Laura Williams Air Journal PART A + B by lcw89

STUDIO AIR

DESIGN JOURNAL

SEMESTER 1 , 2015 TUTOR: GEOFF KIM

LAURA WILLIAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A. CONCEPTUALISATION A.0

Introduction

A.1

Design Futuring

A.2

Design Computation

A.3

Composition/Generation

A.4

Conclusion

A.5

Learning Outcomes

A.6

Appendix - Algorithmic Sketchbook

A.7

Reference List

PART B. CRITERIA DESIGN B.1

Research Field

B.2

Case Study 1.0

B.3

Case Study 2.0

B.4

Technique: Development

B.5

Technique: Prototypes

B.6

Technique: Proposal

B.7

Learning Objectives & Outcomes

B.8

Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

8.9

Reference List

PART C. DETAILED DESIGN C.1

Design Concept

C.2

Techtonic Elements & Prototypes

C.3

FInal Detail Model

C.4

Learning Objectives & Outcomes

PART A

A.O INTRODUCTION EAST ELEVATION 1:100

EAST ELEVATION 1:100

Hello, I’m one of the hundred or so Laura Williams in the state of Victoria. I can’t speak for the rest of them, but this Laura Williams has little to no experience with digital design theory or tools. I’ve scraped by so far in the Bachelor of Environments with a minimal reliance on computers and only the most basic skills in a handful of programs (Photoshop, Illustrator and AutoCAD). I’ve always really enjoyed hand drawing and been paralysed by fear in the vicinity of computers, hence the lack of digital design skills. Because I’ve never achieved competency in any design software I’ve always viewed digital design as an inhibitor to my ability to visually communicate my ideas. I’m basically a Luddite in the Information Age. Except I don’t understand computers enough to know how to destroy them. I’ve only completed design work through this course in the subjects prescribed. In Designing Environments I imagined an orientation centre on campus where I tried to engage with contemporary sustainable design innovations that explored responsive architecture (Achim Menges’ Hygroscope and Doris Kim Sung’s Thermal Bimetals). In Earth Studio I designed a subterranean pavilion on Herring Island exploring notions of time and secrecy using a combination of organic materials found on site (timber, bark, seeds, resin). In Water Studio I attempted to create a boathouse in Studley Park in the style of Louis Kahn. I focused on the introspective and intimate nature of Kahn’s work whilst trying to mimic his sensitivity to the play of light and trademark use of grids, symmetry, geometry and ratios. The conceptual development of architecture has emerged as my primary interest. I’m pursuing architecture because I think it is a fascinating intersection of disciplines. It’s an important and readily available way that individuals can greatly reduce their environmental impact, but it is also a powerfully emotional medium that I believe has profound impact of the human state of mind. 6

CONCEPTUALISATION

SOUTH ELEVATION 1:100

NORTH ELEVATION 1:100

FIG.1: ELEVATIONS PRODUCED FOR DESIGN STUDIO WATER CONCEPTUALISATION

A.1 DESIGN FUTURING

FIG.2: INTERIOR OF BANQ RESTAURANT

BANQ / OFFICE DA BanQ was a restaurant occupying an old savings bank building in Boston. The interior was designed by Nader Tehrani of Office dA and completed in 2008. BanQ was pioneering in that it inverted the traditional approach to interior design that privileged furniture and the ground plain by making the roof the focal point1. The result was informed by the brief requirement that the restaurant configuration be as adaptable as possible. BanQ’s roof features a series of curvaceous Baltic birch plywood slats, the combination of which evokes an inverted, mountainous landscape. Tehrani was inspired by conventional slatted ceiling systems used in commercial and industrial buildings that conceal services when looking lengthwise down a room but reveal them if looking directly upwards2. Tehrani extrapolated this approach to use the slats to engulf not just the services in the ceiling but also structural columns throughout the space. Tehrani’s design can be seen to fuse this contemporary, utilitarian design solution for industrial and commercial spaces with an aestehtic evocative of Alvar Aalto (eg. Viipuru Library). Through the use of digital fabrication 8

CONCEPTUALISATION

techniques, Tehrani deconstructs the implied solid form in the tradition of Aalto into a series of individual lofts. This results in an elegant, materially efficient solution. The application of this aesthetic has since proliferated and is evident in such recent large-scale designs as Mecanoo’s Delft railway station . Unfortunately, BanQ closed permanently in 2009 and was renovated before reopening in another incarnation.

NADAA, Inc., ‘BanQ’ in ‘Projects’ (2008) <http://www.nadaaa. com/#/projects/banq/> [accessed 5 March 2015]. 2 Sokol, David, ‘BanQ’ (June 30 2009) <http://www. australiandesignreview.com/interiors/661-banq> [accessed 5 March 2015]. 1

FIG.3: FACADE OF CENTRE FOR IDEAS

CENTRE FOR IDEAS / MINIFIE VAN SCHAIK ARCHITECTS The Centre for Ideas (CFI) is an addition to the VCA Southbank Campus by Paul Minifie of Minifie van Schaik Architects that was completed in 2001. It won a Best New Institutional Building Award from the Royal Australian Institute of Architects in 2004. Visually, the façade is a stainless steel clad structure the form of which is an enlarged diagrammatic tool called a Voronoi tessellation. Minifie van Schaik used an algorithm to generate the Voronoi cells and the design has expanded the possibilities of computer aided design as a generative design medium. The design draws from the work of late twentieth century practitioners such as Peter Eisenman and his experimentations with intersecting geometric structures (eg. House III). It has also made strong contributions to the field and has provided inspiration for such firms as Ashton Raggat MacDougall (ARM). ARM’s design for the National Museum of Australia drew upon modelling operations such as Boolean extrusion and subtraction and in this way can be seen to further explore the possibilities of CAD as a generative design process 3.

The façade of the CFI is strongly symbolic. Its application of the conceptual visualisation tool of Voronoi tessellations speaks to themes of relationality and realisation, which is appropriate considering the nature of the occupancy. Minifie’s design pushed the capacity of the building industry at the time. Its legacy was a new construction technique that enables the fabrication of curved, laser-cut metal panels that combine to form conical shapes 4. The building is still used for its original purpose although trees now obscure the façade, reducing its impact.

Allpress, Brent, ‘Surface Values’, Architecture Review Australia, vol. 90 (2004), <http://architecture.rmit.edu.au/People/Surface_ Values.php> [accessed 5 March 2015]. 4 Minifie, Paul and Jan Van Schaik, ‘Victorian College of the Arts (VCA) Centre For Ideas’ in RMIT Research Repository (2011) < http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:10418> [acessed 5 March 2015]. 3

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.2 DESIGN COMPUTATION Kalay argues that computing integrated into the design process creates a â&#x20AC;&#x153;powerful symbiotic design systemâ&#x20AC;? that capitalizes on both the rational capacity of machines and the intuition and creativity of humans5. Computing began to integrate itself into design by providing the tools to draft less conventional and more geometrically complex buildings that architects were still themselves imagining. This faculty of digital architecture marked a distinct break with preceding architectural theory and practice in that it was no longer constrained to representational form 6. Computationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s endless generative functions have, however, since eclipsed its use purely as a form of documentation.

CONCEPTUALISATION

Parametric design is one of the key components of digital design. It enables the designer to explore different iterations of the same fundamental design idea by changing key parameters. This is an incredible advantage as it greatly reduces the amount of time associated with exploring what a simple variation to input data (eg. object dimensions) does to the overall whole. Whilst digital architecture was initially dominated by curvilinear forms, in contemporary practice digital architecture enables the use of a multiplicity of different geometries.

The emergence of digital design has been accompanied by that of simulation software7. Simulation software can be used to calculate a building’s energy and structural requirements. The expansion of the field of performance simulation and design computation has changed the nature of the design and construction industries. It has greatly increased the scope for collaboration between various sectors of the field and has resulted in the emergence of new professions 8. Foster + Partners have always been early adopters of innovative technology, setting up their Specialist Modeling Group (SMG) in 1998 with the intention of using computational design to achieve maximum energy efficiency in their projects. The Knowledge Centre of the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in Masdar City, Abu Dhabi (2010) is an FIG.4: THE EXPERIENCE MUSIC PROJECT BY FRANK GEHRY

example of the way the SMG has used computational design to rationalize a building’s structure and reduce material consumption during production9. The exterior of the Centre is a curved, dome-like structure composed of identically curved Glulam beams translated about a point. Through the use of computational design the number of beams was reduced to the absolute minimum and a single mould was used as the formwork for the construction of all the primary beams. Foster + Partners was also one of the first practices to set up a rapid prototyping department as a subset of the SMG for modelling structures with complex geometry. Key figures in the practice claim that the rapid prototyping (primarily in the form of 3D printing) became integral to their design process10. The use of 3D printing increased the accuracy of the output and made possible the realisation of forms that previously could not be modelled. Being able to interact with a design proposition in three dimensions always brought to light aspects of the project that had not been considered beforehand. Furthermore, 3D printing could keep pace with the speed of the design cycle and would allow for alterations to be taken in overnight and a revised model to be presented the very next day. It has redefined the process and practice of architecture for Foster + Partners, who now produce over 3500 rapid prototype models per year through the SMG. Computer aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has prompted the building industry to completely reconceptualise historical attitudes towards form and material. Steel was historically used as the “bones” of buildings because of its strength and rigidity. Digital manufacturing of sheet metal has, however, enabled a much more fluid and sculptural use of metal in cladding systems. Sopeoglou invokes the work of Frank Gehry, specifically the Experience Music Project in Seattle, to demonstrate the quasi-textile quality of metal enabled by digital fabrication and the shift from usage as an internal structural material to an external envelope11. Sopeoglou prophesizes that the potential for steel to act as both envelope and structure has yet to be realized and that this is where the technology is heading, recalling the transition from curtain walls to structural glass facades in the twentieth century. 5 Kalay, Yehuda E. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 2-3. 6 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds. Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p.1. 7 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds. Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 3-4. 8 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds. Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), p.4. 9 De Krestelier, Xavier, ‘Recent developments at Foster + Partners Specialist Modeling Group’, AD, vol. 83, issue 2 (2013), pp. 22-27. 10 De Krestelier, Xavier and Brady Peters, ‘Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Manufacturing at Foster + Partners’, ACADIA 08 Silicon+Skin: Biological Processes and Computation, [Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture], Minneapolis 16-19 October 2008, pp. 382-389. 11 Sopeoglou, Eva, ‘Seamless Architecture, Predicting the Future’, [25th eCAADe Conference Proceedings] Frankfurt 26-29 September 2007, pp. 805-811 <http:// cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/ecaade2007_207.content. pdf> [accessed 12 March 2015].

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.3 COMPOSITION GENERATION Computational design has elicited the full gamut of possible responses from the architectural and design communities. Reactions range from enthusiastic exploration, to partial adoption only utilizing part of its capacity, to outright rejection verging on regression. The range can largely be attributed to how a practitioner views computation as either enhancing or compromising creativity. Terzidis has described computerization as usage that treats technology as a storage system for human-generated ideas, and computation as a generative design process12. Computation capitalizes on algorithmic thinking, parametric modeling and scripting. Algorithms are frequently employed for generating patterns on facades of buildings. The defining impression of Daniel Libeskind’s proposed Victoria and Albert Museum extension (unbuilt), Cecil Balmond and Toyo Ito’s Serpentine Pavilion (2002), Herzog & de Meuron’s Beijing National Stadium (2008) and PTW Architects’ National Aquatic Centre in Beijing (2008) were all generated with algorithms13. The last example is exemplary in the way the bubbles of the façade are used to heat the water of the pool, and demonstrates the potential for algorithmic thinking and biomimicry to inform aesthetically powerful and highly technically efficient architecture. Parametric modelling is also an aspect of computation that has both generative and functional components. By altering key parameters of a design in programs such as Grasshopper, users can easily produce a multitude of visually distinct iterations to select from. Foster + Partners used parametric modeling to produce different options for the cable and net structure of the Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre (2010)14. Building Information Modelling (BIM) systems are also developed by parametric scripting and can provide valuable feedback on material, structural and environmental performance of a building. BIM was instrumental in determining the structure and envelope for Gehry Partners’ Fondation Louis Vuitton (2005-2014).

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG.5 (ABOVE): GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM, BILBAO, BY FRANK GEHRY.

FIG.6 (BELOW LEFT): KHAN SHATYR ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE BY FOSTER + PARTNERS. FIG.7 (BELOW RIGHT): FONDATION LOUIS VUITTON BY GEHRY PARTNERS.

, .

T . S

Terzidis, Kostas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006). Kolarevic, Branko, ‘Post-Digital Architecture: Towards Integrative Design’ [Proceedings of the First International Conference on Critical Digital] Cambridge (USA)18-19 April 2008, pp. 149-156 <http://cumincad.scix. net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/cdc2008_149.content.pdf> [accessed 12 March 2015]. 14 De Krestelier, Xavier and Brady Peters, ‘Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Manufacturing at Foster + Partners’, ACADIA 08 Silicon+Skin: Biological Processes and Computation, [Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture], Minneapolis 16-19 October 2008, pp. 382-389 <http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb. edu.au/data/works/att/acadia08_382.content.pdf> [accessed 12 March 2015]. 15 Jakimowicz, Adam, Javier Barrallo and Eliana Maria Guedes, ‘Spatial computer abstraction: from intuition to genetic algorithms’ [CAAD Futures 1997 Conference Proceedings] München 4-6 August 1997, pp. 917-926 <http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/6707. content.pdf> [accessed 18 March 2013]. 16 Osman, Yasser , ‘The Use of Tools in the Creation of Form: Frank (L. Wright & O. Gehry)’ [Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture] Buffalo 1114 October 2001, pp. 044-051 < http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb. edu.au/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=9e31&sort=DEFAULT&search=frank%20 gehry%20bilbao%20composition&hits=345> [accessed 13 March 2015]. 17 Frazer, John H., ‘The Generation of Virtual Prototypes for Performance Optimization’, in Game Set and Match II: The Architecture Co-Laboratory on Computer Games, Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies, ed. By Kas Oosterhuis and Lukas Feireiss (Rotterdam: Episode Publishers, 2006), pp. 208-212. 12

Frank Gehry’s practice is an example of partial adoption of computational design. Gehry has employed computation in its capacity to represent ideas that he himself still conceives of. The form of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (1997) was documented and rationalized using CAD but was still created by Gehry15. The form was developed using paper and wood models, 3D-laser scanned then finessed in a 3D-modelling program called Catia16. This attitude is representative of Frazer’s assertion that “design computation is still only seen by many as ‘just a tool’ and remote from the real business of creative design”17. There is always resistance to change within a certain portion of society, and with the rise of computerization and computation there has also been a retreat from technology akin to the Arts and Crafts Movement at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Things ‘made by hand’ fetch a premium, reflecting that there is still space for design devoid of the machinated.

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.4 CONCLUSION Computation has revolutionized design. It has had profound effects on the form of and thinking behind architecture. The appearance, materiality and experience of buildings have drastically changed with the integration of digital tools into the process of creation. It has catalyzed epistemological shifts, changed the nature of the design process and reconfigured relationships within the construction industry. Promisingly, this technology has the potential to inform a more sustainable consumption of materials and use of energy in our building stock. Computational design can be credited with broadening the horizons of architecture. With regards to the brief, I’m fixating on site sensitivity, both in terms of creating something that’s contextually appropriate to Merii Creek but also something that has a positive ecological impact on the area. I’d like to give something that facilitates a symbiotic relationship between site users and the site.

A.5 LEARNING OUTCOMES Considering that I was starting from a fairly low base in terms of my existing knowledge and engagement with computational design, I would say that I have come some way, but there is still a lot for me to learn. I’d like to think that I’ve pushed through the dismissive and fearful attitude that comes with ignorance. However, I’m still trying to get my head around how computation can really drive the seed of my design and not just used to trial several different options for a concept that still essentially originates with me. I think every design I’ve worked on could have been improved with the knowledge I have now. If not for the technical abilities I’m still working on and what that would mean for the representation of my ideas, then for the systematic thinking, problem solving skills and spirit of enquiry that computation engenders.

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.6 APPENDIX - A

ALGORITHMIC SKETCHBOOK

I included my explorations from the Week 1 Lofting exercise because I thought it was the only time throughout the parametric exercises that I extended beyond the brief. In this series I was trying to create a gateway to wrap around a section of the path along Merri Creek. These are several iterations produced by altering the key parameters (radius, segments, fillet radius of the polygons, specificities of the array and dimensions of the cylinder receiving the array of polygons). The loft was performed very early in the sequence of operations and I was trying to see how it would respond to other functions. I think this result was more beneficial in terms of abstract exploration of the potential of Grasshopper than it was for generating a form that could exist in real life. For starters, there are elements suspended in the air withouth support, so the structure is impossible as is. What is shown here is not what I was trying to produce, but that probably demonstrates the capacity of computational design to propose options that had not previously been considered. I think the difference between my intention and the result is partly to do with the bounding box of the array not being the right dimensions for the cylinder.

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.7 REFERENCE LIST TEXT SOURCES Allpress, Brent, ‘Surface Values’, Architecture Review Australia, vol. 90 (2004), <http://architecture.rmit.edu.au/People/ Surface_Values.php> [accessed 5 March 2015]. De Krestelier, Xavier, ‘Recent developments at Foster + Partners Specialist Modeling Group’, AD, vol. 83, issue 2 (2013), pp. 22-27. De Krestelier, Xavier and Brady Peters, ‘Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Manufacturing at Foster + Partners’, ACADIA 08 Silicon+Skin: Biological Processes and Computation, [Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture], Minneapolis 16-19 October 2008, pp. 382-389 <http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib. unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/acadia08_382.content.pdf> [accessed 12 March 2015]. Frazer, John H., ‘The Generation of Virtual Prototypes for Performance Optimization’, in Game Set and Match II: The Architecture Co-Laboratory on Computer Games, Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies, ed. By Kas Oosterhuis and Lukas Feireiss (Rotterdam: Episode Publishers, 2006), pp. 208-212. Kalay, Yehuda E. Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 1-25. Jakimowicz, Adam, Javier Barrallo and Eliana Maria Guedes, ‘Spatial computer abstraction: from intuition to genetic algorithms’ [CAAD Futures 1997 Conference Proceedings] München 4-6 August 1997, pp. 917-926 <http://cumincad.scix. net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/6707.content.pdf> [accessed 18 March 2013]. Kolarevic, Branko, ‘Post-Digital Architecture: Towards Integrative Design’ [Proceedings of the First International Conference on Critical Digital] Cambridge (USA)18-19 April 2008, pp. 149-156 <http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb. edu.au/data/works/att/cdc2008_149.content.pdf> [accessed 12 March 2015]. NADAA, Inc., ‘BanQ’ in ‘Projects’ (2008) <http://www.nadaaa.com/#/projects/banq/> [accessed 5 March 2015]. Osman, Yasser , ‘The Use of Tools in the Creation of Form: Frank (L. Wright & O. Gehry)’ [Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture] Buffalo 11-14 October 2001, pp. 044051 < http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=9e31&sort=DEFAULT&search=frank%20 gehry%20bilbao%20composition&hits=345> [accessed 13 March 2015]. Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds. Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-10. Peters, Brady, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, AD, vol. 83, issue 2 (2013), pp. 8-15. Sokol, David, ‘BanQ’ (June 30 2009) <http://www.australiandesignreview.com/interiors/661-banq> [accessed 5 March 2015]. Sopeoglou, Eva, ‘Seamless Architecture, Predicting the Future’, [25th eCAADe Conference Proceedings] Frankfurt 2629 September 2007, pp. 805-811 <http://cumincad.scix.net.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/data/works/att/ecaade2007_207. content.pdf> [accessed 12 March 2015]. Terzidis, Kostas, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006). 16

CONCEPTUALISATION

IMAGE SOURCES FIG.2: BanQ Restaurant by Office dA, retrieved from <http://www.yatzer.com/BANQ-restaurant-by-Office-dA> [accessed 12 March 2015].

FIG.3: VCA Centre for Ideas by Minifie Van Schail, retrieved from <http://www.peterbennetts.com/library/ project/1248850255_image_lg_03090802.jpg> [accessed 12 March 2015].

FIG.4: Experience Music Project by Frank Gehry, retrieved from <http://triplesummer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ emp-monarail-seattle-Frank-Gehry1-1280x648.jpg> [accessed 19 March 2015].

FIG.5: Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, by Frank Gehry, retrieved from <http://c6cc.http.cdn.softlayer.net/80C6CC/ inspiremore.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bilbao-guggenheim.jpg> [accessed 19 March 2015].

FIG.6: Khan Shatyr Entertainment Centre by Foster + Partners, retrieved from < http://www.constructionweekonline.com/ pictures/MEP/shatyr2.jpg>[accessed 19 March 2015].

FIG.7: Fondation Louis Vuitton, retrieved from <http://www.beautyandthedirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/13690_ suivi_du_chantierdelafondationlouisvuittonle15decembre2013_original.jpg>[accessed 19 March 2015].

CONCEPTUALISATION

PART B

B.1 RESEARCH FIELD Biomimicry is the practice of looking to the natural world for solutions to human problems, or “the conscious emulation of life’s genius”1. It represents the intersection of two areas that previously have been conceptualised as polar opposites: technology and nature. Typically nature has been subjugated and dominated by humanity, and Biomimicry is in part so groundbreaking because it instead encourages a respectful, symbiotic relationship between the two. The principle can be applied with varying levels of integration. It could be used simply to inspire the form of a design, or the processes involved in a design’s manufacture and function, or in the way it exists within its ecosystem2. Biomimicry is a practice relevant to all kinds of design. Self-cleaning surfaces have been developed from the hydrophobic properties of lotus leaves, decreasing resources used in their maintenance. Dry adhesives based on the microstructure of a gecko’s foot are under development and have the potential to reduce material consumption and wastage through reuse. The discovery that bumps on the front of whale fins decrease drag through water has had implications for wind turbines that greatly increase their efficiency. Biomimicry is not just about lazily plagiarizing a pre-prepared solution in nature, but instead about increasing the sustainability of human design using examples that have demonstrated their fitness over millennia of evolution. The focus on environmental impact is why biomimetics is so important as an emerging industry and as a way of thinking, and is also why I’ve chosen it as a research field. Conceptually, I think the greatest challenge of this topic is using biomimicry in more than a superficial way and really embodying the ethos of the practice. I need to look to natural precedents that will really improve the site’s environmental health to generate the design. Material consumption during fabrication is also an area of concern. It’s all very well to design something that enriches its surround, but if a forest it cut down to create it then the sustainability of the project is invalidated.

Benyus, Janine M., ‘A Biomimicry Primer’ (2014) p.5 < http://biomimicry. net/about/biomimicry/a-biomimicry-primer/> [accessed 1 April 2015]. 2 Benyus, Janine M., ‘A Biomimicry Primer’ (2014) p.6 < http://biomimicry. net/about/biomimicry/a-biomimicry-primer/> [accessed 1 April 2015]. 1

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG.8: WATER REPELLENT PROPERTIES OF A LOTUS LEAF. FIG.9: THE SELF-CLEANING PROPERTIES OF LOTUS LEAVES HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR MICROSTRUCTURE, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR DROPLETS OF WATER TO SETTLE ON THE SURFACE.

FIG.10: GECKO STICKS TO A LEAF. FIG.11: DRY ADHESIVES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BASED ON THE ELECTROSTATIC FORCES THAT OPERATE OVER MINUTE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RIDGES OF HAIRS ON A GECKOS FOOT AND THE CONTACT SURFACE.

FIG.12: BUMPS ON A WHALE’S FIN. FIG.13: WIND TURBINES DEVELOPED BASED ON WHALE FIN MODEL.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0 VoltaDom / Skylar Tibbits

CRITERIA DESIGN

“This installation lines the concrete and glass hallway with hundreds of vaults, reminiscent of the great vaulted ceilings of historic cathedrals. The vaults provide a thickened surface articulation and a spectrum of oculi that penetrate the hallway and surrounding area with views and light. VoltaDom attempts to expand the notion of the architectural “surface panel,” by intensifying the depth of a doubly-curved vaulted surface, while maintaining relative ease in assembly and fabrication.” - Skylar Tibbits3 VoltaDom was generated using parametric modelling. The support files provided demonstrate two ways of replicating the VoltaDom installation using Rhino parametric plug-in Grasshopper. The first way involves creating a series of cones from randomly distributed points on a field and off-cutting the surfaces protruding beyond the point of intersection; the second involves a similar series of operations, but with a Voronoi diagram used as a boundary for the cones. Voronoi diagrams are an example of biomimicry insofar as they describe patterns frequently occuring over a range of scales in nature. They can be used to describe the growth of cells, and are evident in the patterning on leaves, giraffes, turtles; shells and drying mud. Recontructing VoltaDom using a Voronoi diagram resulted in cones of varying radii. The first four species experimented with the first approach and the last two species investigated the second. Each species explored in this case study involved variations being made to one key parameter. The iterations on the matrix over-page document what I believe to be a representative range of producible possibilities when varying one parameter. The selection criteria used to evaluate the success of the case study explorations include the following: • Predictability of result • Difference from initial iteration • Usability of the form produced I have selected 4 iterations on this basis that have been identified in the matrix by a black rectangle. Selection 1: Species 3, Iteration 5 Chosen because of the variety of intersection conditions present and the interesting way the central cone has broken and suggests a combination of flat and threedimensional elements. Selection 2: Species 4, Iteration 3 This species is the most different from the original project. I chose this iteration because the sense of radial growth FIG.14 (LEFT): VOLTADOM INSTALLATION AT MIT IN 2011.

prevalent in most other iterations is missing. It is probably, however, the hardest to find a functional application for. Selection 3: Species 6, Iteration 2 Chosen for the surprising curvilinear voids present at the intersection of two cones. Selection 4: Species 6, iteration 5 Chosen for the difference in height and for the variety of sizes of the occuli. Regarding ‘usability of the form produced’, selections 1, 3 and 4 strike me as landscape elements or a kind of structure for growing plants (either horizontally or vertically). I can easily imagine plants growing through the occuli and the voids to interesting effects. Selection 4 could also be a structure of containment, but I find it particularly evocative of stalagmites (or stalactites if inverted), which makes me think about how it could be used to transfer material. The steeper gradient of the slope is also reminiscent of a funnel. The varying sizes of the occuli suggest that it could be used as some kind of filter for collecting and redistributing material at different volumes/concentrations. All of the selections could be used as surface textures to produce different effects. Selection 1 is the most shallow, intact, regular and predictable, which I think would create a comfortable space but would also not require a lot of attention from the site users which would potentially make it a bit bland. Selection 2 is highly fragmented and sharp, and as a surface texture it could appear risky and threatening. Again, because of its shallowness selection 3 would be less threatening than selection 2 or 4, but I think it would provoke more interest because the voids between its cones reduce the sense of continuity over the surface. Because of the depth and steepness of its cones, selection 4 would be quite invasive and deterring as a surface in a space, but perhaps not as directly threatening as selection 2 for its lack of sharp edges. Tibbits, Skylar, ‘VoltaDom: MIT 2011’ in ‘Project List’ (2011) <http://sjet.us/ MIT_VOLTADOM.html> [accessed 6 April 2015].

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES 1 Iteration 2: changed the number of points (15) and distribution of points. Iteration 3: changed points (35) and distribution. Iteration 4: changed points (8) and distribution. Iteration 5: changed points (6) and distribution of points.

SPECIES 2 Iteration 1: increased cone radius to 1. Iteration 2: increased cone radius to 1.5. Iteration 3: increased cone radius to 2. Iteration 4: decreased cone radius to 0.5. Iteration 5: decreased cone radius to 0.25.

SPECIES 3 Iteration 1: decreased lower limit of domain (for surface subtraction) for V direction to 0. Iteration 2: lower limit of domain for V 0.5. Iteration 3: lower limit of domain for V 0.35. Iteration 4: lower limit of domain for V 0.1, upper limit of domain for V 0.9. Iteration 5: upper limit of domain for V 0.5.

SPECIES 4 Iteration 1: applied same lower and upper limit domain values for U direction as for V direction (0.2, 1.0) Iteration 2: changed U direction limits to 0.1 and 0.9. Iteration 3: U limits 0.3 and 0.8. Iteration 4: U limits 0.4 and 0.7. Iteration 5: U limits 0.5 and 0.6.

SPECIES 5 Iteration 1: changed the y-value in the expression (x^y) between voronoi cell perimeter value and bounds to 1. Iteration 2: y-value 6. Iteration 3: y-value 10. Iteration 4: y-value 15. Iteration 5: y-value 30. 4 SPECIES 6 Iteration 1: disconnected the height ratio from one of the length in-puts to one cone. Set one cone length as radius x 1 and the other as radius x 2. Iteration 2: Set one cone length as radius x 1 and the other as radius x 5. Iteration 3: Inverse of Iteration 2. Iteration 4: Set one cone length as radius x 10 and the other as radius x 1. Iteration 5: Set one cone length as radius x 5 and the other as radius x 2.5.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0 ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf & Bogdan Hambasan

CRITERIA DESIGN

“The realization of the design was made possible by advanced use of parametric design techniques, with the help of which the whole process was controlled from exact geometry generation to piece labeling, assembly logic and fabrication.” – Bogdan Hambasan4 The ZA11 Pavilion was a temporary installation in the town of Cluj, Romania, designed by students Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf and Bogdan Hambasan for an architectural event in 2011. The objectives of the brief, as laid out by its designers, are to: • Create a structure scalable in terms of material and construction systems; • Integrate with the historical surrounding buildings; • Showcase the potential of computational design; • Provide an event space for the festival; • Provide a public shelter; • Attracts passers-by to the event5. The resulting form appeared like a rounded amoebic fence of lopsided hexagons extruded outwards. The perimeter was lifted upwards at two points to form arches for entering the enclosed space and the top was left open to the elements. The panels of the extruded hexagons were connected by a series of smaller, notched hexagons. Some of the large panels had isosceles triangles cut out of them, which increased visibility and light penetration through the structure. The entire structure was constructed from CNC milled plywood. Whilst not expressly stated by the designers, the Pavilion could be seen as an example of biomimicry through its use of a hexagonal honeycomb structure. The honeycomb conjecture states that when dividing a field into regions of equal area, the use of a regular hexagonal grid will result in the smallest possible perimeter length of each region 6. This is relevant because the project had a very limited budget and efficient use of material was a paramount concern. As far as satisfying its brief, I would say the ZA11 Pavilion was partially successful. It is easy to see that the same form could be built from the same material using the same techniques over a variety of scales. The Pavilion was also an impressive and intriguing demonstration of the capacity of computational design, and photographs of the event suggest that it successfully attracted festival participants and passers-by. However, the same photos do not show that the Pavilion integrates with its surrounding

FIG.16 (ABOVE): PROPS FOR ZA11 PAVILION. FIG.15 (LEFT): ZA11 PAVILION IN CLUJ, ROMANIA, IN 2011.

site. There is nothing about the materiality or the form that link the two. The structure was also not self-supporting and was propped up by timber at various points. This compromised what was otherwise a sophisticated design and detracted from the overall impression. The Pavilion was also completely open at the top and through the sides and therefore could not protect site users from rain, wind or sun. The Pavilion was more of a boundary than it was a shelter. HAMBASAN, BOGDAN, ‘ZA11 PAVILION’ IN ‘BOGDAN HAMBASAN PORTFOLIO’ (2013) < HTTP://ISSUU.COM/BOGDANHAMBAAN/DOCS/ BOGDAN_HAMBASAN_PORTFOLIO_CV> [ACCESSED 12 APRIL 2015]. 5 JETT, MEGAN, ‘ZA11 PAVILION / DIMITRIE STEFANESCU, PATRICK BEDARF, BOGDAN HAMBASAN’ (05 JULY 2011) ARCHDAILY <HTTP:// WWW.ARCHDAILY.COM/?P=147948> [ACCESSED 06 APR 2015]. 6 WEISSTEIN, ERIC W, ‘HONEYCOMB CONJECTURE’ MATHWORLD--A WOLFRAM WEB RESOURCE <HTTP://MATHWORLD.WOLFRAM.COM/ HONEYCOMBCONJECTURE.HTML> [ACCESSED 26 APRIL 2015]. 4

CRITERIA DESIGN

REENGINEERI

1. CREATE BASE STRUCTURE

2. SUPERIMPOSE VORONOI DIAGRAM

Create the base structure on which to impose the Voronoi diagram. Draw a curve in Rhino to represent the Pavilion footprint, contort it to reflect the height variation and then import it into Grasshopper. Move and scale the same curve to create the skeleton for the outer skin. Loft between the three curves to create the base structure of the outer skin.

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

3. MAKE VO OUTER

Find the intersection of th and the loft of the bas intersection with the cur top and bottom chords o

MOVE & SCALE CURVE

LOFT MOVE & SCALE

CRITERIA DESIGN

SURFACE

POPULATE GEOMETRY

VORONOI

BREP INTERSECTION

ING PROCESS

. ORONOI R SKIN

4. MAKE VORONOI INNER SKIN

5. LOFT BETWEEN TWO SKINS

he 3D Voronoi diagram se surface. Join this rves that represent the of the base structure.

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

Loft between the inner and outer skins. Ensure ‘Join’ function has been grafted, otherwise loft does not work as intended.

JOIN

SCALE

LOFT

CRITERIA DESIGN

BREP

REENGINEERING DIFFICULTIES & DIFFERENCES

I deliberately used a Voronoi diagram for the inner and outer shells instead of a hexagon because I did not know how to make irregular hexagons of different sizes. I thought the Voronoi would better replicate this effect than a series of regular polygons. I got particularly stymied trying to loft between the inner and outer Voronoi shells. Figures X & Y show some of my dead end attempts. Ultimately, the solution was just to graft the inputs of the join command in Step 3, which I think helped Grasshopper read each shell as a whole unit and not separate units that I was asking the program to loft between.

I struggled a lot to progress beyond the final stage represented here. I would say that this only represents half of the complete ZA11 Pavilion. The obvious omissions from my model are the triangular holes made in the webbing between the inner and outer Voronoi shells, the irregular application of these triangular holes, and the hexagonal joining pieces. I spent a long time attempting to recreate the triangular holes without success. The method I pursued most aggressively to do this was ‘surface morph’. I exploded the Brep from Stage 5 into its component parts (faces, edges and vertices) and connected the ‘faces’ output to the recipient surface input for the surface morph command. I mocked up a rectangular surface with triangular subtractions in Rhino and imported it into Grasshopper as a geometry. I connected this to the ‘G’ input of the surface morph, and attached a bounding box delineating the perimeter of my imported geometry as the ‘R’ input. I deconstructed the domain of the faces and used that as the ‘U’ and ‘V’ inputs. I used the domain of the geometry bounding box for the ‘W’ input. My problem here was errors with the ‘U’ and ‘W’ extents. Previously when using surface morph I found no requirement to enter values for ‘W’, but when I did not in this instance it said “data for ‘W’ could not be collected”. So when I did enter data for ‘W’ suddenly there was an error collecting data for ‘U’ where there had been none previously. It went on like this for a long time in ways I couldn’t make sense of. My other attempt was to try to use the outline of the imported geometry to ‘map surface’ onto the faces and then split said faces. I couldn’t get this to work because apparently the Brep outputs from the map surface command were not closed, even though I tested whether or not they were closed and all results came back positive. If I were not constrained by the original form, I would like to apply non-uniform distortions, introduce curvilinear elements and cull some of the elements.

FIG.17 (LEFT): RESULTS OBTAINED WHEN TRYING TO LOFT BETWEEN INNER AND OUTER VORONOI SHELS BEFORE GRAFTING THE ‘JOIN’ COMMAND IN STAGE 3. 30

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG.18 (ABOVE): RENDERINGS, IN PLAN, PERSPECTIVE & ELEVATION, OF THE FINAL STAGE I WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE. CRITERIA DESIGN

B.4 TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

CRITERIA DESIGN

In extrapolating on my attempts to recreate the ZA11 Pavilion, I did not set out to create something explicitly architectural. I was just trying to vary the result as much as possible from the initial form whilst making interesting visual results. For the first series of variations I used the Lunchbox plug-in to apply different panel patterns to the base loft structure (diamonds, skewed quads, triangle panels, quad panels and hexagons). I varied the configuration of the pattern over the loft surface and altered the scale to achieve the results featured in the matrix on pages 32 and 33. I used the same selection criteria as for B.2 Case Study 1.0 to select the most interesting examples to develop further. Selection criteria: • Predictability of result • Difference from initial iteration • Usability of the form produced Selection 1: Species 1, Iteration 2 Chosen for the juxtaposition of the angular corners in the horizontal layering and the soft, curvaceous folds visible vertically. The little caves formed suggest the iteration could be used in trees for animals to nest in. Selection 2: Species 4, Iteration 1 Chosen for the way the quad pattern transformed into an open ovular shape. The way the ends intersect is evocative of timber in a log cabin and could be applied as some kind of perimeter in the same way. Selection 3: Species 4, Iteration 3 Selected for the same reasons as above but additionally for the interesting way in which the loft worked. Instead of lofting between all the scaled edges the loft has only been formed between the vertical members. The variations of species 4 strike me as climbing frames.

Selection 4: Species 5, Iteration 1 Selected for its difference to the other iterations. The panels that have some kind of overlap into the territory of its adjacent panels (diamonds, skewed quads and hexagons) naturally all produced a loft that appeared as if its elements were more interlocking than stacked. I thought this effect was most prominent in the hexagon species, and chose it for this reason. I also thought the way the loft twisted on itself and was not simply formed by two-dimensional panels was interesting. Selection 5: Species 5, Iteration 5 Chosen for the way the effects described in selections 3 and 4 converged. This iteration seemed to me to be the most potentially useful or to resemble an existing thing. It looks to me like a kind of propeller or turbine. In the second stage of variations (matrix on pages 34 and 35) I altered the 5 selections from the first stage by subjecting them to: 1) bending around an arc, 2) kaleidoscopic transformations, 3) further offsets and lofts, 4) arraying cylinders through the bounding box of the pavilion and finding the intersection, 5) piping the intersection from the above command. I think variations 3 and 5 (kaleidoscopic transformation and piping) produced the outcomes that were most different from the original and least predictable, but probably the least practically usable. Variation 4 was probably equally useless because it’s just linework. Overall, the iterations produced in the second stage did not seem to have a markedly different use to those of the first stage.

FIG.19 (THROUGHOUT): PLAN VIEWS OF ITERATIONS FROM B4

CRITERIA DESIGN

SPECIES VARIATI

SPECIES 1. DIAMONDS

SPECIES 2. SKEWED QUADS

SPECIE TRAIN PANE

IONS EXPLORED

ES 3. NGLE ELS

SPECIES 4. QUAD PANELS

SPECIES 5. HEXAGONS

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.5 TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPES

FIG.20 (ABOVE): INITIAL SELECTION FROM B4 FOR USE AS A TURBINE.

FIG.21 (ABOVE): REENGINEERED TURBINE.

I wanted to pursue an iteration of Species 5 from section B4 and explore its potential to remove rubbish from Merri Creek if submerged in the water as a series of turbines. One of the things I was struck by on my site visits was the amount of rubbish in the water, which I thought detracted from its potential for enjoyment by human site users and also degraded the quality of the hydrological ecosystem. I thought the net like structures on the inner and outer surfaces in Species 5 would work well to catch rubbish whilst the angled fins between these two layers would allow the water to flow through the turbine more smoothly than a fin angled orthogonally to the creek.

be virtually impossible to 3D print an iteration of Species 5. The surfaces aren’t flat, and did not have an adequate thickness (2mm) for printing, and could not be given a thickness because they curved around on themselves in a way that would mean an Offset Surface command would not work. Furthermore, the main concern was that all the scaffolding that would need to be printed throughout would pull apart the turbine when being removed.

I was stopped at the first hurdle when it came to developing a prototype. Because the turbine would be submerged in the water, it would obviously have to be waterproof, which eliminated the use of MDF, card or anything similar in a model. The geometry of the species is also very complex, and I did not trust myself to reproduce it by hand. I settled on 3D printing in order to recreate the turbine accurately in a material that would withstand the environmental conditions the design would be subject to. However, I was advised by the Fab Lab staff that it would

CRITERIA DESIGN

I went back to the drawing board to develop an option that would be more compatible with the construction process. This meant creating something with a more regular geometry that I could give a thickness to. The fins of the turbine still needed to be angled diagonally across the outer surface so as not to stop the flow of water through the design. I used the Lunchbox plug-in again but opted for the ‘Quad Panel’ function on the inner and outer surfaces of the ZA11 Pavilion reengineer. I lofted between opposite points (points 1 and 3 if points are numbered from 1 to 4 clockwise around the quad) instead of lofting the entire quad. Joining these lofts created fins than spanned diagonally across the depth of the turbine.

FIG.22 (ABOVE): INITIAL PROPOSAL FOR TURBINE FRAME.

FIG.23 (ABOVE): REVISED PROPOSAL FOR RIGID TURBINE FRAME.

In developing a frame for the turbine I was conscious that it would need to withstand the force of the water pushing against it, and should therefore have a footprint larger than the turbine to avoid being overturned in the water. At first I thought I would use a simple rectangular prism frame split down the middle that would clip around the turbine. The frame would therefore have 5 connections, which I realised would be a point of weakness structurally. I sought to simplify the design by reducing the amount of joints needed, and decided upon a rigid rectangular prism with a rod that could slide through the top chord to allow for the turbine to be installed without breaking up the frame.

I think the most obvious failing of this design is that it does not satisfy my research field of biomimicry. The ZA11 Pavilion I started with resembles a honeycomb structure, but my explorations of variations to it were more aesthetic and functional than they were about implementing another kind of biomimicry. It’s my failing for not reminding myself of the direction outlined in the subejct reader, but I did not expect that my design had to be a direct derivative of my precedent study. Perhaps it’s an issue particular to this research field, but I struggled to comprehend how we’re meant to take one example of architectural biomimicry and mutate that into a different contextually appropriate form of architectural biomimicry that is authentically inspired by another natural process but still claim they’re connected. It feels like to produce an example of biomimetic architecture in this section I would either be using the same instance of biomimicry as my precedent project, or I would have had a design in mind that was completely unrelated to my precedent project and I would make up intermediate steps to make it appear like my design and the precedent project were related, or I would retrospectively try to find an example of biomimicry that looks as though it could have informed my design. None of these really felt like authentic options to me.

There are some obvious issues associated with this design. Once again, I was advised it was impossible to print because the issue with the scaffolding remained. The design would obviously also call for a lot of maintenance, which in and of itself is not a bad thing because the brief calls for an intervention that encourages active participation. However, I think that whilst a turbine that cycles rubbish in and out of view could importantly raise awareness of the health of the hydrological ecosystem of Merri Creek, there would be a less literal way to do this that could still enhance the beauty of the site and the potential for human enjoyment.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.6 TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL The site I have chosen is the area of Merri Creek under the Heidelberg Road Bridge. I chose the site because I felt that there was a lot of latent potential there that had not been capitalised upon because of litter, both on the ground and in the water. Friends of Merri Creek stress that there are increased risks to waterways at their junctions with roads because of a consistently greater incidence of pollution, which is why it’s important to conduct interventions at these intersections7. A design at this site that improved the ecological health of the area, increased public awareness and interest of the health of Merri Creek and also improved usable recreation space would satisfy key stakeholders such as the Friends of Merri Creek (‘FoMC’), Municipal Councils and State Government. These stakeholders have been working since 1976 when the Merri Creek Coordinating Committee was established to achieve these goals 8. FIG.24 (BELOW):CHOSEN SITE IN LOCAL REGION. FIG.25 (RIGHT): VIEW APPROACHING SITE FROM SOUTH. FIG.26 (FAR RIGHT): STORMWATER DRAIN FROM HEIDELBERG ROAD BRIDGE INTO MERRI CREEK.

N 200M

CRITERIA DESIGN

There are visible and invisible facets to water pollution at the site. Visibly, there is the problem of litter in and around the Creek. Invisibly, there is the issue of pollution from pathogens, nutrients, toxins, heavy metals and contaminated sediment. Stormwater drainage is a key contributor to both facets. The embankment supporting Heidelberg Road Bridge is encased in bluestone, with openings between the bluestone blocks where stormwater from Heidelberg Road is expelled. There is a pool underneath the drains between the embankment and the pedestrian path that diverts the stormwater under the pedestrian path and into the creek. FoMC and Melbourne Water have installed litter traps in drains at street level to sequester larger items of litter such as plastic bags, drink cans, bottles and food packaging before they enter the Merri Creek. This program has reduced litter, but is not effective for segregating small pieces of rubbish from stormwater, removing rubbish dumped directly into the Creek or addressing invisible pollutants.

It’s important to reduce pollutants because they have the following effects on hydrological ecosystems 9: • Inorganic waste: takes a long time to decompose, causes flooding and chokes animals. • Organic waste: uses oxygen as it decomposes which suffocates animals living in waterways. • Pathogens: cause disease. • Nutrients: cause algal blooms and overstimulate plant growth, which chokes waterways. • Toxins and heavy metals: are poisons that kill aquatic life. • Contaminated sediment: increased turbidity of water and kills plants by reducing sunlight. It also reduces oxygen and causes erosion. Suspended sediments do, however, absorb heavy metals. • Oil and grease: makes it hard for animals to breathe and swim.

MCGREGOR, BRUCE, ‘HISTORY OF CREEK ACTIVISM’ (2014) FRIENDS OF MERRI CREEK <HTTP://WWW.FRIENDSOFMERRICREEK.ORG.AU//PAGES/ ACTIVISM-HISTORY.PHP> [ACCESSED 26 APRIL 2015]. 8 MCGREGOR, BRUCE, ‘HISTORY OF CREEK ACTIVISM’ (2014) FRIENDS OF MERRI CREEK <HTTP://WWW.FRIENDSOFMERRICREEK.ORG.AU//PAGES/ ACTIVISM-HISTORY.PHP> [ACCESSED 26 APRIL 2015]. 9 EPA VICTORIA, ‘WHAT IS STORMWATER POLLUTION?’ (MAY 2005) EPA INFORMATION CENTRE <HTTP://WWW.EPA.VIC.GOV.AU/~/MEDIA/ PUBLICATIONS/976.PDF> [ACCESSED 26 APRIL]. 7

CRITERIA DESIGN

TAKING INSPIRATION FROM NATURE: FILTRATION FEEDING ANIMALS In the spirit of biomimicry I looked to nature for examples of natural filtration systems. There are a variety of animals that extract solid foods from water without consuming the liquid. Baleen whales, basking sharks and flamingos all feed in this way. Baleen whales are a type of toothless whale that eat using a filtration system in their mouth akin to a sieve that extracts food morsels from water. The ‘baleens’ for which they are named are a series of bristled plates in their mouths. Whales gulp large volumes of water, sieve out the food using their baleens, and eject the water through their blowholes. Basking Sharks are another filter feeding animal that have developed gill rakers in their mouths instead of baleens to separate food from water. As the name suggests, obstacles at the entrance to their gills literally rake plankton from the water as it exits the shark’s mouth through its gills. A flamingo’s bill is distinct from other birds in that appears upside down, with a deeper bill on the top. Flamingos feed with their heads upside down and use this enlarged top bill to scoop up a greater volume of water, which is then forced through a series of lamellae (hair-like structures) using the pumping action of their lower bill. Water is forced out when the bill is closed. All three of these examples have in common similar characteristics that could be applied to a waste filtration system. An initial volume of water is gathered through a large aperture; desired solids are separated from the water using a series of obstacles that only allow for the passage of objects smaller than the desired size; the remaining volume of water is ejected through an aperture smaller than the size of the retained object. The idea that I developed for B6 was a series of cells to clean rubbish from Merri Creek based on this precedent of filter feeders. The cells will be placed where the existing bank is located and will double as a platform that will extend the usable recreational space of the site. The cellular filtration system would require active participation through existing site stakeholders such as the Friends of Merri Creek, who already run Creek cleaning programs. FIG.27 (RIGHT, ABOVE): WHALE BALEENS CLOSE UP. FIG.28 (RIGHT, BELOW): BASKING SHARK RAKER GILLS. FIG.29 (FAR RIGHT): FLAMINGO FEEDING UPSIDE DOWN. 44

CRITERIA DESIGN

WATER FLOW THROUGH THE FILTRATION SYSTEM The filtration system platform is placed against the west bank of Merri Creek abutting the pedestrian path under Heidelberg Road. Water is taken into the system through the stormwater drain that passes under the pedestrian path and enters directly from the river. The diagram shows the way in which the concentration of rubbish in the water dissipates throughout the system.

MERRI CREEK INTAKE

STORMWATER INTAKE

OUTLET

CRITERIA DESIGN

COMPOSITION & FUNCTION

LIDS

BRISTLES

CELLS

FRAME

create an uneven surface overall. The relative variance in levels means the cell lids can also be used as chairs and tables. This encourages the site to be used by incidental site users for picnics or as a resting place.

system. Bristle density increases as water passes through successive cells in the system in order to retain increasingly smaller pieces of litter. The bristles are attached to the bases of the cells and threaded through a movable planar sieve that sits above the base. When the cells are emptied the sieve can be lifted upwards and the litter is pulled out of the bristles by the sieve, greatly simplifying maintenance.

Filtration cells are made from recycled plastic. Apertures in the cell walls are identical to those in the frames in which they are nested. The non-linear relationship between the intake and outlet points forces water to slow down through the system and increases settlement of suspended objects in the cells. This principle is adopted from the way wetlands function to clean water.

The frame is made from recycled timber and extends below the cells to embed itself in the river bank. The frame and the cells it contains feature apertures in their walls that become smaller throughout the extract nourishment from water by taking in a sizeable volume of it through a large opening and ejecting it through a outlet smaller than the size of the food morsels it is extracting

CRITERIA DESIGN

FILTER DESIG

1. DETERMINE SITE BOUNDARIES & APPLY VORONOI

2. ELIMINATE POINTS OUTSIDE SITE BOUNDARY

Determine approximate geometry of existing river bank where interevention is to be placed. Create rectangle generously bounding site; set rectangle in Grasshopper. Populate rectangle with points and apply Voronoi. Try different seed arrangements of the Voronoi diagram to test which best conforms to inputs from Creek and stormwater drain.

Number points of Voronoi cells. Use List Item to select cells within site boundary. Find intersection of selected Voronoi cells and boundary rectangle.

3. MAKE F SKELETO FILTER

Extrude the intersectio step along the z-axis to

Offset frame internally u

Z AXIS CURVE

REC

INDEX POPULATE GEOMETRY

VORONOI SEED

CRITERIA DESIGN

LIST ITEM

EXTRUDE BREP INTERSECTION

GN PROCESS

. FRAME ON FOR R CELL

on from the previous o create the skeleton

using a negative value

AP OFFSET

4. MAKE FILTER CELLS

5. HOLLOW OUT FRAME AND MAKE LIDS FOR CELLS

Use List Item to make separate clusters of cells. Extrude clusters to different heights along the z-axis. Cap extrustions.

Use Solid Trim twice; once using the the cells to trim the frame to hollow out voids for the cells and once using the frame cap to split the cell into a bases and lids. Join the results.

LIST ITEM

EXTRUDE

INDEX

Z AXIS

LIST ITEM

EXTRUDE

INDEX

Z AXIS

LIST ITEM

EXTRUDE

INDEX

Z AXIS

SOLID TRIM JOIN

CAP SOLID TRIM

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES

B.8 APPENDIX - ALGORITHM

In all honesty, with regard to the learning objectives, I don’t think I am performing well at this subject. I am still struggling to get my head around design computation. I can follow along with tutorial videos for a time but I don’t fully understand the functionality or capacity of the tools I am working with which makes it difficult to really engage with them creatively. I feel like I can work with computation and I can work with design but I cannot work with the two in a way where the symbiosis of the two components/skills is greater than the sum of their individual parts. I happily acknowledge that visual programming, algorithmic design and parametric modelling have enabled me to produce a variety of iterations for consideration. This has greatly simplified the development process for me and through quickly generating multiple options side by side has made producing an option that satisfies a brief much more achievable. However, I have felt I am limited to creating the sorts of geometries we have been taught how to model or that I can find step-by-step instructions for online. Whilst I think my use of the Voronoi diagram was justified in my design proposal, knowing what I capable of creating heavily restricted what I envisaged. I’ve failed to satisfy any of the objectives related to model making because I didn’t produce any. This isn’t to say that I didn’t try, I just lacked the understanding of the limits of digital fabrication. I do feel that this subject has allowed me to engage more with the conceptual, technical and design aspects of contemporary architectural projects now that I (partially) understand some of the processes of their development. Being able to look at a project and break down its appearance into a series of operations has given me a new respect and appreciation for contemporary design.

Here are my attempts at applying the principles of the AA Driftwood Pavil

by layering the lines. It’s surprisingly reminisciencent to me of smoke rin about the possibilities of using computational design to describe natural

CONCEPTUALISATION

MIC SKETCHBOOK

lion to another intricate volume of my design. I could not prog-

ngs and (in contrast to the pessimism of B7) makes me think l phenomena.

CONCEPTUALISATION

This started off as the fractal tetrahedra projteresting to start with, but i enjoyed the way it is possible to simply achieve this in the digital design space by scaling the initial geometry. The inverted pyramids were achieved by mirroring the pyramid immediately on the right against its own edges.

This was a derivative of the Biothing project with a rotational effect. I used it throughout this journal because I thought the suggestion and water; air being the focus of this design studio and water being my particular interest at Merri Creek.

CONCEPTUALISATION

B.9 REFERENCE LIST TEXT SOURCES Benyus, Janine M., ‘A Biomimicry Primer’ (2014) p.6 < http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry/a-biomimicry-primer/> [accessed 1 April 2015]. EPA Victoria, ‘What is Stormwater Pollution?’ (May 2005) EPA Information Centre <http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/~/media/ Publications/976.pdf> [accessed 26 April]. Hambasan, Bogdan, ‘ZA11 Pavilion’ in ‘Bogdan Hambasan Portfolio’ (2013) < http://issuu.com/bogdanhambaan/docs/ bogdan_hambasan_portfolio_cv> [accessed 12 April 2015]. Jett, Megan, ‘ZA11 Pavilion / Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf, Bogdan Hambasan’ (05 July 2011) ArchDaily <http:// www.archdaily.com/?p=147948> [Accessed 06 Apr 2015]. McGregor, Bruce, ‘History of Creek Activism’ (2014) Friends of Merri Creek <http://www.friendsofmerricreek.org.au// pages/activism-history.php> [accessed 26 April 2015]. Tibbits, Skylar, ‘VoltaDom: MIT 2011’ in ‘Project List’ (2011) <http://sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html> [accessed 6 April 2015]. Weisstein, Eric W, ‘Honeycomb Conjecture’ MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ HoneycombConjecture.html> [accessed 26 april 2015].

CONCEPTUALISATION

IMAGE SOURCES FIG.8: Lotus leaf, retrieved [accessed 19 April 2015].

from

<https://sites.psu.edu/abcdesigns/2014/04/11/self-cleaning-paints-lotus-leaf/>

FIG.9: Microstructure of lotus leaf, retrieved from <http://aobblog.com/2010/09/nanotechnology-and-self-cleaning-fromplant-leaf-surfaces/> [accessed 19 April 2015]. FIG.10: Gecko, retrieved from <http://www.gizmag.com/gecksin-adhesive/21504/> [accessed 19 April 2015]. FIG.11: Hairs on a geckoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foot, retrieved from <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/science/geckos-rely-on-feet-hairsnot-insurance.html?_r=0> [accessed 19 April 2015].

19 April 2015]. FIG.13: Turbines developed from the whale fin model, retrieve from <http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/ mechanical/blades/whale-fins-influence-wind-turbine-design/> [accessed 19 April 2015]. FIG.14: VoltaDom by Skylar Tibbits, retrieved from <http://sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html> [accessed 6 April 2015]. FIG.15: ZA11 Pavilion by Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf & Bogdan Hambasan, retrieved from <http://www.archdaily. com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/> [accessed 12 April 2015]. FIG.16: ZA11 Pavilion by Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf & Bogdan Hambasan, retrieved from <http://www.archdaily. com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan/> [accessed 12 April 2015]. FIG.27: Whale baleens, retrieved from <https://friarfamily.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/a16ea-whale2bbaleen.jpg> [accessed 24 April 2015]. FIG.28: Basking shark raker gills, retrieved from <http://www.liveanimalslist.com/fish/images/basking-shark-view.jpg> [accessed 24 April 2015]. FIG.29: Feeding flamingo, retrieved from <http://www.jameswarwick.co.uk/resources/listimg/gallery/Lake_ Nakuru_2006/23-LESSER-FLAMINGO-FEEDING@body.jpg> [accessed 24 April 2015].

CONCEPTUALISATION