Sat Naing Aung_Sat_860309_PartB by s.satnaingaung

STUDIO AIR PART B

2018, SEMESTER 2 TUTOR: ISABELLE JOOSTE SAT NAING AUNG (860309)

Table of Contents 5 B.1. RESEARCH FIELD: BIOMIMICRY 6 BIOMIMICRY 8 B.2. Case Study 1.0: The Morning Line 10 Reverse Engineering 12 B.3. Case Study 2.0: ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 17 Reverse Engineering 18 B.4. Technique: Development 18 Matrix of Iterations 20 Matrix of Iterations 22 B.5. Technique: Prototypes 22 Melting and Shaping 3D Printed Models 23 Form Finding with Plaster Cloths 24 Weaving with Plaster Cloth Strips 25 Weaving with Twine 26 B.6. Technique: Proposal 26 Basic Form 2 26 Composition 3 27 Selection Criteria for Panels 29 Materiality 31 B.7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

B.1. RESEARCH FIELD: BIOMIMICRY “If you want to make a living flower you do not build it physically with tweezers, cell by cell; you grow it from seed. If you want to design a new flower, you will design the seed and let it grow. The seeds of the environment are pattern languages.” - Christopher Alexander

CRITERIA DESIGN

BIOMIMICRY Undoubtedly, nature HAv the best possible solutions to most of our problems today because biological evolution over billions of years has picked out only the fittest to survive through natural selection by culling heaps of unsuccessful variations. Biomimicry, which translates to “imitation of life”1, is a design approach utilized in many areas from Velcro to radar technology to bullet trains. It involves a very close relationship with biology, chemistry engineering and mathematics to study a specific part of the nature and apply its characteristics for a desired outcome. The term is somewhat misleading to be used in architecture, for it does not purely imitate form, function or materiality of the nature. Rather, a basic structural principle or a process from a particular element of nature is extracted and optimized to a stage where it is applicable at architectural scale. This processes of research, abstraction and implementation is better known as “biomimetic” 2. Interdisciplinary collaboration is the key to this approach: biologists and chemists are mostly responsible for the research, engineers and mathematicians for exploring the underpinning principles of the research outcomes, and architects for finding ways to implement these principles into the built environment 3. Biomimetic approach could be employed in various aspects of architecture such as structural design (Beijing National Aquatics Centre by PTW Architects), fabrication method (ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 by ICDITKE University of Stuttgart) and material development (Composite Swarm by Studio Roland Snooks). Due to the self-organized and self-generating nature of biological materials, biomimetic architecture could be the answer to more efficient materials and structural systems. This possibility is enhanced by the computational generative algorithms to open up a new chapter of speculative design theories. On the other hand, it is restricted by the limited capability of fabrication methods available today. Developments of robotic fabrication methods in conjunction with artificial intelligence are underway, however, innovation in this area is not advanced enough yet to be able to fabricate a habitable space at a reasonable rate and cost. 1 Göran Pohl and Werner Nachtigall, Biomimetics for Architecture & Design (Stuttgart, Germany: Springer, 2015), p. 1. 2Göran Pohl and Werner Nachtigall, Biomimetics for Architecture & Design, p. 1. 3 Pasquale De Paola, Form Follows Structure: Biomimetic Emergent Models of

FIG.1: ICD/ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION 2011 (IMAGE: ARCHIDAILY)

Architectural Production (Louisiana Tech University, 2012), p. 305.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.2. Case Study 1.0: The Morning Line

The Morning Line is a series of installation at different places around the world by Aranda\Lasch in collaboration with Matthew Ritchie and Daniel Bosia. The project was created as a collaborative place to explore the mutual relationship between art, architecture, cosmology and music. The outcome is a complicated result of a simple principle: a continuous network of intertwining line with no beginning or end in space. The aim of this principle is for the structure to be self-supporting. For this reason, a threedimensional geometry based on a tetrahedron which can be truncated infinitely to result in smaller geometries of the same shape was developed. Each face of these fractals contains a line drawing that connects to the drawings on adjacent faces to form a continuous line. The installation is constructed using modular units that are lightweight and recyclable. The overall structure can adopt unique forms to respond to any specific site due to the interchangeable modules of different-shape line drawings. The aim of the underlying structural principle is reached in a sense that there is no distinction between structure, form and function. The self-supporting structure itself defines the form, space and function of the installation in a context specific way.

FIG.3: DIAGRAM OF THE MORNING LINE (IMAGE: ARANDA\LASCH)

FIG.4: THE MORNING LINE (IMAGE: ARANDA\LASCH)

FIG.2: THE MORNING LINE (IMAGE: ARANDA\LASCH)

CRITERIA DESIGN

Trancated tetrahedrons are connected to one another at different angles.

Scaling and trancating is repeated on the resulting form.

Random line patterns are generated on the faces of tetrahedrons based on a simple rule: the end of one line must be the start of another.

Reverse Engineering The reverse engineering has not been very successful in a sense that although the line drawings follow the same rule as the original project, the appearances are relatively different. The patterns in the reverse engineering are mostly rectilinear more or less of the same thickness compared to the original projects which are more curvilinear and of random thickness.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.3. Case Study 2.0: ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14

ICD-ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 is one of the research pavilions constructed by students and researchers from the Institute for Computational Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE) of the University of Stuttgart. The aim of the project was to algorithmically mimic the morphology of animals in search for a fabrication method to produce modular structures which is materialefficient and requires minimal formwork yet still have geometric freedom. A protective shell of beetles the structure of which “relies on the geometric morphology of a double layered system and the mechanical properties of the natural fibre composite” forms the fundamental principle of this project. The pavilion is composed from 36 pieces of light weight double layered structures of different sizes. These elements were produced using glass and carbon fibre reinforced polymers with a custom robotic winding process. The overall form of the pavilion is designed to respond to the site. The project had successfully achieved its goal by developing a fabrication method for modular structural elements which could be as light as 24.1kg for a piece of 2.6m diameter and able to create site-specific form with complex spatial composition.

FIG.7: ICD-ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION 2013-2014 (IMAGE: ARCHIDAILY)

FIG.5: BIOMIMETIC PROCESS OF ICD-ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION 2013-2014 (IMAGE: ARCHIDAILY)

CRITERIA DESIGN

FIG.6: FABRICATION PROCESS OF ICD-ITKE RESEARCH PAVILION 2013-2014 (IMAGE: ARCHIDAILY)

CRITERIA DESIGN

Two hexagonal curves are divided into points which are shifted and connected.

Hexagonal Grid

Concretric circles are formed inside the hexagons followed by a similar process of dividing and connecting points to form another layer of weaving at each layer.

The same process is repeated on a grid of hexagons.

The grid of hexagons is mapped onto a non-planer surface. Positioning of the second layer of hexagons had to be changed from moving along Unit Z vectors to the normal vector of each vertex so that the top layer closely follows the shape of the surface.

Map to Surface

Extract Vertices Get Normal Vector at Each Corner Move Vertices along the Vectors Connect Moved Points to get another layer of Hexagonal Grid

CRITERIA DESIGN

Divide both Grids to get same number of Points Shift Points on one of the Grids Connect Original and Shifted Points

CRITERIA DESIGN

Reverse Engineering This reverse engineering appears to be more successful than the previous one because both the details and the overall form were able to be closely replicated from the original project although they are not perfect similarities. The main difference between the reverse engineering result and the original project is the variety of types and sizes of geometry involved. The original project features a wider range of these variations whereas the reverse engineering was only able to include similarly sized hexagons. I would like to try a similar weaving pattern on organic-shape frames to see what kind of unexpected outcomes would appear. Moreover, enlarging the scale to create a habitable space between the two layers would be an interesting iteration to try.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.4. Technique: Development Matrix of Iterations Basic Tetrahedron

CRITERIA DESIGN

Brep trancated with 1/3 sized tetrahedrons

Brep trancated with 2/3 sized tetrahedrons

Flat Brep trancated with 1/3 sized pentahedrons

Tall Brep trancated with 1/3 sized pentahedrons

Trancated Brep with triangular opening

Trancated Brep with hexagonal opening

Trancated Breps connected at hexagonal faces

Trancated Breps connected at triangular faces

Trancated Breps vertically connected at triangular faces

Largely Porous Pattern

Relatively Dense Pattern

Very Dense Pattern

Denser Pattern with Aperture

Less Dense Pattern with Aperture

CRITERIA DESIGN

Matrix of Iterations Porous Pattern with Aperture

Differently Sized Frames with Narrow Shift Points

Differently Sized Frames with Small Aperture

CRITERIA DESIGN

Dense Pattern with Aperture

Differently Sized Frames with Wide Shift Points

Differently Sized Frames without Aperture

Porous Pattern without Aperture

Same Size Frames with Narrow Shift Points

Differently Sized Frames with Large Aperture

Dense Pattern without Aperture

Same Size Frames with Wide Shift Points

Closely Spaced Differently Sized Frames with Large Aperture

Very Dense Pattern

Differently Sized Frames with Medium Shift Points

Closely Spaced Same Sized Frames with Large Aperture

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.5. Technique: Prototypes

Form Finding with Plaster Cloths The attempt was successful because wet plaster cloths are easier to work with. However, the use of material is being reconsidered.

Melting and Shaping 3D Printed Models The attempt was unsuccessful because the plastic was too difficult to handle and control when melted.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Weaving with Plaster Cloth Strips The attempt was successful but the process took quite some time to complete which makes us reconsider because we will have to produce heaps of this kind of units.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Weaving with Twine The attempt was successful because twine is easier to handle than wet plaster cloth strips, therefore, cutting down the production time.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.6. Technique: Proposal Selection Criteria for Panels 1. To protect hatchlings and owlets against predators

3. To provide holes big enough for adult owls to go through

1. To prevent owlets from falling out of the nest

4. To limit the amount of light entering the nest

5. To provide holes to see food on the ground through

Basic Form 2

Hexagonal Patterning 3 is very dense, therefore suitable for tray and north facing panels. Triangle Patterning 5 is very dense, therefore suitable for north facing and upward panels.

This form is chosen to be the most suitable due to its height to width proportion. It also features triangles facing downwards through which an owl can see the ground.

Triangle Patterning 4 is less dense, therefore suitable for south facing panels.

Triangle Aperture 1 features a small hole through which an owl can see but no owlet could fall, therefore suitable for downward panels.

North

Composition 3

Hexagonal Aperture 2 features a hole big enough for an adult owl to enter but also provides a barrier to keep owlets from falling. Hexagonal Patterning 4 is less dense, therefore suitable for south facing panels.

The junction of two cells is enough for an owl to go through in this iteration. It also provides a downward facing entrance which is not visible to flying predators and hard to be reached by non-flying ones.

CRITERIA DESIGN

Materiality Frame: 3mm Laser Cut MDF (strong, stiff, biodegradable)

Pattern: 2mm Twine (strong, flexible, biodegradable)

Connection:

2mm Twine (UHU Adhesive for extra stability)

Assembly: With the aid of Augmented Reality for ease and precision of fabrication

Visual appearance (natural) is also important to attract and camouflage with the owls.

CRITERIA DESIGN

B.7. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

Objective 1: I believe I have achieved this objective of forming a brief by formulating necessary questions. Objective 2: Although I was able to generate a variety of iterations using grasshopper, I still need to improve in this area. Objective 3: After this submission, I have developed my 3D modeling skills to a certain degree where I am confident to complete a project by myself. Objective 4: I have learnt to take surrounding atmosphere into consideration while designing by doing this project. Objective 5: Although I was able to develop a case through critical thinking, I could not respond to my own case in the most effective way. Objective 6, 7 and 8: I think I still need to improve myself more in these areas but hope to gain more of these by the end of the semester.

CRITERIA DESIGN