adaptive kinetic architecture: a portal to digital...

128 ACADIA05: Smart Architecture

C. Sanchez-del-Valle / Adaptive Kinetic Architecture

Adaptive Kinetic Architecture: A Portal To DigitalPrototyping

Carmina Sanchez-del-Valle1

1 Hampton University

Abstract

This paper presents a definition for adaptive kinetic structures in architecture, generated from an examinationof research in engineering and architecture. This characterization introduces the challenges presented both bymodeling form and environment, and simulating their interaction. Adaptive kinetic structures react to a changingenvironment, as well as generate their own. These conditions make them appropriate subjects through whichthe design and implementation of tools for ‘digital prototyping’ may be explored.Digital prototyping serves performance and simulation-based design. In general terms, it is an interdisciplinaryintegrated approach for modeling, predicting, and analyzing the behavior of a system. It is at the core ofvirtual engineering. In the aerospace, automobile, and manufacturing industries, it is practiced extensivelythrough discrete-event and continuous simulations, as well as simulation environments. This paper providesan overview of digital prototyping commercial software for engineering applications that can be transferredto architecture, and identifies some of the unresolved issues. It thereby extends the vision of the comprehensivebuilding information modeling initiative.

ACADIA05: Smart Architecture 129


Introduction

The assertion that architecture needs adaptivekinetic structures responds to the profession’scontinuous search for adaptable design thatoptimally serves changing human needs. Thissearch is coupled here with an examination ofapproaches that allow modeling and simulatingcomplex behaviors within complex environments.When an adaptable kinetic architecture respondsby adjusting itself to a changing environment, itforms an ecological system. It is ecologicalbecause the system components have shiftinginterdependencies. Currently in architecture thereis no single modeling and simulation environmentthat allows designing these structures in anintegrated manner. There is also limited data aboutthe actual behavior of the systems and itsconsequences. The lessons afforded by theexcellent examples built by many over time awaitfull compilation and ongoing analysis for futureuse. This means that at the heart of any model orsimulation is empirical research.

A host of tools to model form and material in detail,assigning attributes to components and spaces, andto execute mainly discrete simulations to evaluateperformance have been developed for architecturaldesign. Through digital fabrication (rapidprototyping and manufacturing) digital models aretranslated into physical prototypes andconstruction components. Although novel in itsactual implementation, it follows an ancienttradition: to evaluate a structure to predict itsperformance in the future: it is necessary to build,test, and document its behavior. Fabrication is butone phase of virtual engineering. Virtualengineering is “a simulation-based [design]method requiring a virtual environment, where thegeometric and physical properties of systems areaccurately simulated,” covering the life of thedesign from concept development tomanufacturing processes, to prototype. [Lee,p.433] This paper explores the application ofdigital prototyping or digital mock-up, whichrequires an integrated interdisciplinary approachto modeling, simulating, and analyzing thebehavior of a system.

The term ‘kinetic’ in this context stands for havingthe capacity to be affected by reversiblegeometrical changes in whole or in part withoutlosing the integrity of the system. When a kineticstructure is also adaptive, it gains the ability to

respond to changing conditions, such as theweather, the time of the day, and the location ofthe sun. Thus, the justification for adaptive kineticstructures is founded on three reasons: economyof means, responsibility towards the naturalenvironment, and the satisfaction of human needsand desires. These are no different from thosegiven for most architectural projects; however,adaptive kinetic structures can better modulateefficiencies, broaden the contemporary aesthetic,and give it more relevant meaning. The singleattribute that distinguishes the adaptive kineticfrom other forms is that embodied energy becomesfully visible when it produces work, when it movesin a perceptible way. Applied energy is work, andwork as motion is intrinsic to the system as is thetransformation of energy.

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the adaptive kinetic system

Uniquely an adaptive kinetic structure moves in apredictable and visible manner responding toexpected excitations. It has a built-in capability tochange state through motion, while maintainingits structural integrity and stability. This movementcan be produced automatically throughprogrammed responses to changes, or manually.Motion is fundamental to the life of the system.We use ‘system’ instead of ‘building’ to betterreflect all that entails architecture. An adaptivekinetic system is characterized by energy/control,purpose/function, condition/state, geometry,structure, and material. The system is immersed



in an ever-changing environment. At the same timethe system, in architecture, also creates itsenvironments.

The Kinetic Factor

Far from whimsical, kinetic structures have provento be essential in space, in extreme or hazardousenvironments, and in emergencies caused bynatural disasters and human will. Examples ofadaptive kinetic buildings are usually foundamong those that have been referred to asintelligent, smart, responsive, dynamic, and active[Fox, 2003; Kroner, 1997]. These characteristicsare mainly exhibited by structures that are foldableand unfurlable, collapsible or demountable,deployable, transportable and portable, mobile andnomadic, mass-produced, ephemeral, andtransformable.

One may argue a building that moves in whole, orin parts, is like a machine. A machine appliesenergy to do, or produce work. It uses energy.Kronenburg references Vitruvius’ siege towers asone of the earliest precedents to mobileenvironments, [Kronenburg, 2002, p.140] withkinetic components. A siege tower was a tall frameseveral stories high with an interior staircase seton a platform with wheels pushed by soldiers, andin some cases special mechanisms facilitatedmovement. The exterior was plastered with limeor padded rawhide, depending on whose accountone consults. In Vitruvius’ time, a siege tower wasa building constructed under the purview of anarchitect. Today we categorize objects functionallyinto succinct groups, where siege tower is warmachine. Yet, Paul Shepheard writes “a Boeing[airplane] is not a building, but as a refabricationof the world, it is architecture.” [2003, p.vii] Heproposes architecture has three scales: landscape,building, and machines. The difference betweenthe three is time, where landscapes are “long termstrategies,” and on the other side of the spectrummachines “have short lives and are closely fittedto their purpose.” [Shepheard, p.33] Therefore,four conditions exists where buildings can still beconceived of as machines exhibiting kineticcapacity, only excluding full mobility to avoidinfringing into the territory of vehicles.

Buildings as machines:Automated Car Tower, Volkswagen Autostadt,Germany

Buildings that house machines:Thames Water Tower, England, Brookes StaceyRandallBuildings with machine-like components:High Sierra Cabins, U.S.A.; Jones PartnersArchitecture.Building components as machines:Sapporo Dome, Japan; Hiroshi Hara and AtelierBNK

What is kinetic architecture? Perhaps influencedby the Pop Art movement, Zuc and Clark coinedthe term “kinetic architecture” offering the firstformal definition: “an architecture free to adaptto changes taking place within the set of pressuresacting upon it and the technology that providesthe tool for interpretation and implementation ofthese pressures.” [1970, p.11] Their vision wasfar-reaching, incorporating mechanisms, sensorsand embedded processors allowing the structureto react automatically to change, as in the work ofFox and Oosterhuis, among others. Their proposalfits between mechanistic and organic models forarchitecture. Yet, the ‘biologic’ argument takesprecedent in their thinking, because they surmise“every principle of kinetic structure may be foundin the physiology and morphology of the humanbody.” [1970,p.20] Current research conducted onthe biomechanics of organisms further supportstheir position. Of the eight groups or types ofkineticism advanced by Zuc and Clark, only fiveare truly kinetic within the definition establishedat the beginning of this section. These five can befurther organized into three groups: mechanisms(kinetic components), reversible and non-reversible self-erecting structures, and deformableor transformable structures. To date these continueto be the main types.

Zuc and Clark’ self-erecting structures find a newform in Scott Howe’s kit of parts composed bygeometric primitives or “motion primitives,”intended for pre-fabrication and automatedconstruction. The kit defines a form of “kinematicarchitecture that includes mechanisms to constructitself, or to change the configuration or form ofthe structure over its lifetime.“ [Howe, 2001] Itconsists of: joint-based, panel-based, module-based, and deployable. Howe’s proposal aims forefficiency and accuracy. [2001] Howe has definedthree levels for achieving construction automationbased on the combination of kinematic and roboticmechanisms:



Kinematic Mechanisms: “a structure containingtwo or more elements that have the capacity toalter their configuration in relationship to eachother based on a known or given transformation.”

Robotic Mechanisms (RM): “a structure containingone or more kinematic mechanisms, one or moreactuators, one or more sensors, and a controller.”A RM produces work.

System-Wide Work Cells: “Complex systemsconsisting of multiple kinematic and roboticmechanisms require coordinated behavior andwork areas.” [Howe, 2001].

Responding to a question on the nature of hisdesign for the 2000 Olympics arch, Hobermanexplained the arch was a hybrid between structureand mechanism, where the structure reacts bychanging size or shape, and the mechanisms dothe work “yet [the structure] is stable and self-supporting.” [2004] Hoberman’s definition forkinetic architecture is one offering “the possibilityof movement,” to create “transformingenvironments, responsive building elements, orinteractive public spaces.” [2004] Fox defineskinetic architecture as ‘buildings and/or buildingcomponents with variable mobility, location and/or geometry.” [2003] Terzidis defines kineticarchitecture as “the integration of motion into thebuilt environment, and the impact such resultshave upon the aesthetics, design and performanceof buildings.” [2004] Hoberman and Terzidisexpand the definition beyond space or building,to environment. Both consider motion and itsconsequences, essentially kinetics. Through theuse of the term aesthetics, Terzidis implies thereis a human imperative, while Hoberman’s use of“responsive” and “interactive” environment is lessspecific.

In the discussion of various authors kineticarchitecture intersects intelligent and responsivearchitecture. The occupants and the idea of

interaction between environment and building isclearly stated in Kroner’s definition for intelligentarchitecture: “built forms whose integratedsystems are capable of anticipating and respondingto phenomena, whether internal or external, thataffect the performance of the building and itsoccupants.” [Kroner, 1997] Zerefos et al proposedthe concept of responsive architecture: “Dynamicmodifications of the external envelope of thebuilding and of the interior spaces, according tothe needs of the occupants, as well as the extendeduse of new ‘intelligent’ materials that extend theeffectiveness of existing control systems.”[Zerefos et al, 2000; based on Atkin, 1988] ForKroner the occupants are passive, they are affectedby the intelligent system, while for Zerefos et althe kinetic function explicitly responds to humanneeds. The Zerefos’ team also includes materialsas active participants in the process ofmodification.

Of all versions, Fox’s proposal for “intelligentkinetic systems” is the most encompassing:“architectural spaces and objects that canphysically reconfigure themselves to meetchanging needs,” in the interaction between humanactivity and the conditions of the physicalenvironment. Fox presents kinetic architecture asan adaptable interface between people and theirenvironments. [2003, p.115] He qualifies changeas “responsive and adaptive to optimize.” For Fox,a kinetic system is justified by the need foradaptability or accommodation in any of theseareas: spatial efficiency, shelter, security andtransportability. Fox proposes three categories ofkinetic systems: embedded, deployable, anddynamic. The embedded exist within a “whole ina fixed location,“ and has the ability to control thewhole. In the deployable, the kinetic is an “inherentcapability to be constructed and deconstructed.”This second category would be more specificallydefined as reversible. The dynamic “exist withina larger whole“, but “acts independently“. [Fox,2003] Fox’s intelligent kinetic systems types fitalmost exactly into Zuc and Clark’s scheme.

Table 1. Comparing the types of kinetic structures; Zuc and Clark[1971] and Fox [2003]



Evidence of Zuc and Clark‘s encompassing visionfor kinetic architecture is also demonstrated bythe fact that almost thirty years later thecharacteristics of kinetic architecture are basicallypresented using similar terms:

An up-to-date full characterization of a kineticstructure needs to distinguish between: energysource or force required to move, types ofmovement, degrees of freedom, level oftransformation (morphing capabilities) and speed,reversibility and permanence, controllability,precision of movement, dynamic elements andtheir function, level of articulation, type ofarticulations, structure, strength, stability,geometry, material, and environments manifested.Any description of a dynamic system must alsoinclude the means for energy production ortransformation, energy transmission to producework, and the storing of energy. These last threeelements have been largely ignored in thediscussion of adaptive or kinetic structures.

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of the adaptive kineticinteraction process

Adaptability and Transformability

The idea that adaptive kinetic structures are formsof intelligent and responsive architecture has beenpresented thus far. In this section, a connection isestablished with transformable structures.Definitions for transformable structures havevaried depending on the knowledge domain, andthe historical period in which they have appeared.Fifty years ago, Giedion referred to furniture thatchanged form and purpose as ‘transmutable,’ and‘convertible.’ [1947, p. 434] Eileen Gray incollaboration with Jean Badovici had patented the‘paravent’ window, an operable folding windowassembled between an inner and outer layer ofshutters. She had written “a window without ashutter is like an eye without an eyelid.” [St. JohnWilson, p.117] Norbert Wiener, had published theseminal work where he stated ”the many automataof the present age […] coupled to the outside worldboth for the reception of impressions and theperformance of actions […] contain sense organs,effectors, and the equivalent of a nervous systemto integrate the transfer of information from theone to the other.” [1961, p.43] Giedion, hiscontemporary, was not looking at furniture, or atarchitecture, as automata. Although aware ofmotion as a particularly difficult issue whendesigning folding furniture, he was not ready toconsider possible implications on architecture.Therefore, the kinetic, adaptive or transformablewas mostly absent from the discourse of the time.

It was not until the 1970s, when Jencks borrowsfrom cybernetics to put forth his predictions forthe future that it resurfaces: “Substitutes for fur,skin and other anthropomorphic effects willproliferate until it will be quite possible foreveryone to have a responsive environment.”[1973, p.112] Certainly, Archigram’s early workdirectly references cybernetics, among otherthings. Today, Saggio writes about the ‘effectivemutation’ of architecture, or ‘physical interactivity’when referring to the ability of architecture to

Table 2. Comparing the characterization of kinetic structures according to Zuc and Clark[1971] and Fox [2003]



change through controlling lights, movingpartitions, and the increasing responsiveness ofmaterials and mechanical systems. [2001, p.27]Dorsthorst and Durmicevic define transformablebuilding as unfinished products, dynamicstructures “made of pre-made components, whichare assembled in a systematic order suitable formaintenance and replacement,” [2003] adjustingto users’ requirements and facilitating re-use andrecycling. They establish the domains wheretransformation takes place as: spatial, structural,and material. This is an area of agreement amongmany authors. They contribute the notion that thecapacity to transform impacts a “sustainabledevelopment in the future.”

Three metaphors are used here to discuss the levelsof transformation of adaptive kinetic structures inrelation to general types of geometricalconfigurations: origami, transformer robot toys,and the cartoon character Gumby. Liapi [2002]and Sánchez [1996] have used origami as ametaphor for folding structures. Betsky [1990]

used gobots transformer robots as an analogy tothe early work of Jones and Pfau. Morphing oradaptive-shape systems are somewhat akin toGumby, where the structure acts as if it wascontinuous.

A transformable structure through folding iscreated using moves similar to origami, the art ofpaper folding. Fox would categorize these under“deployable kinetic.” A folding or foldablestructure acts as if it was continuous, rather thanan articulated assembly, where folds act as hinges.It can consist of rigid planes with contiguouselastic edges. The edges or folds are elastic becausethey permit deformation without breaking. Planescan also have some tolerance for surfacedeformation, thus accepting a slight curvature.Interestingly, elastic edges and planes maintaintheir length and area. They are referred to as“inextensible” and “developable.” A developablesurface is one where “the sum of angles aroundan arbitrary point on the surface is 2 ð.” [Miura,1993, p.3] Tents, space structures, such as solar

Figure 3. The three types of transformation of an adaptive kinetic structure



sails, and dECOi’s piston wall project wheretransformation occurs through “inextensionaldeformation” of triangular plates. In this case, thesurface or structure is fragmented and articulated.

Transformer robot toy figures are made ofspecialized distinct parts and flexible joints.Through a sequence of operations, mainly rotationand translation, the toy is transformed, for examplefrom robot to airplane. In architecture examplesof “transformer” structures are the Schröder/Reitveld House, the GucklHupf pavilion by HansPeter Wörnl, and Michael Jantzen’s M-house. Alsorepresentative of this type is Morphosis’ 1983proposal for the Venice III house, where “weightsand pulleys control sun-sails that respond to thewind and sun, changing the physical aspect of thehouse from an unfinished ruin to a temporary tent.”[Betsky, 1990, p.189] Howe’s ‘motion primitives’belongs to this group. A transformer-like structureis submitted to reversible change, and therefore itis kinetic. It is fragmented and articulated.

The third metaphor, the 1950’s cartoon character‘Gumby’, helps visualize the behavior of anadaptive-shape structure. Gumby was made outof clay with a soft wire inserted into the limbs andhead to maintain the pose while the film framewas produced. Although uncommon inarchitecture, this metaphor has some relevance toaerospace engineering, particularly in the designof adaptive-shape airplane wings. For example,in the adaptable or morphing wing, skin andstructure act together to change while maintainingthe strength needed to keep the wing functioning.The morphing wing needs to have a memory ofthe various states adopted so that it may return tothose states multiple times. Therefore, the changeneeds to be reversible without degradation offormal integrity or structural function. Thematerials necessary to build a fully functioningmorphing wing are not yet available. Escrigdescribes a type of mobile structure as: similar toan “animal body with bones, tendons andmuscles.” [1996, p.18) His descriptive analogyrepresents a Gumby-like structure. Kas OosterhuisAssociates ‘Trans-ports ‘projects 2001 and the‘Muscle’ are close approximations to this thirdmetaphor. The first project is “a spaceframecomposed of pneumatic bars that are individuallycontrolled by software so that they work togetherlike the filaments in a muscular bundle.” [Zellner,1999,p.73]; The second is a pressurized volumecovered by “a mesh of Festo muscles.” The Gumby

type is a kinetic structure shaped as a continuousyet composite body.

Adaptive and Active in Engineering

In structural engineering an example of activestructure are “statically determinate trusses wheresome of the members are linear actuators, enablingthe truss to articulate.” [Williams et al 1997, 77]They can generally be defined as controlledstructures that contain sensors and/or actuatorshighly integrated into the structure, and havestructural and control functionality. [Wada et al,1990] Similarly, an adaptive structure has actuatorsthat allow the alteration of “system states andcharacteristics in a controlled manner.” [Wada etal, 1990] It is also defined as a structure that canpurposefully vary its geometric configuration, aswell as its physical properties. [Miura and Furuya]And in more detail: “structural systems whosegeometric and inherent structural characteristicscan be changed either through remote commandsand/or automatically in response to externalstimulations.” [Miura, 1993] The main differencebetween active and adaptive is that the latterresponds to external conditions, in addition tocommands.

Research into active and adaptive structures inengineering considers kinematics and dynamics,mechatronics, adaptronics, robotics, and bionics.Mechatronics comprises “products and processeswith moving parts requiring manipulation andcontrol of dynamic constructions to a high levelof accuracy.” [Giurgiutiu et al, 2002, p.170] Thisis further complemented by the field ofadaptronics involving “the creation of materialsystems with intelligence and life featuresintegrated in the microstructure of the materialsystem.” [Giurgiutiu et al, 2002, p.170] All ofthese must be carried on into the study of adaptivekinetic buildings.

Simulation Environment for Adaptive KineticStructures

Fox has argued kinetic structures must be seen asparts of larger systems, and “to achieve this it isnecessary to use advanced computational designtools,“ among other resources. [2003] Thisassessment is shared by colleagues both inarchitecture and engineering. [Angelov et al, 200]Liapi argues that in engineering there are nostandards for the design and analysis of



transformable structures. [2000, p. 267] Sheproposes in the case of origami-basedtransformable structures: “animated simulationsof the transformation process during folding canidentify problems in the initial geometricconception (…), and can be used for furthermorphological explorations.” [Liapi. 2002, p.385]The modeling and simulation of kinetic structuresis complex. Frei Otto, a strong advocate forphysical prototypes conceded some structures canonly be accurately established through digitalmodeling. [Dickson, 2004] Yet, as has beenpointed out before, the precision of future digitalmodels depends on the testing of the physicalmodels of unbuilt proposals not yet analyzed.

A simulation is goal-oriented, it serves a purpose.It can assist the “design, analysis or optimization”of a system. [Birta et al, 1996, p.77] To besimulated, a system needs to be conceptualized. Asimulation acts on a model of reality or proposedreality. The models used in the simulation need tobe validated to confirm they accurately representthe system under investigation. They also need tobe verified to determine if the concept of thesystem has been correctly translated into thesimulation. [Birta et al, 1996, p.77] Expertknowledge has to be identified and coded in, andexperimental data needs to be collected. Physicalprototypes after all are necessary.

Kieran and Timberlake [2004, p.59] have recentlymade the case for the transfer of aircraft modelingmethods to architectural design. They arguesimulations provide a “whole model”, whereinformation about the factors constraining thedesign have been “embedded” in each part. Theyrefer to simulation as an enabling device to ensurethat the parts create a “unified whole.” [Kieranand Timberlake, 2004, p.65] Yet, theimplementation of such an integrated environmenthas not been fully realized.

In the aerospace industry, a call has been madefor the integration of simulations “to coverlifecycle, from conceptual design, throughpredefining detailed manufacturing processes tothe final assembly without any physicalapplication required.” [Murphy et al, 2001,p.829]This entails developing a system or environmentfor ‘digital manufacturing’ where different typesof simulation types interact. The simulationsprogress from conceptual to detailed design, totolerance, mechanical, and ergonomic simulations,

including digital mock-up in preparation forassembly concluding with the simulation of themanufacturing facility system required. [Murphyet al, 2001] In this implementation model for asimulation environment ‘digital prototyping’ isonly one of many phases. The Murphy et alproposal concurs with the main goal of theperformance-based design in architecture: “topredict the behavior of a building from conceptionto demolition.” [Malkawi, 2004] But, it is oftennoted that not much has been offered relative tothis type of comprehensive simulationenvironments. [Axley, 2004, p.4]

Design challenges facing whole system simulationapplicable to adaptive kinetic structures:

Differences between the representation needed bythe simulation tools and that generated in thegeometric modeling (CAD) environment.[Mahdavi, 1999; Shepard, 2004] The ‘generativecomponents’ initiative promises to facilitatesharing data.

No ”infrastructure for distributed simulationenvironments, and transaction data betweendistributed simulations.” [McLean et al, 2001]

“No satisfying solution for the simulation of theentire system in one software tool,” for multi-bodysystems and Computer-Aided-ControlEngineering. [Gerl, 2003; Williams, 1997]

Need the “ability to define simulation models ofvarious levels of ‘fidelity’ from early in the designprocess and to have the information determinedby those analyses influence the design process.”[Shepard et al, 2004]

“Mechanisms for multidisciplinary analyses and‘performance based comparison procedures’ thatfacilitate the collaboration of highly diverseinterdisciplinary teams.” Also sharedrepresentations. [Augenbroe, 2002; Hu & Fox,2003]

The purpose of developing a digital prototypingenvironment for adaptive kinetic architecturewould be to evaluate the effectiveness of its formand behavior as a system to achieve the designobjectives. The behavior would not only involvemotion, but structural, environmental, and controlperformance, including human interaction.Commercially available packages for engineering



applications simulate structural performance,which may include kinematics and dynamics,interference detection, and motion volumes, andcontrol system, or environmental performance,and ergonomics, but not all. Below is a list ofcurrently available software with some digitalprototyping capabilities that must be carefullyevaluated for possible transfer to architecture.

A model of an integrated simulation environment,currently in development for application in theautomobile industry, the “Simulation Environmentfor Engineering Design” or SEED [Shepard et al,2004], can be useful for digitally prototypingadaptive kinetic structures. It is built on theconcept that a holistic simulation environment iscomposed by three already existing componentsthat interact with SEED’s four new components.Furthermore, it is based on the premise that suchan environment is to be shared by aninterdisciplinary team, must be accessible todesigners, and must be based on multiplerepresentations of increasing detail as they areaffected by the results of the simulation.

Table 3A

Table 4. Commercially available software with some digital prototyping capabilities

Table 3B



Conclusion

When placed in the architectural domain, adaptivekinetic structures are extremely complex systems.Investigating the modeling and simulation ofadaptive kinetic structures provide opportunitiesfor joint ventures in design among multipledisciplines. Simulation-based design, performancebased-design, digital prototyping all become partof the same. Most importantly, this effort extendsthe vision of the comprehensive buildinginformation modeling initiative.

When we consider architecture as a dynamicsystem we are forced to confront issues of humanpower, space control, environmental manipulation,material economy, operational effectiveness, andenergy investment. An adaptive kinetic structurematerializes energy because it approximates amachine, and because it can be seen to mimic aliving being. The intent here is not to present themas new commodities, but as ideas architecture stillneeds to catch up to and grapple with, if it intendsto remain present and in conversation with itstimes, its needs, its machinery.

An integrated platform for evaluating design inarchitecture is needed. Adaptive kinetic structuresprovide the subject through which experimentalarchitectural ideas may be tested. It shifts thediscussion from digital design to digitalprototypes. It recognizes the need, and providesthe means for, collaborative interdisciplinarywork. It pushes for a shared language that connectsand challenges professional expertise withoutreducing its complexity or its possibilities.

Acknowledgment

A summer spent at NASA Langley ResearchCenter in 2001, through an ASEE Summer FacultyFellowship, provided in-depth exposure toemerging concepts in the area of adaptive systems.Informal conversations with Prof. Tuba Bayraktaron the complexity of integrated simulationenvironments from the perspective of mechanicalengineering have allowed me to see another sideof the field. Finally, I appreciate V.M. Price’seditorial comments on the clarity of the ideas andthe manuscript.



References

Angelov, C., & R.V.N. Melnik, J. Buur. (2003).The synergistic integration of mathematics,software engineering, and user-centred design:exploring new trends in education. FutureGeneration Computer Systems, (19), 1299-1307

Augenbroe , Godfried. (2002). Trends in buildingsimulation. Building and Environment (37), 891–902. From Elsevier Database.

Axley , James W. (2004). Design and Simulationin Innovative Practice. Journal of Architecturaland Planning Research, 21 (4), 273-291. FromWilsonweb database.

Betsky , Aaron. (1990). Violated Perfection:Architecture and the Fragmentation of theModern. New York: Rizzoli.

Birta, Louis G. (2003). The Quest for the Modellingand Simulation Body of Knowledge.Retrieved from www.csi.uottawa.ca.

Birta, Louis G., & F. Nur Özmizrak. (1996). AKnowledge-Based Approach for the Validation ofSimulation Models: The Foundation. ACMTransactions on Modeling and ComputerSimulation, 6 (1), 76-98. From Science Directdatabase.

Dickson, Michael. (2004) Frei Otto: Researcher,Inventor, and Inspired instigator of ArchitecturalSolutions. AA Files, (50).

Dorsthorst, Bart Te, & Elma Durmicevic. (2003,May). Building’s transformation capacity as theindicator of sustainability; transformationcapacity of flexible housing. Paper presented atthe 11th Rinker International Conference:Deconstruction and Material Reuse, Gainesville:Florida. Retrieved from www.cce.ufl.edu/pdf/.

Escrig, F. (1996). General survey of deployabilityin architecture. In F. Escrig and C.A. Brebbia(Eds.), Mobile and Rapidly Assembled StructuresII, 2nd International Conference on Mobile andRapidly Assembled Structures, ComputationalMechanics Publications.

Fox , Michael A. (2003). Kinetic ArchitecturalSystems Design. In Robert Kronenburg (Ed.)Transportable Environments 2. London & NewYork: Spon Press.

Gerl, Johannes. (2003, June). Overview about theRecent Developments for Combined ControlSystem and Mechanics Simulation in Automotiveand Railway Engineering. Paper presented at ameeting on Simulation: An Essential Tool for RiskManagement in Industrial Product Development,Lyon: France.

Giedion, Siegfred. (1947). Mechanization TakesCommand: a contribution to anonymous history(1969 edition). New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Giurgiutiu , Victor, & Abdel-Moez E. Bayoum,Greg Nall, (2002). Mechatronics and smartstructures: emerging engineering disciplines forethe third millennium. Mechatronics, 12 (2), 169-181.

Hoberman, Charles. Retrieved August 16, 2004from www.hoberman.com.

Howe, Scott. (2001). Kit-of-parts and AutomatedConstruction, Department of Architecture, TheUniversity of Hong Kong. Retrieved on March2005 from thegreenroom.arch.hku.hk.

Hu , Catherine, & Michael A. Fox. (2003). Startingfrom the Micro: A Pedagogical Approach toDesigning Responsive Architecture. CAADRIA2003. Retrieved from CuminCAD database.

Jencks, Charles. (1973). Architecture 2000,Predictions and Methods (2nd printing), New York& Washington: Praeger Publishers.

Kieran, Stephen, & James Timberlake. (2004).Refabricating Architecture, New York: Mc-GrawHill.

Kronenburg, Robert. Houses in Motion (2nd

edition), Great Britain: Wiley-Academy.

Kroner, Walter M. (1997). An intelligent andresponsive architecture. Automation inConstruction, (6), 381-393.



Lee, Kunwoo. (1999). Principles of CAD/CAM/CAE Systems, Addison Wesley Longman.

Liapi, Katherine A. (2002). TransformableArchitecture Inspired by the Origami Art:Computer Visualization as a Tool for FormExploration. Proceedings of the 2002 AnnualConference of the Association for Computer AidedDesign in Architecture, Pomona: California/USA.

Mahdavi, Ardeshir. (1999). A comprehensivecomputational environment for performance basedreasoning in building design and evaluation.Automation in Construction, (8), 427–435.

Malkawi, Ali M. (2004). Developments inenvironmental performance simulation.Automation in Construction, (13), 437– 445.Retrieved from Elsevier database.

McLean, Charles, & Swee Leong. (2001). TheExpanding Role of Simulation in FutureManufacturing. In B.A. Peters, J.S. Smith, D.J.Medeiros, & M.W. Rohrer (Eds.). Proceedings ofthe 33rd conference on Winter Simulation, Session:Future of simulation, (pp.1478-1486), Arlington,VA. Retrieved from www.portal.acm.org.

K. Miura. (1993). Concepts of Deployable SpaceStructures. International Journal of SpaceStructures, 8 (1-2).

Moore, P.R., & J. Pu, H.C. Ng, C.B. Wong, S.K.Chong, X. Chen, J. Adolfsson, P. Olofsgard, J.-O.Lundgren. (2003). Virtual engineering: anintegrated approach to agile manufacturingmachinery design and control. Mechatronics, (13),1105–1121.

Murphy, Craig A., & Terrence D. Perera. (2001).Role of Simulation in industries: The Definitionand Potential Role of Simulation Within anAerospace Company. In B.A. Peters, J.S. Smith,D.J. Medeiros, & M.W. Rohrer (Eds.).Proceedings of the 33rd conference on WinterSimulation, Session: Manufacturing applications,(pp. 829-837), Arlington, VA, 2001. Retrievedfrom www.portal.acm.org.

Saggio, Antonino, (2001). New Subjectivity. InPeter Cachola Schmal (Ed.). Blobmeister,DigitalReal, Birkhauser.

Sánchez del Valle, Carmina.(1996). TransformableFolding Space. ACADIA Conference Proceedings:Design Computation: Collaboration, Reasoning,Pedagogy. (pp. 45-54), Tucson: Arizona / USA.

Shepard, M.S., & M.W. Beall, R.. O’Bara, B.E.Webster. (2004). Toward simulation-based design.Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, (40),1575-1598.

Shepheard, Paul. (2003). Artificial Love: A Storyof Machines and Architecture, Cambridge: TheMIT Press.

St. John Wilson, Colin. (1995). The OtherTradition of Modern Architecture, London:Academy Editions.

Terzidis, Kostas. Course description for 2309:Kinetic Architecture. Course Bulletin ScheduleFall 2004, Harvard Design School. Retrieved fromwww.gsd.harvard.edu.

Wada, B.K., & J.L. Fanson. (1990). AdaptiveStructures. Reprinted from Journal of IntelligentMaterials Systems and Structures, (1), 157-174.In Selected papers on smart structures forspacecraft, SPIE Milestone series, (MS 167).

Wiener, Norbert. (1961) Cybernetics or controland communication in the animal and the machine(2nd edition). New York & London: The MIT Press& John Wiley & Sons.

Williams, Robert L., & Rex J. Kuriger.(1997).Kinematics, statics, and dexterity of planar activesstructure modules. Automation in Construction,(7), 77-89.

Zellner, Peter. (1999). Hybrid Space: New Formsin Digital Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.

Zerefos, S. C., & A. M. Kotsiopoulos, A.Pombortsis. (2000). Responsive Architecture: AnIntegrated Approach for the Future. ProceedingsACADIA 2000: Eternity, Infinity and Virtuality,.Washington D.C.

adaptive kinetic architecture: a portal to digital...

Documents