Part B B1.1 Research Field

19  

Structure embodies form finding and can produce a very sculptural project through the manipulation of geometry and joins[14]. It opportunities lie in its diversity. It can be used to explain tectonics and topography . Yet more interestingly structure can preform and me made into the design. An example is the Biothing Seroussi Pavilion (2007) whose structure has a beautiful sense of creeping which is further enhanced through the unique structural layout of its design and the relationship between elements within its enclosed system[15]. Given the brief of ‘Living Architecture’ this discourse can be used to explore the environments characteristics well. Given the nature of the site too, many may consider a bridge an appropriate use for stake holders.

However from my exploration and knowledge of Merri creek people are not worried about how they will cross the river. Rather they wish to enjoy the surroundings, which can be achieved through the use of detailed open structure to entice people around the site not simply over it. Fabrication may be an issue with this field as the lattices and framing components need to be modeled to show a harmonious relationship with their site. So curved elements will need to be investigated early. It will also need to be rigorously controlled in terms of cost, material capabilities and performance. Hence the developmental stage will be critical to allow me to produce an informed and reality-based concept to develop on.

RECIPROCAL STRUCTURE

 

[16]  

B1.1 Research Field

Dermoid Austrlia 2013 “Convergence” RMIT, CITA & SIAL RMIT DesignHub, Melbourne, Australia

Immediately this structure is bold yet light. It makes its own space yet to my eyes is still soft and tells a lucid story. This type of parametric design although not simple has elements that would translate well with the Merri Creek site and the brief. As the structure has been used to enhance the surroundings through both shadows, frame and form [17]. Much like McAslan’s Kings Cross Station the design pairs together multiple elements of the existing space[18]. “Convergence’s” success is entirely dependable on the layering of its wooden members and the crispness of each join. This detailing reinforces the concept of how designed structures are a holistic system with structure and aesthetics intertwined[19]. This characteristic of structure is exciting. It opens up the

20  

ability. Yet conversely it also could be a limitation not just because of materiality but my own ability to model this uniquely and the trap of being consumed with refining this issue that the project becomes about succinct joints instead of the concept and abilities of parametric design. This installation's ‘knitted’ pattern also explores materiality. It aims to push the parameters of the wood to its maximum capacity whilst maintaining its structural integrity.

[20]  

21  

[21]  

0.2 rad -1.9 z units 5 range 5 seg

0.1 rad -1.9 z units 57 range 57 seg

0..7 rad -10.3 z units 16 range 57 seg

0.1 rad -20 z units 16 range 46 seg

0.1 rad -20 z units 100 range 44 seg

Sqr root -8.1 1 curve deg 2 knot true

Sqr root -6.3 3 curve deg 2 knot true

Perlin -6.3 3 curve deg 2 knot false

Gaussian -4.2 3 curve deg 2 knot true

Gaussian -6.3 3 curve deg 1 knot true

Circle in Spin force 0 strength 0.6 rad

Circle in Spin force 8 strength 8 rad

Circle in Point charge - charge -1 rad

Circle in Point charge - charge -1 rad

Circle in Spin charge 6 decay 8 strength

CIRCULAR ____________________________

GRAPHING ____________________________

FORCES & ATTRACTION ____________________________

22  

B.2 Case Study 1.0

23  

Line in arch point 0.5 rad 5 seg

Z line in circle point 01.0 rad 100 seg

Circle in arch point 0.5 rad 5 seg

Polygon in 5 sides 4.0 rad 48 seg

Circle in circle point 1.0 rad 4 seg

Boundary set diamond 30×30 Thick intercepts Piped

Boundary strip 5×10 Non-structural Piped

Boundary strip 10×25 Semi-structural Piped

Boundary Multiple 30×30 Non-structural Piped

Boundary Overlapped 10×10 Non-structural Piped

Polygon Voronoi Non-structural Open lines

Polygon Voronoi Semi-structural Closed line

Polygon Voronoi Structural Solid

Polygon Voronoi Structural Solid

Polygon Voronoi Structural Mirrored-Solid

BASE GEOMETRY ____________________________

PARAMETERS ____________________________

STRUCTURE ____________________________

24  

B.2 Case Study 1.0

Biothing Seroussi Pavilion [22]

This is the most successful and conversely one of the least successful iterations due to and because of its elegance and aesthetic. As its stands this design has no

structural capabilities. However by applying something through these points I think some quite interesting forms could be found. In addition to its attributes this form could relate to air well but as there is little rational behind its creation work would need to be done to ensure it has a use and could be used to better Merri Creek.

The success of this design lies in its translation into a sculptural form and also how it can be imagined and fabricated to reflect the ‘family’ of reciprocal structures. Developed using a square root map and changing the curve degree knot style and decay the suggestive structure was formed. The

challenge with this iteration would be deciphering how it could maintain its form in reality given that its members would be curved and therefore not be

good in compression.

25  

These two designs are some of the more complex and organic, plastic forms. It would be interesting to anchor certain points and use kangaroo to explore their form in more detail. However although they are interesting structures and could be designed to stand up, in reality their complexity and possible

fabrication outcomes will make them unlikely to be the basis for the final structure. Even though they could be linked well to site.

26  

SELECTION CRITERIA & DESIGN POTENTIAL The selection criteria for my parametric design will be simple; 1 – It must be sensitive to site. There is no point encroaching on elements that already work (for example recreational tracks and existing infrastructure). Rather I believe the possibilities of this site lie in the existing parameters. The approach to a structure or seeing it from across the river will better engage users to explore and enjoy the site. Additionally it would aid people to explore from within its design too not just the creek itself but experiencing things like wind, sun and views along Merri Creeks banks which I felt were undervalued .

2- Flexible space or area so that it can have many purposes and be of use. This means making a space that can act as a meeting space, exploration of the site and an area that encourages alternate uses. 3 – Must interact with the site and take inspiration from existing features within that area. By varying surfaces, pattern weaves and comparing structural capabilities of iterations I tried to envisage a form with internal volume for people to be in. In order to fulfill the selection criteria I feel are necessary to achieve for success of designing at Merri Creek.

29  

B.3 Case Study 2.0

30  

British Library Roof 2000 Foster London, UK

My technical exploration began by looking at the system on the British Library by Foster [23]. Its complexity hidden behind its simplicity, it could be innovatively used to create a suggested interaction between water and land. Yet, on further discussion I grew to feel that this project although a standout structure was specific to the issue faced at the site and its unique patterning and style would be challenging to respect given the short amount of time for the project. Its structure also did not replicate a reciprocal system. [24]  

31  

B.3 Case Study 2.1

South Pod 2010 Studio Gang Chicago

able to be utilized to create the arch. To stop snapping and deformation laminated timber was used to enable firstly the structural ability for the curve to be created, whilst also allowing for the placid aesthetic to be achieved[27]. However, although the south pod works well as a pavilion and is associated strongly with the overall landscaped theme, the links to site are slightly misconstrued. The analogy of the turtle is quite literal but any other aspects relating to site are lost. Although the wood could be argued as being representative of the site in autumn because it was built to coalesce with the boardwalk its connection to site is strictly visual. Yet overall I find this project to be intriguing and very well balance due to its structural integrity and its usefulness as a pavilion to the park.

Unlike the Library Roof by Foster this project I believe has the ability to have a better relationship with site. And I believe it to have a more pleasing aesthetic. Whereas the roof by Foster was more driven to solve the solution of how to link multiple buildings making it unique to a specific brief. The South Pod is designed along a boardwalk that circumscribes around Lincoln Park[25]. Its aims were to rejuvenate the dilapidated natural landscape which according to the design firm “the pavilion integrates the park…provid[ing] shelter”[26] whilst trying to minimize the encroachment on natural habitat. Its inspiration was derived from the tortoise shell, and was constructed in segmented ‘pods’[26]. The materiality is thought out and executed very well. Through segmenting the design wood was

32  

[28]  

1. Divided flat surface into points and create a matrix along its face to join lines through each set

3. Use points created to create two sets of point on alternate horizontal and vertical axis (manipulate points)

5. Mirror the weave through the second set of points to form the lattice for the structure.

2. Create anchor points along the y axis edges and use kangaroo to inflate to get arch

4. Weave between the two lists of points to form the curved pattern in one direction

6. Offset the lattice and extrude in the negative z axis. Loft between to form the solid structure.

33  

SURFACE - DIVIDE FLIP MATRIX

POLYLINE BETWEEN POINTS EXPLODE SPRINGS

GEOMETRY

LIST ITEM

INTERPOLATE

OFFSET DISPATCH

CULL PATTERN

WEAVE

MIRROR SURFACE CLOSEST POINT

BREP JOIN

MERGE END RESULT

34  

The outcome of the reversed engineering produced a very similar pattered and structural alignment. It also shows and replicates the curves and folds in the line work quite well due to the homogenous script. Conversely it has also created two main anomalies in the structure. The first being where the structure meets the ground was not resting on a level plane. Rather it angles up so it needed to be trimmed and lifted slightly. Secondly a slight overlap was formed during the weaving process which can be seen in the top and side views. This means that although the pattern is uniform it does not have as clean-curved ‘pods’ as the original. Taking it further I would like to play with the weave to make it less regular and also alter the base surface to see how the technique reacts to level changes.

Outcome

FRONT VIEW TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW

35  

36