hanging in the AMDC void.
TIGHTNESS: 0.132 SPREAD: 30
I generated some digital images of the iteration into a real photo of the void to gain a further indication of how it would look in a real life situation.
Page 78
AMDC ZIP TIE ITERATION 3
These images are Photoshopped images of the proposed iteration 3 of the Zip Tie structure in the AMDC void. This was the final design that I selected from my own work that I thought would be most suitable for the void.
You can see straight away of the effects in the immediate area that the Zip Tie structure has. It brings a new life to the area. A lot of students collaborate and work in this area of AMDC, especially design students. A structure like this would being a new sense of space. Something interesting and design related to stimulate the brain.
Page 79
AMDC Floor Plan
This is the floor plan of AMDC and where the proposed Zip Tie design would be situated within the level.
Page 80
This project was one that involved the whole class. The construction progress of the zip-tie model is still underway in a different design.
Page 81
5
PERSONAL EXPERIMENTATION
This is a small collaboration of the different experimentation with Rhino and Grasshopper throughout the semester.
Included is a lot of class examples that were manipulated to experiment with different tools
Page 82
Contents Contour Exploration
1
Triangular Paneling
2
Geometric Lofting
3
Page 83
Contour Exploration
Page 84
1
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Trianglular Paneling
U DIVISION: 5
U DIVISION: 10
V DIVISION: 5
V DIVISION: 10
Page 88
2
U DIVISION: 15
U DIVISION: 20
V DIVISION: 15
V DIVISION: 20
Page 89
Geometric Lofting
ANGLED RECTANGLE PANEL
Page 90
3 ELIPSED PANEL
FIVE SIDED TRIANGLE PANEL
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Jordan Veniamakis
Student: 101144488 Page 98