DPM II FORMFINDING WSA 2011/2012 2nd Year 28 September 2011
INTRODUCTION Architects find themselves at a turning point – retooling the discipline and trying to adapt the built environment to a new kind of ecologic consciousness. Although humanity began as a small population in a vast world, it is now evident that we are approaching the limit of what the planet can offer for a hugely increased number of inhabitants. This leads to the question: ―Can we live on this planet without destroying it?‖ In addressing such an issue, it is increasingly clear that there is much to be learned from biologic, geologic and atmospheric systems. Slowly we are seeing evidence that design can emulate natural systems and their emergent strategies. This approach is based on the notion that nature has been vetting material structures and formal processes for billions of years. The forms we see in biologic, geologic and atmospheric systems today demonstrate the successful strategies of the ―survivors‖. By proposing that architects can learn from these systems, the task will explore generative and emergent formal strategies found at different scales in the natural world for use as diagrams with transformative potential in the built environment. In order to replicate the formal processes observed we will use digital form-finding techniques such as parametric systems and generative models. Parametric design systems have transformed the practice of architecture in that they have brought design closer to the form-producing methods in natural systems. Digital form-finding can now be a process of lawfully interacting forces. Just like natural systems, parametric designs are often highly integrated and unviable if decomposed – a major point of difference in comparison with traditional architectures of functional subsystems.
DIAGRAMMATIC REASONING Since De Architectura (Vitruvius, 25 BC) the diagram has been an essential device in architectural discourse. As a key tool in a number of formats such as the treatise or the catalogue, key concepts in architecture are communicated through the use of diagrams – a structural sketch to explain load transfer, a template underlying an aesthetic principle, etc. This task will pursue innovation in architectural design through a method known as diagrammatic reasoning. The concept of diagrammatic reasoning was first proposed by logician Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) in the context of explaining creativity in mathematics. Peirce was concerned with the question of how so often fertile theories had been proposed (in mathematics, science, etc) where recognized methods of reasoning such as induction and deduction couldn’t explain the whole development process. To his understanding, this had always been a problematic element in the philosophy of science. In an effort to define a type of reasoning involved in discovery and generation of new ideas, he developed the notion of diagrammatic reasoning, and the more general reasoning a posteriori. Diagrammatic reasoning, according to Pierce, is based on a three step activity: 1. Observation: Observing something abstract; selecting a body of data where there is no apparent intelligibility. 2. Synthesis: Generating a new object of thought, introducing a fiction, or synthesizing an object that will signify characteristics that didn’t exist beforehand. 3. Test: Testing the intelligibility of the generated object. Can we say that the synthesis is intelligible? Is the introduced fiction meaningful? Is it truthful to the observed data?
ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATION AND DIAGRAMMATIC REASONING Many key innovations in architecture can be traced back as form-finding efforts through diagrammatic reasoning – with the three steps of observation, synthesis and test. In these cases, the designer has observed a phenomenon (in nature, as explained in science, etc), synthesized it as a design (diagrams, drawings, etc), and tested it’s intelligibility by manufacturing it at the building scale. An example of this is Frei Otto’s soap bubbles tests for the Munich Olympic Centre:
Observation: in the 1950s Frei Otto was interested in the structural potential of the shapes produced by soap bubbles. Otto observed that given a set of fixed points, soap film will spread evenly between them to offer the smallest achievable surface area. Otto’s breakthrough observation was to visualize these surfaces as building structures. His early research was based on the work by Belgian physicist A.F. Plateau (1801-1883) who had made soap bubbles the subject of scientific study and described it’s geometric principles (see Weinstock, 2006). Synthesis (diagram): Otto proposed that a soap film test could be used as a form-finding model for tensile membranes. He understood that the forms created in soap bubble tests could be scaled up and replicated at a building scale with tensile elements (highly resistant membranes, ropes, cables, etc) and he developed an experimental method by which a small set up offered a huge variety of formal outputs. At the building scale these rope-network constructions are exceptionally efficient and achieve large spans with minimal use of materials. Test: Otto tested this principle in the Munich Olympic Centre in 1972 and multiple other projects, achieving structures at once extremely light and extremely strong.
FORMFINDING TASK This task will follow the steps of diagrammatic reasoning as follows:
Observation: As a group, observe a biologic or geologic system (from the list of sustainable themes). Try to describe a natural process and how it generates form (or performs within an environment). What are the generating forces in the system? Can the resulting forms be described geometrically? Is there an environmental efficiency related to the studied form/process? Synthesis: Produce a digital (performative) diagram of the system. Understand the forces that produce change in the process. Try modelling the system’s lawfully interacting forces and understand how they generate the geometries you’re trying to describe. Run the process multiple times with changing parameters. Refine it, re-tune it – think about it as the rules of a game with multiple outputs. Generate variations. Test: Test the relevance of the generated objects. Can the formal process be replicated physically as a model or as a tectonic reality in the built environment? Do physical mock-ups perform as envisioned?
WORKSHOPS In order to introduce students to the methodology and tools of the form -finding task, four different workshops will be held on a number of software alternatives and sustainability themes. In groups, students will then be expected to develop their own sustainability themes through the use of the methodology proposed. The four workshops will be:
Capturing water through structural form Efficient ventilation through wind dynamics Maximising solar exposure Material economy through structural form
OUTPUTS Wednesday 28 September: Introduction Fill survey at http://www.cf.ac.uk/archi/it_survey.html Sign up for a group and theme Discuss with your group this brief and what you intend to achieve. Start compiling references for what you wish to study (scientific documentation, references, online sources of information, etc). Open a tumblr account (www.tumblr.com) with your Cardiff University email address (all DPM submission will take place online). Expect an email to your Cardiff University account inviting you to become an author in the DPMII site.
Friday 30 September: Formfinding I Attend introductory lecture and workshops on 3d modelling. Start representing digitally your chosen natural system. Upload to the DPMII site at least 5 images associated with the natural system you will study. Tag the post with the names of all those in your group.
Monday 3 and Tuesday 4 October: Meetings in groups with Wassim and Sergio. Bring to the meeting an overall title, scientific sources that explain the natural system, reference images, and 2d/3d digital sketches explain the geometries of the system.
Thursday 6 October: Studio For studio bring: single image or diagram of chosen metaphor, stating source digital model of ecological system one line drawing derived from the digital model, A1 format, which explains the parameters and intrinsic formal properties of the biological/geological system. This should be an informative 3D diagram. Meaning should be assigned to different line types (eg. dashed, dotted, continuous).Upload this drawing to the DPMII tumblr site by the end of the day. Tag the post with the names of all those in your group. physical device exploring process. This could be in any material and should be well constructed to demonstrate how part of the system works. a selection of at least 5 images of related associated precedents. These may be other images from nature, artworks, buildings, graphs, diagrams conveying information… anything that inspires you and relates to your sustainable theme.
Friday 7 October: Formfinding II Attend DPMII Lecture and workshops on parameter driven models. Understand the parameters and start building a parameter-driven digital model of the ecologic system you are studying.
Friday 14 October Submission and group presentations Prepare a 7 minute slideshow presentation of ALL the work produced in DPMII up to this point and bring all the physical tests prepared. Upload the complete slideshow as jpg images to the DPMII tumblr site. Tag the post with the names of all those in your group. Respond to the following: How does the ecologic system respond to environmental conditions in the built environment? Can the formal process be replicated physically as a model or as a tectonic reality in the built environment? Do physical mock-ups perform as envisioned? If possible demonstrate in your presentation the parameter driven digital models that you prepared to produce variations of the system. If needed use animations, video, diagrams, drawings, etc. Everything to be presented as a slide show and physical models (no prints).
Image Credits
1. Frei Otto
2. Frei Otto
3. Frei Otto
4. Daniel Widrig
5. Daniel Widrig
6. Daniel Widrig
7. Aranda Lasch
8. Aranda Lasch
9. Foster + Partners
10. Photo by Bahman Farzad
11. AADRL
12.Tokuyin Yoshioka
13. Photo by Bradford Washburn
14. Gramazio Kohler
15. Gramazio Kohler
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aranda, B., Lasch, C. (2006) Tooling. Pamphlet Architecture 27. Benyus, Janine (1997). Biomimicry : Innovation Inspired by Nature. Published by William Morrow. Hensel, M. , A. Menges M. Weinstock (eds.) (2006). Techniques and Technologies in Morphogenetic Design. Architectural Design. Hensel, M. and A. Menges (eds.) (2008). Versatility and Vicissitude: Performance in Morpho-Ecological Design. Wiley. Hoffmann, M.H.G. (2005). Signs as means for discoveries: Peirce and his concepts of ―diagrammatic reasoning,‖ ―theorematic deduction,‖ ―hypostatic abstraction,‖ and ―theoric transformation‖. In M.H.G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and sign – grounding mathematics education. Springer. Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 1931 - 1935. Harvard University Press. Umemoto, N. and Reiser J. (2006). Atlas of Novel Tectonics. Princeton Architectural Press. Weinstock, Michael (2006). Self-organisation and material constructions. In Architectural Design Special Issue: Techniques and Technologies in Morphogenetic Design, Volume 76, Issue 2, pages 34–41, March/April. Woodbury, R. (2010). Elements of Parametric Design. Routledge.
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS / EXAMPLES In order to introduce students to the methodology and tools of the form -finding task, four different workshops will be held on a number of software alternatives and ecological themes/examples. In groups, students will then be expected to develop their own sustainability themes through the use of the software tools explored in the workshops. The four workshops will be:
Capturing water through structural form Efficient ventilation through wind dynamics Maximising solar exposure Material economy through structural form
Some examples of natural systems that can be studied within these categories are:
WATER OR AIR FLOW THROUGH NAUTILUS FORM ―Spiraling nautilus shells, swaying kelp, and skin pores all share a fundamental spiral geometry. This same spiral moves fluids more efficiently than the rotors and impellers humans have been designing for centuries. The pervasive logarithmic spiral pattern found throughout the natural world is an optimal flow form, allowing fluids to travel as fast as possible without transitioning from a laminar to turbulent flow‖. Jay Harman, founder of PAX Scientific. www.paxscientific.com.
ABSORBTION OF WATER THROUGH PEATLAND AGGREGATION ―By mimicking the structures of peatlands, a community could absorb periodic waters. Peatlands are of particular interest to water resource managers because they occur extensively in the headwater areas of many streams and rivers. Peatlands can have large impacts on the quantity and quality of the receiving waters (e.g. Brooks 1992; Verry 1997). The response of peatlands to large rainstorms is different from that of mineral soil uplands. The lack of topographic relief, the absence of well-defined channels, and the shallow water tables all combine to make peatlands behave hydrologically like unregulated, shallow reservoirs. Some peatlands act to regulate the flow of water in the landscape. Flow regulation would attenuate flow in wet conditions and release it in dry conditions." (Rydin and Jeglum 2006:152)
TERMITE-VENT GEOMETRIES FOR EFFICIENT VENTILATION ―The ovoid nests of termites carry away dangerous accumulations of heat and carbon dioxide via ventilation shafts.The outside of this ovoid bunker is perforated by a series of vents or tubes (or vents converging on circumferential tubes giving rise to more vents, or an arrangement even more elaborate); the structure of these vents and tubes is so unique that they are often used for species identification. As a rule, the vents run down from the inside to the outside, which would keep dripping moisture out and draw cool air up and into the structure. The entire home is suspended from all walls on arching pillars. Ventilation shafts bring cool fresh air in and carry warm stale air out." (Gould and Gould 2007:136)
AIR FLOW THROUGH SPONGE TISSUE ―Ventilation system in a large building can use the sponge diagram for moving air upwards‖ (Weaver, 2007).
FIBONACCI PATTERN FOR MAXIMISED SOLAR EXPOSURE ―Patterning seeds in spirals of Fibonacci numbers allows for the maximum number of seeds on a seed head, packed uniformly, with no crowding at the center and no 'bald patches' at the edges. In other words, the sunflower has found optimal space utilization for its seed head. The Fibonacci sequence works so well for the sunflower because of one key characteristic—growth. On a sunflower seed head, the individual seeds grow and the center of the seed head continues to add new seeds, pushing those at the periphery outwards. Following the Fibonacci sequence ensures growth on the same terms indefinitely. That is to say, as a seed head grows, seeds will always be packed uniformly, and with maximum compactness." (Grob, 2007).
STRUCTURAL EFFICIENCY THROUGH HEXAGONAL GRID "The hexagonal cells of bees and wasps create an extraordinarily strong space-frame, in particular in the vertical bee comb with two cell layers back to back with half a cell's shift in the position to create a threedimensional pyramidal structure. The extraordinary strength is exemplified by a comb 37 centimetres by 22.5 centimetres in size, which is made of 40 grams of wax but can contain about 1.8 kilograms of honey." (Pallasmaa 1995:81,101)
ENHANCED STRUCTURE THROUGH BONE AND TENDON CONNECTIVITY "In the building sector, connections between parts and elements are almost always discontinuous and articulated as dividing seams, instead of a smoother transition in materiality and thus functionality (such as can be seen in the way tendon and bone connect, deploying the same fibre material yet across a smooth transition of mineralisation). The understanding and deployment of gradient thresholds in materiality and environmental conditions can yield the potential for complex performance capacities of material systems. This will require a detailed understanding of the relation between material makeup and resultant behavioural characteristics." (Hensel, 2006).
MINIMISED MATERIAL IN DRAGONFLY’S WINGS ―The wings of insects combine structural support and material economy because they are flat, braced surfaces. Insect wings provide yet another example of braced, flat surfaces--cylindrical cantilever beams (veins) support a thin membrane. A pound of fruit-fly wings laid end to end would stretch about 500 miles, a very low mass per unit length--a steel wire to go so far would have about the same diameter as a red blood cell. Yet in each second of flight the tip of a wing moves several meters and reverses direction four hundred times. Other paddles and fins are fairly flat as well, as are some feathers, the book gills of horseshoe crabs, and a scattering of other stiff structures. In all these cases, though, flatness suits functions other than support. From a mechanical viewpoint the flatness of these systems, however impressive, is perhaps best regarded as a necessary evil--and their designs incorporate features that offset their intrinsically low flexural stiffness." (Vogel 2003:439)
PENGUIN FEATHER ARRANGEMENT MAXIMISES INSULATION ―Feathers of penguins trap air to retain warmth by being filamentous and forming a continuous layer around the body. As insulators, feathers are even more efficient than fur. Only a bird--the penguin--can survive on the Antarctic ice-cap in winter, the coldest place on earth. The penguin's feathers are devoted entirely to this task. They are filamentous and trap the air in a continuous layer all round the body. This, reinforced by a thick coat of fat just beneath the skin, enables the hot-blooded penguins to stand about in a blizzard in temperatures of forty degrees below freezing and remain there for weeks on end, even without stoking their internal warmth with a meal." (Attenborough 1979:178-179)
REFERENCES FOR THE GIVEN EXAMPLES Attenborough, David (1979). Life on Earth. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. 319 p. Gould, James L; Gould, Carol Grant. (2007). Animal architects: building and the evolution of intelligence. New York: Basic Books. 324 p. Grob V; Pfeifer E; Rutishauser R. (2007). Sympodial construction of Fibonacci-type leaf rosettes in Pinguicula moranensis (Lentibulariaceae). Annals of Botany. 100(4): 857-863. Hensel, M. Menges, A. (2006) Differentiation and performance: multi-performance architectures and modulated environments. Architectural Design, Special Issue: Techniques and Technologies in Morphogenetic Design Volume 76, Issue 2, pages 60–69, March/April 2006 Pallasmaa, J. (1995). Animal architecture. Helsinki: Museum of Finnish Architecture. 126 p. Rydin, H.; Jeglum, J. K. (2006). The Biology of Peatlands. Oxford University Press. 343 p. Vogel, Steven (2003). Comparative Biomechanics: Life's Physical World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 580 p. Weaver, James C.; Aizenberg, Joanna; Fantner, Georg E.; Kisailus, David; Woesz, Alexander; Allen, Peter; Fields, Kirk; Porter, Michael J.; Zok, Frank W.; Hansma, Paul K.; Fratzl, Peter; Morse, Daniel E. (2007). Hierarchical assembly of the siliceous skeletal lattice of the hexactinellid sponge Euplectella aspergillum. Journal of Structural Biology. 158(1): 93-106.