2014
AirStudio J a m e s Sa l v i n i
Design Studio Air2013
2. 2
TutorsFinnian & Victor
Introduction.
I’m James, a third-year architecture major at the University of Melbourne. Having developed an interest in design throughout my teenage years, I was able to extend my knowledge and interest in visual communication and architecture in the latter years of my high schooling. This is where I was first introduced to computer aided design software in the form of Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and the 3D modeling software Google SketchUp. However, it was not until I arrived at Melbourne University that I was truly confronted with the demands of being an architect. As my structural, construction and architectural theory knowledge expanded, unfortunately my CAD skills did not. I relied heavily on my previous knowledge of the Adobe products and honed my skills on SketchUp. Having not undertaken Visual Environments in my first year of study, this subject has acted as my introduction to the digital design tool Rhino and the subsequent plug-in Grasshopper. I have lived and grown up in the south-east suburbs my entire life and it is this context which has probably fueled my interest in residential design. I do have a strong appreciation for commercial design; however, it is the specific requirements of a house design that interests me most.
3.
Section A
C o n c e ptu a l i s ati o n
4.
Contents
A1. Design Futuring 06 A2. Design Computation 12 A3. Composition to Generation 18 A4. Conclusion 24 A5. Learning Outcomes 24 A6. Algorithmic Sketches 25
5.
“[…]start talking to other people, other disciplines, broaden your gaze (beyond the design process, design objects and design’s current economic positioning), engage the complexity of design as a world-shaping force and help explain it as such”
- Tony Fry
6.
A1. Design Futuring Architectural discourse is the discussion that focuses on the thinking and analyse of the profession. This discussion, critical in its process, propels change and acts as a catalyst for forward thinking architecture. “Traditionally, architectural discourse has been largely a discourse of form. In general it has been dominated by debates that revolve around questions of style.” [2] However, a new concept has begun to surface amongst architectural discourse - the idea of ‘design futuring’. This concept, as introduced by Tony Fry, stresses the importance of sustainability and how it should be amalgamated into design for this point on. Tony Fry places a high important on the role of design in our world as “it names our ability to prefigure what we create before the act of creation, and as such, it defines one of the fundamental characteristics that make us human.” [3] To fulfill the requirements of design futuring, one must take an anthropological approach to the issue.
As humans we are finite beings within the medium of time, therefore, in its essence, design futuring is a concept that works to increase the longevity of human existence by negating forms of action, goods, systems and institutions that take time away. In order to achieve this concept, there must be a cooperation amongst fields. Design futuring cannot be achieved purely through designers. Architects now must liaise with a variety of disciplines varying from, mathematicians to scientific specialist, and so on. The precedence will investigate two projects that demonstrated design futuring by considering the specific needs of the site and its inhabitants, which in turn helped expand their future possibilities. The concepts behind the precedence with be analysed in terms of their capabilities to act a driver of change.
Design futuring goes passed simply accessorizing a building with the latest sustainability technologies that suit the current needs of its inhabitant. The concept relies on a designers initiative and forward thinking in augmenting a concept to cater for the needs of both the current and future users. Fry defines the term ‘design futuring’ with the following requirements, “design futuring” has to confront two tasks: slowing the rate of defuturing (because, as indicated, for us humans the problem adds up to the diminution of the finite time of our collective and total existence) and redirecting us towards far more sustainable modes of planetary habitation.” [4]
1. Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p. 3 2. Leach, Neil, ed., (1997). Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge), p. xiii 3. Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p. 2 4.Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p. 6
7.
[3]
8.
A1. HygroScope: Meteorosensitivty Morphology Achim Menges & Steffen Reichert, Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2012
Architecture expresses a perpetual development of thought and innovation, which previously had focused on the form, and structural performance of a design. This still occurs within modern architectural discourse, however, there is a new emphasis on the concept of design futuring. Archim Menges’ Hygroscope project demonstrates this forward-thinking architecture that has almost become a requirement in today’s industry. What drew me to the project was the manner in which Archim Menges was able to realize his design concept through an ‘earthly’ aesthetic that is just as appealing as it is clever. The scientific concept of the project utilizes “the dimensional instability of wood in relation to moisture content” which is then “employed to construct a climate responsive architectural morphology” [1]. The concept appears to be of incredible detail, but in reality is intrinsically simple. Essentially Menges has adopted an alreadyknown concept and applied it to architecture, which highlights how innovation doesn’t rely on originality.
words, Archi Menges defines the architecture of the Hygroscope project not as the conventional “technical function enabled by myriad mechanical and electronic sensing, actuating and regulating devices” but rather as “[reliant on] the responsive capacity [that] is quite literally ingrained in the material itself.” [1] The process and research to achieve the project holds within it a great importance. The co-operation amongst fields is something I believe to be essential in the success of Hygroscope. The project is quite literally a combination of science and architecture, which has been made possible through computational design. This triumvirate of skillsets has enhanced the possibilities of design, and in this case has produced a tangible creation that takes advantage of its own biological properties. To me, this is the future of architecture; this is design futuring.
The project itself doesn’t really pave the way for future possibilities with that concept, (unless you were to apply a similar structure as façade to control circulation, as a form of shading, etc as opposed to using it as roofing system) however, it does pave the way for an innovative way of thinking. The project does have its limitations, but the process of realizing the project is where the future possibilities lie. With a similar mindset as Archim Menges, one could look to nature’s biological systems for inspiration, utilizing natural responses of materials or systems as opposed to a reliance on technology and energy. In his own 1. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert, (2012), HygroScope [ONLINE]. Available at: http://api.ning.com/files/ogE19DGjM8dJG27AtGzqLPDF*EyibN1PmfPo*iiDOeY-qGXwxZ2Muy5ecaXbzdOmZXVD44-lV-lA4Z1NLmV5FKCKKdLxVOX/HygroScope_04_DSC7766.jpg [Accessed 10 March 14]. 2. achimmenges.net - Achim Menges Design Research Architecture Product Design . 2014. achimmenges.net - Achim Menges Design Research Architecture Product Design . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=5083. [Accessed 10 March 2014]. 3. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert, (2012), HygroScope: Rear Side [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/hygroscope-backsidehttp://tedconfblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2_prototypes.jpg [Accessed 10 March 14].
9.
[2]
10.
A1. Catalan Ribbed Tile Vault Research Project Phillipe Block and associates, MADA, Melbourne, 2013
As highlighted in the Archi Menges precedence, sustainable and ‘design futuring’ projects are becoming more and more common amongst architectural discourse. However, for current architecture to evolve, it doesn’t have to turn away from its previous notions. Striving for innovative designs that uphold environmental requirements is essential; nevertheless, architects cannot forget to further develop concepts based on form and structural requirements. Phillipe Block has demonstrated this within the 2013 research project on ribbed tile vaulting. The project concentrates on the process behind creating a freestanding Catalan-style vaulting system. Through innovation in form finding, guidework systems and construction methods the project is made possible. [1] Traditional tile vaults are typically constructed off walls or supported arches, however, the Block Research Group have fabricated a new structural typology for vaults which relies on the compressive characteristics of tiles and the entire structure being in equilibrium.
complish is a framework for not reinventing, but rather reproducing more effectively in terms of cost and time. Ways of thinking and developing architectural discourse don’t have to be limited to the constructed buildings. Research projects are as much a catalyst for the development of design possibilities as any built project. I find the concept that historical construction methods are continuing to not only be considered, but also developed within architecture today to be very inspiring. The ability to reduce the reliance on formwork without taking away any aesthetic appeal or adding thickness is a testimony to the possibilities afforded by innovations in form-finding software a computation tools combined with ever-growing fabrication methodologies. In the development of my project I will be revisiting the findings of this research project as a form of inspiration for my design, as I am currently envisaging a very open, freestanding structure.
“The combination of computation form-finding approaches and traditional construction methods… can increase the links between design intent and materialisation and as such is fertile ground for research and innovation.” [2] The research project opens the door for further development of historical construction methods. Through the aid of computational tools, the analysis, development and implementation of these methods has never been easier. Perhaps our technology isn’t at the stage yet that we can revolutionise the column and arch, as these immutable construction techniques appeared to have been mastered by our architectural predecessors. However, what project’s like this do ac1. BLOCK Research Group. 2014. BLOCK Research Group. [ONLINE] Available at: http://block.arch.ethz.ch/brg/research/project/free-form-catalan-thintile-vault. [Accessed 12 March 2014]. 2. Block, P., Bayl-Smith, M., Schork, T., Bellamy, J. and Pigram, D, 2013. FABRICATE. Ribbed Tile Vaulting, [Online]. 1, p.9. Available at: http://block.arch. ethz.ch/brg/files/2014-block-fabricate-ribbed-tile-vaulting_1390515804.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2014].
11.
“It is possible to claim that a designer’s creativity is limited by the very programs that are supposed to free their imagination” - Kostas Terzidis
12.
A2. Design Computation A basic human evolutionary trait is to take a present day task and explore methods in which it could be completed faster, more efficiently and to a more complex degree. Technology acts as a catalyst for this perpetual development of methodology in which ideas can be realized. In terms or architecture, technology has opened the possibilities for ideas that were once deemed impossible, or even unimaginable to be conceptualized. Much the same as any profession throughout history, architects have always shown an interest in developing means in which can enhance the possibilities of their field. Developments in the discipline have continued into the 21st century, only this time representing themselves in the form of technological advancements. These advancements hold within them the power to enhance the architect’s capabilities in representing their most intricate of ideas, releasing the constraints of creativity that were once limited by concerns over the structural performance of a design. Computation is changing the way the new generations of architects are thinking. It is no longer considered an avant-garde approach, but rather standard and necessary tool amongst current architecture firms. Computation allows architects to design, explore and analyse complex forms through the use of scripting software in manner which once only conceptually plausible. The computational way augments the designer’s intellect, captures the complexity of how to build a project and the parameters in a building’s formation. Ideas are still formed in the designer’s mind, and – in cases such as Frank Ghery or Zaha Hadid – still expressed as sketches on paper. However, what computation is allowing with-
in the design is to take these entities or processes that are constructed in the designer’s mind, and enter, manipulate or store them on a computer system. Not only used a tool to augment the possibilities of a design, computation can be considered a way of thinking in the sense that it “[computational thinking] is the thought process involved in formulating problems and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can be effectively carried out by an information-processing agent.” [2] As with any development in thinking, comes the potential for misuse and abasement. Despite its potential, skepticism still lies within the architecture community about the worth of design computation. The possibilities that lie within the algorithms of design computation have lead to discussion on an inherent laziness, or reliance, on software to “conspire against creative thought” [3] by encouraging ‘fake’ creativity. The precedence’s will investigate both opinions of design computation with one examining the possibilities in which it opens up, and the other demonstrating how it can in fact lead to exuberant use of unnatural shapes done without much background purpose.
1. Terzidis, Kostas (2009). Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. xx 2. Jan Cuny, Larry Snyder, and Jeannette M. Wing, “Demystifying Computational Thinking for Non-Computer Scientists,” work in progress, 2010 3. Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179
13.
[2]
14.
A2. ShellStar Pavillion
Matsys, Detour Festival, Hong Kong, 2012
The Shellstar Pavillion project commissioned by Matsys demonstrates how computation can aid the design process. The pavilion itself isn’t a particularly difficult design and whilst the surface texture is intrinsically detailed, its materialization isn’t outside the realm of non-computational methods. So what’s the importance of computation for this design? The time frame in which it was completed. The pavilion was designed, fabricated and assembled within six weeks. [1] For a design that incorporates 1500 individual, non-planar cells to not only be conceived, but put together pays homage to the powers of computation. The design team utilized computation tools such as Rhino and Python, as well as algorithmic and physics engines Grasshopper and Kangaroo. [1] These programs combined allowed for the be form and structure of the pavilion to be designed using “…classic techniques developed by Antonio Guadi and Frei Otto” in a fraction of the time that it would have taken otherwise. Essentially this project is clear example of the worth
of computation within the current architectural design process. The brief, concept, and design were all relatively simple, however, what computation has allowed the designers to do is to optimize the surface of the structure to a degree that the human mind or lesser programs may not have been able to. All 1500 cells are non-planar, which simply means that all the cells were required to bend slightly in a certain direction in order to achieve the overall curvature of the form. Where the computation aided within this step was its ability for each cell to be “optimized so as to eliminate any interior seams and make them as planar as possible, greatly simplifying fabrication.” [1] What I feel can be further explored in respects to my design is a combination of creating an interesting surface aesthetic in a manner which maximizes the materials potential. At this stage I have a pavilion, catenary-like structure in mind for my design, therefore looking at computational methods for producing geometrical aesthetic features that could, perhaps, trap sunlight or aid ventilation would be applicable.
[2]
1. Projects « MATSYS. 2014. Projects « MATSYS. [ONLINE] Available at: http://matsysdesign.com/category/projects/. [Accessed 19 March 2014]. 2. Dennis Lo, (2012), Matsys Shellstar Pavilion [ONLINE]. Available at: http://matsysdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ShellStar-7776.jpg [Accessed 19 March 14].
15.
[2]
16.
A2. FreshHills 2012 LAGI Competition Proposal Matthew Rosenberg, Staten Isalnd, New York, 2012
The previous precedence demonstrated how computation effectively assists the design process. This example is the runner up entry from the 2012 Land Art Generator Initiative Competition and for me displays the “fake creativity” [1] that Bryan Lawson defined in his paper. The project ‘Fresh Hills’ is simply in its aim; place a series of wind turbines on the site, then have them hidden through architecture. The result is a beautiful, sculpted array of undulating hills constructed of bamboo from the local area. Personally I found these hills to demonstrate a lack of human interaction within the design process, as they appear to be heavily reliant on the pattern generation abilities of computation tools. In its essence, the design is decorative architecture, which serves as a screen that hides the wind turbines; something perceived as ugly. The direction, orientation, thickness and construction methods of the bamboo skin appear to be put aside in preference of an appealing aesthetics. The designer’s tendency to rely on the possibilities of computation have lead to in what I believe is an exuberant use of unusual shapes without much background purpose. The design, however, does fulfill the requirements of the LAGI 2012 brief in terms of energy production and a reduced environmental impact, and it should be noted that competition timeframe might have had some bearing on the apparent heavy reliance of computation tools.
1. Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179 2. Matthew Rosenberg, (2012), Fresh Hills [ONLINE]. Available at: http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/8Y8B8U8R/ [Accessed 20 March 14].
17.
“We have no constraints, instead we have processes in our hands, right now, that allow us to create structures at all scales, that we couldn’t even have dreamt of” - Michael Hansmeyer
18.
A3. Composition to Generation Changes to architectural culture and discourse have occurred throughout its history and have more often than not revolved around the development and implementation of materials, arrangement of forms or construction of space. There is a distinguishable response within architectural culture to new technologies or theories, and parametric design is no different from previous examples. Parametric design and algorithmic thinking allow the designer to produce distinctly responsive results that would otherwise be beyond reach of the standard human creative ability. Michael Hansmeyer communicates the idea that architecture is moving into a stage where we do not design specific objects, but rather process the process for creating such objects. [1] What this is inferring is that computational aid within the architectural industry has gone beyond simply sketching forms through algorithms, and has developed to such a stage that architects are communicating with alternate fields – scientists and mathematicians – in order to determine methods of sketching that are otherwise inconceivable to the human mind.
allowed the design to be fabricated. [1] The process of fabrication, however, was an extremely tedious one, which acts to emphasize the limitation that we do hold over computation’s seemingly limitless possibilities. This gap between virtual forms created through detailed algorithms and actual realization is diminishing by the day. As technology evolves – and so do our control over it – more and more design trials are being materialized, which is evident in the following precedents.
Research projects are now experimenting with algorithmic design in a manner that once previously was unable to be materialized into a physical form. Architecture is beginning to favour the design of algorithmic sketching processes over the design of spatiality, which in turn is extending the limits of design possibilities. Michael Hansmeyer typified this change as he detailed the process involved in ‘building unimaginable shapes’. Not only did computation simply allow such a intricate and humanly-impossible shape to be formed, but such advances in technology also
1. Michael Hansmeyer. (2012). Building Unimaginable Shapes. [Online Video]. June 2012. Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_ building_unimaginable_shapes. [Accessed: 23 March 2014].
19.
[3]
20.
A3. Building Unimaginable Shapes Project Michael Hansmeyer, TED Talks Conference, 2012
Hansmeyer used nature – more specifically cell division – as his inspiration to create algorithms to form ‘unimaginable shapes.’ [1] The project centered on the classical architectural column, and whilst respecting the ‘orders’ that define the column, Hansmeyer added a new elemental form that could one-day fall under these ‘orders’. This elemental form was algorithmic sketching. What separates Hansmeyer’s work from his peers is that whilst his findings are not possible to be drafted by hand, they are buildable. His use of computation could revolutionize the way we think of architectural form. [2]
the explanation that the only way to realize this project was to use 2,700 laser-cut layers of cardboard. He, however, concluded his presentation with a prediction that symbolizes the mindset of architecture today “…at one point, we will build them.” [1]
[4]
This project is once again another example of the current wave of thinking that is sweeping across the industry. Hansmeyer demonstrates both the advantages and somewhat limitations of his approach to design. The use of generation in this case paved the way for the most unthinkable of forms to be created; however its conception was one of trial and error. Such is the intricacy of his shapes is that they take years of algorithmic modification to be realized. In this instance, generation as a form of architecture would not be applicable to any standard design due to time constraints. What, however, Hansmeyer is doing is almost the ground-work for future architects interested in intrinsically detailed forms. The process of his work now is slow, yet due to its completion and realization, future projects will benefit. Hansmeyer highlights the deficiencies in the fabrication process of designs of this caliber through 1. 1. Michael Hansmeyer. (2012). Building Unimaginable Shapes. [Online Video]. June 2012. Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_ building_unimaginable_shapes. [Accessed: 26 March 2014]. 2. Michael Hansmeyer: Building unimaginable shapes . 2014. Michael Hansmeyer: Building unimaginable shapes . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www. ikono.org/2012/07/michael-hansmeyer-building-unimaginable-shapes/. [Accessed 26 March 2014]. 3. TED Talks, (2012), Fabricated Columns Outside [ONLINE]. Available at: http://tedconfblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2_prototypes.jpg [Accessed 26 March 14]. 4. TED Talks, (2012), Fabricated Columns Outside [ONLINE]. Available at: http://tedconfblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/8_fabricated_column_outside_
21.
[3]
22.
A3. Yeosu Pavilion
Roland Snooks and Tom Wisecombe, Yeosu, South Korea, 2010
This project is evident of a new phase of exploration amongst current architecture firms. The use of colour “as a critical element of communication, beyond it narrow indexical association” [1] is the centerpiece of interest within the project. Roland Snooks defines the project as “messy computation” due to the constant back and forth between the “realms of model and algorithm.” [2] The project demonstrates a detailed use of computation to create form and structure. What the project also accomplishes that seperates it from other precendts in this journal is the extensive thought put into colour. Computation has clearly aided the process of selecting not only the correct hue for certain
elements, but also the gradient of this colour. What this creates is a structure that appears to amost be lifelike (below) as it sits perched above the water. The manner in which the design incorporates all the possibilites of comupation, but then applies them in a manner which reverts back to classic architectural considerations - the application of colour - is a design approach that I will look to replicate in my trials. Colour offers a humanly touch to a design ,which, otherwise, could be seen as laking amongst computation-dominant designs nowadays.
[4]
1. Ilaria Mazzoleni, 2013. Architecture Follows Nature-Biomimetic Principles for Innovative Design (Biomimetics). p.23, 0 Edition. CRC Press. 2. STUDIO ROLAND SNOOKS. 2014. STUDIO ROLAND SNOOKS. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.rolandsnooks.com/#/yeosu-pavilion/. [Accessed 24 March 2014]. 3. Snooks & Wiscombe, (2010), Yeosu Pavilion [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.aecworldxp.com/sites/default/files/images/aecworldxp/projects/yeosuoceanic-pavilion/Image3.JPG [Accessed 24 March 14]. 4. Snooks & Wiscombe, (2010), Yeosu Pavilion [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.aecworldxp.com/sites/default/files/images/aecworldxp/projects/yeosuoceanic-pavilion/Image5.JPG [Accessed 24 March 14].
23.
A4. + A5.
Conclusion + Learning Outcomes
Conclusion.
The first part of this journal has focused on the role of computation within a design process. The research put into this section has provided me with the framework to develop my own design approach. I intend to investigate the sustainable practice of pneumatic energy and construct a design that is able to implement such a practice in the most effective manner. Pneumatic energy is the power created through the compressing or movement of air in confined space. My initial design ideas centered on a pavilion-style construction that enables visitors to move freely about underneath whilst the energy process occurs seamlessly above them. This type of design would require for air to be trapped and compressed within a space, or perhaps along tubes. The algorithmic task from week two sparked some of these tube ideas and coupled with investigations into a number of precedence, (with particular reference to the Matsys’ ShellStar project) I feel as though I have an adequate platform to delve into more specific research, such as material properties and performance, and how they can be implemented to create appealing forms or surface geometries.
Learning Outcomes.
Within the first four weeks of this studio, my computation knowledge has expanded exponentially. This isn’t just in regards to theory and its current uses in today’s industry, but rather a literal understanding of the basics of the Rhino and Grasshopper programs. Having no understanding of the software prior to this studio, I am continuously learning new tools and developing ways in which I can realize my ideas. The concept of Rhino alone hasn’t been as daunting due to the commands and tools being somewhat consistent across CAD programs, however, the introduction of algorithmic modeling in Grasshopper has been a completely new concept for me. I personally don’t think I would have been able to improve previous designs with the knowledge I have obtained thus far, however by the end of this studio I believe that my knowledge of the programs will be up to a standard where they will be of great assistance to any future projects I undertake.
24.
A6.
Week One Algorithmic Sketches The week one algorithmic task introduced me to Rhino and Grasshopper simultaneously for the first time. The task involved generating a form using curves and lofting them together, before creating multiple versions of that form within Grasshopper. The final outcome (left & below) was achieved by creating a surface and increasing the number of points on that surface. Further modification was made using the Gumball tool to create a scale-like texture on the surface. Utilising the Move tool in Grasshopper, the single surface was quickly copied and arrayed to create a potential wall feature. Furhter exploration of the task could have seen me create a surface that was slightly more distored, or perhaps bent in certain direction. My developing knowledge of the softwares restricted the depth at which I was able to engage within the task, but the task did provide me with an understanding of how to multiply surfaces or objects rapdily in order to create a shape that could be implimented as a facade.
25.
A6.
Week Two Algorithmic Sketches
This week’s algorithmic task was to create a low-lying shelter that tied into the landscape to some degree. While the task wasn’t completed directly according to the brief, it was my exploration of different Grasshopper tools that really assisted me in developing my skillset. The final outcome is a curved pavilion-like structure with a series of spheres used as a surface texture (above and bottom left). However, in my trials I explored the Perp Frames, Geodesic, Brep/Plane tools in conjunction with pipes, spheres and other geometric shapes to create a series of trials. The trial (below right) demonstrates the extent to which I was able to get pipes running along the curved surface. My aim was to have intersecting pipes running along the enitre surface, however this was to be unrealised. I really feel as if this task opened the door for potential possibilites to explore later on in my design process. My understanding of Rhino and Grasshopper is growing week by week and I am beginning to feel as if i have some control over the software.
26.
A6.
Week Three Algorithmic Sketches This week’s algorithmic task was to create a curve with a series of spheres plotted along it. The spheres were to be gradually increasing or descreasing in size, but sit at identical distances apart from each other. This task was a lot more specific and difficult than the previoust two. Once again the final outcome didn’t reallt reflect the design brief as i struggled with the use of the Evaluate Curve tool. The process of plotting the points on the curve and transforming those points into a geometry of gradually increasing size (right and below) was about the extend of task i was able to complete. In terms of using the skills aquired from this week’s algorithmic task, I feel as if they would beneficial to a very specific design task only. The concept of controlling a collection of geometries set on points may be utilised for surface effect, and perhaps to a lesser extend an abstract attampt at a staircase or column.
27.
Section B C r i te r i a D e si g n
Contents
B1. Research Field 30 B2. Case Study 1.0 32 B3. Case Study 2.0 36 B4. Technique: Development 38 B5. Technique: Prototypes 42 B6. Technique: Proposal 46 B7. Leraning Objectives/Outcomes 48 B8. Algorithmic Sketches 49
29.
[1]
[3]
[2]
[4]
30.
B1. Research Field: Geometry For the most part, architecture is an expression of geometry. The emergence of computerization has allowed increasingly complex geometries to not only be considered, but also fabricated within designs today. Geometrical thinking and computerization as a pair have evolved to a stage where architects have began to explore not just the use of closed shapes, but sweeping lines and curves that create these shapes. Matsys’ Gridshell [Figure 1 + 2] demonstrates this technique in the form of a sculpture, and similarly the Canton Tower [Figure 3] demonstrates this on a much grander scale. This conceptual design exploration is helping architects to investigate more dynamic and abstract geometric forms, however, I feel it does have its limitations in terms of practicality. The shapes created are aesthetically pleasing, but perhaps that is the extent of their purpose. Within my explorations, these sort of designs could be explored in terms of a ‘shell’ that covers the less-appealing structure of my design – utilizing their aesthetic appeal to hide any necessary structural elements.
Skylar Tibbett’s VoltaDom [Figure 4] installation is a perfect example of this continuing development of geometric forms. There is extensive use of computerization evident in the final outcome – which is an array of vault-like shapes. The VoltaDom demonstrates the evolution of geometric form through computation as the individual geometries within the design each have a slightly different shape. This is a design concept I wish to explore, but not one that I can see as a final outcome due to the fabrication concerns. Creating obscure geometries restricts the process of fabrication and would require an understanding of computerization that is perhaps beyond my own. I have included Nicholas Borel’s Les Turbulence [Figure 5] as demonstration of how simplifying the geometrical façade – in this case to quadrangular shapes – can pave the way for technological additions. The use of light as a feature on the façade has created an interest effect that could be explored in my future trials. This example draws connections to Roland Snooks’ Yeosu Pavilion design in which the colour palate of the design goes a long way to assisting the physical features of the design.
[5]
1. SG12, (2012), Gridshell Digital Tectonics [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.karamba3d.com/gridshell-digital-tectonics-sg2012/ [Accessed 01 April 14]. 2. Matsys, (2012), SG2012 Gridshell [ONLINE]. Available at: http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/sg2012-gridshell/ [Accessed 01 April 14]. 3. World of Travel, (2010), Canton Tower [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.worldfortravel.com/2013/02/15/canton-tower-china/ [Accessed 01 April 14]. 4. SJET, (2011), VoltaDom [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html [Accessed 01 April 14]. 5. Nicholas Borel, (2013), Les Turbulence [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.detail-online.com/architecture/news/les-turbulences-frac-centre-in-orleans-byjakob-macfarlane-021911.html [Accessed 01 April 14].
31.
B2. Case Study 1.0
32.
33.
B2. Case Study 1.0 The exploration of the VoltaDom and Gridshell case studies from the geometry research field has allowed the creation of 30 iterations, which were formed through the alteration of exisiting paramtres, input components and geometries within the case studies. The development of the iterations provided an understanding of the parametric requirements to produce such structures. Breaking down the algorithms displayed the intricacies of each design, but also how they were developed from rather simple geometries. From the collection of iterations the following were selected as they are the most ‘successful’ in terms of relevance to future trials.
This iteration was selected due to its direct link to a precedence from the section A.3 of this journal. The resemblance to the abstract skin of the Yeosu Pavilion is why this iteration is considered successful. Future trials with this form could be done to create a more textured pipe surface that perhas could wrap around a more solid structure. In terms of adopting thisconcept to pneumatic energy, the piped structure would serve as a perfect means to transfer compressed air.
34.
Using the GridShell case study, this iteration doesn’t change the form of the original structure to a great degree, but rather adds density to create a form that could be walked over, rather than stood under like the original GridShell design. This iteration isn’t entirely practical for pneumatic energy, however, it was the apparent mass and overlapping of strucutre that could be looked at in future trials.
This iteration utilised the basic geometries of the VoltaDom case study and looked at varying the radius of these cones. Making each cone a slightly different size created a nice visual effect that could be very relevent to the use of pneumatic energy. Taking this iteration and evolving it into a pavilion-like structure, or enclosed surface with these altering cone sizes could be the next step.
This final ‘successful’ iteration was chosen as an example of how subtraction can aid the design. The original structure was an enclosed shape, but through subtraction an intersting, alternative shape was created. This could be utilised as a facade or surface feature for a more solid structure. It doesnt hold much significance in terms of pneumatic energy application, but the idea of subtraction is one that could be trialed as means of aesthetic appeal.
35.
B3. Case Study 2.0 The exploration of a different case study has allowed us to develop our understanding of the parametric requirements needed to produce such projects. Looking at the Voussair Cloud case study and having to recreate it as close as possible from scratch has introduced some new Grasshopper tools that could be useful later on in our design process. The end result of our reverse engineered project resembles a segment of the Voussair Cloud very closely, which made the case study feel like a success. The project itself is a development of a range of geometries in which their shapes are detrmined by the direction they bend and how they connect to surrounding elements. Below is the our representation of the Voussair Cloud in the form of a vector linework diagram. Representign the case study in this manner was very beneficial in trying to detrmine the steps in which the original architects took to realise the project.
The first step was to create a series of points within a closed curve before using the Voronoi component to create a diagram around these points.
36.
The second step required the shaopes created by the voronoi component to be scaled down and then moved down along the Z-axis.
The third step required the original voronoi diagram to be connected to the moved geometries which was accomplished through the loft tool.
The fourth step was to apply a mesh to the created surfaces which was acheived by exploding the surface before using a series of mesh tools.
The final step was more experimental than the others as we tried to connect the proect to the Kangaroo plugin to move the surfaces. Connecting the SpringsFromLine tool to the Kangaroo Physics component and entering the force requirements into the algorithm allowed us to get some ‘spring’ movement. This, however, is hard to see in the still image shown.
37.
B4. Technique Development
The first set of species created focused on surface geometries and how the repetition of these geometires create modified interms of quantity and size to see what patterns could be developed. The final iter
The next set of trials was centred on the creation of spaces in which air could be naturally filtered in. These trials w for modules that took in air. The second iteration in this species was
This set of species continued the work of the previous one with a more specific focus directed towards the overla direction we were hea
38.
ed interesting aesthetics. Using the Lunchbox plugin hexagonal shapes were created on the above surfaces and ration demonstartes how hexagonal geometries are manipulated to fit an undulating surface.
were very experimental with some abstract shapes being created, however allowed us to continue developing ideas s the most successful with very interesting internal modules created.
aying structure on top of all the modules.The second iteration in this series probably again best demonstartes the aded with these trials.
39.
B4. Technique Development
This set of species was very much a trial of compenents to see what shapes and surface geometries could be c like structure that coul
Our project direction changed with this set of species as the focused shifted from large enclosed strucutres to m dictate movement. The idea of creating steps formed
This species set focuses on finalizing a design for the interim submission. The first iteration trials the idea of includ form that the project was headed towards. The final iteration is a basic render of the propo
40.
created. None of these trials hold much relevence to future trials, although the first iteration is an example of a pavilionld be incorporated later on.
modular surfaces. We began to trial with extruded geometries and came to the idea of controlling these extrusions to and will become the main focus of iterations from here on.
ding a pavilion shade and weather cover for the design while the last few iterations demonstarte the observation tower osed design to demonstarte the potential materials used and display it on a more realistic level. 41.
B5. Technique Prototype One Prototype One was constructed to display the air compression process that takes place in a pneumatic system such as a bike pump . This ‘Muffin’ prototype demonstrates the internal process of a pump with how air is naturally filtered through an open flap, then as a compressive force is applied, that original flap is closed, sealing the structure before the internal air is compressed out a secondary flap. This prototype was simply constructed using household objects such as plastic containers, rubber gloves, elasic bands, bulldog clips and foam. It was not designed to exactly replicate the process we intend to use, however, to demonstarte this process in the most simplest visual form.
42.
B5. Technique Prototype Two Prototype Two was constructed to as a means of both trialling and expressing potential surface geometries. This prototype was trialling how to realise an undulating hexagonal surface. The trial demonstartes how it was difficult to replicate such a surface from flat, identical sized hexagonal geomoetires. It became apparent that to acieve the smoothest curve possible, each hexagonal shape would need to be shaped differently depending on the direction it curves and how it connects to the next shape. This prototype was constructed using 3mm card held up by toothpicks. The surface was ruled into the hexgonal shapes then incisions were made halfway through on either side to allow for bending.
43.
B5. Technique Prototype Three Prototype Three was constructed to demonstate a potential design in which the steps in a single row are connected and hollow to allow for maximum air intake via side vents. This prototype shows how the row of steps are hollowed out and connected as opposed to singular. We had a design problem with the modular steps idea in terms of perhaps the middle steps not being able to take in as much air as the outside ones. So the purpose of this prototype was to demonstrate how those would look and being constructed both with and without the step cover. The steps would be completed by covering all of the steps (as shown) rather than individually. This prototype was constructed using cardboard that was folded to create the hexagonal shape from aobve, then covered using a cutout from a rubber glove.
44.
B5. Technique Prototype Four Prototype Four was constructed to demonstrate the opposite design idea as the previous prototype. This prototype demonstrates the modular steps idea, as opposed to the single rows previously trialled. Each step is its own closed shape with its own pump enclosed. The primary purpose of this prototype was to display the internal functions of each step and how the process of compression would take place. This prototype was constructed using 3mm card that was ruled into shape then cut so that it could be folded into an enclosed shape. The steps were created using individual cutouts from a rubber glove. The intention of this prototype was not to have perfectly aligned steps, but rather demonstrate visually how the pumps would be situated under each step.
45.
46.
B6. Technique Proposal For the interim presentation, we will be displayng this proposal design to the tutors and guest crits. Through iterations and trials, the design has evolved into its current state which is an observation tower. There are obvious alterations that need to be made to the design, however, for the interim presentation we felt it was better to get our idea across is the most visually simplest manner and worry about the intricate details further into the design process. This also allows few or many alterations to be made without having wasted too much time previously on implimenting smaller details. The focus of the presentation will revolve around the ‘steps’ concept and how we came up with the idea of an observation deck to incorporate the features required within the design. Future alterations to the design will need to include changing the angle of the steps to a more horizontal level and incorporating safety details.
47.
B7.
Learning Objectives + Outcomes Conclusion.
The second part of this journal has continued to focus of the role of computation within a design process, however this part has allowed us to explore these techniques on a more individual way by focusing on our own designs rather than the designs of others. In saying that, the first two sections of Part B required us to investigate two case studies as examples of completed work and inspiration. Our group chose to primarily investigate geometry, however we also had a look breifly at Tesselation, Biomimicry and Material Performance. Overall, though, we found the geometry-inspired case studies of the VoltaDom exhibit and Voussair Cloud to be the most relevant to the type of design we would work try to work towards. Originally the idea to create a pneumatic energy system was centred around constructing a pavilion-like structure where air could flow naturally underneath, however , the flaws in this type of design became apparent so we moved in another direction. We began looking at modular designs inspired by geometric shapes with hexagons becoming the most interesting. This idea developed from undulating surfaces to scalable structures with a purpose. Our idea still utilised natural air flow but the process of air compression was achieved through pump systems that were activated once stepped on. The pumps are very similar to any other pneumatic air pump system, with our reliance of people movement to activate them. The algorithmic tasks from the weeks provided some iteresting cincepts but none were very viable towards our design before the week six task. This task introduced the group to surface rationalization and sparked the ideas that lead to the current outcome we arrived at. The ability to apply a range of different geometries to surfaces was a driving force behind the steps we took over the design process. This was primarily due to a familiarity and comfort with the tools, something that we hadn’t achieved to a great extent with other Grasshopper components. Our interim presentation, however, opened our eyes to the flaws in our design. The simplicity of the design which we once thought worked in our advantage turned out to be our downfall. The crits pointed out how our current design wasn’t engaging enough and could be thoroughly improved to produce a greater level of movement over the surface of our structure.
Learning Outcomes.
My knowledge of Rhino and Grasshopper has continued to develop at a steady rate through further research, trialling and error within our own design attempots and the weekly algorithmic sketches. I feel as if I have gathered appropriate knowledge in some areas of Grasshopper, such as applying meshes or controlling surface geometries, but there is just as much that I still am not confident with, and I feel that to an extent this has hindered the potential of my design. In the final part of the journal I will continue to trial new techniques and learn new methods of algorithmic sketching as we move towards attempt to realise our final design.
48.
B8.
Week Four Algorithmic Sketches This week’s algorithmic task centred around sketching different data types which was accomplished by dividing surfaces and applying surface frames. Below is the final outcome of this task which was supposed to have spheres at the end of each pipe but instead a proximity 3D tool was used to intersect those points and create more pipes. This week’s algorithmic task introduced different data types but in terms of our project direction, I don’t feel as if it will be too useful until I develop a greater understanding on how to control these data types. Interesting patterning and subsequent geometires could be created but it all comes down the ability to control these outcomes that will determine if they are used in further trials. The ability to create symmetry is something that did capture my interest within this week’s algorithmic task, and it something that could be explored in further trials.
49.
B8.
Week Five Algorithmic Sketches
This week’s algorithmic task introduced us to the charge components and how they could be employed to control the flow of lines and points. The task was to create a low-lying structure with sculptic qualities. The final outcome below was my best attempt at the task as I struggled to control the outcome of the charge components. The task this week felt less productive than other weeks and more of an introduction into a different component. I didn’t feel as though the component would be particularly useful in terms of our future designs due to both the direction we are intending on going and my ability to control the charge components. The result if this week’s task is very sculptural but also very random. The ability to construct such a design would require precision calculations on material lengths and ability to bend, making it a very high likelyhood to be unrealised. I feel as though this iis the weakness of the charge compnent.
50.
B8.
Week Six Algorithmic Sketches
This week’s algorithmic task was on surface rationalization. The task was to create a variety of different surfaces using your understanding of existing Grasshopper components such as tool Delauney tool, as well as develop new knowledge of the Lunchbox plugin components.
This week’s task was extremely relevent to our design as we had already been working heavily on surface geometries, so the introduction to the Lunchbox plugin has been invaluable towards our design 51.
Section C D eta i l e d D e si g n
52.
Contents
C1. Design Concept 54 C2. Tectonic Elements 66 C3. Final Model 70 C4. LAGI Brief Requirements 80 C5. Leraning Objectives/Outcomes 82
53.
C1. Design Concept Interim Presentation Reflection.
The interim presentation allowed us to showcase the concepts and thought proces behind the first real design concept we had arrived at. It was a perfect opportuity for feedback and critiscim, and it was these comments that have propelled a drastic change in our design concept. The most significant points we have taken away from our feedback is that our design needs to become more specific in terms of engagement and purpose, and more unique or novel in its construction. And in order for us to achieve these points, we need to utilise the capabilities of the Rhino and Grasshopper digital tools to a greater extent. Requiring an overhaul of the design, we decided to focus on the requirements of the site more. If our energy source required human movement as its primary operative, and we were to still create a surface that users walk over, the movement across the site and the users reasons for these movement patterns would be paramount. The following conclusions were made using ariel views of the site: • the view across the bay to Copenhagan is our primary focus and the objective for scalling the design • views left and right of the site to incoming and outgoing boats can will be focal points • the concept of moving away from the industrial side of the site and out towards Copenhagen will be the general direction of movement
54.
Trialing New Designs.
Incorporating our new understanding of the site, we moved towards a design that had a very young target audience with the aim to create a structure that was more novel and unique. We hoped to achieve the drawing of users over to the site from Copenhagen through strong interest from children within families and young adults. Additionally the focus of provide an ‘escape’ for adults from the relatively industrial nature of the site was seen as important. Using these new design directions we moved away from the hexagonal geometry and looked at circular ‘steps’ along an undulating surface. The idea of scattered circular geometries of varying diametres and heights came about through trialling of spatiality and considering the change in size of the human footprint; from young children, to teenagers, through to adults. The final layout can be represented in the following vector linework diagram:
The design we arrived at revisited earlier iterations of undulating surfaces from Section B of the journal. The surface would span from the back of the site, across it and out over the water towards Copenhagen. In terms of relationship with the site, the size of the structure was fairly abitrary - which later would be deemed a major flaw in our design - however, what we did consider was the access points and capturing views. The main entrance to the structure is at the back of the site leading away from the industrial buildings. We also incorporated another entrance approximately halfway up to allow access from the small dock at the north-west corner of the site. Within the design are ‘steps’ that have been elevated higher than others that were to be used as seating. These seating areas have been situated in accordance with what we determined as desired views out from the site. For the rendered final we chose the primary colours of red, blue and yellow to stimulate the younger user’s interest and also create a childhood-like curiosity within the older users.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
C1. Design Concept Final Design Proposal.
Following further feedback on our previous design we were required to make major adjustments. A greater level of engagement with the digital fabrication was required in order to achieve a design that is plausible, responsive to the site and logically constructed. What we lacked in our previous designs was the ability to justify our design decisions through computational systems. In order to rectify these problems we arrived at the following conclusions and justifications within the design process:
• to determine the height between each step we will research the average step height for a child, teenager and adult to create a series of paths that suit each individual user of the design
• utilizing the data collected on the average height suited to different users we can create personalised ‘tracks’ that control the direction in which certain people scale the structure
• the structure will rely on incline movements to reach its summit, therefore research into the most appropriate movement patterns to scale an incline - such as a hill - can be combined with the step height data to create the basis for our steps layout
To accomodate the feedabck we recieved at the second presentation, our design was altered with the addition of further parametres which made the computational tools more necessary and more coherent.
Justification of Design Choices.
The fault in our previous design was that while we considered the sizing of each step in accordance with the different sizes of human footprints, the height of those steps and their spacing was relatively arbitrary. This random layout was something we could not afford to overlook within the design when we have such powerfu digital computation tools at our disposal. Therefore in order to utilise these tools, we researched into the generally accepted averge step height for different ages. According to the Building Code of Australia [1] the requirements for the rise height of a step is that it fall between 115mm and 190mm. Naturally you would assume that a smaller riser height would suit younger children whom have smaller legs, and research only affirmed this. The recommended minimum for children falls between 10 and 12.5 cm and the maximum at 18cm. Considering aesthetics of our design, we didn’t want the change in heights to be so marginal that they were almost unnoticeable, therefore, instead of chosing the midway point of the recomended minimum and maximum heights, we opted for the children step heights to be set at 12cm to allow the teenage step height to be at 15cm. [2] The step height for adults was chosen both logically and through measurements of the steps around university and at home, and set at 18cm.
60.
1. ABCB. (1996). The Building Code of Australia: Volume 2. p. 21,021-21,052 [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.abcb.gov.au/en/ncc-products/nccarchives/~/media/Files/BCA%20Archives/BCA96_Vol2A02.ashx [Accessed 02 June 14] 2. Lueder, R. and Rice, V. (2008). Ergonomics for children. 1st ed. p. 553. New York: Taylor & Francis. [Accessed 02 June 14].
Justification of Design Choices.
In order to determine the geometric arrangement of the steps, research was done into the most effective way in which to scale a hill. The first image below in the equation above is a vector diagram based on the understanding we gathered from studies based on climbing strategies [1] in that ascending a hill diagonally means that while the work is the same, the power expenditure is lower (but it takes longer), which is why it is easier. The second image below it is based on the idea that when one reaches the top of a hill they stop, walk around, explores and observes the scenery before beginning to head back down. The two vector diagrams have been combined and used as an image to be mapped on to a rectangular grid in Grasshopper to produce the final layout of the steps. The idea here was to have a much more controlled and justified walking direction than our last design, which was far more arbitrary and a much large space. We feel that having this restriction in direction will warrant almost all of the steps to be used. Additionally, implementing this sort of linework into Grsshopper has allowed the scale of our model to be altered far more easily. For example, if we were to want a higher sculpture, then more diagonal paths could be added into the vector image, similarly, if we wanted a largeer space at the top for exploration, the sizing of this area can easily be changed on a vector diagram. Our ability to justify this design decision has provided us with much more freedom in terms of design parametres.
+
=
1. M. Llobera and T.J. Sluckin (2007). Zigzagging: Theoretical insights on climbing strategies. p. 206-217. Journal of Theoretical Biology. Vol 249. [Accessed 03 June 2014].
61.
The image on the left represents topographical data gathered on the city of Copenhagen [1]. The data from this map was input into Grasshopper to geenrate a range for the total height of the steps in certain areas along the paths. This data was used in conjunction with the height incriments of 120mm, 150mm and 180mm between each step to create a total heights for the steps that would emulate the landscape of Copenhagen. Below is the screenshot of our final Grasshopper file. Iterations on the right indicate the progression of or design and how it evolved by looking at the restircting the direction of movement using data gathered through research before the Voronoi compnent was used to create the jigsaw pattern of each step to disallow any overlapping that had been a problem in the previous design.
62.
1. Burle, Sameer. (2014) Elevation of Copenhagen, Denmark [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/ElevationMap/?gi=2618425 [Accessed 03 June 14]
63.
C1. Design Concept: Final Final Design.
Our final design incorporates a range of elements from throughout our design process. The steps concept has been fairly consistent throughout the process and is one that we have settled on for our final design. Utilising the requirement of movement to reach the focal point of the design, we arrived at the conclusion that steps would, and always have been, the most logical manner in which to achieve this. We have incorporated a series of tracks design to suit different movement capabilities with three resting areas that are orientated to capture desired views. The layout of the geometrie would create a journey to the top as opposed to an arbitrary surface. The top of the structure sees another flattened out section that allows people to stop and enjoy the picturesque views of Copenhagen from across the harbour. One important aspect of our design that we must also note is that whilst the scale of our model is relatively small compared to that site, that way in which we used the Voronoi component and topological data to calculate that steps orientation, our design can be produced at a variety of scales to fit any site, not just our own. In essence, whilst this design only takes up a portion of the LAGI site, our design could easily have been manipulated using computational means to suit the entire site. Wem however, felt that this scale woas best suited for exhibiting our design for this proposal.
64.
65.
C2. Tectonic Elements In order to create a design that succesfully accomplishes what it was set out to achieve, the construction elements needed to be considered early in the design and refined later on. Our original designs didn’t uphold this requirement as the tectonics were rather abitrary and assumed, rather than heavily considered. Feedback and critisicm of the design itself aided in our development of tectonics as each change to the design required a change to the construction process, and allowed us to consider its fabrication process more and more each time.
Tectonics of Each Step.
The steps concept has been a constant throughout our entire design process, however the configuration and construction of those steps is something that had varied. In our final design, each step is isolated from those surrounding it, which was important in decisions on material selection. The external rim of each step consists of a metal casing that encloses and hides the pump system within. This metal casing does not have any structural qualities but is rather an shell that forms the aesthetics of the design and hides the pump system which supplies the energy. Prefabricated aluminium sheet metal will be used as the material for the exterior of the step due to its dimensional variation across the design. Each side of every step will require its own metal panel to be fabricated off-site using specific dimensions determined by computational means. The panels will be assembled on site and joined to one other using cleat connections. An example of the connection of external panels is detailed in Figure One.
Figure One
66.
TOP VIEW
Fig
Tectonics of Pump System.
The surface of each step has been the focal point of design decisions throughout the project. Consideration surface material have ranged from PVC to vinyl with a strong emphasis on the ability for it to be compressed by the weight of a user stepping on it - but not to an extent in which a user would sink into the structure - and then return to its previous form to be used again. Our final design moves away from this concept in the sense that the surface of the step is not its own isolated material, but rather the top of the pump system. The pump system will consist of two seperate parts that are made out of prefabricated concrete and moulded using computational methods. The sizing of each pump wil be marginally different due to the changes in heigh of the steps, however the diametres would stay fairly constant. Prepared off-site, the two parts of the pump are essentially a hollow barrel in which the air will be compressed, and the pump that gets pushed down through humam interaction forces. A spring system is used to return the pump and step surface to its original position after the users have moved off that particular step. This motion has been detailed in Figure Two with a step not being used on the left and a step currently in motion on the right. The lower barrel has internal shelves which accomdate the base of the spring for compression. In between the shelves is the a small generator which produces the electricity everytime air is compressed and filtered through it. This generator produces the electricity which is moved out and under the floor slab to be stored off-site for later use in Copenhagen. The pump system istelf is much more sturdy than its prefabricated metal casing due to its cylindrical shape and material. Figure Two also details how the metal casing uses its base plates to connect to the slab. The slab itself would be poured ‘in situ’ with rebates to allow for these base plate connections. The plates would be bolted into these rebates then filled with more concrete to create a seamless connection and sturdy finish.
gure Two
SECTION CUT
67.
C2. Tectonic Elements In order to test our pump system, we produced a replica on Rhino and sent it off to the FabLab for digital fabrication using the 3D printer. The process took 3 days but provided us with an insight into what members required greater thickness to support the compresseive forces required of them. The shelf that the spring sits on wasn’t strong enough at its original thickness, therefore we decided that the entire base of the structure should be solid where the spring will rest on. Our second trial - using the same digital fabrication methods at the FabLab - proved our first trial relevant as the bottom of the cylinder now adequately supported the compressive forces being applied to it. The pump system was constructed using digital fabrication, however, the remainder of the detail model was produced by hand, cutting 0.5mm foam board. We decided to clad the pump system with charcoal paper to give it a smoother surface and make it contrast more with the panels enclosing it. In reality, the colours of the materials in our detail model do not accurately represent the materials that would be used in it actual construction. –
68.
69.
70.
C3. Final Model
Due to the number of steps within the design, labelling each individual step would assist in configuring and laying out the folded steps later in the fabrication process.
Selection of each step individually allowed for no mistake of which unrolled surface belonged to which step.
Usuing the UnrollSrf command we were able to transform the 3-dimensional shape into a joined layour of its surfaces.
The Make2D command changed geometry from a surface to an outline with the edges required to fold visible.
71.
Moving the outline shape to the FabLab Card Cutter template, changing the layers as required and inserting numbers for ease of configuration later on.
72.
The process was repeated for all 65 steps to create four card cutter documents ready to be sent off to the FabLab.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
C4.
LAGI Brief Requirements Written Description.
Copenhagen is a vibrant city in which its residents and visitors are encouraged to enjoy the social ifestyle with emphasis on culture and cuisine. The LAGI site across the harbour appears to epitomise the opposite of this community lifestyle due to its industrialised landscape. What our group has worked towards is a design that draws people across the harbour to the site through aesthetic appeal, and keeps people coming back through functional purpose. We aimed to achieve a design that was both novel and unique, and offered an escape from the industrial-dominant aspect of the site. Our design is open, there are no covered areas as it offers a complete connection with the environment. We wanted the users to feel a sense of freedom as they scaled our design, a sense that you are presented with as your move around the city streets of Copenhagen.
Technology Within Design.
The energy type we selected was pneumatic energy, which relies on tye compression of air. To achieve this compression our design relies solely on the forces applied by human movement. Each step on our design incloses a singluar pump system that when stood on, compresses the air inside, pushing it passed a generator that creates electricity, which is then pumped off site for storage and later use. Our design relies purely on human interaction with the structure, therefore, it was paramount that we create a design that not only draws users over to it, but crates an expereince that would make them want to return at a later date.
Energy Generated.
Due to our system relying purely on human interaction, it is hard to calculate the annual energy generated by our design as there are many variables that could both favour and disadvantage our project. For example, during peak tourism season, number of visitors to the site would be much higher than regular days which works to our advantage, however, unpredicted weather conditions may lower the site’s attendance which works to our disadvantage. While it is hard to even estimate the the energy generated, due to each pump being the same dimensions we can definitevely say that each pump generates 0.004kWh of energy it is compressed. Therefore, the following assumptions can be made:
• If 1 person uses the struture and reaches the top, they should have stepped on approximately 30 steps to do so. Thus, on a return trip, they alone would have generated 0.24kWh of energy.
• Using the above estimations, we would require 4 people to make trips to the top and back to generate approximately 1kWh of energy.
• Understanding that not everybody would go to the top and back, we have estimated that per 100 users of the site somewhere between 15kWh and 25kWh of energy should be generated.
80.
• If we aim to have an average of 200 users of the site per day - factoring in peak and off peak periods within the year - then we would have approximately 73,000 users of the site within a year, which equates to between 11,000kWh and 18,000kWh generated annualy.
Materials Used.
The materials we have used for the project are very limited, however we feel as if this work in our favour in terms of fabrication and construcrion on site. The primary materials used include: • Prefabricated aluminium sheets that are cut off-site using specification detailed by computational tools. Due to the varying shape and sizes of the steps, the sizing for every single aluminium sheets will be marginally different, which required the intervention of digital fabrication tools.
• Prefabricated concrete used to construct each individual pump system. Requiring a sturdy material, the base part is hollow to allow for air compression within, and the top part moulded as a plug of sorts to complete the process when the steps are activated.
Our chosen materials were based on ease of fabrication and versatility in terms of shaping our moulding. The aluminium sheets metal was selected due to its ability to be cut into required shapes, and the precast concrete was chosen due to its structural sturdiness.
Environmental Impact Statement.
Our design itself requires no energy to run any systems and it is purely structural and all of the energy it produces is generated through human movement only. Our material slection did come with considerations on environmental impact as we wanted to minimise any waste material or offcuts. We feel as if we have achieved the best possible result in this sense as all materials are prefabricated using computational means, eliminating the chance of mistake or poor workmanship. One negative environmental impact we may have is that with materials being fabricated off-site, they then require delivery to the site itself. As with any materials delivered to construction sites, the fuels created completing this process have a negative impact on the environment, however, we believe that through local sourcing and supplying that we can minimise this impact to a degree.
81.
C5.
Learning Objectives + Outcomes Learning Objectives.
At the start of semester we were presented with a series of learning objectives that we were challanged and required to achieve over the course of the subject. At the beginning of semester, I don’t believe my engagement with the brief was at a standard that put me in a good position to start my parametric modelling effectively. Whilst I understood the requirements of the brief, if was my lack of attention to additional details that perhaps held me back at the beginning of the design process. Learning paramtric design from scratch whilst simultaneously producing iterations and form explorations was a challenge I looked forward to undertaking, but one that ultimately I feel I didn’t suceed at. My interaction with the online videos at the start of semester was not up to the required standard, which unfortuantly forced me to play ‘catch-up’ for the remainded of the course. Learning objective two required “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” through parametric tools, and whilst i was able to produce the work required, it wasn’t to the standard that I would have liked or been able to produce had I undertaken a greater involvement with the online tutorials. Whilst the work I produced wasn’t at the standard that I had set out to produce at the start of the subject, there was moments in which I was able to logically think through the requirements of an algorithm to perform a task. So whilst my knowledge of Grasshopper and its components may not have been as vast as it could have been, the components I did manage to learn I understood thoroughly. In a sense, this restricted the possibilites of my final design as I felt that I was forced to create a structure that relied on the components that I knew how to utilise effectively. I did endeavour to learn and apply new components to my Grasshopper algorithms, but unfortuantly my lack of involvement with required materials earlier in the subject left me with too much to pick up later on. In terms of acheiving the learning objectives, I do believe that I have done so; but only to a certain degree. My computational skillset has developed exponentially over the semester, and whilst it did not develop to a the degree that I had hoped, my gained understanding of computational geometry, parametric modelling and analytic diagramming is something that I can take with me after completion of this subject. This subject also gave me my first interaction with digital fabrication and the FabLab, and similarly, whilst I was hesitant to engage with greatly due to a lack of knowledge and faith in my model-making abilities, my eventual interaction with it has opened doors for future projects.
82.
Final Word Design Studio AIR has by far been the most challenging studio to date, purely due to the amount of new knowledge we were required to learn. One of the biggest mistakes of the subject was to only have two group members. The workload was much higher than we anticipated and having at least one more member in the group would have been a major help over the semester, and perhaps allowed for a more in-depth design. Whilst my introduction into the world of computational design and parametric modelling has been a useful and enjoyable one, I still feel as if this type of design is very much directed towards ‘design competitions’ rather than standard architecture relevant. In saying that, I do see the advantages of paramteric modelling in terms of form generation, ease of fabrication and ability to complete tasks much quicker than standard architecture software, however, my personal feeling towards parametric modelling is that it is fantastic to create abstract, unorganic forms that are eye-catching and future-focused, but are ultimately unrealisable. Its been a pleasure, however, to undertake in this new wave of architectural design and would like to extend a big thank you to my tutors, Finn and Victor for their time and effort in the late tutorial every week. 83.
References Section A.
Achim Menges Design Research Architecture Product Design . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.achimmenges. net/?p=5083. [Accessed 10 March 2014]. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert, (2012), HygroScope [ONLINE]. Available at: http://api.ning.com/files/ ogE19DGjM8dJG27AtGzqLPDF*-EyibN1PmfPo*iiDOeY-qGXwxZ2Muy5ecaXbzdOmZXVD44-lV-lA4Z1NLmV5FKCKKdLxVOX/HygroScope_04_DSC7766.jpg [Accessed 10 March 14]. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert, (2012), HygroScope: Rear Side [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/hygroscope-back-sidehttp://tedconfblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2_prototypes.jpg [Accessed 10 March 14]. BLOCK Research Group. 2014. BLOCK Research Group. [ONLINE] Available at: http://block.arch.ethz.ch/brg/ research/project/free-form-catalan-thin-tile-vault. [Accessed 12 March 2014]. Block, P., Bayl-Smith, M., Schork, T., Bellamy, J. and Pigram, D, 2013. FABRICATE. Ribbed Tile Vaulting, [Online]. 1, p.9. Available at: http://block.arch.ethz.ch/brg/files/2014-block-fabricate-ribbed-tile-vaulting_1390515804.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2014]. ‘ Dennis Lo, (2012), Matsys Shellstar Pavilion [ONLINE]. Available at: http://matsysdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ShellStar-7776.jpg [Accessed 19 March 14]. Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p. 3 Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p. 2 Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p. 6 Ilaria Mazzoleni, 2013. Architecture Follows Nature-Biomimetic Principles for Innovative Design (Biomimetics). p.23, 0 Edition. CRC Press. Jan Cuny, Larry Snyder, and Jeannette M. Wing, “Demystifying Computational Thinking for Non-Computer Scientists,” work in progress, 2010 Lawson, Bryan (1999). ‘’Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: ACM Press), pp. 174-179 Leach, Neil, ed., (1997). Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge), p. xiii Matthew Rosenberg, (2012), Fresh Hills [ONLINE]. Available at: http://landartgenerator.org/LAGI-2012/8Y8B8U8R/ [Accessed 20 March 14]. Michael Hansmeyer. (2012). Building Unimaginable Shapes. [Online Video]. June 2012. Available from: http://www. ted.com/talks/michael_hansmeyer_building_unimaginable_shapes. [Accessed: 23 March 2014]. 84.
Michael Hansmeyer: Building unimaginable shapes. 2014. Michael Hansmeyer: Building unimaginable shapes . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ikono.org/2012/07/michael-hansmeyer-building-unimaginable-shapes/. [Accessed 26 March 2014]. Projects « MATSYS. 2014. Projects « MATSYS. [ONLINE] Available at: http://matsysdesign.com/category/projects/. [Accessed 19 March 2014]. Snooks & Wiscombe, (2010), Yeosu Pavilion [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.aecworldxp.com/sites/default/ files/images/aecworldxp/projects/yeosu-oceanic-pavilion/Image3.JPG [Accessed 24 March 14]. Snooks & Wiscombe, (2010), Yeosu Pavilion [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.aecworldxp.com/sites/default/ files/images/aecworldxp/projects/yeosu-oceanic-pavilion/Image5.JPG [Accessed 24 March 14]. STUDIO ROLAND SNOOKS. 2014. STUDIO ROLAND SNOOKS. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.rolandsnooks. com/#/yeosu-pavilion/. [Accessed 24 March 2014]. Terzidis, Kostas (2009). Algorithms for Visual Design Using the Processing Language (Indianapolis, IN: Wiley), p. xx TED Talks, (2012), Fabricated Columns Outside [ONLINE]. Available at: http://tedconfblog.files.wordpress. com/2012/07/2_prototypes.jpg [Accessed 26 March 14]. TED Talks, (2012), Fabricated Columns Outside [ONLINE]. Available at: http://tedconfblog.files.wordpress. com/2012/07/8_fabricated_column_outside_
Section B.
Matsys, (2012), SG2012 Gridshell [ONLINE]. Available at: http://matsysdesign.com/2012/04/13/sg2012-gridshell/ [Accessed 01 April 14]. Nicholas Borel, (2013), Les Turbulence [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.detail-online.com/architecture/news/ les-turbulences-frac-centre-in-orleans-by-jakob-macfarlane-021911.html [Accessed 01 April 14]. SJET, (2011), VoltaDom [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.sjet.us/MIT_VOLTADOM.html [Accessed 01 April 14]. World of Travel, (2010), Canton Tower [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.worldfortravel.com/2013/02/15/cantontower-china/ [Accessed 01 April 14].
Section C.
ABCB. (1996). The Building Code of Australia: Volume 2. p. 21,021-21,052 [ONLINE] Available at: http://www. abcb.gov.au/en/ncc-products/ncc-archives/~/media/Files/BCA%20Archives/BCA96_Vol2A02.ashx [Accessed 02 June 14] Burle, Sameer. (2014) Elevation of Copenhagen, Denmark [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.floodmap.net/Elevation/ElevationMap/?gi=2618425 [Accessed 03 June 14] Lueder, R. and Rice, V. (2008). Ergonomics for children. 1st ed. p. 553. New York: Taylor & Francis. [Accessed 02 June 14]. M. Llobera and T.J. Sluckin (2007). Zigzagging: Theoretical insights on climbing strategies. p. 206-217. Journal of Theoretical Biology. Vol 249. [Accessed 03 June 2014].
85.