ARCHITECTURE STUDIO AIR

BUILDING WITH DRONESTeddy Cham660341Tutor: Julian Rutten

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTIONPART A. (Conceptualisation)

Design FuturingDesign ComputationComposition & GenerationConclusionLearning Outcomes

PART B. (Technique) Research Field - SectioningResearch Field - NarrativeResearch Field - CausesResearch Field - TraumaCase Study 1.0 - ExplorationsCase Study 1.0 - OutcomesCase Study 2.0Technique DevelopmentPrototypesProposalLearning Outcomes

PART C. (Detailed Design) Refined Site AnalysisBuilding with DronesImplementing DronesFlightpathsSimulation OutcomesPrototypingDesign JustificationModelElevationSectionSite MapDigital ModelSite ReplicationLearning Outcomes

REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

My interest in architecture stems from the simplicity yet elegancy of buildings of the modern era, especially structures that demonstrates complicated parametrics that are only possible with the aid of digital design. In my opinion the ability to integrate tech-nology and digital tools in architecture catalysts it’s efficiency and effectiveness. I dare say skill and knowledge with digital design is compulsary within the field of architecture today.

Coming from a heavily technical childhood with interests in physical model making and hand sketches my attempts of transitioning to digital designing over the past 2 years in University has been an interesting journey. The digital world and reality are hardly com-patible and thus I've had a few difficulties grasping it's skills and knowledge. My novice knowledge and experience with Rhino has lead it to become my go to program for digital modeling.

I used the opportunity during Studio Earth and Landscape Exploration to learn about Rhino and how to produce a product using solely that program. However I feel that I am still extremely lackluckster and inefficient with it. I have great interests in this program, and the study of the Grasshopper plugin deeply intrigues me. I see the plugin as a quali-ty of life upgrade for Rhino, and learning to use it will be extremely useful.

A. CONCEPTUALISATION

DESIGN FUTURINGTHE HSBC BANK HQ This innovation project by Fosters + Partners is built to become a statement of the confidence of banking in Hong Kong1. It expresses the nature of banking in Hong Kong within the built form; Foster made sure the building would be the highest quality both in name and reality for decades. To do this he implemented the "design strategy"; to shortlist contractors and professionals of the and integrate them into his organization.

The building was extremely revolutionary due to it's versitility. The ability for the building to adapt its inter-nal and even external structure or to even move the building entirely meant the building could be changed or moved anytime2. Foster implemented a trussing bridge system in which 5 modules (which are portable) are built upon to create office floors (Figure 23). This meant internal rooms can be changed at any time in accordance to the function required. In addition, as the project was during the handover of Hong Kong back to China from Great Britain, there was tension and unease with the future of the situation. Foster + Partners made sure that the base modules and each flooring system can be detatched and shipped back to Great Brit-ain should anything happen.

Despite being revolutionary and innovative, this method was rarely adopted in architecture. it is simply too costly to create a structural system as rigid and versitile. Only clients such as the HSBC would be able to afford it and is such a cliche in architecture. As design futuring aims more and more to maximise efficiency, costs and time there was little inspiration from the HSBC banking headquarters project. The design practice

1 Foster + Partners, ‘Projects’, 2003 < http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/hongkong-and-shanghai-bank-head-quarters/>2 Futagawa, Yukio. ‘Norman Foster’, (1999).3 Figure 2. HSBC internal

Figure 1

Figure 2

DESIGN FUTURINGNANJING ZENDAI HIMALAYAS CENTRECreated by MAD Architects, this project is expected to be finished by 2017. It is heavily influenced with the chinese ethos of "shansui" which is a way of connecting to nature1, the spiritual harmony between nature and humans. This had some contribution to the field of ideas as it opened the doors to projects using the materials of modern buildings to meet the needs and requirments while trying to unify the it with the natu-ral environment.

Although not entirely revolutionary2, MAD Architects approached designed the commercial towers to look like mountains that surround the natural garden inside. The verticality of the shading fins (Figure 3) create a visually flowing pattern that is meant to portray waterfalls. The ponds and waterfalls inside the complex not only serve to meet the ethos of Shansui, but to recycle rainwater for use within the facility. The village hub (Figure 5) in which people experience and connect to nature (Figure 4) will feel a sense of enclosure and security behing protected by the highrises that are designed to look like part of nature and creates an intimate and emotional experience.

This project is in construction, meaning recognition is not to its fullest yet. When finished in 2017, there is a higher probablility of architects in the ongoing disciplinary field to adopt such approaches due to there being legitimacy.

1 Caula, Rodrigo. “MAD presents nanjing zendai center at venice biennale < http://www.designboom.com/architecture/mad-architects-nanjing-zendai-himalayas-center-venice-biennale-06-05-2014/>2 Architectural Digest. “7 Innovative Architectural Projects”< http://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/innovative-architecture-design-projects#1?>3 Figure 3-4. Nanhing Zendai Himalayas Centre

Figure 3

Figure 4Figure 5

DESIGN COMPUTATIONComputing has become the pinacle of design processes. It has be-come the standard for every architectural project in the modern world. Not only does it make the Architect's job more efficient, it also allows for more complex details. The entire design process is changed with computing. Instead of hand drawing and drafting, CAD programs are used to create plans and sections. Using CAD software allows extreme precision in measurments and takes less time to achieve the same result hand drafting does. It also allows for importing of the CAD file into a 3D modeling software, which can then get 3D printed. This puts a focus on fabrication design and thus a shift of focus into the materials as well as the design. It can be rendered with materials, lighting, weather to produce a virtual tour of the project. Computing allows for complete integration within the complete design process. Creating a project in virtual reality allows clients to actually understand the building and its spaces and relationships. Projects like Zaha Hadid's Tokyo Olympic Stadium (Figure 6) and the Hong Kong Polytech Innovation Tower (Figure 6) were proposed to the clients using computer rendering before approval. Computing allows the product to be placed on the site to understand the relationship with it and how it would affect adjacent areas.

Programs like ArchiCAD and Revvit are made for design processing. Users can alter the floor plan alone and it would result in the sections, elevations and even the 3D model to change in accordance. With the use of Rhino, double curved surfaces can be easily produced, allowing for more conceivable and achievable shapes and opening up for more designs. The Olympic Stadium in Tokyo in particular contains double curved edges and this design was created with the use of computation. The grasshopper plugin allows the creation of parametric designs by writing the rules/algorithmic procedures and allows the development of a new form of design in architecture

However, although computing has greatly changed the design process of architecture it must not be exclusively used. It is also important to sketch as it allows you to understand the spacial relationships without the hindrance of computing tools. For example, exclusive use of ArchiCAD would result in commercialised and standardised build-ings whilst Rhino would create organic surfaces. People like Frank Gehry uses sketches (Figure 8) and physical mod-els to quickly help his clients understand his design whereas a computing process can take days to create.

Figure 6

Figure 8

Figure 7

COMPOSITION & GENERATIONComputerisation in Architecture is seen as a tool of design develop-ment. Architects use it to create neat plans and drafts and also to virtu-ally represent them. However, technology can not only be the tools of our design but they can help generate them, allowing architects to ex-tend their abilities to deal with complex situations. The use of computa-tion provides a framework for negotiating and influencing information to create complex forms that are not random but derived from algo-rithims. An algorithim is a particular set of instructions, and in the medium of computation they must be written in a code. Pro-grams like grasshopper provide these coding functions, propelling Rhino into not only a design tool to express an archi-tect's idea but to generate them using algorithims and a given set of points. This is known as parametric modeling, where distribution points can be described using a finite number of parameters. It is a process based on algorithmic thinking enabling the expression of parameters and rules to create a form obeying them. Computation not only changed the way architects design but also how a project is built and cuases shifts in the dicipline's defition and boundaries.

Fosters + Partners are very well known for their computation in their later projects. The use of algorithims and parametrics gives form to designs that obey commands. The Kan Shatyr Entertainment Centre (Figure 9) is created with a form finding algorithim that quickly generated cable-net structures (Figure 10) around it. The algorithim and parametric model was used to define the building form. The Beijing International Airport (Figure 12) shows how computation is extremely important especially in bigger projects. An algorithim created parametric model of the roof (Figure 11) which consists of over 60,000 beams covering an area of 3.9 million sq feet. The use of computation allowed the entire project to finish within 5 years. A more brilliant example is the roof strcture of the Smithsonian Institution, once again designed by Fosters + Partners. An architect named Brady Peters written an algorithim generate the geometry of the roof.

Computing generation does come with it's costs though. The algorithims, if not written well or flexible enough can become restrictive of the final outcome. It can become the hindrance of the product rather than propel it. Also, many talented designers simply do not have the knowledge of coding; expressing their creative ideas may become hard with computing generation. Computing generation requires an open minded approach as the outcome is up to the parametric modeling to decide so it will be different to what the designer has envisioned. There comes the danger of computation replacing the role of the designer, as only coding backing is required and in the future it might take over an architect/designer's job.

Figure 9

Figure 12

Figure 10

Figure 11

CONCLUSION

Part A has looked into design futuring and the use of computers as a tool for architects to design with.

The aid of computer programs can help improve our efficiency and presentation.

Computing uses digital not as a tool to present ideas but to completely create them.

Algorithmic thinking gives the computer certain commands to follow in order to generate a design.

Computation allows the sharing of codes, tools and ideas.

Allows the architect to stimulate building performance, structural, material and tectonic analysis.

Through computation complex models can be constructed and given performance feedback on immediatley.

Invention of new designs and techniques will cause shifts in our dicipline's definition and boundaries.

Architecture may one day become obselete, being replaced with computation as more algorithims are able to generate more innovative designs.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

I have grown a much greater appreciation of digital design during Part A. Not only is it vital in today's architec-ture field but it is also a big upgrade over traditional methods. Coming from a drawing background I was stub-born and would prefer hand drawing over computer models as I saw it to be supperior. After the study of Part A and the importance of digital design I felt that it is time to drop the pride and fully embrace it.

I have learnt of the difference between computerisation and computation. Computation is a new concept to me, using algorithims and parametric modeling to entirely generate a design has fascinated me. Previously I thought designs had to be generated by the designer. Learning about the Grasshopper plugin has opened me up to new opportunities for design although I am having difficulties understanding the coding aspect of it.

I would have liked to apply the knowledge I've gained in part A and apply it to my Architecture Studio Water project. Being a hand made model, it was not as aesthetically pleasing. The design was hindered greatly by the limitations of hand modeling, and i felt that if I had used Rhino or Grasshopper as a tool it would vastly improve. My design uses web beam structures to create a glass dome, and I wished I had used Grasshopper algorithims to determine the form of it instead of doing it randomly by hand.

PART BTechnique

B1 - RESEARCH FIELD: SECTIONING

The chosen research field will look into sectioning and in particular the con-cept of contouring in parametric design. Sectioning is a process of taking cuts through a 3 dimensional object and breaking it down into smaller components whilst generating the same form. It is efficient particularily in grasshopper as all necessary data for geometry, boundaries and points are most likely prede-termined. A series of profiles are created from sectioning a geometry and this can produce both surface and structure.

One form that will be focused into is contouring. Sectioning allows flat surfac-es to be built up into contours (e.g. Maya Lin’s works heavily focuses on this concept). Contouring allows more flexible parameters when used in grasshop-per and this allows for the freedom of exploration. As inspired by Maya Lin, I would like to deeply relate to the contour of the site and use existing reference points as starting points of the design.

One Main - dECOi architects

The project’s design proposes the miling of all interior from sustainable plywood through digitalisation and machinery. It is split into the floor and ceiling and the use of paneling systems allows the creation of a continuous curvature surface for the function of the room (such as services, chairs, tables etc.).

It takes advantage of the CAD-CAM environment to create defined spatial and detail defini-tions. The architects programmed an automated algorithim to generate the miling patterns, which is produced with Computer Aided Manufacturing. Effectively, this thorough process gives limitless design patterns and low percentages of error.

The use of CAM manufacture creates seamless fabrications that is used to replace actual industrial components to reduce carbon footprint. This allows the architect to fully custom-ise the interior rather than to use pre-existing components (e.g. tables, chairs etc.). dECOi provided the fabricators with the actual 3D instructional files to cut the sustainable ply as their automated algorithim has generated their desired outcome. Not only does give low tolerances of error but it also reduces wastage significantly.

This project boasts many opportunities. The sectioning system allows the integration of CAD to CAM to create curvature surfaces that are pinpoint accurate to the modeled design with automated algorithims that are actually derived from the CAD design.

B1 - RESEARCH FIELD: SECTIONING

Background

B1 - RESEARCH FIELD: Narrative

On the way along the Merri Creek Trail it was extremely apparant to me the jarring contrast from the natural environment to the urbanised residentials which sticks out right behind the scenery. This discomfort will be the driving force for this project as I aim to create a bizzare installation on the location where everyone goes to escape their busy lives and enjoy the peace of na-ture.

The chapter “Nature In The City” in the book “The Green City” argues that due to human impacts on the environment particularily in urbanisation we have aliented the nature environment from ourselves. As a result, people are more likely to accept and understand nature when it is conformed in their cultural expectaction. That is, in the form of parks, trails, reserves etc.

The authors Nicholas Low, Brendan Gleeson, Ray Green and Darko Radovic summarizes such as a fake system created to please our guilt, as these parks are usually created to convey an impression that nature is being cared for.

Due to my familiarity with this book, my immediate thought when on the site was that on the argument stated above. Furthermore, this created deep conflict emotionally as I struggled to enjoy the trail.

Aim

My aim is to mirror such feelings of discomfort. Not nessesarily to portray how urbanisation has destroyed the natural, but to create discomfort to by-passers in the site. The objective is to amplify the confusion and discomfort experienced, and by hoping to achieve such effects.

A study into the affect and effect of architecture

B1 - RESEARCH FIELD: Causes

The differences between AFFECT and EFFECT must be deter-mined in order to move forward. Since my aim is to create an EFFECT (an emotional level of discomfort), the affecting agents of design has to be fully recognised.

In architecture, the causes of an effect comes from its form, materials, patterning and usually from the physical out-comes.

Causes of emotional discomfort

Personal phobiasChildhood TraumaOCD or related disorders

The emotional effects focused can be seen as traumatising. By causing trauma it is easily relatable to one on a personal level and can invoke a much more effective emotional re-sponse.

B1 - RESEARCH FIELD: Traumas

A look into different forms of visual phobias to determine the best suitable with the integration of sectioning

Trypophobia - fear of tiny holesAcrophobia - fear of heights

Hemophobia - fear of blood Blennophobia - fear of slime

Gore/Flesh/Decay

These phobias are selected due to their visually reliant nature. Each can be engineered through use of materials, style etc which is perfect for architec-ture.

One particuarly style of trauam selected was the aggressive gore and decay of flesh typically in hemophobia. The decay and ripping of flesh will be the theme of the following sectioning explorations and will be used as a guid-ing criteria for the level of discomfort. The characteristics of decay through form can be used to analyse how effective the designs are. Materiality will also be experimented with later.

The imagery of gore in flesh is an extremely controversal topic and many believe long term exposure to such will result in desentisization, which is why they are usually censored. Research has it that gore and violence arouses strong emotions in nearly everyone due to the human nature and how much of a taboo it is.

Criteria selection:- Asymmetrical - Layering of outcomes - Decay/broken - Gradual Decay/Peel away

B2 - CASE STUDY 1.0

B2 - CASE STUDY 1.0: Explorations

SPECIES 1

SPECIES 2

SPECIES 3

B2 - CASE STUDY 1.0: Explorations

SPECIES 4

SPECIES 5

B2 - CASE STUDY 1.0: Outcomes

SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES

The first time this species has lost it’s symmetry. By doing so it makes the form less comforting with shearing and bendhing

This form follows the asymmetry further and starts to create a peeling/gradiential effect.

The outcomes from species 4 are particularily effec-tive in conveying decay by peeling away curves gradu-ally. The forms give the outcome an organic vibe that can be used to assist in the expression of decay.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Based on successful outcomes the selection criteria can be improved upon from the research on Trauma affects.

Criteria selection:- Asymmetrical - Layering of outcomes - Decay/broken - Gradual - Emphasis on curves- Volumetric along the x,y and z axis- Organic aesthetics as to give the sense of flesh tearing

DESIGN POTENTIAL

It can be speculated that upcoming designs will implement more form ma-nipulation and break away from equally spaced sectional planes. It will also be interesting to implement straight rigid linework instead of the curvature forms to create a more chaotic effect.

Moving away from planar surfaces and implementing linework structures is a good start towards the final outcome to consider the implications of drone building.

B3 - CASE STUDY 2.0“One Main - dECOi Architects”

One Main - dECOi architects

The project’s design proposes the miling of all interior from sustainable plywood through digitalisation and machinery. It is split into the floor and ceiling and the use of paneling systems allows the creation of a continuous curvature surface for the function of the room (such as services, chairs, tables etc.).

It takes advantage of the CAD-CAM environment to create defined spatial and detail defini-tions. The architects programmed an automated algorithim to generate the miling patterns, which is produced with Computer Aided Manufacturing. Effectively, this thorough process gives limitless design patterns and low percentages of error.

(extract taken from B1)

B3 - CASE STUDY 2.0

Reverse Engineering

Flat planar surface is cre-ated and identified

Grid of points generated on the surface along U and V directions. Sliding parameter to control number of points

Move points along vector point. Vector determined through image sampling and parameters control distance

Generate NURB from points

A bounding box is determined to create boundary. Corners of the box are identified and line drawn across. Equally spaced perpendic-ular frames generated along the NURB.

The perpendicular frames are used to section the NURB

The resulting curves are lofted toa top plane to create extrusions due to the perpendicular frame boundary.

Dead Ends/Failed outcomes

The grid points will not generate to the sam-pled image if no vector movement command is added and linked to the component

Using delaunay edge component to link the grid lines will not pro-duce the desired out-come

Identifying the wrong corners for the bound-ing box will create the wrong perpendicular frames

Setting the vector to the wrong direction will in-vert the shape, although easily rotateable may cause further errors within the algorithim

B4 - TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

B4 - TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 1

SPECIES 2

SPECIES 3

B4 - TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 4

B4 - TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

SPECIES 5

B4 - TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES

Breaking from strictly being planes, the use of populate 3d and delaunay edge generates rough straight rigid lines. Due to the nature of the original geometry, the lines overlap within one another to create many different layers. This outcome is a good example of layering with line structure.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Based on successful outcomes the selection criteria can be improved upon from the first set of explorations.

Criteria selection:- Asymmetrical - Layering of outcomes - Decay/broken - Gradual - Emphasis on curves- Volumetric along the x,y and z axis- Organic aesthetics as to give the sense of flesh tearing- Balance of sectional planes and linework (e.g wires)- Sense of distortion (all over the place, no boundaries set for the form)- If possible, the size of the design should be as large as possible a

DESIGN POTENTIAL

The design must now incorporate drones within it, as a construction pro-cess or simply as a helping hand. The exploration of line forms that is derived from sectioning and countouring is vital and gives the design the compatability to be built with drones.

Manipulating the layered line images to create more shearing/bending. This outcome reduces the symmetry feel given with use of straight lines. Converting back to curves gives the form a more natural feel that is more suited towards the con-cept of organic decay.

Going back forms with sectioned planes will bring it back towards the imagery of tearing flesh. Therefore a right balance of planar surfaces and linework must be used.

The asymmetry and gradually increas-ing planes that have been wildly rotated distorts the object while giving it a peel effect.

B5 - TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

B5 - TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

EXPERIMENTING WITH WIRE STRUCTURE

To further implement this project to building with drones, the structural properties of wire will first be explored. This is due to its flexibility that allows the drone to weave (if possible) around. It has already been proven in case study 2.0 explorations that the sectional planes can be integrated into line form.

The tensile properties of steel or structural wire allows the form to stand on its own.

Criteria selection:- Asymmetrical - Layering of outcomes - Decay/broken - Gradual - Emphasis on curves- Volumetric along the x,y and z axis- Organic aesthetics as to give the sense of flesh tearing- Balance of sectional planes and linework (e.g wires)- Sense of distortion (all over the place, no boundaries set for the form)- If possible, the size of the design should be as large as possible a

B6 - TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

B6 - TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

CHOSING THE SITEThe confusion we felt on our 2nd visit to the site determined the location. Marked on the map, it was where we got lost and started think about the driving force of our design.

PROPOSED THEMEOur proposed theme at that time was simply comflict. That is anything hypocritical, be it irony, contrast etc. Due to the vast scope of this theme, we used conflicting materials to impose this overall idea.

MATERIALITY

As explored in B5 and in the explorations in Case Study 2.0, a tensile structure will be used to con-vey what has been learnt in the research field of sectioning. Another great use of tensile materials such as steel and iron is that it’s surface rusts, amplifying the overall driving force of decay and uncomfort.

My patner’s research field of tesselation came to the conclusion that the use of timber is suit-able for his part. To add to that, the overall contrast in materiality between the natural conveying timber and industrial steel will give the prototype an overall sense of irony. The precision of steel framing can be contrasted to the crudeness of timber works.

EFFECTWe aspire to create the sense of conflict with the users of the site be it bypassers or excercisers. Our overall idea was to convey that the false sense of security (as concluded in the book “Green City”) they have given themselves through these natural reserves need to be realised.

Studio AirMerri Creek Site Plan

Ariel render of proposed prototype

Location of proposed sight

Studio AirMerri Creek Site Plan

B6 - TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

Timber tesselation housing trees and plants on top

Steel sectioning framework

Looking back, this prototype is disasterous. Due to our tunnel vision into combining both our research fields we did not stick to our criteria selec-tion that we have come up with during our exploration. If we were to present this theme of conflict, the entire form needs to really convey and convince it as right now it feels too harmonious despite the contrast in materials. Overall it was extremely difficult implementing both our research fields into a singular design.

B7 - LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

Part B has been significant in my development of understanding computing design and its role in architecture. It is especially helpful that the explorations made within my cho-sen field of sectioning has really taught me alot on the relationships between planes, curves and lines within any geometry. Because of this, I am able to generate points through objects and extrapolate them into another function to produce outcomes that has nothing to do with what I started with. I think this has helped me in understanding the uses of grasshopper and has already been helpful during my other studios this semester.

Because of the commitment of my tutor who offered external drop in sessions I was able to set a clear sight ahead of this course. It just seemed like too much work, but the drop in sessions has given me step by step guidance on moving forward with the semester.

Overall, part B has really opened up my views on computing design (even moreso than part A) because I had direct involvement and first hand experience with more grasshopper explorations. Despite not knowing what I was doing half the time, the explorations has built a basic foundation of grasshopper knowledge for me. By reverse engineering provid-ed precedents I understood further how grasshopper components can be integrated.

PART C

DETAILED DESIGN

C1.1 - REFINED SITE ANALYSIS

The site location is chosen at the open area right behind the CERES community environment park. It is the most open path along the trail, which is something ideal for us to implement our design into.

The site is right behind the community environment park, something we feel that is highly relevant to our theme of conflict and our initial concepts of nature and irony.

The main circulation of the site follows along the path in the trail. However, some are found to have taken short-cuts along the grassy plains in order to cross to another area or to simply move to the trail faster. As such the entire area should be implemented for the design as the useage of both the trail and the grassy plains are evident in the site analysis.

Focusing on the use of drones, the trees and natural habi-tats must be taken into account as to not create collision. The site was chosen for its open areas as to avoid such, with little to no trees evident in the area. The marker system does thus does not have to take the trees into account during the simulation.

CIRCULATION

OPEN AREAS

C1.2 - BUILDING WITH DRONES

Using drones to build we hope to create a new construction technique, particularily for cable beam and tensile struc-tures. The use of drones in construction gives certain advantages, as it can be used to access restricted areas or con-struct without the use of scaffolding. In grasshopper, drone simulations can be easily done to efficiently test flight paths and quickly test configurations that would otherwise waste time to test. Typically a drone operates for a maximum of 30 minutes before requiring to be recharged, something that must be taken into consideration for the design.

The focus on drone building shifted the studio project into a tensile thread focused desigh so that grasshopper can be used to simulate drone weaving patterns. In turn this changed the focus of the studio into virtual simulations, something that grasshopper can be taken advantage of due to its endless algorithmic exploration possibilities.

Drones, being unmanned ariel vehicles (UAV) operate using a multitude of sensors in order to gain information on its surroundings. These sensors can create marker points for the drone to identify and with algorithmic manipulation these marker points can be used to issue responsive commands. The marker points can also be pre-determined and identified through grasshopper.

Monocular visual odometry is a type of technique for the drone to analyse its location through the use of cameras that plants generic marker points onto its targets. For example, a flat wall will have markers placed all across on depend-ing on the intensity of the marker points and the drone will analyse its location based on its relation to these marker points.

The image on the left shows a monocular visual odometry system in place, where intense markerpoints are planted on the surrounding locations the drone detects. The use of monocular visual odometry allows the drones to “react” to these marker points, giving them individuality. Thus, the outcome of the drone paths using this system will be unpredictable and reactive, giving the outcome no restriction. The use of this system allows the drone to be more “natural”.

The other system drones operate on are via pre-determined points. Marker points of specific. Marker points are identified within grasshopper and the drone operates within a pre-determined flight path across the marker points. This sys-tem makes the drone unreactive, but it allows for rigorous virtual simulations to create the perfect flight path through trial and error simulations.

MONOCULAR VISUAL ODOMETRY

PRE-DETERMINED POINTS SYSTEM

C1.3 - IMPLEMENTING DRONES

To fully ultilise virtual simulations, the predetermined marker points sysem will be chosen for our project. This allows us to fully test out the flight path through the simulations to perfect the route and to test out possible outcomes and failures. As our design uses a mixture of drone building and tensile frame structures that are derived from existing contours (from explorations with contour and sectioning), this was the more appropriate drone system. Sketches of how this drone building system affects our design helps us visualise construction sequences for the outcome.

The monocular visual odometry can be replicated with the use of vector fields in grass-hopper and the system of a reactive flight path can be created. By creating positive and negative charges at points, these can repel or attract the drone based on the vector strength in order to create a reactive flight path.

Due to the complexity of the proposed design in order to generate the themes of discom-fort, using vector fields to virtuall simulate a flight path might take a significant amount of time and would not be veasable for the project.

However, the use of vector fields are vital in algorithmic programming particularily in advanced scripting. Rather they are excluded purely for the fitting into the design intent of our project.

In grasshopper, the marker act as the anchor points for the flightpath of the drone, where the weaved rope will anchor onto that point to stim-ulate restriction in the movement to generate a realistic outcome

Pre-determined points system are simulated in grasshopper using a drone and rope simulation. Anchor points are created for the ropes to attach onto. the flightpath and the rope are tested in order to determine optimal values.

C1.4 DRONE SIMULATION - Flightpaths

INDEX

Supporting Frame

Flight Path

Rope Outcome

From the algorithmic explorations the supporting frame is created using existing site contours. Points are spread across each contour and connected to create a frame.

SPECIES 1

SPECIES 2

1.1 - Flight path is directly on top of anchor points, resulting in no weaving at all

1.2 - Flight path offset directly on top of anchorpoints

1.3 - Anchor points are offsetted along the marked points to create a different weaving pattern

1.4 - Flightpath adjusted at a slower speed

1.5 - Anchor points value are de-creased to a point where the simu-lation did not notice its values

2.1 - Anchor spacing of 0.3m 2.2 - Flight path offset on the Y axis of the anchor points

2.3 - Slightly reduced speed of 0.2m/s for flight path

2.4 - An even slower speed of 0.1m/s for flightpath

FORM FINDING OF THE STRUCTURAL FORM

SPECIES 3

SPECIES 4

C1.4 DRONE SIMULATION - Flightpaths

3.1 - Flight path on top of anchor-points

3.2 - Increased number of anchor-points. Error in algorithim casues flightpath to not change as the an-chor point data was not sorted into the same tree

3.3 - CRITIAL ERROR: Too much speed in the simulation casues the drone to fly out of orbit

3.4- Increased number of anchor-points. Error in algorithim casues flightpath to not change as the an-chor point data was not sorted into

3.5 - Anchor points at 8m. Resulted in the rope not weaving at all and flight path going crazy along two curves

4.1 - Flightpath 3m offset from anchorpoints along the Z axis. Causes weaving to interfere within anchorpoints and “tangling” of the simulation

4.2 - Flightpath offset under the anchorpoints resulting in a smaller weaving pattern that does not use the entire frame

4.3 - Speed increased to 1m/s. Took 50 mins real time to complete. This is not practical for the real drone building process and the struc-ture must be simplified to shorten construc-tion time

4.4 - Anchorpoints greatly reduced, however the rope weaved into the anchorpoints under-neathed through the gravity of the simulation reducing the size.

C1.5 SIMULATION OUTCOMES

The tensile frame structure that the drone weaves about is derived from algorithmic explorations of the contours of Merri Creek. Here, a section of the contour is used to create pipes with interconnections. As discovered within the simulation, the complexity of the structure is too much and does not the drone enough space to weave around. As shown in explorations of species 4, most of the flight path was contained within the inner structure of the tensile structure.

The bottom of the tensile structure can be penetrated into the ground to secure it. Bolted cleat plates may be required to keep these in place as they are heavy steel structures.

The gaps within the structure must be sufficient enough for the drone to pass through. As a typical drone being used here is 2 by 2 meters, giving a room of 3 by 3 is practical for the design.

From the simulations, the anchorpoints should have a clearance of around 0.3m as to produce realistic results and so the rope weaving does not get intercepted within another anchor point. These anchor points will be ex-plored later on to determine the best outcome aesthetically and function-ally.

The flight path, as per the simulation goes out of orbit when going above 2m/s and does not follow through the anchor points. Thus, the real drone must not go faster than this to stay accuratley within the anchor points until the rope is tied to it.

The intensity of the weaving pattern should be increased dramatically if the effect of discomfort and caustrophobia is to be achieved. The simulations shows that the tensile steel structure proved too complfex and thus a simplified structure will allow a more intense degree of weaving, something that is important to achieve the desired out-come aesthetically.

The simulations in species 3 proved to be a failure due to errors in the grasshopper algorithim that can be easily fixed. Species 4 proved the need to simplify down the tensile structure so that the weaving can be intensified to emphasise the idea of discom-fort. These simulation results can be used to help create the final design.

C1.5 SIMULATION OUTCOMES

C2. - PROTOTYPING

The prototype is an indicative model of the tensile frames structure, simplified as from the results of the simulation. The weaving was replicated with thick sisal ropes which unfortunatley was not to scale and threw the prototype off guard. This prototype was experimental as the site was changed next to the river creek, something that would be reverted as the distance between the trail and the creek is almost 30m.

Without replicated anchor points it was hard to replicate the weaving of the sisal with the drones. This prototype has shown the sense of scale of our project and to show how the users interact with it. With this, the anchor system must be explored in order to determine how the drone weaves the ropes and attaches them to the tensile structure.

C2.1 - DESIGN JUSTIFICATION

The main contour lines along the Merri Creek will be used as the starting inspiration for the non-drone related tensile steel structure. The chosen area is directly related to the site and the main contour lines enclose and sur-round the site, giving the form a sense of reflection of the site.

Explorations in Part B has shown how contour lines can be lofted into a surface which can be divided equally and projected in order to manipulate the contour lines along the vertical axis to create a 3D form.

Implenting this into creating a tensile structure gives the drone pre-determined points and anchors for the weav-ing to proceed.

Contour lines created and elevated

Surface is lofted

Extrusion along lines equally divided along the surface

Piping of outcomes

IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTOUR

C2.2 - DESIGN JUSTIFICATION

Due to the uncertainty of the drones’ exact location the fabrication of the rope sim-ulation must take into consideration how the ropes are anchored onto the structure. Anchors requiring looping is significantly difficult as Drone GPS have an accuracy of 2 meters. Monocular visual odometry may help, but due to the density of the prefabricat-ed structure it makes the drone’s detection unreliable. To combat this as discovered in the simulations the tensile frame structure will be simplified to allow the drones to go through them without troubles.

The Drone’s massive size must take into account as it can’t go through some parts of the structures. Intial testings shows that a top knot anchoring system is most suitable for the simulation. However, this proved to be detrimental in the aesthetics of the outcome.

The extruded edges along the frame can be a viable outcome for the anchoring system of the rope weaving if considerations of reducing the complexity of the frame is taken into account.

ANCHOR POINTS SIMULATION

C2.3 - DESIGN JUSTIFICATION

A detailed exploration of the anchor joints required for the design structure. Simplifying the steel structure allows the drones to fly underneath it, allowing simple hoops to he created along anchor points. Due to aesthetical reasons, a simple offset of the steel structure will be implemented onto the anchor points to reduce the breaking up of the steel structure to reduce the sheer dominance of the tensile steel structure.

To keep the structure stable and rigid a base beam and external beam system will be implemented. The base beam will span all the way through the entire two points of the structure, with the external beam having an offset during each anchor point. This ensures stability of the base structure whilst giving a seamless anchor system for the project.

Base rod extends all the way to end points

Offset beam sections to act as anchor stablitiy for the system

ANCHOR POINT SYSTEM

As per the simulations, the anchor points here should be a between 0.3 to 0.5 meters to account for the drone’s inaccuracy.

The complexity of the tensile steel structure meant that the structure should be pre-fabricated offsite due to the needs to access a factory and transported onto the site, where the drones will get to work.

However a change to precious design intent was the requirement to galvonise the steel as it is important the struc-ture stands and does not collaspe. Previous design intent of rust does not allow this function.

C3. - MODEL

C3.1 - ELEVATION

C3.2 -SECTION

C3.3 - SITE MAP

C3.4 - DIGITAL MODEL

Offset ridge in the tensile beams to create anchor points for the rope weaving at every anchor point of the structure.

2m gap between each anchor point to allow room for drone to weave through.

Pre-fabricated steel tensile structure derived from manipulation of site contour around the river creek.

C3.5 - SITE REPLICATIONThe surrounding trees, contours and the cycling/pedestrian trail is modeled in order to show the exact relationships with the design. Rather than a digital montage, the site is replicated to show real value relationships with the environments in order to convey the design better. The Merri Creek river was insignificant to the site model as it is 60 meters away from the trail and has thus not been included.

C3.5 - SITE REPLICATION

C3.6 - LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

Part C puts heavy focus on virtual simulations as our studio is focused on drone building. Although strange at first as I was eager to build physical models with digital fabrication, becoming familiar with virtual simulations has shown me the importance this is particularily in drone building. Virtual simulations allowed easy and fast replications of near real time events within grasshopper itself, allowing efficient trial and error to be used to determine optimal flight paths. These has taught me the importance of simulations in the real world and that it is equally as important as to physical simulations.

Explorations within copter and rope sims gave me insight on how works in this dicipline are carried out as I was always curious on the inner workings of a drone program since the introduction to the studio. Using virtual simulations has given me a method of implementing drone weaving into the overall theme of my design, something which was ex-tremely challenging during Part B.

However, a downside to simulations are the uncertainty of the tests and how unrealistic it can become if the correct boundaries are not set. Kangaroo physics in grasshopper can be misleading for the simulation if the gravity values are incorrectly set. By the nature of coding, sometimes simulations refuse to even work which was extremely fustrating.

Overall part C has given me valuable insight and experience with copter simulations which I had no experience with. Although difficult to grasp, it was thoroughly enjoyable when the simulations worked to somewhat desired effects.

REFERENCESArchitectural Digest. “7 Innovative Architectural Projects”< http://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/innovative-architecture-design-projects#1?>

Bruder, Margaret Ervin (1998). “Aestheticizing Violence, or How To Do Things with Style”. Film Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington IN. Archived from the original on 2004-09-08

Caula, Rodrigo. “MAD presents nanjing zendai center at venice biennale < http://www.designboom.com/architecture/mad-architects-nanjing-zendai-himalayas-center-venice-biennale-06-05-2014/>

Foster + Partners, ‘Projects’, 2003 < http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/hongkong-and-shanghai-bank-headquarters/>

Futagawa, Yukio. ‘Norman Foster’, (1999).

Low, N., Gleeson, B., Green, R. & Radovic, D. (2005). THE GREEN CITY: SUSTAINABLE HOMES, SUSTAINABLE SUBURBS (pp.73-97), Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press

Power, E.R. (2005) Human-nature relations in suburban gardens, Australian Geographer, 36(1), pp.39-53.