Studio Air Final journal

2017, SEMESTER 1, BRADLEY ELIAS RAGNHILD ONGSTAD

2

Table of Contents

75 B.7 Learning outcomes

4 INTRODUCTION

76 B8: Appendix

7 A: Conceptulication

81 C: Detailed design

8 A1: Design futuring

82 C1: Design concept

9 CASE STUDY 1

83 Interim Feedback

10 CASE STUDY 2

84 component Design v.1

12 A2: Design Computation

86 Component design V.2

14 CASE STUDY 1

88 DESIGN CONCEPT

17 CASE STUDY 2

90 New Component

18 A3: Composition/generation 19 CASE STUDY 1 20 CASE STUDY 2

92 Connections 98 C.2. Tectonic Elements & Prototypes 100 Component Prototype

22 A.4 Conclusion

104 PLACOID

23 A.5 Learning outcomes

105 C.3. Final Detailed

MOdel

24 A6: Appendix

106 Chunk physical model

27 B: Criteria design

108 Digital model

28 B1: Research Field

114 A.4 Learning objectives and

outcomes

29 GENETICS 116 Text Referencing 30 B2 (A): L-system and loops 117 Image Referencing 32 B2 (A): L-system and loops 34 B2(b): Polyomino 38 B2(C): Component design // manual recrusion 42 B3: Reverse engineering 44 Manual Vs Automated 46 Reverse engineering 48 B4: TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT 66 B5: TECHNIQUE prototypes 70 B6: TECHNIQUE proposal 3

Fig1 DIGITAL DESIGN AND FABRICATION FINAL MODEL

INTRODUCTION 4

Ragnhild Ongstad Bachelor of Encironments (Architecture) University of Melbourne My Name is Ragnhild Ongstad, and I am currently an undergraduate student at the University of Melbourne. I was born in Norway in 1995, and studied science at Sandvika High school. I developed my love and interest for architecture while traveling Europe and Asia, as I was exposed to beautiful and complex architecture ranging from antique buildings to more contemporary work. This position led me to the decision of using my creative skills to study architecture at the University of Melbourne.

I have allowed my architecture degree to take over most of my life. The passion and dedication I have for the subject gives me certainty that I’m in the right place. In a world where we are in increasing need of creative, solution-oriented people with a desire to change the world in a positive direction, I consider it to be natural to turn to architecture.

It has been a challenge to learn how to use the different soft-wares that we use in this course, but it has broaden my skills and ability to create. I am very excited to learn more about grasshopper, as I believe that the design possibilities with this program is beyond what I am capable of.

I am excited to take my abilities to another level through Studio Air.

5

6

CONCEPTUALISATION

A: CONCEPTULICATION A1

DESIGN FUTURING

A2

DESIGN COMPUTATION

A3

COMPOSITION/GENERATION

A4

CONCLUSION

A5

LEANING OUTCOMES

A6

APPENDIX

CONCEPTUALISATION 7

A1: DESIGN FUTURING Whenever we bring something into being we also destroy something - the omlette at the cost of the egg, the table at the cost of the tree, through to fossil fuel generated energy at the cost of the planet’s atmosphere .�

- Tony Fry

We live in a time where resource exhaustion, population growth and climate change are major challenges that we have to deal with.1 However the efforts toward a change has remained small and weak, and therefore the concern that we are heading towards a troublesome future is increasing.

The practice of design has a ethical and professional responsibility to respond to these concerns, as the building and construction industry are big contributors and cause to these problems. However, it can also be the solution. Through fundamentally rethinking of the design and building process and by finding ways to restrain our currently world-destroying behaviour we can move towards a better future. This includes changing the way we think, and how and what we design, as whatever we bring into being will also be at the consequence of something else.

The following case studies are architectural projects which contributed to the field of ideas and ways of thinking for future possibilities.

This is the last printable page in your book and will print on the left side.

8

CONCEPTUALISATION

CASE STUDY 1

FIG 2 PROJECT: LOS ANGELES RAMS STADIUM ARCHITECT: HKS ARCHITECTS DATE: TO BE FINISHED 2019 LOCATION: LOS ANGELES

AUTOMATED DESIGN-TO-FABRICATION The increase of complex and variable geometric architecture has had an observable increase for the last decade. This is related to an increasing availability of automated design and production techniques that enables such design. Although these tools are enabling automation of design, it has created a disrupted linkage in the work-flow between design and fabrication.

Furthermore, the connectivity challenges increases, as the complexity and scale of the project increase.

The fabrication method is revolutionary as it is not relying on plenty of individual 2D drawings to describe the panels, but uses a text-based file which contains the dimensional instructions. This enables the fabricator to directly translate the files into machine instructions.

This development will expand future possibilities as large projects, such as this stadium, often exhibits high complexity and scope and will therefore benefit from implementing a direct design-to-fabrication methodology.

This will decrease production time, ease slow responses and yield opportunities for a broader range of variations.

FIG.3

Case study 1 is based on the ongoing design and development for a Los Angeles Ram football stadium, designed by HKS Architects. 2 The project demonstrates an alternative approach for documentation, to minimise the translation errors from design to fabrication.

The large envelope, which consists of 35, 000 unique panels and 376,000 fixation point, will be developed through a complete file-to-factory work-flow.

CONCEPTUALISATION 9

CASE STUDY 2

PROJECT: PHILIPS PAVILION

FIG.4

ARCHITECT: LE CORBUSIER ARCHITECTS DATE: 1958 LOCATION: BRUSSELS

ARCHITECTURAL TRANSLATION OF MUSIC The Philips Pavilion for Brussels International fair can be seen as a minor and exceptional work by Le Corbusier.

It was developed mostly by composer Iannis Xenakis from a basic sketch by Le Corbusier, and consisted of sloping hyperbolic paraboloids, tensioned on a skeleton of steel and concrete.3 The structure contained a stomach shaped exhibition hall with projected images. Music and architecture was combined through the electric symphony Poème électronique by Edgar Varèse, powered by hundreds of speakers throughout the interior. The aim was to showcase new technology through a multi-dimension artistic experience. The architectural style was unusual and the hyperbolic paraboloids was new at this time.

FIG.5

10

CONCEPTUALISATION

Iannis Xenakis can be considered an ancestor for the parametric design methodology. Rather than evoking the appearance of mathematical complexity, the calculations was part of the design process. The form was slowly developed through a pragmatic approach were model manipulation, computation of surface geometries and sketches led to the final result. Hence the algorithm was not stated clearly by Xenakis, as such modelling could only be done by an math engineer and not through three-dimensional software as we use today. This can be considered as the beginning of parametric systems enabled by writings of rules, or algorithms, for the creation of variations. Hence, parametric design in architecture develops as a new form of design logic.4

Xenakis recorded his design thinking in small drawings of each of the hyperbolic paraboloids. He imagined and illustrated the surfaces as floating in air and sliced in the horizontal plane at the point of the earlier developed ground level plan, which now seemed as a result of the methodology and not its cause.5 The Philips Pavilion also represents an important step towards multidisciplinary working to create exceptional experiences. The Pavilion showcases a artistic phenomenon where architecture, music and visual art come together as one project. It is an example of when several disciplines, in this case an architect, composer and an artist, come together to create something special.

FIG.6

FIG.7

CONCEPTUALISATION 11

A2: DESIGN COMPUTATION There are definitely things changing in the field of architecture. In the history of architecture there has been different ways to deal with the geometry and logic of each building. The architects used to work in a very representable way, where they would imagine and draw how a building would look like based on previous references, a engineer would analyse it and a builder would go in and construct the building. At the moment architects have the ability to go in the middle of it to sample it from material, from structure and geographical location from where the building occurs.6 Within that deeply informed field they can generate the design through the aid of a software, which enables huge amounts of data to be stored. It is a very complex synthesis which go way beyond the imagination and pre-consumption of what design could be.

The computer has become a integral tool within the design process. The computational systems, provide humans with assistance in creating complexity in our design by dealing with parts of the design process.7 Computers can store huge amounts of information which can be made available and presented in the most suitable way to the designer by a quick type. This contribution gives designers the opportunity to use all of their creative capability towards the most optimized outcome.

Architecture is effected by the possebilities of the algorithm. The subject of computational geometry is a very interesting topic to explore and it is the algorithms which provide the current possibilities within architecture, such as parametric design. We are living in the time of the algorithm which are pushing the limits of architecture.

The following case studies illustrates how computation can be used in architecture to generate form.

This is the last printable page in your book and will print on the left side.

12

CONCEPTUALISATION

“Within the last decade the appearance and evolution of the digital in architecture in integration with new digital technologies have begun to produce what might be termed a Vitruvian effect�

- Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman

CONCEPTUALISATION 13

CASE STUDY 1

PROJECT: ICD/ITKE RESEARCH PAVILLION ARCHITECT: ICD/ITKE DATE: 2011 LOCATION: BRUSSELS

FIG.8

FIG.9

BIOMIMICRY The use of computation allows us to understand the behaviour of complex systems found in nature. In the lightweight modular wood shell project, developed by the University of Stuttgart, they explored the biological system of a sand dollar plate skeleton and utilized this system to develop a finger joint which gave the pavilion high bearing capacity without any additional adhesive.8 It demonstrates the possibility of both the structural capacity and the architectural potential which can be achieved from biological mimicry through computational design.

The project shows how embedding the logics of natural structures into architectural design enables the designer to engage in the rich repertoire of material organization in nature, and recreate them at a large scale. In this case the analysis of the sand dollar provided the principles of the bionic structure which was used for the pavilion.9 Such computational techniques can be used and adapted to other projects and offers potential for future design.

14

CONCEPTUALISATION

A requirement for the realization of the pavilion is optimized data exchange, which made it possible to read the complex geometry and to analyse and modify the model. The computational model laid the basis for controlling a seven-axis robot, which made it possible to produce 850 different geometric components.

FIG.10

CONCEPTUALISATION 15

FIG.11

16

CONCEPTUALISATION

CASE STUDY 2 PROJECT: UNDERWOOD PAVILION ARCHITECT: GERNOT RIETHER DATE: 2014 LOCATION: MUNCIE

TENSEGRIT Y STRUCTURES Tensegrity structures are not often used in architecture today. The reason is due to difficulties to calculate and predict the structure, as they can only be achieved when the structure is in equilibrium.10 However, with the use of Grasshopper plug-ins spatial and environmental challenges can for the first time also be taken to account in the form finding process. This provides real time feedback of the structural behaviour, which is necessary to find the geometric shape of the building.

This case study demonstrates that with the use of new tools within Rhino, Grasshopper, Galapagos and Kangeroo, students at the Ball State University was able to create a parametric system which formed the Underwood Pavilion. Instead of using traditional modelling methods for form finding, the students used Grasshopper to investigate the tensegrity structure.

Accurate and easy to read models was essential for the designer to track complex behaviour of the elements, and was done by creating a system of colours, numbers and vectors. The system allowed for corresponding connections to be easily detected. Therefore, initial testing could be done at a rapid pace as many variations could be tested during the design process.

More investigation should be done on tensigrity structures as the system makes both lighter and stronger structures through tensioned members.

By replacing traditional methods by digital ones the design of such structure would be more achievable.

The findings from this project can be useful for further exploration of structural simulation and the possibilities of irregular tensegrity structures in the future.

CONCEPTUALISATION 17

A3: COMPOSITION/GENERATION “When architects have a sufficient understanding of algorithmic concepts, when we no longer need to discuss the digital as something different, then computation can become a true method of design for architecture.”

- Andrew Brady

Generation is the new alternative to composing. Traditionally, the design process is centred around a preconceived compositional idea in the mind of the designer. The longer into the design process, the more complicated would it be to do any changes to the design. Generation, on the other hand, opens up the possibility for the designer to handle complex designs with multiple variations. As Brady Peters expresses, “computation has the potential to provide inspiration and go beyond the intellect of the designer, like other techniques of architectural design, through the generation of unexpected results.” 11 Specifically, generational designs result in multiple of possible solutions formed by algorithms.

An algorithm, when restricted to computers, is a list of simple operations for the computer to do.12 It enables the designer to solve a problem through the writing and modification of codes, and as a result explore new solutions and potentials. The algorithms can contain a huge amount of real time data, such as structure, material and environment, which allow for optimisation of the design.

The following case studies illustrates how computation can be used in architecture to generate form.

This is the last printable page in your book and will print on the left side.

18

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG.12

CASE STUDY 1 PROJECT: BLOOM THE GAME ARCHITECT: JOSE SANCHEZ AND ALISA ANDRASEK DATE: 2012 LOCATION: LONDON

REPETITIVE DESIGN Thousands of identical and flexible elements which can be put together in multiple ways makes up the interactive and engaging installation for the festivities for the Olympic games in 2012.13 Algorithms was utilized to determine the geometry and the shape of the units. It was developed from recursive aggregation algorithms in a custom written software, and the geometry could be simulated in real time, which gave constant feedback to the designer.

Therefore, the geometry could be analysed and alternated to define the final formation. Certainly, this was important for the development of this project as the concept of the project was that one could alter its form to create compelling and stable structures.

What is interesting to note about this project is that each of the individual pieces are not interesting on its own, but when thousands are put together they bloom into amazing formations. It is able to adapt to different locations with a variety of different growth outcomes from simple connections. It is physical example of how computational architecture work - the use of simple rules can create complexity and variation.

FIG.13

CONCEPTUALISATION 19

CASE STUDY 2

PROJECT: AUTODESK PAVILION ARCHITECT: ANDREW PAYNE AND SEAN AHLQUIST DATE: 2016 LOCATION: LAS VEGAS

FIG.14

FIG.15

DESIGN EXPLOR ATION Although stone has been used for construction of buildings since the beginning of time, the techniques which has been used has not change. However, now that computers and software become more accessible, the possibilities has exploded. Andrew Payne´s design for the Autodesk Pavilion 2016 pushes boundaries with its exploration of the material.14 The pavilion is created from different materials, but has a seamless geometry. The base has solid monolithic elements, and was sculptured using robotic fabrication.

The stone base was connected to a lightweight textile structure which created a continues form in a seamless and smooth manner through CNC fabricated connections.

20

CONCEPTUALISATION

As the project had to be finished within three months, new work-flows had to be utilized to meet the deadline.

The relationships between the different professions become much more collaborative and with fastpace feedback. Furthermore, the break between software and fabrication was eliminated as it was generated straight to robotic-mill fabrication.

FIG.16 CONCEPTUALISATION 21

A.4 CONCLUSION Part A explores the use and impact of computational design in architecture in the 21st century. Not only does computational design change the way architects think and work, but it also expands the possibilities for what architecture can be. Paper is being replaced by computers, composing is being replaced by simulation, and crafting by designwritten software processes. We are entering an era were designers uses the computer not just as a recipient of information, but as a generator of design. This leads to many new possibilities for design, and possibly closer to a solution for a sustainable future.

22

CONCEPTUALISATION

The case studies in Part A presents projects where computational design methods has been utilized. Each case study explores different methodologies for an array of expression and material exploration. It reveals that computation allows for new ways to design, to fabricate and to work as an architect.

The ideas, methodologies and philosophies presented in part A will be applied to my design approach for the next stages.

A.5 LEARNING OUTCOMES With close to no previous background in architectural computation , the insight into this new and developing world has drastically broadens my perspective on what architecture can be. The past three weeks has given me a fundamental understanding of the concept and I am excited to further explore its potential.

CONCEPTUALISATION 23

A6: APPENDIX

WEEK 1 - TOWER

WEEK 2 - PIPPING

This is the last printable page in your book and will print on the left side.

24

CONCEPTUALISATION

WEEK 3 - CONTOUR

CONCEPTUALISATION 25

26

CRITERIA DESIGN

B: CRITERIA DESIGN B1

RESE ARCH FIELD

B2

CASE STUDY 1.0

B3

RE VERSE ENGINEERING

B4

TECHNIQUE DE VELOPMENT

B5

TECHNIQUE PROTOT YPE

B6

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

B7

LE ARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

B8

APPENDIX - ALGORITMIC SKETCHES

CRITERIA DESIGN

27

B1: RESEARCH FIELD The character of sustainability, as the term is being used today, is a reactive response to the industrial principals, and focuses on reducing the consumption of material and use of energy.1 Even though the attempt to stop depletion of natural resources, we are still going in a direction which is characterised by consumption. We are trapped in a industrial way of thinking which in best case scenario will slow down the massive social, environmental and economic impact.

We need to turn this around and be looking for alternative ways for sustainability. An architecture which is resilient to the forces which threatens the built environment. A new way of thinking, based on new knowledge.

28

CRITERIA DESIGN

GENETICS In nature, living organisms adapt to the environment through evolution. Variations of one species is created through mutations, selection and crossovers, and the most optimized variation to the environment is most likely to survive. 2 This concept of evolutionary form can be applied as the generative process for architectural design with help from the genetic algorithm.

The genetic algorithm is defined by Frazer as “ highly parallel evolutionary, adaptive search procedures.” It is characterised by a “string-like structure equivalent to the chromosome of nature”, which forms the control of a problem under investigation. 3 Variations are achieved from change of information and output a number of forms which can be selected from based on criteria.

The outcome is a optimized solution for the particular environment and the form is often unexpected.

It is particularly beneficial in situations were problems and criteria is stated clearly, for a successful and optimized solution. The emphasis is to generate the optimized solution, rather than the external form.

Chromosomes are the structure for genetics , and mutation and recombination are the operator.

- John Holland

CRITERIA DESIGN

29

B2 (A): L-SYSTEM AND LOOPS The Lindemayer systems (L-Systems) is the mathematical theory behind the growth development of a plant.4 It is a rewriting system which consists of a initial seed and applied rules which determines how the elements changes and progress in reference to the initial seed.

To experiment with this system, I used Hoopsnake and Rabbit plugin for grasshopper to achieve varieties of designs based on the L-system. Different rule has been applied for each of the sets and has been rewritten to create complex forms. It was interesting to see that a small change in the ruleset, angle increment, generations or changing in the coordinates created such a difference in the final outcome.

Generated using hoopsnake plugin 2nd generation

4th generation

6th generation

Changing the coordinates for the initial geometry generate very different forms.

5 generations changing of x coordinates

5 generations changing of y coordina

Generated using Rabbit plugin Axiom: F Ruleset: F=FF-(-F+F+F) +(F-F-F)

Same rule Generation 2

Generation3

30

CRITERIA DESIGN

ate

A simple set of carefully defined rules can produce a very complex object in a recursive process consisting of only a few levels - Branko Kolarevic

8th generation

10th generation

5 generations changing of coordinates to create twirling form

Creating large volume or ball form by chosing coordinate on extreme opposite ends.

Generation 4

Generation 5

CRITERIA DESIGN

31

B2 (A): L-SYSTEM AND LOOPS

Axiom: F Ruleset: F=F(+FF/)F(-F)F

Axiom: F Ruleset: F=F(+FF/)F(+F)F

Axiom: F Ruleset: F=F(+FF/)F(+

Axiom: X 1: X=F(+X)(-X)FX(+X) 2: F=FF/

Same ruleset Angle increment change from 24 to 50

angle increment 90

Axiom = X 1: X=F-((X)-X)-F(-FX)-X 2: F=FF

Axiom; X 1: X=FX((X)+X)-F(+FX 2: F=FF

Axiom = X 1: X=F-((X)+X)+F(+FX)-X 2: F=FF

32

CRITERIA DESIGN

+F)F(-FF)

X)+X

Axiom: F Ruleset: F=F(+FFFF/-F)F(+F)F(-FF)

Axiom: F Ruleset: F=F(-FFFF/-F)F(-FFF)F(-F)(-F) F(-FF)-F)

Angle increment 10

Angle increment 45

Axiom; X 1: X=FX((X)+X)-F(+FX)-X 2: F=FF

Axiom; X 1: X=FX((X)+X)-F(+X) 2: F=FF

CRITERIA DESIGN

33

B2(B): POLYOMINO ACADEMIC RESEARCH AT USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE PROJECT: BLOCKHUK DIRECTED BY: JOSE SANCHEZ DATE: 2015

The studio work, Polyomino, explores the topic of serial repetition and production. The intention of the project was to create a component which could reconsider industrial serialization, by generating variations and customization using combinatorics. 5 Serialized units is more economical than using custom parts, and therefore by creating design variations through patterns, the design becomes more economical and shareable.

The Bruckhuk is developed from only one unit type with properties that allows for different connections and therefore generates various aggregations and patterns. The quantity of the unit is the leading force to create mass, complexity and various assemblies.

The project is promoting a study for economical production, with a system which could be used in a range of different conditions. This is achieved through the unit which is the same, but it generates patterns and forms which are complex and varied and this allows for a more efficient design strategy.

The project proposes a breakthrough of finding affordable ways of design differentiation.

34

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG. 1 CRITERIA DESIGN

35

FIG.2

Computer software was used to visualize the potential of the unit.

Enabling the designer to see the different variations that could be created.

The properties of the component allows geometry to develop.

The development of how the component is able to connect is critical for the outcome of the final product.

FIG.3

36

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG.4

CRITERIA DESIGN

37

B2(C): COMPONENT DESIGN // MANUAL RECRUSION In this section a manual recursion technique was used to experiment further with the L-system and develop deeper understanding of the digital aggregation. I created four different components to generate four iterations with different rule-sets. Inspiration for the components are drawn from elements in nature and adjectives to work towards, such as “jagged”, “elegant” and “rocky”.

This section demonstrates how changing the rule-sets and the shape of the component will generate patterns and shapes which are significantly different from each other.

Component 1 38

CRITERIA DESIGN

Component 2

CRITERIA DESIGN

39

Component 3

40

CRITERIA DESIGN

Component 4

CRITERIA DESIGN

41

B3: REVERSE ENGINEERING

A never finished structure in constant fluctuation, finding moments of stability and moments of failure.6 - Jose Sanchez

In this section I will use the project “Bloom - The game “by Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez, as seen in part A3, to recreate the method for this design in grasshopper.

The research field “Genetics” can be identified in the shape of the Bloom structure, as a “string-like structure, as explained by Kolarevic.

The composition and logic of the structure is also built on this concept. One component is being reproduced and starts to grow based on pre established rules and generates a genetic based design.

After a few weeks of learning about grasshopper I will attempt to recreate the logic of The Bloom project.

42

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG. 5 CRITERIA DESIGN

43

Bloom

Recreate component

Trace component using Rhino

Booleon split to achive holes

Join Comp

Extrude shape

Create a right angle to the componen used to create p orienta

Place the compone to create dum

Referencing axiom and branches

Reference the axiom and redraw the heuristic curve in grasshopper. Then reference in the dummy branches and the point to start the growth.

Manual Vs Automated When comparing the two processes of manual vs automated recursion I noticed some significant differences. The manual process is without a doubt more time consuming and as the form becomes more complex the tougher becomes the process.

The automated process was quick and also gave the ability to easily alter the design if necessary.

It would be hard to do this in the manual process without having to start from the beginning.

Another thing worth noting is that the manual process made it easier to decide where to add volume or complexity since I was manually deciding where to add the components. This gives a more predictable outcome then the automated process.

44

CRITERIA DESIGN

Set the number of recrusions and run the loop. The aggregation will appear at the set point.

Edit ruleset and re run

m Project

ponents

e curve attached nt, which will be planes and for ation.

ents into sockets mmy branch.

Refrence component mesh

make the component into a mesh and reference it into the grasshopper algorithm.

Create a ruleset in grasshopper Set the axiom and play around with the ruleset in grasshopper until a desired outcome generates.

Bake

Rendering

DONE CRITERIA DESIGN

45

REVERSE ENGINEERING

46

FINAL OUTCOME

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

47

B4: TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT In the following section four new components are designed to further explore the possibilities of the automated design process. A set of different rules are applied to the algorithm to generate different results.

48

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

49

Component 1 - ruleset 1

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

50

CRITERIA DESIGN

B

C

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

51

Component 1 - ruleset 2

52

CRITERIA DESIGN

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

B

C CRITERIA DESIGN

53

Component 2 - ruleset 1

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

54

CRITERIA DESIGN

B

C

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

55

Component 2 - ruleset 2

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

56

CRITERIA DESIGN

B

C

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

57

Component 3 - ruleset 1

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

B

C

B

C

D

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

58

CRITERIA DESIGN

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

59

Component 3 - ruleset 2

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

B

C

B

C

D

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

60

CRITERIA DESIGN

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

61

A

B

C

B

C

D

Component 4 - ruleset 1

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

62

CRITERIA DESIGN

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

63

Component 4 - ruleset 2

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

B

C

B

C

D

Generation 3 Generation 2 Generation 1 Axiom A

64

CRITERIA DESIGN

D

CRITERIA DESIGN

65

B5: TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPES Prototyping plays a very important role in the development of a design, as it set the limitations to what can be produced in real life when translating from digital design to fabrication. The prototyping aims to explore the system and the possibilities of the final design. The information gathered is used to decide the optimal fabrication method for the final design.

Laser cutting or 3D printing are the two most suitable fabrication methods to create the components. Component 1 could be 3D printed, but the leafy look combined with structural abilities would probably not have the same look as in the digital world which makes this component difficult to make.

Component 2,3 and four could be laser cut and then assembled together. If component 3 would be laser cut it would have to be unfolded in rhino and then folded together after laser cutting.

A better alternative would be to 3D print this component.

66

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG.

CRITERIA DESIGN

67

Laser cutting is a good fabrication method for L-system designing, as it results in a very precise final outcome and it is easy to mass produce many components by just copying and pasting the component across on sheet. Alterations only has to be done when there is a custom piece. The limitation of laser cutting is that it can not cut at an angle. This limits both the shape of the component and the options for connecting the pieces.

68

CRITERIA DESIGN

For this section the component has been further developed and detailed to make fabrication feasible. There are multiple ways to connect the components together using the sockets, hence various aggregations can be generated. The sockets has to be the same size as the material thickness to create a firm connection

The outline of the component is fitted into a sheet with the appropriate dimensions according to the material being used. The component is then repeated across the sheet with as little space in between each of them to minimize waste.

A test fabrication job was done to develop a understanding of the fabrication method and see if the slots worked. Two different shapes was used and could be assembled together using the slots created.

CRITERIA DESIGN

69

B6: TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL The design will be set in the atrium of the Melbourne school of design building at the Melbourne University.

The space is large and open and has many sources for natural lighting, which can provide fun play with light and shadow for the design. Furthermore, the space has multiple opportunities for interaction between the space and the design, such as the timber shaft coming down from the ceiling, the student desks or the stairs from the second floor, hence providing potential for collisions and interactions with the environment. This aspect will be further explored and developed at a later stage.

70

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG. 7 CRITERIA DESIGN

71

B6: TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

72

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

73

74 74

CONCEPTUALISATION CRITERIA DESIGN

B.7 LEARNING OUTCOMES Studying and practicing computational design has opened my eyes to many new possibilities, and approaches to design. Various techniques has been used through this design development and has widened my capabilities within computational design.

Modelling using algorithms allows for a real time visualization of the design and a greater f lexibility to improve and modify the design. This enables us to push the design beyond conceivable results. However, I will continue to spend time on practicing and develop my understanding of grasshopper algorithms to be able to come closer to optimised solutions.

CONCEPTUALISATION 75 CRITERIA DESIGN 75

B8: APPENDIX

76

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

77

78

CRITERIA DESIGN

CRITERIA DESIGN

79

80

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C: DETAILED DESIGN C1

DESIGN CONCEPT

C2

TECTONIC ELEMENTS AND PROTOTYPES

C3

FINAL DETAILED MODEL

C4

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOME

IMAGE REFERENCING TEXT REFERENCING

PROJECT PROPOSAL

81

C1: DESIGN CONCEPT

82

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Interim Feedback 1. Components are lacking in detail and complexity 2. Do not restrict component for easy fabrication 3. Sockets needs to be clearly shown in technical diagrams for each connection 4. The aggregation need more geometry to respond to, such as steps or furniture.

5. Need support system

Based on the response from the interim feedback my approach was to...

1. Create two new components that are three dimensional and more complex. Both created with sockets.

2. Started to think about new methods for fabrication, not just laser-cutting.

3. Moved the geometry to the end of the table in the MSD, providing more geometry to react to, such as furniture, walls, windows and openings.

4. Designed a support system in the same style as the component for a transparent transaction.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

83

component Design v.1 Connect component

Discover sequences you like

Build

The first component is a further development of component 4 in part B. It consists of planar triangle surfaces with different sized holes in them. Working with a slight angle difference in the connections allowed for the generation of volumetric geometries.

84

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

85

Component design V.2

Connect component

Discover sequences you like

Build

The second component explores patterns inspired by the natural form of placoid scales. It is connected in three different places to create linear, spiral patterns or growth out in various directions.

The combination of specific rules and flexible connections provides complex forms to develop.

After reviewing the two components in class, I decided to use component 2 for further development.

86

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

87

DESIGN CONCEPT

Key Concept

Component

The future of architectur is moving towards a uniting of the terms “technology” and “nature”. The natural systems are being adapted and improved by technological abilities of modern society, and creating architecture which is becoming almost alive and responsive to its context.

I looked into decoding the structures of natural systems by exploring different building blocks found in nature. I came across a microscopic photo of the shark skin (Image: 1), which is composed by placoid scales, which is what covers the skin of sharks and rays. They are uniform in shape and size and produce irregular forms. The shape provides the possibility to both shelter and to open up, to shock or engage, and is smooth in one direction and sharp in the other.

The L-system is a system which incorporates both of these factors, and is the methodology applied for this project. It utilizes a generative logic which simulates natural plant growth. The combination of the generative rules and the individual component creates the structure.

Image 1: microscopic photo of placoid scale

88

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Tectonic

Form

The set of rules was selected after testing different variations in search for a desirable architectural effect. 4 different rules where applied to the design to create variation of smooth areas and sharp, open areas and closed. Conditional rules where applied to avoid collisions with another component or another object in the environment, such as the floor or the table. The structure would stop growing if it grew into any permanent structure.

My proposal for a design for the Melbourne School of Design aims to be more than just a structure, but a exploration of a system, with the ability to evolve and be flexible in relation to changes in the site.

To do this, the project focuses on the digital form finding process recursive aggregation, as explored in previous sections, to create linear, spiral patterns or growth out in various directions. The combination of the application of specific rules and flexible connections gives the project its final form.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

89

New Component

1. The final component surface was created from a continuous line and a single point charge at the bottom, which dragged the surface into its dynamic shape.

Back

90

2. The surface was surfaces was joine

Side

PROJECT PROPOSAL

s then mirrored and the two ed at meeting edges.

3. To finalise the component the tip of the component was capped to create a closed poly-surface.

Sockets was also created after testing out which connections gave the most desirable results.

Front

FIG. 1 PROJECT PROPOSAL

91

Connections

B

A

c

B

c A

92

PROJECT PROPOSAL

The component uses sockets to connect, 3 in total for each variation. They had to be deep enough for the component to have proper support and be accurate for proper fit and correct angles. The connections were directional and only slightly angled to prevent chaotic aggregations.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

93

94

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

95

THE DESIGN

Scale form

Examining an algorithmic technique known as 'Recursive Aggregation’

Scale Scale behaviour properties

Inspired by genetics: Placoid scale

Assymetrical Directional At least 3 joints

Design Concept: Recursive aggregation methadology

L-system

96

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Precedents: The bloom reverse engineering

Join surfac together

Developing comp

DEVELOPING T PARAMETRI MODEL

IDEATION

DESIGN BRIEF

Component requirements:

Trace and loft to create shape

Form finding Developing aggre

Join components

Create a ruleset

N WORKFLOW

ces r

Cap to create closed polysurface

ponent

THE IC

g: egation

a t

Set number of recrusions

CNC milling

Vac former

Assembeling

Fabrication method of 1:1 model

Finelising digital model

PROTOTYPING

FINALISING

Fabrication method of 1:25 model

Finelising prototype and chunk model

Lasercutting

Assembeling

PROJECT PROPOSAL

97

C.2. TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES The fabrication process was done through a process of CNC milling two moulds which then was used in the vacuum former to create the surfaces. The two mirrored surfaces was then glued together and I had an attempt to make sockets for connections. Finally, the componenst where spray painted black.

Further study of the resistance and flexibility of the pieces needs to be done to create enough friction and to create good connections.

MDF moulds

Image: 2 Vacuum former

Image 3: CNC millier 98

PROJECT PROPOSAL

MDF mould close up

One vac formed surface

One component, connected and spraypainted black.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

99

Component Prototype I chose the processes of CNC milling and Vacuum forming the component, as I would be able to obtain a surface finish closest to design intent. I was also curious to learn new fabrication methods other than laser cutting and 3D printing.

The shape of the component came out quite well and my skill developed throughout the process.

However, the end product did not come out quite as intended as a lot of challenges had to be handled during the fabrication process, such as: •

Sockets couldn’t be incorporated in the CNC milling or Vacuum forming process. Had to be done by hand.

•

The surfaces had to be cut by hand to get rid of the excess plastic. This process was time consuming and not very precise.

•

The process was quite time consuming, and would therefore not be feasible for the production of hundreds of components.

I think the prototype satisfy the initial stage to demonstrate how the system works. However, for the final structure more prototyping would be required to achieve well performing sockets. Injection moulding, where polypropylene is fed into a metal mould cavity, might be an alternative to produce a satisfying unit with resistance and flexibility and precise sockets. This process also satisfy the ability to produce hundreds of components with little waste and within a short time.

100

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

101

102

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

103

PLACOID Ragnhild Ongstad

104

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.3. FINAL DETAILED MODEL

SIte: Melbourne school of design atrium Located in the Atrium of the Melbourne school of design, the pavilion is a source of engagement and provokes curiosity and invites creative students to experience something new and unusual.

The structure is placed by the east entrance of the building, framing the entrance and creating a instant reaction from those who enter the building, evoking both curiosity and intimidation. The character of the structure invites for ambient reading, as one can focus on either one single component or on the structure as a whole. Our brain naturally works by constantly searching for patterns or to distinguish figures within a disorder, and the mass appearance of the structure will therefore allow the viewers to find their own interpretation or association. Hence its perfect for creative stimulus in the Melbourne School of design.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

105

Chunk physical model For the final presentation a chunk model of the design, in scale 1:25, was created to be able to experience how the aggregation would be expressed. The unit was laser-cut and then I used glue to assemble while following the rule-set.

FABRICATION PROCESS

106

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

107

Digital model

108

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PLAN 1:25 @ A3

SECTION AA 1:25 @ A3 PROJECT PROPOSAL

109

110

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

111

112

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

113

A.4 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES Participating in Design studio Air has drastically broadened my insight into the new and developing world of computational design and what architecture potentially can be. From the discussions of readings in the tutorials we gained knowledge about the possibilities. Following that, I gained some real experience on what can be conceived through the making of a digital design and translating it to a physical product.

It has left me with a lot of new knowledge and skills on computational designing and fabrication processes, and opened my mind to the expanding possibilities of materials and fabrication methods which is available.

Since the subject is very intensive, I have been required to develop and use multiple skills at the same time during the past three months.

My digital skills has improved significantly, through the use of Rhino, Grasshopper and Adobe software’s. Moreover, I am now a lot more comfortable using the FABLAB tools and machines. I have familiarised myself with the vac former and CNC cutter, which provides me with useful knowledge for future design projects.

Prototyping has been an important factor through part B and C. I was able to explore many ideas through the use of computational design , however, due to real-life factors such as material properties and gravity, testing the ideas is important for realisation. I met several challenges during the prototyping, and some are yet to be resolved. However, a lot of experience is gained through this process and helps me towards an optimal outcome.

114

PROJECT PROPOSAL

I am also enlightened by the endless possibilities of designing. It has been inspiring to be working on, as well as seeing other student, developing a design from digital to true models. The varieties of outcomes has been incredible and its exciting to learn how computational design can be used in so many different designs.

Lastly,I have gained experience in the level of work, risks, innovation and care which is necessary to achieve the required result. Throughout this semester I have faced a lot of challenges which needed to be resolved. And here, the studio critique and feedback has helped me on my way to overcome this obstacles, to move forward and also helped to push the design by taking risks and challenging myself. I believe that risk is where true innovation occurs, while technology enables us to create certainty and precision to those innovations.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

115

TEXT REFERENCING A Conceptulication

B Conceptualisation

A1: Design futuring

B1: Research field

(1) Fry, Tony. 2009. Design futuring - Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. (New York: Berg), P. 4

Los Angeles Rams Stadium (2) Menges, Achim, Bob Sheil, Ruairi Glynn, and Marilena Skavara. 2017.

“Automated Design-To-Fabrication For Architectural Envelopes/ A Sstadium Skin Case Study.” Fabricate (UCL PRESS) (3): P. 36-43.

Philips Pavilion (3) Clarke, Joseph. 2012. “Iannis Xenakis and the Philips Pavilion.” The Journal of Architecture 17 (2): 213-229.

(4) Oxman, Rivka, and Robert Oxman. 2014. “Theories of the Digital in Architecture.” Routledge (Vitruvius Digitalis) 1-10.

(5) “Philips Pavilion - Le Corbusier And Xenakis - Expo 58 (Part 01)”. 2018.

Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3cKxLxq-Xw.

A2: Design Computation (6) Oxman, Rivka, and Robert Oxman. 2014. “Theories of the Digital in Architecture.” Routledge (Vitruvius Digitalis) p. 1-10.

(7) Kalay, Yehuda E. 2004. “Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p.

5-25

ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 (8) “ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2011 | Institute For Computational Design And Construction”. 2018. Icd.Uni-Stuttgart.De. http://icd.uni-stuttgart. de/?p=6553.

(9) “Achim Menges: Rethinking Materiality Through Computation In Architecture”. 2018. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbgArau_4vI.

Underwood Pavilion (10) Riether, Gernot, Andrew Wit, and Steven Putt. 2015. “The Underwood Pavilion - An investigation in parametric tensegrity structures.” Emerging experience in Past, Present and Future of Digital Architecture 663-672.

A3: Composition/generation (11) Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83, 2, p. 10 (12)Definition of ‘Algorithm’ in Wilson, Robert A. and Frank C. Keil, eds (1999).

The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (London: MIT Press), p. 11

Bloom - The Game (13) Furuto, Alison. 2012. “BLOOM - A Crowd Sourced Garden / Alisa Andrasek And Jose Sanchez”. Archdaily. https://www.archdaily.com/269012/ bloom-a-crowd-sourced-garden-alisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez.

Autodesk pavilion (14 ) Payne, Andrew. 2016. “Autodesk University 2016 Generative Design Pavilion | Dynamo BIM”. Dynamobim.Org. http://dynamobim.org/autodeskuniversity-2016-generative-design-pavilion/.

116

CONCEPTUALISATION

(1) Frazer, John. 2009. An evolutionary Architecture. London: Architectural association. P. 19.

(2) Kolarevic, Branko. 2005. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing. New york: Taylor & Francis. P. 37 (3) Frazer, John. 2009. An evolutionary Architecture. London: Architectural association. P. 60

B2: (4) Prusinkiewicz, Przemyslaw, and Aristid Lindenmayer. 1990. Graphical modeling using L-systems. New York: Springer. P. 1-2.

(5) Sanchez, JOse. 2008. The plethora-project. Accessed 04 15, 2018. https:// www.plethora-project.com/polyomino-iii/.

B3: (6) Andrasek, Alisa, and Jose Sanchez. 2012. Plethora-project. Accessed 04 14, 2018. https://www.plethora-project.com/bloom.

Fraz

IMAGE REFERENCING A: Introduction Fig. 1 Mitra, Sohan. 2017. Digital design and fabrication project.

Los Angeles Rams Stadium Fig. 2 Menges, Achim. 2018. NFL Stadium. Photograph. Fabricate. P. 36/37 Fig. 3 Menges, Achim. 2018. NFL Stadium. Photograph. Fabricate. P. 39

Philips Pavilion Fig. 4 Royal BAM Group nv, Bunnik,The Netherlands. 1958 Fig. 5. Hans de Boer; # 2012 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris / FLC).

Fig. 6 Xenakis, drawings: originally published in Philips Technical Review, 20:1 (1958/ 1959); (courtesy Philips Electronics).

Fig. 7 Clarke, Joseph. 2012. Image. ‘Stomach’ plan produced by intersection with ground plane’

ISD/ITKE RESEARCHH PAVILION 2011 Fig. 8 Courtesy of ICD/ITKE. 2011. Image. http://icd.uni-stuttgart. de/?p=6553 Fig. 9 Courtesy of ICD/ITKE. 2011. Image. http://icd.uni-stuttgart. de/?p=6553 Fig. 10 Halbe, Roland. 2011. Photograph. http://icd.uni-stuttgart. de/?p=6553.

B3: Reverse engineering Fig. 5 Jose Sanchez. 2012. Photograph. https://www.plethora-project.com/ bloom/

B5: Fig. 6 Melbourne university. 2018. Photograph. https://edsc.unimelb.edu.au/ maker-spaces/fablab/services/laser-cutting

B6:

Fig. 7. John Horner. 2015. Photograph. https://www.archdaily.com.br/ br/772058/escola-de-design-da-universidade-de-melbourne-john-wardlearchitects-plus-nadaaa.

Design Concept Image 1: Courtesy of http://uaddit.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=717

Los Angeles Rams Stadium Image. 2: Courtesy of Produc development inc. 2011. Image. https://www. pdi3d.com/Formech_508DT_p/formech-508dt.htm Image. 3: Courtesy of Fablab Melbourne school of design. 2017. Image. https://edsc.unimelb.edu.au/maker-spaces/fablab/services/cnc-milling

Underwood Pavilion

Fig.11 Riether, Gernot. 2014Underwood pavilion. Photograph. https:// images.adsttc.com/media/images/542d/b723/c07a/80c9/ea00/0426/large_ jpg/01_Exterior.jpg?1412282097

Bloom - The game Fig. 12 Courtesy of Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez. 2012. Bloom. Photograph. https://www.archdaily.com/269012/bloom-a-crowd-sourced-gardenalisa-andrasek-and-jose-sanchez/img_3588 Fig. 13 Courtesy of Alisa Andrasek and Jose Sanchez. 2012. Bloom. Photograph. http://www.indiecade.com/games/selected/bloom-the-game

Autodesk Pavilion Fig. 14 Courtesy of Seyedahmadian, Ali. 2016. Photograph. https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5890/e5bd/e58e/ce9e/0e00/000e/large_jpg/ AU_Generative_Design_Pavilion_(2_of_31).jpg?1485890964 Fig. 15 Courtesy of Seyedahmadian, Ali. 2016. Photograph. https://images. adsttc.com/media/images/5890/e584/e58e/ceb7/6c00/0025/large_jpg/Design_process_-_Photo_courtesy_of_Stebs_Schinnerer..jpg?1485890945 Fig. 16 Courtesy of Payne, Andrew. 2016. Photograph. https://images.adsttc. com/media/images/5890/e576/e58e/ceb7/6c00/0024/large_jpg/AU_Generative_Design_Pavilion_(4_of_31).jpg?1485890902

B2: Fig. 1 Jose Sanchez. 2008. Photograph. https://www.plethora-project.com/ polyomino-iii/.

Fig 2. Jose Sanchez. 2008. Photograph. https://www.plethora-project.com/ polyomino-iii/.

Fig 3.Jose Sanchez. 2008. Digital render. https://www.plethora-project.com/ polyomino-iii/.

Fig. 4. Jose Sanchez. 2008. Photograph. https://www.plethora-project.com/ polyomino-iii/.

CONCEPTUALISATION 117