studio air journal by Romana Radunkovic

AIR STUDIO

ROMANA RADUNKOVIC SM1 2017, MANUEL

Table of Contents

3 PART A: CONCEPTUALISATION 4â&#x20AC;&#x192;Introduction 6 A.1 Design Futuring 10 A.2 Design Computation 16 A.3 Composition/Generation 20 A.4 Conclusion 21 A.5 Learning Outcomes 22 A.6 Appendix 26 Part A Bibliography

28 PART B: CRITERIA DESIGN 30 B.1 Research Field 34 B.2 Case Study 1.0 44 B.3 Case Study 2.0 52 B.4 Technique: Development 60 B.5 Technique: Prototypes 66 B.6 Technique: Proposal 72 B.7 Learning Objectives and Outcomes 74 B.8 Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches 82 Part B Bibliography

85 PART C: DETAILED DESIGN 86 C.1 Design Concept 102 C.2 Design Process 136 C.3 Final Proposal 154 C.4 Learning Objectives and Outcomes 158 Part C Bibliography

PART CONCEPTUALISATION

Introduction

something come to life before my eyes, especially when I have some input into this. It’s a great feeling when there is so much work and time put into something and at the end of it all you’re able to sit back and relax and be filled with achievement and pride that you made something out of nothing – especially when this is something that will benefit others.

My name is Romana Radunkovic and I am a third year Bachelor of Environments student majoring in architecture and planning to go on to do my Masters in Architecture. I have been a student basically all my life - from high school I jumped right into university and so any experience I do have with design or digital design specifically has only been theoretical and in response to subject design briefs; rather than any real world practice. I am a hands on person. Normally, I am very impatient but when it comes to cutting box board down to the nearest mm and sitting still for 10 minutes to hold two pieces together so they stick - I could do it day in and day out. I just love to watch

I am very interested with design at a residential scale and working to achieve a design that mirrors the clients individual personality and lifestyle. To create space where the built form has a harmonious relationship with its social surroundings. Not that I don’t value this at a commercial level – that is still an interesting field for me and I am excited to throw myself into it to create a space representing its surroundings but also its social scene and culture, identity and experience. My experience in architectural design so far has been Studio Water and Designing Environments. The only experience I have with digital architecture was through Digital Design and Fabrication (DDF) where I worked in a team to create a sleeping pod for university students where we had to digitally tweak and manipulate our design and physically fabricate prototypes and the final piece. DDF was an extremely challenging subject for me as we were not properly taught to use the program but our brief specified the use of digital design

2nd Skin Project

The Expanding Paraboloid 6

CONCEPTUALISATION

possibilities and how digital design and idea development interrelated. I thought it was quite a positive challenge though as in the end there was a sense of pride in being able to master an aspect of this program and see how awesome it was to have an initial idea and then use digital design theory and tools to manipulate it, push its boundaries, tweak it, etc. to see what works and what doesn’t and in the end come up with something that meets the brief but also works successfully and is brought to life through the power of fabricating based off the refined digital design. I have probably only used rhino at a beginner level but am pretty comfortable with its basic components and picking it up quite quickly. I have not used grasshopper before and going into Studio Air I don’t really have a grasp on it or a basic understanding of it as it’s a bit hard for me to wrap my head around what it actually is. Therefore the opportunities of digital design are quite unfamiliar to me. I think its quite hard to learn to use a 3D digital modelling program just by watching videos or having it explained to you – it is something I have realised I pick up a lot easier by being thrown in the deep end and finding my way around which I hope to do through this journal.

FIG.1: ‘THE EXPANDING PARABALOID’ SLEEPING POD CREATING IN DIGITAL DESIGN AND FABRICATION. TEAM MEMBERS: LUCY JENKINS, MARYANNE MCREDMOND, ROMANA RADUNKOVIC

CONCEPTUALISATION 7

FIG 2. PURE TENSION SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.SUCKERPUNCHDAILY.COM/2013/07/19/PURE-TENSION/ 6

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.1

DESIGN FUTURING PURE Tension by Synthesis Design + Architecture (SDA) This is the design for a trade show pavilion showcasing a car.The theory behind the design was not traditional based on rules of a regular trade show pavilion but rather SDA incorporated the idea of the car being showcased into the design of the pavilion to make it mirror the flexible and sustainable vehicle. They were successful in combing a number of versatile elements – dynamism, interactivity, aesthetics, functionality, competence – into a high-performance temporary structure. The structure stood out amongst 150 submissions from around the world as it offered an advancement of technology – it embodied what good design has sought for generations: visual impact and high quality, yet it was able to incorporate this with today’s growing need of design ideas which are sustainable and do more than just satisfy the brief it asks for today – but keeps the future in mind and acts in a sustainable manner which is done here through the use of materials which integrates form, structure, functionality and performance and taking it one step further – acting as a photovoltaic shelter. The design can be seen as something revolutionary in today’s design society. It has aided in the search for sustainability-addressed design that is sought after today as it pushes the boundaries of sustainability to include the culture of today, identity, permanence, materiality and personal mobility. Not only does the design itself take on a radical approach by seamlessly integrating all of its components and intended uses theoretically, but its physical shape takes on board the traits of its temporary and sustainable counterparts by being mobile and collapsible allowing it to be transported with ease and built up and taken apart when necessary, despite looking like a whole, complete, seamless structure. This easy level of construction means smaller crews and installation equipment aiding in cost saving. What the structure includes is something that hasn’t been seen in such a way. It offers a radical approach to designing something and meeting a brief whilst ensuring that there is more use for this structure and it will survive and go well beyond its use for what is was intended as it is adaptable to be used in the future for other possible situations. The photovoltaics allow the structure to function as a charger for the car on display; demonstrating its energy, efficiency and sustainability. SDA expands future possibilities by being on the frontier of a design cataclysm that designs for the future by pushing boundaries of values, materials, and geometries and bringing this together with high quality performance and dynamism to create visual impact and experience along with long term, sustainable, efficient and effective use.

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.1

DESIGN FUTURING Burnham Pavilion by Zaha Hadid Architects The Burnham Pavilion is something intended to encourage its visitors to consider the future of Chicago meaning that the design theories and components that it employs are examined and integrated to the degree which the architects believe is the way of the future. Its merging of new formal concepts with traditional aspects of the city is not necessarily something new – but it does mean that the outcome does become something that is unprecedented. There is a sense of emphasis on innovative ideas and technologies that are used with the future in mind and reinventing and improving upon existing conditions to match what is required for the future as it is clear that it does not fit into the present any more. What is quite notable in this design is that its reference to the past and its involvement in today and the future is taken through the entire structure and design. The interior serves as a screen to show a video exploring Chicago’s past and future. The materials used are traditional but are incorporated in a contemporary, high-tech manner. The design is also able to be reused and rebuilt in other sites. These are all factors that show the forward-thinking of the architects here and their use of traditional means manipulated and reimagined into new systems that do not cater just to today – but are used a design method with the future in mind. In a way the Zaha Hadid Architects are contributing to the new patterns of living and ways of thinking that are concerned with understanding the future and taking small steps to change the way we design and what we design for to ensure there won’t be an end and the future will be sustained. This is done by firstly creating structures and using materials that are recyclable and reusable and secondly inspire new designs that engage these theories and take larger steps in causing change in the world and expanding future possibilities.

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG 3. BURNHAM PAVILION SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.ZAHA-HADID.COM/ARCHITECTURE/BURNHAM-PAVILLION/

CONCEPTUALISATION 11

FIG 4. MORPHEUS TOWER SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.ZAHA-HADID.COM/INTERIOR-DESIGN/ CITY-OF-DREAMS-HOTEL-TOWER-COTAI-MACAU/ 12

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.2

DESIGN COMPUTATION

Computation as a part of the architectural design process is not necessarily something new. However – the possibilities that it offers are everchanging and have drastically developed over the last decade from only offering up a device that is able to draw lines to the creation of a digital realm that could essentially create a new ecology. Buro Happold engineers used parametric design techniques to achieve and design 2,500 complex steelwork connections for the exo skeleton of Zaha Hadid Architect’s Morpheus tower[1]. The opportunities of computational design allowed a tailored approach to process the vast number of unique models and visual each connection in the digital realm before any fabrication occurred. The outcome of this was that the use of resources and time were drastically minimised. The use of computing in designing, in particular architectural design, has allowed the creation of interdependency amongst the design itself and the technologies used to develop it[2]. Computing can be used to re define practice in the same way it has changed design processes in the shipbuilding, automatic and aerospace industries[3]. The design of ships and many appliances and vehicles takes place solely in the design realm as of late. The development, analysis and testing is all done digitally and this information is then communicated to digitally-driven technologies for manufacturing, which is definitely something that shows a lot of promise for the building industry.

1. BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING, ‘25 UNIQUE CONNECTIONS, 40 FLOORS, ONE HOTEL OF DREAMS’, < HTTP://WWW.BUROHAPPOLD.COM/THE-LAB/ONE-DREAM-2500-UNIQUE-CONNECTIONS/> 2. RIVKA OXMAN, ROBERT OXMAN, ‘INTRODUCTION’, IN THEORIES OF THE DIGITAL IN ARCHITECTURE, (NEW YORK: ROUTLEDGE NEW YORK, 2014), PP. 1-10. 3. BRANKO KOLAREVIC, ARCHITECTURE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING (NEW YORK; LONDON: SPON PRESS, 2003), PP. 3-62.

CONCEPTUALISATION 13

A.2

DESIGN COMPUTATION

FIG 5. CIAB PAVILION SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.BOLLINGER-GROHMANN.COM/ PROGETTI.PROGETTI.CIAB-PAVILION.HTML

CONCEPTUALISATION

The CIAB pavilion designed by Zaha Hadid Architects and engineered by Bollinger-Grohmann represents the interwoven relationship of the engineer and architectect which has arisen from computational design. The engineers worked with the architects to develop a form that would be able to sustain the stresses and forces imposed on it through the digital realm which ensured structural efficiency whilst still maintaining aesthetics. This was done through the optimisation of numerous design iterations which were the result of the possibilities of digital design. Through computation, the integrity of the building was able to be tested in conjunction with creating the design itself in terms of concept and details and what is significant to remember is that this testing and optimising was achievable within only a few week[1] . Therefore, computing aids in the design process by building a symbiotic relationship with the human to offer the skills and abilities needed to problem solve and design which we humans do not possess, whilst leaving room and taking advantage of the skills that humans do have. In parametric design, there exists an infinite assortment of different potential outcomes rather than fixed solutions by not limiting the design to a shape but rather a set of parameters which are able to vary according to the entered values, resulting in different outcomes of forms[2].

1. BOLLINGER-GROHMANN, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;CIAB PAVILIONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, PROJECTS, < HTTP://WWW.BOLLINGER-GROHMANN. COM/PROJECTS.PROJECT.CIAB-PAVILION.HTML?F=9778E404-5801-0B76-5EE6-EFE87B64483F> 2. BRANKO KOLAREVIC, ARCHITECTURE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING, PP. 3-62.

CONCEPTUALISATION 15

Computation presents an idea of digital morphogenesis in which form is created through the amalgamation of the driving contextual forces and the material attributes. This design thinking using informed performative design theory revolving around parametric algorithms that specify generative processes allows for the production of architecture form that responds to its environmental context[1]. Foster and Partners’ Abu Dhabi World Trade Center is a unique design specific to its environmental context that has been able to be achieved through computational analysis[2]. The basis of the form of the building lies in the logic behind its performance in relation to its environment including climate and topography, and its economic and social activity. The parametric design approach has offered a new form of logic based on the whole and its parts and how this is related to its specific context.

1. RIVKA OXMAN, ROBERT OXMAN, ‘INTRODUCTION’, IN THEORIES OF THE DIGITAL IN ARCHITECTURE, PP. 1-10. 2. FOSTER AND PARTNERS, ‘AL RAHA BEACH DEVELOPMENT’, PROJECTS, < HTTP://WWW. FOSTERANDPARTNERS.COM/PROJECTS/AL-RAHA-BEACH-DEVELOPMENT/> 3. BRANKO KOLAREVIC, ARCHITECTURE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING, PP. 3-62

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.2

DESIGN COMPUTATION In architectural history, there has been a move away from the replication of styles and toward design that is based on the fundamental elements of nature. Natural form has been considered as a place to learn how things work and buildings have been designed to mirror these components not in their aesthetic qualities but in their structural and behavioural properties. Computation now allows us to delve even further into nature as a precedent by letting us mimic its biological properties and how things grow in response to their environmental context and reflecting this in our digital realm to produce unique form that responds to its individual environment. Following on from this, just as there are variations in the same species of living organisms due to mixing of genes and mutated growth â&#x20AC;&#x201C; so too can there exist digital hybrid forms that result from very similar or very different forms merging together in an exchange of information that occurs the same way in biological morphogenesis[3].

FIG 6. ABU DHABI WORLD TRADE CENTER SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.FOSTERANDPARTNERS.COM/ PROJECTS/AL-RAHA-BEACH-DEVELOPMENT/

CONCEPTUALISATION 17

A.3

COMPOSITION/GENERATION Compositional design is what we have come to know throughout the history of architectural design. It is about organisation with clear concentration on the way something is made up. Composition design is the way pattern and form comes to be through components being put together. Generative design on the other hand is something that has risen in popularity in recent decades. It is a notion which looks at logic behind the growth and behaviour of things and is primarily based on a set of rules which form and pattern emerges from. Generation considers the interdependency of parts of a whole and how one aspect is informed by a rule and how this impacts upon its neighbours and vice versa. Generative design allows humans to go beyond their creative means and explore vast amounts of variations of a design outcome. It is a system that mirrors the biology in organisms and a sort of individual genetic code is developed for each form and pattern that dictates its growth and behaviour; and ultimately the design outcome. Design Dot Stuido’s Paskan tower is essentially a living form and its organic design has grown in relation to its environmental context, its functions, and sustainabilit[1] . Using parametric design, the team has been able to achieve a building that is dynamic and flexible allowing it to respond to its surroundings and blend into its environment as though it has grown out of it. The use of generative design in this instance has allowed for the creation of an overall complex form that relies on the relationship between its parts and whole through a self-generative system that is responsive to its context. This shows how generative design has been able to open up a world of new possibilities and create these ecological structures that behave as a second-nature which is something that could not have necessarily been achieved prior to this. Computation is changing the way architectural practice works. Through creating these algorithms and understanding and manipulating these codes, architects are becoming software engineers along the design process[2]. Design software is being made by the architects themselves as they develop their understanding of scripting cultures, parametric modelling and algorithmic thinking. Advances in design and building are constantly occurring as architects are able to virtually experiment with building performance, materials, and parameters as well as integrate performance analysis and environmental context within the digital realm in order to reach the desired design solution – or in this case the unanticipated but perfectly fitting solution to the design problem. The designer is still in control with the use of algorithms which are coded to tell the computer what needs to be done and how it should be done – which is this set of rules that informs design solutions ; often including many that the designer themselves would not have envisioned[3]. This is why generative design is so promising – it has the potential to grow an organic structure with unique and individual features that respond to design briefs and environmental context and ultimately change the foundations of the practice of architectural design. 1. MAHDIAR GHAFFARIAN, ‘PASKAN TOWER’, <HTTP://WWW.CTBUH.ORG/TALLBUILDINGS/ACADEMICSTUDENTWORK/ UNIVERSITYOFCALGARY/2012SINCLAIRSTUDIO/FRACTURE/TABID/6030/LANGUAGE/EN-US/DEFAULT.ASPX> 2. BRADY PETERS, ‘COMPUTATION WORKS: THE BUILDING OF ALGORITHMIC THOUGHT’, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, 83 (2013), 2 (P. 11) 3. FRANK KEIL, ROBERT WILSON, ‘DEFINITION OF ‘ALGORITHM’’, IN THE MIT ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE COGNITIVE SCIENCES, (LONDON: MIT PRESS, 1999), PP. 11-12.

CONCEPTUALISATION

FIG 7. PASKAN TOWER SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.CTBUH.ORG/TALLBUILDINGS/ACADEMICSTUDENTWORK/ UNIVERSITYOFCALGARY/2012SINCLAIRSTUDIO/FRACTURE/TABID/6030/LANGUAGE/EN-US/DEFAULT.ASPX CONCEPTUALISATION 19

FIG 8. SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS SOURCE: FIG 8. HTTP://WWW.MICHAEL-HANSMEYER.COM/PROJECTS/COLUMNS.HTML#1 SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.MICHAEL-HANSMEYER.COM/PROJECTS/COLUMNS.HTML#1 20

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.3

COMPOSITION/GENERATION Computation provides the resources for the designer to think completely out of the box and generate unanticipated results[1]. The designer is still in control of the design as it is their job to sketch the algorithms in a code that the computer understands and knowing how to tweak and control the data in the code in order to discover further outcomes. Michael Hansmeyer’s Subdivided Columns are an example of how the designer is able to script an algorithm to produce form which is the basis of generative design; rather than design form directly. In this case the designer does not design the column, but rather designs the script that will then grow the column[2]. By playing around with parameters, various outcomes of these scripts can be conceived which “strikes a delicate balance between the expected and the unexpected”[3]. The design process generates the entire design – that is the whole and its parts down to miniscule detail that would otherwise have been unachievable through traditional methods. An important thing to note is that this can lead to unique, non-standardised and unprecedented architecture of a complex nature that is specific to its context. Whilst the possibilities of generative design are exciting, they do have their shortcomings. The designer must really be able to understand their algorithmic scripts – what they mean and what their outcomes are in order to be able to produce sensible form. The parametric process is very unpredictable meaning that it can be very hard to control to achieve a suitable outcome. A designer may have the intention to create something particular, but without the correct understanding of the digital design process, small changes made can cause detrimental changes to the overall form or they may be unable to form a structure at all. However, with the examples shown, it is clear that the architectural practice is moving forward in this and beginning to understand the possibilities and boundaries of the generative design process.

1. BRADY PETERS, ‘COMPUTATION WORKS: THE BUILDING OF ALGORITHMIC THOUGHT’, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, 83 (2013), 2 (P. 10) 2. MICHAEL HANSMEYER, ‘SUBDIVIDED COLUMNS – DESIGN’, COLUMNS, <HTTP://WWW.MICHAELHANSMEYER.COM/PROJECTS/COLUMNS_INFO2.HTML?SCREENSIZE=1&COLOR=1#UNDEFINED> 3. BENJAMIN DILLENBURGER, ‘DIGITAL GROTESQUE (2013)’ DIGITAL GROTESQUE, <HTTP://WWW.MICHAELHANSMEYER.COM/PROJECTS/DIGITAL_GROTESQUE_INFO.HTML?SCREENSIZE=1&COLOR=1#UNDEFINED>

CONCEPTUALISATION 21

A.4

CONCLUSION

Prior to entering Studio Air I knew Grasshopper existed but I had no clue what it was. I was unaware of this whole world of computational design made up of parametric modelling and algorithmic thinking. My understanding of this topic has increased significantly over the past few weeks and the readings I did not understand in week one are clear to me now through exploration of architectural literature on the subject; but also, importantly, through case studies of actual architectural and engineering practices who have taken advantage of the digital realm in their designs. Although my understanding of the data in Grasshopper is still very limited, I definitely think I have a better understanding of the theory and possibilities which makes me excited to take on this challenge and learn how to incorporate computation into my designs going forward. I believe it will be quite challenging for me to take on this approach of performative design but it has sparked a lot of interest for me which I intend to be able to take advantage of.

1. TONY FRY, â&#x20AC;&#x2122;DESIGN FUTURING: SUSTAINABILITY, ETHICS AND NEW PRACTICâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, (OXFORD: BERG, 2008), P. 3.

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.5

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Part A of this journal has explored the potential that digital design has been able to offer through its growth over the past 15-20 years. An extremely important factor in design approach will be to incorporate the possibilities of generative design that mirror biological growth to create form and structure representative of its functions but also specific to its environmental, social and economic context. It is this innovation that will allow designers to re think the way they design in order to design for the future and potentially be able to create fabricated ecologies, and in turn a second nature. It is not about looking to the past and mimicking styles or composing ‘organic’ structures, but rather taking advantage of what our contemporary world has offered us and using this to propel us into the future to ensure that humankind is able to be sustained as “design has a continually growing importance as a decisive factor in our future having a future”[1].

CONCEPTUALISATION 23

Here are some examples from my algorithms. I have chosen these particular vastly tweaking with parameters is able The figures to the left are simply increasi amount of points and their positioning an designs I did not really expect from a simp The designs to the right are a bit less simp are not too complex, and show how fro geometries and intricate and complex which is an important factor I have ment conceptualisation phase.

CONCEPTUALISATION

A.6

APPENDIX

expirementation with r examples to show how to change the design. ing and decreasing the nd I have come up with ple tower to begin with. plistic but nevertheless om single lines, surface x solutions can result tioned throughout the

CONCEPTUALISATION 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY Benjamin Dillenburger, ‘Digital Grotesque (2013)’ Digital Grotesque, http://www.michaelhansmeyer.com/projects/digital_grotesque_info.html?screenSize=1&color=1#undefined Bollinger-Grohmann, ‘CIAB Pavilion’, Projects, < http://www.bollinger-grohmann.com/ projects.project.ciab-pavilion.html?f=9778E404-5801-0B76-5EE6-EFE87B64483F> Brady Peters, ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Architectural Design, 83 (2013), 2 (p. 11) Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3-62. Buro Happold Engineering, ‘25 Unique Connections, 40 Floors, One Hotel of Dreams’, < http://www.burohappold.com/the-lab/one-dream-2500-unique-connections/> Foster and Partners, ‘Al Raha Beach Development’, Projects, < http://www. fosterandpartners.com/projects/al-raha-beach-development/> Frank Keil, Robert Wilson, ‘Definition of ‘Algorithm’’, in The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, (London: MIT Press, 1999), pp. 11-12. Mahdiar Ghaffarian, ‘Paskan Tower’, http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/AcademicStudentWork/ UniversityofCalgary/2012SinclairStudio/Fracture/tabid/6030/language/en-US/Default.aspx Michael Hansmeyer, ‘Subdivided Columns – Design’, Columns, http://www.michaelhansmeyer.com/projects/columns_info2.html?screenSize=1&color=1#undefined Rivka Oxman, Robert Oxman, ‘Introduction’, in Theories of the Digital in Architecture, (New York: Routledge New York, 2014), pp. 1-10. Tony Fry, ’Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practic’, (Oxford: Berg, 2008), p. 3.

CONCEPTUALISATION

Fig 2 http://www.suckerpunchdaily.com/2013/07/19/pure-tension/ Fig 3 http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/burnham-pavillion/ Fig 4. http://www.zaha-hadid.com/interior-design/city-of-dreams-hotel-tower-cotai-macau/ Fig 5 http://www.bollinger-grohmann.com/progetti.progetti.ciab-pavilion.html Fig 6 http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/al-raha-beach-development/ Fig 7 http://www.ctbuh.org/TallBuildings/AcademicStudentWork/ UniversityofCalgary/2012SinclairStudio/Fracture/tabid/6030/language/en-US/Default.aspx Fig 8 http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/projects/columns.html#1

CONCEPTUALISATION 27

PART CRITERIA DESIGN

B.1

RESEARCH FIELD

FIG 1. THE MORNING LINE - ARANDA/LASCH 30

CRITERIA DESIGN

“

Biomimicry is learning from and then emulating nature’s forms, processes, and ecosystems to create more sustainable designs.”[1]”Smart solutions derived from examining nature have the potential to harmonise with the environment, rather than exploit it.”[2] 1. WHAT IS BIOMIMICRY, <HTTPS://BIOMIMICRY.NET/WHAT-IS-BIOMIMICRY/> 2. ILARIA MAZZOLENI, ARCHITECTURE FOLLOWS NATURE – BIOMIMETIC PRINCIPLES FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN, (CRC PRESS, 2013), P. 5

CONCEPTUALISATION 31

Nature is something we have always learnt about and emulated its aesthetic qualities. The notion of biomimicry would allow designers to delve deeper and learn from nature to find solutions for design problems by emulating nature’s biological traits and behaviours in terms of growth, forms, processes, and material systems [1]. This new wave of design fosters extraordinary opportunities for new sustainable design solutions that are in high demand. The future of humankind is not definite. We have overused the natural resources available on Earth which has had catastrophic results, namely; climate change, but also resulted in exhaustion of resources which will inevitably run out at the rate we are going. Biomimicry allows us to lessen our impact through the opportunity to integrate built form within the natural environment by adopting nature’s functional solutions [2]. Buildings can be considered as living systems just like animals in nature. Both have a structure, a circulatory or circulation system, protection from the outside and thermal regulation. Animals have immune, digestive and sensory systems, whilst buildings have systems of energy, water and communication [3]. These are systems that are all interrelated, and in animals they are also distinctly variable according to their surrounding ecosystem, which is something that can be applied to the built form in terms of its response and behaviour within its environmental context and has the potential to allow the building be part of a larger network of structures and natural systems rather than an independent, sole, structure. The opportunities are vast. A building can be designed to behave just as a living organism would and become plastic and reactive to its surroundings rather than a rigid structure which intrudes on nature rather than coexists [4]. Implications and concerns do exist within this biomimetic approach to design. Rather than a sole architect, engineer or a combo of the two working on a design solution, a multi disciplinary approach would have to take place ranging from physicists to ecologists [5]. This can be seen a positive light, however, as design solutions would then be able to address more than just creating a comfortable environment for humans, but extending that to responding to and solving environmental issues in the surrounding context.

1. WHAT IS BIOMIMICRY, <HTTPS://BIOMIMICRY.NET/WHAT-IS-BIOMIMICRY/> 2. ILARIA MAZZOLENI, ARCHITECTURE FOLLOWS NATURE – BIOMIMETIC PRINCIPLES FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN, (CRC PRESS, 2013), P. 4 3. ILARIA MAZZOLENI, ARCHITECTURE FOLLOWS NATURE – BIOMIMETIC PRINCIPLES FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN, (CRC PRESS, 2013), P. 4 4. ILARIA MAZZOLENI, ARCHITECTURE FOLLOWS NATURE – BIOMIMETIC PRINCIPLES FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN, (CRC PRESS, 2013), P. 5 5. ILARIA MAZZOLENI, ARCHITECTURE FOLLOWS NATURE – BIOMIMETIC PRINCIPLES FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN, (CRC PRESS, 2013), P. 5

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.1

RESEARCH FIELD

FIG 2. VOLTA DOM - SKYLAR TIBBITS CASE STUDY 1.0 CONCEPTUALISATION 33

B.2

CASE STUDY 1.0 ITERATIONS SPECIES 1

CHANGING GEOMETRY FROM CONE TO SPHERE

INPUTTING NUMBER SLIDERS INTO U0 AND U1 OF THE DOMAIN COMPONENT

V0 = 1, V1 = 0.5, U0 = 0.5, U1 = 0.5

V0 = 0.2, V1 = 1.0

UNPLUG MESHES FRO SPLIT AND PLUG INTO PICTURE FRAME COM

DISTANCE = 1

V0 = 0.7, V1 = 0.8

V0 = 1, V1 = 0.5, U0 = -0.4, U1 = 0.4

DISTANCE = 10

V0 = 0.7, V1 = 0.3

V0 = 1, V1 = 0.5, U0 = -0.2, U1 = 0.8

DISTANCE = 30

V0 = -0.8, V1 = 0.5

SPECIES 2

V0 = 1, V1 = 0.5, U0 = 0.8, U1 = 0.6

CRITERIA DESIGN

DISTANCE = 45

SPECIES 3

OM MESH O WEAVERBIRD MPONENT

SPECIES 4 ADDING NUMBER SLIDE INTO INPUT T (INSET TYPE ) OF WEAVERBIRD PICTURE FRAME COMPONENT

SPECIES 5 INPUTTING PANEL OF RANDOM VALUES INTO D INPUT OF WEAVERBIRD PICTURE FRAME COMPONENT

VALUES = 0, 1 D = 10, T = 1

VALUES = 1, 0 D = 10, T = 1, HEIGHT RATIO = 0.22

VALUES = 1, 2, 3

D = 10, T = 1, HEIGHT RATIO = 3

VALUES = 3, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1

CONCEPTUALISATION 35

SPECIES 5 CONT. INPUTTING PANEL OF RANDOM VALUES INTO D INPUT OF WEAVERBIRD PICTURE FRAME COMPONENT

SPECIES 6 CONNECT MESHES TO WEAVERBIRD STELLATE COMPONENT

NUMBER OF INITIAL POINTS = 8, D = 0 VALUES = 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

NUMBER OF INITIAL POINTS = 2, D = 0 VALUES = 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

NUMBER OF INITIAL POINTS = 2, D = 1 VALUES = 3, 0, 0, 0, 0

VALUES = 3, 0, 0, 0 NUMBER OF INITIAL POINTS = 2, D = -5 36

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.2

CASE STUDY 1.0 ITERATIONS SPECIES 7

CHANGING INITIAL COMPONENT FROM POPULATE 2D TO POPULATE GEOMETRY AND 3D AND INPUTTING MESHES INTO WEAVERBIRD FRAME

SPECIES 8

CONNECTING MESHES TO WEAVERBIRD SIERPINSKI TRIAGNLES SUBDIVISION

GEOMETRY > 2D CURVE, POINTS = 7

SUBDIVISION = 0

3D GEOMETRY > SPHERE, POINTS = 7

SUBDIVISION = 3

3D GEOMETRY>SPHERE, POINTS=2, V0=0.6, V1=1

SUBDIVISION = 3, U0 = 0.6, U1 = 0.1, V0 = 0.2, V1 = 0.1

3D GEOMETRY>SPHERE, POINTS=5, V0=0.6, V1=0.3

SUBDIVISION = 2, U0 = 0.3, U1 = 0.1, V0 = 0.2, V1 = 0.1 CONCEPTUALISATION 37

B.2

CASE STUDY 1.0

SELECTION CRITERIA Provides shading Provides a spatial enclosure Reflecting the dynamics and movement of air Lightweight Biomimicry

CRITERIA DESIGN

OUTCOME 1 I chose this outcome as successful because it creates a semienclosed area that still provides a space that can be utilised for performance events, whilst being open and engaging with the context and outdoor elements. It also works to provide shading with its overhang and I think it could be made with lightweight panels made of wood that are clipped together or slot into each other. This could work for an outdoor pavilion or other architectural applications such as a shading structure in a park where people can sit or study.

You are open to the outside but are still secluded. It is still an obvious architectural installation, but I think it has some resemblances to the shape and curve of a leaf so it is still related to nature in a way. This could potentially be a standalone structure or more than one can be randomly placed around each other at different angles or scales to possibly shade from the sun at different times of the day, for protection against wind and rain, or to activate a space more and encourage circulation throughout.

OUTCOME 2 This outcome has the potential to provide a spatial enclosure whilst still being very open and allowing light and air to pass through. It promotes this idea of a lightweight structure. It doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to be made out of lightweight materials but its openness provides a sense of transparency and airiness. I think that the structure could be made out of steel or wood and the spaces in between could be empty or made of glass; still allowing that transparency but protecting against rain.

It does not provide shading, but some areas can be panelled over following the path of the sun to provide shading whilst also allowing air and light from the transparent parts. It could be used at a large scale to encircle a space used by people. Or it could be used at much smaller scales as an attraction in a playground for example.

CONCEPTUALISATION 39

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.2

CASE STUDY 1.0

OUTCOME 3 This outcome resembles some of the same ideas as outcome 1. I imagine this to be a skeleton frame with patterns between it creating the effect of standing below a tree and looking up at the leaves with small bits of sunshine coming through. It still provides shading but in a more intriguing and engaging way. It would provide air flow and sunlight just as you would get sitting underneath a tree and has this notion of airiness and transparency. I think it could be used as a shading device, and a special enclosure. The idea could be applied to various

forms â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it does not have to stick to this shape. I think it could also work as something completely different with no structure, just a lightweight material - such as rope or even cable ties â&#x20AC;&#x201C; mirroring the pattern and attached between trees in a park to create hammock structures for the public to enjoy. Another idea could be a number of these structures placed at different scales and orientations placed around a space to encourage circulation and use in different ways whilst mimicking the idea of fallen and scattered leaves.

CONCEPTUALISATION 41

B.2

CASE STUDY 1.0

OUTCOME 4 This outcome resembles a jellyfish or a tree with long hanging branches and leaves. The structure would be in the middle with these light weight, flowy bits at the sides which would rely on the dynamics and movement of air to make it engaging. With airflow it would create a spatial enclosure that people can engage with. It could be situated amongst trees as a place of people to come together and hang out under.

CRITERIA DESIGN

CONCEPTUALISATION 43

My Case Study 2.0 project is the ZA11 Pavilion - a temporary structure designed by students Dimitrie Stefanescu, Patrick Bedarf and Bogdan Hambasan in 2011 for the ZA11 Speaking Architecture event in Cluj, Romania [1]. The main idea/concept behind the design was to attract passers-by to the event [2]. Yet it also attempts to showcase what the biological data that computational architecture has begun to investigate is able to achieve. It does this through the use of parametric design techniques found in Grasshopper which have given the team the opportunity to create such a design. And furthermore, the pavilion acts as a sheltered space for various events whilst sitting as part of its context. There were a lot of constraints to the design itself; finding a design that works using the materials they had available; a limited budget; fabrication techniques available; weather conditions; and deadlines. I think the design is quite successful in achieving the goals it set out to reach. For one, it has a very unique and eye catching form which would definitely intrigue those walking by to look at it following with curiousity to find out what it is as it is not exactly obvious upon first glance. It has a very organic form – something that people wonder how designers even thought of which prompts interest in the design processes behind the structure. Not only did the design attract a wide range of the society, but so too did the construction itself [3]. 1. MEGAN JETT, ‘ZA11 PAVILION’, <HTTP://WWW.ARCHDAILY.COM/147948/ZA11-PAVILION-DIMITRIE-STEFANESCU-PATRICK-BEDARF-BOGDAN-HAMBASAN> 2. MEGAN JETT, ‘ZA11 PAVILION’, <HTTP://WWW.ARCHDAILY.COM/147948/ZA11-PAVILION-DIMITRIE-STEFANESCU-PATRICK-BEDARF-BOGDAN-HAMBASAN> 3. MEGAN JETT, ‘ZA11 PAVILION’, <HTTP://WWW.ARCHDAILY.COM/147948/ZA11-PAVILION-DIMITRIE-STEFANESCU-PATRICK-BEDARF-BOGDAN-HAMBASAN> 4. MEGAN JETT, ‘ZA11 PAVILION’, <HTTP://WWW.ARCHDAILY.COM/147948/ZA11-PAVILION-DIMITRIE-STEFANESCU-PATRICK-BEDARF-BOGDAN-HAMBASAN>

CRITERIA DESIGN FIG.4 ZA11 PAVILION

FIG.3 ZA11 PAVILION

B.3

CASE STUDY 2.0 Its form along with its scale also provides shelter and enclosure, yet only to a degree. The middle section is quite exposed to the elements and the actual structure is not very interactive or very large so I don’t think it quite pushes the boundaries of an event-holding space, but I suppose it does achieve the intent of creating an area within an area where something particular can be showcased. And it does create a great area when the sun is out – allowing it to be used as a temporary bookshop, open-air cinema and a mini musical arena [4]. But I think that it would have been great to push the design even further to make it more interactive rather than just a sort of transparent and quirky enclosure. Whilst this does add to creating a great and unprecedented atmosphere it would have been interesting to see it be more engaging – maybe different behaviour of the structure in different weather conditions or larger openings where people could enter and be a part of the structure whilst enjoying the events listed above. However, all in all I think that, given the constraints encountered by the team, this was quite a successful project that met all of its expectations.

CONCEPTUALISATION 45

B.3

CASE STUDY 2.0

STEP 1 The first step was to create a series of initial curves in Rhino

STEP 2 Next, the curves are lofted using Grasshopper

STEP 3 The loft is input into the Hexagon Cells component from the Lunchbox plugin and U and V parameters are adjusted to get optimum hexagons on the surface

CRITERIA DESIGN

ZA11 PAVILION REVERSE ENGINEERING PROCESS

STEP 4 My next step was to find the centre point of the surrounding surface and join lines to it in an attempt to create the smaller inside surface

STEP 5 After a few different attempts including unsuccessful use of the shatter component, I was able to trim the lines to desired length. But unfortunately I was unable to figure out how to create a hexagon cell surface from here

STEP 6 I then scaled the the outer surface to the middle to get the inner surface and this worked successfully

STEP 7 The inner and outer surfaces are lofted to get the rectangular panels

STEP 8 After many failed attempts using components such as Weaverbird Picture Frame and Triangle Division; trying to map triangles onto the lofted surface; and extruding the edges of the panels; I finally arrived at something that worked quite well: the Panel Frame component in the Lunchbox Plugin

STEP 9 I then created planar surfaces out of the frames and the panels seperately and used the Solid Difference component to achieve the desired outcome

CONCEPTUALISATION 47

ZA11 PAVILION REVERSE ENGINEERING PROCESS STEP 10 The next step was to extrude each panel in the Z direction and cap the extrusion to represent the thickness of the material

AREA

CURVE CURVE

MOVE

SCALE

HEXAGON CELLS

CURVE LOFT

LOFT HEXAGON CELLS

CURVE

POINT

CRITERIA DESIGN

CURVE

B.3

CASE STUDY 2.0 STEP 11 The final step was to manually delete the unnecessary panels in Rhino as I was unable to figure out a way to do this using Grasshopper

PANEL FRAME

BOUNDARY SURFACES SOLID DIFFERENCE

DECONSTRUCT BREP

EXTRUDE

CAP

BOUNDARY SURFACES

CONCEPTUALISATION 49

B.3

CASE STUDY 2.0 COMPARISON The reverse engineered project resembles the shape of the pavilion quite well as well as the panels that it is made up of. It has hollow areas in each panel, however in the digital model they are rectangular and only one per panel whereas the pavilion has two triangle cut outs per panel. The digital model reflects the thickness of the wood used in the project. However, the panels in the digital model meet at their edges whereas in the pavilion there are gaps between the panels which allow for the connection joint another component not shown on the digital model. Furthermore, the model has cut outs on every single panel whereas in the pavilion has some completely solid panels.

CRITERIA DESIGN FIG.5 ZA11 PAVILION

OUTCOME Through my reverse engineered model I think I have successfully achieved the basic overall shape of the pavilion. I think I could try to randomise where the cut outs are possibly using the Cull component and either a jitter component or my own panel listing true and false to get a variation in panels that are solid and those that are hollow. I do want to try and create triangular hollow areas and more than one per surface. I think that the little things such as the positioning of edges in relation to each other and the joint markings are very important in terms of fabrication so that surfaces donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t collide and are able to fit together properly, so I could try and play with different sizing of the panels and smaller cutouts for the joint areas. I would take the definition even further by changing the input curves and applying different surface patterns. CONCEPTUALISATION 51

CASE STUDY 2.0 ITERATIONS

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.4

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

CONCEPTUALISATION 53

B.4

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

CRITERIA DESIGN

CASE STUDY 2.0 ITERATIONS

CONCEPTUALISATION 55

CASE STUDY 2.0 ITERATIONS

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.4

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

CONCEPTUALISATION 57

B.4

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

SELECTION CRITERIA Provides shading Provides a spatial enclosure Relationship with the movement of air Lightweight Biomimicry Plan for degradation or repurposing Constructability

CRITERIA DESIGN

SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME Throughout my technique development process I found myself always leaning towards trying to change the definition so there is one main skeletal structure and trying to create patterned spaces in between. This was a continuation from my ideas in my Case Study 1.0 outcomes as I wanted to mimic particular elements of nature such as the sturdiness and foundation of a tree trunk and its branches and the broken patterns that leaves make when you look up at them. I wanted a design that would enclose an area and let the space be active as well as not looking too alienated but rather a feeling of it belonging in its context. I took outcome 1 from case study 1 and played with the shape to create an enclosure and then experimented with the surface and depth of this to make the space more engaging. I like this outcome because I feel as though it creates an enclosure but doesn’t block off one space from another – there is still a connection. It provides a sense of shading and division from the elements but allows light and air to pass through. Sitting on the inside, it would frame external areas and you still get this sense of being connected to the outside,

but walking around the outside you get snippets of views to the inside and this intrigues you to want to explore it. The hexagon structure has allowed a flower like pattern to grow from the top and outwards, adding to this concept of biomimicry. I think that it has the potential to be a very efficient structure. It would be easy to construct with panels joining together, and easy to deconstruct and move elsewhere. Furthermore, I think that recyclable and biodegradable materials such as wood would be good to use. Situated in a park with grass and trees, this material would also ground it in its context. However, materials such as recycled steel/ iron either straight or corrugated could also have a use, especially if the structure were to be situated amongst concrete and other buildings. Recycled materials would also prompt education about sustainability and its ability to be reused elsewhere would mean the embodied energy of the structure would pay off. Another idea could be to use a combination of materials – so recycled materials to create the form which would make something unique and interesting but still usable.

CONCEPTUALISATION 59

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.5

TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

Testing lighting conditions

Testing wind conditions

Testing rain conditions

CONCEPTUALISATION 61

B.5

TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

I began te firstly cutt gluing them ineffecient

I thought a slits into th would slide together. A that more t be. During to be supp the structur compressio are. This wo able to be d

Since there triangle join again if the be able to be designe way of joini easy constr cut out to cutter could envision ev is a sustain constructio panels of wo

CRITERIA DESIGN

esting the connections of the panels ting the panels out of cardboard and m together. This worked but would be t and expensive at a larger scale.

about using a joint system so cutting he panels where pre fabricated joints e in and connect all of the pieces circular shape worked well and means than three panels can be joint if need construction there would likely need port points but once it is complete, re should stand on its own and act in n so the joints would stay where they ould also mean the structure would be deconstructed and repurposed.

e are three panels I also tried with a nt. I was happy with the outcome but ere were more panels, they would not fit so a different joint would need to ed. I think this is quite a successful ing the panels together as it has very ructability and each panel can but the same specifications and a laser d be used to cut out the joints. I would verything to be made of wood as it nable material and would make the n process a a lot easier for thinner ood to be joined together.

CONCEPTUALISATION 63

I found out that becau panel, light is able to there is also a conside also found that air flo but is diminished by a through. And lastly I rain will pass through t seen that almost half o from entering the insid that even though the occupants would still no from the rain so I went altered it so that there they were smaller and t even more rain would something that could b the sun conditions usin fabricating an entire sc this manually.

In order to be able to a panel in the structure n so there was a gap be went back to my grass this and see if it was po I was unable to do in project but I found that component and baking was able to come up wi

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.5

TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

use of the angling of each flow into the inside but erable amount of shade. I ows through the structure small amount as it passes found that as expected, the structure but it can be of the water is prevented de. Based on this I decided elements are diminished, ot be completely protected back to my definition and e were more openings and he panels longer, meaning d be blocked out. I think be very handy is testing out ng digital tools rather than caled prototype and doing

account for the joints, each needed to be a bit smaller etween each of them. So I shopper definition to alter ossible. This was something n my reverse engineering t by using the Panel Frame g the panel section of it, I ith the desired design.

CONCEPTUALISATION 65

B.6

TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

legend sun path

circulation 66

CRITERIA DESIGN

SITE ANALYSIS CERES CERES is an environmental park with a central focus on current and global issues and raising awareness about economic, social and environmental sustainability through educational programs.

GLOBAL VILLAGE The Global Village is an area within CERES that houses multicultural buildings and provides African, Indian, Indonesian and Indigenous cultural programs. The spaces are also used for other educational acitivies. The Ampitheatre at the heart of the village is severely underutilised

SITE USE In 2016, there were approximately 35,000 school children taking part in the cultural programs. The park as a whole sees 1000 people per day, 70 000 schoolkids a year, and has 140 staff members.

VISION The brief entails designing a pavilion like enclosure that provides shading, reflects the dynamics and movement of air and is lightweight. The client asks for a design to activate the underutilised ampitheatre space, something that is related to and mimics nature, possibly but not necessarily incorporating aspects of the cultures surrounding it, something ephemeral, a structure with a human touch, and sustainabilty driven and environmentally friendly.

CONCEPTUALISATION 67

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.6

TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

CONCEPTUALISATION 69

B.6

TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL FIG. 7 MANMADE TREE CANOPY BY PUBLIC: ARCHITECTURE + COMMUNICATION - PRECEDENT OF TREE CANOPY HEXAGONAL STRUCTURE AND AN EXAMPLE OF BIOMIMICRY

RELATIONSHIP TO

The idea of the design is t a shading device to make

ing and activate the space

it in different weather cond an outdoor cinema. I did

from its surrounding becau

BIOMIMICRY FIG. 6 TREE OVERHANG AS AN EXAMPLE OF SHADING IT PROVIDES

The design allows a flower like pattern to grow from the top downwards making the structure unique and engaging and fit into its context. Just as branches and leaves of a tree disperse out and around the trunk to create shade and a place for wind to pass through, so too would this structure. It allows sunlight to filter in in different points and by closing some panels off it would scatter the light just the same as when looking up at a tree. I think that this really grounds the structure in its context as biomimicry is very prominent throughout the park and its not just about copying what nature looks like but emulating the science behind the way it works. This relationship to nature along with the material gives this humble and ephemeral feel to pavilion which ensures it is not alienated form the space.

CRITERIA DESIGN

relationship between the

is partially enclosed but st

light and wind through. A f

work is to close off some o

north points where the su day to avoid the children

ment made at the site was

back to the creek, now it is

some of the opening from

views of the creek rather th

this relationship to the con

MATERIALS Timber would be the best option for the panels and joints as it is a sustainable material. The timber could be used from recycled pieces and can then be deconstructed and repurposed meaning the embodied energy of the structure will pay off. I want to get the most of the material used because this structure will not be here forever and should mirror natural biodegradation.

O SITE

to partially enclose the space with it more user friendly and engag-

e more by allowing people to use

ditions i.e. for performances or as not want to close off the space

use the essence of the park is this human and nature. The structure

till very open to allow elements of

The use of timber would also mean the structure fits into its surroundings unlike steel for example. Another idea was to use any recyclable materials that can be found such as corrugated steel sheets that are bent and clipped to each other which would prompt education on recyclability. To mirror the multiculturalness off the site traditional methods of bamboo construction could be emulated with a skeletal hexagonal frame and bamboo weaving of the panels.

further development I think would

of the opening around the east and

un is the strongest throughout the

PROTOTYPED EXAMPLE OF BAMBOO WOVEN TO FORM PANELS

using it getting sunburt. A com-

s that â&#x20AC;&#x153;we have always turned our

s time to face itâ&#x20AC;? so I want to keep

m the east in order to frame the

han shy away from it and still keep

ntext.

FRAMED VIEW OF CREEK FROM INSIDE PROPOSED STRUCTURE CONCEPTUALISATION 71

Through my exploration in Part B of this journal along with my algorithmic sketchbook I was able to find that from one definition so many possibilities could arise generating various outcomes that could be applied to very different situations. It was a game of trial and error – I played around with inputs and outputs, and parameters of different definitions to come up with so many different iterations until the definition broke. A selection criteria based on the brief and comments made at the site allowed me to pick out the most successful ones but this didn’t mean that other iterations were unsuccessful – it just meant that these couldn’t be used this time but would most definitely be able to suit a different selection criteria. So I could then pick another outcome and push it even further to satisfy any given situation. I think that digital design is really beneficial not only because you can come up with things you never even dreamed of quickly – but because it means that you can test and tweak the data to find the best solution to your design problem really quickly and efficiently and open yourself up to even more design possibilities to push the design to its very limits and come up with the best possible outcome for the situation – all in a matter of a few hours. I found myself taking ideas I liked from one outcome and ideas I liked from another and merging these together to create something that worked which felt very rewarding.

CRITERIA DESIGN

My skills in Grasshopper have developed significiantly particular throughout Part B of the journal. Part B.2 taught me to work quickly to make changes but also to try and add some meaning to the iterations I produced unlike in my algorithmic sketchbook in Part A where I was literally just playing with numbers and components because that was what I was told to do. I found the reverse engineering task quite difficult because I didn’t even know where to begin. I had a vague understanding of the program content but didn’t feel as though I knew enough to actually come up with a definition on my own as I see my tutor doing in studio. The grasshopper forum helped me a lot to find new plug ins such as the Lunchbox plug in and new ways to understand data by seeing how other people solved problems similar to mine. Even though I found the task difficult, I also felt it was rewarding because I explored many different components and became more familiar with them and now knew they existed for future use in my iterations, and also I found that a lot of the time there is more than one way to achieve the same or similar outcome which also provides potential for different directions I can take for iterations.

B.7

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

I think my interim presentation wasn’t very strong because I didn’t really believe in my design and tried to satisfy every piece of criteria rather than spending time perfecting a few components. After all it was a concept design so I think that I should have spent more time determining the why’s of the design than the how’s, but the feedback was very helpful to allow me to pursue this further and take it on board to Part C. I believe what I did successfully, though, was openly discuss the shortcomings and advantages of the design and support my arguments with evidence and data collected through prototyping. My research in Part A allowed me to really get to know the role of computation in the design process and familiarise myself with this particular approach to design. It was a really good starting point for Part B where I learned to actually use computation in the design process which is something I haven’t really done before. In the past I was always heavily involved with hands on tasks and used computational processes in a limited amount, but here I learnt to get to know the brief; design something using Grasshopper rather than a pen and paper; manipulate it digitally many times and very quickly to come up with something unique and unexpected; apply a design technique to build my skills; and engage in this relationship of physical fabrication and digital design.

CONCEPTUALISATION 73

B.8

APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

CRITERIA DESIGN

CONCEPTUALISATION 75

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.8

APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

CONCEPTUALISATION 77

B.8

APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

CRITERIA DESIGN

CONCEPTUALISATION 79

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.8

APPENDIX - ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

CONCEPTUALISATION 81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ilaria Mazzoleni, Architecture Follows Nature – Biomimetic Principles for Innovative Design, (CRC Press, 2013) Megan Jett, ‘ZA11 Pavilion’, <http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan> What Is Biomimicry, <https://biomimicry.net/what-is-biomimicry/>

CRITERIA DESIGN

Fig 1. http://arandalasch.com/works/the-morning-line/ Fig 2. http://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/ arch2o-voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits15/ Fig 3. http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan Fig 4. http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan Fig 5. http://www.archdaily.com/147948/za11-pavilion-dimitrie-stefanescu-patrick-bedarf-bogdan-hambasan Fig 6. http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previews/595670-tree-overhanging-road-zimbabwe.jpeg Fig. 7 http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/manmade-tree-canopy-forms-unique-university-bus-sh

CONCEPTUALISATION 83

PROJECT PROPOSAL

PART DETAILED DESIGN

PROJECT PROPOSAL

My 3 key concepts stemming from part B and a step into the group design work:

Recyclability and sustainability of materials As the site is heavily centred on environmental sustainability I want to promote this idea of recyclability in materials and using materials that are biodegradable, environmentally friendly, and economically satisfying. I want to promote the vision of the community park in the structure as has been done around the entire site. There could be many approaches to this - using biodegradable materials such as timber and allowing the structure to be easily constructed and de-constructed so the material can be used elsewhere. This would also match the structure with its context. Another path is to recycle materials of steel or plastic, the former having high embodied energy and the latter being quite detrimental to the environment in an attempt to reuse these materials instead of them going to waste and to really live out the life of the embodied energy used to create them. This recyclability of materials would mirror the rest of the site but also promote education and live examples of re-usability of materials and sustainability of structure. This can prompt lessons on how materials are made, their life cycle, embodied energy and further learning about environmental sustainability in building – therefore this would be a temporary structure to show how things can be built by hand and deconstructed using recycled materials that can be recycled even further. We can have a look at salvaged material building sites to see what we can find. Our components would then not need to be digitally fabricated (i.e. laser cutting) because we can just input their specifications into our digital models. A structural design the group really liked as a whole was the waffle structure

FIG. 7 MANMADE TREE CANOPY BY PUBLIC: ARCHITECTURE + COMMUNICATION - PRECEDENT OF TREE CANOPY HEXAGONAL STRUCTURE AND AN EXAMPLE OF BIOMIMICRY

FIG. 1: JUNKYARD WITH RECYCLED TIMBER

which allows the connected points to but a part of the actual panels so this is something simple we could do manually, pre-fabricate it then slot it together on site. We can also incorporate more than one material – this would promote that education on recyclability – but we do want to integrate wood I think because this will mean more of a connection to the context and the environment – it won’t be alienated. Plus we would go for the most lightweight material – as this is handmade, and it is a place where children are playing – we want it to be a structurally stable form but also not too heavy in case this integrity fails. Don’t want anything with sharp edges – nothing that may need protection or coating like steel – because we can use steel and see its weathered effects but we don’t want to sacrifice the structural integrity of the form. We can do a combination of recycled and non recycled materials that are still environmentally friendly.

F st I o d st a a sh li to o

FIG.2-4: C

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Differentiated structure

From my design in part B I had a very cohesive tructure that acted as support and shading. But want to push this a little further and develop on my research field: biomimicry to create a differentiated structure which would have a turdy, load-bearing base to provide support and strength like a tree trunk would, and to have aspects which are more porous, open, provide hade and light, maybe even more lightweight ike a tree canopy. But I still want these elements o be interrelated and growing into/from each other.

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT Connected space Building on my concept from part B, I believe the design should not separate itself from the context. I want the circulation to be easy and uninterrupted and I want this connection to the outside whether through views and openings around the top and sides, or entrances and exists in the periphery. The design should also be connected in the material sense - something that will not look alienated, but fits in with its surroundings. Upon consideration of the new site, I want to ensure that the sandpit space is not blocked off from the rest of the playground. This could definitely be achievable with the thin structural posts in Merijn’s designs or the thicker roots in Olivia’s designs – both which have supports but they are not overbearing or completely enclosing meaning circulation is achievable throughout. It has to be integrated with the existing area. At the moment the sandpit sits at the bottom of the play ground and has logs surrounding it. We don’t want our design to look like an intrusion or an architectural element but something organic and humble that also doesn’t clash with the existing logs. So possibly thinner trunks are the way to go as this is also at quite a smaller scale than we were initially designing for in the global village.

FIG. 5 CONCEPT OF CONNECTED SPACE

CONCEPT SKETCHES OF DIFFERENTIATED STRUCTURE

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT

After presentations from everybody in the class, our client Nick decided to push forward the ideas that my peers Olivia and Merijn had and that they would be much better suited to the Central Habitat sandpit area rather than the Global Village amphitheatre space.

CONCEPTS: - Materiality

As the same driving principles apply to all areas of the park we are still able to put forth our key concepts and ideas that have stemmed from our interrogation of the brief in part B except optimise it to the new site

- Repetitious pattern - Simple and repetitious connection detail

FIG. 6. MERIJNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S PART B

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 7 OLIVIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S PART B

CONCEPTS: CRITERIA: - Focus our efforts on the Sandpit in the Central Habitat - Design a shading structure that cannot be climbed on by children - Utilise recycled material. The material could be discarded or waste products

- Plant growth - Form: natural habitat to allow user to become an animal - Pattern from structure

ISSUES: - Change in function: sandpit sunshade - Change in size and location - Change of user demographic - Sourcing and availability of materials - How to design a structure dependant on recycled materials - Need to ensure it is safe and un-climbable

PROJECT PROPOSAL

The sandpit is situated in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;CERES Adventure Habitatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. It is utilised by school children on a daily basis, primarily in the morning to afternoon so an unobstrusive system is required to shade the sandpit in order to protect children from sunburn but also must fit into its surrounding context by reinforcing ideas of biomimcry and being a habitat itself.

FIG. 8-12: CENTRAL HABITAT SITE

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT

GROUP MEMBERS: Hagi Andoko

Merijn Braam

Connor Forsyth

Olivia Goodliffe Yan Jiao India McKenzie

Mariam Najeeb Romana Radunkovic

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT

INCORPORATING MY RESEARCH FIELD INTO THE GROUP DESIGN

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 14 STRUCTURE OF A TREE

A strong value of the CERES park seen through many of its existing structures is this notion of biomimicry. As explored through parts A and B of this journal, biomimicry in essence is not about copying the aesthetics of natural form but about learning from the science and logic behind the life and growth of an organism in nature and how this can be applicable to suit built form in the human environment. As our brief entails designing a shading structure for a children’s sandpit that is quite interrelated with its surrounding; the group opted for a tree like structure with a sturdy support point supporting a canopy overhead rather than something that provided structure but also enclosure around the periphery such as a bowerbird nest for example – we did not want this blocking off from the site and from adults to see the children. The tree is the most notable shading system in nature. There are many different species but the fundamental core behind the structure of every tree is that it has roots which anchor it into the ground, a trunk to add strength and support the canopy, and a canopy for shade. Our intent is to incorporate a load bearing structure starting from the ground which interconnects with and in turn supports the shading system above to ensure a structurally sound system that performs to our criteria. What we really want to take from the tree is this interconnectedness of the trunk to the limb to the branch which allow the structure to be structurally stound. And furthermore we want this overhang to assume a lightweight and airy appearance. It doesn’t need to necessarily look like a trunk and leaves but needs to embody their core principles of strength and shading. The ‘trunks’ could be thin or thick, as long as they are supportive. We could have numerous thinner support points interconnecting at the top or a smaller number of thicker supports. In terms of the site and that it is a sandpit where children are constantly moving around, a smaller number – even one thicker support is desirable to prevent taking up too much space and prevent children from colliding with the structure. FIG. 13 TREE TRUNK AND CANOPY FLOW

PROJECT PROPOSAL

The flower has the is key to many flow birds and insects colourful canopy them become bird want to incorpora a strong idea is to would not only at to promote the cy ideas of offsetting more resources an as a response to due to human imp ethics behind this park and could p topic to young sc example of it. We B of an animal ha can live and inter become a part of an invaluable sen environment. We the site but rather it and promote thi is a key CERES valu

FIG. 15 FLOWER ATTRACTING BUTTERFLY

PROJECT PROPOSAL FIG. 16 FLOWER ATTRACTING BEE

e same core system as the tree - but what wers is their colourful nature which attract for pollination. Our intent is to have a to attract children as they play, letting ds and bugs beneath the structure. We ate the notion of biodiversity within so o use a flowering climbing plant which tract children, but real birds and insects ycle of life. This would also enhance our g biodiversity which is the idea of putting nd aid into a section of the environment destroying biodiversity in another area posed built form. The sustainability and s approach line up with the values of the potentially promote education on this chool children and act as an interactive e want to draw ideas from Oliviaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s part abitat where both humans and animals ract. This would allow children to really nature and learn as they play and have nse of connection to the surrounding do not want the structure to intrude on r engage the entire environment around is idea of regeneration and life cycle that ue.

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT

FIG. 17 FLOWERS ATTRACTING BIRD

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT The brief entails the use of recyclable materials in the structure. An issue that this raises the sourcing and availability of materials, so as a solution we will stick to materials able to be sourced from recycling sites. We thought about recycling bottles or cans and using them as repetitive elements, however given the time frame of a three week design and a two week pre fabrication before construction, we decided this was not optimal as we could already foresee that we would need many of these elements and it was not certain that they could be sourced on mass. Therefore, through some research of junk yards we found that timber members of regular sizes are widely available and will continue to be with building disposal occurring on a daily basis. The next step will be to design a structure dependant on the recycled materials we find. Research showed numerous junk yards with lots to offer but we will likely opt with GHG recycling timber yard as the construction timber comes in bundles of high quality off cuts. The material will be a key criterion within our design process. We cannot come up with a design only to find that the material is not available; therefore, choosing timber pieces to start will provide suitable constraints to our form and patterning. Our solution is to create a structure where the specifications of the elements will be able to vary. The final design outcome will not determine the exact dimensions and finish quality of the material but rather the material will inform the final design as variable dimensions of the members will be input into the grasshopper definition based on the materials we will be able to source at the time without affecting the pattern or form. Furthermore this top down approach starting off with material and working our way down to the details will really reflect on the relationship between the designer and computation and show that computation techniques can result in more humble architecture rather than those magnificent curvy and smooth forms that immediately come to mind.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

GEOMETRY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; must come up with the base form of the structure that. What is valuable about using programs such as Grasshopper is that our form does not have to be definite. We are able to come up with something we think suits the brief and site and after testing its performance - in terms of location and size - are easily able to manipulate its parameters to create endless iterations, finally arriving at the most suitable. This stable trunk can really take on any geometrical form but the canopy must grow from the support points for this more organic touch and to keep the structure stable as tree branches are connected to tree limbs which are connected to a trunk. PATTERNING â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The pattern can simply grow from the structure rather than be applied on as an architectural element. Whilst the geometry team work on form, the patterning team is able to simultaneously determine an appropriate pattern that can then simply be plugged into the predetermined geometry. The patterning team can optimise configuration and for example change sizes of openings in different areas such as smaller openings where the sun is harsher to block it off, acting just as leaves would in a tree. STRUCTURE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Once the pattern is plugged into the geometry, a final form will be given where the structural team will need to analyse its performance in terms of stability, deformation and stress analysis. Prototyping of connection points and structural system should also occur at this stage to inform the digital design process so any issues that may arise are pointed out and critical areas can be altered. Where the structural team finds negative results, they can send information back to the previous two teams to adjust and through this back and forth communication amongst research fields but also digital and physical fabrication methods, an optimum design should be achieved. Another important factor to determine will be the safety of the structure and how climbable the components are because if an aspect is unsafe it must go back and be altered.

DESIGN NARRATIVE What is vital to the design is a interconnection of not only structure but of animals and humans that use it. This is an initial design concept that we decided on as a group which we will take through to the design process. We want to add a seating element around the trunk so children can sit or use it as a table to play, and parents and teachers can sit on the other side in order to still be close enough to keep an eye on the children but not intrusive or obviously observing, in order to let the children be free in the habitat and play. The seat will also act as a protection barrier between the sandpit area and the trunk of the structure.

The addition of a plant within would mean we are introducing biodiversity into the area and opening the structure up to the use by animals such as birds and insects to create nests, pollinate and engage with the structure. There is an emphasis on use by different types of occupants and a strong idea of different species coming together and living in harmony. The plant will also act as a shading system so we need to find one that climbs, and is evergreen to ensure shading throughout the entire year. It will also be optimal if it is a flowering plant to attract this idea of biodiversity and a native plant to promote local flora and fauna and fit in with its context.

FIG. 18 INITIAL CONCEPT BY INDIA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 1

CHARACTERISTICS: - Demonstration of use of recycled timber with varying dimensions - Simple connection â&#x20AC;&#x201C; although it looks chaotic, it is relatively simple to put together - Interrelated structure - Appears that members are self-supporting like in a bowerbird nest - Provides shelter and shading The verticality and growth of the supporting elements into the canopy can be incorporated by our structural team so that the structure assumes a more streamlined aesthetic at the bottom with room for complexity at the top. It will also mean ease of construction and ensure buildability whilst also enforcing a no climbing zone.

FIG. 21, 22 YURE PAVILION BY KENGO KUMA & ASS

The lighting shows that the structure offers shading but also offers points of light to shine through. This is where the patterning group can take some inspiration to determine how dense or open the canopy should be. The team can also work out whether a random generation of beams is necessary or a carefully configured set. The shape of the support points is also important for the geometry team to consider as they begin relatively thin and grow thicker as they merge into the canopy. We need to consider that we are opting for one support point and will possibly need a much thicker starting point.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT

19, 20 DREAMHOUSE BY GREGOR KRAGE, NZ 2012

SOCIATES, PARIS 2015

CHARACTERISTICS: - Repetition of identical wooden strips - Pattern/configuration is ordered and clear - Stacking and twisting the members has allowed for an organic geometry The repetitious notion of this design mirrors the ideas we want to bring forth from Merijnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s part B. The patterning team will need to be able to generate a pattern whether it be random or not and figure out a way to repeat this throughout the structure for ease of construction but also an organic unity. In terms of structure, this precedent can inform ways of simple connection.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.1

DESIGN CONCEPT RECIPROCAL STRUCTURE

“The principle of reciprocity is based on the use of load bearing elements which, supporting one another along their span and never at the extremities, compose a spatial configuration without any clear structural hierarchy.” (1) Through research of reciprocal structures we found that the system reflected our ideas from the material and structural part of our design narrative. A reciprocal structure allows a form to be achieved through the repetition of standard length elements. By applying this structure to our geometry, we will be able to get a base outline of the final form with room in the algorithm for altering the width and depth of the members according to what will be available for us to source at the end. The reciprocal structure allows a lot of flexibility in our design as it is a simple configuration of the same element with simple connections so the dimensions can be altered to suit our needs whilst still keeping the intended form. Furthermore this allows for alteration of the patterning in the structure without the need to redesign joint systems or source new materials. There is also a simplification of the design and construction process as the members support one another so separate load bearing systems and connection points do not need to be designed – it is just about a repetitive, simple connection. Additionally, this will enable the canopy to grow from the structural core which strengthens our biomimicry themes of the logic of interconnectedness to define structural integrity. The reciprocal structure gives a further theoretical idea strengthening our point to create an interrelated human and animal habitat where the physical structural integrity of the form mirrors the reciprocal relationship of humans and animals, and dependence and coexistence of built and natural form. A reciprocal structure can achieve either a flat or curved form. In theory, the sloping nature of our form will

allow the pitched members to take their own load and any imposed loads and transfer these down to the centre support as opposed to a typical perimeter support. The support point must be able to resist the compressive forces from the canopy so will be required to have a ring support to prevent deformation of the structure at the central level (2). We will also need to ensure rigidity in our connections to help with the horizontal push from the sloping beams. We will not be able to have an extremely dense structure as we must ensure the inner openings are not too small as the smaller they are the more shear force will be created which is undesirable in timber members of low shear strength (3). A higher pitch and small opening mean members are in higher compression as well (4). A lower amount of shear transference and compression will be achievable with smaller inclines of the members resulting from openings that are not too small. There are various types of connections we can do but time, cost and skill must be taken into account. Notching the members would mean the rectangular timber beams will sit together better, however, the notching will make the beams weaker at those points because the depth is lessened. So to counteract this we need to ensure connection points are strengthened in another way and by having lower pitches, less shear force will pass through the weaker points. Another option is to use a fixed type of connection such as screws as it would not weaken the section of the members and is more efficient as notches would not need to be measured and cut out and a limited amount of skill is required to perform these connections, but this is intended to be tested in the prototyping stage.

1. ALBERTO PUGNALE, ‘STRUCTURAL RECIPROCITY’, <HTTP://WWW.ALBERTOPUGNALE.COM/PORTFOLIO/STRUCTURAL-RECIPROCITY/> 2. OLGA LARSON, ‘VARIATION OF PARAMETERS’, P.51 <HTTPS://CASAECO.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM/2012/03/RECIPROCAL-FRAME-ARCHITECTURE.PDF> 3. OLGA LARSON, ‘RECIPROCAL FRAME DESIGN’, P.56 <HTTPS://CASAECO.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM/2012/03/RECIPROCAL-FRAME-ARCHITECTURE.PDF> 4. OLGA LARSON, ‘RECIPROCAL FRAME DESIGN’, P.53 <HTTPS://CASAECO.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM/2012/03/RECIPROCAL-FRAME-ARCHITECTURE.PDF>

100

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 23 ‘PARAMETRICIS

SMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; BY PHILIPPE BLOCK

CHARACTERISTICS: - Repetitious effect of reciprocal pattern is employed throughout the entire structure - There is an efficient and flowing connection between the canopy and structural core - Simple connection between timber members This precedent opened us up to the idea of reciprocal structures which we conducted research on and found to be very closely related to the ideas presented at the CERES site, but also a valuable addition to our design narrative to inform our design process in terms of patterning and structure.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

101

Circle

GEOMETRY

Circle

The organic form of a sturdy structural core fusing into an overhanging canopy as envisaged in our initial design concept done through a simple grasshopper definition which allowed paramaters such as circle size, angle, or shape to be manipulated fairly quickly and easily. The beam structure and pattern can simply be applied to this. Preliminary speculations by the geometry team led to the idea that angling the top circle would positively aid in the shading capacity of the structure which would be further tested using solar analysis technology in grasshopper. The geometry of the structure is highly determinate on the shading capacities it offers. Using a solar analysis made in grasshopper, the geometry group were able to test the shading of the form through sunlight stimulation during the day in the Australian summer period (DecemberFebruary).

102

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Circle

Top

Angle

FIG. 24, 25 INITIAL GRASSHOPPER GEOMETRY

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

Loft

MeshUV

p Rotation

Y DEFINITION BY MERIJN AND HAGI

PROJECT PROPOSAL

103

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

CIRCLE

Circle 43.15

Circle 43.10

Circle 43.5

Testing the size of the circle by adjusting the radius

ELLIPSE

Ellipse 50.60.20

Ellipse 49.25.20

Ellipse 25.49.20

Changing the topmost input geometry to an ellipse and adjusting size

104

PROJECT PROPOSAL

GEOMETRY - SOLAR ANALYSIS

ANGLE

Circle 43.0.-10

Circle 43.0.-5

Ellipse 50.60.20.-5

Varying angles of the canopy tested in both circle and ellipse geometry input

ALTERNATE

Testing changes in shape of all the input geometries, as well as vertical movement of the canopy in relation to the trunk, and positioning of geometry FIG. 26-37 SOLAR ANALYSIS OF GEOMETRY BY MERIJN AND HAGI

PROJECT PROPOSAL

105

GEOMETRY - SUCCESSFUL ITERATIONS A final form was picked on the basis of a selection criteria. It must provide shading as specified by the client to protect children from sun burn, must be safe and unclimbable, and structurally feasible. The structural component needs to be considered at this stage to prevent possible problems later in the design process. By discarding obviously unstable structures, we are progressing the process quickly so that when the structural team begins to investigate, they are working with an already solid form.

SELECTION CRITERIA - shading - structural feasbility - climbability

Circle 43.5

The circle was determined to be the most successful input geometry as the ellipse and other alternate variations provide large cantilevers and in turn are not structurally feasible. The circle is also very successful in providing shading for the entire space under the strucure and as the sandpit is quite rounded, we must ensure the entire area is shaded. These dimensions worked best in terms of the cantilever but also because as the radius got bigger this meant more load imposed on the sctructural core which would then have to be expanded as well. The structure cannot take up the whole area of the sandpit so a middle ground was found with the right span of the canopy and appropriate thickness of the core.

106

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

As expected by the geometry team, angling the canopy toward the north allowed better shading, and meant that not only the area underneath the structure is shaded but also slightly beyond. This was deemed successful as it added dynamism to the design but also gave the optimum amount of shading to ensure the entire site is covered without the need for an extremely large overhang and core. There appeared not to be much difference between a 5 degree slant and a 10 degree slant, but in terms of structural feasibilty and load path transferrance, the 5 degree angle was the most successful iteration.

Circle 43.0.-10 Circle 43.0.-5 FIG. 38-40 SUCCESSFUL ITERATIONS BY MERIJN AND HAGI

PROJECT PROPOSAL

107

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

8:00 - 9:00

9:00 - 10:00

10:00 - 11:00

FIG. 40-46 SOLAR ANALYSIS THROUGHOUT THE DAY BY MERIJN AND HAGI

FIG. 47 MOST SUCCESSFUL ITERATION BY MERIJN AND HAGI

108

PROJECT PROPOSAL

11:00 - 12:00

12:00 - 13:00

13:00 - 14:00

GEOMETRY - SOLAR ANALYSIS As the sandpit is typically used by school children during the morning and afternoon period, a more detailed solar analysis was performed to show the shading of the structure hourly over the course of 8am-2pm in the middle of summer, on the 21st of January. It shows successful shading of the area underneath during the time frame.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

109

FIG. 48 RANDOM GENERATION OF STICKS FOR PATTERN BY YAN

110

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

PATTERNING Whilst the geometry team was working to finalise the form, pattern exploration was occurring simultaneously. Initially numerous iterations of random sticks were generated as our intention was to have timber slats joined together but this proved difficult to apply to any type of geometry. This was explored in addition to the reciprocal structure because we felt it was important to test more than one theory to come up with the optimum output. In the end we stuck with the reciprocal structure and found it easily adaptable to any geometry and then patterns were generated from this structure.

FIG. 49 RECIPROCAL STRUCTURE BY OLIVIA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

111

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

RECIPROCAL PATTERNING A number of iterations were created through the patterning process and a selection criteria was created to determine the most successful outcome for our design. We decided that the trunk of the structure needed to be as vertical as possible to ensure structural feasibility and integrity as well as ensure safety so children cannot climb on it. We also needed to ensure the canopy was dense enough to achieve shading and an adequate base for our plant to grow on top of. Alongside digital iterations, physical tests were done to show the effects that smaller openings have on the pitch of members and ultimately the resulting design. As we wanted relative flatness amongst the members, eventually curving on the perimiter of the canopy, we found that we needed to ensure that the openings in the pattern were larger to achieve this and referring back to our research, it would ensure less shear force and compression are imposed on the timber members. Therefore, our physical prototyping solidified the fact that smaller inclines result from bigger openings meaning less force is imposed, so through iterations of our patterning we came up with a final solution that was able to meet all of this criteria.

The first four iterations all fit the criteria of being structurally sound and there is structural feasibility and integrity in the trunk as there are no horizontal members or unsafe and climbable members sticking out. Iterations 3,4,5,6 began to demonstrate larger openings in the canopy. The most successful iteration that matched the selection criteria is iteration 4 as it is safe and sturdy, has bigger openings in the canopy than the first few iterations to achieve smaller inclines, but is also more dense than the last few iterations to provide shading and support for the plant.

FIG. 54- 61 TESTING RECIPROCITY PATTERN THROUGH GRASSHOPPER BY OLIVIA AND YAN

112

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 50-53 PHYSICALLY TESTING RECIPROCITY BY ROMANA

SELECTION CRITERIA - structural integrity - safe - larger openings for smaller incline - enough density to ensure shading and support for plant

PROJECT PROPOSAL

113

FIG. 62-64 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS BY OLIVIA

FIG. 65 INITIAL SUCCESSFUL

114

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

STRUCTURE

The selected geometry was tested under digital simulation and immediately an issue arose where the deflection of the canopy was extremely severe. The trunk also appeared too thin in the top third. This was then communicated to the geometry team who thickened the top of the trunk to add structural stability and support for the canopy to aid in the prevention of such extreme deflection as when it becomes thicker the part which connects the trunk and canopy is able to span longer distances and support the size of the canopy. An optimised version of the geometry was then created that performed more successfully.

L GEOMETRY BY MERIJN FIG. 66 UPDATED GEOMETRY BY OLIVIA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

115

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS GRASSHOPPER SEQUENCE

FIG. 67 GRASSHOPPER SEQUENCE BY OLIVIA

116

PROJECT PROPOSAL

STRUCTURE

FIG. 68 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ON UPDATED FORM BY OLIVIA

The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Displacementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; option colors the beams based on the distance they move under loading. Red shows a larger amount of stress, yellow to green shows a medium amount of stress and blue shows low amount of stress. This also shows that the red areas will displace the most, but it was difficult to properly enter the information into Karamba to test structural analysis for a reciprocal structure, so buy physically testing strong fixings, this would potentially realise better results as there are no appropriate rigid fixings in the tested structure. This does however allow us to determine that we require very rigid fixings in the structural core in particular to stop moving from imposed load and shear and lateral forces.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

117

MATERIALITY In order to ensure structural stability and figure out the best connection type for the structure, a series of physical prototypes were tested for their rigidity, cost, time, skill level, equipment required and labour intensiveness. The wood used was recycled from building sites or found at home to help determine what it would be like using recycled materials from a junk yard. It was found that both thick and thin pieces join well but as expected thicker pieces are much heavier and more suitable for any ground application â&#x20AC;&#x201C; will NOT be suitable for canopy. The 18x18 quads are pretty perfect for the canopy, a softer wood version of the 18x32 would be good too because the one at hand was a harder wood. Wood sizes used: 18x18, 18x32, 18x115, 45x90

FIG. 69-72 PROTOTYPING TO TEST NOTCHES BY ROMANA

118

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS NOTCHING Notching the wood allows a flat form but with angled notches it also allows an overlapped form without any gaps between the members. Rigidity – notching at angles (one per member) does not allow much structural stability and members easily slide off from each other. Notching 4 times on each member appears to be structurally stable once they are all in place because they all support one another so this seems to work well. Since it is a place that will be occupiable by children on a daily basis and situated outside subject to wind forces these would need to be further braced to ensure rigidity. Cost – No cost to the actual connections as we can source equipment from home Equipment – power saw Time – about 5 minutes preparation for each beam to mark out where the cuts will be – we could use laser cutting to cut out the shapes on a piece of card and then use this piece of card as a stencil. Depending on the skill level and how comfortable one is with the power saw the up to 4 cuts could be done in 5-10 minutes. This is about 15 minutes all up per member. Can start to go easier and quicker as we get used to it. Given there are 143 timber members this = approx. 36 hours of work. And also need time to gather the materials and cut them to their specified lengths and organise the notching specifications. Skill level required: Not a high skill level is required. Using a power saw is relatively easy and easily learnt if one hasn’t used it before. Labour intensiveness: Not so much physically demanding but repetitive in nature and precision must be ensured so you must be able to concentrate for the period of time you are performing the cuts. Very time consuming and not stable enough to sit on its own so needs additional work to ensure it is structurally sound. Argument: This is probably not an optimal choice as the time frame for pre-fabrication is quite small. As it will be the members of the group building the project we must account for our availability too. We have one week between the semester end date and intended building start date and given that we have exams and study commitments in that period, it is not feasible to have such a time consuming pre fabrication component of the design as then more time will be needed to further strengthen each support during the construction phase.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

119

C.2

120

DESIGN PROCESS

PROJECT PROPOSAL

ROPE

Notching the wood allows a flat form but with angled notches it also allows an overlapped form without any gaps between the members. Rigidity – high level of rigidity. No movement. But must ensure the rope is tightened and tied properly. Cost – Depending on the size of the elements the piece of rope can range from 40-60cm. Using a 60cm rope for 352 connections = approx. 211m of rope. Bunnings 10mmx50m polypropylene rope for $25 = $125 all up to match the length we need with extra to spare. 4mmx50m =$5 =$25 for the length we need and extra to spare. The polypropylene seems to be the way to go its used for a wide range of things – properties that are important given it will be outside and used as a structural component are: it is stabilised against harmful UV radiation; unaffected by water; rot resistant; lightweight. – also available in a variety of colours. Equipment – rope Time – 3-5 minutes per knot. Gets easier and quicker once you get the hang of it. Skill level required: : Very easy. Simple google of how to tie a square lashing shows the procedure. (can do other patterns too) Labour intensiveness: relatively low labour required. Just need to ensure strength in tightening the rope so it works effectively. Argument: The rope is a good way to add more rigidity to the structure where a more flexible connection occurs. But there needs to be more than just rope holding the structure together. It is time consuming to do all the connections but this would be done in the construction phase not the prefabrication phase and can be done e.g. over a screw so it is a relatively quick connection detail. Additionally; colours can be incorporated as well as patterns. Can serve as a decorative element to make the appearance of the structure more humble.

2 m

5 -

t s

e FIG. 73,74 PROTOTYPING TO TEST ROPE BY ROMANA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

121

FIG. 75-78 PROTOTYPING TO TEST SCREWS BY ROMANA

122

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

SCREWS Rigidity – one screw means its very flexible and subject to rotation – this is easily braced once more components are added and after there are 7+ components there is no rotational movement. Two screws pre connection makes it much more rigid. Smaller pieces of wood may only have room for one screw as the structure demands a bit of a slant but this can be easily braced further. Wider pieces of wood allow 2 screws. Overall very rigid with limited need for further bracing. Cost – : E.g. a 45mm deep piece of wood (probably the largest depth we would go) – would use a 75mm screw. Need to use external screws that have high corrosion protectin. Bunnings has 75mm galvanised batten screws in boxes of 100 for $15.80. 400 screws = $63.30. 700 screws = $110.60 Equipment – screws, drill Time – 30 seconds per screw given we are using soft wood like pine. Harder wood requires pre drilling holes. Skill level required: no skill required Labour intensiveness: : low to medium labour – need to use patience and strength to ensure screws are tight. Argument: Seems to be a very good choice – very efficient and do not need extra bracing. Materials are able to function in outside weather conditions. Also becomes hidden in the structure and can incorporate decorative element over the top.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

123

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

DOWELS Rigidity – Refer to screw(s). Additionally it is worth mentioning that dowels are use to a size where they will not slip out. Can also be glued. Cost – For two 45mm depth pieces we would need 90mm dowels. Bunnings has 12.5mm diameter dowels at 3m long at $8.94. 1 dowel per connection would require 31.68m = approx. $98.34. Equipment – Power saw, hand saw to cut dowel into required length. Drill a hole into the piece of wood. Hammer to push dowel through opening. Hard wood dowel – dowel needs to be of stronger wood than the beam. Time – 30 seconds to cut dowel, 1 minute to drill hole, 2 minutes to hammer and ensure everything is in place. Skill level required: not much skill required. Easy to learn to do all these things Labour intensiveness: medium labour. Need to cut, drill and hammer 352 pieces Argument: Achieves a flush and smooth connection. Very good for aesthetic purposes but probably unnecessary. Shows that sort of human touch to the construction and is structurally sound. However it can get quite expensive and much more labour is involved.

124

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 79-80 PROTOTYPING TO TEST DOWELS BY ROMANA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

125

FIG. 81-84 PROTOTYPING TO TEST CABLE TIES BY ROMANA

126

PROJECT PROPOSAL

CABLE TIES Rigidity – Once fully tightened the connection is extremely rigid. Adding two holes and two ties ensures even more rigidity and is necessary in large members. In smaller members one works well. Adding two diagonally crossing cable ties causes a fairly rigid structure but there is still room for lateral movement with the use of heavy force. Similar to other connections more elements are braced this adds rigidity throughout the whole structure. Steel ties are not very rigid and lots of movement between members because it is difficult to tighten the steel around the rectangular members. Cost – Bunnings has 20cm plastic cable ties in packs of 100 at $8.14. 700 ties = $56.98. Steel cable ties 10x 25cm pack for $4.36. 700 = $305.20 Equipment – : Drill for a hole. Cable ties – can source rot resisting ties that are UV resistant and extra strength due to heavier weight of material used Time – 1 minute to drill hole, about a 1 minute to ensure tie is at full lock. Skill level required: low skill level Labour intensiveness: low labour Argument: : Cheap and easy solution to joining the pieces together. Only concern is that it is not sturdy enough to be placed in a children’s playground. Made with plastic – unsustainable. Steel ties are good quality high tensile strength stainless steel with a high grade of 304, however it is difficult to tighten and expensive as more connection would need to be added to ensure rigidity.

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

PROJECT PROPOSAL

127

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

NUT AND BOLT Rigidity – see screw(s) Cost – Bunnings pack of 25x 120mm m10 hot dip galvanised cup head bolts and nuts @ $24.75- trade quality, additional corrosion protection so can be exposed to outside elements, includes a ‘square neck’ which limits bolt spinning during application. 2 per connection 700 bolts = $693. Equipment – drill, nut and bolt, hammer, wrench Time – 30 seconds to drill a hole, 1 minute to assemble nut and bolt, 30 seconds to tighten bolt Skill level required: low skill level Labour intensiveness: low to medium Argument: The strongest connection type. Ensures the wood is jammed together and no room for loosening of connection. Can be covered for decoration or left as is for that craftmanship feel. Arguably the most successful connection type. The nut and bolt connection type is the most successful as there is a low amount of skill and labour involved, able to be done on site, and most importantly it is the most rigid connection of tested connections. By sandwiching the two wooden pieces together it ensures there will be no displacement which is necessary as seen through our structural analysis. Other connection types work well too and are much cheaper but it cannot be confirmed that there will be no displacement in terms of rotting wood and moving screws, or loosening rope for example. The aesthetic can be left rugged and with a human touch or can be softened with coloured rope as a decorative element to bring attention to the joint and system but also act as coloured flowers to attract different species.

128

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 85,86 PROTOTYPING TO TEST BOLTS BY ROMANA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

129

BOUGAINVILLEA GLABRA Advantages: - evergreen - flowers: march, april, oct-dec - cold to -5 - medium to fast growth rate - screening Disadvantages: - spiny or thorny - exotic

FIG. 87,88 BOUGAINVILLEA GLABRA

130

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

FIG. 89,90 NATIVE LILAC

HARDENBERGIA COMPTONIANA (NATIVE LILAC) Advantages: - evergreen, robust, low maintenance - flowers: august - november - cold to -5 - medium to fast growth rate - screening, shading, bush garden - native - tolerates full sun Disadvantages: - sourcing/availability

PROJECT PROPOSAL

131

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

KENNEDIA MACROPHYLLA (AUGUSTA KENNEDIA) Advantages: - evergreen, robust, low maintenance - native - flowers: september - december - tolerates full sun - cold to -3 - fast growth rate - screening, shading, ground cover - bird attracting - sourceable Disadvantages:

132

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 91,92 AUGUSTA KENNEDIA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

133

PLANT SELECTION AND OFFSETTING BIODIVERSITY A firm idea we want to incorporate in our proposal is the connection between the human and animal environment. By introducing a climbing plant into the structure, we will ensure that shade is provided for human occupants but also introduce biodiversity into the site through native plants that attract birds and insects. This was strongly influenced by our in class lecture on offsetting biodiversity which is essentially creating biodiversity in one place as a response to destroying it in another due to human impact. We wanted our structure to be as little impactful on the site as possible, and the little that it is will be counteracted by introducing a new habitat. The selected successful plant is the Kennedia Macrophylla which will grow down from the bottom of the hollow trunk up through and over the canopy. The reason it is chosen is because its evergreen nature provides continuous shading throughout the year as well as flowers. Being a native plant, it fits into the context of the site but also means it is tolerant to the environmental conditions of the site. The most important aspect is that it is bird attracting. We want to have a strong emphasis on the engagement of humans and animals and cohabitation within a human made structure.

134

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.2

DESIGN PROCESS

FIG. 93 INITIAL RENDER OF FINAL CONCEPT BY OLIVIA AND MERIJN

PROJECT PROPOSAL

135

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

136

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 94 FINAL RENDER BY MERIJN

PROJECT PROPOSAL

137

FIG. 95 EAST ELEVATION BY MERIJN BRAAM

138

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

139

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

140

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 96,97 SITE PLAN AND TOP VIEW BY HAGI AND CONNOR

PROJECT PROPOSAL

141

142

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL FIG. 98 FINAL MODEL BY ROMANA AND MARIAM

143

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

144

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 99-101 FINAL MODEL BY ROMANA AND MARIAM

PROJECT PROPOSAL

145

FIG. 102-104 FINAL MODEL BY ROMANA AND MARIAM

146

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

147

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

148

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 105-107 FINAL MODEL BY ROMANA AND MARIAM

PROJECT PROPOSAL

149

150

PROJECT PROPOSAL

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

FIG. 108-114 FINAL MODEL SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW DEMONSTRATION BY ROMANA AND MARIAM

PROJECT PROPOSAL

151

C.3

FINAL PROPOSAL

Our client’s desire was to provide a structure that was humble and had a sense of craftsmanship; something not imposing and ‘architectural’. This meant that our design needed that human touch and required hand building. Since another key component of the brief was the use of recycled materials, this limited our possibilities to source appropriate materials for use with digital fabrication methods such as a laser cutter. However, parametric tools allow us to be able to determine the length and location of each of the 142 members and number them and lay them out to aid in assembly. This is an extremely valuable tool that would make the fabrication and construction processes much quicker and more organised. Furthermore, if we were to decide on using notches, a potential direction we can take would be to number and lay the pieces out and use a laser cutter to cut a stencil out of card or similar material for us to use to measure the pieces of wood and mark out the notches without having to do any precise, manual measuring. Additionally, the structure would not have been able to be realised without the use of parametric tools – at least not in the few short weeks it was done through the studio. Geometry and patterning was easily determined and quickly tested for performance all within a few days – and then the process was done again after some alterations were made. The use of parametric tools aided greatly in determining the best possible geometry to offer shading for the site and structural integrity for the piece as a whole, but also looking at the bigger picture it helped determine the best position for the structure on the site through solar analyses and also the size of the form. On a less larger scale, the tools allowed us to determine appropriate patterning and explore different construction methods, especially reciprocal structures and allowed us to determine the size and location of each member; and ultimately how many members there are and how many connection points exist which also quickly allowed us to determine costing for connection materiality and supply of the recycled timber. And importantly parametric tools allowed us to test the structural integrity of our design to see if it would actually work.

152

PROJECT PROPOSAL

FIG. 115,116 FINAL PROTOTYPE FOR CANOPY AND STRUCTURAL CORE BY ROMANA

PROJECT PROPOSAL

153

Our design proposal presentation was catered specifically to our client from CERES. In our crit, we had another jury member who was not familiar with the site, and we learned that it is important to introduce the site so that everybody understands what it is. I also learned that it is good to reflect your design ideas in your presentation mode. For example, we went with a top down approach in terms of materiality – we chose our material to begin with and then went into designing the finer details, so we could have had this top down approach in our presentation to introduce CERES as a whole and then come down to the particular site we are building on. Through our design process we made many decisions; some of which were documented, some which weren’t. I learned that it is always important to document anything you do, especially when selecting the most successful outcome. It is also important to always screenshot iterations we do even if they may not aid in the final proposal, because we can easily forget things that worked and even if things don’t work at least we have something to show that we attempted and investigated and tried to learn from. I think another important piece of feedback was emphasising different aspects of our narrative. For example, we sort of brushed over the animal habitat component of our design, even though it was crucial for us so more time should have been dedicated to that in terms of research and presentation. Studio Air Objectives: Objective 1. “interrogating a brief” by considering the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering enabled by digital technologies I think I developed a better understanding in how to approach a brief with digital technologies in mind. I learned that through interrogation of the brief I must come up with a strong narrative that

154

PROJECT PROPOSAL

will determine my design process and justify each of my decisions. This is in terms of my research field biomimicry and how it is the starting point to many design processes, but also in terms of how digital technology can be utilised to progress the design. I think I performed much better in relation to this in the Part C of the project where it was my role to determine the biomimicry aspect and part of the narrative of our group project, because of my feedback in Part B. In part B I wasn’t convinced of my own design and wanted to fit in too many ideas into satisfying the brief instead of just keeping it simple and developing the details. I think I learned to make a very strong narrative and case that would aid in the design process because it added further limitations and constraints than the brief did which gave the design a direction and I learned that everything should be done with a purpose that relates back to the brief and narrative, and for example picking out the most successful iteration should actually be thought out with a justifiable selection criteria. I think I improved on this a lot more in Part C of the journal.

Objective 2. developing “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” by introducing visual programming, algorithmic design and parametric modelling with their intrinsic capacities for extensive design-space exploration; I was not heavily involved in the grasshopper aspects of the group project in Part C but from reflection on Part B and observing and helping my peers in Part C I learned a number of things. I think I am competent in generating a variety of design possibilities for a given situation, but in my part B many of them were not meaningful. I think it is because I didn’t really understand the components I can use in grasshopper but from working with my peers and learning from more videos I do have some better understanding on

C.4

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES the way particular components can be used to their full effect rather than just for aesthetic purposes. In our part C there was a generation of many different geometries to find the best one to shade the sandpit. I learned that an initial idea needs to be pushed to the point of breaking by seeing what doesn’t work and continuously changing that specific detail until you reach an end. Then going back and doing the same process for another part of the design. In my Part B I sort of just tried 3-4 different changes and then moved on instead of really pushing the definition. I think when the definition is really pushed that’s when some of the really unexpected outcomes occur. I also learned that using parametric design is not a way to just come up with something that may work, but through our Part C we actually had an idea in our head to begin with and then used digital technologies to bring it to life and through this we made numerous iterations to achieve the ideal form. We created our specific situation and added in our constraints from the brief in order to generate a variety of design possibilities.

Objective 3. developing “skills in various three-dimensional media” and specifically in computational geometry, parametric modelling, analytic diagramming and digital fabrication; I think I need a lot more work to develop my skills in Grasshopper but I think that working with a group in Part C really opened my eyes to the possibilities that computation offers more than the research in Part A did because I actually saw peers – people like me – doing these things. I definitely developed my skills of approach to computational design but my understandings of parametric tools are still limited. Despite this, I have a clearer understanding of some components and I think with more practice and a disciplined approach, I will be able to develop my skills further to produce meaningful outcomes. I think a limitation to our group design was the use

of digital fabrication. We really revolved around the idea of using recycled materials and I think we were successfully able to use computation to achieve desired results (results which would not have been as developed if done manually) but we were lacking in the digital fabrication aspect. We didn’t really get to use any of the laser cutters, robots, or CNC machines so my skills in those areas are underdeveloped. Something we could have done was add in a further constraint to ensure use of digital fabrication technologies which I think would have then resulted in a completely different final outcome.

Objective 4. developing “an understanding of relationships between architecture and air” through interrogation of design proposal as physical models in atmosphere; We spent a lot of time interrogating our design proposal as a physical model in its environment but not specifically in terms of atmosphere or air. Our design focused its concern on being structurally stable and providing habitat and shading. We could have potentially incorporated some ideas that would react to wind and air to engage the design with its atmosphere. Objective 5. developing “the ability to make a case for proposals” by developing critical thinking and encouraging construction of rigorous and persuasive arguments informed by the contemporary architectural discourse.

I think that my ability to make a case for proposals improved from Part B to C. I understood the process better and that I needed to give a defined narrative, envision the design process, and set out a selection criteria that the results from each part of the process needed to fit in to. I understand that multiple ideas and iterations iterations need

PROJECT PROPOSAL

155

C.4

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES to be created for one part of the design and we must be critical in deciding whether or not they work. I also learned that I actually needed to be confident and passionate about my design. I felt a bit disconnected and confused in Part B therefore I think my arguments were not very strong, but in Part C I was heavily involved in the entire design and I understood each of the ideas and was able to then provide persuasive arguments as to why we have chosen specific ideas for our proposal. I learned that even when an outcome is not 100% perfect I can still argue for it by critically identifying what is wrong with other outcomes and how other parts of the design can aid in anything that said outcome doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t provide. This subject definitely allowed me to see what was wrong in my approaches before and develop better critical thinking tools and a better approach to a design process.

Objective 6. develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analyses of contemporary architectural projects; I think through the help of my peers and feedback from Parts A and B of my journal, I was able to have a clearer understanding of analysis of contemporary architectural projects. I think this is a useful tool to analyse precedents as you can see how their concept grows and how it is mirrored in the final outcome to learn various approaches but also see where projects may have gone wrong or how they respond to difficult constraints. I think it is very worthwhile to analyse the technical aspects and design of precedents as they open you up to various innovative ideas and can inspire new types of designs. I believe it is a valuable tool to stay connected and aware with contemporary projects as designers can all learn from each other in terms of both mistakes and successes.

156

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Objective 7. develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming; Since the beginning of the studio, my understandings of computational geometry have significantly improved. From being completely perplexed by data structures I now understand what they can be used for and how they can be used through the help of video tutorials, in class tutorials and from my peers. I now do have a foundation of understanding of computational tools but I think I have a lot more developing to do.

Objective 8. begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application. I think I need the most work in developing my personalised repertoire of computation techniques. I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think I spent enough time actually learning to understand particular components to learn their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application but my understanding is slowly growing by seeing real examples and exploring ideas on the grasshopper forum to learn from other people.

PROJECT PROPOSAL

157

Fig 1. http://ghgrecycling.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=12171940 Fig 2-5, 14, 50-53, 69-86, 115, 116: Author Romana Radunkovic Fig. 6, 8-12, 65, 94, 95: Merijn Braam Fig 7, 49, 62-64, 66-68: Olivia Goodliffe Fig. 13: https://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/0e0ba327-1dac-4f0a-9c2833e6ce145322/5c2194b6-0096-4a5e-8c0a-08129835c5e5.jpg Fig. 15: http://assets.teleflora.com/images/misc/butterfly-on-flower.jpg Fig. 16: https://maxpull-gdvuch3veo.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/honeybee-on-flower.jpg Fig. 17: http://www.sciencealert.com/images/stories/Peter_Waters_Lorikeet_shutterstock.jpg Fig. 18. India McKenzie Fig. 19, 20: http://gregorkregar.com/portfolio/the-dream-house-project/ Fig. 21, 22: https://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/20/kengo-kuma-installsclimbable-wooden-yure-pavilion-jardins-des-tuileries-paris-fiac/ Fig. 23: http://www.parametricism.co.uk/blog/tag/philippe-block/ Fig. 24-47: Merijn Braam and Hagi Andoko Fig. 48 Yan Jiao Fig. 54-61 Olivia Goodliffe and Yan Jiao Fig. 87 http://plantsrescue.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bougainvillea-glabra-6.jpg Fig. 88 http://www.learn2grow.com/plantdatabase/plants/DisplayImage.ashx?ImageID=68329&width=560 Fig. 89 https://d2x5h7l1jb4539.cloudfront.net/images/plant-databaseimages/hardenbergia-comptoniana-005.jpg Fig. 90 http://www.gardensonline.com.au/Uploads/Plant/1726/Hardenbergia-HappyWanderer1800.jpg Fig. 91 http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8210/8213965374_cc3998b147.jpg Fig. 92 https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/24/3d/e7243d60c215342e477069a9d31a854d.jpg Fig. 93 Merijn Braam and Olivia Goodliffe Fig. 96, 97 Hagi Andoko and Connor Forsyth Fig. 98- 114 Mariam Najeeb and Romana Radunkovic

158

PROJECT PROPOSAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alberto Pugnale, ‘ Structural Reciprocity’, <http://www. albertopugnale.com/portfolio/structural-reciprocity/>

Olga Larson, ‘Reciprocal Frame Architecture’, <https://casaeco.files. wordpress.com/2012/03/reciprocal-frame-architecture.pdf>

PROJECT PROPOSAL

159

160

PROJECT PROPOSAL

END STUDIO AIR

ROMANA RADUNKOVIC SM1 2017, MANUEL

PROJECT PROPOSAL

161