Mack Michael 584812 Design Journal by Michael Mack

AIR Michael Mack 584812

CONTENTS ABOUT ME Part A. Conceptualisation A.1 Designing Futuring A.2 Design Computation A.3 Composition / Generation A.4 Conclusion A.5 Learning Outcomes A.6 Algorithmic Sketches Part A References

Part B. Criteria Design

3 5

6 12 18 24 25 26 28

B.1 Research Field B.2 Case Study 1.0 B.3 Case Study 2.0 B.4 Technique Development B.4.5 Technology B.5 Prototyping B.6 Design Proposal B.7 Learning Outcomes B.8 Algorithmic Sketches Part B References

32 34 48 60 68 74 80 84 86 90

Part C. Detailed Design

C.1 Design Concept C.2 Tectonic Elements C.3 Final Models C.4 Final Design Proposal - LAGI Brief C.5 Learning Objectives Part C References

94 108 116 128 138 144

ABOUT ME I’m Michael Mack, third year architecture student. Having apparently caused a disruption at my brother’s cello lessons for lack of attention at the age of 3, I’ve spent most of my early life studying the violin. When I entered high school and my teenage years, I felt as though I had spent the majority of my life tucked away with my fiddle, practicing anything from classical music to folk tunes. It was around then that I decided I needed to expand my boundaries, and challenge my capabilities – so I took up the saxophone, and shortly following, the piano and guitar. It was not until my final years of high school and hours of time spent being a professional doodler that I wanted to see how far I could take my hobby. After witnessing the work of students older than myself studying architecture, I couldn’t bring myself to not have my own attempt at it. In the years following those decisions, my concept of Architecture has evolved from being solely involved with the

design aesthetic, to becoming a multi-facet problem-solving riddle which one has to negotiate. Not only to please the clients, but to facilitate the people using the building, to provide quality indoor environmental cwonditions, and to do sustainably – just to name a few. These issues that arise from design work are not only thought-provoking for architectural projects, but are real-life issues that every single person faces on a daily basis. Yet, cheap, ‘cost-saving’ alternatives of cookie-cutter houses and neighbourhoods still exist. Thus far, I’ve relied strongly on traditional methods, picking up and experimenting with 3D modelling and digital rendering through the course of my degree. I see Studio Air as an opportunity to expand my skills in CAD, and to add it to a future-collection of skills I have at my disposal. Additionally, the opportunity to tackle a public competition brief seems to be a daunting, yet ultimately rewarding achievement.

Part A. Conceptualisation

A.1 Designing Futuring

Design Futuring is sustainability. It is the need for design to evolve to consider how the future can be secured1. Currently, resources are being drained and natural environments are being destroyed, not only by unsustainable practices in architecture and design, but worldwide. Most importantly, designing sustainability should not be considered as something that only professionals can accomplish, but rather, something that should be considered in day-to-day life. As designers generate better environmental practices, these ideas that they put into their schemes must be reflected in society for them to be properly appreciated. Currently, an issue is arising regarding something referred to as ‘design democracy’, in which designing tools and software are now widely available to the public2. This applies to anything from web-design to business cards and allows everyone with access to this cheap or even free software to ‘design’ their own products for day to day use. These sorts of practices belittle the work of designers, and cause a growing lack of appreciation for their work. Redirecting society into understanding benefits is paramount. This involves firstly, using architectural design to interact with the public interface, and secondly, promoting sustainable theories and practices through architecture.

Kalvebod Waves JDS (JULIEN DE SMEDT) Architects and KLAR

The Kalvebod Waves project is located at Kalvebod Brygge, a waterfront area in Copenhagen, Denmark. In the 80’s and 90’s, the area was largely devoted to industrial activities, leaving Kalebod Brygge deserted by citizens3. Thus, the focus of the project was to create ‘urban continuity and to locate ourselves on the sunny spots of the river’ through extensive shadow diagrams to maximise the light along the design. The design features two ‘plazas’ which are located in the two regions of highest sunlight along the waterfront, and are connected through tvertically undulating walkways connecting the plazas to the river bank. This complex walkway design has revitalised the area, attracting people to the two main plazas positioned along the waterfront for primarily recreational use. Since the construction of Kalvebod

A.1 Designing Futuring

Waves, water taxies along the river and docks for tour boats have been established. The wooden walkways that connect the bank and the plazas create new means of circulation along the waterfront. Not only does this encourage the development of better recreational facilities within Copenhagen, but it also promotes better conditions for pedestrians and cyclists in the inner city. In addition, Kalvebod Waves features interactive climbing apparatus, as well as internal bodies of water made solely for a number of various water activities. Facilities are also provided along the walkways for people to access and utilise. These infer the idea of an ‘urban beach’ within the city. Kalvebod Waves is also located in close proximity to a nearby train line, and to Copenhagen’s central hubs. Thus, it can be expected that these readily available recreational

opportunities will be appreciated by the public and will be appropriately used and maintained. By drawing people to the previously unused waterfront, the Kalebod Waves project has opened new future possibilities for further expansion and use of the area. As people continue to utilise this interactive architecture, it is possible that the surrounding region will begin to cater for the groups of people who spend time on the urban beach. Promoting appropriate pedestrian and cyclist conditions throughout the city may also be encouraged, as well as the utilisation of water transport along the river. While these are all stipulations, Kalvebod Waves has certainly altered the way in which people partake in recreational activities in Copenhagen.

Fig 1. (above) Kalvebod Wavesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; undulating walkways4 Fig 2. (left) Urban beach users5 Fig 3. (center) Aerial view of Kalvebod Waves6

Avis Magica Armarada Architects

Avis Magica, or ‘the magic bird’ in Latin is a conceptual tower for Miami that within it showcases a 120 meter high aquarium, feathers that vibrate to produce electricity, a completely selfsustaining ecosystem, as well as a museum located belowground7. The competition held in Miami was centralised around how some cities are recognised through their architecture, e.g. the Eiffel tower in Paris or Sydney’s Opera House8. Armarada’s design therefore addressed the high urban development by creating an unforgettable tower form that not only works sustainably, but can be experienced by people wishing learn about the plant and animal wildlife in the museum. The feathers located near the peak of the tower are tethered onto tensioned wires, which receive the vibrations caused by the wind to generate electricity. This is mostly likely achieved through piezoelectric materials. These feathers, although opaque, permit the transmission of light, allowing for the process of photosynthesis to take place

A.1 Designing Futuring

in the fauna located within the tower. Clouds are also created by controlling the humidity and temperature within the tower, and by adjusting these accordingly, rain can be generated for the plants. At the base of the 120 meter aquarium, filtration and drainage systems continuously introduce fresh water into the aquarium. This process also generates sufficient hydroelectricity on a small scale, to power an elevator which allows people to access the viewing decks at the top of the tower. Additionally, the ecosystem within the tower acts as a giant oxygen-tank for the city, and oxygen is released through the gaps between the feathers [Fig 5.]. Utilising all these methods of energy production and having them all function symbiotically is certainly an ambitious project. It should also be noted that Amarada has produced no further proof of concept in relation to the design. Therefore, it is unclear whether the energy generated from the feathers and hydropower would be sufficient to keep the entire

tower sustainable. Additionally, for the purposes of creating an iconic building in Miami, it is hard to determine whether a project would be constructed with the sole purpose of showcasing sustainable practices. Nonetheless, the concept itself promotes sustainable architecture, and methods in which energy production can be integrated into buildings. The theory behind using sustainable energy, as well as accounting for light and water to maintain a fully enclosed ecosystem on a large scale can be likened to Wilkinson Eyre’s Gardens by the Bay in Singapore – a giant carbon neutral park. The Gardens feature two climate controlled greenhouses, which operate predominantly on ‘solar trees’ and biomass, both producing electricity for the park9. These sorts of ideas allow people to appreciate the use of susttainable energy and encourage designers to consider these facets in their own concepts in the future.

Fig 5. (left) Sectional cut-away of Avis Magica10 Fig 6. (above) Render of Avis Magica11

A.2 Design Computation

“It is possible to claim that a designer’s creativity is limited by the very programs that are supposed to free their imagination.” Kostas Terzidis1

From the industrial revolution and mechanisation to the 21st century, technology has been a driving force which constantly changes how now only architecture, but the world is perceived. In the past, craftsmen were the designers, utilising their years of expertise and knowledge as a mason or a carpenter, to construct buildings2. Scale drawings, details and models allowed architects to create buildings of a new era, and became the real designers. In the same way, computers are not only tools that can be used for architects to enhance their own designing, but are becoming a way in which designs can be formulated. Terzidis3 describes these two main modes of utilising computers in architecture; computerisation and computation. The first, more widely used form involves using computers to realise an idea that has already been conceptualised. This idea, once input into a

computer system can be refined and manipulated to produce a design solution. Computerisation techniques are used quite widely, featuring in the designs of Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid. The ability to manipulate and refine designs digitally, while also allowing ideas to be communicated easily is incredibly beneficial. The latter relies on inputting data and parameters into a computer, which in turn analyses and produces a design solution based on this information.

can be easily realised through the use of computation. Conversely, it could be said that computational methods are restricting design possibilities and limiting creativity. For computational design to take place, a person must first input data which sets out the parameters and constraints for the outcome. Any design outcome is therefore still restrained in the same way, as is any further iteration of the same design under the same parameters.

The power of computation allows all the initial problems and restraints of a design goal to be simultaneously analysed at the same time, producing a formal solution and numerous iterations, all of which can be explored. Structural analysis can easily take place within the digital world and with the addition of 3D fabrication; models and prototypes can easily be produced. In this way, complex geometrical forms

Currently, both computerised and computational design as well as more traditional methods are being utilised as a method of problem solving. Computational methods provide a way of producing unique geometries that respond to a multitude of factors. However, just as digital drawing programs and CAD have become commonplace, computational architecture may soon become the industry standard.

Beton Hala Waterfront Center Suo Fujimoto Architects

Sou Fujimoto Architect’s proposal for the Beton Hala Waterfront Center in Belgrade, Serbia features a plethora of intertwining and overlapping programmatic ramps and paths. The competition was a design a Waterfront Center that was to act as a ‘contemporary architectural anchor point for a vibrant pedestrian zone’4 Within what Fujimoto calls a ‘floating cloud’5 is space for retail and cafes and restaurants. A gap at the middle of the design features space for public art exhibitions, which all the platforms encircle. The entire design also incorporates the nearby transportation hub for ferries, trams and busses in the area. The sheer complexity of this design can most likely be attributed to computerisation techniques. While the immediate hub incorporates a multitude of different

A.2 Design Computation

programmatic functions as listed above, several more points in the nearby vicinity were considered in creating circulation and complexity within the design. It is impossible to imagine trying to comprehend a form in which all these elements can be successfully integrated without the aid of 3D modelling technology. Incorporating things such as sight lines, accessibility, points of interaction and spatial arrangements are only a small subset of what had to be considered when creating the intertwining form. In addition, the images show an array of angled columns that support the overlapping walkways. These columns penetrate the space below it, affecting the spatial arrangement underneath. This creates an additional layer of complexity within the design to ensure that the structural integrity

is not compromised by the equally complex form of the design. Simply looking at the available plans for the Waterfront Center does not give enough information to tell how much of the design was pre-conceived before the process of computerisation; whether the main curved paths were already positioned around the central hub, or maybe if only the idea of a ‘floating cloud’ was in mind. However, this emergent solution was resolved through analysis and optimisation of the different site conditions and spatial arrangements. Intersecting ramps and pathways is by no means a revolutionary idea, but the overall form generated for the Beton Hala Waterfront Center is definitely unique.

Fig 1. (above) Beton Hala Waterfront Center Proposal6 Fig 2. (left) Intersecting walkways and structural columns7

Seroussi Pavillion Biothing

Seroussi Pavillion was a purely computational architectural project which looked into the selfmodifying patterns of vectors, based on the behaviours of electro-magnetic fields8. Once the attraction and repulsions of the vectors were calculated and digitally plotted, the form generated from these patterns were then ‘lifted’ using arching sections through the varying frequencies of a sine function. Using this method, programmatic space and views could be created within the artwork. The resulting plan of the Seroussi Pavillion does not look anything like a traditional plan, but rather, a diagram of the algorithmic relationships of an electromagnetic field. This project shows of the extent that algorithmic and parametric modelling can be used to generate

A.2 Design Computation

forms through computing. Through the use of a simple algorithmic function, the idea of a simple electromagnetic can be materialised through computational techniques. The incredibly complex geometries move beyond simply ‘blobs’ or simple 3D curvilinear forms which were once considered avant-garde9. In some ways, it seems as though the designer has been completely taken out of the equation when it comes to computational design, and that all creativity has been surrendered. However, the process of creating the parameters and constraint that guide the design is designing in itself, just not the traditional concept of design. Additionally, designers are given the opportunity to edit not only the form, but the level of complexity and degree of the parameter’s

influence as well. In addition, the constraints of having the pavilion navigable as well as structurally supported posed a number of questions to the designer. In other industries, appliances, cars, airplanes and ships are designed, developed, analysed and wholly tested without any physical models, prototypes or drawings ever being produced10. These processes also allow other experts to contribute to a single project digitally. This saves both time and money, yet still ensures that the products are of optimum standard through the testing process. What’s to say that with a combination of computational design, that these sorts of practices cannot be used for architectural design in the future?

Fig 3. (above) Seroussi Pavillion11 Fig 4. (right) Electro-Magnetic Field Pattern for Seroussi Pavillion12

A.3 Composition / Generation

The use of computation in design and architecture has obvious benefits, but its ability to be applied and its implications for real-world application are also numerous. Computation has application in both performative design and simulation. Through using digital tools, architects are able to simulate building performance, incorporating materials and tectonics as fundamental parameters in building design1. These applications of computation have shown huge benefits in post-disaster reconstruction, where extreme scenarios pose challenging constraints on buildings2. However, the most familiar use of digital tools in design is for exploring form generation. Generative design allows both formal and conceptual compositions be formed through the implementation of simple sets of operations and parameters3. Parametric thinking is often mistaken as an emerging architectural style4. This is most likely as a result of the complexity of form that computational design can produce. However, the algorithms that dictate these creations of form are still governed by the constraints placed upon them by parameters. In application, this is much like how problem solving and constraint satisfaction take place in the resolution of any design or architectural project5. In addition, forms that have been algorithmically generated face the problem of being overly complex, thus bringing question to their practicality. Computational generation is a design process that creates forms restricted only by the algorithms that for restrain them. While it provides an interesting means of research and exploration into the utility of parametric form generation, there is a disconnection between these computational designs and what is tangible. Fabrication, or simply the ability to be built, provides a means of constraining designs so that physical structures can be created based on these the computational designs. For computational forms, this ranges from creating printable planar surfaces, to detailing joints between materials. The use of these limitations on generative design provides a means for computation to become practical, rather than just an explorative art form.

Columns Michael Hansmeyer

Michael Hansmeyer’s Subdivided Columns project was a computational project with the aim to design a ‘new column order based on subdivision processes’6. These columns display how algorithmic subdivision can be used to create elaborate decorative form and a system of ornamentation. This process of subdivision can be processed numerous times with different initial parameters, creating endless permutations of columns. It should also be noted that these algorithms work at multiple scales simultaneously to produce millions of faces from only a small number of iterations. In this way, simple form-generative algorithms can produce columns with incredible complexity of the final generated forms. A number of these columns were fabricated for ‘The Sixth Order’ for Gwangju Design Biennale 2011. For

20 A.3 Composition / Generation

the exhibit, a single process was used to produce four different columns, which were in no way similar in appearance, but due to their shared process, formed a collective group. The process of fabrication however, was in no way simplistic. While the computational process took only 35 seconds to produce the generated form, it required 2700 layers of 1mm lasercut card and 200 total hours to model a prototype column7. The columns used in the exhibit also featured a steel core so that the columns could be load bearing. However, this highlights the disconnect between the virtual and the physical worlds. Although the complex geometrical columns were indeed fabricated, the amount of labour and cost that went into its production is certainly disproportionate to the practicality of the design. In the end, its function

as a load-bearing column depended solely on the steel core embedded within it, thereby reducing the generated form of the column to a purely aesthetic feature. The value of computational and algorithmic form-generation is therefore predominantly in the experimental and explorative stages. However, through advances in technology and other fabrication techniques in the future, the practicality of utilising these complex algorithmically generated forms will increase.

Fig. 1 (above) Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Columns8

Research Pavilion 2010 Institute for Computational Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE) This pavilion demonstrates the use of computation in material-oriented design and simulation. The pavilion is constructed from a series of interlocking 6.5mm flat plywood strips. Through computation, the structural and elastic capacity of the plywood can be determined, and the resultant form is determined by the behaviour of the material9. Once cut, each plywood strip is put under tension and held in tension by the neighbouring strip, transforming the whole design into a single structural system. Thus, both the entirety of the form and the structural elements are determined by the material. The computational design approach for this pavilion is therefore not directed at form generation, but rather at the materiality, as the generation of form is based entirely on the bending nature of the plywood. Thus, the material’s constraints become the design’s constraints, with the physical

22 A.3 Composition / Generation

capabilities of the plywood acting as the main parameter which guides the design. In addition, the fabrication of the pavilion was achieved through the use of a programed 6-axis industrial robot. This helped ensure the structural component of the plywood through the accuracy of technology. This project demonstrates other means of using computation in architectural design. By including all parameters resulting from physical constraints, ICD and ITKE ensured that the design and generated form of the pavilion could easily be fabricated. In placing these types of constraints on form generation, the design can also be ensured to be useable to an extent in real-world situations. This can be extended to future materiality research, as well as performance and simulation based computation. This project was therefore successful in integrating its goals for producing a computational design based on

material characteristics, rather than purely form generation. The future of computation cannot be determined, but its current uses as a design tool have already been shown. Computation as a purely form-generating device through algorithms has proven to be an expansive in its research and exploration. However, the application of projects such as Hansmeyer’s ‘Columns’ or Biothing’s ‘Seroussi Pavillion’ to built architecture is currently restricted by physical constraints. On the other hand, algorithmic computation as a tool to assist designers in aspects such as structural, material, or performance is already widely used in the industry.

Fig. 2 (left) ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2010 Material Computation10

A.4 Conclusion

Designing for a sustainable future is an imperative goal of architectural design. Nowadays, the contributions of projects are not only considered in the area of which they were built, but in a greater context. These designs, which contribute to sustainability, can easily be seen on a global scale and may influence the development of other design ideas. While computerisation only aids in the realisation and refinement of forms and ideas, computation and algorithmic thinking provide huge potential in aiding as an analysis tool, or even as a form generative method. These two aspects of design working symbiotically are causing the current shift in architectural discourse. The integration of computational and sustainable design is paramount in finding a suitable design outcome. The method of incorporating the capturing of energy and conversion to electricity within a three-dimensional sculptural form will be determined through algorithmic exploration of the parameters that govern material selection, physical constraints and overall form. In this way, the design is not only functional and sustainable, but benefits from the vast and efficient explorative process which can only be accomplished through the use of computational techniques. By incorporating all these facets, the design can be incorporated into Copenhagen to display not only sustainable energy techniques, but the creative possibilities of computational architecture.

A.5 Learning Outcomes

Through exploring algorithmic generation, I have personally experienced a dynamic shift in my thought process regarding architectural design. What originally appeared to be simply a method of generating abstract or incredibly intricate forms, algorithms in a design context can be used for many more applications throughout the design process. By learning Grasshopper, I have begun to gain an understanding of the potential of parametric design, not only as a personal design tool, but its effects and benefits on the architectural industry as a whole. While my knowledge of computation is still in its introductory stages, I expect the use of algorithmic design to be a significant contributor to future designs.

A.6 Algorithmic Sketches

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Through the course of learning Grasshopper, the primary aim was to experiment with ways in which to manipulate designs algorithmically as opposed to explicitly. This involved using simple forms as a base and seeing the extent that it could manipulated to create distinctly different final shapes that still resembled the original form. Through this method, interaction with different forms was not limited to patterning, but also aspects such as surface divisions, arc curvatures and attractor points, all of which created numerous iterations of the same design. The sketches selected show a range the species created through this experimentation, from simple three-point arcs (Fig.2) and pipes (Fig.3), to three-dimensional shape mapping (Fig.4), to a completely randomised voronoi-based form (Fig.1). With the exception of the intersection voronoibased from, some of the ideas used, especially for the panelling, are those that have been utilised to produce physical designs in the past.

Fig. 3

This process of experimentation has helped solidify an understanding of Grasshopper and how it can be used as a design tool to create numerous ideas through the input of parameters. These sketches represent only a miniscule subset of potential ideas that could have evolved from the base form, and it is this idea that represents the use of computation in design.

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Part A References A.1 - Designing Futuring 1. Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, (Oxford: Berg, 2008), pp. 4. 2. Tony Fry, Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, (Oxford: Berg, 2008), pp. 6. 3. JDS Architects, Kalvebod Making Waves <htttp://jdsa.eu/kalvebod-making-waves> [accessed 8 March 2014]. 4. JDS Architects, Kal/Kalvebod Waves <http://jdsa.eu/kal/> [accessed 8 March 2014]. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. David K. Avis Magica - The Magic Bird <http://plusmood.com/2013/08/avis-magica-the-magic-bird-armarada> [accessed 9th March 2014]. 8. DawnTown Miami, Competitions Page <http://dawntown.org/competition> [accessed 12th March 2014].. 9. Bridgette Meinhold, Singapore’s Gardens by the Bay Feature the World’s Largest Climate-Controlled Greenhouses < http://inhabitat.com/singapores- gardens-by-the-bay-features-the-worlds-largest-climate-controlled-greenhouses/> [accessed 9th March 2014]. 10. Alex Sandulescu (Armarada), Avis Magica Gallery < http://www.behance.net/gallery/Avis-Magica/9944779> [accessed 12 March 2014]. 11. Armarada’s photo on inhabitat, Avis Magica Tower for Miami Boasts a 120 Meter-Tall Aquarium and Energy-Generating “Feathers” < http://inhabitat. com/avis-magica-tower-for-miami-boasts-a-120-meter-tall-aquarium-and-energy-generating-feathers> [accessed 12 March 2014].

A.2 - Design Computation 1. Kostas Terzidis, Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley, 2009), p. xx. 2. Yehuda, E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25. 3. Kostas Terzidis, Algorithmic Architecture (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006), pp. xi. 4. Benton Hala, Benton Hala Waterfront Center 2011 < http://www.betonhala.com/2011/> [accessed 18 March 2014]. 5. Karissa Rosenfield, Beton Hala Waterfront Center / Sou Fujimoto Architects (ArchDaily 2012) < http://www.archdaily.com/286381/beton-hala- waterfront-center-sou-fujimoto-architects/> [assessed 18 March 2014]. 6. Beton Hala Waterfront Center / Sou Fujimoto Architects (ArchDaily 2012) < http://www.archdaily.com/286381/beton-hala-waterfront-center-sou- fujimoto-architects/> [assessed 18 March 2014]. 7. Ibid. 8. Alisa Andresek, Biothing, Seroussi Pavillion / Paris (2007) < http://www.biothing.org/?cat=5> [accessed 18 March 2014]. 9. Rivka Oxman and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-10. 10. Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 10. 11. Alisa Andresek, Biothing, Seroussi Pavillion / Paris (2007) < http://www.biothing.org/?cat=5> [accessed 18 March 2014]. 12. Ibid.

A.3 - Composition / Generation 1. Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, (2013), pp. 8-15. 2. Wendy Yeung and Jeremy Harkins, ‘Digital Architecture for Humanitarian Design in Post-Disaster Reconstruction’, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9 (2011), pp.17-32. 3. Ipek Gürsel Dino, ‘Creative Design Exploration by Parametric Generative Systems in Architecture’, METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 29 (2012), pp207-224. 4. Ibid. 5.Yehuda, E Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25. 6. Michael Hansmeyer, Subdivided Columns <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns_info.html> [accessed 22 March 2014]. 7. Michael Hansmeyer, Building Unimaginable Shapes (video file) <http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_building_unimaginable_shapes> [accessed 22 March 2014]. 8. Michael Hansmeyer, Subdivided Columns <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html?> [accessed 22 March 2014]. 9. Universität Stuttgart Institute for Computational Design, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2010 <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=4458> [accessed 22 March 014]. 10. Ibid.

Part B. Criteria Design

B.1 Research Field Biomimicry As the name suggests, biomimicry is the copying of aspects in nature and the natural environment. Biology has, and will always be a source of architectural inspiration due to the close connection between form and function1. This idea applies not only to form and aesthetic, but structure as well. Influences can be gained looking at the formation of a beehive’s iconic hexagonal structure, or the way in which spiders create their webs. Even the nostrils of a camel can be used as inspiration for heat exchange and water recovery in the field of engineering 2 . Additionally, Benyas defines biomimicry as a ‘new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems’3. In this way, the focus of bio-mimicry is placed on the processes and how they can be used for sustainable design and architecture. These processes can easy be integrated with computational design and form generation. The Morning Line project by Matthew Ritchie, Aranda/Lasch, and Arup AGU is a public art sculpture, 8 meters high, 20 meters long and

constructed 17 tons of black-coated aluminium4. This project utilises numerous iterations of subdivision on a basic geometric solid, much the same way ferns and branches create fractal patterns through the same process of subdivision. These similar rules were applied and utilised through computation to create the project’s truncated polyhedron module, which was then decorated with the surface patterning. At this point however, these modules must have been arranged either manually or by another process which determined the project’s final form. The fabrication of processdriven biomimetric design is also somewhat problematic. While direct references to nature, such as the honeycomb, are easy to construct due to the structural form already being present, designs that are based on the rules that govern biological processes do not directly lead to solutions in fabrication. The complex nature of designs that can evolve from computation are therefore limited by physical constraints. These problems are not unlike the disconnect seen between the computational speed of Michael Hansmeyer’s Columns

project, versus the time taken to construct it5. Therefore, the integration of physical constraints and parameters must be considered throughout the whole design process. The use of biomimetric processes in computational design opens numerous opportunities to utilise the rules of nature as an algorithmic process. Yet, using these rules as the parameters that define form generation is only the first step of the design process, in the same way traditional designers create sketches of ideas. Unlike the mathematical process of minimal surfacing or the use of parametric tessellation and panelling, the application of a biomimetric process only grants a designer the backbone on which a design must be based. Inputs as simple as geometric shapes are still needed for any of these processes to take shape. However, through the complexity of these natural systems, the generated form will certainly exceed imagination.

Fig. 1 (above) The Morning Line Project6

B.2 Case Study 1.0

The Morning Line project was used as a starting point to explore the possibilities of biomimicry in computation through the use of recursive subdivision. Through analysis of the project’s algorithmic composition, a better understanding of the processes could be developed thus allowing an expansion on its capabilities. The following pages show a series of ‘species’ derived from a study of The Morning Line, and a number of iterations through parameter change, showing the potential of each species. The breakdown of these species utilise the making of modules, and the deferring of later decisions to fully explore the potential of the design1. Species 1 and 2 demonstrate how recursive subdivision can be applied to more complex solids and polygons. The initial shapes and dimensions are all parametrically changeable, as well as the size of each subdivision. This allowed for a large potential pool of variation. An issue with these species, as well as with The Morning Line project is that the task of stacking each module as well as its subdivisions becomes a manual process that is just as easily achieved with a non-algorithmic process. Species 3 looks at ways in which branching can be algorithmically achieved using a series of randomly generated values to determine branching patterns. Using simple geometries to better visualise the outcome, the number of branches at each iteration could be specified, and the outcome analysed. The random factor produced very different results due to the number of panels selected changing the random values. However, recurring factors appeared in several of the forms as a result of the changing parameters. While Species 3 studied branching, Species 4 attempts to recreate the ‘fragmentation’ aspect of The Morning Line project. In the project, the central pavilion area features the largest of the modular forms, while the smaller subdivided modules are progressively spread out from a central point at what appears to be a dependant scaled value. This can be recreated through a recursive algorithm; with a plan view shows the extent of the fragmentation, while the perspective gives an overall visualisation of the form.

Species 1

Parameters Y-Axis Arm Length (Y) X-Axis Arm Length (X) Solid Thickness (T) Height (H) Size of Division (D)

Y=4 X=4 T=4 H=4 D = 0.4

Y=9 X=2 T=2 H=1 D = 0.08

Y=9 X=1 T=4 H=4 D = 0.4

Y=9 X=2 T=2 H=1 D = 0.44

Y=9 X=2 T=7 H=5 D = 0.38

Y=9 X=2 T=2 H=1 D = 0.38

Y=9 X=2 T=2 H=5 D = 0.38

Y=9 X=2 T=8 H=8 D = 0.44

Y=9 X=2 T=2 H=8 D = 0.44

Y=9 X=2 T=8 H=2 D = 0.44

36 B.2 Case Study 1.0

Species 2

Parameters Arm Length (L) Core Thickness (T) Height (H) Size of Division (D)

L=4 T=4 H=4 D = 0.3

L=9 T=1 H=4 D = 0.3

L=7 T=4 H=4 D = 0.3

L=9 T=1 H=9 D = 0.3

L=7 T=7 H=4 D = 0.3

L=6 T=1 H=7 D = 0.37

L=4 T=7 H=4 D = 0.3

L=6 T=8 H=7 D = 0.06

L=1 T=7 H=4 D = 0.3

L=2 T=1 H = 17 D = 0.34

Species 3

Parameters No. of Initial Surfaces (S) % Panels Selected for Extrusion (P) Branch Extrusion Distance (D) % of Smaller Extrusions (E)

No. of Branches Per Iteration: Iteration 1 (B1) Iteration 2 (B2) Iteration 3 (B3) Iteration 4 (B4) Iteration 5 (B5)

S=5 P = 50% D = 10 E = 30% B1 = 1 B2 = 1 B3 = 1 B4 = 1 B5 = 1

S=5 P = 50% D = 10 E = 30% B1 = 4 B2 = 4 B3 = 4 B4 = 4 B5 = 4

S=5 P = 50% D = 10 E = 30% B1 = 2 B2 = 2 B3 = 2 B4 = 2 B5 = 2

S=5 P = 50% D = 10 E = 30% B1 = 1 B2 = 2 B3 = 3 B4 = 5 B5 = 5

S=5 P = 50% D = 10 E = 30% B1 = 3 B2 = 3 B3 = 3 B4 = 3 B5 = 3

S=7 P = 30% D = 10 E = 30% B1 = 1 B2 = 2 B3 = 2 B4 = 2 B5 = 5

38 B.2 Case Study 1.0

S=7 P = 30% D = 12 E = 15% B1 = 1 B2 = 2 B3 = 3 B4 = 3 B5 = 5

S=5 P = 30% D = 12 E = 45% B1 = 1 B2 = 2 B3 = 5 B4 = 5 B5 = 7

S=5 P = 30% D = 15 E = 60% B1 = 1 B2 = 2 B3 = 7 B4 = 7 B5 = 9

S=7 P = 30% D = 15 E = 75% B1 = 1 B2 = 2 B3 = 5 B4 = 5 B5 = 9

Species 4

Parameters No. of Polygon Sides (S) No. of Randomised Panels Selected Per Iteration: Iteration 1 (R1) Iteration 2 (R2) Iteration 3 (R3)

Distance Scaled per Iteration Iteration 1 (D1) Iteration 2 (D2) Iteration 3 (D3) Final % Scale Per Iteration Iteration 1 (S1) Iteration 2 (S2) Iteration 3 (S3)

S=6 R1 = 5 R2 = 10 R3 = 20 D1 = 2 D2 = 2 D3 = 2 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

S=6 R1 = 5 R2 = 10 R3 = 20 D1 = 2 D2 = 1.875 D3 = 1.75 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

S=6 R1 = 5 R2 = 10 R3 = 20 D1 = 2 D2 = 2.125 D3 = 2.25 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

S=6 R1 = 8 R2 = 12 R3 = 25 D1 = 2 D2 = 2 D3 = 2 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

S=6 R1 = 5 R2 = 10 R3 = 20 D1 = 2 D2 = 2.25 D3 = 2.5 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

S=6 R1 = 8 R2 = 15 R3 = 30 D1 = 2 D2 = 2.125 D3 = 2.25 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

40 B.2 Case Study 1.0

S=6 R1 = 4 R2 = 15 R3 = 30 D1 = 2 D2 = 2.125 D3 = 2.25 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

S=6 R1 = 6 R2 = 15 R3 = 30 D1 = 2 D2 = 2.125 D3 = 2.25 S1 = 100% S2 = 50% S3 = 20%

S=6 R1 = 6 R2 = 15 R3 = 30 D1 = 2 D2 = 2.125 D3 = 2.25 S1 = 100% S2 = 80% S3 = 50%

S=5 R1 = 6 R2 = 15 R3 = 30 D1 = 2 D2 = 2.125 D3 = 2.25 S1 = 100% S2 = 66% S3 = 33%

Design Potential In each of these species, certain iterations were selected based on their likelihood to be developed into, or utilised in something that can be fabricated, one of the issues facing biomimetric design. Due to the different natures of the species, the specific factors that influenced the selection of a particular iteration varied. While all the iterations in species 1 were modular and stackable to an extent, iteration 3 had a balanced combination of complexity in form, and larger connected panels on all the original formâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s primary faces. This can potentially aid in developing structural continuity by having connections to adjacent modules through the volumeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mass centroid. In the further iterations to the right, the additional subdivided shapes were removed to show the primary geometry. This shape doubles as the primary structure for each individual module. These iterations demonstrate how the primary form can be easily manipulated to suit a given purpose, thus making it versatile when it comes to fabrication.

42 B.2 Case Study 1.0

Species 2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s iterations were greatly varied due to the segmenting of the arm length. However, iteration 8 could easily be developed into is own interlocking structure with the aid of notches. Additionally, it could potentially be used as a joinery piece and by the same method, be used to connect several other branches to a central point. The three iterations shown left demonstrate how the arm lengths and heights can be varied appropriately to suit the type of join needed, or simply as an aesthetic feature. Alternatively, the arms could be notched or similar, to attach these modules to each other. The two examples to the far left show how they can be directly stacked, or rotated so that the centres of each module intersect. This potentially gives numerous more joining angles depending on the number of arms used in the initial polygonal shape.

Design Potential For species 3, overall structural form was considered to test the potential of the branching structures. Iterations 8 featured 3 distinct â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;legsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; positioned in a triangular base from the initial module, while iteration 9 featured a central column in which several branches broke off in all dimensions. Due to the randomised nature of these iterations, it would be difficult to reproduce these results under different circumstances; however, these factors should all be taken into consideration when designing a branching structure. The further iterations to the right show iteration 9 stripped down to the base geometry, and the single extrusion that forms the next branch. After exploring randomisation through these, and more possibilities using the same initial parameters, patterns began to emerge even out of random selection. This is most likely caused by the reducing number of possible branches at each recursion, thereby creating apparently similar branches resulting in iterations with columns, or similar structural elements.

44 B.2 Case Study 1.0

Design Potential

46 B.2 Case Study 1.0

Species 4â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s selection was based primarily the closest comparison to the distribution of The Morning Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fragmentation pattern. A good ratio of central structural and sculptural pieces is needed to contrast against the smaller modules which split away from the central location. These fragmentation patterns can be used to create focal points of design. The three images to the left highlights the different hexagons generated at each recursion and their subsequent distance, translation vector, and size from the origin. The pipe and simple octree to the right demonstrate how these distribution patterns may be used to generate points or spaces which could later be used for other purposes. These species use recursive divisions and translations in order to produce methods of branching and fragmentation. However, this is also a huge restriction on generative form, as each stage of branching is based on the same basic form. The alternative is to firstly generate the branching form, then design a modular form which can be integrated into the design. The following section explores this idea.

B.3 Case Study 2.0 Introduction to L-Systems Lindenmayer Systems or L-systems, is a process developed in 1968 originating in the mimicry of the geometrical features of plants, providing a framework for studying the development of these organisms1. Patterns in nature and constantly witnessed, whether by the fractal nature or tree branches and fern leaves, or the phyllotaxy arrangement of spiralling leaves. Originally, L-systems only existed theoretically, and used only to determine the relationship of individual cells or branches, to the overall system2. However, as modelling and computer software improved, visualisations of these processes were enabled. While L-systems are based around a language, the theory behind their utility is largely based on recursion and algorithms. Therefore, due to the latter nature of how L-systems can be utilised, they can easily be graphically represented through the computation of the language. L-systems utilise ‘Strings’ as a term used to define a series of characters, be it letters, numbers or symbols. The ‘Seed’ is the initial string which defines the starting conditions of each system. Together, a set of strings is known as a ‘Language’. Strings provide a list of rules of replacement which govern subsequent iterations of the initial seed, and subsequent strings. Using all these, L-systems can be defined through a system of ‘Rewriting'3. For example; Seed: A Rules: A = ABC B = AD C = BA Given the seed A, on the first generation, the first rule would replace the A with ABC. On the second generation, each of the letters in the previous string (ABC) would follow the rules independently. Therefore, the second generation would result in ABCADBA. The third generation would therefore be ABCADBAABCDADABC. Through this string rewriting system, the rules are applied at each stage to produce a new string where the rules are applied again, creating complex strings after only a few generations. However, these strings of random letters have no meaning and thus need to be interpreted. L-systems for example, can be used to define a Thue-Morse, or binary system, where letters A and B are replaced with digits 1 and 0. However, to graphically model the complexity of plants for which the system was intended, a ‘Turtle’ interpretation is used. In essence, a turtle recognises and processes characters in a string as commands such as moving forward and drawing a line, and turning by a pre-defined angle. Figure 1 shows a turtle interpretation of a simple string involving only 90 degree lines at the third generation. Figure 2 shows a 3D interpretation, utilising scaling components for tube sizes as part of the strings. As shown, complex and realistic branching plants can easily be created through the use of L-systems.

Fig. 1 (top) Simple 2D L-system at 90o angles Fig. 2 (bottom) 3D Branching system illustrating a tree

Reverse Engineering: L-Systems Michael Hansmeyer

Fig. 3 & 4 (above and right) Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stochastic L-System exploration4

Michael Hansmeyer series of experimental projects with L-systems poses the questions of whether L-Systems be applied to the production of architectural form, as well as the creation of organisational logic, segmentation of space, or development of structural system5. Each of these designs utilise different facets of L-systems, ranging from turtle graphics, to inter-dependant relationships, to the integration with modularity. The purpose of these is to explore the potential of the L-system language to be integrated and applied with architectural design requirements. The ‘Parametric L-System with Sub-System’ example shown in Figure 3 uses stochastic string replacement to create a series of random protruding towers from a base ‘structure’. Stochastic string replacement essentially means the replacement of strings is based on

a degree of random probability. This in turn causes random mutations throughout the replacement pattern. The overall form is incredibly complex, and certainly explores the use of randomised L-systems in this tower-form structural arrangement. All the branching, displacement from origin, and subsequent scale variations of branches appear to be largely randomised. While these mutations create incredibly amounts of complexity, they are incredibly hard to reproduce consistently, and are thus less useful for further development. Therefore, the aim of this reverseengineering is to obtain a branching pattern using L-systems that recreates a similar ‘base’ and ‘tower’ structural system as shown in this project through a more regulated approach and single origin.

Reverse Engineering: L-Systems Michael Hansmeyer

2a. Form

Create initial tower form. String fed into previous string to further facilitate generations.

1. Initial Parameters

Assign appropriate values to angle, step size, and relative size scaling

2b. Branching

Initial branch angles and additional branches developed.

52 B.3 Case Study 2.0

3a. Tower

Height of tower controlled by separate string allowing proportionate scaling.

4. Stacking

Towers stacked and scaled with each generation. Rotation of towers also implemented.

3b. Secondary Branching

Secondary branching introduced and fed back into the same string to facilitate additional generations.

5. Substitution and Combine

Combine the two sets of strings by substituting branching strings with towers, and tops of towers strings with branches. Adjust iteration length for appropriate height and number of branches. Planar extrude the result.

54 B.3 Case Study 20

6. Finishing Touches

Use branch string to add points and place extruded triangles at points. 2 sets of random lines selected to loft for visual effect.

Reverse Engineering: L-Systems Michael Hansmeyer

Fig. 5 (above) Reverse Engineering of Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stochastic L-System Project

56 B.3 Case Study 20

By reconstructing Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stochastic L-Systems project using non-randomised strings, more control is given over the control of the design, and the expense of completely unimaginable form-generation. However, by redesigning this idea in a way that can be explicitly defined, parameters can be more easily changed at multiple stages of the generation. This will benefit the future use of similar definitions in terms of structural considerations, as well as implementing possible contextual considerations.

Reverse Engineering: L-Systems Michael Hansmeyer

In addition, a second of Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s L-System projects [Fig.6] was also reverse engineered [Fig. 5]. This project used deterministic L-Systems, or simply, used a single generation of L-Systems to create an equally complex form, but of a completely different nature. This project can be reverse engineered with 3 steps: 1. Generate two L-Systems, one that creates the spiralling form, and one for the profile curve. 2. Using the generation, apply the profile curve at regular intervals. 3. Loft the profile curves. While this is not an overtly complex project, it was a useful project to reverse engineer to help gain a better understanding of how L-Systems may be integrated with curves or other modules to produce a final form. The main differencee between the reverse engineered project and the original is simply the L-System used to generate the overall form, and the profile curve.

58 B.3 Case Study 20

Fig. 6 (above) Reverse Engineering of Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Deterministic L-System Project Fig. 7 (left) Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Deterministic L-System Project

B.4 Technique Development

The exploration of some of Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s projects opened a number of possibilities in regards to utilising L-Systems in design, but also revealed a number of potential problems. The goal at this point was to learn to utilise and manipulate L-System generation as we required, so that these processes could be utilised at a later stage. For this investigation, these iterations were split into various groups with constants such as angles of branching, depth of generation, and number of different input rules used. The input rules were then slightly altered systematically by changing the rotation or angle of generation of a branch, then after exhausting the possibilities, the addition or reduction of a new branch within a specific rule. In general, the effects of the number of isolated branches generated from each string, and how different angular translations affected the overall form were also noted. The seeds, strings and starting conditions are recorded in Appendix 1.

Species 1

Species 2

1-1

1-6

2-1

1-2

1-7

2-2

1-3

1-8

2-3

1-4

1-9

2-4

1-5

1-10

2-5

62 B.4 Technique Development

Species 3

3-1

3-6

3-11

3-2

3-7

3-12

3-3

3-8

3-13

3-4

3-9

3-14

3-5

3-10

3-15

Species 4

4-1

4-6

4-11

4-2

4-7

4-12

4-3

4-8

4-13

4-4

4-9

4-14

4-5

4-10

4-15

64 B.4 Technique Development

Species 5

Species 6

5-1

5-6

6-1

5-2

5-7

6-2

5-3

5-8

6-3

5-4

5-9

6-4

5-5

5-10

6-5

Species 7

6-6 7-1

7-5

7-2

7-6

7-3

7-7

7-4

7-8

6-7

6-8

6-9

6-10

66 B.4 Technique Development

7-9

7-10

Through this iterative process, it was discovered that any one of these changes had the potential to drastically change the overall form. This was largely influenced by self-referential rules (Eg. Rule A=A) and rules referencing numerous other rules (eg. Rule A=BCD where B, C and D are other rules). This could be utilised to create simple isolated branches along the entire form, or result in essentially unreadable forms. Self-intersecting generations will also prove to be a problem. For example, a given rule that moves 1 unit forward then turn 45 degrees to the right and continue this pattern, will intersect with itself after 8 generations, forming an octagon. Additionally, any line that crosses with another at any angle results creates a new intersection that must be considered in fabrication. With numerous branches at multiple stages of each L-System, the possibilities of intersections increase exponentially. By tailoring each rule, it is possible to reduce the number of intersections to an extent, but the complete removal of intersections pre-generation is impossible at current knowledge. However, checks using grasshopper can be achieved post-generation to eliminate intersecting L-Systems. Additionally, direction of generation was also considered. Forms that generated in a single direction were compared to those that branched in several. Single-directional branching generally resulted easier manipulation of features as the resultant form could be more easily expected. However, multi-directional generations provided more means for structural supports and general complexity in form. Finding a balance between these two aspects at different points in the L-system will also be important. Through these experimentations with L-systems, a better understanding of how we could utilise them as a form generative tool was achieved. While simpler forms are obviously easier to work with in a real and physical space, our primary goal was to realise L-Systems as a form generative tool without compromising the complexity. However, rather than deciding on a form using pre-determined selection criteria, it is much better to have the criteria determine how the form is generated. Thus, began investigation into the criteria that should govern the rules of the L-system generation.

B.4.5 Technology

Denmark was a pioneer in the development of wind power during the 1970’s1, and in 2000, the Middlegrunden Wind Farm was built and was the world’s largest offshore wind farm at the time2. In June 2005, Denmark was at the top of the world consumption of wind power, with 22 per cent of its total energy consumption produced by wind3. In addition, Danish Government aims to have 50% of Denmark’s energy consumption produced through wind turbines4. The Lynetten Wind Farm is also located approximately 1 kilometre north-east from the LAGI 2014 Design Site [Fig.1]. It should be noted however, that the turbines at the Lynetten Wind Farm are not oriented as per optimal wind directions in Copenhagen. This is due to large obstacles in the city which block some of the wind in the eastern areas5. The LAGI brief calls for a sculptural form which not only captures energy from nature and transmits it to the city’s grid, but also aim to solicit contemplation from viewers on energy and resource generation. Additionally, the technology used should also be scalable and tested. Based on this criteria and the analysis of energy consumption in Denmark, harnessing and showcasing wind energy is appropriate for its integration with algorithmic design.

Fig. 1 (left) Location of Lynetten Wind Farm (blue) and LAGI 2014 site (red)

Harnessing Wind Energy Wind power can be utilised in many ways, and various technologies exist to utilise this natural resource as a means of producing electricity. The following are a selection of researched examples of ways in which wind energy were considered.

Piezoelectric Energy Piezoelectricity is permitted by the ability of some materials to generate electric fields in response to mechanical strain or kinetic energy6. This sort of energy producers are used for things such as sustainable dance floors [Fig. 1], where the kinetic energy provided by someone stepping on a tile, flexes the piezoelectric material, causing an electrical pulse to light up the tile they are standing on8. This same technology can easily be adapted to use the kinetic energy of the wind to move them. However, piezoelectric materials only produce miniscule amounts of energy, and while advances are being made in this technology, piezoelectric materials are only fully efficient are certain levels of resonance, with slight variations away from the optimal frequency causing significant drops in energy production9.

Bladeless Wind Turbines There are many different wind turbine designs that exist, some of which feature an unconventional â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;bladelessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; design. One such example is the Fuller Bladeless Wind Turbine developed by Solar Aero, which is based on a patent issued to Nikola Tesla in 191310. This system uses a series of parallel discs which on rotation [Fig.2], causing the entire shaft to rotate, powering the generator12. However, the original design by Tesla was intended to be used as with steam or fluids, which can generally produce higher pressures than wind. Therefore, it is unknown how much this design would have to be up-scaled to be feasible to collect wind power. Other Bladeless Wind Turbines shared similar issues of up-scaling, making them bulky, or are largely untested.

70 B.4.5 Technology

Fig. 2 (top) Sustainable Dance Floors using Piezoelectric materials under pads10 Fig. 3 (bottom) Fuller Bladeless Wind Turbine design by Solar Aero11

Harnessing Wind Energy EWICON (Electrostatic Energy Convertor) The EWICON [Fig.3] is a design for a system that utilises wind energy but has no mechanical moving parts. Traditional turbines convert kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical energy by rotating the blades. However, the EWICON system works by using the windâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy to move charged particles against an electric field, by which the potential energy of the particles can be collected and stored14. Water droplets are used to hold the charge, and sprayed via nozzles near the field. The wind then pushes these particles through the field. However, a study of the system revealed that it is incredibly difficult to control the large number of variables such as spraying of the liquid, pressure rates and electric field distribution15.

Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTs) VAWTs [Fig. 4] were developed in response to certain issues that surrounded horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWTs). VAWTs and HAWTs have similar efficiencies and energy production and depend primarily on factors such as size, height, and design of the turbine. However, they have two main advantages over HAWTs; they have lower cut-in, or energy producing speeds, and due to their rotational axis and thus, overall size, they can be placed much closer to each other and other obstacles than regular HAWT wind turbines without sacrificing energy production17. Additionally, due to their recognisable form, they are a symbol of renewable energy, thus making the purpose of the sculpture to which they are integrated, clear and evident, even from across the river channel where the site lies. In contextual analysis of the site, a study of a yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wind direction as represented by a wind rose [Fig. 5] indicated that the predominant wind direction was from the west and south-west. However, it should be noted that due to the city of Copenhagen being located predominantly to the south-west of the site, this is not the optimal direction for wind harvesting. The Lynetten Wind Farm accounted for this in orientating their turbines mainly towards the north-east19. Although vertical wind turbines are theoretically always oriented towards the wind, the final form needs to ensure that it does not impede the collection of wind energy.

72 B.4.5 Technology

Fig. 3 (top) EWICON Electrostatic Energy Convertor System13 Fig. 4 (left) Design for Vertical Axis Wind Turbine16 Fig. 5 (middle) Windrose Plot of Copenhagen18

B.5 Prototyping

Stemming from the goal to recognise L-Systems as a from generative tool without compromising complexity, a ‘pipe and node’ system was decided on to emphasis the L-System’s generation as a series of lines. Not only are the lines themselves important, but the joints or ‘nodes’ between them, as they provide the basis on which the fractal branches are generated from. Both these aspects needed to be showcased. Therefore, the aim of this prototyping was to design two separate modules that could be used for each of the pipes and nodes, then parametrically model them in grasshopper for use.

Prototyping

Fig. 1 Simple Joinery

Fig. 2 Concept for 45 Degree Joints

Fig. 3 Model of Rhombicuboctahedron

During the initial stages of prototyping, it was quickly realised that the use of 45 degree joints meant that a lesser number of different joinery modules would be required, allowing for easier fabrication and potential construction. Additionally, by using an angle found in a regular polygon, overall shapes could be better anticipated, and intersecting lines could be more easily avoided in the generation process.

The first prototype [Fig.1] demonstrates a simple L-shaped pipe form, and simple joinery piece that can easily be bolted to connect these beams. These can easily be produced to form 90 degree joints, with appropriate modules being selected depending on the number of beams being connected. This can easily be adapted to suit 45 degree angles as shown [Fig.2]. This design, while simple, lacked emphasis on the joinery modules.

Investigation led us to using a rhombicubotahedron, a 26 sided polyhedron with a mix of square and triangular faces. This polyhedron allows square-faced connections at 45 degree angles, allowing the attaching of plates or other joinery where necessary. The added benefit of an enclosed shape allows the housing of electrical cabling or storage units where required, or additional strengthening members if needed. A hollow study of the

76 B.5 Prototyping

Fig. 4 Simple Truss between Nodes

Fig. 6 Branching using Prototypes

Fig. 5 Tensioned Wires resisting Shear Forces

same polyhedron [Fig.3] was also made to see other potentials, and to investigate how circular hollow sections or similar pipe designs may be joint to the nodes. In designing the pipe system, consideration was taken regarding the integration of energy collectors. This motivated earlier prototypes which were made during the research process. For example, using two parallel steel beams and

a truss structure between [Fig.4] permitted the use of piezoelectric energy harvesters within the pipe design. Also, crossing wires could have been used to integrate with the EWICON system [Fig.5]. While these types of energy harvesters were not used, the importance of resisting sheer and torsional forces became quite evident through these prototypes. In both these designs, a structural system was employed within each pipe to

greatly reduced lateral movement and rotation. Thus, these elements could be combined with the nodes to begin to produce a branching form [Fig. 6].

Prototyping After deciding on the use of vertical wind turbines, this was physically modelled to observe the overall form of a generic turbine [Fig.7]. This form could then be abstracted into the pipe form, while taking into consideration some aspects learnt from previous prototypes. The diagonal elements taken from the turbine resist both shear and torsional forces. Additionally, the plates at either end of the pipe form can be easily modified to incorporate detailed joinery as required [Fig. 8]. These prototypes were then parametrically modelled for use in grasshopper and integrated into the design [Fig. 9].

Materiality By deciding on the form of energy being used, the materiality of the entire structure can be decided. In regards to large wind turbine construction, the blades are commonly made from fiberglass reinforced plastic, which is ideal for large turbines as it provides a good strength to weight ratio. With high tensile strength, it is ideal for manufacturing large turbine blades1. Steel or steel reinforced concrete is also traditionally used for turbine towers2. Other materials are also used or are being investigated as technology improves. This includes things such as composite carbon fibre materials, wood and foam cores, and various resin technologies3. In 2013, German timber company TimberTower Gmbh designed a 100m tall turbine entirely manufactured from glued laminated timber panels made from spruce [4]. This timber can be sourced from sustainably managed forests, and has a much lower manufacturing and construction costs than steel structures. The tower can also be deconstructed and recycled. With regards to materiality for this project, research into the structural capabilities of these materials is still underway and will be the subject of structural analysis on L-Systems forms during tectonic exploration.

78 B.5 Prototyping

Fig. 7 Prototype Wind Turbine

Fig. 8 Abstracted Pipe Form

Fig. 9 Parametric Model using Grasshopper

B.6 Design Proposal

Our proposal aims to integrate wind energy through the use of wind turbine harvesters, with the complex nature of L-Systems to produce a sculptural form that informs visitors on capturing energy from nature.

Fig. 1 Site Map (Not to Scale)

Based on all the prior research, a series of criteria could be developed to generate an L-System which properly responded to these aspects. A non-exhaustive list of these criteria include: the incorporation of isolated branches within the generation for the placement of wind turbines, generating a form that properly orientates the wind turbines without blocking the wind, ensuring that no self-intersection exists within the generation with the thickness of the pipeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s abstracted form, and available locations of points of access to the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grid. The position on the site responded to the high-use areas of the restaurants and other public venues located adjacent. The height of the sculpture need also be considered so that it can be easily seen across the river channel from the Little Mermaid statue. Additionally, the wind turbines make the designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purpose recognisable at a distance. Unlike other algorithmic techniques such as surface patterning and modular tessellation, the study of biomimetic processes does not immediately lend itself towards an aesthetic. Rather, these processes by their very nature, adapt to their environments for a specific purpose. Through L-Systems, this design utilises the geometrical features of plants, and integrates them with man-made technologies for sustainable energy production. Rather than initial considerations of form or concerns with aesthetics guiding design, this project demonstrates how biomimetic processes can be used as initial starting points to guide algorithmic thinking and design outcomes.

B.7 Learning Outcomes

While using processes, rather than physical forms, as a generative tool has benefits, it has disadvantages in several aspects as highlighted in section B.2’s selection criteria. That is, the need for adequate structural support. The next step in the design is to investigate structural modelling with grasshopper, to accurately assess each individual form’s structural properties and make adjustments as required through our L-System generation. The solution of this may range anywhere from adding additional strings to form supports, or rewriting an L-System entirely to better consider the structure. Both these can be easily achieved through algorithmic techniques. In addition to looking at structural supports, it was suggested during interim presentations that this project should consider the nature of L-Systems, and using the tree-like branching form as a way to develop a structural system. This would be accomplished by having a larger ‘trunk’ and increasingly smaller branches away from the centre. While this may produce a structurally sound outcome, in doing so, the final form has high potential of looking physically like a tree. However, the team has decided to take this sort of arangement as consideration to resolve structural issues.

Learning Outcomes In general, the process of reverse engineering projects, and creating numerous iterations throughout part B have various benefits. For our project, these tasks were used as an opportunity to develop our algorithmic technique towards the outcome we wished to achieve, rather than as simply a form-finding exercise. The role of computation in design is incredibly powerful and expansive, so by using the iterations as an explorative and learning tool, a better understanding of our research field was obtained. By garnering a wider knowledge, algorithmic technique could easily be applied once further research was undertaken, utilising the brief and context as a constraint, rather than the parametric tools.

Objective 1

The interrogation of the brief helps develop a set of criteria that drives the design process. By identifying key aspects of the LAGI brief, a design solution can be synthesised that not only meets these criteria, but showcases the potential of algorithmic design in the process.

Objective 2

Generating possibilities is permitted through algorithmic design and parametric modelling. As demonstrated, by developing a set of conditions and potentials that could be achieved through the iterative process, the number of potential designs exponentially increased through the use of computation.

Objective 3

Similar to outcome 2, the reverse engineering exercise and iterative process in B.3 and B.4 helped developed skills in computation and three-dimensional media. Additionally, through the process of prototyping and research into materiality, it is clear how connections can be made between the virtual and physical environments with the aid of parametric modelling and fabrication tools.

Objective 4

By designing parametric models and building prototypes, a better understanding of how computational design can be used to bridge the gap between conceptual and physical. In the integration with the site context, it is possible to see how design proposals can be realised as physical models in atmosphere.

Objective 5

By responding to the brief, a proposal can by synthesised to find the best design solution. This involves not only researching the process, and rationale behind the ideas used, but researching various other ideas and critically analysing them to make an educated decision. The search for the most appropriate energy harnessing system is one example of how this was used.

Objective 6

With respect to the Part B case studies, by looking at the The Morning Line project, and Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s L-System designs, it is possible to identify most of the conceptual and technical aspects of each project. This can be subsequently used to reverse engineer the development of each design, as well as use the tools learnt from this process. Additionally, restrictions on each of the projects were also identified and realised as restrictions on the same processes used for further design development.

Objective 7

Developing an understanding of all aspects of computation was of the utmost importance to fully utilise all the tools provided, and properly synthesise a design response. Through the skill development by the explorative iterative process, a skillset for using L-Systems as a generative tool was established and utilised to create a design proposal.

Objective 8

By developing this skillset, a repertoire of specific computational techniques was also developed. But more importantly, a realisation of what this skillset can and cannot be used for. By understanding the restrictions and constraints of each individually aspect of computational design, it is much easier to identify what means of computation best suit any individual design project.

B.8 Algorithmic Sketches

Fig. 1 Reverse Engineering of another Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stochastic L-System Project

This collection of algorithmic sketches shows various other explorations using L-Systems. Figure 1 shows another reverseengineering of a different Michael Hansmeyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stochastic L-System projects. The use of random lofts in this design clearly informed the similar idea in the tower project that was reverse engineered in Case Study 2.0. More importantly however, the use of regular angles in L-Systems was significant, as it could more easily be rationalised and thus, fabricated. Figures 2-5 show some of the numerous explorations into interpreting L-Systems. The first demonstrates the effects of triangulation using points generated through L-System - obviously with the amount of overlapping due to multi-directional generation, this idea was not feasible. Figure 2 demonstrates the use of Octree and pre-empted the exploration into the abstraction of L-System forms using other shapes. The next example shows the use of similar random lofts to the Michael Hansmeyer, to create paths or walkways. However, any evidence of an L-System is completely lost in this interpretation. Finally, a piping system was looked at, and it was decided that this was the best way to proceed to showcase the complexity of the formâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design.

Fig. 2 Triangulated L-System

Fig. 3 Octree Intepretation

Fig. 4 Random Lofts

Fig. 5 Piped L-System

B.9 Appendix 1 - Iterations Species 1 - 90 Deg. 1-1

AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA]+F-F

1-2 AB A=[+F]FF[-F]/B B=F[+FBA][-FFA]+F-F 1-3 AB A=[+F]FF[-F]B B=F[+FBA][-FFA]+F-F 1-4 AB A=[+F]FF[-F]B B=F[/BA][-FFA]+F-F

2-3 a a=[A]&fff^[a] A=[+F]FF[-FB]BA B=F[+FBA][&FA] 2-4 a a=[A]&fff^[a] A=[+FA][-FB]FBA B=F[+FA][&F^A] 2-5 a a=[A]&fff^[b] b=&fff^[a] A=[+FA][-FB]FBA B=F[+FA][&FFF^A] Species 3 - 45 Deg.

1-5 AB A=[+F]FF[-F]B B=F[BA][-F/A]+F-F

3-1 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA]+F-F

1-6 AB A=[+F]FF[-F]B B=F[BA][&F/FA]+F-F

3-2 AB A=[+F]F/F[-FB]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA]+F-F

1-7 AB A=[+FB]FF[-F]B B=F[&F/FAB]+F-F

3-3 AB A=[+F]F/F[-FB]B B=F[+/FB][-F/FA]+F-F

1-8 AB A=[+FB]FF[-F]B B=F[&F/FAB]

3-4 AB A=[+F]F/F+FF[-FB]B B=F[+/FB][-F/FA]+F-F

1-9 AB A=[+FB]FF[-F]B B=F[&F/FA][+FB]

3-5 AB A=[+F]F/F+FF[-FB]B B=//F[+/FB][-F/FA]+F-F

1-10 AB A=[+FB]FF[-F]B B=F[&F/FA]&[+FB]

3-6 AB A=[+F]F/F+FF[-FB]B B=//F[+/FB][-F/FA]+FFF

3-10 AB A=[+F]F/[F+F]+\\F[-FB]B B=//[F+F][+/FB][-F/FA]+FFF-FF 3-11 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[A] 3-12 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA] 3-13 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA-B] 3-14 AB A=[+FB]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA-B] 3-15 AB A=[+FB]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA-B]

4-5 AB A=///[+FB]F/F[-F]+FF B=///F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=//F[+FA-B]/+FF 4-6 AB A=[+FB]F/F[-F]+FF B=F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA-B]/+FF 4-7 AB A=[+FB]F/F[-F]+FF-FFF^FF B=F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA-B]/+FF 4-8 AB A=^[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA] 4-9 AB A=^[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/^FBA][-F/FA][^+C] C=^F[+FA] 4-10 AB A=[+F]FF[-F]B B=F[+/^FBA][-F/FA][^+C] C=^F[+FA]

Species 4- 45 Deg.

Species 2 - 90 Deg. 2-1 a a=[A]&ff^[a] A=[+F]FF[-F]B B=F[+FBA][-FFA]+F-F 2-2 a a=[A]&fff^[a] A=[+F]FF[-FA]BA B=F[+FBA][-FFA]+F-F

3-7 AB A=[+F]F/[F+F]F[-FB]B B=//F[+/FB][-F/FA]+FFF 3-8 AB A=[+F]F/[F+F]+\\F[-FB]B B=//F[+/FB][-F/FA]+FFF 3-9 AB A=[+F]F/[F+F]+\\F[-FB]B B=//F[+/FB][-F/FA]+FFF-FF

4-1 AB A=[+FB]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=//F[+FA-B]/ 4-2 AB A=[+FB]F/F[-F] B=F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=//F[+FA-B]/+FF 4-3 AB A=[+FB]F/F[-F]+FF B=F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=//F[+FA-B]/+FF 4-4 AB A=///[+FB]F/F[-F]+FF B=F[+/BA][-F/FA][+C] C=//F[+FA-B]/+FF

4-11 AB A=^[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/^FBA][-F/F][^+C] C=^F[+FA] 4-12 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B[BC]+FF B=F[+/^FBA][-F/F][^+C] C=^F[+FA] 4-13 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B[BC]+FF B=F[+/FBA][-F/F][+C] C=^F[+FA] 4-14 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B[BC]+FF B=F[+/FBA][-F/F+FFFF][+C] C=^F[+FA] 4-15 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B[BC]+FF/FFB B=F[+/FBA][-F/F+FFFF][+C] C=^F[+FA]

Species 5 - 60 Deg. 5-1 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA]+F-F 5-2 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FA][-F/FA]+F-F 5-3 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FA][-F/FB]+F-F 5-4 AB A=[+F]F/B[-F]B B=F[+/FA][-F/FB]+F-F 5-5 AB A=[+F]F/B[-F]B B=F[+/FA][-F/FB]+F 5-6 AB A=[+F]F/B[-F]+A B=F[+/FA][-F/FB]+F 5-7 AB A=[+F]F/B[-F]+A B=F[+/FA][-F/FB]+F[+B] 5-8 AB A=FF/B[-F]+A B=FF[+/FA][-F/FB]+F[+B] 5-9 AB A=FB[-F]+A B=F[+/FA][-FB]+F[+B] 5-10 AB A=FB[-F]+A B=F[+/FA][-FB[-B]]+F Species 6 - 60 Deg. 6-1 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[+FA] 6-2 AB A=[+F]F/F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[-FB]

6-3 AB A=[+F]F[-F]B B=F[+/FBA][-F/FA][+C] C=F[-FB]

7-3 AB A=[+FC]FB/A B=F[+F/B][+FC] C=/FA[-FAB]

6-4 AB A=[+F]F[-F]B B=F[+F/B/A][-F/A][+/C] C=F[-FB]

7-4 AB A=[+FC]FB/A B=F[+FB][-FC] C=/FA[-FAB]

6-5 AB A=[+FB] B=F[+F/B/A][-F/A][+/C] C=F[-FB]

7-5 AB A=F[+FC]FB/A B=F[+FB][-FC] C=/FA[-FB]

6-6 AB A=[+FB][-FA] B=F[+F/B/A][-F/A][+/C] C=F[-FB]

7-6 AB A=F[+FC]F[B]A B=F[+/FB][-FC] C=/FA[-FB]

6-7 AB A=[+FB][-FA] B=F[+FF/B][F+/C] C=F[-FB]

7-7 AB A=F[+FC]F[-/B]FA B=F[+/FB][-FC] C=/FA[-FB]

6-8 AB A=[+FB][+F/A] B=F[+FF/B][+F/C] C=F[/FAB][-FAB]

7-8 AB A=F[+FC][-B]FA B=F[+/FB][-FC] C=/FA[-FB]

6-9 AB A=[+FA/B][+F/A] B=F[+FF/B][+F/C] C=F[/FAB][-FAB]

7-9 AB A=F[+FC][-B]FA B=/F[+/FB][-FC] C=//FA[-FB]

6-10 AB A=[+FA/B][+F/A] B=F[+FF/B][+F/C] C=/FA[-FAB]

7-10 AB A=F[+FC][-B]FC B=F[+/FB][-FC] C=/FA[-FB]

Species 7 - 60 Deg. 7-1 AB A=[+FC]F/A B=F[+FF/B][+F/C] C=/FA[-FAB] 7-2 AB A=[+FC]FB/A B=F[+FF/B][+F/C] C=/FA[-FAB]

Part B References All images have been produced by a member or members of the group unless notated otherwise.

B.1 - Research Field 1. Semih Eryildiz and Ledita Menzini, ‘Bioarchitecture – Inspirations from Nature’, Gazi University Journal of Science, 25 (2012) 263-268. 2. Karissa Rosenfield, Interview: Michael Pawlyn on Biomimicry (ArchDaily, 2011) <http://www.archdaily.com/185128/interview-michael-pawlyn-on-biomimicry/> [assessed 1 April 02014]. 3. Janine M. Benyus, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997). 4. ArtPulse Magazine, The Morning Line Launches in Istanbul (ArtPulse Magazine, 2010) <http://artpulsemagazine.com/the-morning-line-launches-in-istanbul> [accessed 1 April 2014]. 5. Michael Hansmeyer, Subdivided Columns <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns_info.html> [accessed 22 March 2014]. 6. ArtPulse Magazine, The Morning Line (ArtPulse Magazine, 2010) <http://artpulsemagazine.com/the-morning-line-launches-in-istanbul> [accessed 1 April 2014].

B.2 - Case Study 1.0 1. Robert Woodbury, How Designers Use Parameters, Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York; Routledge) pp. 153-170.

B.3 - Case Study 2.0 1. Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz and Aristid Lindenmayer, The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants (New York: Springer-Verlag 1990). 2. Ibid. 3. Ralph E. Griswold, Designing with L-systems, Part 1: String Rewriting Systems (Arizona, 2004) <http://www.cs.arizona.edu/patterns/weaving/webdocs/gre_ls01.pdf> [assessed 7 May 2014]. 4. Michael Hansmeyer, Stochastic L-Systems (2003) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/l-systems_info.html?screenSize=1&color=0#undefined> [accessed 7 May 2014]. 5. Michael Hansmeyer, L-Systems in Architecture (2003) <http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/l-systems_info.html?screenSize=1&color=0#undefined> [accessed 7 May 2014].

B.4.5 - Technology 1. Danish Architecture Centre, Copenhagen: Cities can run on Wind Energy (Denmark, 2014) < http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/allcases/energy/copenhagen-cities-can-run-on-wind-energy/?bbredirect=true> [assessed 24 April 2014]. 2. Hans Christian Sørensen, Lars Kjeld Hansen, and Jens H. Mølgaard Larsen, Middelgrunden 40 MW Offshore Wind Farm Denmark - Lesson Learnt (Copenhagen: Realities of Offshore Wind Technology, 2002) <http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/ middlegrundendenwindlessonsspok02.pdf> [assessed 24 April 2014]. 3. Danish Architecture Centre, <http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/all-cases/energy/copenhagen-cities-can-run-on-windenergy/?bbredirect=true> [assessed 24 April 2014] 4. Ibid. 5. Nielsen et. al., Copenhagen, Denmark - Case Study (Denmark, EMD International AS, 2002) <http://www.emd.dk/Projects/Projekter/20%20Detailed%20 Case%20Studies/Case%20report03%20-%20Copenhagen_Denmark.pdf> [assessed 25 April 2014].

6. William B. Hobbs and David L. Hu, ‘Tree-inspired piezoelectric energy harvesting’, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 10 (2011). 7. Sustainable Dance Floors, (Netherlands, 2011) <http://www.sustainabledanceclub.com/products/sustainable_dance_floor/> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 8. Energy Floors, Sustainable Dance Floors, (Netherlands, 2011) <http://www.sustainabledanceclub.com/products/sustainable_dance_floor/> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 9. Henry Zervos, Piezoelectric energy harvesting: Developments, challenges, future, (IDTechEx, 2013) <http://www.idtechex.com/research/articles/ piezoelectric-energy-harvesting-developments-challenges-future-00005074.asp> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 10. Phillip Proefrock, Solar Aero’s Bladeless Wind Turbine, (Ecogeek, 2010) <http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3151-solar-aeros-bladeless-turbine> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 11. Solar Aero’s Bladeless Wind Turbine, (Ecogeek, 2010) <http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3151-solar-aeros-bladeless-turbine> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 12. Howard J. Fuller, Wind Turbine for Generation of Electric Power, (Patent US7695242, 2010) <http://www.google.com/patents/US7695242> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 13. EWICON Wind Energy Converter, (Delft University of Technology, 2014) <http://www.ewi.tudelft.nl/en/current/ewicon-wind-energy-converterunveiled-wind-mill-without-moving-parts/detail/informaticaonderzoek-aan-nederlandse-universiteiten-van-hoog-niveau/> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 14. Johan Smit ad Dhiradj Djairam, EWICON Wind Energy Converter Unveiled: Wind-‘Mill’ without Moving Parts, (Delft University of Technology, 2014) <http://www.ewi.tudelft.nl/en/current/ewicon-wind-energy-converter-unveiled-wind-mill-without-moving-parts/detail/informaticaonderzoek-aannederlandse-universiteiten-van-hoog-niveau/> [assessed 26 April 2014]. 15. Arjan Winters (Supervisor: D. Djairam), ‘Feasibility Study of an EWICON System using the Self Adjusting Multinozzle Electrospraying Technique’ (Masters Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2011). 16. Vertical Axis Wind Turbine, (Inhabitat, 2012) < http://inhabitat.com/seven-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-added-to-londons-2012-olympic-park/> [Asessed 26 April 2014]. 17. Robert Ferry & Elizabeth Monoian, ‘A Field Guide to Renewable Energy Technologies’, Land Art Generator Initiative, (Copenhagen, 2014) p. 27. 18. Copenhagen: Wind Rose Plot [All Year], (Iowa Environmental Mesonet, 2014) <http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?station=EKRK&network=DK_ASOS> [assessed 25 April 2014]. 19. Nielsen et. al., Copenhagen, Denmark - Case Study (Denmark, EMD International AS, 2002) <http://www.emd.dk/Projects/Projekter/20%20 Detailed%20Case%20Studies/Case%20report03%20-%20Copenhagen_Denmark.pdf> [assessed 25 April 2014].

B.5 - Prototyping 1. PPG Fiber Glass, Wind Energy, (PPG Energy, 2012) <http://www.ppg.com/glass/fiberglass/markets/Pages/windenergy.aspx> [assessed 27 May 2014]. 2. Dan Ancona and Jim McVeigh, Wind Turbine - Materials and Manufacturing Fact Sheet, (Princeton Energy Resources International, 2001) <http://www.perihq.com/documents/windturbine-materialsandmanufacturing_factsheet.pdf> [assessed 27 May 2014]. 3. James C Watson and Juan C. Serrano, Composite Materials for Wind Blades, (Published in Wind Systems Mag, 2010) <http://windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/149/composite-materials-for-wind-blades> [assessed 27 May 2014]. 4. Energy Matters, The Timber Wind Turbine Tower, (Energy Matters, 2012) <http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3375> [assessed 27 May 2014].

Part C. Detailed Design

C.1 Design Concept

One of the most significant constraints on computational design is the ability to realise a physical form. In our case, due to the forms that were created using a 45 degree generating L-system, the structure became compromised incredibly quickly. The use of the rhombicuboctahedron was therefore abandoned in favour of a simple ball and sleeve joint. Additional parameters were added to control the angle of growth, so that lines generated outside initially defined angles could be reduced, essentially reducing the number of potential cantilevers and structural impossibilities. Lastly, while intersections were avoided previously, the algorithmic definition was re-written to incorporate joints at these intersections. In doing so, not only does the structure benefit from increased stability as opposed to independently supported members, but it also gives the appearance of a complex network of branches.

Structural Analysis

Fig 1. (Above) Some iterative explorations using Karamba

Fig 2. (Above) More successful iterations with regards to structure

96 C.1 Design Concept

Karamba, a structural analysis program then utilised as a consideration, and constraint on the L-System generation. This was done by inputting all joints located on or near the ground as point supports, and treating each beam as an arbitrary sized hollow section. Additionally, allowing for intersections based on the size of the selected beam member, and treating these as additional joints. Using the selected hollow section, the maximum allowable deflection (mm) and stress (N/m^2) could be calculated. This was then used as a selection criterion for eliminating iterations of the L-Systems, as any form that had a significant number of members that exceeded this threshold were discounted. Some examples of iterations that were excluded are shown in Figure 1. Obviously, the most structurally sound forms that resulted were largely symmetrical, and supported at numerous points at the base of the structure (Fig. 2). Additionally, the higher and longer branches held a fairly vertical path to the ground which assisted in their support.

Regrowing the Form

98 C.1 Design Concept

Fig 3. (above) The generative process of the L-Systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth for the most successful form from structural analysis

Structural Analysis

Fig. 4 (above) Cross-sectional diagram of members

Upon choosing the form that matched all the criteria, the surface area based on an exaggerated member size could be approximated to 7552908mm^2. It was then possible to solve for the maximum wind loads of 109.1N experienced by the structure based

100 C.1 Design Concept

on the maximum wind speeds and air density in Copenhagen. Fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional diagram of all the members of the chosen form. This could be used to generate diagrams of relative tension and compression, and deflection diagrams of the

members. For the purpose of this analysis, this load value was used for both Horizontal (Fig. 5) and Vertical (Fig. 6) diagrams, although other live loads such as rain would also need to be considered when calculating the actual size of members.

Fig 5. (Above) Relative horizontal force diagrams: Tension/Compression (left) and Deflection (right)

Fig 6.. (Above) Relative vertical force diagrams: Tension/Compression (left) and Deflection (right)

101

Fabrication

Fig. 7 (above) Mesh for 3D Print with 2mm diameter beams (left) Analysis by fabricators

In order to fabricate the entire form, the use of 3D powder printing was used. However, due to the tolerance of the machine and also the structural capacity of the material, several changes to the model had to first be made. Initially, the beams were set to

102 C.1 Design Concept

2mm based on the minimum print size for members. At this scale, all the ball joints had to be omitted in order to maintain clarity. However, an analysis of the print by the fabricators showed that due to the nature of the materials used in 3D printing and of the form, the

resulting print would break (Fig. 7). A 1:4 ratio of thickness to length was therefore required to ensure the strength of the majority of print (Fig. 8), without losing too much definition of the form.

Fig. 8 (above) Mesh for 3D Print with 4mm diameter beams (left) Analysis by fabricators

103

Redesigning

Fig. 9 (above) Redesigned turbine, pipe and joint forms

104 C.1 Design Concept

Fig. 10 (above) Suitable branches for Turbine placement based on structural and site analysis

Based on the Karamba analysis, it was possible to determine where in the structure could support the additional loads of a wind turbine. This included its self-weight, as well as the additional torque forces generated as the turbine rotates under wind loads. These were inputted via additional point loads on all points above the heights of the buildings near the site. Turbines were therefore placed where deflection of members were under acceptable limits (Fig. 10). Acceptable points not located on the ‘exterior’ of the form were excluded, as the structure itself would interfere with the wind speeds, therefore making those turbines inefficient. The orientation of the form could then be adjusted to suit the site.

At this point, the turbine was adjusted to a more linear design, and the pipe redesigned to suit. This was more of an aesthetic consideration, as the previous pipe design would look distorted where pipes intersect. ‘Fins’ were also considered, aiding in resisting axial forces, with spacers aligned appropriately to reduce the slenderness ratio in each of the pipes and fins. These elements can be fabricated using fiberglass reinforced plastic, which can provide the necessary resistance to axial forces. Fiberglass reinforced plastics are consistent in strength, and similar to steel, can be recycled at the end of their use1.

Additionally, the ball joints were also redesigned more simply, taking three main things into consideration: the ability to incorporate more angles, integration with the ‘fins’ of the redesigned pipe, and an internal hole with adjustable diameter to connect to the beams. The purpose of the latter of these considerations is to begin to explore the structural arrangements of trees and plants, and their natural feature of having thicker trunk, and decreasingly thinner branches. While this is a component of tree fibres, this idea of having differing member sizes can be used to optimise the structural configuration of the form.

105

Optimisation

Fig. 11 (above) Bending energy diagram

Using this data, we could begin to optimise the member sizes, saving on both cost and materials. The material input for the grasshopper model was adjusted to incorporate the strength of 3D printed steel for the joints. While 3D printing is certainly used widely as a modelling tool, developments in the construction industry have recently approved 3D printed steel

106 C.1 Design Concept

joints for use. Adrian Priestman designed a series of decorative steel joints for use on a rooftop canopy which was constructed in December 20132. Additionally, research is being pushed into developing ways to integrate 3D printing steel joints into structural systems3. Firstly, the initial member size was

selected based on the deflection values provided for by the initial analysis. By recalculating the maximum stress and deflection based on length of beam, uniform load, moment of inertia and modulus of elasticity (based on the volume of the adjusted beam size), a more accurate list of deflection values for each individual beam member could be obtained.

Fig. 12 (above) Axial energy diagram

Members with the lowest bending energies could then be identified, and be reduced in diameter and size of the member while still keeping it under acceptable deflection values. It is of course possible to do this for each individual member to maximise the efficiency of each member, however, this is impractical in terms of producing custom-sized members, especially considering

the number of beams in this form. Therefore based on the analysis, four different member sizes were selected, and these can be distributed throughout the design to respond to the appropriate bending stress (Fig. 11). Additionally, the axial diagram (Fig. 12) shows how the thickness of the fins may be increased to respond to the relative axial forces throughout the

structure. Both these diagrams show all the members divided into four groups, and their relative bending or axial energies, represented by the colour gradient and member size.

107

C.2 Tectonic Elements

Our process so far involved: - Generating the Initial L-System - Analysing the Structure using Karamba - Determining the Turbine placement - Optimising the Member sizes - And finally, Generating the Pipes and Joints Due to the use of L-Systems and their recursive nature, there are several consistently recurring angles that occur throughout the design. Thus, many of the ball joints are identical and rotated to suit. With the appropriate tools, it is possible to check for the number of similar joints and determine the number of each that need to be fabricated. Additionally, the spreadsheet data for the number of each different beam and fin size can be collated, and a member schedule generated for the entire design. A method of fixing all these individual elements together was then required. Based on the pipe design, an exploded diagram was developed (Fig. 1) showing the assembly of parts. This diagram shows the typical construction of all the elements, and can be replicated across the entire design with the relevant sized members.

Tectonics (Fig. 1) Exploded assembly diagram

110 C.2 Tectonic Elements

[1] beam

[2] fin spacer

[3] fins

[4] ball joint

111

Prototyping

Fig. 2 (above) (Photo) Prototype pipe using 3D printed joint

112 C.2 Tectonic Elements

A prototype joint was sent for 3D ABS printing, and despite the print failing due to an incorrectly configured printer, the joint still functioned as required. (Fig. 3) The size of the opening in the joint for the beam was set to the available sizes for timber dowels to as close to 1:10 scale as possible. As shown, the prototype assembly was successful, and the elements required for the detail model could be sent for fabrication.

Fig. 3 (right) (Photo) 3D printed joint detail

113

Detail Model

Fig. 4 (above) Section used for 1:10 detail model. Member sizes indicated with colors

A section of the form was taken where three different member sizes can be seen (Fig. 4). The members for the detailed structural model were adjusted sizes to match the availability of timber dowels at varying sizes.

114 C.2 Tectonic Elements

Four primary joints were required for this section of the model, but a fifth was also included to show how further beams might be attached (Fig. 5). These joints were also sent for 3D ABS printing, as the plastic provided a suitable

strength for the scaled model. The fin spacers (Fig. 6) were fabricated in laser cut 3mm MDF, with the fins themselves represented with balsa wood.

Fig. 5 (above) Invencotry of joints used for 1:10 detail model Fabricated in ABS plastic

Fig. 6 (above) Invencotry of fin spacers used for 1:10 detail model Fabricated in lasercut 3mm MDF board

115

C.3 Final Models

Representational Model

Fig. 1 (previous page) Representational Model - 3D Powder Print, 4mm diameter beams Fig. 2 (above) Site Model - Aerial from North-West

120 C.3 Final Models

Fig. 3 (above) Site Model - Approach from South-East

121

Representational Model

Fig. 4 (above and right) Representational Model - Images from Sunlight and Shadow studies

122 C.3 Final Models

123

Detail Model

Fig. 5 (previous page) Detail Model at 1:10 showing construction method with different member sizes Fig. 6 (above) Detail Model showing branching at 30o

126 C.3 Final Models

Fig. 7 (top) Detail Model - 3D ABS Printed Joint Fig. 8 (right) Detail Model - Typical Beam Connection

127

C.4 Final Design Proposal - LAGI Brief

L-SYSTEMS

STRUCTURE

ENERGY

Design Proposal Currently the landfill site is an open, unused field, isolated from Copenhagen by water. Nemorosa, the anemone, aims to integrate wind energy through the use of vertical wind turbine harvesters, and the fractal-like form generation of L-Systems into a sculptural form, to convert the site into a recreational and educational park land. Denmark was a pioneer in the development of wind power, and the Danish Government aims to have 50% of Denmarkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy consumption produced through wind turbines by 2030 [1]. In Nemorosa, Vertical AXIS Wind Turbines are utilised, not only for their proven energy-producing capacity, but for their recognisable rotating form. In this way, visitors are able to immediately realise the purpose of the sculpture, appreciating it both as an art installation, and as a means of producing sustainable energy. Visitors can also be educated on Denmarkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals for the future, and the importance of sustainable energy production. Additionally unlike commercial wind or solar farms, people are encouraged to interact directly with the energy producing sculpture. Thus by allowing visitors to walk through, under, or even climb through, this design brings people closer to the sustainable energy which they can use in their daily lives. Nemorosa produces 543,932KWh per year, based on a similar sized turbine [2], average wind speeds [3] and air density [4] of Copenhagen, and the average efficiency of the turbines at the Lynetten commercial wind farm. Nemorosa produces enough energy to support approximately 91 homes [5], and saves $223,012 yearly [6]. All required cabling can be easily housed within the sculpture, and with all turbines located at a suitable height, ensure the safety of visitors. In addition, this electrical energy can be easily connected to the grid via designated connections through the base of the sculpture.

Fig. 1 (top right) Nemorosa - The sculpture Fig. 2 (right) North-West Elevation Fig. 3 (bottom right) South Elevation

130 C.4 Final Design Proposal

131

Design Proposal L-Systems are a language developed to study the geometrical patterns in the development of trees, plants, and other organisms. These systems exist as a series of ‘rules’, which recursively change a sequence of characters known as ‘strings’. This can be interpreted to form a three-dimensional graphical representation. This biomimetic process, similar to other fractal patterns found in nature, can be utilised through parametric design and computation to generate a sculptural form. Nemorosa utilises L-System generation for not only its branching capabilities which can be easily integrated with wind turbines, but for its complex sculptural forms that can be created. Located on the north-west corner of the site,

Nemorosa maximises the energy production of its wind turbines by orienting them towards the prevailing winds in the area (Fig. 4). This also makes the design easily viewable from across the canal at common tourist attractions such as the little mermaid statue. The landscaped field represents a continuation of the L-system growth in a 2-dimension plane. Branches extend to the primary access points of the site - the paths to the east, and the water taxi dock to the south, and then converge on the structure through a series of paths inlaid into the filled site. Currently, a small area of the site is used for a small, isolated garden. This design extends this across the site, creating designated areas for plants and gardens between the labyrinth of paths. Fig. 4 (right) Site Map

132 C.4 Final Design Proposal

Wind Direction Turbines Circulation Water Taxi Terminal Site Boundary

133

Design Proposal

134

Nemorosa is constructed from a steel primary structure, and fiberglass secondary structure, with turbines made from the same materials. The main structural elements consist of four different steel beams. These four different member sizes are found throughout the structure, and feature optimised dimensions to reduce cost and materials, while still maintaining structural stability. Joining these beams is a series of 3D printed steel joints, customised to allow for the different branching angles throughout the structure, and for the four different member sizes used. The sub-structure features a series of fiberglass reinforced polymer fins and spacers to respond to the axial force experienced by the structure. Fiberglass reinforced polymers provides the necessary strength to resist these forces at a much lower weight ratio. Once again, these are optimised in size to provide suitable structural stability yet reducing overall costs and materials. The turbines, which are produced commercially, are also commonly constructed from steel and fiberglass. A schedule for all these elements can be generated from the data, and sent for manufacturing. Nemorosa produces zero greenhouse gas emissions, does not directly pollute its immediate surroundings and as such, has little adverse impacts to the environment. The exception to this is the embodied energy required for the manufacturing and transportation of all the required materials, as well as for the assembly, installation and later dis-assembly of parts. Steel has a relatively high embodied energy compared to other materials such as timber or concrete, while fiberglass tends to have incredibly low embodied energy. However, the benefit of using both these materials is that they are recyclable after disassembly. By providing designated areas for plant-life throughout the site, this design aims to convert the unused landfill site, filled with the remains of old buildings and foundations, to a park land, with garden beds for local flora throughout. While viewable from across the canal, or from nearby restaurants, visitors are encouraged to visit the site for recreational purposes by means of road, or by the water taxi. On the site, people can wander amongst the gardens via the branching paths, or interact with the sustainable energy producing sculpture, Nemorosa.

135

C.5 Learning Objectives

Throughout the semester, the process of learning grasshopper and all relevant associated programs and plug-ins served as the main learning curve which steered the development of a proposal. With regards to interrogating the LAGI brief, it was clear from the start that it would be impossible to address each individual aspect, as well as meet the requirements of the studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s course for computation due simply to time restraints. Therefore, in the weeks leading up to the final presentation, two options presented themselves; to either develop an aesthetic design proposal that met all the briefâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s requirements, or to focus on developing our computational technique. The latter was chosen and by focusing on this one aspect, and more specifically, structure, this gave direction to the learning, and helped generate a series of design possibilities based on this aspect.

Further Development + Learning Objectives The feedback received after the presentation was therefore mostly expected, and addressed on the things we had not focused on as extensively - the potential size and complexity of L-Systems not being fully utilised, and the capacity to maximise energy generation. The selection of our form was certainly based on structural stability, but other influential factors were also considered prior to this. For example, a symmetrical form would obviously be more structurally sound than one that wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t. So it was decided to stick to symmetrical forms to reduce the number of L-Systems that needed to be checked for structural stability, reducing the amount of time spent running iterations through structural analysis. After the presentation however, other forms were investigated, seeing how L-Systems could be made larger while still maintaining structural stability and a selection of these are shown above. Fig. 1

140 C.5 Learning Objectives

shows the design used in the final proposal as comparison. The first form (Fig. 2) consisted of a number of extremely long, yet intersecting branching members. However, the deflection experienced by the longest members became incredibly significant. The second form (Fig. 3) attempted to create a wide form, with beams branching to the ground at regular intervals. The third form (Fig. 4) featured a much more acute angle, with many more intersecting elements than previous iterations. Once the branches angled away from the main body of the structure, the beams involved experienced huge deflection values. This could potentially be solved by restricting angles of growth. The last (Fig. 5) was a much more chaotic growth which surprisingly was quite structurally sound, except for the few out-lying branches. However, whether or not L-Systems are even recognisable in this form is questionable.

Fig. 1 (above) Final Design for Proposal

Fig. 2 (left) First Iteration - Long intersection branches

Fig. 3 (left) Second Iteration - Wide form

Fig. 4 (left) Third Iteration - Small angle

Fig. 5 (left) Fourth Iteration - Chaotic Growth

141

Further Development + Learning Objectives Additionally, feedback was given about integrating the vertical nature of the wind-turbines into the design, not just in the form of the pipe design. It was suggested this could be done by including more vertical members throughout the entire design. However, the team could not find a feasible way of doing this without resorting to permanent 90 degree angles (Fig. 6), or by reinterpreting the L-system as a series of points, and generating the form based on that. In addition, maintaining consistent 45 degree angles throughout in the hopes of having vertical members also proved ineffective (Fig. 7). Having said all this, all these iterations, development and analysis is based on the amount of knowledge gained over the 12 weeks of the course. During this time, a basic and fundamental understanding of computation has been developed, as well as some experimentation into its application, especially within structural analysis. The construction of physical models also highlighted the gap between computation and fabrication, and how it can be bridged on a small scale. In addition, the work with Karamba showed how materials may be accounted for structurally and optimised appropriately, with real-life data easily producible in the process. The final proposal was justified based on the knowledge acquired thus far. With more time to experiment with computational design (and more processing power), many more possibilities would certainly open.

142 C.5 Learning Objectives

Fig. 6 (top right) 90 Degree Generated L-System Fig. 7 (bottom right) 45 Degree Generated L-System

143

Part C References C1 - Design Concept 1. Fiberline Composites, Breakthrough: Recycling of fibreglass is now a reality (Middelfart, 14 September 2010), <http://www.fiberline.com/news/miljoe/breakthrough-recycling-fibreglass-now-reality> [accessed 30 May 2014]. 2. Alyn Griffiths, British architect claims â&#x20AC;&#x153;first architectural applicationâ&#x20AC;? of 3D printing (Dezeen Magazine, 2 December 2013) <http://www.dezeen.com/2013/12/02/first-architectural-application-of-3d-printing-adrian-priestman-6-bevis-marks/> [assessed 29 May 2014]. 3. Rory Stott, Arup develops 3D printing technology for Structural Steel (ArchDaily, 6 June 2014) <http://www.archdaily.com/514003/arup-develops-3d-printing-technique-for-structural-steel/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter> [assessed 7 June 2014].

C4 - Final Design Concept - LAGI Brief 1. Danish Architecture Centre, Copenhagen: Cities can run on Wind Energy (Denmark, 2014) <http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/allcases/energy/copenhagen-cities-can-run-on-wind-energy/?bbredirect=true> [assessed 24 April 2014]. 2. Wind Energy Australia, Vertical axis wind turbine renewable energy system, Clean Energy Australia Corporation <http://www.cleanwatt.com.au/pdf/WT-New%20Blade.pdf> [assessed 25 May 2014]. 3. Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM), Yearly Climatology for Copenhagen: Wind Roses (2014) <http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?station=EKRK&network=DK_ASOS> [assessed 25 May 2014]. 4. The Engineering Toolbox, Air - Density and Specific Weight <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html> [assessed 26 May 2014]. 5. Trading Economics, Electrical power consumption (kWh per capita) in Denmark <http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/electric-power-consumption-kwh-per-capita-wb-data.html> [assessed 6 June 2014]. 6. Lindsay Wilson, Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh, (Shrunk that Footprint, 2011) <http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh> [assessed 6 June 2014].

144

Images All images produced collaboratively except as noted:

C1 - Design Concept Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1 - Structural Iterations by Michael Mack 2 - Structural Iterations by Michael Mack 7 - Mesh for 3D print by Michael Mack Analysis of Structure by University of Melbourne Fab Lab 8 - Mesh for 3D print by Michael Mack Analysis of Structure by University of Melbourne Fab Lab 9 - Render of redesigned components by Michael Mack

C2 - Tectonic Elements Fig. 1 - Assembly Diagram by Michael Mack Rendering and Post-Edit by Rachel Mui Fig. 5 - Mesh of Joints for 3D print by Michael Mack Rendering by Rachel Mui Fig. 6 - Mesh of Spacer Components for Laser Cutting by Michael Mack

C4 - Final Design Proposal Icons by Rachel Mui Fig. 2 - North-West Elevation by Rachel Mui Fig. 3 - South Elevation by Michael Mack Fig. 4 - Site Map by Michael Mack Rendered Perspective Image by Rachel Mui Rendered Site Image by Rachel Mui

C5 - Learning Objectives Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

2 - Further Development Iteration by Michael Mack 3 - Further Development Iteration by Michael Mack 4 - Further Development Iteration by Michael Mack 5 - Further Development Iteration by Michael Mack 6 - 90 Degree L-System by Michael Mack 7 - 45 Degree L-System by Michael Mack

145