Architecture design studio air journal by Iona

STUDIO AIR IONA ORAMS 636508 SEMESTER 1, 2015

CONTENTS Introduction

PART A

A 01: Design Futuring 5 A 02: Design Computation 7 A 03: Composition/generation 9 Notes 11 A 04: Conclusion 13 A 05: Learning Outcomes 14 A 06: Appendix 15 Bibliography 17

PART B

B 01: Research Field 19 B 02: Case Study 1.0 21 B 03: Case Study 2.0 23 B 04: Technique: Development 29 B 05: Technique: Prototypes 35 B 06: Technique: Proposal 37 B 07: Learning Objectives and Outcomes 39 B 08: Appendix 41 Bibliography 43

PART C

C 01: Design Concept 45 C 02: Tectonic Elements & Prototypes 53 C 03: Final Detail Model 57 C 04: Learning Objectives and Outcomes 59

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT ME

y name is Iona. I am a third year Bachelor of Environments student majoring in architecture at the University of Melbourne. My interests in architecture and art expand by the day, ranging from imperial Japanese art and architecture to the sculptures of Anish Kapoor. I like architecture because it engages with the sensory experiences of humans as they use a space. It combines the pragmatic with the imaginative, giving way to so many possibilities with no single answer. I am particularly interested in social architectural projects which involve the public, as well as sustainablility in architecture, which I believe should be imperative to the projects of all architects. I was introduced to the digital design basics of Rhinoceros 5 and Google Sketchup during a high school work experience placement. I was reintroduced to these programs in my first year of university, when I began using Rhino to create digital models of my designs. I learned to combine Rhino with other tools such as Photoshop to create digital presentation boards. I have gradually become more adept with Rhino, having explored many of its capabilities including its role in digital fabrication. In the future I would like to better explore the possibilities of Grasshopper as an algorithmic modelling tool in architecture, in particular how it can contribute to the performance of buildings while also creating a new type of aesthetic. I am also interested in how algorithmic design can produce interesting textures and materials which may be utilised purely for aesthetics or tied in with the performance of the building. 3

PAST WORKS

have been using the 3D modeling capabilities of Rhinoceros 5 for my two past studio subjects, Studio Earth and Studio Water. The above images are from my Studio Water presentation. The brief required us to design a boathouse on the Yarra River in the style of an architecture master. My class studied the architecture of Le Corbusier, so I tried to emulate his use of form, materiality and proportion in my final design. I researched Le Corbusierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s idea of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;architectural promenadeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and decided that I wanted to continue the existing promenade through the site, into and around the boathouse. The three levels of the boathouse also played with openness and closedness through levels of light and exposure. In doing this, I realised I have an interest in the use of natural light and shadow in architecture, and how light interacts with textures. I hope to explore this further through creating parametric surfaces is Studio Air. I learned a lot from Studio Water, but I am looking forward to taking a different, more computerbased approach to design in Studio Air.

A 01. D E S I G N F U T U R I N G

Figure [I]: Interior view of Ali Qapu Palace1

he Ali Qapu Palace in Isfahan, Iran, provides an insight into the history of performance design. The music chamber of the building demonstrates how the inricate manipulation of form can achieve performance outcomes related to the function of the building. As shown in Figure [I], the walls and roof of the chamber contain intricate repeating Muqarnas designed to reduce the reverberation of music around the room. When it was built, the music chamber of the palace was presumably used as a place for performances to royalty. Today, the Palace is used for tourism purposes. As discussed by Michael Hensel in his article Performance-Oriented Design Precursors and Potentials, at the time when the Palace was built in the 17th Century, such intricate craftwork was used only employed when vast 5

Figure [II]: Exterior2

amounts of wealth was available, and not in everyday buildings.3 Today, the introduction of digital design and performance analysis software means that performance design for acoustics is becoming more automated and widely used. In his article, Hensel describes the Strip Morphologies Screenwall, parametrically designed by Daniel Coll I Capdevilia using multiple layers and curves to experiment with environmental performance.4 This project is an example of the way in which algorithmic design can produce similar forms to those used by the Ali Qapu Palace. Capdeviliaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Screenwall demonstrates the fact that historic precedents such as the Ali Qapu Palace will continue to inform contemporary and future performance design.

Figure [III]: The Spanish Pavilion, finished structure5

he Spanish Pavilion for the Shanghai World Expo in 2010 was designed by architects EMBT (Enric Miralles and Benedetta Tagliabue) and MC2 Structural Engineers. Although not designed parametrically, the pavilion is interesting as it introduces an interaction between existing textural elements and digitally designed forms. The pavilion was composed of a curved, free form using steel framework under woven wicker elements. The nature of the structure meant that a high level of collaboration between the architects and engineers was required.7 This makes one consider the level of structural complexity involved in creating a building designed using free form NURBS curves created in Rhino. The use of 3D modelling opens up many possibilities in regards to form, however consideration must also be given to the way in which builders and engineers would realise a form.

Figure [IV]: Computer render of interior6

For this reason, structural analysis software was used by the engineers to calculate the structural capacity of the steel framework and and allowed it to be manufactured with precision. As revealed in the disparity between Figure [III] and Figure [IV], the textural qualities of the weaving were only able to be realised in built form, as the 3-dimensional model does not convey it well. The detailed texture of the pavilion was created using handcrafted woven panels of different varieties. The intent of the designers was to demonstrate the widespread use of basket making throughout the world and the variety of weaving techniques available. In a time when pure digitisation is becoming a norm, the inclusion of handcrafted elements adds social and cultural awareness to the design. 6

A 02. D E S I G N C O M P U T A T I O N

Figure [V]: Roof structure of Smithsonian building8

he use of computing in the architectural design process enables the architect to produce and test various design iterations without the exessive use of time and resources. As Brady Peters discusses in his article ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’ (2013), computation is not to be confused with computerisation. Computerisation is the use of the computer as a drafting medium, while computation is the use of the computer to generate modelling information as algorithms.9 In the history of architectural practice, architects carry a preconceived idea of a design and communicate it to others using various methods and mediums, such as sketching or drafting. With the rise of computing, the architect is now allowed to ‘sketch’ via the modification of algorithms.10 Instead of the modelling phase being used to represent and communicate an existing idea, computing allows it to be used in the generation of ideas. 7

As computing becomes increasingly incorperated into the design process of architects, so too will it change the construction industry. The introduction of digital performance analysis and digital fabrication are two features of computational design that are beginning to change the roles of architects, engineers and builders in the design process. The parametrically designed roof of the Smithsonian building by Foster & Partners in Washington DC (Figure [V]) is an example of where computation has enabled the mass fabrication of structural components. Information was transferred from the final computer model to a plasma cutter, which then produced the steel components which comprise the roof sections.11 Computation has not only transformed the way in which architects design, but also the way in which structures are constructed.

Figure [VI]: Swiss RE building, London12

As mentioned previously, computational design causes the notion of a preconceived, fully formed idea to become less important. It instead allows the designer to experiement freely with 3D geometry and seemingly infinite possibilities using algorithms. On the one hand, computation opens up the possibility to create almost inconceivable geometries, while on the other hand, there is still a need for achievable geometry. While not everything is possible, the introduction of performance analysis computing has enabled the virtual testing of geometries to occur. Digital performance analysis has transformed the method of performance- and evidencebased design. Performance- and evidencebased design rely on the exact final outcome being unknown at the start of the design process14. It is instead modified based on results of performance analysis. Computing enables the use of environmental and structural performance simulations to come into play, enabling the designer to change and

Figure [VII]: Parametric model of building13

adapt algorithms to optimise performance.15 Foster and Partner’s Swiss RE building in London (Figure [VII]) used digital performance analysis to evaluate the structural performance and wind loads of the building. As shown in Figure [VII], the building skin was then modified parametrically according to the results of the analysis. The use of computing enables a different, more explorative design approach to be taken. Furthermore, it allows building analysis to occur alongside the design process, creating a more efficient work method. According to Yehuda E. Kalay in his article ‘Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design’, the architectural deisgn process comprises of analysis, synthesis and evaluation as three separate steps.16 It can be said that computing blurs the boundaries between these steps, enabling two or more to occur simultaneously through the use of algorithmic modification and performance analysis software. This enables8 a more analytical and efficient design process.

A 03. C O M P O S I T I O N / G E N E R A T I O N

Figure [VIII]: Orgone Reef installation17

rchitectural literature is currently undergoing a shift from the discussion of a predictable step-by-step design process to one which involves the largely unpredictable morphing of geometry based on algorithms. Architectural theory has undergone several shifts throughout history, changing the way in which architects practice. In fact, algorithmic exploration is not the only time when the design process was not based on a preconceived idea of the outcome. Before the Renaissance, buildings were not planned, but constructed by craftmen using pure construction knowledge, a compass and a rule.19 Architects such as Leon Battista Alberti introduced the notion of a top-down composition in architectural design, producing predictable outcomes.20 Interestingly, digital architectural theory has found a connection with the notion of the craftsman or master builder through the discussion of generation via algorithms: 9

Figure [IX]: Individual component18

a merge between conception and production21: much like prior to the Renaissance. Algorithmic thinking has been influenced by the writings of various theorists and mathematicians, introducing the notion of a non-linear design and construction process.22 Generative design and the notion of infinite variability in form23 has come to define algorithmic thinking, leading to a new kind of architecture. Orgone Reef, Figure [VIII], is a project by architect Philip Beesley which brings the notion of generative design into physical form. The kinetic hanging piece is composed of a Penrose tessellation embedded with digitally controlled microsensors, shown in detail in Figure [IX], enabling the matrix to physically respond to movement and air currents in the room.24 In a sense, this project is continously undergoing morphogenesis via its response to its context.

Figure [X]: Roof structure of International Terminal25

Figure [XI]: Facade of Al Bahar Towers26

Generative design opens the way for a new kind of architecture governed by algorithmic thinking and performance analysis. It enables the input of rules relating to the context of the site which govern the production of complex geometries.

Abu Dhabi, designed by Aedas, uses generative parametric design paired with performance analysis to create a facade which transforms based on environmental conditions. As shown in Figure [XI] and [XII], the movement of the sun dictates the folding of fibreglass panels, reducing the need for air conditioning.28

A classic example of the benefits of generative design in the roof structure of Grimshawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s International Terminal at Waterloo Station, London, shown in Figure [X]. An algorithm was used to design and manipulate the arches of the roof based on the contraints of the building site. The virual model was then built upon to include structural information, resulting in a sophisticated and successful design despite the complexity of the site.27 The role of performance analysis in generative design has the potential to increase the efficiency of buildings, not only structurally but also in terms of sustainability, in both an environmental and human sense. The reponsive facade of the Al Bahar Towers in

While projects like these demonstrate the successful use of generative design, it is important that aspects of traditional design methods are still utilised. For example, consideration of the context in which one is building must be just as detailed as before. Care must be taken as to the nature of the surrounding area, cultural customs, human activity and the environment. While the increasing switch to generation and computation creates many exciting design possiblities, it must be incorperated into the design process carefully, enabling it to produce the best outcomes possible. 10

NOTES

1 Ali Qapu Palace <https://photos.travelblog.org/ Photos/196465/716528/f/6923907-Ali-Qapupalace-0.jpg> 2 Ali Qapu Palace < http://www.iranreview.org/file/cms/files/palais-aliqapu-iran-490345.jpg>

11 Will Hunter, ‘Foster & Partners solves a roofing condundrum at Washington DC’s Smithsonian,’ BD Online, (2008) < http://www.bdonline.co.uk/foster-and-partnerssolves-a-roofing-condundrum-at-washingtondc%E2%80%99s-smithsonian/3110742.article>

3 Michael Hensel, ‘Performance-Oriented Design Precursors and Potentials,’ Architectural Design, 78.2 (2008) < http://issuu.com/williamcheung/docs/volume78_ issue02_2008_versatility_a> (p. 50.)

12 Swiss RE Headquarters < http://files.modulo.net/chunks/ image/5093d6a522e7b953720022ff/s500x360 /507822c622e7b9d50d000001_509d41de22e 7b94539000027.jpg>

4 Ibid., p. 49.

13 Swiss RE Geometry < http://spirals.homestead.com/Culture/Architecture/ SwissREGeometry_edited-1_op_771x663.jpg>

5 Spanish Pavilion at Shanghai Expo 2010 <http://architype.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ spanish-pavilion-at-shanghai-expo2010-by-embtmiralles-tagliabue-1-750x500.jpg> 6 Spanish Pavilion <http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net.s3.amazonaws. com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/spain-p.jpg> 7 Julio M. Calzon and Carlos C. Jimenez, ‘Weaving Architecture Structuring the Spanish Pavilion, Expo 2010, Shanghai,’ Architectural Design, 4 (2010) < http://issuu.com/jojowasmydog/docs/ad_20104_2010-4-the_new_structuralism_design__eng> (p.55.) 8 Smithsonian Institution < http://www.bradypeters.com/ uploads/1/6/2/9/1629522/1328130_orig.jpg> 9 Brady Peters, Smithsonian Institution Washington DC, USA, 2004-2007 Foster + Partners, <http://www.bradypeters.com/ smithsonian.html> [accessed 18 March 2015]

10 Ibid.

14 Rivka Oxman, ‘Performance-based Design: Current Practices and Research Issues,’ International Journal of Architectural Computing, 1.6 (2008) < http://cumincad.architexturez.net/system/files/ pdf/ijac20076101.pdf> (p.5.) 15 Ibid. (p.6.) 16 Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) p. 5 - 25 17 Orgone Reef < http://www.philipbeesleyarchitect.com/ sculptures/0126manitoba_orgone/cover.jpg> 18 Orgone Reef < http://philipbeesleyarchitect.com/ sculptures/0126manitoba_orgone/cambridge2.jpg> 19 Yehuda E. Kalay, Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) p. 5 - 25

20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Philip Beesley, Orgone Reef < http://philipbeesleyarchitect.com/sculptures/0126_ Orgone/index.php> [accessed 19 March 2015] 25 International Terminal, Waterloo < http://grimshaw-architects.com/media/cache/ d1/6a/d16a7e4d50e08c7b821291390fd826f8.jpg> 26 Al Bahar Towers < http://happypix.co.in/files/techzug/imgs/arch/ albahar_abu_dhabi_11.jpg> 27 Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003) p. 3-62 28 Karen Cilento, Al Bahar Towers Responsive Facade / Aedas, (Arc Daily, 2012) < http://www.archdaily.com/270592/al-bahar-towersresponsive-facade-aedas/> [accessed 20 March 2015]

A 04. C O N C L U S I O N

he concepts and precedents analysed above summarise aspects of my intended design approach. Design Futuring considered the impact designs have upon the future. In analysing one historic precedent and one contemporary precedent introducing digital design, an understanding of how such designs change architectural practice was formed. Design Computation explored the way in which computing is shaping achitecture, and provided a fundamental basis for undertsanding what computational design is. Finally, Composition/Generation explored the way in which the field of architecture is being influenced by generative design as opposed to conventional compositional design. In conclusion, I believe algorithmic modelling paves the way for a new, efficient design process. In my further exploration and use of computation in architecture, I intend to make use of the way in which algorithms can contribute to sustainable design but remain sensitive to the cultural context in which it is built. I am particularly interested in how findings from a site analysis can dictate the entire algorithm. A new aesthetic also emerges from the use of computing in design. I aim to explore the relationship between form and function and how parametric forms influence the atmosphere of a place. Through this design approach, I hope my design can provide something visually dynamic to the site, while still holding a relationship to the natural surrounds. I hope the design will have minimal impact on the environment while still meeting the needs of users. I also hope to benefit my own architectural knowledge through the use of new tools and approaches to design.

A 05. L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E S

xploring the possibilities of computation has enabled me to deeply consider what might be considered as less conventional design approaches. In my research of past design theory, I was able to fully grasp the way in which new digital design theory can shape architectural practice. When I first began my research, I had a basic understanding of the notion of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;parametric,â&#x20AC;&#x2122; but knew little about the concepts of computing and the meaning of algorithmic design. An aspect of computing which I can now say draws my interest is the use of performance analysis to generate parametric designs. In my past project, discussed in the Introduction, I can see how performance analysis could have radically changed the way I thought about the design. With my new knowledge, I feel I would have made the design more complex geometrically, perhaps allowing it to respond kinetically to the movement of the water or boats. I now realise the potential of computing in many areas of the design industry, and how it could change the way in which many buildings, even cities, function.

A 06. A P P E N D I X

Figure [A]

Figure [B]

Figure [C]

hese sketches demonstrate my explorations in Grasshopper using video tutorials, as well as my own experimentation with the variety of components in Grasshopper. Having researched many precedent projects which use basic parametric design, I am developing my understanding of how algorithmic software such as Grasshopper is used. I selected these sketches because they display a number of Grasshopper components which I may be able to use in my future design. They represent my exploration of lofting, mapping objects to surfaces, placing contour lines on surfaces and exploring the way in which data is organised in Grasshopper. These sketches also demonstrate the use of generative methods to produce design outcomes. While there was no brief or constraints in these miniature designs, I had no preconceived idea of what would be produced, only a rough idea of which instructions to deliver. A lot of experimentation occurred when producing these sketches, highlighting the experimentational nature of algorithmic design as discussed earlier.

Figure [D]

Figure [E]

Figure [F]

Figure [A]: This sketch explores the Map to Surface command. After lofting two curves together, I drew a sphere using Grasshopper and connected it to planes which were spread across the surface. Figure [B]: This sketch also explores the Map to Surface command, this time using two dimensional Voronoi lines. Figure [C]: Here, I used the Contour command to place lines across the surface. I then created tubes from those lines. Figure [D]: In this sketch I explored the Project command, projecting contours onto the XY plane, before lofting surfaces between the contours and hiding the original surface to create an interesting series of planar elements. Figure [E]: In this sketch I experimented with placing objects onto a different suface, this time using diamond-like shapes, which I created in Grasshopper. I explored the Rotate command to rotate the diamonds to a 45 degree angle. Figure [F]: Similar to above, except I explored the selection of specific lists of data, namely the Cull command. I then rotated every second row of diamonds to produce an interesting outcome.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beesley, P Orgone Reef < http://philipbeesleyarchitect.com/sculptures/0126_ Orgone/index.php> [accessed 19 March 2015] Calzon M. Julio and Carlos C. Jimenez, ‘Weaving Architecture Structuring the Spanish Pavilion, Expo 2010, Shanghai,’ Architectural Design, 4 (2010) < http://issuu.com/jojowasmydog/docs/ad_20104_2010-4-the_new_structuralism_design__eng> (p.55.) Cilento, K Al Bahar Towers Responsive Facade / Aedas, (Arc Daily, 2012) < http://www.archdaily.com/270592/al-bahar-towersresponsive-facade-aedas/> [accessed 20 March 2015] Hensel, M ‘Performance-Oriented Design Precursors and Potentials,’ Architectural Design, 78.2 (2008) < http://issuu.com/williamcheung/docs/volume78_ issue02_2008_versatility_a> (p. 50.) Hunter, W ‘Foster & Partners solves a roofing condundrum at Washington DC’s Smithsonian,’ BD Online, (2008) < http://www.bdonline.co.uk/foster-and-partnerssolves-a-roofing-condundrum-at-washingtondc%E2%80%99s-smithsonian/3110742.article> Kolarevic, B Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003) p. 3-62 Kalay, Y. E Architecture’s New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) p. 5 - 25 Oxman, R ‘Performance-based Design: Current Practices and Research Issues,’ International Journal of Architectural Computing, 1.6 (2008) < http://cumincad.architexturez.net/system/files/ pdf/ijac20076101.pdf> (p.5.)

Peters, B Smithsonian Institution Washington DC, USA, 2004-2007 Foster + Partners, <http://www.bradypeters.com/ smithsonian.html> [accessed 18 March 2015]

B 01. RESEARCH FIELD: BIOMIMICRY

Figure [XII]: Hygroscope by Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert1

iomimicry surrounds the emulation of nature’s forms and processes as a way of seeking sustainable solutions in architecture.3 The term biomimetics come from the Greek word biomimesis, meaning to mimc life.4 I have chosen biomimicry as my research field in the development of my design technique as I feel it is wholly revelant to not only the design brief but the future of architecture. I would like to further research the Merri Creek as a natural system, potentially using its native flora and fauna as inspiration for my design. American science author Janine Benyus suggests that, when solving a design problem, we must ask ourselves ‘How does nature solve this?’5 Organisms in nature have effective and efficient design solutions which allow them to live sustainably on the earth. Nanotechnology, capillary action, transpiration and optimising energy use are all examples of natural processes from which we can derive design ideas. 19

Figure [XIII]: Morning Line by Aranda/Lasch2

An interesting example of biomimicry in architecture is the Hygroscope project by Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert, shown in Figure [XII]. The project combines parametric computation with the natural properties of materials to explore how a structure behaves naturally under certain atmospheric conditions. Computation and materialisation are intertwined as the data for programming the behaviour of the system during fabrication corresponds with the data used for the overall form.4 The concept and outcome of the project is facinating, and it would be interesting to consider how such a design method could be applied to building design. The Morning Line project by Aranda/Lasch uses biomimicry in a different, more conceptual way by using fractal cycles to build a model of the universe.5 The result is an cellular, skeletal pavilion (Figure [XIII]).

Figure [XIV]: Hygroscope openings6

Figure [XV]: Morning Line computer model showing fractal geometry7

B 02.1. CASE STUDY 1.0: VOLTADOM BY SKYLAR TIBBITS MANIPULATING SCRIPT

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.1

3.2

3.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

Species 1- changing parameters of original script: 1.1 - Original 1.2 - Changing size of openings by altering v value of 2D domain. 1.3 - Changing height of cones. 1.4 - Changing density by increasing number of points in original point grid. 1.4 Species 2 - replacing cones with spheres 2.1 - Changing sphere radius. 2.2 - Changing density by increasing number of points in original grid. 2.3 - Changing the way in which the spheres are split by increasing the lower v value in the domain. 2.4 - Creating openings by increasing domain v values, changing density by increasing number of points in grid. 2.4 Species 3 - exploring original vault script 3.1 - Original vaulted cones. 3.2 - Using two different radii for each set of mesh. cones creating larger gaps between cones once split. 3.3 - Changing the upper bounds of the domiain, increasing the size of the cones. 3.4 - Increasing the height of the cones and the vaults.

3.4 Species 4 - propagating onto a surface 4.1 - Original geometry. 4.1 - Increasing height of original geometry. 4.3 - Increasing radius. 4.4 - Increasing radius and density (extreme).

4.4

B 02.2. CASE STUDY 1.0: VOLTADOM BY SKYLAR TIBBITS SELECTION CRITERIA

My selection criteria is as follows: Connection to site - how might the design connect to the context? Formally/functionally biomimetic - How does the design follow the technique of biomimicry, both formally and functionally? Curiosity - Could the design evoke curiosity and interest?

A. Connection to site: This iteration could potentially connect to the site through its ability to propagate over specific areas. It could be used as a way of creating planter boxes for revegetation of areas along the Merri Creek. Formally/functionally biomimetic: Formally, yes. Functionally, to some extent it could be used in the way an egg encases something growing. Curiosity: Completely subjective, but to my eyes it looks more interesting than other iterations.

B. Connection to site: Again, this interation could be propagated across the site. It could even be used as stepping stones to impact the flow of the river at specific points. Formally/functionally biomimetic: Unsure. It is not necessarity formally biomimetic, but could have a similar function to Iteration A. Curiosity: Propagating this pattern across a site could create a formally interesting design.

C. Connection to site: This iteration reminds me of the tee pee structures located at Ceres, along the Merri Creek. It could serve as a hiding place for native animals such as ring-tail possums, or as protection of revegetation areas.

Formally/functionally biomimetic: The height variation evokes a sense of growth: perhaps it could be made of a living plant material which actually grows? Curiosity: At a larger scale, these could act as interesting hiding places for children.

D. Connection to site: This iteration could connect to the site by physically connecting to different points on the site such as trees or power line scaffolding structures.

Formally/functionally biomimetic: It appears to be in the process of morphing into another form. Again, it could be made from growing materials such as plants to vary the light filtration and exposed/enclosed parts. Curiosity: As with Iteration C, it creates a shelter-like structure. Although this structure is more exposed that those of C, it has an unusual form which could be further 24 manipulated to become quite interesting.

B 03. CASE STUDY 2.0: ZA11 PAVILION

Figure [XVI]: ZA11 Pavilion8

Figure [XVII]: ZA11 Pavilion process9

he ZA11 Pavilion was a temporary structure built in Romania for the Speaking Architecture festival. It was composed of timber pieces fabricated using a CNC router and assembled at carefully designed joints. The aim of the pavilion was to attract passers-by to the festival, and also demonstrate the capabilities of computation in architecture.10 Using a parametric software, the team of designers created a free-form curved surface and propagated it with hexagons of different sizes. The hexagons were then extruded inwards to create deep hexagonal openings through which users could view the outside. This process can be seen in Figure [XVII]. This pavilion is successful in attracting attention in its dynamic and eye-grabbing use of free form curves and extruded geometry, creating an extreme angular appearance. Being positioned in the centre of a walkway also helps attract attention, however a more interesting location might be in a side laneway running off the main walkway, potentially increasing thc curiosity of passers-by. Creating covered spaces by extending the existing structure to create some kind of roof elements could increase the pavilionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use as a shelter, hence attracting more users. I like how the pavilion warps and distorts hexagons to create a biomimetic pattern. I will potentially draw from this for my final design at CERES as a way of creating an enclosed space from structural framework which could be infilled with a taut fabric.

Figure [XVIII]: ZA11 Pavilion11

REVERSE ENGINEERING ZA11 PAVILION: METHOD 1 1

hese steps show the process I used in my first attempt at reverseengineering the ZA11 Pavilion. .

1. I began with two curves I drew using Rhino, approximating the shape of the pavilion. 2. I lofted the two curves together and created a hexagon grid. 3. Using Map to Suface, I propagated the hexagon grid onto the lofted surfaces. 4. I offset the hexagaonal surface and used the Polygon Centre algorithm to find the centre points of each hexagon. 5. I extruded the outer hexagons towards the inner points. 6. I then offset the original surface and used the Split Brep algorithm to trim the extruded hexagons. 7. In this step I attempted to make the hexagons more angular by scaling the offset hexagons (from step 4) and then repeating steps 4 - 6.

This method of creating the ZA11 pavilion was quite simple, requiring only a few steps. The next aspect of the definition is to create the joints between the hexagon panels in preparation for fabrication.

REVERSE ENGINEERING ZA11 PAVILION: METHOD 2 1

hese steps show the process I used in my second attempt at reverseengineering the ZA11 Pavilion. .

1. I lofted two curves together to create a surface. 2. I scaled the surface to create a smaller surface at the centre. 3. Using the Lunchbox component Hexagon Cells, I propagated hexagons directly onto the surfaces. 4. I used Ruled Surface to loft the hexagons together. 5. I then created the joints by dividing the edges into 5 points and using List Item to select only the middle three points. I then drew and extruded hexagons at each point. This method of creating the ZA11 pavilion was even simpler than the first. I realise I over-complicated the process in my first trial, and did not think of lofting the curves together. The problem with my previous trial is that the edges of the hexagons did not meet on both sides. This meant that I was unable to make joints between the edges. This method allowed the joints to be created, which is a crucial part of the script in order for the pavilion to be fabricated. 28

SPECIES 5

SPECIES 4

SPECIES 3

SPECIES 2

SPECIES 1

B 04.1. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

FORM-FINDING

Species 1: These iterations explore a form of ‘point attractor’ in which a relationship is set up between the distance of a point from the surface, and the location of openings. Species 2: Using the same method as above, but encorperating a second set of hexagons using the Hexagon Cells from Lunchbox. Species 3: Exploring the different panels in Lunchbox including triangles, diamonds, skewed boxes and rectangles. Species 4: These iterations extrude hexagons on both sides of the surface, depending on where the point attractor is located. Species 5: Exploring the above script and propagating the hexagons onto a sphere. I also introduced an additional frame in between the extruded hexagons in order to consider how fabrication might occur by inserting hexagonal ‘pods’ into a 30 framework.

SPECIES 10

SPECIES 9

SPECIES 8

SPECIES 7

SPECIES 6

B 04.2. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

FORM-FINDING

Species 6: Here, I used my original ZA11 script and used list and cull components to extrude only specific cells. In the first iteration I was able to create a benchlike structure which was interesting. Species 7: In these iterations I manipulated the number of hexagons in my grid to create a folded effect. I then used the point attractor to extrude specific hexagons. Species 8: Here, the hexagons are generated using a hexgrid in Grasshopper, rather than from the Lunchbox plugin. I extruded random hexagons inwards and outwards. Species 9: Using the same script, I used the Weaverbird plugin to generate a frame from the mesh edges. I then experimented with the grid parameters and extrusion distances. Species 10: Creating a nest-like pavilion by exploring the Weaverbird command â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Reciprocal,â&#x20AC;&#x2122; which turns mesh into a self-supporting reciprocal 32

B 04.3. SUCCESSFUL ITERATIONS SELECTION CRITERIA

am most drawn to these iterations as they struck me visually the most out of all the iterations, as well as meeting my selection criteria most closely. Option A: Point attractor to create openings Connection to site: The use of the point attractor enables me to create openings in unexpected places, depending on where the point is on the site.

Formally/functionally biomimetic: This surface is formally biomimetic, but I would like it to have a functional aspect to it also. Curiosity: This is a difficult criteria to measure, but I feel that this iteration lacks the sense of interest I want to give the users, in that it is quite uniform. Option B: Point attractor to ‘grow’ modules over a frame Connection to site: Use of point attractor as a way of connecting it to site. Formally/functionally biomimetic: Formally, yes. Use of frame and pod-like infill enables easier construction and selective openings, so functionally it is somewhat biomimetic.

Curiosity: Pods appear to ‘grow’over surface, it would be interesting to incorperate actual green, growing elements into the model.

Option C: Random selection to create openings and infills at random points Connection to site: I feel that this pavilion could link to the site through the way it might be used. The circular shape creates an enclosed, communal feel which I think is very relevant to the site .

Formally/functionally biomimetic: This iteration struck me as the most formally biomimetic, and the use of Grasshopper to dictate the size and degree of openings links it to the idea of a seed pod. Curiosity: The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;spikeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; aesthetic gives this iteration an interesting appearance which could add characted to the site. I will explore this iteration more in the next section, as I feel it has the most potential for development.

B 05. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

n building prototypes, I was able to explore the way in which one of my chosen iterations could be fabricated. I first experimented with overlapping hexagonal frames to see what kind of effect this would produce, however in doing this I strayed away from my grasshopper model. In fabricating my grasshopper model, used two different materials (ivory card and luan plywood) to add contrast between the structural framework and the infill. By unrolling the surfaces of a portion of my model in Rhino, I was able to add tabs in order to stick the modular pieces into a hexagonal framework. I then sent the file to the laser cutter. I was pleased with the outcome, and decided to experiment with sticking pieces of plastic bag over the hexagonal openings to see what effect this created with light. The use of plastic bags in my design is something I have been wanting to explore with respect to the idea of using recycled materials. I hope to experiment further with this in Part C.

think the next step with fabrication will be looking at joints, and how the hexagonal pieces can fit together in order to enable the curved wall of the structure to be created. For now, I plan on experimenting further with using modular elements fitting inside a framework, as I feel that this would be relatively simple to fabricate and create an interesting geometry. I did also like the filtered effect that the blue plastic bag created when light was shone through it, so I plan on potentially using this in my design.

B 06. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL CERES ENVIRONMENTAL PARK CLASSROOM

Figure [XX]: Site map (not to scale)12

eres Environmental Park is located on the eastern side of the Merri Creek in East Brunswick. Ceres is an ideal site for my design proposal as it provides the opportunity to engage not only with the creek and green corridor as a natural place, but also with the community and culture of the area. Figure [XX] shows my approximate proposed placement of the design on the site (highlighted in red) in relation to site conditions. In particular, I highlight the main access route to the design (red arrow), as well as views toward the bike bath and creek (black arrows). I would like the design to be visible from the bike and walking track (orange) as well as from within Ceres. I would also like the design to be used in conjunction with the existing surrounding buildings so it becomes part of the existing activity zone.

y proposal for the site is to construct a temporary outdoor classroom for school groups visiting Ceres, which follows the theme of sustainable innovation which exists at Ceres. I will use biomimicry to inform the formal and functional aspects of the structure. With this in mind, I hope to explore the use of a cellular structure in which modules may be placed, creating openings. An example of this is the way in which seeds are placed in a seed pod. I feel that a classroom will help to promote Ceres as an educational community space which is particularly inviting to children. I would like the classroom to extend and interact with existing natural features on the site, such as surrounding trees and the creek. In terms of materiality, I plan to reflect the materiality of existing buildings as well as the natural space surrounding the creek. As I explored in B 05 with my prototype, I hope to utilise recycled materials such as plastic bags to create an interesting experience for those using the classroom, whether it be via light, sound or other physical properties of the material. Potential drawbacks of my â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;seed-podâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; design include the need to link it more to existing elements on the site, such as buildings or the creek itself. I hope to do this by possibly continuing my use of the point-attractor script, or via another method such as point forces.

B 07.1. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

REFLECTION ON PART B

bjective 1: Ability to interrogate brief

I feel that I have interrogated selected aspects of the brief, such as the Site/Place section. However, I feel I can deepen the link between the design and the brief further, particularly in relation to Living Systems and existing complex ecosystems on the site (which will relate my design further to biomimicry). Objective 2: Ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation This objective has been met to an extent, but again I believe I can interrogate the situation and context more to inform my design formally and functionally. Objective 3: Improving skills in various 3D media I am certainly continuing to meet this objective as I increase my knowledge of Grasshopper and various plug-ins. I am very pleased with the point-attractor script I created (without actually using the point attractor component per se) by relating the size and location of extrusions to the location and distance of a point away from a surface. It is through this script that I learnt better how to manipulate data patterns. However, I still have a long way to go in applying this knowledge to other scripts. Objective 4: Having an understanding between the relationships of architecture to air The building of a prototype helped me with this. I was happy with the outcome, and I can see how important it is to physically realise your computer design, rather than assume that it will behave a particular way in real life. I hope to make many more prototypes for Part C. Objective 5: Make a good case for proposals I have begun to develop a good case, but need to develop it further in Part C to make it more convincing. Objective 6: Ability to analyse contemporary architectural projects Analysing other computational designs has been highly valuable to my own design. Reverse engineering or manipulating an existing script (as in Case Studies 1 and 2) were ways of extending this analysis and really understanding the projects. 39

B 08. APPENDIX: ALGORTHMIC SKETCHES

Sketch 1: Manipulating mesh After lofting three curves together, I changed the surface into a mesh. I then deconstructed the mesh and extruded the resulting curves to create a skeletal structure.

Sketch 2: Box morph

In this sketch I used Box Morph to propagate small shapes onto a surface. The aspect of this I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t like was the fac that there are always gaps between each shape, making connections difficult when considering fabrication.

Sketch 3: Exploring fields Here I used line charge and point charge to reverse-engineer the Seroussi Pavilion. I found this relatively easy, and enjoyed manipulating the heights of the curves to create a tunnel-like structure. I did find the technique somewhat limiting in the range of structures I could come up with.

ct h n

BIBLIOGRAPHY Achim Menges, ‘Hygroskin’, in The Creators Project. Achim Menges, ‘Hygroscope: Meteorosensitive Morphology’2012) <http://www.achimmenges. net/?p=5083> [Accessed 15th April 2015]. Aranda/Lasch, ‘The Morning Line Rendering’, in Flickr (2008). Biomimicry Institute, ‘What Is Biomimicry?’, The Biomimicry Institute, (2014) <http://biomimicry.org/ what-is-biomimicry/> [Accessed 15th April 2015]. Jakob Polacsek, ‘The Morning Line Istanbul’, (2011). Patrick Bedarf, ‘Za11 Pavilion’, in ArchDaily (2011). Patrick Bedarf Dimitrie Stefanescu, Bogdan Hambasan, ‘Process’, in ThinkParametric (2011). TED Conferences, ‘Janine Beynus: Biomimicry in Action’, (2009). Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary, ‘Matthew Richie with Aranda/Lasch and Arup Agu - the Morning Line’ <http://www.tba21.org/augarten_activities/49/ page_2> [Accessed 17th April 2015].

C 01. DESIGN CONCEPT INTERIM PRESENTATION REFLECTION

onstructive feedback I received during my interim presentation helped my consider how to better relate my design to the site. Prior to my presentation, I felt that my pod formation was too closed and disengaged with the space around it - it could have been placed anywhere on site and achieved the same effect. Furthermore, my use of ‘random reduce’ in Grasshopper to create openings and extrusions also prevented the classroom from engaging with the site around it. Despite these aspects, the ‘pod’concept is something I will stick to, but enhance to interact with the site more. In carefully considering the brief again, I would like to better address the following: relationships between technical, cultural and natural systems, and participation from site users. Upon visiting the site again, I decided to find a way to relate my construction more physically and culturally to the area I have chosen. I have chosen several key landmarks around the area which I feel are culturally important to Ceres as well as being strong physical marking points. These are: plantation beds, in which native vegetation is being grown. The stage, where there are frequent performances, usually on weekends. A small brick office building which site off to the side of the site.

C 01. DESIGN CONCEPT PROPOSED SITE

C 01.1 DESIGN CONCEPT INTERIM PRESENTATION REFLECTION

ince the presentation I have decided to come up with not just one, but a series of classroom structures which interact with the landscape parametrically. In considering how to do this, I referred back to my â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Exploring Fieldsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; algorithmic sketch task, and have decided to find my forms through using vector fields. After consulting with my studio leader Caitlyn, she agreed that this is a good and simple way to relate my classrooms to the site. The diagram below shows how I placed vectors on specific parts of the site and created field lines around them. I then chose the field lines I felt would provide appropriate spaces as well as adequate circulation space around the site. I plan to loft these surfaces together to create walls onto which my hexagons will be panelled to create the frame for the pods to sit in.

C 01.2 DESIGN CONCEPT FURTHER FORMAL DEVELOPMENT

he next step I took in my design development after deciding on the composition of the overall structure is manipulating my script to make it interact more with the users. I decided to do this through the scaling of hexagons in my frame in reference to attractor points, making larger and smaller openings which children can play with. To figure out how to scale specific hexagons I referred to a script provided by computational design website Co-de-it. Below is a diagram of how the script uses attractor points to retrieve specific data in order to move vectors from a normal hex grid. Vectors of the hex grid are then moved and polylines are drawn between the new vectors, creating a scaled hexagon structure.

I then used this script to create new hexagonal walls. Initially, I used map to surface to project the scaled hexagon script onto my surfaces. In doing this my issue was how to move the attractor points according to different heights and areas on the wall, as I was only able to do this on the flat surface which was being projected onto the curved wall. I then discovered I would be able to use the evaluate surface component to put the point attractors onto my surfaces and move them more easily and scale the hexagons more directly.

C 01.3 DESIGN CONCEPT FURTHER FORMAL DEVELOPMENT

he next step in the formal development of my classrooms was considering the ‘pod’ openings which sit inside the framework. I plan to use the same fabrication technique as in B05, when I created the ‘pods’ from tabbed paper, as this was an effective and fast construction technique. When developing the formal composition of the pods, I again used attractor points to influence the size of the openings created by the pods. These attractor points relate to the function of certain areas of the classroom spaces, as well as to surrounding views. The diagram below demonstrates the different zones that impact the size of openings. Display area - Openings are large and may be used as shelves to display found objects. Curved walls create semi-enclosed spaces where groups may gather on the grass. Desk space - Wall openings are large to accommodate for desks which sit as individual pods. Roof openings are smaller to block views outwards. Larger openings face north to allow sunlight into the space. Circulation zone - Walkway between classroom spaces with larger openings facing plantation beds and small openings facing the stage to emphasise the natural surrounds.

C 01. DESIGN CONCEPT FURTHER FORMAL DEVELOPMENT

Desk openings

Display openings

C 01.4 DESIGN CONCEPT INITIAL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM

In first considering how my hexagonal walls would be constructed, I figured the best and simplest way was to create joints between the frameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extruded curves. I did this by drawing circles at points along the extrusion edges and using boolean split to create notches in the circles and in the hexagon sides. I felt that this method would make the construction process of the frame simple and efficient. The pods could then be made from individual folded sheets and inserted into the frame accoring to a number order. Below is a diagram demonstrating how the circle joints function. The other type of construction I considered was folding, and eliminating joints altogether. If I could construct the hexagon cells from thick cardboard , each one could be folded through the use of score lines, and joined to the others using nails. I quickly moved on from this idea, however, as it would have created very weak walls and thick enough cardboard would be difficult to access. Furthermore, the use of glue may have been necessary if the nails didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t hold together.

C 01.5 DESIGN CONCEPT

DEVELOPED CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM After constructing a prototype of the circle joints structure, I was unhappy with the results. I decided to reconsider how my model would be constructed, and came up with another type of joint - a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Hâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; joint. I did this by first scaling my hexagons so that they did not touch one another, leaving room for joints in between. I then divided each side of the hexgons and drew a straight line running from one hexagon to another. Doing this was very time consuming, as the data structure of the hexagons was irregular and it required the list to be changed many times in order to create the lines. Finally, I extruded the lines to create surfaces, and then polysurfaces. I then used the trim component to subtract the intersection between the joints and the hexagons. This method of construction would be as simple and efficient as the circle joints, and produce a structurally sound outcome. In reality, the pieces would be cut from ply wood using a CNC router for a fast fabrication process. This would enable more time to be spent on construction. The diagrams below illustrate how the CNC is able to cut into timber in different ways.

C 02.1 TECTONIC ELEMENTS AND PROTOTYPES INITIAL PROTOTYPES

he core construction element I have decided to develop as a detail prototype is the joints between the hexagons, as these are crucial to the success of my design. The initial prototype I created was testing my initial construction diagram: the circular joints. I made this prototype at a small scale: 1:20, using laser cut mountboard. In doing this, I encountered several issues. The small scale meant that the prototype was too intricate and difficult to assemble. Furthermore, the circle joints were not strong enough. The final and main issue with these joints is that the structure could not curve in the way that I wanted. The second prototype I created was experimenting with folding, as described in C01.4. This was by far the easiest method of assembly, but as discussed earlier, the use of cardboard in my design would not be strong enough. As neither of these prototypes were effective, I decided to explore the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Hâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; joint option.

C 02.2 TECTONIC ELEMENTS AND PROTOTYPES FABRICATION

fter producing the ‘H’ joints in grasshopper, I oriented the pieces onto the XY plane using grasshoppper. I then unrolled the pieces and labelled each from A - O. Nesting them in a specific order is necessary as each joint corresponds to a specific position, otherwise the wall will not curve as is it supposed to. Luan ply is an appropriate material to use as it is cheap, flexible and relatively strong. It also mimics the timber finish I want on my design. I then nested the unrolled ‘pods,’ adding tabs to each to enable gluing to the edge of the luan. In reality, I imaging the pods to be made from recycled plastic sheeting, however I used white mountboard to mimic this in my model, and to enable faster folding and sticking.

C 03. FINAL MODEL RENDERS

C 03. FINAL DETAIL MODEL FABRICATION - DETAIL MODEL 1

he final detail model at 1:5 using â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Hâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; joints worked well, with some exceptions of joints which did not quite fit. Overall, this method of construction worked, as the notches in the joints were angled such that the hexagons were able to curve. Unfortunately, the luan ply was not particularly strong, and some thinner areas snapped. However, this would not be an issue in reality as thicker timber would be used.

C 03. FINAL DETAIL MODEL FABRICATION - DETAIL MODEL 2

he second model I made was a 1:1 detail. I wanted to see whether the CNC cutting would work if I made the hexagons in pieces. The cutting process worked seemingly well. I used 12mm ply wood and labelled each piece accordingly. However, when I unrolled the hexagon sides they did not fit together perfectly after fabrication. This was the result of the CNC machine being only able to cut in 3 dimensions: the X, Y and Z plane, not four. Had the machine been able to cut in four dimensions, the sides of my hexagons could have been angled enabling the hexes to better curve around the sides of my walls. I reality, my design would need a 4 dimension CNC machine for fabrication.

C04. LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

he final presentation feedback was helpful in making me further consider how my classroom structure functions as a classroom. I needed to further consider how each space would be used in teaching. Additionally, I needed to further consider my openings, and how they relate to the use of the spaces. I responded to this feedback by developing a diagram indicating the use of spaces, which I then used to dictate the openings (as described in C1). I also created desk spaces in the enclosed classroom enabling a more functional space. In terms of the learning objectives of this studio, I felt that I was able to achieve these reasonably well. I felt that I got better at interrogating the brief towards the end, when I really considered the function of my spaces. I feel that the key learning objective of the studio was to learn and document skills in parametric design, and to use these skills in response to a brief. Overall, I feel I have learnt a huge amount in the given time frame. I found it challenging to apply these skills to a brief and to make functional spaces. The additional challenge was fabrication, which proved to be a time consuming process involving many trials and errors. The digital fabrication process made me realise how long it takes to perfect a structure, particularly when using unusual geometry which may or may not function as expected. In each part of the journal process, I learned a different set of skills. Part A required me to investigate the concept of parametric design and the possibilities and constraints involved with it. Part B enabled me to develop my parametric design skills extensively through iterations and deep exporation of different Grasshopper components. Part C saw me put both the knowledge from Part A and the skills from Part B together to generate a functioning design.