2

abpl30048

architecture design studio : airsemester 2 / 2014

the university of melbourne

cindy edelene arief : 600604student journaltutor : b.d.elias

1

2

table of contents

Introduction

Part A: Conceptualisation

A.1. Design Futuring Precedent Project 1: Kunsthaus Graz Precedent Project 2: Project ZEDA.2. Design Computation Precedent Project 1: Smithsonian Institution Precedent Project 2: 30 St Mary AxeA.3. Composition / Generation Precedent Project 1: Serpentine Pavilion Precedent Project 2: Port Authority Triple Bridge GatewayA.4. ConclusionA.5. Learning OutcomesA.6. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

ReferencesImage References

Part B: Criteria Design

B.1. Research FieldB.2. Case Study 1.0: Seroussi PavilionB.3. Case Study 2.0: ManifoldB.4. Technique: DevelopmentB.5. Technique: ProposalB.6. Learning Objectives and OutcomesB.7. Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

ReferencesImage References

Part C: Detailed Design

C.1. Design ConceptC.2. Tectonic Elements and PrototypesC.3. Final Detail ModelC.4. Learning Objectives and Outcomes

1

3

457

101113151719212223

2526

27

29333741455354

5555

1

introductiontestimonial and previous work on digital design

My name is Cindy Edelene Arief, currently sitting on my 3rd year undergraduate study majoring in architecture at the University of Melbourne.

Building my future dream house, is the basis of why I am pursuing a study in architecture. I have always been fascinated by the different feelings and emotions that emerge from being in a certain space, that is the product of architecture. I wish one day I can create the architectural space which gives people the same fascinated feeling and emotion as I have had.

I realised that in this era of technological development, architecture has somewhat shifted towards a more modern and digital approach. Buildings seem to be more complex in form, shape, dimension as well as its construction process.

My relatively basic knowledge of digital design might not be sufficient enough to be able to build such complex designs.

And it was not until I took the Virtual Environments subject during my first year at university that I was exposed to digital

design. The course introduced students to parametric modelling and digital fabrication through the use of Rhino3DTM and the Panelling Tools plug-in. The brief was to create a paper-based lantern based on the analysis of natural patterns. My design was based on the pattern of spider web. Several experimentations were conducted and tested before I arrived at the final outcome. The changes were made easy by changing parameters on the Panelling Tools, something I never imagine could be produced before.

Despite the struggle in learning how the software works and aligning it with my design process, it was certainly an amazing feeling to be able to produce a design I thought I would never be capable of. Digital design has made it possible.

Whilst Studio Air again exposes students to Rhino3DTM, but this time with the Grasshopper plug-in, I hope I can gain a deeper knowledge of digital design and realise its emerging potential for the future of architecture.

2

Above: Development process of the paper-based lantern produced for the Virtual Environ-

ments subject.

3

part a:conceptualisation

Fig 1.1Frank Gehry’s preliminary sketches for Panama Puente de Vida Museo.

4

a.1. design futuring

Twenty-first century humans are unquestionably aware of the environmental changes that have been largely, if not partially, caused by the destructive activities of theirselves. If these continue to occur over a long period of time, we might in the future look and turn back the time to possibly fix all our irresponsible actions towards the nature. Instead of regretting later, why don’t we start to make changes as early as we can? It all lies in what Fry indicates as ‘designing’. Humans all design. They have the capability to create things, whatever level of complexity, and to destroy things simultaneously.

Design Futuring - as its name indicates - leads to a basic implication of how one’s ability to design can have considerable impact and real difference for the future. It isn’t sustainability but rather “sustain-ability”, which is regularly emphasised by Fry, that needs to be acquired by every designer of all fields. Architecture as one of the practices too can serve as key

drivers that can contribute in overcoming the problems possessed by defuturing.

It is because humans have all the power to choose what form of environment they long to create and live in that the act of design is substantially considered as the governing rule towards the future and the effects it may have impact upon. This is why designers at the earliest stage must be aware, as much as they are aware of the ongoing drastic climate change, of the need to develop their design intelligence. In other words, understanding the whole complexity of designing: why they design what they want to design and what positive implications it may have brought towards the future, changing their way of thinking about design as a whole.

The following pages will discuss few examples on built projects that seek to capture the intelligence of designing towards a sustainable future.

‘Effectively, what we have done, as a result of the perspectival limitations of our human centredness, is to treat the planet simply as an infinite

resource at our disposal.’- Tony Fry1

5

a.1.1. precedent work 1kunsthaus graz, graz, austria // peter cook and colin fournier (2002)

In 2002, Peter Cook and Colin Fournier won the international competition for the Kunsthaus Graz in Austria, a multidisciplinary venue for contemporary exhibitions and events of art, media and photography. The building shows how the architects have merged the historical urban site with the new avant-garde design which serves a new architectural landmark for the city of Graz2.

The most interesting feature of Kunsthaus Graz is notably the blob-shape of the exterior skin made up of 1,288 semi-transparent acrylic glass panels which

generate energy through integrated photovoltaic panels3. Far more interestingly, its outer skin also acts as a media façade which can be changed electronically to cater the changing content of the museum. Visitors who enter the interior building can also feel the different spatial and sensorial experience as they walk through.

Though it may seem odd in shape, as what Frank Gehry did in his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Kunsthaus Graz is a clear example of how an iconic public building successfully regenerate the

2 Universalmuseum Joanneum, 2014, ‘Kunsthaus Graz’, <http://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/kunsthaus-graz/architecture.html> [Accessed: 8 August 2014].3 Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http://inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museum-generates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014].

Fig 1.2Real-world version of the blob-shaped glass panels.

Fig 1.3Digital version of the blob-shaped glass panels.

6

underprivileged image of the city through engagement with the public. This is something every architect needs to learn from, their design needs to speak to the community that it serves, and accordingly the community will respect the work that has been done.

The built-in photovoltaic units on the glazed panels makes the building not only have low environmental impact by generating its own power but also make easy the fabrication process through paneling. The use of computer technology has aided the assembly process of the glass panel which make

the fabrication more time-efficient. Moreover, glazing enables natural daylight to fill in the interior space thus saving energy and creating a more sustainable future.

Kunsthaus Graz provides an efficient example that being intelligent in designing, both in terms of material selection and low energy emission, is crucial in slowing the rate of defuturing the world is currently undergoing. Architects play an important role in delivering a positive contribution towards a more sustainable future.

Fig 1.4An extremely modern design sitting in the urban historic site of the city of Graz.

7

a.1.2 precedent work 2project zed, london, uk // future systems (1996)

Fig 1.5Large centre wind turbine placed in the hole of the building of Project ZED designed by Future Systems.

Project ZED was part of a European-funded research project whose objective was to investigate the potential of achieving zero-carbon emission in a mixed urban development4.

In a highly-dense urban setting of London where most activities take place in indoor buildings, consuming considerable amount of energy along with the use of transportation, Future Systems sought to create a self-sufficient energy building to lower its environmental impact.

As the project’s title is “Project ZED: Towards Zero Emission Urban Development – The interrelationship between energy, buildings, people and microclimate”2, Future Systems incorporated the use of photovoltaic units in the louvers and a large wind turbine placed in the middle of the center of the building hole. They used a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to analyse the environmental effects of airflow around the building5.

Having its own wind turbine and photovoltaic cells creates an advantage of reducing energy cost as the building can generate its own power. Built in 1996, Project ZED has shown a redirection in architectural practice towards a more

sustainable future and not only think about aesthetics value.

Design intelligence as mentioned by Fry1 is also applied here through the curved form of the building which is not randomly decided, rather it is meant to minimise the impact of wind along the building perimeter and instead redirect it towards the center where the turbine is located.

With regards to design futuring, it is thus clear that Project ZED strives to consider all the environmental conditions which are then incorporated into their design thinking and process.

8

Fig 1.6CFD analysis of the wind-flow around the building of

Project ZED, London.

9Fig 2.1Interior of the Smithsonian Institution Building showing the triangulated-surface roof canopy.

10

a.2. design computationcomputation vs computerisation

The term ‘computation’ and ‘computerisation’ are often mixed and misunderstood. They are in fact two distinctive features and understanding the difference is crucial in realising the importance of computation in architecture.

Computerisation refers to a mode of working where architects use computers to simply digitise certain procedures which have initially been conceived in the designer’s mind6. Computers are solely used for digital drafting, such as editing, copying and increasing drawings’ precisions.

On the other hand, computation involves processing of information through an understood model expressed as an algorithm and often it generates results that are unexpected, compared to the pre-conceptualised ideas that are digitised in the computerisation mode.

With the growing numbers of computer programs being created, architects are increasingly allowed to explore new options and go beyond their capabilities. Computation does not only make it easier to adapt with changes that are often made throughout a design process, but it also lets the architects to predict its performance through the advanced tools they are using.

A more responsive and efficient design is enabled by computation, allowing the construction of complex models and giving performance feedback. Changing certain values of parameters within the digital tools can create multiple varieties of instances, most of which are complex geometries, which seem to be unachievable in the era where computer software had not yet existed.

The capability of experimenting with materials in computation also has a huge impact on the final outcome. It empowers the architects to create a performance-oriented design based on the evidence in the environmental field, which leads them to an ecological design that responds to the environmental conditions.

Computation undoubtedly presents a huge potential in creating a more sustainable future through a more advanced and sophisticated design process. Architects are becoming equipped with the tools needed to overcoming solutions and even predict the project performance before executing.

Engaging with computational techniques is therefore essential and beneficial in relation to the sculptural form that is going to be generated throughout this course in response to the LAGI brief.

11

a.2.1. precedent work 1smithsonian institution, washington dc, usa // foster + partners (2007)

The analysis of two precedent works by Foster + Partners will show how engagement with contemporary computational techniques play a significant role in creating a sounder architecture.

The Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, USA, shows how the use of a single computer program could generate the geometry of such complex roof on its central courtyard.

Foster + Partners take into account the consideration of structural and acoustic performance which are incorporated into their design process.7

Through the use of computer code and collaboration with a Specialist Modeling Group (SMG), they explored many design options and did several modifications before reaching the final outcome. Computation thus enables Foster + Partners to create a performance-based design with the inclusion of this

environmental condition requirements into the parameter. It also shows that in computational design, designers are given the opportunity to explore and evaluate the best possible result.

The use of digital modeling software in producing this roof canopy allows the architect as the master builder to communicate more efficiently with other professionals and trades involved in the production of buildings. Engineers, for example, have a more comprehensive understanding in interpreting the architect’s design as the computer information is translated into the construction information.8 They are provided with guides in a language that builders can understand.

A better collaboration between different professional fields is thus achieved. Accordingly, a design continuum is established between design and construction.7

12

Fig 2.2 Computationally-generated roof geometry that allows natural daylight to enter the large interior space.

13

a.2.2. precedent work 230 st mary axe, london, uk // foster + partners (2007)

A similar approach to the use of computational design technique is again done by Foster + Partners in London, UK. The 30 St Mary Axe building is easily recognised through its tapering form towards the summit that sits on the city’s skyline (Fig 2.4).

It is not without reason, or simply the architects’ intention to create the distinctive form of the building. Evidences, including environmental conditions and building performance requirements, are gathered. Each

element of the building is the response of these constraints that have been incorporated in their design thinking.

As an internal specialist group, Foster + Partners consist of computational designers working separately from the design teams. Designers are the ones dealing with the design process along with its varying needs depending on the project.

The building profile of 30 St Mary Axe is intended to reduce wind deflections

Fig 2.3 (left) - The apex of the 30 St Mary Axe showing computational design technique.Fig 2.4 (right) - Identifiable building profile that tapers towards the summit in the background of the city’s skyline.

14

compared to other rectilinear tower of similar size which helps maintains a comfortable environment at ground level as well as providing natural ventilation through the design of windows.9

These variables all affect the design process as a whole and digital linkage is established between the parametric modelers and the changing variables towards a performance-oriented design.

Computation has signaled the point of significant innovation in the 21st century, changing architectural practices in a way that only few were able to anticipate decades ago when production and construction of very complex forms used to be very difficult and unimaginable.8

Fig 2.3 (left) - The apex of the 30 St Mary Axe showing computational design technique.Fig 2.4 (right) - Identifiable building profile that tapers towards the summit in the background of the city’s skyline.

15

a.3. composition / generationa shift from composition to generative design approach

In contemporary architecture, digital media is no longer seen as a representative tool for visualisation but as a generative tool for the derivation and transformation of forms.

Generative design is all about writing or scripting the rules which can be easily articulated to produce a range of possibilities from which the designers can further explore for development without knowing what the outcome is going to look like. It is not about “making of form” but rather “finding of form”.8

This generative design method involves a broad range of elements from algorithmic thinking, parametric modeling and scripting cultures. It has been discussed earlier that computation has played an extremely important role in solving complex architectural-related problems that were not achievable before the emergence of computer programs. By thinking algorithmically, architects dealing with parametric modeling are to become familiarise with the culture of scripting, or writing all the differentiated rules, or variables which are to be incorporated into the design process.

The term parametric refers to the declaration of parameter rather than shape, the association in parts of a model with other elements. Through this associative relationship, multiple variations of creations are made possible

by changing, or scripting, the value of the parameter.

The era of the new millennium has seen incredible approach towards parametric architecture, so much that the term ‘parametricism’ coined by Schumacher8

as the new style of architecture emerges.

There is ongoing debate whether parametricism can be proposed as a new style, however, it goes beyond the scope of the discussion in this chapter. It is rather more essential to look at the potential of parametric approach to design that increasingly become part of architectural practices.

With parametric modeling, generation of forms, whatever level of complexity, is enabled through the ‘file-to-factory’ process of Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) fabrication technologies. This allows engineers to construct complex forms more efficiently through the digital data that they receive and understand, something that was not achievable before the emergence of digital technologies. The development of new linkage between conception and production is therefore redefined.10

As scripting is enabled, a building performance can thus be predicted before construction takes place, allowing performance feedback to occur that results in a more efficient performance.

16

Fig 3.1Serpentine Pavilion (2002) by Toyo Ito demonstrating the aesthetic and tectonic possibilities of design computation.

17

a.3.1. precedent work 1serpentine pavilion, london, uk // toyo ito (2002)

Fig 3.2 (above) and Fig 3.3 (below) Exterior and interior of the Serpentine Pavilion.

18

The most distinguished feature of Serpentine Pavilion by Toyo Ito is its complex pattern of a rather simple rectangular box form.

This pattern arose from Ito’s collaboration with a team of designers called ARUP who initiated a basic geometric algorithm formed by rectangle and lines.11 At a glance, the resulting pattern may seem complex, but careful examination will reveal an algorithm of cube that expands as it rotates.

Ito would never come up with such pattern had he not team up with ARUP and explored the infinite possibilities that emerged through algorithmic thinking.

The application of generative approach in this pavilion is clear in that finding of form eliminates the making of form in Ito’s

pattern exploration and experimentation.There has been a shift of explicitly defining the shape to defining the systems as done by Ito in his exploration of the pattern. By changing simple rules, e.g. rotating the squares and drawing lines, Toyo Ito was able to achieve such dramatic and complex result.

Fabricating is an important feature in parametric design where passing on of information from architects to builders must be thoroughly understood in order to build a successful construction.8 To rationalise the design pattern, Ito divided the elements into different structural elements that can be understood and thus assembled by the engineers. Thus, a parametric approach in generative design method has proved to make efficient the collaborative relationship between architects and engineers.

Fig 3.4 (above) and Fig 3.5 (below) Pattern exploration through algorithmic thinking for Serpentine Pavilion, London.

19

a.3.2. precedent work 2port authority triple bridge gateway, new york, usa // greg lynn (1994)

Greg Lynn is widely known as an innovator in redefining the medium of design with digital technology. He is amongst one of the first architects to use animation software not as a medium of representation but rather of form generation.8

In his winning competition entry for the Port Authority Bus Terminal, Lynn used the ‘Wavefront’ software in representing series of ‘forces’ of traffic and pedestrian flow.12 He then exemplified these ‘forces’ by particles that were rendered in the software as spheres (Fig 3.7). These forces that originate not only from within the system itself but also from its surrounding context are essential in predicting, or simulating the object form that is being generated. It accounts for a perfomance feedback before the construction assembly is being executed, avoiding unexpected results that may arise.

Lynn’s design of a protective roof and lighting scheme for the bus terminal in New York serves as an efficient example

that making present the forces in a given context is fundamental in the form making of architecture. Mimicking natural phenomenon, in this case he used the movement and flow of pedestrians, cars and buses, Lynn then incorporated these into his design.

His use of parametric and generative design approach which are embedded in the dynamic simulation he created, has shown a major shift in the use of digital media as design tools rather than as devices for visual representation.

Generative design method further shows that applying natural principles into design does not necessarily mean copying from the nature. It involves learning from the nature and how we can produce, or more appropriately, generate form in response to the conditions of the environmetal context.

‘While physical form can be defined in terms of static coordinates, the virtual force of the environment in which it is

designed contributes to its shape.’ - Greg Lynn cited in Kolaveric8

20

Fig 3.6 (above)Digital model of the proposed bus terminal as a result of dynamic simulation.

Fig 3.7 (below) Forces represented by particles that are rendered by spheres in the ‘Wavefront’ software, showing the flow of pedestrians, cars

and buses.

21

a.4. conclusion

Architecture isn’t just a practice about creating space and building things. Many buildings which are aesthetically pleasing to human eyes may not be friendly to the environment. During the construction process, they may have consumed a lot of energy through the use of materials which are not renewable, a lot of money to transport the material from one place to another, as well as great amount of time in building the construction from the ground that varies depending on the level of complexity. Above all, it is the responsibility of future designers, including architects, to incorporate their design intelligence towards designing a more sustainable future, or slowing the rate of defuturing. Design intelligence ranges from wise material selection to responding to the local environmental conditions.

Unfortunately, tackling the problem of defuturing too often extends beyond what human’s capability can offer. This is why technology plays such an essential role. Contemporary built projects have shown that engagement with computing enables them to generate and build complex form which was thought to be unimaginable before the emergence of digital technology.

Computation has revolutionised the way architectural practices behave in the 21st century. It allows designers to expand their abilities to deal with highly complex

situation in response to design futuring.

In response to the brief of the LAGI project to create a public-art energy generator installation that is both environmentally and user friendly, my intended design approach will be to use materials that are highly renewable and locally-obtained as well as incorporating site conditions towards my design thinking. This will include consideration of sun path, wind flow, and other parameters that should be integrated within the generation of form assisted by digital computer software, in this case, Rhino3DTM and Grasshopper.

By doing so, not only will the designers be benefited as computation enables complex problem to be solved in a timely manner, but also the engineers dealing with the construction process who are guided with ‘construction language’ translated from the digital they are able to understand. It will also consume less time and cost to build as local materials do not require to be transported from a far, and the local people in Copenhagen will appreciate it more when seeing local resources being used.

22

a.5. learning outcomes

My understanding about architectural design has broadened so much after learning about the theory and practice of architectural computing.

Previously, I was not aware that computation has played such an important role in contemporary architectural practice. I was wondering how builders are able to construct such complex form of buildings. This all has been made possible by the use of digital technology that enables fabrication process to take place relatively easily.

Through Grasshopper, I now understand that changing basic and simple rule or parameter can result in multiple variation of creations and even lead to very complex forms, forms that I thought I am

not able to generate. Although it may seem daunting at the beginning to learn how to use Grasshopper without any preliminary background, I began to see the potential of computation for my future design career.

I have always designed things that are aesthetically pleasing, not considering any environmental conditions or situations that need to be taken into consideration, even if so, at a very limited level as no concrete approach can be taken at that point. Now that digital computation has aided in this problem, I am very much looking forward to what outcome I can possibly achieve with the assistance of computation, specifically for the design for the energy generator installation.

From creating arches between two curves (see Fig 4.1 ), I began to see the potential of generating a much more complex form. It turned out that a form as shown on the next page was generated, though some rules needed to be changed as they consist of 3 different curves whose points need to be shifted in order to produce the grid shell surface.

Whilst watching the video tutorial, I discovered the use of geodesic feature which is to create shortest possible path between two points. This instantly reminds me of the design futuring

approach, in which I can apply the capability of this feature in Grasshopper through minimising the use of materials that I intend to use for the energy generator installation.

I believe that there are still more features that I will discover throughout my learning process of Grasshopper in this course which can assist me in generating my design form.

Another very important lesson that I learn is, as mentioned earlier, computation allows complex form to be generated in a very short time. This is shown by how changing the control points of the curve in Fig 4.4 can result in an unexpected outcome where association between its elements enable the responsive adaptation to the changing parameter.

23

a.6. appendix - algorithmic sketches

Fig 4.1Arches created between two curves.

Fig 4.2Grasshopper script for the grid shell form shown on the next page.

24

Fig 4.4Highly adaptive environment of digital computation design where simple changes are followed by the more complex generated form.

Fig 4.5Each curve has its own point that corresponds to another

location of points on another curve.

Fig 4.3Geodesic feature results in a non-straight line between the curves, showing the shortest possible path between two points.

25

references

1 Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), pp. 1.2 Universalmuseum Joanneum, 2014, ‘Kunsthaus Graz’, <http://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/kunsthaus-graz/architecture.html> [Accessed: 8 August 2014].3 Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http://inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museum-generates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014].4 Steemers, K. and Nikolopoulou, M. (1998). “Assessing the Urban Microclimate: Intro-ducing Innovative Modelling Techniques.” PLEA 98 Passive and Low Energy Architecture Conference (1998).5 Kolarevic, Branko. “Computing the performative in architecture.” Proceedings of the 21th eCAADe Conference: Digital Design. Graz, Austria. 2003.6 Peters, Brady. (2013) ‘Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought’, Archi-tectural Design, 83, 2, pp. 8-15.7 Foster + Partners 2014, “Smithsonian Institution” in Foster + Partners Ltd < http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/smithsonian-institution/> [Accesssed 17 August 2014].8 Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3-62.9 Foster + Partners 2014, “30 Sty Mary Axe” in Foster + Partners Ltd <http://www.fos-terandpartners.com/projects/30-st-mary-axe> [Accessed 17 August 2014].10 Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp. 1–10.11 Deuling, Ton, “Serpentine Pavilion // Case Study” in Collective Architects <http://www.collectivearchitects.eu/blog/77/serpentine-pavilion-case-study> [Accessed 19 August 2014].12 Gregg Lynn FORM 2014, “Port Authority Triple Bridge Gateway” in Gregg Lynn FORM <http://glform.com/buildings/port-authority-triple-bridge-gateway-competition/> [Ac-cessed 20 August 2014].

26

image references

Fig. 1.1Frank Gehry, “Preliminary sketches for the Panama Puente de Vida Museo” in Gehry Partners, LLP, <http://www.foga.com/> [Accessed 18 August 2014]

Fig 1.2Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http://inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museum-generates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014].

Fig 1.3Universalmuseum Joanneum, 2014, ‘Kunsthaus Graz’, <http://www.museum-joanneum.at/en/kunsthaus-graz/architecture.html> [Accessed: 8 August 2014].

Fig 1.4Ana Lisa, 2014, ‘Austria’s Blob-Shaped Kunsthaus Graz Art Museum Generates its Own Solar Power’, <http://inhabitat.com/austrias-blob-shaped-kunsthaus-graz-art-museum-generates-its-own-solar-power/> [Accessed: 8 August 2014].

Fig 1.5, 1.6Techniker, “Project ZED”, Techniker Ltd <http://www.techniker.co.uk/projects/detail.cfm?iProject_id=121> [Accessed 9 August 2014]

Fig 2.1, 2.2Foster + Partners 2014, “Smithsonian Institution” in Foster + Partners Ltd <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/smithsonian-institution/> [Accesssed 17 August 2014]

Fig 2.3, 2.4Foster + Partners 2014, “Smithsonian Institution” in Foster + Partners Ltd <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/30-st-mary-axe> [Accesssed 17 August 2014]

Fig 3.1Balmond Studio Photographer, “Serpentine Pavillion 2002” in Archello < http://www.archello.com/en/project/serpentine-pavilion-2002#> [Accessed 19 August 2014].

Fig 3.2, 3.3Sylvain Deleu, “Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2002 / Toyo Ito + Cecil Balmond + Arup” in ArchDaily <http://www.archdaily.com/344319/serpentine-gallery-pavilion-2002-toyo-ito-cecil-balmond-arup/> [Acessed 19 August 2014].

Fig 3.4, 3.5Deuling, Ton, “Serpentine Pavilion // Case Study” in Collective Architects <http://www.collectivearchitects.eu/blog/77/serpentine-pavilion-case-study> [Accessed 19 August 2014]

Fig 3.6, 3.7Gregg Lynn FORM 2014, “Port Authority Triple Bridge Gateway” in Gregg Lynn FORM <http://glform.com/buildings/port-authority-triple-bridge-gateway-competition/> [Ac-cessed 20 August 2014].

27

part b:criteria design

28

29

b.1. research fieldmaterial system // folding

Buildings are made up of different parts and materials which are assembled according to the specified technique.13

Some of the digital fabrication techniques that have emerged within contemporary architectural practice are patterning, tesselation, folding, sectioning, geometry, structure, biomimicry and structural performance.

As a starting point to develop technique for the design of LAGI competition project, the focus is narrowed down into a single material system, in this case folding, which will then begin to look at some of precedent projects involving that technique.

Folding is one of the material techniques in architectural design where a flat surface is turned into a three-dimensional

one.13 Through folding, materials being used can gain stiffness and rigidity, span some distances and support themselves, just as what a traditional Japanese origami paper craft works (Fig 5.1). Folding has been widely used in architectural fields because it is materially economical, visually appealing and effective at multiple scales.13

Digital tools have enabled folding technique to generate complex forms in a way that human capability of folding cannot create. In the fabrication process, the three-dimensional structure is unrolled or unfolded into two-dimensional templates through digital softwares such as Rhinoceros and Grasshopper, making it easier and more feasible to build. The process is further eased by the use of digital machines such as laser cut,

Fig 5.1Folding in traditional origami instructions.

Fig 5.2Office dA, Fabricating Coincidences, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1998.

Fig 5.3Dragonly installation by Tom Wiscombe/EMERGENT, 2007.

30

water-jet or plasma cutters to produce the fabricated folded surfaces.

Despite its structural stiffness, however, folding also has some disadvantages. Folding technique is very much restricted to the material selection as its effectiveness depends on the elastic and plastic properties of the material.13 For example, the seam detail of the Office dA’s installation of Fabricating Coincidences needs to be redesigned as manufacturing process limits the initial design concept.13 Thus, there needs to be a close association between materials selection and fabrication process in folding.

In fact, more than one material system/technique is often applied into a single architectural project. The installation of Dragonfly employs the technique of both folding and biomimicry, in which its honeycomb patterns provide the basis of the more complex and dynamic curvature pattern and in which folding is used for its structural performance through spanning of the depth of the band. Similarly, Seroussi Pavilion adopts folding and biomimicry, a case study that is to be explored on for the iteration process in the next chapter.

Fig 5.4Biothing, Seroussi Pavilion, Paris, 2007.

Fig 5.3Dragonly installation by Tom Wiscombe/EMERGENT, 2007.

seroussi pavilionbiothing // alisa andrasek

31

Seroussi Pavilion serves a great example of how computational design enables the generation of such complex form. Designed by Alisa Andrasek, this case study is chosen because it proves to adapt many features on the site that can be applied and manipulated in the script, which could as well be adopted in responds to the LAGI brief.

“Through logics of attraction/repulsion, trajectories were computed in plan and than lifted via series of structural microarching sections through different frequencies of sine function.”14 Its rather unique growing pattern is based on the behaviour of electromagnetic field that

is embedded within the algorithmic and parametric design thinking. Another example of direct application within the context that is applied as the parameter is the distribution of lighting/shading across the pavilion that relies on the sine-wave function which controls the parametric differentiation of angle and size.14

Drawing from the fact of environmental application and consideration within the design process, this case study thus ties in with the aim of adopting computational design tool that does not leave behind the issue of defuturing as described in the previous part.

2

33

34

b.2. case study 1iterations // seroussi pavilion // biothing

Pushing the definitions further and manipulating the values of certain parameters

have enabled the creation of multiple iterations which differ greatly, if not to some

extent, from its original form. Some of the parameters that have been changed to

produce these iterations are:- number of segments in dividing the curves

- field spin (its strength, radius, decay)- field line

- graph mapper

35

b.2.1 case study 1selected iterations // selection criteria

2

43

1

36

The four iterations selected here are based on the opportunity they can create for the art installation for LAGI competition design project in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Beyond aesthetical considerations and how far the resulting iterations differ from its original form, these selected iterations show some potentials that comply with the requirements of the LAGI brief.

First IterationThe first selected iteration shows the potential of how the surroundings of the design site can be attracted onto one single point at the centre. This could lead to the path where visitors are going to approach the site, coming from different parts of the site but gather at one point, which is the art installation itself. The curves also represent a sense of attraction and repulsion that draws people in and out of the site.

Second IterationExploration of field lines enable the production of this iteration. It is chosen on the basis of how several gathering points, represented by the inner circle, could be created within the site and produce different outcome on the overall form.

Third IterationThe most intriguing characteristic of this iteration is the radial path that is produced and grows out of the centre, or similarly, converges into the centre. This approach is similar to the first iteration, where variety of access points allow greater opportunity to explore.

Fourth IterationThe tunnel-like structure of this three-dimensional iteration can have the potential of stimulating and challenging the mind of visitors where they have the freedom to explore each of the strip that connects to one another.

37

b.3. case study 2project introduction // manifold // andrew kudless/matsys

The Manifold installation is part of a research project done by Andrew Kudless for the MA dissertation in Emergent Technologies and Design at the Architectural Association, London, UK. The project aims at the development of material systems that has a high integration between peformance and design.15 As discussed earlier, the application of material systems in an architectural project is often mixed and overlapped. In this case, Manifold employs the biomimetic approach of the honeycomb pattern alongside the

folding system. Departing from pure hexagonal geometry, Andrew Kudless developed a RhinoScript to create the skewed hexagonal pattern that is based on alignments and deviations of the front and back walls of the two surfaces.15 The relationship of this cellular configuration to its overall form seems rather successful in that it maintains structural integrity that takes into account the visual and material considerations. This project is thus chosen for the reverse engineering in that it contains the folding approach that is to be developed further.

Fig 5.5Installation process of Manifold by Andrew Kudless.

38

39

1

1

1

5

12

b.3.1 case study 2.0reverse-engineering // manifold, paris // andrew kudless

Create multiple curves.

Loft the hexagonal structure lines created earlier using lunchbox.

Using loft command, create a surface from the curves created.

40

13 14

From plaster-form finding model, prototype detail, fabrication detail to the detail of reverse engineering

Offset the surface for some distance. Create hexagonal structure on each of the surface using the lunchbox plug-in on

Grasshopper. Maintain the same U & V parameter value for each.

41

b.4. technique: developmentiterations // manifold // andrew kudless/matsys

42

43

b.4.1 technique: developmentselected iterations // selection criteria

2

43

1

44

Similarly to the earlier approach, the four most successful iterations that are produced through reverse engineering case study 2 have been chosen on the basis of the potential each may bring towards my design intent.

First IterationDifferent scales of hexagons that are projected onto the surface here may indicate how larger area could capture more sunlight on one particular direction over another. This entails with the main objective of the brief which is to generate energy from natural resources. By having this parameter, this iteration opens up new possibilities in the generation of form, not to simply placing larger surface area on certain angle with no clear justification.

Second IterationWhen applied to different planar surface, the folding connection within the surface changes entirely, leading to completely different overall result. The structural integrity that it deploys has the potential in considering what material to use for the design project.

Third IterationThis iteration shows how smaller rectangular panel follow within the path of the curved surface. Each of this panel can act as the solar panel to capture energy from the sun that has been the main design idea for this proposal. Alternatively, the curvature that is created along each strip can also help in determining the angulating surface of the design proposal.

Fourth IterationThrough piping, new design idea emerges. For example, users’ engagement can be incorporated here by touching or moving the pipe in order to generate light.

45

b.5. technique: proposalsite analysis: refshaleøen

Access Points

Refshaleøen, Denmark

Surrounding Landmarks

Sunlight Exposure View across the Harbour

The diagrams above show that the design site is located in a separate island from the city centre, where it used to be a former industrial site. Having a rather limited access points and being quite distant from the city, my design proposal seeks to capture the interests

amongst people across the harbour, in particular visitors of the iconic statue of Copenhagen, Little Mermaid, that has direct view to the design site. The proposal also seeks to make the most of the sunlight exposure in which solar energy is to be generated.

46

Point of Attraction 1:The Little Mermaid Statue

Point of Attraction 2:Water Taxi Terminal

Combination of the Two Points of Attractions

Based on the two major landmarks located near the site, which are the Little Mermaid Statue and the Water Taxi Terminal as indicated by the two red dots shown on the left diagram, these two points of attractions are thus incorporated in analysing the site as the parameters to generating the form, which is firstly precedented by formation of the plan. Some diagrams representing how the design site is affected by the two attraction points are shown below, which then leads to further exploration on how my design proposal fits in with the context.

47

b.5. technique: proposaldesign process // precedent projects: liquifloor by cafe interiors

Iteration from Case Study 1Seroussi Pavilion

Iteration from Case Study 2Manifold

Standing Platform

Form Generation for Design Proposal

+ =

The proposal largely relies on participation of audiences as they stand on the grounding platform of the installation, giving pressure and thus stimulating the LED panel to generate lights on its outer skin. The solar energy that is captured during the day is used in order to make this lighting installation function. This public art installation is meant not to just stand on its own, but rather to become part of the experience of the participant.

44

Standing Platform Human interaction:Pressure

Real-time immediate effect:LED panel

LiquiFloorby cafe interior, los angeles

This precedent project of lighting installation serves as a great example of how users’ participation becomes an integral part of the way the project functions. LiquiFloor is a unique flooring system made of transparent vinyl tiles that contain coloured liquid which can flow and swirl as people step on it.16

It thus creates unlimited variations as different gestures produce different outcomes on the floor. It was first originated by Cafe Interior for a nightclub in Los Angeles before it was further sought out by many interior designers and architects throughout the country for different applications such as restaurants, bars, museums, schools and hospitals. This idea inspires my lighting installation proposal where active participation of users can create an intriguing effect, constantly changing their perceived experience in a given space.

49

b.5.1 technique: proposaljointing // structural detailing

Jointing and Structural Detailing of the Hexagon Skin Surface of the City Lights Pavilion

50

As no prototype was required in this part, some thoughts on structural detailing and jointing are worth considering in making sure that the proposal can actually work structurally. The hexagon panels that are applied onto the skin are made up of timber beams which are then connected and bolted using galvanised L-shaped steel plate. It is important to use material that can be obtained locally because

it will contribute less to the embodied energy, including the transport and production costs that could otherwise be reduced by having the material produced locally. An advantage of using galvanised steel plate and bolt is that they have tough coating which ensures that they have longer life period, especially to cope with the high coastal exposure of the design site at Refshaleøen.

Timber Beam

Galvanised L-shaped Steel Plate

Galvanised Steel Bolt

51

city lights pavilionLAGI competition design proposal

52

53

b.6. learning objectives and outcomes

The second part of this journal has immersed me into computational design more explicitly through case study analysis and production of iterations. Based on the interim presentation feedback, there are certain issues that need to be resolved and refined further in the next part of this journal. The design direction that I’m pursuing through the proposal has not sufficiently responded to the brief in that it is not compelling enough, i.e. not having the fullest potential in stimulating and challenging the mind of the visitors to the site. It may also be lacking in algorithmic exploration, as the form that is generated does not fully address or respond to the context. For example, consideration of environmental conditions may be integrated into the script as the parameter. The two major landmarks that I analysed as two attractor points on the site could be of potential in developing the design further, allows me to be more experimental with the form and panelling exploration.

Another fundamental issue raised from the feedback is to have the LED panels operating on the inside of the pavilion as well, thus visitors will know if their interaction gives any significance to the installation, compared to the earlier proposal of only installing the panel on its outer skin. Although the aim of this lighting pavilion is to attract people from across the harbour, in particular those

visiting the iconic statue, the concern of visitors who are actually on the design site has been forgotten. It is thus important to not only build an installation that is interactive, but how this interaction can also affect the perceived experience of the visitors. If they find the interaction activity stimulating, they will thence come to the site more often and recommend more people to join in with the interaction.

The fact that prototyping was not required considering the individual responsibility in completing the task, may also lead to the lack of structural investigation, that is if the material system that is employed can structurally works and be built. My design proposal also needs more details in its hexagon panel jointing and structural detailing, thus it is difficult to say how successful the proposal may be.

There are certainly new things that will need to be considered as the design process develops. The surrounding context such as people’s circulation path, sun path, surrounding landmarks, all can be incorporated as the parameter that can be controlled when producing the form.

54

b.7. appendix - algorithmic sketches

Departing from the analysis of two attraction points surrounding the design site, which are the Little Mermaid and the Water Taxi Terminal, the exploration of L-systems here employs similar approach to my design intent of how

these attractions can draw people in and out of the site. This algorithmic exploration grows out exponentially from a single point or branch, which could as well be adopted as a parameter to further refinement of my design proposal.

55

references

image references

13 Iwamoto, Lisa, “Folding” in Digital Fabrications: Architectural and Material Techniques (United States, Princeton Architectural Press, 2013), pp. 62-87.14 Biothing, 2010, ‘Seroussi Pavilion/Paris/2007’, <http://www.biothing.org/?cat=5> [Accessed: 7 September 2014].15 Matys, 2009, ‘Honeycomb Morphologies’, < http://matsysdesign.com/2009/06/18/honeycomb-morphologies/> [Accessed: 13 September 2014].16 Trendhunter Art and Design, ‘Liquid Floor Tiles’, <http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/liquid-floor-tiles> [Accessed: 20 September 2014].

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ballookey/188931963

http://wba3.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/cca-wattis-installation-precedents/

http://www.tomwiscombe.com/project_28.html

http://www.biothing.org/?cat=5

http://matsysdesign.com/2009/06/18/honeycomb-morphologies/

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/liquid-floor-tiles

56