STUDIO AIR2015, SEMESTER 1, TUTORS - SONYANICK VORICH

Hi, My name is Nick and am a third year student studying a Bachelor of Environments and majoring in Architecture at the Universty of Melbourne.

I’ve been interested in the field of design since the early days of primary school, but only after undertaking a visual communications subject in highschool did I realise a passion for architecture.Growing up in the Melbourne suburbs I was always fascinated when making trips into town, at the scope of architectural styles that lay amongst this relatively young city. Consequently, my love for building design stemmed from my love of history and the enjoyment I got from witnessing gothic revival buildings on one corner and contemporary masterpieces on the next.

My background from school was occupied by science and humanities subjects largely, so my design experience upon entering environments was limited. Although the architecture major was always in the back of my mind, the urban planning and construction majors were interesting areas and I’m glad was able to touch on them in my first year.

My technical skills when it comes to design is limited as I haven’t formally used much of it within my subjects. Traditionally, I prefer to draw my designs which is what I did in the Earth studio as I find it easier to keep track of and develop my ideas. While my formal use of Rhino and autocad has been lacking, over the last year or so I’ve made a conscious effort to learn the programs at a basic level and look forward to furthering tht skill set.

My experience with parametrics is effectively none before this subject. I have always looked at algorithmic projects as being extremely advanced and almost out of reach for an undergraduate student, so to undertake a subject with Grasshopper at its core is daunting an exciting at the same time. The overwhelming impression I have when viewing parametric designs is that it creates an incredibly complex object that highlights the capabilities of the designer, but I’ve always wondered how necessary complexity is in achieving a functioning building.

I think that the algorithmic approach definitely has a place in the future of architectural design if it continues in the direction its heading. This will ultimately create extremely complex forms that are almost impossible to concieve. I’d like to think that this approach could also aid in the quality of design and address important issues such as minimisation of resources and achieving more environmentally friendly buildings. This is one of the main objectives I have with Studio Air, which is to further understand this emurging field and where it can take us with future development.

Overall, I think parametrics cannot be overlooked when discussing architectural discourse. The fact that undergraduate architecture degrees are taking the time to focus on it, proves this idea.

2

3

PAST WORK

My past design work primarily comes from my studies in Designing Environments in first year and Studio earth in second year. As previously mentioned i havent utilised modelling programs for many projects besides for sketch up back in first year.

Designing Environments involved the creation of an observation tower that would be placed in the middle of wilson square, outside the hall. While I was still new to the design process I chose to work with traditional drawing as well as a sketchup model to see which would work best.

My experience with Earth studio was slightly different with my tutor encouraging us to do much of the lead up exploration in the form of drawing. The aim of the project was to create a pavilion on hering island in South Yarra that would involve the notion of secrets. Due the larger part of the semester drawing out my ideas, I opted to hand draw the final project which was tough process in hindsight.

While happy with the outcome I felt that a more detailed and informative perspective could have been achieved using a program such as Rhino.

DESIGNING ENVIRONMENTS: 1ST YEAR

STUDIO EARTH: 2ND YEAR

Table of Contents

PART A

A.1 - Design futuring

A.2 - Design computation

A.3. - Compistion/ Generation

A.4. - Conclusion

A.5. - Learning Outcomes

A.6. - Algorithmic task

PART B

B1. - Research field

B2 - Case study 1.0

B3. - Case study 2.0

B4 - Technique Deveopment

B5. - Prototype

B6. - Proposal

B7. - Learning Outcomes

B8. - Algorithmic sketches

PART C

C1 - Design Development

C2 - Tectonic Elements and Prototypes

C3 - Final Detail Model

C4 - Learning Outcomes/ Feedback

References

6-9

10-11

12-13

14

15

16-17

18-19

20-23

24-27

28-33

34-37

38-39

40

41

42-45

46-51

52-55

56-57

58

6

The Trifolium project was aimed at adressing the immovability of architecture in this current age, where images have now become the primary mode of communication. The world of parametric design has largely fallen victim to this form of thinking, where a stunning render that perfectly highlights the inconcievable form is almost more satisfying than the actual concept being realised (Sam Spurr 2014).

In a field where smaller scale parametrics are limited to computer rederings, the designers behind trifolium wanted to ultimately reconnect the architect with the means and method of making.

The architect has ever so gradually been pushed out of the building process and Trifoliums lead designer Robert Besons intention was to highlight the possibilty and capability of architectural practices (Sam Spurr 2014). Consequently, his firm AR-MA took full control of the project including the design, fabrication, logistics and installation of all three thousand components. This extreme approach essentially transforms the entire process into a system that isn’t hampered by countless stakeholders whose involvment can greatly limit the flow of production.

Apart from the pragmatic apparoach, this was also an experiment in understanding a design at its deepest level. AR-MA ‘s responsibilty in the production of materials and transport to site meant that they could understand every component and process that was taking place and allow them to see the consequences of one small change in the system.

While this small project won’t be experienced by a large number of people, it stands as a symbol of innovation and experiementation which represents the architectural discourse of the present time. This discourse is one that

involves creating radical shapes that require new construction techniques. Beson provided a sound example of this vogue attitude by ultimately creating a new fabrication software from the ground up, allowing his team to erect the pavillion in just one week (Max Homei 2014).

A surprising outcome and one that is further testament to the parametric movement was the fact that the actual form and asethetic composition of Trifolium was the component that altered the most. This was due to hurdles faced by AR-MA in fabrication and construction and highlights the flexibility of these new softwares.

SCAF, the orgaisation that commissioned the project understands the pavilion is not intended to become a national icon or tourist landmark, but rather a tool that ignites discussion, inspiration and curiosity in the smaller number of architects and students that will come to visit (Max Homei 2014). It is hoped that it not only encourages the parametric phenomonem, but the possiblity - and more importantly, the positive and negatives - of considering the design and farbication process as a whole.

A similar project was conducted by the University of Melbourne construction students when they succeeded in designing and erecting a post-formed funicular structure that was designed using digital tools and constructed by hand.

TrifoliumAR-MA| SYDNEY| 2014

A.1. DESIGN FUTURING

7

FIG.1: TRIFOLIUM, AR-MA ARCHITECTS, SYDNEY 2013-14/ EXTERNAL VIEW

FIG.2: TRIFOLIUM, AR-MA ARCHITECTS, SYDNEY 2013-14/ INTERNAL VIEW

YAS VICEROY HOTELASYMPTOTE| ABU DHABI | 2009

The Yas Hotel located in Abu Dhabi is one of the many structures built in the multi-billion dollar Yas marina, but one of particular technological elegance (Asymptote 2015). The main body of the hotel itself is not the centre piece by any means, instead, it serves a far more functional purpose which is to significantly insulate the 500 room complex from the roar of F1 cars that wind around the building.

Asymptote architects efforts to create a landmark was undoubtably solidified by the addition of a parametrically driven canopy that sweeps across the two seperate structures. Described by lead architect as an ‘atmospheric veil’, the enormous shell is designed to connect all the elements within the complex.

The complexity and elegance of the structure was only realised due to Asymptotes ongoing efforts to push the boundaries in and realise abstract mathematical models. Hani Rashid, co-principle of Asymptotes wanted to explore the movement of a building, or perceived movement (Dezeen 2009). This was achieved by the 5,800 diamond shaped glass panels of varying size that make up the canopy. The design of which, exploits the suns rays at different times of the day to produce a shimmering effect as people move around the site.

The original and most extreme version of the proposal sort to further develop this idea of movement by transforming the shell into an intelligent or responsive skin, as each individual panel would pivot via elecronic triggers. While this didn’t eventuate due to costing reasons, the final outcome stands as an exeptional example of architectural vision.

While the impressive structure may not be replicated in other major cities, Asymptotes triumph with this particular project is how well the design responds to the context in which it was built. The sweeping veil or exoskeleton is one that compliments the character of Abu Dhabi and the eliptical buildings making up the hotel seek to imitate the large cruiseliners that will make there way into the Yas Marina (Dezeen 2009). Ultimately, it stands not as only as a

successful example of parametric modelling, but transforms the harsh geometric forms and large steel frames necessary for construction into an undulating surface that is soft and light in appearance.

Nothing short of ambitious, the original idea to automate the gridshell would have not only created another layer of compelxity, but also highlights one particular direction that parametric and algorithmic design is moving towards (ARUP 2013). The ability for architects such as Asymptote to realise impossible forms could be further developed with the addition of moving parts.

One of the biggest things this project offers to architecture and parametric design is the incredible construction process that allowed it to become a reality. A revolutionary shoring system was used that involved reinforced towers in order to support each 30 tonne steel ladder, making up the twisting canopy (RMD Kwikiform 2010). RMD construction utilised 3-D modelling software ‘Locus’ to allow them to erect the 217 steel ladders with zero tolerance on site, which is usually impossible with traditional methods (RMD Kwikiform 2010). Although a relatively recent project, the combination of architectural ambition, construction skill and parametric software will influence the success of other projects around the world as it stands as proof of architectures discourse at this moment in time.

The Yas Hotel remains a landmark in the Yas Island precinct and the ‘technologically elegant’ canopy continues to play host to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, where spectators enjoy the complex LED lighting system that transforms the veil at night.

9

FIG.3 YAS HOTEL, ASYMPTOTE ARCHITECTS, ABU DHABI, 2009/ EXTERNAL VIEW

FIG.4: YAS HOTEL, ASYMPTOTE ARCHITECTS, ABU DHABI, 2009/ UNDER THE CANOPY

10

added ability to realise complex form. However, this is limited and often restricted by the communication between computer and human, where it is relatively smooth one way (computer to human), but can be frustratingly restricted the other way (human to computer) (Kalay & Yehuda 2004). Therefore, the complex process of creating certain programs to aid in this communication is carried out by a select few knowledgable individuals. This may further restrict the possibilties to the ideas and understanding of one individual.

One major problem with computational design is the computer itself. They can follow instructions and decipher information flawlessly and consistently, but are incapable of making anything new (Kalay & Yehuda 2004). Consequently, there wil be no improvement to the concievability of architectural design as that remains purely within human imagination, but an improvement to achievability of more complex attempts. The speed at which such softwares were introduced could also have a negative effect on our ability to concieve, design and think creatively in future years (AIACC 2012). Students and professionals in the industry need to move quickly in order to keep up with changing programs, which means a large amount of time is devoted to them. This could

While the design process has undoubtably never been the same since the birth of digital design technolgy, the major part of the process which parametrics and computer aided design seeks to improve is that of communication. Prior to the turn of the millenia, parametrics was an emerging technology that designers were exploring in order to move away from representational architecture. It wasn’t until the latter part of the ‘folding’ movement where parametric design became apart of the logic in design thinking (Oxman & Oxman 2014).

The primary benefit of computation that influened this period was its ability to create and modulate differentiation in a particular aspect of a design on varying scales (Oxman & Oxman 2014). An early example of this can be seen in Frank Gehrys Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, where computational design allowed for the undulating, ‘single piece’ of steel to be realised. This building, while not necessarily digital in its design, but rather production highlights the transitional period between the old and new (Oxman & Oxman 2014). It was examples such as this which encouraged the acceptance of new technologies and proved that it could in fact revolutionise the process of design. Computation opens up a large variety of compositional possibilites and an

FIG.5 WATER CUBE, PTW ARCHITECTS, BEIJING 2008

A.2. DESIGN COMPUTATION

11

vision is that of Kaohsiung Port and Cruise Service Center by Reiser Umemoto. The building provides the surrounding skyline with a poetic undulation of smooth, twisted steel with a horizontal, low lying tail end that culminates into a vertical tower at the other (Cilento 2010). This design appears equally determined to impress the public as it does to ultimately serve them effectively. The smooth exterior is mirrored in its function as an elevated boardwalk amplifies pedestrian traffic along the water and through the building (Cilento 2010). This elevated level connects the public to a pop music centre and shopping district. The projects contribution to the local economy highlights an important step in this debate over computational design and the attitude required when moving forward.

potentially lead to individuals only bothering to attempt what is achievable on a computer. A major concern with this siuation would be the difficulty in escaping the ‘parametric aesthetic’ and the development of new styles in the future (AIACC 2012). Whilst undoubtably influencial designs, examples such as Greg Lynns ‘Blobwall’ or the more widely recognised ‘water cube’ by PTW architects highlight the focus on creating extraordinary aesthetics rather than a holistic design. Paul Goldberger (2008) addressed this problem when the ‘water cube’ was completed for the 2008 Olympic games. He argued that its innovation and engineering genius cannot be denied, however, it highlights mankinds unyielding desire to announce themselves as the best, through infrastructure. The hype of the Olympic games blinded many in relation to the buildings impact on Beijing and the ultimate lack of change it brought about (Goldberger 2008). Sadly, it appears as though these new parametric and digital softwares have in some ways been used to feed this over indulgence.

A balance between this desire to demonstrate innovation through beauty as well as the ability to address real spatial problems is necessary if parametric design is to be effective. One such project which sort to achieve this

FIG.6. KAOHSIUNG PORT, REISER UMEMETO, 2010

12

The benefits of parametric and computer design were realised when scripted algorithms were developed, leading to performance design. This revolution allowed architects and those involved in the construction process to design to certain performance parameters involving the structure and energy of a project (Oxman & Oxman 2014).

This step forward that took place at the turn of the 21st century had such an impact on how buildings were conceived as it coincided with the industries focus on ‘sustainable architecture’. The environmentally friendly design is one that is bound by performace parameters and requirements such as carbon emmissions, material embodied energy and heating and cooling use etc. The industry was no longer focussing on the aesthetics and spatial qualities of a building, but rather how well it responded to certain regulations.

The new theory arising around 2004 was in support of using procedural design and scripting algorithms as opposed to traditional compositional and representational design.

This shift in how generative architecture, coupled with advanced scripting algorithms that dealt with building performance was perceived is demonstrated through Foster & Associates, London Town Hall (Oxman & Oxman 2014). Completed in 2002 it was an early example of a new age of eco-friendly infrastructure. Architects used software to produce the bulbous shape which alledgedly reduced energy emmission by reducing the surface area of the building. The design also includes natural ventillation for offices and the use of photovoltaic cells to generate electricity for the cooling system (Foster & Partners 1998). Unfortunately, the building wasn’t received as well as expected due to energy saving additions underperforming in relation to the actual carbon footprint produced (The Gaurdian 2008.

The London city hall, along with its neighbour ‘Swiss Re’ did however, set a precedence for how new technologies such as performace scripting were going to be used at the time. Although not living up to performance expectation, they unknowingly created a benchmark which encouraged all future large scale projects to

A.3. COMPOSITION/ GENERATION

FIG.7 CITY HALL, FOSTERS AND PARTNERS, LONDON, 2002

13

seriously consider using scripting algorithms and performance models as part of their design process.

The fear of many in regards to software based tools was the detachment it may produce between designer and design. Professor John Frazer from AA - who lead the way in computational design processes - believes that allowing softwares to fill in parts of a buildings form or even generate its own leaves little time for restfulness and reflection and ultimately a less personal outcome (Krish 2012).

This process can be seen in LAB Architectures development of Federation Square. Although a design that is now adored by the surrounding city, its design devlopment highlights a slight detachment between human creativity and computer generated design. LAB initially began the plan views as two lines with a number of points at which they could bend, in order to develop a general form and understanding of how it would sit on the site. They then placed these initial forms into generative software which took the basic components and essentially extrapolated

hundreds of versions. They then shortlisted the most effective ones and chose one to work off. Although there is undoubtably the element of human choice amongst the process, the ability to essentially ‘window shop’ where all the design is computational and the best option is chosen seems too much like a shortcut.

Fortunately, this process hasn’t engrained itself in architectural practice, but still remains one of generative designs shortcomings. One of the more recent devlopments in the industry is a focus on natural systems and using environmental systems to create more organic structures that benefit ecosystems. Processes such as biomimicry and digital morphogenesis harness the benefits of computational design and use it to create a ‘second nature’.

FIG.8 FED SQUARE, LAB ARCHITECTS, MELBOURNE,

A.4. CONCLUSION

Undeniably important and vast in possibility, parametric and generative modelling or digital architecture will hold a fundemental position in future architectural design. Altering the discourse in design thinking almost two decades ago, the acceptance of such mediums ultimately presented architects and engineers with a way to respond to the ever-increasing list of 21st centruy demands. As most forms of technology does, software based design and the complexity in which its used experienced rapid expansion which brought the industry away from the traditional, representational approach and brought forward the power of generative based design and algorithmic thinking.

Although this process has exhibited some limitations, an interesting and new opportunity sits in front of digital design which offers a exciting an different direction. Biomimicry will be further explored throughout the semesters studio as it seeks to take the harsh, ‘parametric aesthetic’ and sometimes impersonal composition of computational design and give it purpose through the form of nature. It not only offers aesthetic purpose, but allows us to create structures that will harmonise with its surroundings through the inspiration and incorporation of the environments own systems that function so effortlessly.

It is important for digital architecture to advance with something to guide it as it should not and cannot be responsible for creating the inpiration, but rather used as a tool to realise it. Biomimicry therefore, acts as our inspiration as it responds to nature, with nature. It seeks to benefit not just the skyline, but all those who interact with the building on the ground level, including - and most importantly - the ecosystem that already exists. One of the biggest challenges is finding a way to create something that doesn’t just have a minimal impact on the area, but actually benefits it in someway.

14

A.5. LEARNING OUTCOMES

15

Digital design using algorithmic modelling such as Grasshopper was always something that I new the industry was utilising and developing, but have been hesitant to learn it because of its perceived complexity. Due to my age, computer modelling has almost always presented examples to look at because it only came into popular use within the last couple of decades. It was interesting to research the transformation from representational architecture into generative approaches and how quickly it came into affect. I wasn’t surprised by this realisation because of how rapid any form of technology develops in todays age.

What I was most interested to discover was that scripted algorithms that led to software enabling performance modelling for structure and energy have been around for quite a while in comparison to digital architectures lifespan. This obviously resulted in BIM programs such as Revit. I find it interesting therefore, that these programs haven’t been fully harnessed by the industry yet, considering how much time its had to adjust. Similar to myself avoiding Grasshopper, I think professionals are hesitant to use such programs because of the complexity associated with algorithms.

Before the subject began, I assumed Algorithmic programs such as Grashopper were similar to Rhino in terms of how objects were transformed. I was completlely new to creating definitions via the connection of wires to and between different functions. A crucial thing I now realise is that when it comes to programs such as Rhino, it’s about ‘What you do to an object?’ and algorthmic programs it’s ‘How you get to an object?’. Moving ahead with this in mind, I think my progress has been increasing slowly through the algorthmic exercises, but consistently. I understand that there isn’t a formula to follow when it comes to using Grasshopper but rather knowing what function you have at your disposal through experience of using them.

One past project which I think could been improved with Grasshopper and algorithmic modelling is my Studio Earth Pavilion (page 5) which I hand drew. Computational modellling I have a come to realsie, is excellent for randomising objects and my array of concrete pillars could have been developed far quicker and more effectively with this process.

A.7. ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS

These sketches represent the firt stages of explorationa nd experiementation in Grasshopper. The weekly exercises provided invaluable experience with the software as they let us test our skills through our own interpretation and understanding of the tutorial videos. To follow along with videos, step by step, was beneficial for completing the finished product and introducing us to the basic functions. However, the broad parameters set during the algorithmic exercises such as to create a sea sponge or tree branch, allowed for much deeper learning and confidence in navigating the Grasshopper program.

The sketches that were selected highlight not just the most successful outcomes, but the gradual increase in ability and willingness to push the boundaries. The most important element is that these sketches stand to represent the outcome of learning through visual demonstration and applying ones own interpretation and previous skillset, in the space of two weeks.

The most successful of these outcomes is not the finished products, but the ability to realise that algorithmic modelling is not like traditional 3D softwares. After the first week I began to understand that this form of design is all about ‘How you are going to get there?’ and which steps will provide you with the outcome your looking for or perhaps a completely unexpected one.

Arguments in Part A, among other things, addressed the potential for parametric design to create detachment and ultimately dictate the process. I think the algorithmic exercises so far, have demonstrated this to some degree. I began most of them with an image I wanted to replicate, however, due to my basic skillset and understanding of the program I quickly realised that I would just have to settle for whatever Grasshopper produced because there wan’t enough advanced knowledge to apply detailed transformations. I think that as my skillset increases, outcomes should hopefully represent my intentions more and more, but it will be interesting to observe that process.

My first attempt was to construct a traditional circular sea sponge using a morphed sphere to begin with and applying extruded circles on the surface.

16

My second sea sponge attempt was a coral that involved lofted columns in Rhino which were then transformed in Grasshopper.

This tree branch was constructed entirely from one single point, using and array of dots to dictate the path of the tree. Each branch was created in a different way using an list item to pinpoint where each branch would stem from.

The second tree branch was lofted in rhino first, then its shadow line was offset and multiplied then extruded vertically to create an imprinted driftwood pattern on the surface to give it texture. This technique was taken from the AA’s ‘driftwood’ construction.

17

18

The chosen research field that will be investigated is that of Biomimicry. This area explores the use of nature and in particular, natures multitude of simple and complex systems to act as inspiration for design. A common misunderstanding is that biomimicry simply copies the appearance of a natural object, however, the aim of this exploration is to investigate how the use of structure in natural systems in architecture and design could influence the solution in some way. The idea is not to create structures that look like nature therefore make things environmentally friendly, but look at the interactions between components and use this to somehow benefit a design outcome and ultimately leave the chosen site in better condition because of it.

The University of Stuttgart’s research pavilion highlights this conceopt through their experimental design ( University Stuttgart). The structure uses the make-up of a sea urchins chell to create a full scale shelter made of ply wood. While this building undoubtably relfects the actual appearance of the biology it is inspired by, it is the ability to achieve certin requirements that make this an interesting example of bimimicry. The sea urchins shells is obviously extremely small in actual size, so the pavilion highlights the possiblity and futher understanding needed of these minute structures that may otherwise go unnoticed in nature. It allows a full scale, human inhabitable environment to be achieved using the same shapes and methods of connection. This sort of example not only looks impressive and innovative because of the parametric polygonal surface, but attempts to further improve the resource and time management of real world projects. It demonstrates how thin sheets of plywood that would usually not be considered for structural purposes, can be arranged in a particular fashion and at specific angles to achieve a generous enclosed space. This breakthrough could lead to the minimisation of materials needed and also the adaptability of a building because of the lightweight arrangment.

Oxman and Oxman’s Theories of the digital in architecture provides an interesting description of computation in architecture and its development.

parametric programs has changed the way we design, it has largely been utilised to create objects that have a particular parametric aesthetic (Oxman & Oxman 2014). The rise of biomimicry gives designers and architects in particular a chance to access natures organic and free flowing shapes and systems to influence their practice. While the relationship between biomimicry and computation is not exclusive, algorithmic modelling has provided us with a better chance at achieving these outcomes. The complexity which is often necessary and most fundamental to a natural system would most likely be lost if more traditional methods of design were utilised or ultimately more limited to the few individuals that understand it them at a detailed level. However, the softwares that are created by these individuals can now be harnessed by many professionals to achieve the same outcome.

Biomimicry hasn’t been fully adopted by the industry, and this could possibly be attributed to the fact that not all firms and studioshave necessarily adopted the required technologies and softwares. Regardless, it does appear that a lot of current experimentational work, paper architecture and research is being conducted in the area of biomimicry, suggesting that it could be the way forward in the industry. This is highlighted by such works as the Stuttgart pavilion along with other projects such as the Morning Line by Aranda Lasch which incorporates other inspirations such as music, art and cosmology to name a few.

Exploring this field could present some problems or limitations, especially with regards to fabrication. Due to the complexity referred to above, many of natures complex forms and inspirations might be difficult to construct. New technologies in 3D printing would most likely ne necessary to produce certain shapes, but this could also suggest that fabrication technologies are under pressure to develop just as fast as the concepts that are used to create.

B1: RESEARCH FIELD

19

20

B2 - CASE STUDY 1.0

SKYLAR TIBBETS - VOLTA DOME

The Volta Dom was an installation created by Skylar Tibbets at the MIT campus and is located within a concrete and glass hallway. The vaults are perforated with occulies of varying radius and transform the environment by allowing different levels of light and view into and out of the installation.

While the actual project investigates how the arrangement of panelled surfaces can be configured using light weight materials and still be easily assembled. This investigation looked at manipulating the different components of the project and explore the limits of ‘vaults’ and when they cease to be vaults.

The main avenues included varying the size of the occulus and until a point when the initial cones would not be classified as vaults.

21

1

2

3

4

A B C D

22

Selection Criteria: Creating a Shelter

• Does the structure provide full coverage from the elements

• Does the structure provide broken up areas of cover in order to separate the space

• Will there be protection from the rain

• Will the structure create a 360 degree view of surrounding

• Does it allow for some natural light to enter the undercover space

• If fixed seating was included, would it be fully protected from elements

• Does the shelter structure need to be elevated or could it function on its own.

Iteration 1

This iteration is probably the most similar to original definition that was provided, however it has a larger amount of intersecting cones of the same size. It definitely meets the criteria which involves providing full coverage from the elements including protection from rain as the cones intersect to create a continuous structure. However it wouldn’t meet the criteria for allowing some natural light from above as it has no perforations and it would need to be elevated above the ground because it provides no access points.

Iteration 2

This iteration consists of clusters of cones with similar sized occulus’. It doesn’t provide full coverage from elements however it does create broken up areas of shelter which could separate the space. The presence of the occulus means that it would allow an adequate amount of natural light, but it would also mean that the space was susceptible to rain. If seating was included then it wouldn’t be fully protected from elements. The structure would again need to be elevated as it doesn’t provide any entrance points on its own.

23

Iteration 3

This structure consists of different segments of the existing cones all on the same side. It wouldn’t offer full coverage from the elements, but could offer small areas of shade. It does not provide protection from the rain, but this means that ample natural light would be present and users would be able to view a majority of thw area. It produces an interesting opportunity or situation with shading as it could be further developed so that the cone segments swivel around to block out the sunlight at different stages of the day. This would mean it could function of clear sunnt days, but wouldn’t be as effective when rain is present.

Iteration 4

This iteration involves the contour lines that run across the large intersecting cones. This structure would perform the worst regarding actual shelter qualities as it provides no protection from the sun, rain or wind. However, it still meets some of the criteria and could produce an intersting outcome. The thin frames that the structure consists of, would allow users to view the entire area around them a would also not need to be elevated as the spaces between frames could act as small entrance and exit points. It could be further developed so that thicker frames were used, hence, improving the shade qualities of the structure.

Iteration 1 : I can’t see this structure being used for much else other than a shelter of some sort or a roofing system, as the cone shape is a structurally sound configuration providing strength while maintaining adequate span underneath. It differs from the original volta dome as it doesn’t contain any openings or perforations through the structure also only provides a continuous surface with not much variation.

Iteration 2 : This structure, due to the presence of the occulus at the apex of each cone could be used as some sort of wall system that has varying levels of light allowed through by different sized holes. These occulus’ allow the cone to maintain its strutural integrity, but gives it a few more performance qualities such as the ability to allow light through and also could be used as a natural ventilation system.

Iteration 3 : This structure is the most intersting to me personally and could be used for a wide range of functions. It doesn’t maintain the same structural capacity of the original volta dom cones, but in turn creates new opportunities. The layout of these semi circular ‘walls’ could be used as an office or university open-plan configuration. Each ‘wall’ could define a work space that is completely open on one side and closed off on the other.

Iteration 4 : This structure creates a similar shape to the original, but with far less mass. Architecturally, it would be interesting to invert the structure and creating a ceiling system with these lightweight frames. Almost like a Gaudi experimentation of compression and tension the contours would produce an undulating surface that is lightweight

OTHER USES AND INTERPREATIONS

24

THE BRITISH LIBRARY ROOF

The project is a roof structure created by foster and partners that spans across a large central courtyard at the British Museum. It is created using large steel framing to create a series of trusses that contain large panels of glass. The design was intended to span the large internal courtyard area of the museum and provide a semi internal/ external feel with the abundance of light let in by the structure.

The steel structure is designed to act as both the primary structure for the canopy as well the framing for the glazed diamond shaped sections. The structure appears to emerge from the circular centre building and moves upwards and outwards until it reaches the external walls. The structure ‘bulges’ creating a large bubble effect. The British museum roof has a similar form to the Northcort canopy at the university of melbourne, this highlights the versatility of such a design and different materials that can be used to achieve it.

I think the project was extremely effective at what it set out to achieve. It started in 1998 and the finished product is undoubtably an architectural and engineering master piece as this is when parametric design began to develop and announce itself around the world. In terms of the actual design I think the neat geometric diamonds emerging from the courtyard centre provide a fitting contrast for the more traditional building that surrounds it. It is also a successful example of the ‘canopy’ which parametrics has been used for in recent times, through such buildings as the Yas hotel in Abu Dhabi and even the Southern Cross station in Melbourne.

CREATE A SERIES OF ROUNDED CURVES TO DEFINE OVERALL FORM

POSITION CURVES SO THAT THEY CREATE A FUNNEL LIKE ARRANGEMENT

RUN A NUMBER OF ARCS THROUGH ALL THREE CURVES FROM SERIES OF POINTS

CREATE A SURFACE USING THE ARCS AS THE FRAME WORK AND RUN GEODESIC CURVES

RUN A SECOND SERIES OF GEODESIC CURVES ACROSS THE SURFACE

SHIFT THE BASE POINTS OF THE CURVES AT BOTTOM BY A GIVEN NUMBER AND DO THE SAME FOR THE TOP FOR ONE SET OF CURVES

REPEAT PROCESS FOR SECOND SET OF CURVES TO CREATE INTERSECTING LINEWORK

25

26

I think overall I did a reasonable job at re creating the British Museum roof, with the general form being quite close to the actual, but some differences still remain. I managed to create the structure from a smaller circular centre that gradually moves upwards into a larger and flatter form. The smooth curve was maintained as much as possible and the bulge at the top where the structure curves up and then back down to eventually connect to another structure was achieved. The diamond shaped framing that the canopy is constructed from was also reached for the most part through creating geodesic curves. The arcs went through three circluar guide points. To achieve the ‘criss-cross’ effect, the origin point each arc was shifted until a point where they were angles enough to imitate the Museums roof.

There were some inconsistencies that resulted from the reverse engineering attempt. These were primarily due to certain aspects of the actual project being too complex for my current skill level and also limited imagery of certain parts of the structure. One of the main differences was that the British Museum begins from a smaller circular point that then rises and flattens out, eventually connecting to a sqaure shaped building at its outer most point. The other adversity was the consistency of the geodesic curves. In my grasshopper attempt the outer ring needed to be far bigger that the centre ring which resulted in the geodesic arcs not angling as much as was necessary. Therefore the diamonds close to the centre and middle of the structure are shaped quite similarly to the Actual project, but then begin to flatten out as they move closer to the outer ring.

The absence of the circular to square shape in my grasshopper attempt was because I found it extremely difficult to loft between my central circle point and an outer square shape. It was attempted early on, but resulted in a deformed shape that would have rendered my model almost unrecognisable. As previously mentioned the geodesic diamond shape began to flatten out towards the outside of the structure. This was different from the actual project because they maintained a consistent diamond shape throughout the entire structure without any deformation towards the extremeties. I think this is because they haven’t simply used single arcs originating from the middle and extending to the outside. Its almost as if there was a large composition created initially and then it was simply cut off so we can’t see where some of the arcs lead to.

Looking ahead, I think this technique could have a place in future design for myself. The geodesic curve which involves running arcs through multiple curves produces an interesting composition. It could see itself used as a framing for a large structure as the arcs create strong truss shapes. It would need to be further developed and its possibilites further explored as I have only seen it used for simple gridshell shapes and it would be interesting to see it used with more complex forms.

27

28

B4 - Technique Development

The aim in this section to take the final product of B3 which was the reverse engineered attempt at the British Library Roof and extend it. Essentially the same process will undertaken as was done in B2 dwhere the volta dom project was altered a number of times. In this instance however, it will be my Grasshopper deifintion that will be manipulated. The idea is to investigate and explore the potential and limitations of this form until something completely new is created or alternatively until the definition breaks, rendering that particular explorative path exhausted.

My own personal objective for this section is not only manipulate the original form that was created, but to then change and advance the manipulated versions to hopefully create vastly different compositions. This is partly due to the fact that the British Museum Roof, while an incredible structure, might be slightly to mundane for where I would like to take my future investigations. The most successful outcomes will then be compared to a modified version of my selection criteria to assess their architectural potential.

1

2

3

A B C D E

29

4

5

6

7

A B C D E

8

30

9

10

A B C D E

Modified Selection Criteria - Protective Shelter

• Does the structure provide full coverage from debris above

• Does the structure provide broken up areas of cover in order to separate the space

• Will there be protection from the rain

• Will the structure allow a clear view in and out to maximise visibility

• How much natural light will it allow into the undercover space to ensure

there isn’t a dramatic change in light level for riders coming in and out

• Does the structure simply block debris or rain from above

• Does the Structure funnel debris and rain away from path

• Does the shelter structure need to be elevated or could it support itself the way it is

31

INTERESTING/ SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES

This iteration, compositionally, looks similar to the original British Museum rood I created, but it involves a more organic mushroom like form that seems more natural when compared to the original. This example was particularly interesting to me for a protective shelter as the main ‘stem’ is pushed to one side with the larger ‘shade’ portion fanning outwards. This appears like an beach umbrella which could allow for the structure to cantalever out over the path. It meets the criteria to fully cover the space in this respect, and would also allow for adequate visibility in and out of the space. It wouln’t however, stop debris or rain from trickling in at the base which would mean the bend in the path would be hazardess.

This funnel shaped iteration is interesting because it appears that it could flipped both ways and still provide some sort of shelter function. The way in which is appears to left could meet the criteria for directing debris and rainfall off the structure and away from the area underneath. However, it doesn’t meet the last point as it would need to be suspended and therefore fixed to an elevated position which the site does not really allow due to the weak rock wall. If the iteration was flipped it could reverse this process by channeling or funneling any rain or derbis away from the space below. In this instance the design could be furthered so that the protruding channel also acted as the main supporting system that is in contact with the ground.

This simple outcome creates a semi-circular wall like structure that folds over at the top portion. This meets the criteria involving whether it could support itself or not as it could potentially sit like a wall. It doesn’t meet the criteria involving protection due the light-frame like make-up which would allow for rain and debris to easily come through. The curve at the top could be positioned so that it is angled over the path providing Some added coverage. For this iteraion to be more successful, it would need to involve some sort of canopy or membrane that connects the frame structure together, not only providing more strength, but also a barrier for protective reasons.

32

While this iteration is not too far from the original, one particular aspect of it was interesting and worth noting. The mesh-like surface that holds it together was something that could be further explored. The important part of this component would be how fine the mesh is. If it was spaced apart to far it would easily let rain and small bits of rubble through and defeat the purpose of the protective structure. If it was a finer mesh, then some rain would get through, but rubble would not be able to. This would also still allow for natural light to get through, but still provide some shade. If it was made out of the right materials, perhaps some sort of flexible metal, it could be quite durable and resist any large blows from falling rocks above, a bit like a fly screen door.

When I initially came up with the idea of a protective space for this site, a tunnel was the furst thing that came to mind. This iteration seems somewhat similar to that, but is almost like a tunnel cut in half. The double arc that was used to create its form would allow it to run along the adge of the path and meet the criteria for ‘total coverage’ in some ways. The top arc may need to be moved slightly over so that it provides more coverage to fulfil the rain criteria. What’s also interesting is the broken up web that runs between the two arcs. This not only looks interesting architecturally, but could allow increasing or decreasing levels of light as one moves along it.

33

34

B5 TECHNIQUE - PROTOYPES

When it came to fabricating my resulting iterations, I realised that the 5 that had been chosen at the end of B4 brought up some challenges which hadn’t previously occured to me. The approach in B4 was to manipulate the definition and come up with the most fast fetched, interesting and unnachievable geometry. This process when laid out in a matrix looks excellent and provides some visual evidence that you’ve advanced your technique through this exploration. However, the problem arises when it comes to fabricating these outcomes. Geometry might look amazing on screen but be near impossible to fabricate, especially at this level of experience. I had originally chosen those outcomes as the most successful because they

pushed the boundaries the most. I had to refine my choice in this section because I was limited by fabrication techniques. This was the first time I had ever formally fabricated a model using purpose made equipment such as the laser cutter, 3-d printer etc. I found that my skill level in grasshopper was not enough to begin transforming my 3-d wireframe iterations into a fabrication layout and therefore opted to use rhino for this process. It was still an interesting experience as it forces you to look and think about your model differently, by taking it apart layer by layer or section by section to be reassembled in reality.

35

The first technique that was explored was that of ‘stringing’. For this particular model, a ‘mesh’ or net was required and therefore the framing needed a way of accomodating these conenctions. The technique that was employed involved noting the connection points or intersection points in Rhino/ grasshopper of the mesh with frames and then cutting a series of small holes. The holes needed to be big enough so that a number of pieces of string could fit through and be tied off. Taking into account the thickness and strength of material, which was 1.8mm boxboard, the holes had to be small enough so that structural integrity of the thin members wouldn’t be reduced.

FABRICATON TECHNIQUES EXPLORED

The second technique utilised the simple, but effective way of notching. This involves locating where two perpendicular fabricated members intersect and carving a small cut out so that they can slide together. I found that this technique can used in different ways. For the best results it is important that both members have notches carved into them which results in a finish that is flush. In this situation it is important that the notches are cut exactly half way into each member. When this technique was fabricated properly, the joining of components is near perfect whereby glue was almost not needed because the final product fit so well.

36

This model is a section taken from the British Museum Roof I designed. It involved main structural arcs or ‘ribs’ as the frame with holes cut into them. This was to allow for string to be threaded through to create the desired mesh. The ribs were also notched together to give it added support. This model was tested with point loads to simulate rocks falling from above as per the breifs selction criteria where the structural ribs responded quite well with little to no flexing which highlights the strength of the shape and degree of arc that was chosen. The strung mesh was difficult to simulate because the tension and strength of material is important, but it did absorb impacts quite well where objects didn’t ‘bounce off’ but rolled.

PROTOTYPE OUTCOMES

This model used just the structural ribs on there own and were fixed to the base using a form of notching where the small slots were cut into the base. There was also a secondary piece of framing that was inserted half way to increase the stability. This model was also tested in a number of ways including point loads, bending, shearing and uplift. The ribs proved extremely strong under a point load and even stronger under a distributed load across multiple ribs. However, a distributed load would not be present at the chosen site. The model performed well under shear and bending motions which I realised was due to secondary framing member positioned half way. It effectively braced the structure and transfered the load through all members. Uplift was the same, the shape of the ribs meant little movement, but this highlighted the importance of connection with base as it was glued in securely.

37

Similar to the second model, this involved the use of structural ribs. They were simply fixed to base and supported either side for some stability. This model was testing how the ribs performed without that secondary structural member half way. The results werre quite different. Differening results were also due to the different degree in arc which proved weaker. Under point load there was a significant amount of flex and it also placed most stress on the base connection. Shear and bending motions were the most noticeable where each member would move freely in all directions and even to the point in breaking which highlights the importance of that central bracing.

38

B6 - TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

Site and Project Proposal

The site that I have chosen at merri creek is a point long the path which runs directly underneath a large rock face. It is located adjacent to a residential area which means easy access and a high amount of foot and bicycle traffic, especially on weekends. The rock face itself is in poor condition and has a number of warning signs attached to. The hazards include falling rocks from above and also rubble that accumulates along the path. This site was also chosen because the path comes to a bend right underneath the rock face and constricts traffic at this point.

Site Features

• Large rock face• Foot and bicycle path• Flat site• Highly vegetated area, consisting

of large trees and tall grasses. • Bend in path underneath raock face• Close proximity to creek• Bridge that allows access at lower end of site.

Hazards/Limitations

• Large rocks falling from wall• Rubble and debris accumulating on path. • Not a great deal of sunlight due

to shading by trees• A dramatic change in light that occurs at

bend in path, from bright sunlight to shade which is difficult to navigate for cyclists.

39

Project Proposal

My proposal for this site at Merri creek is a protective shelter that effectively sheild the path from falling rocks and accumulating rubble. It will cover the portion of the path that runs closest to the wall and continue around the bend so that lghting is even, which is designed to reduce the change in light hazard identified when visiting the site. It will most likely not provide full coverage of the area because an important aspect is the rock face itself, which, while a hazard, is also a feature of the merri creek path and something important to environement. Therefore the proposed structure should restrict views of the wall, but could potetially frame it or somehow attract attention to it. The structural ribs and mesh technique could be appropriate because there is limited ground space to build anything, therefore ribs could be inserted into ground and the mesh could act as the bracing above ground which would reduce impact on unstable wall.

40

B7 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

I believe part B has been extremely interesting and productive look at the parametric modeling and gaining an undestanding of its benefits, but also limiations. What was intersting about part B was that it essentially put our research, theorising and predictions that were made in part A, into pratice. This involved picking apart parametric design and computation and seeing how it could be implemented into our weekly research and exploration. It was also intersting because a large part of part A was focussed on reviewing existing projects that were often quite complex in their design. While it was one thing to discuss their successes, it was another to take what we learned and apply it to our own work and to see how it was translated using our low skill level.

In terms of meeting the objectives set out in the course reader, I believe I have:

Developed my understanding and skill in interogating a brief whereby the various components are looked at separately and then ooked at together to see how they connect or engage with each other. Air has been slightly different than usual, as its focus was not necessarily on the brief during the earlier parts of semester, but rather exploring and improving skills level. Also being able to make case proposals that critically look at highlighting the components that most important. I believe this was done to a reasonable degree in my interim presentation with my proposal of a protective shelter for the Merri Creek site.

Gained a reasonable understanding of various forms of computation design as well as various forms of supportive media. My skills in Grasshopper have definitely been improved in parts B2, B3 and B4 where constant manipulating and baking of definitions produced vast learning experience. Supportive media such as Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign have also helped in communicating and transforming outcomes to be presented or better understood. I hadn’t used them before this subject, but my skill level is gradually improving.

These fly wings were created by patterning techniques, but focused on manipulating UV coordinates on surfaces that were not typical flat rectangles

This outcome used the graph mapper to manipulate previous created geometry, it uses the benzier graph to pull certain points down and lift other to create this form.

41

B8 ALGORITHMIC SKETCHES

These sketches show an increase in knowledge and skills in comparison to Part A. They vary in their inception as examples from B2 were produced via a given definition, therefore the selected outcomes have been manipulations of somebody elses work, but nevertheless show my understanding of breaking a definition up and changing smaller sections. B3 was the reversed engineered product which showcases the my ability to create a definition from the ground up and to best replicate and existing project as best as possible. Other examples are a mixture of outcomes that result from playing around and pushing my skills which sometimes produced things that were well thought out and other were unexpected and unexplained products.

This was my successful attempt at section the volta dom definition, at first I used it to create an occulus and then to divide the cone on an alternative plane.

I was happy with my attempt at the british museum because it highlights my ability to conenct curves through arcs and utilise geodesic curves to varying degrees

This fern like outcome utilised the graph mapper in order to manipulate a 2D set of lines that were created by pushing fields through a set of curves.

42

C1 - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

REFLECT ON INTERIM PRESENTATION

ROCK WALL IS NOT JUST A HAZARD, BUT A FEATURE

MESH IDEA WOULD NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION

HOW COULD ROCK WALL INFLUENCE FORM

The interim submission was a valuable source of feedback, these were the main suggestions or questions posed and their subsequent response. It includes responses that were relevant or useful and ones that were not and why this was so.

THE ROCK WALL MAY NOT BE AS HAZARDOUS AS THOUGHT

STRUCTURE COULD COVER ENTIRE SITE

This was an important piece of advice because originally I had only seen the wall as a hazard. I responded by altering design so that it would somehow frame the wall or at least not inhibit the view for passers-by.

The mesh idea was interesting, but would have proved difficult to explain in relation to its protective qualities, instead the structure would have solid panels instead.

This was the major piece of feedback. I used various attributes of rock face such as the locations of falling rocks, the overhang of the rock face and the actual textural pattern it created.

This idea would be relevant if it were a built project, but given the conceptual nature of the subject it was not. The rock wall proved to a hazard in hindsight as merri creek chose to remediate it themselves.

I had considered this early on, but realised that a structure covering the entire site would create a shade which could potentially create its own hazard for cyclists who would need to navigate a corner transferring from light to dark.

43

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION

My proposed technique is the use of structural arcs to form the structure of a curved object. As my project brief has developed and been refined, a new element or component will be explored. This element began as a response to one of the points of feedback from the interim submission, but will end up as a major component in the overall project. This is the mapping of small polygons to the surface of the panels which will result in perforations.

Figure 1 shows the main views from the two access points of the site. These views will need to be taken into account when developing the form so that the rock wall is not blocked out. This will most likely mean that the structure ‘tapers’ down at both ends to allow for this.

As seen below in figure 2 the path that runs through the site curves underneath the rock face. Due to the arc or ‘rib’ technique the overall structure will inevitably curve over the path to some degree. This degree will change over the distance of the structure. If the structure is tapering down at the ends as previously suggested, then the ribs will need to cover the path less so not to obstruct peoples use of the path.

The actual texture and jaggered features that makup this particular rock face (figure 3) offer an interesting element to incorporate into the form of the structure. The rock wall at this particular location was chosen because of its dramatic overhangs and depressions, resulting in an almost sculpted form. I thought that this elaborate pattern could some how be displayed on the structure to reflect the rock face above passers-by.

An image of the existing rock form could be built into the panels using a particular shape. They could then dictate the locations of extrusions so that the structure could emit small sources of light where the intensity would be dictated by the from of the exisiting rock face.

Combining these would mean that as a pedestrian walked around the path bend and underneath the structure it would evolve so that it rises up from the edges and curls over the top of them. The small sources of light would also evolve as they travelled through it as it they increase and decrease in size depending on what part of the rock face they were under.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

44

TECHNIQUE DIAGRAM

MAP OUT SERIES OF POINTS AND THEN INTERPOLATE THREE CURVES THROUGH THEM

COMPONENT 1 - ARCING OR ‘RIBBING COMPONENT

ARRANGE CURVES SO THEY COMPLIMENT THE SHAPE OF AN ARC

DIVIDE RESULTING CURVES INTO NUMBER OF POINTS AND RUN ARCS THROUGH EACH INDIVIDUAL CURVE

OFFSET EACH ARC IN THE POSTITIVE DIRECTION AND THEN AGAIN IN THE NEGATIVE AND LOFT BETWEEN THEM

EXTRUDE EACH RESULTING SURFACE TO A THICKNESS OF 3MM TO CREATE THE SOLID ARC STRUCTURES

COMPONENT 2 - MAPPING OF ROCK FACE

LOFT BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED ARCS TO CREATE SURFACE

DIVIDE CURVED SURFACE INTO A GRID OF POINTS AND USE A CENTROID FOR POLYGONS

INSERT GREYSCALE IMAGE OF ROCK FACE INTO IMAGE SAMPLER

USE IMAGE SAMPLER OUTPUT FOR THE RADIUS OF EACH POLYGON

MULTIPLY THIS EFFECT UNTIL PROPORTIONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR SCALE

CUT RESULTING POLYGONAL SHAPES INTO SURFACE TO CREATE FINAL PERFORATIONS

45

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS DIAGRAM

LEVEL FOUNDATION BETWEEN ROCK FACE AND FOOTPATH IN PREPARATION FOR CONSTRUCTION

MARK OUT POSITIONS OF ‘RIBS’ AND EXCAVATE HOLES FOR THIER INSERTION. EXCAVATION DEPTH INCREASES AS SIZE OF RIB INCREASES

DELIVER PREFABRICATED STEEL RIBS TO SITE. TRANSPORT TRUCK CAN ONLY REACH AS FAR AS OTHER SIDE OF SMALL BRIDGE. RIBS MUST BE MOVED BY HAND OR WHEELED VIA TROLLEY TO SITE.

RIBS WILL BE HOLLOW SO LIGHT ENOUGH TO BE LIFTED INTO HOLES AND THEN CEMENTED INTO PLACE.

PANEL SYSTEM DELIVERED TO SITE AND ‘TROLLIED’ OVER SMALL BRIDGE TO SITE.. LIFTED INTO POSITION AND THEN PROPPED UP BY TIMBER PROPS FOR SUPPORT WHILE CONNECTING.

PANELS WOULD HAVE CONNECTION BRACKETS OR FIXING SYSTEMS WHICH ARE BOLTED/SCREWED INTO PLACE

PANELS ARE TO BE INSTALLED FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS OF HEIGHT CAN BE MADE IN RELATION TO ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

46

C2 - TECTONIC ELEMENTS AND PROTOTYPES

The core construction element that makes up my overall structure is one single ‘rib’ and a series of connection panels that protrude out of or fix onto the rib. The rib is the main load bearing component of the structure as it not only supports its own weight, the weight of the panels, but also the force and load of the rocks and rain that it is designed to resist. Once a panelling system has been chosen, the component would essentially be

repeated across the site. The variation would come into the dimensionality of the rib, including its overall size and length of curve, its founding or footing depth and its orientation on site. This concept has been explored below in a ‘cell study’ which looks at how the component would be altered depending on different site specific factors.

Strength

SIZE

STRE

NG

TH

Similar to previous exploration of ‘ribbing’ from case study 2.0

Decreasing the size of the rib component while maintaining the thickness will result in an increase in strength. Hence, larger ribs may need to be increased in thickness to adequately support its own weight.

47

Footing

The degree of curve or cantalevering that a rib has means more stress is placed on the footing. A vertical pole won’t need as deep a footing, but a high degree of curve will becuase the footing is experiencing more lateral load as the steel member wants to twist.

Strength of overall structure

In terms of the strength of the overall protective shelter, the proximity of structural ribs inflences strength. The closer they are the stronger the structure is because theres more support in a smaller area and it also reduces the span of panels in between

View over Structure

Because ‘view’ is important at the access points, the ribs need to be ajdusted in height so that the typical pedestrian or cyclist can still see the rock face.

48

DETAIL PROTOTYPES

PROTOTYPE 1

These fabricated prototypes were developed in response to varying panel systems that were conceived. It looks at different forms of connections as well as varying shapes and dimensions of the panels themselves in an attempt at dealing with the curve of the structure.

This first attempt utilises the fabrication technique of notching as a model connection. In terms of built construction this could translate into a hole being cut into the rib and a rectangular plate being inserted that could screw to the panel and bolted to the structural member. The right -angled triangles were used in an attempt to achieve a panelled surface that curved with the rib. This prototype achieved this effect the best, as the smaller scale triangles produced the least faceted outcome.

This attempt uses minimal components so is not overly intensive. However, the rectangular plate would need to be screwed to the panel first. This prototype would not be as easily achieved in real construction because it does not allow for panels on either side of the rib.

ASSEMBLY

49

PROTOTYPE 2

This attempt changes from triangular panels to more traditional rectangular panels. It uses a bolt or pin system that is inerted through the centre of the panel and into the spine of the rib member. It could also be used as a joinery system, depending on the final material used, the bolt could instead be a dowel that is inserted through both members and welded together.

Again this system does not require a large number of components, and a benefit is that it could work on site as this component could be repeated and it would produce the structure. The panel sizes in this prototype are large and produce a more faceted, less smooth surface which would reduce the aesthetic of the structure. The rectangular shape would look large and clumsy if erected in full scale.

ASSEMBLY

50

PROTOTYPE 3

I reverted back to the triangular panel for this protoype. The connection system involves a number of recesses that would come prefabricated in the ribs. The panel would then simply slide into the groove. It would then need to be screwed from above and into the spine of the rib. This would create a smooth, uninterrupted and flush finish between the rib and the panel.

This prototype is smoother than the rectangular panel, but more faceted than the first prototype. It produces an interesting finish, almost like a fractal system that is the most interesting in terms of aesthetics. A major flaw however, is that, like prototype 1 the system could not be repeated across the site because the recesses only allow for one set of panels to be fixed.

ASSEMBLY

51

PROTOTYPE 4

This final prototype was the most successful outcome for a number of reasons. It utilises the traingular panel to produce a smooth, unfaceted surface. The construction system involves cutting 3 holes. The two outer holes are bolting points for one panel and the middle hole is a point to bolt the panel on the other side. For this reason, the component to the left could be repeated a number of times and it would produce a structure with no gaps.

There is one problem or challenge. Once the panel has been fixed using the outer bolts, there is no way of bolting the other panel because it would be blocked. If it were to be built a hole may need to be fabricated into the panel to allow a bolt and wrench/ drill to fit.

ASSEMBLY

52

C3 - FINAL DETAIL MODEL

FABRICATION AND MODEL MAKING PROCESS

STRUCTURAL RIBS OR ARCS ARE LASER CUT TO EXACT SIZE OUT OF 3.0MM MDF MATERIAL

SIX OUT OF THE TOTAL ELEVEN PANELS ARE 3D PRINTED TO SIZE

BECAUSE CAN FT TOGETHER EXACLTY, THE RIBS ARE SIMPLY GLUED ON THE EDGES OF THE FIRST PANEL

THAT COMPONENT IS STUCK DOWN AND NEXT PANEL IS GLUED TO THE EXISTING RIB

THAT COMPONENT IS STUCK DOWN AND NEXT PANEL IS GLUED TO THE EXISTING RIB

REMAINING 5 PANELS ARE CARD CUT, PAINTED AND THEN BENT BY HAND

THE CARD CUT PANELS HAVE SMALL TABS TO BE GLUED TO RIBS

53

DIGITAL FABRICATION METHODS USED

LASER CUTTER:

This method was used to cut members that were 2D and repetitive in size and shape. For my model this included the ribs and much of the site model itself, such as the base board, path and wooden bridge.

3D PRINTER - POWDER:

This method was completely new to me as I had never used it for model making in the past. Because i wanted the panels to be single continuous curved surfaces, the powder printer was the most convenient as it could print the small perforations to a high dgree of detail.

CARD CUTTER:

This method was used because their were limitations on time and size for the 3d printers. The cost was also an issue with the 3d printer so the cheaper form of card cutting was used. it did not produce as nice a finish but still helped to communicate the design intention.

54

MERRI CREEK PROTECTIVE SHELTER

These are the panels that I had printed for my final model. They were 3D printed and this a rendered version of how they were nested so that I could fit all seven of them onto the printing bed.

How they were oriented was important as well. The panels were actually meant to be assembled like in the image to the left, but in order to be pprinted effectively I rotated them so they would have a flat base to sit on.

55

MERRI CREEK PROTECTIVE SHELTER

This is a model of how the panels were going to be assembled and how they were transferred from their 3D printing orientation to how they would be in the final model.

56

MERRI CREEK PROTECTIVE SHELTER

I needed to give my structural arcs some size and depth so I first offset them in the negative and positive directionand lofted between them to give them some width. Then I simply extruded them to the distance that they would be laser cut at for

57

MERRI CREEK PROTECTIVE SHELTER

58

C4 - LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

The feedback recieved during the final presentations was that there could have been further exploration into the use of biomimicry which dropped of as a focus during the semester. I somewhat agree with this as it would have been interesting to somehow use a natural structural system as the protective structure. This proved difficult and there were a few options considered, but I found the structure that I was intending to design, too specific and therefore found it hard include a natural system.

The conception for the overall form was clear to the critiques and they could see how the rock wall and its many features influenced the thought process behind it. One interesting piece of advice was that the perforations could be exaggerated in size to create a more dramatic effect. I think this could have produced an interesting aesthetic effect, however from a functional standpoint the larger holes may have reduced the performance of the structure in relation to falling rocks.

They found the prototype connection models extrememly interesting and suggested that a similar panneling system could be included in the design. In particular they like protoype 3 as it produced a slightly faceted effect using triangular panels. I my grasshopper skills permitted I would have attempted something like this as it could increase the complexity of the form to a new level.

One of the critiques was analysing from an urban planning point of view which resulted in some interesting and valid feedback that included how feasible or practical certain aspects would be. One concern was that the shelter may need to incorporate some sort of water inhibiting measure as rain could still wash of the rock face and onto the path, which would create a potential new hazard. The structure might actually cause the water to be trapped on the path.

In terms of the Studio Airs learning objectives, the design project became the necessary component that tied in all the concepts learned in part A and B. It was good to have free reign over what was being designed,instead of being limited to what a particular tutorial video was demonstrating. However this was also slightly daunting, the moment part C began I started to realise where all of the gaps and limitations were with my grasshopper skills. I was able to figure out a certain component from previous exploration, but then I would hit a block and need to find an alternative route.

Reflecting on the semester I can happily say that I have the ability to use and design with grasshopper. Although this ability is extrememly small in the scope of things, this subject seems to be more about demonstrating how parametric modelling can be used and why it’s used. After speaking with many people from the subject the general impression is that people can deal without it. However, I started to think about whether I would be able to design half of what i did with just Rhino.

The main benefit of grasshopper in my opinion is that it allows you to manipulate a number of features of a design or a large number of the same component with a relatively low level of effort. For example the structural ribs in my model could all be offset, extruded etc, all at the same time, but in rhino would need to do them separately.

In terms of my skill at interpreting a brief, I think i have again improved slightly from where I was at the start of the subject. It is a skill that is developed gradually and I believe Studio Air has offered not only a new tool to design with, but a new factor when considering a brief and how one could go about conceiving an idea in relation to different parameters.

59

REFERENCES

AIACC, ‘Parametric Design: A Brief History - AIACC’, 2012 <http://www.aiacc.org/2012/06/25/parametric-design-a-brief-history/> [accessed 17 March 2015]

ARUP, Yas Hotel (2013) <http://www.arup.com/Projects/Yas_Hotel.aspx> [accessed 10 March 2015].

Asymptote architecture, ‘Asymptote Architecture’, 2015 <http://www.asymptote.net/#!yas-slide-show/cau8> [accessed 11 March 2015]

Cilento, Karen, ‘Kaohsiung Port Terminal / Reiser + Umemoto’, ArchDaily, 2010 <http://www.archdaily.com/96053/kaohsiung-port-terminal-reiser-umemoto/> [accessed 18 March 2015]

Dezeen , The Yas Hotel by Asymptote (May 2009) <http://www.dezeen.com/2009/05/14/the-yas-hotel-by-asymptote/> [accessed 10 March 2015].

Goldberger, Paul, ‘Out Of The Blocks - The New Yorker’, The New Yorker, 2008 <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/out-of-the-blocks> [accessed 18 March 2015]

Kalay, Yehuda E, Architecture’s New Media (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5-25

Max Homei, AR-MA Trifolium (2015) <http://www.sherman-scaf.org.au/exhibition/ar-ma-2014/> [accessed 9 March 2015].

Oxman, Rivka, and Robert Oxman, Theories Of The Digital In Architecture (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-10

Redboxmedia.com, redbox, ‘City Hall | Projects | Foster + Partners’, Fosterandpartners.com, 1998 <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/city-hall/> [accessed 18 March 2015]

Sam Spurr, Trifolium (October 2014) <http://www.architectureau.com/> [accessed 9 March 2015].

RMD Kwikiform, Yas Hotel, Innovative Shoring Solutions (2010) <http://www.rmdkwikform.com/projects/yas-hotel-2innovativeshoring/> [accessed 10 March 2015].

The Guardian, ‘Public Building CO2 Footprints Revealed’, 2008 <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2008/oct/02/energyefficiency.carbonemissions?intcmp=239#/?picture=338198107&index=5> [accessed 10 June 2015]