Air studio part b shengran zheng (daisy) 710821

Studio Air

Shengran Zheng 710821 Tutor: Chris Tutorial time: Tuesday 6pm-9pm

PART B. CRITERIA DESIGN

B.1 REASEARCH FIELD B.1.1 Biomimicry

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0 B.2.1 Iterations B.2.2 Sucessful species B.2.3 Criteria Met

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0

B.3.1 Reverse Engineering Attempt 1 B.3.2 Reverse Engineering Attempt 2 B.3.3 Reverse Engineering Attempt 3

B.4 TECHNIQUE : Development B.5 TECHNIQUE : Visual Prototype B.6 TECHNIQUE : Proposal B.7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES B.8 APPENDIX

Algorithmic sketchbook

B.1 REASEARCH FIELD

B.1.1 Biomimicry Biomimicry is the imitation of the models, systems, and elements of nature for the purpose of solving complex human problems.[1] Biomimicry in architecture is not making architecture similar to a natural form in appearance, but by understanding and learning from the rules in of nature and design based on the rules and logic. The idea of biomimicry is to solve the complex problems with multidisciplinary approaches, logic and rules. DNA is the gene inside every creature in world that controls its growing, reproducing and ending. In my opinion, there in architecture can be a genetic code or program that control its development and defines its form. By using grasshopper, designers can design the generic rules based on the researches of the site and brief.

Instead of picturing the final design in mind, we can generate the structure following the rules and logic we set. Biomimicry can work on three levels: the organism, its behaviours, and the ecosystem. According to brief, the design can start with researching animals’ scale, behaviours and habitat to find the inspiration.

1.Vincent, Julian F. V.; et al. (22 August 2006). “Biomimetics: its practice and theory�. doi:10.1098/rsif.2006.0127. Retrieved 7 April 2015.

Examples: There are many architecture examples in biomimicry fields. Biomimicry is not only following the or imitate the outlook from a creature in nature. But the principles and the reason how they form that way and how will it help us solving practical issues in daily life to achieve more sustainable outcome in architecture is main point we learn from nature.

The Sagrada Família church by Antoni Gaudi begun in 1882 is a well-known example of using nature’s functional forms to answer a structural problem. He used columns that modeled the branching canopies of trees to solve statics problems in supporting the vault.

Sagrada Família church by Antoni Gaudi

The Supertree Grove, Singapore The Supertree Grove is a remarkable blend of nature, technology, environmental management and imagination, highlights of Bay South include 18 Supertrees (25-50 metre vertical gardens that light up at night) and two giant Cooled Conservatories, designed by Wilkinson Eyre Architects, housing Mediterranean and Tropical climate plants. The project also includes a rich variety of Horticultural Gardens, designed around the themes ‘Plants and People’ and ‘Plants and Planet’.

It is imitating the canopy structure of the trees and blending landscape with architecture the daily life of Singapore citizen.

B.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

CASE STUDY THE MORNING LINE-Aranda Lasch The Morning Line is a drawing in space, where each line connects to other lines to form a network of intertwining figures and narratives with no single beginning or end, entrance or exit, only movements around multiple centers that together trace out a dense web of ideas concerning the history and structure of the universe and our place in it.

The basic principle of morning line is fractal algorithm. A fractal building block that grows and scales by a fixed ratio in three dimensions to produce the lines, spaces and structure of the piece. Each bit is interchangeable, demountable, portable and recyclable, allowing the piece to change and adapt physically over time along with its sonic content.

B1.1 ITERATIONS SPECIES 1.0 Changing Parameters

Species 1.1 Sides of Polygon

S=3; F=0.33

S=4;F=0.33

S=5;F=0.33

S=4; F=0.45

S=5; F=0.45

Species 1.2 Factors of Scale

S=3; F=0.45

Species 1.3 Trimed Brep Recursion 2 times

Recursion 3 times

SPECIES 2.0

Composition multiple brep

Species 2.1 Composition multiple breps Breps face explodes Apply Bezier Span

Breps

Species 2.2 Composition multiple brep

Fractal radom breps (3 times recursion) Breps face explodes Apply Bezier Span

Fractal radom breps (3 times recursion) Breps face explodes Apply Bezier Span

Fractal radom breps (3 times recursion) Breps face explodes Apply Bezier Span

SPECIES 3.0

Fractal with different geometries

Species 3.1 Fractal with regular dodecahedron dodecahedron

scale=0.33 pipe the Bezier curve

scale=0.2

scale=0.33 pipe the Bezier curve

scale=0.40

scale=0.33

scale=0.40 pipe the Bezier curve

Species 3.2 Composition of geometries scale=0.33 pipe the Bezier curve brep after trim compostion

scale=0.40 breps after triming composition

scale=0.33 pipe the Bezier curve composition

scale=0.40 pipe the Bezier curve composition

SPECIES 4.0

Fractal with geometries composition In species 3.0, each dodecahedron is fractal seperately. In species 4.0, dodecahedrons are fractal as a group and turns out to be some different result.

scale=0.20 With scaled dodecahedron

scale=0.40 With scaled dodecahedron Remove some of the geometries

scale=0.33 With scaled dodecahedron

scale=0.33 With scaled dodecahedron

scale=0.40 With scaled dodecahedron

SPECIES 5.0

Growing elements with fractal

Original geometries

Scale=0.3 Recursion=1

Scale=0.3 Recursion=2

Scale=0.3 Recursion=2 Apply Bezier pattern to original geometries

Scale=0.3 Recursion=2 Apply Bezier pattern to original geometries and scaled once geometries

B 1.2 Successful Species

The importance of selection criteria: Through the process of iterations of grasshopper, I have generated many possibilities.

However, those possibilities are not reflected design intent because they are directly generated from changing parameters and modifying geometries. In order to adjust the brief and design idea, the selection criteria should be applied based on design idea and practical requirements.

Selection Criteria: 1. Complexity: Design idea is to create a place for human and one other species. In order to create a place which gives people a unique experience, complexity is necessary. The complexity lies in the structure and space 2. Aesthetic: Aesthetics is hard to qualified, because it is quite subjective aspects. Here I want to basic 3. Innovation: Is the creature unique? Is there any potentials?

4. Spatiality: Spatiality here is to qualify the spatial characteristics of the iteration. The potential of human of animals to live on, live in, walk through, fly through etc.

Species 2.2.1 The iterations most related to The Morning Line project with high complexity. The original geometry has been scale recursively and Bezier curve is applied to the face of the geometries randomly to create the hierarchy of space and geometry.

However, the innovation quality is low, because it is based on the geometry of the Morning Line structure.

Fractal radom breps (3 times recursion) Breps face explodes Apply Bezier Span

COMPLEXCITY AESTHETIC INNOVATION SPATIALITY

Species 3.2.2 In species 3.0, I have replaced the tetrahedron with dodecahedron to create a more complex and more spatial form. The structure is simple with thinner lines and curve. But it has better spatial quality and potential of further iterations, like adding more elements and twisting or rotating.

scale=0.33 pipe the Bezier curve composition

COMPLEXCITY AESTHETIC INNOVATION SPATIALITY

Species 4.0.1 In species 4.0, I tried to create a combination structure with the curve lines and solid geometries. In 4.0.1, I save the solid geometries of the second recursion and curve frame of the first recursion. It looks like the geometries has been trapped and escaped from the frames, which is quite interesting. However, the complexity seems not enough and spatial quality is hard to define. Maybe there is potential to modify the position of each solid geometries to create a better space.

scale=0.20 With scaled dodecahedron

COMPLEXCITY AESTHETIC INNOVATION SPATIALITY

Species 5.0.5 In Species 5.0, instead of trimming the fractal element from the original geometry, I tried to add fractal elements onto original geometries to create the composition. Species 5.0.5 has 3 times of recursion of scales. I save the Bezier curves of the original and recursion 1 time result with the recursion 3 times geometries to create a complex composition. It has the maximum complexity of all kinds. However, the spatial quality is hard to define.

Scale=0.3 Recursion=2 Apply Bezier pattern to original geometries and scaled once geometries

COMPLEXCITY AESTHETIC INNOVATION SPATIALITY

B.3 CASE STUDY 2.0

Introduction Trabeculae is a project designed by Supermanoeuvre. Trabeculae is reimagining the central atrium office tower. Replacing the traditional operation of repetitive extrusion, branching system actively seeks out those areas within the zoning envelope with greatest access to daylight. Forking and swelling in response to varying light conditions. A second order proliferation of the same system at a finer scale develops a structural meshwork – the trabeculae. The swelling parts accommodates the meeting and function rooms and the forks parts becomes the bridges, galleries and tunnels.

The concept of the design is the atrium. The team used a Heliotropic branching system to define the shape of the void that eats into the floors of the building. They take the second step forwards to create the swelling space and fine forks inside the voids to form function rooms and traffic.

The transformation of space with different quality is quite special and potential in this design. In our brief, we are aimed to create a space for both human and animal. The habitation of both clients, human and animals, are quite extremely different. I found the deformation of spaces might be quite potential to suit the need of the clients

REVERSE ENGINEERING Attempt 1

Set polylines and branches as skeleton

Divide the lines into points Remap the point according to the its ditance from center Seperate the point list into near center and remote from center Radom reduce points from list 1 and create metaball from the center

ALGORITHM Polylines Branches

Near average point

Divided lines into points Evaluate the distance Find the average point

Split the point list Remote from average point

Mesh the metaball with lines

Smooth the mesh

Random select

Metaball

Smooth the mesh and change the value of iteration to create fine forks

Mesh

Smooth Mesh

Create small scale metaball on branches remota form center

Set polylines and branches as skeleton

Create bigger scale metaball from main branches near center

ALGORITHM Polylines Branches

Near average point

Divided lines into points Evaluate the distance Find the average point

Split the point list Remote from average point

REVERSE ENGINEERING Attempt 2

mesh

Smooth the mesh

Random select

Metaball Smooth the mesh and change the value of iteration to create fine forks

Metaball

(smaller scale size varying according to distance to center)

Mesh

Smooth Mesh

REVERSE ENGINEERING Attempt 3

Add Metaballs on the turning points

Set polylines and branches as skeleton

ALGORITHM Polylines Branches

Set Metaball at the turning point

Minimal surface Divide into points

Geometry Wrapper

Mesh

Patterning

Smooth Mesh

Minimal Surface Divide the lines into points Millipede: Geometry Wrapper

Patterning with Lunch Box

Species 1: Changing parameters in attempt 1 algorithm Metaball

Mesh

1.1 random value=4

B.4 TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

1.2

random value=9

1.3

random value=14

1.4

random value=19

1.5

random value=29

Species 2: Changing parameters in attempt 2 algorithm Metaball

Species 3: Add Delaunay Edges Metaball

Mesh

3.1

2.1

random value=3

3.2

2.2

random value=7 reduce points=28

3.3

2.3

random value=16 reduce points=39

2.4

3.4

random value= 15 rduce point=32

Mesh

Species 3: Changing parameters in attempt 3 algorithm

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Species 3: Changing shapes and parameters in attempt 3 algorithm

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

Successful Species

4.3.3

3.5.3

This iteraton has potentials to explore further. The space quality here is interesting. With the big volume and holes on it, the space could be utilised as for house and pavilion.

The iteration has beautiful curavture spinning up. It has high flexiblity and potential in the use of space.

Considering the brief, The curvature platform can be used for accomodating animals and the space at the center could be redesign of human.

2.1.1

This iteratonis developed from the reverse engineering.

The space inside and branches outside could have potentials in use.

I imagine that the swelling part could be used as habitation for human and branches for animals to build their nest on.

2.1.1

This iteration contains large volume of space inside. It has great potential to develop and explore as a pavillion. I like the curvature look and the radom shades around.

B.5 TECHNIQUE: Prototype

Approaching to the structure

Story begin in the night

The area for human are those swelling parts

Gradually turning to the upper structure

View from the water

Some parts are under the water

Upper strcuture is the interaction between children and egret

Children can climb up throught swelling bubbles

Egret can set their nest on the branching

Quiet Forest

Kids and egrets are having nice dream

Back to the starting point

Everthing so quiet at night

In this short video, I have chosen a night scene.

The video is basically going through the project and details of the project.

The scene begins from creek with frog and bird sound. Gradually approaching to the structure, form the bottom, the swelling bubbles are design to inhabited the kids. Through the bubbles moving up, kids can climb through the tunnels and reach the top. On the top, egrets are making their nest on the branches. Kids and egrets are met on the tunnels’ end.

What will they say? What conversations they have under the moonlight?

None knows. It is their secrets.

They are having nice dream.

Good night.

B6. Technique: Proposal

BRIEF

A habitation for both human and one other species

CLIENT: human & non-human

CLIENT

The species I picked is the Little Egret from Merri Creek The Little Egret is a small white egret with dark grey-black legs, black bill and a bright yellow naked face. In the breeding season the plumage includes two ribbon-like head plumes, and abundant plumes on the back and breast. The Little Egret is also called the Lesser Egret.

They often build their nest on the trees near or in the rivers and creeks, which I found quite interesting to develop.

SCENARIO Through the research, I find that the different scale betweeen human and animal is quite interesting.

Human and animals can have a equal conversation because we are different in height and size. Animal naturally scared of other that are big and look threatening to them. And for us human, we naturally look down upon the creature that smaller and less intelligent than us.

As a result, in my opinion, children might have better conversation with egret than we do. A adult egret has the same height with a 3-4 year old children. Maybe between kids and egret, there will be special conversation.

For my project, I want to create a place to inhabitat both children and egret to have them interact with each other. I am wondering what that conversation might be.

SECTION

MONTAGE

B7. Learning Outcome

Learning Outcome Through the learning in part B Iterations, I have develop grasshopper skills and the process to generate a design with grasshopper. Using grasshopper for design is a bottoup process. You may not have a picture of your design at the beginning. However, through the process of analysing and mapping the important element, the outcome becoming clearer and clearer.

Reflection of design proposal in B6: In B6, I have design a project for children and egret. I quite like the process of designing it. I want to create a complex system for human and animal at the start. It start with the mapping of the human path and animal path, because I think the circulation is quite important that it shows the interaction between human and animal. That is a quite initial starting point of mine. Then combine the human path and animal path together to create the final form. I think the combination of these two path might be quite simple. It need more thought in developing it in the next step.

The form is complicate and hard to make it practical. I think Rosy ‘s feedback of making it practical might help me putting some weight to my design is quite helpful.

For the video prototype, I think visual prototype should not be a simple realization of the design. It should help to better tell the story. The going through is not enough. In the nest step, I will more force on the narrative of the video and what atmosphere I want to create is important.

For the scenario, I think my scenario needs more developed. Compared to the peer, I need a more deep study of my animal and set a more practical goal.

B.8 Algorithm Sketchbook

Week 5: Fractal anf Field Field

Using Graph Mapper

Fractual

Week 6: Mesh and test for Unity

Mesh take from B4 Using Millipede Plugin.