2014
AirStudio J a m e s Sa l v i n i
1.
Design Studio Air2013
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
28.
Contents
B1. Research Field 30 B2. Case Study 1.0 32 B3. Case Study 2.0 36 B4. Technique: Development ? B5. Technique: Prototypes ? B6. Technique: Proposal ? B7. Leraning Objectives/Outomes ? B8. Algorithmic Sketches ?
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
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
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.