ARCHITECTURE AIRDESIGN STUDIO531708 | THAWINI VERAPHONG | 2013 | SEMESTER 1

CONTENT

1. The Case For Innovation 1.1 Architecture as a Discourse 1.2 Computing in Architecture 1.3 Parametric Modelling

2. Cut Case Study 2.1 Biomimicry 2.1.1 Case Study 1.1 2.2 Patterning 2.2.1 Case Study 2.1 2.2.2 Case Study 2.2 2.2.3 Case Study 2.3

3. Expression of Interest 3.1 The Argument 3.2 Prototype

4. Project Proposal 4.1 Form-finding Process 4.2 Tectonics 4.3 Site Analysis 4.4 Digital Model 4.5 Final Model 4.6 Competitive Advantage

571318

25263033404246

495054

697478828894

CASE FOR INNOVATION

Hey all,

My name is Thawini Veraphong, normally called ‘Tha’ for my nickname, and I am 20 years old, a third year student studying Bachelor of Environments at The University of Mel-bourne, majoring in Architecture. I am an international student from Thailand. I came to Melbourne in 2007, and before that I spent most of my childhood growing up in Bang-kok.

Ever since I was young, I have always love looking at various buildings and their archi-tecture, especially at residential buildings which I have strong interest in. I believe in the idea of ‘home is where the heart is’, that a good home is the key to happiness in life. In my opinion, a good home is not necessary an expensive one, but the one that most suits lifestyle of the owner and that the owner is most comfortable inhabiting in it. And for that, I have always wanted to design my own home someday. I also came to be interested in modern buildings and complex objects. Apart from architecture, I very much love travel-ling and photography.

During my first year, I have had the opportunity to experience with Rhino 4 in Virtual Envi-ronments. I found the subject to be extremely challenging as I was not familiar with digital modelling, and often found myself stuck among the midst of technical errors within my digital model. In the end, however, I realised that I quite enjoyed it as I found the fun in digital computation. Though I have used Rhino before, I still have limited knowledge of the program as I did not feel encouraged to use it again in my second year, rather I shifted to software like Sketch Up which proved to be much easier to use. I realised that Sketch Up, however, is more about a tool for computerization rather than computation, and is limited in many ways. Rhino, on the other hand, allows me to explore complex objects in various alternatives and methods, but the lack of knowledge and experience over the software would definitely hinder the design process and limit the ability to experiment and the possibilities of outcome. Hence, I am really looking forward to this project and hope to improve my skill over digital computing in Rhino and Grasshopper to be able to explore various complex designs through using computation at its full potential.

INTRODUCTION

Most common understanding of architecture is the art and science of designing and erecting build-ing, or simply producing an artefact. But an architecture is more then just a building or a tangible object. Architecture is the setting for how we live and the expression for how we think. The works of architecture frame our lives as we inhabit them. Richard Williams in ‘Architecture and visual culture‘ describes architecture as an inescapable most public work of arts, that arhichitecture is associated social, philosophical and political aspects. It is a visual culture in which one must consider archi-tecture as a discourse to fully engage with this context, to see it beyond its physical aspect. A dis-course refers to what has been said about the architecture, discussions, debates, critics and such.

Hence in general, architecture is a product to the requirements of society to create technical sys-tems and organisational structures to support social, commercial and administrative relationships; and such product is constructed from discourse of the architect.

ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

THE DESIGN PROCESS

Discourse in architecture is concerned with the articulation of problems and policies and their reso-lution and implementation through the formulation of solutions (Martin, 2010). Generally speaking, architectural discourse is strongly connected to design process. Two approaches of producing archi-tecture that so far have been discussed in this subject are the problem-solving and puzzle-making processes. Problem-solving approach rests on the notion that for every problem, there exists a solu-tion space, a domain of which contains all the possible solutions to the design problem. Problem-solving could then be descrined as a process of searching for the most preferred solution within this domain, hence the design outcome based on this approach is predictable and mostly lacks innova-tion. This then limits the discourse around architecture. On the other hand., the puzzle-making ap-proach has no predicted solution. This process is highly subjective and is progressive. It is based on unknown inituative of the architect which forms the basis of design. Each development step stems from its previous step, progressing through experiment and implementation to reach final solution. This approach encourages discourse, expanding the boundary of what being said about architecture.

solution solution

PUZZLE-MAKING PROBLEM-SOLVING

The ORDOS Musuem, located in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, another mas-terpiece project by MAD Architects, was completed in 2011. While it may look just like a simple solid mass situating on top of a landscape, it is more than just a mere architecture. The musuem proposes an outstand-ing connection between the local culture and the new urban context, an innovative use of materials and embodies futuristic design thinking.

The challenge for the project was to design a musuem in an unbuilt me-tropolis, amidst of landscape that was nothing but Gobi desert six years ago. The museum project was first envisioned in 2004, six years in its construction and now it has turned the once wildnerness desert into an urban center of the local city.

The concept of the building was inspired by ‘Manhattan Dome’ by Buck-minster Fuller, it concieved a futuristic shell to protect the cultural history of the region and offer refuge from the rational city outside. Despite its simple exterior form, the interior unfolds a brighter, more complex world divided into a diverse range of functional spaces. The building incorpo-rates two main entrances east and west, connected by a canyon-like cor-ridor as a means for visitors to move from one side of cultural context toward the the other side of the newer city, connecting the two different contexts together.

Weather was an important element influencing the material choices of the design. As the site was located on top of a dune hill, surrounded by massive desert lanscape, material inevitably became a major design is-sue. The outer structure of the building was made of bronze aluminium which has the ability to endure all types of weather and to protect the building from extreme heat from the sun. Volcanic rocks were used on the interior to keep the internal temperature while massive glazed panels were used to allow for natural light, promoting its ‘green’ aspects.

The very interesting element of the musuem is that the design of the building itself possessses no cultural identity. It was not intended to blend within its built environment, rather a futuristic building that itself establish culture for the surroundings, in the future and beyond.

ORDOS MUSUEMMAD ArchitectsOrdos, Inner Mongolia

1.1 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

ORDOS MUSUEMMAD ArchitectsOrdos, Inner Mongolia

ORDOS MUSUEM

1.1 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

LAZIKA MUNICIPALITYArchitects of InventionLazika, Georgia

This project is a multi-functional futuristic building designed by Architects of Inven-tion as a part of the development of a new city on the Black Sea Coast, Lazika, Geor-gia. The building is notable for its inno-vative structural composition. A building that comprise a series of floating objects, each serves a different functional space, public hall, offices and wedding hall.

The concept is for the building to be a juxtaposition between a building and a sculpture. Instead of dividing into floors, architects explore with vertical displace-ment of solid mass through volumes. I found this project interesting as while the ORDOS musuem prioritizes in mass, this project is the complete opposite. Here the architects take the reverse approach, the idea of void over mass. Its design process began with an empty space, a void with volumes inserted.

There are the other factors that have con-tributed to the discourse of this building. The architecture reflects greatly on the local grography and tradition of the site. With high level of humidity and dump soil, local architecture was traditionally stilt-supported, giving natural precendent to the building. This idea also responses to the anticipated issue of global warm-ing with the site being almost at the ex-isting sea level. Moreover, the regional geology could be assumed one of the worst ground condition being one of the most seismically active regions. Hence, architects approached design solution that could withstand movements in the ground.

LAZ

IKA

MUN

ICIP

ALIT

Y 1.1 ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

Technology has always been a continuously evolving field. It has come to affect ev-erything we do, how we do things, see things, our surroundings, the spaces and the environments we live in. As technology evolves, so does architecture. The introduc-tion computer pushed architecture to a whole new aspect. Today, computers are in-creasingly involved in the design process. Their roles vary from drafting and modelling to intelligent knowledge-based processing of architectural information, eventually to changing the way we deal with materials and construction

The use of computer-aided design tools revolutionalise the way architect dothings. The use of CAD could be classified into two categories, computerization and compu-tation. Computerization rests on a complete notion of CAD being a mere tool, a tool that allows works to be done quicker and easier. Informations are entered, modified and manipulated to get precise quality planned output, which would also serve as a database for manufacturing.

The use of digital computation on the other hand rests on a different concept. Ideas and datas are generated, conceptualised and processed within a computer. Many see it as beneficial to architectural practices. Here, CAD allows architects to generate com-plex geometries and new forms through form-making tools, resulting in many complex shape modern structures we see today, those that would have been impossible to con-struct before computer was invented. Some, however, see CAD as conspiring against creative thought by encouraging fake creativity. It is claimed that designer’s creativity is limited by programs that are supposed to free their imagination. Other raised the question such as “Who design it?” they see the creativity in the design as the works of computer. Yet, CAD is still seen by many as just a tool.

As earlier mentioned, computer technology has also changed the way we treat materi-als as well as our method of construction in architecture. Ever since the introduction of computer, CAM plays an important role in architecture. Computer-aided manufacturing generally refers to the control of machine tools and related machinery in the manufac-turing of products or construction parts. It is a subsequent computer-aided process after CAD. CAM allows complex objects and components in CAD to be produced in a fast and efficent way, again further emphasizing the role computer technology has imposed in architectural and construction practices.

COMPUTING IN ARCHITECTURE

GALAXY YABAO HI-TECH ENTERPRISES HEADQUARTER PARK10 DesignFutian, Shenzen, China

GALAXY YABAO

GALAXY YABAO HI-TECH ENTERPRISES HEADQUARTER PARK10 DesignFutian, Shenzen, China

1.2 COMPUTING IN ARCHITECTURE

This project has really caught my interest. I have not seen many large scale projects so massive that the different components together as a whole, act like a private realm of their very own en-vironments having hotel, apartments, shopping mall and park all together. A project that consists different high-rise buildings is often of same typology, like multiple office towers and alike. It is also amazing to see how architects went even deeper to make the complex more complex by adding further details of hi-tech sustainable features to the already complex set of structures. This project is a great example of what technology offers to us.

This project is an examination of the relationship between rural landscape and the rapidly growing city close to the central zone of Futian district, Shenzhen, China. The project’s construction began in October 2011 and is expected to be completed in 2014. The main concept is to try and integrate the complex into natural landscape, drawing architectural inspiration from the surrounding built en-vironment. This mega project comprises of 18 towers ranging from 100-300 meters in height; each serves a different function, from hotel to apartments, to shopping mall and a park. Two landmark towers define the architectural concept of the project where the main 300 meter tower sits at the edge of a small stream running across the site, its form twisted as it takes inspiration from the fluid-ity of the running water below. Second element is the shopping mall located at the intersection of two freeways where the tower is pulled laterally along the freeway reaching 400 meters in length reacting to the freeway edge.

Not only does its scale give it a sense of uniqueness, beyond these formal inspirations, the design also draws upon the concept of moving beyond neutrality at large scale. The project incorporates a series of sustainable strategies that ‘activate’ the buildings and emphasizes greatly on introduc-ing nature as an element in space. To do this, Architects 10 takes full advantage of technologies to help create desired temperature and air quality of the buildings’ micro-climate. The towers’ facades are pulled down to let vegetation grow up on the sides of the buildings. These facades act to neu-tralize air pollution 24 hours a day. Other elements include an algae system mounted the western facades bringing a natural diffuse green texture into the complex while producing oxygen, organic fertilizer and cleans grey water.

Such large-scale project with multiple mega structures were never made possible before CAD was invented. Without CAD tools, manually constructing the plans of each floor of the 18 complex high-rise buildings and to demonstrate the whole picture of the project would have taken a lifetime. Here, CAD allows architect to computerize their conceptual idea into computer, modify, manipulate and optimize the design.

THE CENTRE POMPIDOU-METZShigeru Ban & Jean de GastinesMetz, France

This building is lacated in Metz, France. Com-pleted in 2010, this exhibition building was designed by the collaboration of architects Shigeru Ban and Jean de Gastine where CAD and CAM were both used. The architecture of the Pompidou-Metz is a masterpiece in its own right. Its wooden roof structure was designed using parametric modelling software (this con-cept will be discussed in next chapter).

It took ten months to prepare and four months to install the wood mesh. I think it is amazing to see wooden structure used in parametric design as it is rather unusual for the material to perform such bending, although the technique used in this proj-ect is not new but invented 100 years ago.

1.2 COMPUTING IN ARCHITECTURE

THE CENTRE POMPIDOU-METZShigeru Ban & Jean de GastinesMetz, France

The reason behind the use of wood was that it is an inexhaustible and easily recycled material. The wooden structure comprises 18 kilometres of glue-laminated timber beans. After preparing the materials, every single beam was then CNC-machined to unique proportions. This enabled both the production of multi-directional curves and the perforations for the final assembly (node points, pins and braces).

CENTER POMPIDOU-METZThe roof structure was assembled by weaving six beams into a hexagon, an innovative, benchmark concept in the construction world. On top of the wooden structure, rests a textile membrane which was also manufactured using CAM.

PARAMETRIC MODELLING

Parametric modelling is a modern approach to CAD, yet the concept greatly differs from comput-erization in CAD. Personally I found parametric modelling an extremely fun field to experiment and play with. In a parametric model, each entity, such as a line or an arc in a wireframe, has parameters associated with it. These parameters control the various geometric properties of the entity, such as the length, width and height of a rectangular prism, or the radius of a fillet. They also control the locations of these entities within the model, hence the reason it is called ‘parametric’ model.

One aspect that I love about parametric modelling is that in a dessign, parameters can be changed by the operator as necessary to create the desired part. History-based method helps to keep a re-cord of how the model was built. When the operator changes parameters in the model and regen-erates the part, the program repeats the operations from the history, using the new parameters to create the new solid. Here, designers are allowed to experiment with different parts through changing different parameters in a fast and easy way. It also allows designers to go back and correct what they did wrong only by adjusting parameters and regenerating parts. Meanwhile in conventional modelling, when we make change to one part, often we must make change to other several parts to maintain the intent of the design. This is because the software does not keep track of rules.

Parametric modelling is often called ‘Feature-based modelling’. It rests on the notion that parts are composed of features of positive or negative space. Operations such as creating holes, fillets, chamfers, bosses, and pockets are allowed to be associated with specific edges and faces. When the edges or faces move because of a regeneration, the feature operation moves along with it, keeping the original relationships. It is, however, important to make the right choices in this matter when developing parametric models. This is because if the features aren’t referenced correctly, they may not end up in the correct place if the model is regenerated.

Throughout what was mentioned above, the relationships betweens components and the ob-ject are a key aspect of parametric modellng. Creating and modifying these relationships is an important part of the design process. Parametric model is often defined by rules and constraints. Changing a rule or constraint, or modifying a part of the model itself, almost always has implica-tions on the entire model.

Generally, parametric tools allow relationships among components in the model to be defined, and parameters that control aspects of the building to be defined and changed, from physical pa-rameters to subjective ones like projected amount of sunlight, direction of movement, etc. Again, these emphasis the expansion of possibilities in terms of design process introduced by computer.

SZU pavilion is a small student project designed by HKPDA and students at Shenzhen University. The reason why I am putting it here is because the proj-ect was transformed from computer-based grometry into reality using kan-garoo plug-in for grasshopper in Rhino.

SZU

PAVILIO

NH

KP

DA

and

Sh

enzh

en U

niversity

Sh

enzh

en, C

hin

a

SZU PAVILION

The plug-in was used to investigate the forces affecting the triangular geometry’s tension and compression. The pavilion was designed in a feasible manner, and was site specefic. This project is really sim-ilar to what we have been doing, or what we are about to achieve in this subject.

1.3 PARAMETRIC MODELLING

METROPAL PARASOL

METROPOL PARASOLJ. Mayor H. Architects, ARUPSeville, Spain

Metropol Parasol is a new landmark of the city of Seville. This modern unique urban space is located in the centre among the dense struc-ture of the old medieval town, making it stand out completely from its built environment. The project provides a wide variety of differ-entiated activities, from the presentation of local history to recreation and shopping.

The building is characterised by stunning mushroom like; polyurethane-coated timber structure which grows out of the level of the archaeological excavation on the ground.

The product of parametric modelling is visible across the entire building. Personally I think this buildng looks more like one of those complex parametric sculpture than an actual building. Though the solution to the form of the structure was generated throuogh para-metric modellnig, parametric modelling did not cover structural integrity of the building. This is probably one of the disadvantages of parametric modelling. Architects and de-signers would never know if their generated parametric model would be able to withstand load, and be stable in real life.

Here, more than 3000 timber elements va-rie in height and width. The variation of the structural thickness is the result of an itera-tive, static computer simulation, a software especially to calculate the structural require-ment of each timber element. The geometry data for the parametric model was used as an input data for structural analysis. Yet again, without external software to assist with CAM and structure of the building, relying on para-metric modelling alone would have led this project to a structural failture.

Many other parametric modelling projects have seen such circumstances.

METROPAL PARASOL

Learning outcome

From the beginning of this subject uptil now, my understanding of architecture has greatly changed. Prior to this subject I used to judge architecture mainly on its physical appearance. Once I got a glimpse of a build-ing, I would instantly decide whether the building was interesting or boring, beautiful or ugly. On the notion of architecture as a discourse, I have recently started to look at architecture in different points of view. What could be the design process? What could have shaped the particular architecture? What is its relationship to the built environ-ment? Such questions often come up in my mind now and then.

Due to having been engaged in using CAD, I have been quite familiar with this field. How-ever, I had not consider much about the idea of CAD conspiring against creative thought. To me, CAD has been, and is still a tool in architecture.

So far, the concept of parametric modelling has been the one I’m interested in most. Prior to the start of this subject, I had very little idea of parametric modelling. Now that I know how parametric modelling works, how it is different from computerization, I am now truly motivated to progress into the next step of this project.

- Dobson J. & Marton M., 2010, A Framework for Architectural Discourse, viewed 31th March 2013, Retrieved from: <http://www.ncl.ac.uk/kite/assets/downloads/discourse1.htm>

- Williams R., Architecture and Visual Culture, p.1 & pp.103-108

- Architecturelover.com, Lazika Municipality, viewed 2nd April 2013,Retrieved from: <http://www.architecturelover.com/2013/01/lazika-municipality-by-architects-of-invention/>

- DesignDaily, 2011, MAD’s Ordos Musuem, viewed 12th March 2013, Retrieved from: < http://www.designdaily.us/2012/08/mad-ordos-museum.html >

- MAD’s ORDOS Musuem, B1 Magazine, Volume 5, Issue 53, February 2012, pp.100-108

- Narayan, K. Lalit, 2008, Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing, New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, pp. 3-4

- inhabitat, 2012, 10 Design Unveils Air-Cleaning Galaxy Yabao Park for Shenzhen, China, viewed 18th March 2013, Retrieved from: <http://inhabitat.com/10-design-unveils-air-cleaning-galaxy-yabao-park-for-shenzhen-china/>

- 10design, 2011, GALAXY YABAO HI-TECH ENTERPRISES HEADQUARTER PARK, viewed 18th March 2013, Retrieved from: <http://www.10design.co/work/project/index.php?projectId=55>

- innoarchitecture, 2012, THE CENTRE POMPIDOU-METZ, In: Innovative Architecture: In-novative Design, viewed 3rd April 2013, Retrieved from: <http://innoarchitecture.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/the-centre-pompidou-metz/>

- Marr G., 1996, Parametric and Feature-Based Modeling, Viewed 4th April 2013, Retrieved from: <http://alum.wpi.edu/~gregm/thesis/node11.html>

- Europaconcorsi, 2011, Metropol Parasol, viewed 4th April 2013 ,Retrieved from: <http://euro-paconcorsi.com/projects/166459-Metropol-Parasol>

references

CUT CASE STUDIES

The original field of interest our group decided to do was biomimicry. While the field may seem scientific, biomimicry great benefits today designers and archi-tects. Resting on the principles that for the past 3.8 billion years of history, nature has already solved the problems that we face. Hence, looking into nature for precedents could help solving many design problems.

In my opinion, biomimicry seems to be the one field of interest that allows outcomes to be extremely interest-ing and innovative compared to the other fields as the design would not just sit there but it would perform some sort of function that mimics nature. And to think that ‘nature‘ is such a broad word, the field of biomim-icry seems to open up a massive range of different de-sign solutions.

Biomimicry does not mean copying the form of a nat-ural object, but emphasizing of mimicing a function or a system that is found in nature.

RESEARCH PROJECT 1.0 : BIOMIMICRY

FAZ PAVILIONScheffler + Partner and Steffen ReichertFrankfurt, Germany

2.1 BIOMIMICRY

The FAZ Pavilion is based on biomimetic research projects of re-sponsive surface structure which seeks to imitate the biological property of conifers cones. The whole envelope of the pavilion is constructed from one material that reacts in reponse to the level of humidity in the air. This pavilion serves as an interior extension to a public space. On a sunny day with low humidity, the surface is fully open and the structure creates immense visual impact through lights and shadows that it creates. As humidity increases, it triggers a rapid autonomous reponse and the structure closes and forms a weatherproof skin. This project was really something we were looking into as not only does it mimics a system of na-ture, the structure also provides spatial relationship to the site and unique experience to users which is what we are looking to inte-grate in the Wyndham Gateway project.

FAZ Pavilion - http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4967

RESPONSIVE SURFACE STRUCTURE

Based on the FAZ Pavilion precedent. Responsive surface structure is the one biomimicry concept we hope to inte-grate in our gateway design.

As mentioned earlier, this biomimetic system imitates the biological principles of conifers cones which react to level of humidity in the air. Within this system, surface struc-tures adapts its skin’s porosity and related cross- ventila-tion in response to relative humidity without any mechani-cal control devices.

This is done through using material characteristics of a wood veneer and through integrating fabrication param-eters. Changes in the level of humidity cause dimension-al changes in the wood. Such response is triggered by changes in the moisture content of the veneer. An increase in relative humidity relative to moisture content cause the veneer to swell and the material element in change shape, which then affacts the degree of porosity in a structure.

Key design parameters which control the behaviours of veneer composite elements are fibre orientation and the ratio of thickness, width and length. These parameters need to be considered with care as they affect the re-sponse time change and the shape change of the veneer.

Generally, when integrating veneers to create a surface structure, the veneers must have an edge in which it rests on a substructure. when humidity level rises, veneer sur-face expands mainly orthogonal to the main fibre direction. This is due to fabrious restriction. Hence as the humidity continues to increase, the opening gap between curving element and substructure increases accordingly.

As the veneer’s hygroscopic capability of absorbing and retaining moisture content is reversible, thus within an ex-treme change in relative humidity, the veneer could shift from fully closed to open state in less than 20 seconds. Again this also depends on the parameters which control the veneer.

RESPONSIVE SURFACE STRUCTURE

Responsive surface structure Phase 1 - http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4411Responsive surface structure Phase2 - http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4638

CASE STUDY 1.1 : SCOPE OF POSSIBILITIES

2.1 BIOMIMICRY

One obvious feature of our gateway design is to have the veneers as the surface of our structure. The form and shape of the whole structure, that is the basis form of the substructure, is however, not dictated by our biomimetic concept. The shape and form of the structure would then be altered in relation to the Wyndham gateway site. Here the form is generated from lofting random curves in rhino to create a curved surface to exemplify how a continuous veneer surface structure would like.

First we experimented with different possible forms of a single veneer component. This method takes into account how a veneer sheet would form opening and close. Hence, each veneer sheet must have a side that is attached to a substructure to enable a shift in the shape as it responses to change in humidity.

A single component is then morphed onto the curved surface to create the besis form of respon-sive surface structure.

The practice of applying morphology system onto a surface to create a responve surface structure is indeed very interesting yet at the same time, it has turned out to be extremely challenging and much more difficult than what we had expected. We realised that what we have to consider are not only the parameters which control the veneer’s ability to repond to the level of humidity, but also the level of humidity itself, a parameter which we have no control over as the exact location of the gateway structure and the final form of it have yet to be decided.

Furthermore, joining the veneers to its substructure to create the desired system would require huge amount of effort into research, experiment and prototyping of physical models as we would need to retrieve the actual veneer material, and experiment with its responsive ability, and get it into the ‘right‘ parameters. This includes getting the veneer to the actual site of the project to test with its reponsive ability. Eventually, all these seem to point out that there are limited possibilities of our design outcomes which is not what we are looking for in this subject as we want our de-sign to be the result of exploring and experimenting in grasshop-per and rhino rather than computerize what we have in mind.

Moreover, while this biomimicry concept mimics and function and system of nature, we realized its lack of connection to the city of Wyndnam as the main users are the drivers which would have no concern over the humidity level. While our biomimicry system is unrelated to the site context, visual effect created from the opening of veneers alone does not seem striking enough given the light&shadow pattern that the structure is capable to create is pretty much repetitive and uninteresting.

With all the mistakes and errors within this concept, along with the feedback we received which suggests that our biomimicry project is to complex and requires intensive research for the sys-tem to work out successfully that this cannot be accomplished given our limited amount of time, our group has decided to use these mistakes as a basis to move on and explore something simpler yet better, and advantageous to the Wyndham city.

CASE STUDY 1.1 : OUTCOME

RESEARCH PROJECT 2.0 : PATTERNING

Patterning is really something we did not intend to explore into as it departs a great deal from our original concept of biomimic-ry. As I mentioned earlier, learning from our mistakes, our group now focuses on prop-soing something unique and suitable for the Wyndham city, something that would engage the users as well as expressing the Wyndham city in an advantegous way.

Here, we direcly look into the informative quote defining the character the Wynd-ham city as a source to what should be ex-pressed in our design, our argument.

“In both the past and present there is an intensive relationship between the natural environments and the activities of human set-tlement and associated industries.”

It is suggested that within the city of Wyn-dham, there exists a strong relationship be-tween natural environments and the human settlement and industries from the past to present. Wyndham is a place highly regard-ed for its rich environmental resources and a young, vibrant and expanding municipal-ity. The city is now expanding so rapidly in terms of its business industries that it seeks to attract new residents (wyndhamcity.vic.gov.au).

Hence, to express the Wymdham city, we seek to express this relationship between natural environments and man-made en-vironments through the concept of organic and inorganic relationship within our design. Our second focus for our design is to attract visitors and residents while engaging our design with the drivers. And such we aim to create a structure that provides strong visual impact.

At this stage, the concept of patterning de-rived from looking at different precendents and subsequently became our solution to achieve these two goals.

http://www.wyndham.vic.gov.au/business/investing

POLISH PAVILIONWWA ArchitectsShanghai Expo 2010

2.2 PATTERNING

POLISH PAVILIONWWA ArchitectsShanghai Expo 2010

The Polish Pavilion is part of the Shanghai expo in 2010. With all the housing pavilions from all over the world, the design must deliver a strong aesthetic message as well as providing an insight of its own country to attract visitors.

This precedent became a key inspiration to our argument and an in-tegral part affecting our design in terms of the use of patterns on a mass object.

As the pavilion needs to provide a striking visual impact, patterns are used to create light and shadow effects. During the day, the light colour of wooden material creates contrast to the extruded patterns, making the facades highly aesthetical and decorative. More impor-tantly, patterning does not serve only for aesthetical purpose, the folk-lore pattern that was used here was taken from the traditional folk art paper cut out in order to reference back to the tradition.

The idea of pattern facade the embodies a character and providing in-sight of a subject really impresses us as it fulfills our group’s objective to express Wyndham city within our design. This is we start looking into different patterns for the design of our gateway project.

Polish Pavilion - http://www.archdaily.com/27362/polish-pavilion-wwa-architects/

IMPOSSIBLE CURVE SCULPTUREAdam Brucker

Impossible Curve Structure - http://www.behance.net/gallery/Impossible-Curve-Sculpture-Kickstarter-Lim-Edition/2298836

IMPOSSIBLE CURVE SCULPTUREAdam Brucker

The Morning Line precedent is a project we took from one of the case studies for grasshopper definitions as we were drawn to its interest-ing process of form generating by applying pattern onto a geometry and its form-making process.

This sound pavilion, completed in 2010, takes form of both a ruin and a monument, a structure unlike any other pavilions which takes form of an open cellular structure rather than an enclosed one.

Fractal systems were used to build a model of the universe that scales up and down. The architectural and engineering systems capitalize on recent developments in parametric design and push them to their limits. Here in grasshopper, platonic solids create a basis of geometry shape used to create the overall form of the structure, form was then created and the concept of fractal applied.

The Morning Line is very influential to our design as we took its idea of using platonic solid as the base of our pattern. For the next part of the gateway project which involves form-finding, we also seek to create a structure that is open and tends to grow upward. Hence the Morning Line represents an example of where our group is heading to in the near future.

The Morning Line - http://www.tba21.org/augarten_activities/49/page_2

2.2 PATTERNING

THE MORNING LINEAranda Lasch & Matthew Ritchie & ARUPCAAC, Seville

CASE STUDY 2.1 : VORONOI PATTERN

2.2 PATTERNINGCASE STUDY 2.1 : VORONOI PATTERN

Our patterning exploration started off with exploring into voronoi pattern. Vor-onoi was chosen as the pattern in itself is organic while the process to which we create the patten represents the concept of inorganic. In nature, voronoi could be found in dry mud, cells and even in an in-sect’s egg.

At first we experimented with the given grasshopper definition of voronoi patter. The first columns shows variations in the exploration of this definitions. Unsatisfied with the results, we felt that they were interesting and could not communicate any ideas so we created our own defini-tions using points in rhino as guidelines to the pattern created.

The right column represents the varia-tions of patterns within our second ex-periment. This time the patterning results appear much more interest as we could play with density in different areas.

CASE STUDY 2.2 : RECURSIVE PATTERN

2.2 PATTERNINGCASE STUDY 2.2 : RECURSIVE PATTERN

Our second exploration still sticks to the same concept of organic pattern vs inor-ganic process. This exploration takes the idea of recursive pattern, which typically can be found nature, as organic.

For this exploration, we wanted to cre-ate something unexpected from a simple element, take after the impossible curve structure precedent.

In grasshopper, our idea of recursive pat-tern is to create a pattern rule to find the next term. An octagonal curve is used as the starting point rule used to create the next. The parameters to generate differ-ent variations and to create unexpected outcomes are the degree of rotating an-gle, the size and the turning point of the next term.

CASE STUDY 2.1 : VORONOI PATTERN

2.2 PATTERNINGCASE STUDY 2.1 : VORONOI PATTERN

At the end of our experiment, we were very impressed and fascinated by the patterns grass-hopper could generate. The above figures show interesting recursive pattern that were created. Compared to voronoi, recursive pattern tends to deliver a stronger concept of organic pattern, as well as more unique and aesthetical, hence we have chosen to go on with this patterning idea to integrate in our design for the gateway project.

The pattern in the box is the one we chose. It was quite difficult to decide as some other results seem to be more impressive and complex. But as the pattern is only a part of a geometric surface of a single object, to have overly complicated pattern would hinder our progress to the final form as we want to have many objects to form one whole structure.

CASE STUDY 2.3 : Geometry

At this stage, we explore with different ge-ometries to find the one suitable to inte-grate the pattern on.

Using the Morning Line definition on grasshopper, we were able to experiment and create variations as shown above. However, we did not proceed to use them as our basic geometry form as they are far too complex so we decided to look into simpler geometric forms, the platonic sol-ids.

Using a grasshopper plug-in called ‘Lunch-box‘ to create the basis forms of platonic solids. Through exploring with the param-eter controlling the trimmed edges, we came up with our chosen basic geometry.

2.2 PATTERNINGCASE STUDY 2.3 : Geometry

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST

THE ARGUMENT

ORNANIC VS MAN-MADE VISUAL IMPACT

As I stated earlier, our design aims to achieve two goals. Our first goal is to focus on expressing Wyndham City through in-tegrating its character into our design, the relationship between the natural and the man-made environments. Consequently, the concept of organic vs man-made is employed.

Our second focus to to create a strong visual impact through delivering a strong aesthetic message to attract visitors, and also to shape the experience of drivers as they pass through. This is done through the creation of light & shadow effects.

VISUAL IMPACT PATTERNING & GEOMETRY

Based on our precedents and grasshopper explorations, these two goals are achieved through the use of PATTERNING concept.Recursive pattern portrays the idea of or-ganic pattern, but generated from man-made process and parameters while ge-ometry is used to transform patterning into three-dimensional shape, which the patterns then provide strong visual impact to the drivers passing by.

It should be noted that we do not yet have a final form for the gateway design. Through looking at the Morning Line prededent, our form would be created in a similar concept as we want the geometries to stack up and form a ‘growth‘ system.

Through combining our patterning and geometric explorations, we were able to come up with a digital model. While we tried to integrate the recursive pattern onto the surface of the truncated tetrahedron, the pattern did not perfectly fit to the sur-face frame and there were big gaps on the surface. Hence we decided to add more pattern to fill the gap. As a result, each sur-face turned out to be highly aesthetical and we were very satisfied.

To further eleborate the design, one of the three patterned-side of the tetahedron sur-faces is not extruded to create light pattern frame but would appear as a three-dimen-sional solid surface to add to the dyna-mism in surfaces.

DIGITAL MODEL

PROTOTYPE

Dovetail jointing system was used to join the surfaces together in our prototype. After several failed attempts, we had finally come up with a successful system where all surfaces fit together perfectly without the need of glue.

To prevent the notchers from sticking out, the width of each notcher set at 4mm relative to thickness of the material at 3mm. This was due to the surface jointing angle which is non-right angle, consequently making it difficult to cal-culate the appropriate width of each notcher. Hence, we came out with this prediction.

Fortunately, the notchers all fit with no part stick-ing out which was a huge success for us.

Moreover, our dovetaill joints unexpectedly add to the aesthetic of the overall design. As a result of our success in this prototype model, we hope to keep this jointing system when it comes to our final design.

Learning outcome

This part of the project is generally where the fun all started. Prior to this, what we did was mainly based on theories and understand-ing of parametric design, along with the ba-sic of grasshopper skills. However when it comes to really using grasshopper as part of generating our design, it has proved to be much more difficult than I expected. I often get stuck in grasshopper and spent several hours trying to sort things out. In the end, I believe most of us has our skill in rhino and grasshopper improved a great deal.

While it has been very challenging at times, it has also been fun and exciting to generate definitions and unexpected outcomes.

As we progress through the past few weeks, things have gradually gotten more interest-ing, especially the part of fabricating proto-type. Problems within digital modelling and physical modelling are completely different. When it comes to fabrication, we had to deal with problem with the materials, the error from the laser-cut machine, and had to work out the jointing system. While it has con-sumed much of our time and often we were associated with stresses, through trails and errors and memorizing our mistakes, in the end I believe that it was a success overall. All the mistakes that we have made gave us the opportunity to rethink, learn and improve.

references

- achimmenges, 2011, FAZ Pavilion Frankfurt, viewed 15th April 2013, Retrieved from: <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4967>

- achimmenges, 2011, Responsive Surface Structure Phase I, viewed 15th April 2013, Re-trieved from: <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4411>

- achimmenges, 2011, Responsive Surface Structure Phase II, viewed 15th April 2013, Re-trieved from: <http://www.achimmenges.net/?p=4638>

- wyndhamcity, 2013, Investing in Wyndham, In: Business & Investment, viewed 30th April 2013, Retrieved from: <http://www.wyndham.vic.gov.au/business/investing>

- archdaily, 2009, Polish Pavilion / WWA Architects, viewed 30th April 2013, Retrieved from: <http://www.archdaily.com/27362/polish-pavilion-wwa-architects/>

- Behance.net, 2011, Impossible Curve Structure, viewed 30th April 2013, Retrieved from: <http://www.behance.net/gallery/Impossible-Curve-Sculpture-Kickstarter-Lim-Edi-tion/2298836>

- tba21.com, 2011, Matthew Ritchie with Aranda\Lasch and Arup AGU – The Morning Line, viewed 30th April 2013, Retrieved from: <http://www.tba21.org/augarten_activities/49/page_2>

PROJECT PROPOSAL

Fortunately, the presentation was a success and we received many valuable feedbacks. Our design prototype attracted a consid-erate attention, mostly positive feedbacks on the aesthetic of the overall component. Through successfully integrating patterns with geometriy via a decorative jointing sys-tem, it was agreed that our component turned out looking like a beautiful lantern.

The major comment was regarding how our design should develop and luckily, we didn’t have to alter anything we have done uptil this point. It was commented that perhaps we have not integrated enough algorithmic think-ings into our design; a lack of grasshopper experimentation and the design out come so far is not a quite a ‘paremetric design’. Though the final patterns were generated using grass-hopper; the definition was probably too sim-ple and our initial pattern idea was manually drawn in rhino. We were also encouraged to explore further into the concept of ‘recursive subdivision‘ for there exists the possibilities to optimise and strengten our ‘recursive‘ pat-tern concept onto both smaller and large ele-ments in our design; for example, the joints and the form.

Another major concern from our feedback is the actual form of the project. Despite having Aranda Lasch’s Morning Line as a precedent on future design direction of form, so far we have no solid form-making approach which is a critical concern. Hence, our group will now focus on developing the final form through al-gorithmic exploration in grasshopper to truly create a parametric design. We seek to create a final design outcome which employ ‘recur-sive subsivision‘ as an extention and imple-mentation to our existing recursive pattern concept, and aiming to create a design that is site specific; suitable for the Wyndham Gate-way project.

3.0 PROJECT PROPOSAL

INTERIM PRESENTATION FEEDBACK

Taking the suggestion from the crit feedback to look further into ‘recursive subdivision’ as an idea to develop our form, we did some research on what a recursive subdivision is and how it could be used as a form-finding process.

Much of the idea of recursive subdivision is associated with fractal geometry. The AA Summer Pavilion provides a great example of using a generative recursive script to create a family of compo-nents that decrease in size to form the overall structure and dec-oration. Built in 2006, the project was designed and completed by students from Intermediate Unit 2 at the London architectural school. This winning design by one of the students, Simon Whit-tle , basically consisting a fractal pattern of repeating flanges and beams of which spirals outward from the top of the structure into smallest leaves.

The top beams and flanges parallel to the ground is generation 0, the first generation in which through the manipulation of script., creates the subsequent generations which differ in sizes and ex-tend in different directions. In the end of process, it formed a fractal patterning (or could be called as recursive pattern) pavilion.

This concept was generally our main inspiration to explore into the same process of using a computer script to find a recursive fractal form and the starting of our grasshopper exploration which in the end, led to our final design.

RECURSIVE SUBDIVISION

AA SUMMER PAVILIONStudent of the AA Unit of Charles Walker & Martin Self (both ARUP AGU)Location : London, UK

3.1 DESIGN CONCEPT

http://www.jesserandzio.com/SummerPavilion.html

FORM-FINDING PROCESS

Similar to the AA Pavilion, our design process is initially based on generation 0, in our case, a tetrahedron (a component block). Generation 0 is then used to create Generation 1, and 1 is used to create 2, and 2 to create Generation 3 respectively.

We used grasshopper definition to control how each generation is created. The definition ba-sically rotates, scales and arranges multiple source generations in an unpredictable form within a recursive manner; where the parame-ter to these form are the curvature data inputs. There are two curvature data inputs; one is the starting curve and one is the ending curve in which they determine the curve that the source generation will be rotated and scaled along.

There are three columns indicating the first, second, and third generations. The left comumn represents the first generation which derived from the source tetrahedron. Second generation was generated through control-ling curvation data inputs in relative to the first generation. The same process applies to the third generation where the curvation data inputs are relative to the second generation.

There are three columns indicating the first, second, and third generations. The left comumn represents the first generation which derived from the source tetrahedron. Second generation was generated through control-ling curvation data inputs in relative to the first generation. The same process applies to the third generation where the curvation data inputs are relative to the second generation.

3.1 DESIGN CONCEPT

Grasshopper script within a cluster

Process involves using curvature data to generate complex gepmetries.

• ‘Brep’ represents the source geometry in which will be rotated and scaled.

• ‘Crv‘ is the parameter controls over the curve in which Brep will be rotated/scaled along

• The sliders control over the scale, rotate angle and curve manipulation.

3.1 DESIGN CONCEPT

Throughout our form-finding experimentation, we came out with several interesting forms, mainly within the third generations. Though the forms may seem unusual and alien, they are familiar in a sense that they resemble organic forms in nature; namely corals, tree branches, and DNA.

On the left, highlighted in gree box, is our cho-sen form for the gateway project. However, this is the second generation.

Originally We were more interested in the third generation which resemble DNA strands and would provide striking visual impack if it were to be chosen. However, given limited amount of time, the third generation is too complex as it has over hundred of components; let alone each single one of our component is already complex given the patterns. Moreover, the complexity of the third generation is likely to result in a dense looking structure; where look-ing from a driver perspective, may not be able to observe the form at all. More importantly, our design focus is more on the pattern rather than geometry. Therefore, it is undesirable to have the form overpower the pattern.

We also aim to achieve the ‘critical‘ quality in our design. We strongly believe that a good ar-chitecture should embody the ambiguity prop-erty as it is a key element to what make archi-tecture critical and interesting. In a sense, we seek to create a contradiction between form & pattern when observed from various distances and angles. Again, choosing the third genera-tion would take away this ambiguity property as drivers would not be able to observe the patterm and attention would only be given to form.

On the other hand, the second generation pro-vides an ideal form where it looks like a flowing spiral that would perfectly implement our pat-terns, and would certainly promote ‘ambiguity‘ between pattern and form.

TECTONICS

TAKING IT FURTHER :

This was a further exploration of our existing dovetail joints to examine the possibilities of integrating the recursive subdivision concept at a smaller scale.

We narrowed down the distance between each notcher as it goes toward the middle of the edge. Smaller notchers are in the middle and the width of each notcher increased slightly from the preceding notcher as it goes toward to corner. This forms a sort of ‘recursive‘ pat-tern jointing system which implement our group’s pattern concept as a whole.

The photos show 1:50 scale detail model of the recursive dovetail joints.

TECTONICS : RECURSIVE SUBDIVISION JOINTS

TECTONICS : RECURSIVE SUBDIVISION JOINTS3.2 TECTONICS

Original dovetail detail joint at 1:50

TECTONICS : COMPONENT BRACKET JOINT

TECTONICS : COMPONENT BRACKET JOINT

Given that our design se consists mostly of frames, bracket joint seems to be the best option when it comes to connecting individual blocks together. Each com-ponent block is connected almost merely by an edge, thus a strong joint is critical. There are several points between two individual components where joints can be inserted to support tha stability. The two types of joints shown are for different location angles.

To assess whether joints will hold or not, although not shown here, in the actual construction, it is possible to have many joints holding two components tegather. Strength of joint will also depend on the length and thickness of steel, which are adjustable and therefore this particular type of joint is a very flexible option.

SITE ANALYSISRethinking the ‘Gateway’ concept

In order for our design to fully express itself as a ‘gateway‘, apart from the organic and visualistic na-ture of our design, we must look into the site for what is there the project could use to express and perferm its ‘gateway‘ duty. The location for the project is situated in a part of Vic-toria where there is a threshold between rural victoria and urban Melbourne. To put it to words, the drivers passing through the site either come from rural Vic-torial heading to the city of Wyndham and the urban Melbourne, or coming from the urban to the rural. Hence, the gateway project is not only the gateway to Wyndham but to urban Melbourne.

So what does a gateway actually do?

A gateway, to most of our common understanding is something that serves as an entrance or a means of access. By the term ‘entrance‘, in this occasion, symbolises the journey from rural area and the entry toward the urban fabric of Wyndham and Melbourne.

By looking at the density map, it can be seen that the closer to Melbourne, the higher the residential den-sity.

Thus, we propose our design to express this relation-ship and symbolism. Highlightedd in green circle is the location of our site. here the red colour on the right represents a higher density as going toward Melbourne, while the lighter pink colour represents a less densed area.

Due to the recursive nature of our design, the smaller components are seen as clustered together, dense in a sense; while the bigger component gives a less compact feeling. Therefore we decided to manipu-late to rotation of the design we chose, where the smaller components point toward urbanity and the bigger end of the recursive pattern is toward the rural Victoria.

3.3 SITE ANALYSIS

We also propose our design to be located between the two freeways, on the highest point of the arc of the road (see the read area the the mid-above diagram). The reason for that is that our design em-phasized on pattern; and in order to maximise the drivers’ engagement with the gateway project, it is to be located as close to the toads as possible and in a location viewable from most directions of traf-fics.

3.3 SITE ANALYSIS

DIGITAL MODEL

3.4 DIGITAL MODEL

3.4 DIGITAL MODEL

ANIMATION STOP MOTION PICTURES : USER EXPERIENCE

ANIMATION STOP MOTION PICTURES : USER EXPERIENCE

These stop motion pictures were taken from video animation showing the driver’s experience as they drive pass the project.

From afar, the drivers cannot observe the pattern, rather, the form and geometries are more visible and tend to dominate the design.

However, as they move closer to the design, the pattern becomes more evident and the attention then shift from form to pattern.

By the term ‘pattern‘, it does not indicate only the recursive pattern visible on the surface of geom-etries but the recursive pattern laid in the form of the geometries itself.

Again, the contradiction creates ambiguity which we believe to be a critical element that makes an architecture interesting and meaningful.

This is our final model at scale 1:50. Instead of having a full final model of our design, this is the first generation which is also a component of our design. The model is quite impressive with the patterns visible. Unfortunately we could not get the com-plete model done due to many technical problems which will be explained later.

FINAL MODEL

MODEL FABRICATION

Unfortunately, we encountered many problems with physical fabrication. First off, it was impos-sible to card-cut in the fablab. We were informed that our pattern is too complex and card cutting was impossible. The only option was to laser cut, which would cost us approximately $400 if we were to fabricate the whole model with patterns. So we decided to remove most of the pattern from the 10 sheets that we submitted to fablab with ex-cept the 11th sheet as we want to at least get to see how will our components look like together.

While the sheet with pattern turned out to be real-ly impressive, the rest 10 sheets were kind of ugly when we put them together.

Furthermore, the extremely large model was un-able to stand, mainly due to the material as we fabricated with paper, and also due the the struc-ture of our design which require a deep founda-tion underground to provide stability.

Thus, our only option was to construct a part of the model.

MATERIAL : CARBON NANOTUBES

This is a part of further research and development in terms of finding alternative material. With our design being consisted mostly of frames, and the structure rises equal to a 4 storey building, it is critical to choose appropriate materials, normally it would have been steel given our situ-ation. However, we found a alternative option where we believe Carbon nanotubes could provide a best possible solution.

Carbon nanotubes are long chains of carbon held together by the stron-gest bond in all chemistry, even stronger than the bonds that hold to-gether diamond. Carbon nanotubes have numerous remarkable physical properties, generally 300 times stronger than steel.

This is one of the most recent materials and is not a common material. So far it has not been used much in architecture due to the price, howev-er this material is in the state of being developed to be used in architec-ture as with this material, you could build towers hundreds of kilometers high with it.

http://lifeboat.com/ex/10.futuristic.materials

STRUCTURE

To provide stability in real life application, the design project is supported by a concrete raft foundation, via two concrete footings which connect the bottom of the design components to the piles and to the concrete foundation. Metal bars in the footings act to strengten the hold of the components to the concrete footings.

NIGHTTIME LIGHT & SHADOW

We seek to maximise the visual effect both during day-time and night time to optimise the user experience. Our extruded surface patterned component provides opportunity to be used to emit light at night time.

The photos show the installation of LED lights in our physical model which create light & shadow effects representing how each component would create the effects at night time.

CONCLUSION : COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

• Act as a gateway not only to the Wyndham City but to the urban Melbourne• This design provides a strong visual effects genereated from patterns both during day

time and night time, with striking aesthetic. The strong visual effect will always attrac-tion attentions regardless how many times the drivers have passed by.

• Our design is innovative and unique, does not resemble any other recognised proj-ects.

• We maxmimise the use of parametric design. Our form is generated from a ‘process‘ where outcomes are always unpredicable.

• The organic nature of our design in both the patterns and forms responds to the char-acteristic of the Wyndham City.

• Our design is interesting and attractive, drivers would go through different experienc-es at different distances. The attention shifts between pattern and geometry, creates ambiguity and contradictions; “an eye candy object“.

PRESENTATION FEEDBACK

Based on our presentation feedback, it is suggested that we may have given too much attention to grass-hopper experimentation; perhaps a lack of focus on the concept and the direction of the project. I agree of this feedback, earlier during the interim presenta-tion, we did not integrate enough algorithmic think-ing into our design so we shifted our attention to-ward trying to maximise ‘parametricism‘. Especially upon successfully came up with many interesting parametric outcomes, we have have probably gave too much attention toward it and lost control of the design. In some of the generations, the components were mutually intersected and we could not find a way to fix them in grasshopper.

Perhaps if we had more time for this project, we would be able to ingegrate site-related elements as parameter in our grasshopper script and thus de-velop something out of site context and gain more control over the overall design.

To be honest, I feel as if I was just yesterday when we were just introduced to the project brief. The subject has been very fast-paced and time was very limited and probably too limited to truly maximise grasshopper skills. However, I have gained so much knowledge from this subject especially with parametric design, grasshopper and rhino. To me, digi-tal computation has opened so many creative and possibili-ties with design that would otherwise never ever came out in my mind; for example , manually integrating pattern onto geometry to create a single component and progressed to develop a complex form with all these components is not easy. Algorithmics compunation indeed allow designers, architects and engineers to gain greater control over their design processes; both as a convenient tool for CAM for complex surface and object and as a generative tool acting to widen the scope of the design possibilities.

Prior to the start of this subject, I had been totally fixed with non-parametric architecture. In the end, I wish that I could have more time for this subject, to be able to further develop the process, explore the unlimited possiblities in architec-ture and learn from them.

LEARNING OUTCOME

REFERENCES

- http://lifeboat.com/ex/10.futuristic.material

- http://www.jesserandzio.com/SummerPavilion.html