Studio Air Final

A I Ra n d r e w m a r a s a _ s e m e s t e r 2 , 2 0 1 4 _ t u t o r i a l 2

[ f I g . 1 ]

C O N T E N T S

[ A R C h I T E C T u R E D E S I g N S T u D I O A I R ]

P A R T A

P E R S O N A l I N T R O D u C T I O N 1

D E S I g N f u T u R I N g 3 -6

D E S I g N C O m P u T A T I O N 7 - 14

C O m P O S I T I O N / g E N E R A T I O N 1 5 -20

l E A R N I N g O u T C O m E S 2 1

A l g O R I T h m I C S k E T C h E S 23

C O N C l u S I O N S 26

B I B l I O g R A P h y - P A R T A 28

P A R T B

R E S E A R C h f I E l D 32

C A S E S T u D y 1 38

C A S E S T u D y 2 44

T E C h N I q u E D E v E l O P m E N T 54

T E C h N I q u E P R O P O S A l 60

l E A R N I N g O u T C O m E S 62

A l g O R I T m I C S k E T C h E S 64

B I B l I O g R A P h y - P A R T B 68

P A R T C

P A R T B f E E D B A C k R E S P O N S E 72

C O N C E P T D I S C u S S I O N 74

I m A g E S A m P l I N g 76

T E C h N I q u E D I A g R A m 78

T E C h N I q u E T O C O N T R u C T I O N D I A g R A m 80

T E C h N I q u E P R O P O S A l 82

P R E S E N T A T I O N m O D E l j O I N T I N g & S T R u C T u R E 84

P R E S E N T A T I O N m O D E l D I S C u S S I O N 86

P R E S E N T A T I O N m O D E l P h O T O g R A P h S 88 E x h I B I T I O N m O D E l D I S C u S S I O N 92 E x h I B I T I O N m O D E l P h O T O g R A P h S 94

l E A R N I N g O u T C O m E S 102

T h A N k S 106

A N D R E w m A R A S A

[ P E R S O N A l I N T R O D u C T I O N ]

After four years of dabbling in design, my skill sets and interests have evolved and changed to an extent that has forced me to question and even alter my perspective on the entirety of what design and architecture is. Architecture as a discourse has become such a large idea that unpacking that discourse and creating congruency between it and my work is a perpetual challenge.

From when I started studying design formally in 2011, it always began with the brief and finished with my answer to the brief. In addition to that I only answered that brief slowly over a 6-month period with as much attention paid to working out how to leave class early as to my actual work.

Much has changed. I no longer see design as just a response to a brief. Architecture and design now strike me as a discourse so broad as to offer

it only this name feels restrictive. A comprehensive immeasurable constant conversation perhaps encapsulates my feelings towards design today.

Im still interested in architecture and design it for this very reason. I dont take on easy challenges and architecture and design offers an everevolving trial to me. Studio Air presents a new chapter in this perpetually problematic academic and creative experiment.

Some of my previous work details a strong reliance to the material world, in model making, and sketches. A process of computerisation has been my design discipline for my university career. Studio Air asks for a shift in process, it asks for detachment of habit and proficiency in the application of a totally new design formula.

[ 1 ]

D E S I g N f u T u R I N gP R E C E D E N T [ A u S T R I A P A v I l I O N , S h A N g h A I C h I N A ]

Ten million tessellated tiles, transitioning from white to red - dress the entirety of the Austrian Pavilion at the 2010 Shanghai Expo. A built project, its significance in the field of ideas in relation to digital design is the success of both the projects external and internal forms, as well as its intricate and extensive cladding. The expo is traditionally the realm of experimentation and avant-garde forms of architectural expression, and this pavilion offers no exception to this trend. The firm SPAN Architecture and Design formulated an approach based on contemporary issues and natural forms, with an animated fluid movement.

To produce this dynamic curvilinear iconography with a sensual spatial presence, SPAN utilised TopMod software to formulate a series of desired typologies. Computer technology helped realise these forms through an algorithm and parametric approach. Devising the correct typology was the first step; the alternatives produced were applied to a range of criteria, including

access, structural and aesthetic possibilities. These in turn informed a series of further alterations informed by algorithms, leading to the final product.

The design of the pavilion, which includes a restaurant as well as exhibition spaces boasts a fluid continuity of space and form. Arguably evocative but hardly revolutionary, the designs fruition to a built form is most likely owed to its intended location, an expo environment in strongly architecturally and economically experimentational and developing China.

The intensity of the worlds attention on this national pavilion drove higher levels of creativity almost commanding the flexibility and dynamism that parametric design offers. The process of applying algorithmic thinking to addressing site, access, structural and even aesthetic issues seems to have been successful in this case with a strongly flexible and energetic design.

[ f I g . 2 ]

[ 3 ]

[ 4 ]

[ f I g . 3 ]

[ f I g . 4 ]

[ f I g . 5 ]

[ 5 ]

D E S I g N f u T u R I N gP R E C E D E N T [ A v I v A S T A D I u m , D u B l I N , I R E l A N D ]

The Aviva stadium in Dublin, designed by Populous, completed in 2010 was a revolutionary project. The streamlining and transition between bespoke and inert 3D models to fully parametric allowed the architects to push further their vision for architectural form and opportunity without having to compromise with budget and time constraints.

Delivering coordinated information between the architecture firm Populous and the engineering firm Buro Happold resulted in a less erroneous construction process (Wassim, 2013). The parametric modelling tools utilised opened the possibility of intricate geometric components and composition, only feasible in the budgetary and time environment allocated with the technical workflow that only such advanced tools can offer.

Static computer modelling was used to find a form with a parametric approach applied

to develop the outer skin. The parametric component of the design process is largely responsible for maximised efficiency of the whole stadium.

Even the precise configuration of each of the buildings complex mullions and brackets can be mapped, manipulated and followed through 3D modelling. Maintaining a thorough handle on all components of the project, parametric modelling avoided timely drawing and redrawing to constantly changing specifications.

What projects such as this really contribute to architectural discourse is a formula for technical work patterns that both streamline and make more efficient the construction of a building from its design conception to the building assemblage. The flowing geometry and dense glazed faade is what can truly be appreciated from this application of parametric design.

[ 6 ]

[ f I g . 5 ]

[ f I g . 6 ]

D E S I g N C O m P u T A T I O NP R E C E D E N T [ g E N E T I C S T A I R , u P P E R w E S T S I D E , N E w y O R k , u S A ]

[ f I g . 7 ] [ f I g . 8 ]

Caliper Studio describes its Genetic Stair as the culmination of a fully integrated generative design process which exploits advanced digital design techniques from the earliest conceptual stages, through performative analysis and onwards to fabrication. (Caliper Studio, 2009)

It was designed as the centrepiece of a renovated apartment and art gallery in New York. With strict specifications, the stairs were to only be supported at the top and bottom and turn three times climbing almost five meters.

These design details were agreed to earlier, almost forcing the application of

computing as the design process. This form of discourse re-defines design process, with the integration of fabricators and designers in this case exemplifying the impact that the application of computing can have on a project. Computing through the design process eliminates the barriers that often exist between the designer and fabricators. It allows a congruency in the discourse of both facets of the design process.

A genetic algorithm was used in this project to determine the position, thickness and hollowness of members that supported the stairs, with several iterations produced; the algorithm bred the strongest combination. Through the entirety of this process,

[ 7 ]

D E S I g N C O m P u T A T I O NP R E C E D E N T [ g E N E T I C S T A I R , u P P E R w E S T S I D E , N E w y O R k , u S A ]

[ 8 ]

[ f I g . 8 ] [ f I g . 9 ] [ f I g . 1 0 ]

fabricators were involved to assess and understand how to engineer the suggested form.

A balance between exuberance and rationality was eventually achieved. Catching you off-guard, such a project doesnt strike as the obvious example of parametric design as projects such as the Austria Pavilion and The Beast. This project details the possibilities presented by computing to produce the most efficient and appealing designs. Efficiency in terms of iteration, composition, structural arrangement and fabrication. Appeal derives from the design intent, as well as the strong honestly that such a design process generates.

The arrangement of steel and the raw nature of the material, design and general thought that is applied to this project adds to it appeal. This all owed of course to the computational approach applied. Without this approach, it would take many more man-hours, and could result in more man-made errors in correcting and adjusting the steel members to optimum efficiency making allowances for fabrication and engineering. A task almost impossible for any architect to achieve alone without a computational approach.

D E S I g N C O m P u T E R I S A T I O N

P R E C E D E N T [ g u A N g z h O u O P E R A h O u S E , g u A N g z h O u , C h I N A ]

[ f I g . 1 2 ]

[ f I g . 1 5 ]

Computerisation is the process of applying 3D modelling software to a preconceived design ideation for the purposes of either revealing, realising or developing the form. It differs from computation a great deal, with computation more exclusively associating the ideation, development, production and fabrication of a design from computer generative processes.

These two precedents presented here are both designed by famed architecture firm, Zaha Hadid. They both highlight a computerisation approach to architectural design, with these two designs being predetermined in some form before being applied to 3D modelling software. The achievement of such architecture is proven in practise by its prominence in the profession. However it ignores the possibilities offered by computation, the impact of which may carry these designs forward and offer more with less cost and time used....

[ 9 ]

P R E C E D E N T [ k I N g A B D u l l A h f I N A N C I A l D I S T R I C T m E T R O S T A T I O N , R I y A D h , S A u D I A R A B I A ]

[ 1 0 ]

[ f I g . 1 6 ]

[ f I g . 1 9 ]

However, as a built project, the Guangzhou Opera House possesses excellent spatial arrangements, public space and noise hierarchy. Can all these really be addressed within 3D modelling and by only relying on parametric design for architecture? Criticism must be made of buildings such as the Austria Pavilion if architecturally similar designs such as that created in Guangzhou by Zaha herself can be just as easily if not more delicately achieved. The role of the architect and his or her own skill and spatial creativity is still important for the discipline for this reason.

The argument for computation verses computerisation, or more traditional forms of design often ignores the possibilities that a more pure form of human creativity can create, that is if you believe that technology corrupts design or makes it lazy or unrefined. In any case, there are no extremes in this debate, it is not a black and white question or response.

D E S I g N C O m P u T E R I S A T I O N

D E S I g N C O m P u T A T I O N

P R E C E D E N T [ S C R E E N f O R E u R O C O N T h E A D q u A R T E R S , B A D A l O N A , S P A I N ]

[ f I g . 2 0 ]

Apparent chaos seems to be the result of HYBRIDa scps screen for Eurocont Headquarters in Spain. A series of glass panels alternate opacities and geometries to provide an acoustical, visual and temperature barrier between the companys workshop and offices.

The product created in the end is the result of a specific algorithm, utilising algorithmic thinking to produce, manipulate and determine the most efficient and effective approach to the brief. The formal manipulation of the design of the screen is not the touch of its designers, but rather the algorithm they have designed. An algorithm designed with formal criteria to produce an ideal geometry for the practical demands of the brief. Computing enables the design to, in this case, produce multiple iterations until the designer is satisfied with the outcome. It informs the designer through

algorithmic expression that the outcomes it produces are the most effective in terms of the parameters set by the designer, in this case acoustic and optical needs as well as specific geometries such as the sides of polygons and the area of perforation. Figure 23 outlines a linear process to which an algorithm can be written, to map building block geometry, to opacity options to determine a resultant geometric pattern.

Computation enables the designer, it gives them more control almost making them a master builder once again. As they now have direct control on all the parameters of the design to best answer every component of the brief, not just aesthetics. The opportunity computing provides for a project such as this is an iterative geometry, understandable geometries but also efficiency and intelligence behind this geometry.

[ 1 1 ]

P R E C E D E N T [ S C R E E N f O R E u R O C O N T h E A D q u A R T E R S , B A D A l O N A , S P A I N ]

[ 1 2 ]

[ f I g . 2 1 ] [ f I g . 2 2 ]

[ f I g . 2 3 ]

[ 1 3 ]

D E S I g N C O m P u T A T I O N

[ 1 4 ][ f I g . 2 4 ]

Computational design as a discourse demands a high level of discipline by designers, empowered by such technology to expand their capabilities. There could perhaps be an argument against such a statement, basing an ideological standpoint into the doubt placed on such technology to really convey the emotive strength of an architects creative ability. That perhaps computational design results in cold, disconnected and inhuman design, with uncomfortable spatial qualities to the users of a building.

However many academic papers reject such a mentality, instead opting to highlight the extensive benefits that computational design offers. Enabling a framework for influencing and negotiating the interrelation and interdependencies of datasets of information, computational design has a unique capacity to generate complex form, order and structure (Peters, 2013). That is to say, that these tools enable designers to augment their intellect and increase their capacity to find solutions to complex design problems. In addition to this, the use of these tools hands architects the ability to produce multiple iterations, unexpected results to inspire and inform new design decisions. As a discourse, computational design relies on computer technology, which by its very nature, as noted by Kalay (2004) is a superb analytical engine. Furthermore as computers can be programmed to follow logic and reasoning to inform a conclusion, from correlating a number of instructions that form a program. In relation to computational design, this programming can inform a logical set of dependency and associative dependency relationships concerning objects and semantic relationships (Oxman, 2014). For architecture, this can concern anything from the position, thickness and hollowness of members that for example supported the Genetic Stair project in New York, to the acoustic and optical

needs as well as specific geometries for the screen project for Eurocont headquarters in Spain.

In discussing these two precedents of use of computational design, as well as in particular discussion of the Aviva Stadium in Dublin, an overarching theme in regards to the benefits that the form of design undertaken to produce these projects is the design continuum (Kolarevic, 2003). Computational design enables a continuum through the design process, from ideation to fabrication, and even beyond (Peters, 2013). The Genetic Staircase highlights this point by its elimination of interdisciplinary barriers between designers and fabricators, who worked side by side for the entirety of the project, aided in the common language that computational design offered to them both in aesthetics as well as constructability, as two key components informing the parameters. Computational design by integrating ideation to fabrication reduces the risks associated with the usual translation of information through the construction process saving money and time.

Placing in the hands of architects, who traditionally sit at the beginning of the design process after the client, the tools to enable their reach into fabrication and engineering of their projects increases the control architects have. These tools put the architect in the drivers seat when it comes to the integration of design with, structural, material or environmental performance (Peters, 2013)

Its with this newfound power, architecture demands on practice a higher level of disciple and understanding of the power of these tools. But not eliminating the architects ability to design, computational design merely informs traditional architecture with a more enhanced apparatus for architects to control their design intention.

D I S C u S S I O N

C O m P O S I T I O N /g E N E R A T I O N

P R E C E D E N T [ T h E B E A S T , m u S E u m O f S C I E N C E , B O S T O N , u S A ]

[ f I g . 2 6 A ]

Computing is an integral part of Neri Oxmans work, which focuses on this idea of material ecology. This concept relates to the notion advocated by Oxman, who advocates a synergetic approach to design whereby material organization and behaviours, as they appear in the physical world, may be integrated into digital tools for design exploration (Wassim 2013).

From conception to fabrication the beast follows this methodology, applying it through digital technology. Oxman utilises nature as not only as a form of formal inspiration, by also as a source of technical solution to design. Most evidently seen in the application of a voronoi algorithm to produce stiff veins of material patterns, with the space in-

between these veins filled with varying densities of resin material. These spaces would again be defined by digital analysis of the structural function of a section, to support the structure in various ways and for various purposes from comfort to structure.

This is a generative form of digital design, allowing the materiality of the design to dictate form and fabrication. What is particularly important for such design, is for the designer to correctly apply parameters and have a clear vision for how these may be applied. The elegance and informed logical expression that this form produces is a direct application of such a principle.

[ 1 5 ]

[ f I g . 2 6 ]


P R E C E D E N T [ T h E B E A S T , m u S E u m O f S C I E N C E , B O S T O N , u S A ]

[ 1 6 ]

[ f I g . 2 7 ]

[ f I g . 2 5 ]

P R E C E D E N T [ P S _ C A N O P y ]

[ f I g . 2 8 ]

Generative design dictates the overall form produced here by su11 architecture+design in their PS_Canopy. Here, the firms aim was to break down their perceived categorical barrier of traditional building typologies. To do this, they applied generative digital design techniques. Developing a generative approach, based on genetic principles, this design employs the metaphor of a flower, developed with an L-systems script, designed to create a branching form seen in figure 28. Scaling and clustering of the individual triangular components could be parametrically

controlled by this L-system, observed in figure 29. The canopys elegance in design is akin to it being informed by genetic science, biomimicry and by the generative functions of the L-systems script, also inspired by nature.

It is in this form of design application and inspiration that Oxmans (2014) assertion, that computational design can really produce a second nature. One informed by the first nature, augmented by a modern design process of selection and manipulation.

[ 1 7 ]


P R E C E D E N T [ P S _ C A N O P y ]

[ 1 8 ]

[ f I g . 3 0 ]

[ f I g . 2 9 ]


[ 1 9 ] [ f I g . 3 1 ]


Architecture has to be considered in both its glorified built form in practise as much as its literature. In both these interdependent and symbiotic fields, architecture reflects positively on this shift to computational design.

Architecture is enticed by a new level of logical justification of design outcomes, derived from generative design processes as opposed to the traditional compositional discourse. In particularly Oxman (2014) notes the scripting culture that emerged from the new millennium, supported by new and newly available software, with this technology enabling design thinkers and researchers. Subsequently, algorithmic thinking and even parametric modelling added to this scripting culture to inform a new architectural discourse. Over the past fifty years the majority of computer-aided design development has been aimed at offering varying levels of assistance to human driven design. This was done through augmenting parts of the design process, ranging from drafting to modelling systems. In the past few years, the role of the computer has changed, to just merely being able to support designers to being able to provide design solutions to be approved and developed by a designer (Kalay, 2004). This has led to the beginning of a whole new and more comprehensive discourse of architectural theory and philosophy, which is fully engaged in the new understanding of the interdependencies of technology, science and design/architecture (Oxman, 2014). The design continuum, outlined by Kolarevic (2003) affirms such a sentiment in architectural theory and practise. With this new continuum transcending as Oxman (2014) suggests more then just the instrumental contribution of the man-machine relationship. Moreover, here is this emergence of an interdisciplinary approach to architecture, enabled by computational design.

Algorithmic thinking, as a discourse, fully integrates this new understanding

of interdependencies of technology, science and architecture, and translates them into a measurable approach to design. Furthermore, as Peters (2013) asserts, architecture is at the present moment, witnessing a shift in the drawing of these algorithms as a method of design formulation and communication. Algorithmic thinking as a discourse defines itself in an interpretive skill used to comprehend the results of generative code, understanding how to best manipulate and speculate the code to define design potentials.

Parametric design flows into this concept of algorithmic thinking, representing more then just merely a design technology, but rather, as algorithmic thinking suggests, as new form of design thinking. Parametric systems are the development of a series of written rules, or algorithmic procedures to form multiple iterations to be scrutinised by the designer. According to Oxman (2014) parametric design, supported by new a burgeoning of available software established itself in a new generation of designers as a preferred design discourse, of course enabling design thinkers and researchers, this in time extending to practise. This can be mostly attributed to parametric designs ability to establish a new form of logical expression in architecture, seen as working in tandem with algorithmic thinking to focus upon a clear associative and interdependent logical relationship within design.

However, as many academic papers written on the subject suggest, algorithmic thinking is still a contemporary point of discussion. Citing a continuous lack of sufficient understanding of the concepts, when this understanding permeates the architectural community, and the discussion of digital architecture ceases to be analysed as something fundamentally different, then these forms of design can become a true discourse for the application of architecture in practise.

D I S C u S S I O N

[ 2 0 ]

[ f I g . 3 2 ][ 2 1 ]

l E A R N I N g O u T C O m E S

P A R T [ A ]

[ 2 2 ]

Design, dealt with as a problem, requires a solution, a solution characteristically should be an option designed to meet a particular need, or set of needs. Therefore, what designers are expected to do is to analyse problems, set goals for how they may be overcome and devise a path to realise them. The efficacy of these actions and the communication of these actions to others is a crucial part of this process. A computational approach offers more opportunities than restrictions to meet these expectations (Kalay, 2004). Computational design as a discourse applies a systematic and logical approach to design as a problem and opportunity.

Primarily, this is due to the nature of a design problem, its reliance on the designers familiar with formal reasoning methods and ability to frame a problem in a manner that with create and amenable solution. A trial and error process can often overcome these multiple and conflicting multivalent parameters that dictate the efficacy of a design solution. Algorithmic thinking demands to take a commanding role in the comprehension of the outcomes of the generating algorithm based on the parameters set by the designer. This requires an understanding of how to best manipulate these parameters to further design potential. Parametric design allows the generation and exploration of this design potential, facilitating the modification of algorithms to investigate the relationship between elements. Computational design goes further then just simply being a tool to generate design, but becomes a median for the translation of designers set challenges and the production of multiple options for responding to such challenges.

These challenges are navigated in this design discourse in the form

of parameters, which translates to parametric thinking. Computational design is often criticised for perhaps rendering a response to a design problem that doesnt truly reflect the ergonomically [figure 32] and psychologically experience that people have in buildings. However this is not malignant through the entire discourse. Human ergonomic and psychological spatial experience can inform computational design as much as other performance criteria. Parametric design permits flexibility in the designers preference or equality amongst performance criteria

The opportunities for increased flexibility, freedom and congruency in the design process are inherit in computational design. In saying this, parametric design dictates that such congruency can co-exist with a designers creative process. Computational design ties this process in with the processes of fabricators and engineers etc. The consequence of such a high level of interdisciplinary participation in more levels of the design process builds more consistent, structure, coherence, traceability and intelligence into computerized 3D form (Wassim, 2013). Streamlining the design process involves the integration of professional disciplines, reduces error, and opens up more fabrication options and efficacy.

Efficacy in design ideation, development, generation and fabrication has allowed the use of computational design to produce more geometrically complex designs. Oxman (2014) suggests that we can somehow create a second nature with computational design. In fact what must be asserted is the tangibility in new and more complex forms with a strong logical base to which computational design can be attributed.

A l g O R I T m I C S k E T C h E S

S E l E C T I O N f R O m P A R T [ A ]

[ 2 2 ]

These generative iterations are the product of a series of parameters dictating the allocation of points along a curve. With these points producing curved lines. These lines can then be altered by an additional series of parameters, which dictate the curvature, length and magnetism of these arms. The elegance and whimsical patterns this creates are intriguing, and even translate to 3D as well as 2D, with the additional of more parameters into the algorithm.



[ 2 3 ]



[ 2 4 ]

A tubular form is manipulated with panels, subdivision and the addition of form to a surface. This creates an array of possibilities, with these iterations merely representing a few species that have stood out to me as completely different, showing the array of possibilities with even the most simple algorithm.



[ 2 5 ]

C O N C l u S I O N S

P A R T [ A ]

[ 2 6 ]

Part A introduced us to the ideas that will form the foundation of our application of computational design to answer the LAGI brief. These ideas, developed by the analysis of precedent and of academic sources facilitate an understanding of the logic located within the practise of algorithmic thinking and parametric design.

My design approach will seek to follow the ruled understanding that I have established in this architectural discourse. That is, an appreciation of the tools that I am equipped with and their ability to augment my own design ability.

Employing algorithmic thinking, designs generation rather then composition will be a driving principle behind the development of my design. Although this design discourse is by no means unique, the application and

the outcome will be as innovative as the difference in the human experience.

I intend to have a strong focus on both ergonomic and psychological parameters, seeing the human experience in a parametric design as fundamental. While of course, as pertaining to the brief, making sure that there is a focus on environmental and structure parameters.

The benefits of parametric design are that of course, all these parameters can be considered as interdependent, and easily manipulable. Finally, the flow on from such an approach has its grounds in the benefits that such a deep logical flow of information into a single design can have for its user and context. There is an infinite range of possibilities.

C O N C l u S I O N S

P A R T [ A ]

[ 2 7 ]

[ f I g . 3 3 ]

B I B l I O g R A P h y[ P A R T A ]

[ 2 8 ]

w R I T T E N S O u R C E S :

C A l I P E R S T u D I O 2009 , C A l I P E R S T u D I O , N E w y O R k v I E w E D 5 A u g u S T 20 14 , < h T T P : / / w w w . C A l I P E R S T u D I O . C O m / A R C h I T E C T u R E / P R O j E C T S / g E N E T I C -S T A I R > .

k A l A y , y 2004 , A R C h I T E C T u R E S N E w m E D I A : P R I N C I P l E S , T h E O R I E S , A N D m E T h O D S O f C O m P u T E R - A I D E D D E S I g N , m I T P R E S S , C A m B R I D g E .

k O l A R E v I C , B 2003 , A R C h I T E C T u R E I N T h E D I g I T A l A g E : D E S I g N A N D m A N u -f A C T u R I N g , S P O N P R E S S , l O N D O N .

O x m A N , R I v k A & O x m A N , R O B E R T ( E D S ) 20 14 , T h E O R I E S O f T h E D I g I T A l I N A R C h I T E C T u R E , R O u T l E D g E , l O N D O N .

P E T E R S , B 20 13 , C O m P u T A T I O N w O R k S : T h E B u I l D I N g O f A l g O R I T h m I C T h O u g h T , A R C h I T E C T u R A l D E S I g N , v O l . 83 , N O . 2 , P P . 08 - 15 .

w A S S I m , j 20 13 , P A R A m E T R I C D E S I g N f O R A R C h I T E C T u R E , l A u R A N C E k I N g P u B l I S h I N g l T D , l O N D O N .

w I l S O N , R O B E R T A . & k E I l , f R A N k C . , ( E D S ) 1999 , T h E m I T E N C y C l O P E D I A O f T h E C O g N I T I v E S C I E N C E S , m I T P R E S S , l O N D O N , P P . 1 1 , 1 2 .

I m A g E S :

1 ] m u S E O S O u m A y A h T T P : / / u P l O A D . w I k I m E D I A . O R g / w I k I P E D I A /C O m m O N S / 5/5 D / m u S E O _ S O u m A y A _ P l A z A _ C A R S O _ v . j P g

2 ] A u S T R I A P A v I l I O N , S h A N g h A I , C h I N A , D E S I g N E R S P A N A R C h I T E C T u R E A N D D E S I g N , 20 10h T T P : / / v I S D I g A R m A N D O . B l O g S P O T . C O m . A u

3 ] A u S T R I A P A v I l I O N , S h A N g h A I , C h I N A , D E S I g N E R S P A N A R C h I T E C T u R E A N D D E S I g N , 20 10h T T P : / / w w w . S u C k E R P u N C h D A I l y . C O m / w P - C O N T E N T / u P l O A D S /2010/06/ A u S T R I -A N - P A v I l I O N - B g . j P g

4 ] A u S T R I A P A v I l I O N , S h A N g h A I , C h I N A , D E S I g N E R S P A N A R C h I T E C T u R E A N D D E S I g N , 20 10h T T P : / / w w w . E - A R C h I T E C T . C O . u k / S h A N g h A I / S h A N g h A I - E x P O - A u S T R I A N - P A v I l -I O N

5 ] A v I v A S T A D I u m , D u B l I N , I R E l A N D , D E S I g N E R P O P u l O u S , 2007-20 10h T T P : / / u P l O A D . w I k I m E D I A . O R g / w I k I P E D I A / C O m m O N S / A / A 2/ A v I v A _ S T A D I u m ,_D u B l I N . j P g

6 ] A v I v A S T A D I u m , D u B l I N , I R E l A N D , D E S I g N E R P O P u l O u S , 2007-20 10h T T P : / / w w w . C l A D . C h / I m A g E S / A v I v A - S T A D I u m - 1 . j P g

7 - 1 0 ] g E N E T I C S T A I R , u P P E R w E S T S I D E , N E w y O R k , u S A , D E S I g N E R C A l I -P E R S T u D I O , 2009h T T P : / / w w w . C A l I P E R S T u D I O . C O m / A R C h I T E C T u R E / P R O j E C T S / g E N E T I C - S T A I R

1 2 - 1 5 ] g u A N g z h O u O P E R A h O u S E , g u A N g z h O u , C h I N , D E S I g N E R z A h A h A D I D , 200 3- 20 10h T T P : / / w w w . z A h A - h A D I D . C O m / A R C h I T E C T u R E / g u A N g z h O u - O P E R A - h O u S E /

1 6 - 1 9 ] k I N g A B D u l l A h f I N A N C I A l D I S T R I C T m E T R O S T A T I O N , R I y A D h , S A u D I A R A B I , D E S I g N E R z A h A h A D I D , h T T P : / / w w w . z A h A - h A D I D . C O m / A R C h I T E C T u R E / k I N g - A B D u l l A h - f I N A N C I A l - D I S -T R I C T - m E T R O - S T A T I O N /

2 0 - 2 3 ] S C R E E N f O R E u R O C O N T h E A D q u A R T E R S , B A D A l O N A , S P A I N , D E S I g N -E R h y B R I D A S C P , 20 10h T T P : / / w w w . h y B R I D A R C h . N E T /# ! E u R O C O N T / C 10 j A

2 4 ] m O S I A C D O m E I N T E R I O R , N A S I R A l - m u l k m O S q u E , S h I R A z , I R A N h T T P : / / E N . w I k I P E D I A . O R g / w I k I / N A S I R _ A l - m u l k _ m O S q u E # m E D I A v I E w E R /f I l E : m A S D j E D - E _ N A S R _ O l _ m O l k . j P g

2 5 - 2 7 ] T h E B E A S T , m u S E u m O f S C I E N C E , B O S T O N , u S A , D E S I g N E R N E R I O x -m A N , 20 10h T T P : / / w w w . m A T E R I A l E C O l O g y . C O m / P R O j E C T S / D E T A I l S /B E A S T # P R E T T y P h O T O [ B E A S T ]/6/

2 8 - 3 0 ] P S _ C A N O P y , D E S I g N E R - S u 1 1 A R C h I T E C T u R E + D E S I g N , 2009h T T P : / / w w w . S u 1 1 . C O m /# ! D u N E h O u S E / C 1 l N 1

3 1 ] I R R I g A T I O N P A T T E R N Sh T T P : / / j m l . I S / w P - C O N T E N T / u P l O A D S /2012/ 12/ g O O g l E - m A P S - g O O g l E -C h R O m E _20 12 - 12 -08_ 1 1 -4 1 -02 . P N g

3 2 ] m O D u l A R , D E S I g N E R - l E C O R B u S I E Rh T T P : / / w h A R f E R j . f I l E S . w O R D P R E S S . C O m /2010/ 12/52 10990565_469 f C 3 f 9 f f _ B . j P g

3 3 ] P A C k E D P A v I l I O N , S h A N g h A Ih T T P : / / A P I . N I N g . C O m / f I l E S / q h w O E f N 19 z u A q u j 4 w E w 2 R B z 4 x z q S f 5 z A m D m 7 v O -P 77 R x 3 h R v f z x z O z z T u h y P I g f f x g z A * x g g N E m l v 9 f k O k D 7 A 79 f k g T 1 O D A 4 w /6 . j P g

[ 2 9 ]

p a r t [ b ]

[ f I g . 1 ][ 3 2 ]

R E S E A R C h f I E l D

S E C T I O N I N g

[ 3 3 ]

A certain amount of elegance and divine flow exudes from the slicing of complex or even simple geometric form with materiality that seems almost rigid without company, however when complied in together formulates a sophisticated architectural flow.

Parametric design offers an opportunity to challenge geometry by breaking it down into a manageable and easily fabricated design. In a way sectioning

rejects the intangible or structurally ineffective form, translating this form into a reality.

Representative and realist, a sectioning represents the analysis of count contour line in a curve in the z, y-plane along which the function has a constant value. It is a visual translation of the 3D into a 2D realm, however, in terms of parametric design perhaps offers a means of translating the 3D into a more representative and realist 3D. As

Peters (2013) suggests, computational design has a unique capacity to generate complex form, order and structure, a series of components that augment the design and are flexible within the structure of an algorithm. Sectioning as a material system plays off all these distinct capacities described by Peters through

the emphasis of materials aesthetic intelligence.

One Main Street [fig 1] designed by dECOi architects is a defining example of this material system where a parametrically informed geometry is turned into a strip geometry, contours, where an easily fabricated geometric form is assembled with these contours.

This particular material system in essence breaks down solid form into an easily developable and fabricated

strip geometry representing the intersection of a hypothetical or even real geometric form.

S E E k A S P A T I A l A R R A N g E m E N T I N f O R m E D B y C O P E N h A g E N S S u N P A T h T O A C h I E v E E N E R g y E f f I C I E N C y . A P P l y A m A T E R I A l S y S T E m T O C R E A T E A D E v E l O P A B l E A N D I N T R I C A T E f O R m T h A T B O T h E m P h A S I z E S A N A E S T h E T I C I N T E l l I g E N C E A N D T h E I N T E R S E C T I O N O f A h y P O T h E T I C A l O R E v E N R E A l g E O m E T R I C f O R m .

P R E C E D E N T [ I C D / I T k E R E S E A R C h P A v I l I O N ]

[ f I g . 2 ]

[ f I g . 3 ]

The Institute for Computational Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE) designed this pavilion in a fashion almost purely focused on material-oriented computational design. The simulation, production and process of a weave of elastically bent plywood strips creates an active and dynamic form and spatial environment. With its physical form determined by internal and external constraints and pressure on the material with digital design enabling these intricate relations, normally extremely difficult if not impossible without computational tools, material properties and geometry are treated independently. The computational model utilises parametric thinking to embed the materials relevant behavioural qualities into the geometry in order to stimulate an intricate equilibrium in the stored energy of the bent plywood elements.

[ 3 4 ]

S E C T I O N I N g

P R E C E D E N T [ B A N q R E S T A u R A N T , B O S T O N , m A S S A C h u S E T T S ]

[ 3 5 ]

[ f I g . 4 ]

[ f I g . 5 ]

The Banq Restaurant in Boston represents as an effective precedent as to how this material system can be applied to integrate parametric design in with real world applications. Here a seemingly seamless surface embeds diners into the grain of the restaurant. A stratification of the ground, furnishing, ceiling and services creates an illusion only disturbed by lateral perspective, where an appreciation of the material integration with the structure and service of the building is made. The computational approach here empowers the designer to achieve this aesthetic affect, which is set by a range of parameters set by the designer, such as lighting and wine storage. But then also applied parameters set by the external existing structure, such as accessibility.Here I appreciate the most the translation of geometry that this material system enables. It carries a higher abstraction of already complex geometric forms.

S E C T I O N I N g

May concerns with fabrication centre around a range of topics. Firstly the application of this particular material system with external facades, with the lighting effects with could potentially produce. The assemblage that this material system, such as that utilised in the Banq restaurant as an external faade creates concerns for light as it blocks and filters light into an internal space.

Secondly the production of curved geometric forms with this particular material system perhaps creates challenges in the choice of materials constrained by their ability to mould to a form.

Finally, there is a concern in how to apply such a material system across a design which in spatial terms is so enormous, how to translate from the precedents analysed earlier, which are a core inspiration to this LAGI site. These precedents are small scale pavilions or internal facades, the winery will require more then this.

All these fabrication concerns relate to the translation of a complex geometry to a large external faade and site. Which materials can be used, or how should materials dictate the design are going to inform the outcome of the design response to this brief.

R E S E A R C h f I E l D

f A B R I C A T I O N

[ 3 6 ]

C O N C E P T u A l D E S I g N I m P l I C A T I O N S A N D O P P O R T u N I T I E S

The challenges that I am faced with in regards to the brief, a computational approach and sectioning as a material system manifest into the proposed design I will produce. These parameters are set to be translated into actual parameters in my computational application of design.

The opportunities that exist here rest in computational designs nature, of being able to experiment with algorithmic approaches and parameters to a point of abstraction so distant from the original thought that it seems barely of that original ideation. This

prospect is exciting, however does imply a great deal of knowledge in how my own computational skills can be applied. As much of the design should be integrated into the computational approach, however my limits with such technology may require more traditional approach to informing design outcome.

[ 3 7 ]

[ f I g . 6 ]

C A S E S T u D y 1

P l A I N l I N E w O R k f O R m E D f R O m A C u R v E D P A T C h g E O m E T R y

LINE COUNT

SPACING

LINE COUNT

SPACING

LINE COUNT

SPACING

LINE COUNT

SPACING

LINE COUNT

SPACING

LINE COUNT

SPACING

LINE COUNT

SPACING

LINE COUNT

SPACING

[ 3 8 ]

C A S E S T u D y 1

P l A I N l I N E w O R k f O R m E D f R O m A C u R v E D P A T C h g E O m E T R y E x T R u D E D l I N E w O R k f O R m E D f R O m A C u R v E D P A T C h g E O m E T R y

[ 3 9 ]

Z

X

Z

X

Z

X

Z

X

Z

X

Z

X

Z

X

TRIANGULATED

Z

X

TRIANGULATED

C A S E S T u D y 1

S E C T I O N O f C u R v E D A N D l I N E A R S O l I D g E O m E T R y

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

Z

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

STEPS

COUNT

EXTRUDE

PIPE

[ 4 0 ]

S E C T I O N O f C u R v E D A N D l I N E A R S O l I D g E O m E T R y S E C T I O N O f C u R v E D v A R I E D g E O m E T R y

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

EXTRUDE Z

EXTRUDE X

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

EXTRUDE Z

EXTRUDE X

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

PIPE

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

RULE SRF

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

RULE SRF

CONTOUR A

CONTOUR B

LOFT

[ 4 1 ]

C A S E S T u D y 1A N A l y S I S

The elimination of ideas that lead to a dead end in terms of development, fabrication or even aesthetic standard form the crux of the selection criteria for this case study.

As discussed earlier, fabrication and materiality are priorities in my application of the brief, they are seen as crucial not only to the realism of the proposal, but also its quality in terms of addressing the brief architecturally.

The results of the case study were all centred around translating and abstracting a geometric form to translate and be expressive of the original form. The most successful outcomes of this process also express interesting architectural expression and fabrication opportunities.

From the 2nd species in particular, a clearly definable fabrication method that would

employ interesting materiality and texture could be drawn. This of course mirrors the precedents explored and provides various opportunities for further development and abstractions.

The other three most successful iterations are drawn from solid forms, closer to the ideas employed in the AA Driftwood pavilion, the focus of case study 2. They provide potential for the conversion of a enveloping external faade mirroring any complex informed geometry that would be the design basis.

With these iterations becomes clear a series of selection criteria, while discussed previously, will highlight the importance of materiality and texture to my design. In addition to this, the practicalities of fabrication of these complex geometric rational abstractions.

[ 4 2 ]

C A S E S T u D y 1A N A l y S I S

[ 4 3 ]

C A S E S T u D y 2I N T R O D u C T I O N

P R E C E D E N T [ A A D R I f T w O O D P A v I l I O N ]

The AA driftwood pavilion is the winner of the 2009 AA Summer Pavilion programme, a program that aims to encourage students to explore timber construction. The design adheres to a range of criteria including, not unlike the LAGI brief an eco-friendly approach.

The design was manifested through computational design, utilising a script that controlled the movement of lines in a continuously parallel fashion to form the base of the form.

It was fabricated with 28 layers of plywood which conceal the internal structural system assembled with Kerto, a renewable plywood. Rendering the pavilion both eco-sensitive and cost effective in materiality.

Fundamentally this project expresses an attractive textured materiality that is evocative in both form and assemblage. As inspiration for answering the LAGI brief rests in its application of computational design for materially driven design.

[ 4 4 ]

C A S E S T u D y 2I N T R O D u C T I O N


[ 4 5 ][ f I g . 7 ]

C A S E S T u D y 2R E v E R S E - E N g I N E E R


[ 4 6 ]

initial curved form, made by manipulating points on a curve. Point charges are then placed along this curve

This is the expression algorithm, met with a series of cull patterns, baking and then

manually deleting certain curves. Still too complex to forms a geometry.



[ 4 7 ]

These point chrages are populated and an expression algorithm is run to produce these curved lines. A spin charge helps densify the expression.

A cull pattern is run to eliminate the amount of information expressed in curves

in this expression. The geometry of the form is beginning to take form

More cull patterns are run, as the all this curve geometry is still too complex to

find form a so,id geometry.

C A S E S T u D y 2R E v E R S E - E N g I N E E RP R E C E D E N T [ A A D R I f T w O O D P A v I l I O N ]

[ 4 8 ]

Populated with points, geometry in the form of a sphere is placed over these point in an attempt to create a solid form of the expression created before.

This proved too diffucult, and a simple pipe with sections booleened from the pipe would form the base for running a sectioning algorithm.

With the baked intersections the excess material from the offest extrusions is deleted leaveing the intersections these extrusions had with the geometry.

In plan what can be seen is the pattern left by the extruded curve.

C A S E S T u D y 2R E v E R S E - E N g I N E E RP R E C E D E N T [ A A D R I f T w O O D P A v I l I O N ]

[ 4 9 ]

This proved too diffucult, and a simple pipe with sections booleened from the pipe would form the base for running a sectioning algorithm.

A curve is placed at the centre of the solid form. It is then offset, and extruded to encompass the geometry. These extrusions meet with the geometry at stages, the algorithm notes these intersection, they can be baked.

With the baked intersections the excess material from the offest extrusions is deleted leaveing the intersections these extrusions had with the geometry.



[ 5 0 ]

To form the intersections between these panels for fabrication another algorithm is run, this time creating fields around the panels. Dictated by two curves, at the interior and exterior of the sectioned geometry.



[ 5 1 ]

For fabrication these panels have to be unrolled, done using the unroll tool in Rhino, or more simply by scripting in Grasshopper. This translates these curved geometries into flat forms to fabricate.

T E C h N I q u E :D E v E l O P m E N T

[ 5 2 ]

In reverse engineering the AA driftwood pavilion a series of techniques where trialled outside what was provided for, however these algorithms all seem to employ similar fundamental notions. Formulating a series of offsets of a curve to slice through a pre-determined geometry.

To find this geometry first was initially quite difficult. It required an informed outcome, of course being derived utilising computational tools. This is where it became quite difficult. However, as this design was to produce solar energy this was a good place to start in order to maximise efficiency.

Mapping a sun-path diagram of Copenhagen, as a bitmap in rhino, placed was a rectangular

field over that bitmap creating point charges through the average path the charges fell through the field. The direction of the charge indicated the direction an ellipse, a simple spatial form, which represents the sun.

These ellipses were lofted together, and formed the base geometry, which fell along the sun path, giving more volume to the winter months where a higher surface area is needed to make the same amount of energy as in the warmer months.

Here a series of iterations of different offsets and cuts could be made, with these lines then given and detracted with volume or additional form.


[ 5 3 ]


[ 5 4 ]


[ 5 5 ]


[ 5 6 ]


[ 5 7 ]

S E l E C T I O N C R I T E R I A


[ 5 8 ][ 3 2 ]

The technique process developed slowly through these iterations, from initially just being the extrusion of line work or surfaces of one offset, based on the sun path at the warmest point in the year to multiple offset curves with the extrusions used in the first iterations the basis of how these offsets should be turned into a solid geometry.

The sun path geometry creates an elegant form, and the series of iterations inform in themselves the selection criteria for the choice of these four iterations.

At first what must be considered is its aesthetic performance, these iterations in particular prove themselves as flowing and delicate designs with high potential for amelioration with materiality already being highly textured with geometry. Although quite a simple geometry, its smooth rounded and varied form is enough in itself to create an interesting and intricate base for the

material systems employed here.

In addition to this, the designs feasibility in terms of fabrication must be a determining factor as selection criteria, all these design iterations are noted for both their ability to be fabricated, as well as for the outcome of these fabrications.

The computational merits of each design are quite similar, however all except one of these four designs is from the latter end of the iteration process. Taking into account the inclusion of multiple curves informed by the sun path diagram. Giving a variety of angles for which the application of solar power generation can be applied and maximise providing implicitly the final selection criteria. The iteration above, although not from the latter group is a representation of an elegant solid form that was extruded in such a direction as to maximise sun path exposure over the year.

S E l E C T I O N C R I T E R I A


[ 5 9 ][ 3 3 ]

[ 6 0 ]

v i n g r d e nt h e d a n i s h c e l l a r d o o r

The technique proposal centres around the production of an external faade for a winery placed on the site. It will be centred on the site, forming the focus of the site. Included in the area will be a new rolling topography, as the external faade, informed by solar power efficiency.

The sweeping ellipse, sectioned to create a panels geometry follows the sun path of Copenhagen

through the year to provide maximum efficiency for the application of flexible solar panels.

Here, room for further development will be made in the application of material systems, fabrication and optimum panel placement efficiency and diagraming all computational process.

[ 6 1 ]

v i n g r d e n

The two renders above were my original rationalisation of various architectural tools. Struck down in many ways these ideas will still influence a more pure computational approach through part C. They were produced off a topography informed by expressions, with the roof being the application of the material system.

Ultimately however a design such as this could not be regarded as computational design. This design relies too heavily on computerisation technique, divergent to what is being explored in this design process.


P A R T [ B ]

[ 6 2 ]

The interim presentation was probably the worst presentation Ive given since year 2 where a presentation on the grey heron famously declared that their eggs had a gestation period of 2 days (clearly not researched correctly). Or perhaps my silent attempt at a comedy skit at the Camperdown Cup when I was 11.

However it has reconciled my thoughts on the subject and the learning objectives of the studio. Although I dont entirely agree academically with the proponents of

computational design, I do see many of its benefits as an advanced tool within a tool-kit for architects. For the purposes of this subject it is the main if not the only tool.

I altered significantly what I intended to be my main design idea, to an idea that was informed more by computational tools and fit more smoothly within the LAGI brief.

My main design proposal will continue to head in this direction, fitting more within what was discussed extensively in Part A of this


P A R T [ B ]

[ 6 3 ]

[ f I g . 8 ]

project. The application of geometry and the application of material systems informed by sun paths fits within the brief. However I do feel as if this can be extended and abreacted further. This may come from the application of translating the current proposal to a fabricated form, by experimentation with prototypes and integrating the proposal within the site. This is the next step.

I believe I am able to create, manipulate and design using parametric modelling, this is proven in the various iterations and the

reverse-engineering tasks set and met in Part 3. Further work is needed, and there is always room for improvement. However if Part B has taught me anything, its that there is literally so much scope for these tools, the real skill is to hone in on a particular set of functions, to condense and filter. Doing this is how to achieve good outcomes in the short amount of time weve been given. Its just too easy to be caught up or snagged in the immense potential that is computational programs.


S E l E C T I O N f R O m P A R T [ B ]

[ 6 4 ]



[ 6 5 ]

These two sketches for me a real achievement, although unsuccessful in translating my line expressions into geometric forms, getting to this point in reverse engineering the AA driftwood pavilion was something that seemed impossible only a few weeks earlier.



[ 6 6 ]

These algorithmic sketches drawn again from case study two are exceptionally delicate and flowing forms. Their expression is so evocative that it will influence my design outcome for part C no doubt. The other two iterations are from case study one, they are an example of the types of solid geometries I would like to apply to this line work from case study two.



[ 6 7 ]

B I B l I O g R A P h y[ P A R T B ]

1 ] O N E m A I N S T R E E T - D E C O I A R C h I T E C T Sh T T P : / / w w w . D E C O I - A R C h I T E C T S . O R g /201 1 / 10/ O N E m A I N /

2 ] I C D / I T k E R E S E A R C h P A v I l I O N 20 10h T T P : / / I C D . u N I - S T u T T g A R T . D E /? P =4458

3 ] I C D / I T k E R E S E A R C h P A v I l I O N 20 10h T T P : / / I C D . u N I - S T u T T g A R T . D E /? P =4458

4 ] B A N q R E S T A u R A N T , B O S T O N , h T T P : / / w w w . A R C h D A I l y . C O m /4258 1 / B A N q - O f f I C E - D A /

5 ] B A N q R E S T A u R A N T , B O S T O N , h T T P : / / w w w . A R C h D A I l y . C O m /4258 1 / B A N q - O f f I C E - D A /

6 ] w E B B B R I D g E , m E l B O u R N E , D E N T O N C O R k E R m A R S h A l lh T T P S : / / P l u S . g O O g l E . C O m /1 137083 138988 10098016

7 ] A A D R I f T w O O D P A v I l I O N , l O N D O Nh T T P : / / D E S I g N A N D m A k E . A A S C h O O l . A C . u k / A A - S u m m E R - P A v I l I O N S /

8 ] B O D E g A S y S I O S w I N E R y , S P A I Nh T T P : / / B u I l D I P E D I A . C O m / A E C - P R O S / f E A T u R E D - A R C h I T E C T u R E / S A N T I A g O - C A l A -T R A v A S - y S I O S - B O D E g A S

[ 6 8 ]

[ 7 0 ]

p a r t [ c ]

[ 7 1 ]

[ 7 2 ]

P A R T B - f E E D B A C k

[ 7 3 ]

The comments I drew from the Part B presentation and folio submission came mostly from my lack of content in justifying my ideas and conceptual propositions. There was a clear lack of evidence of my algorithmic process in the presentation that I then answered in the journal, a completely fair criticism that resulted in a better journal so much appreciated.

It is a fair assertion to make, that ideally, computational tools would be utilized in as many stages in this design process as possible. In going forward this will guide and inform my architectural discourse through the rest of this project.

In saying this, as directed by my feedback for part B I will aim to drive a computational and fully parametric design outcome, one that moulds to a series of external parameters, such as the LAGI brief, climate and aesthetics.

To articulate an overall scheme that is resolved with these parameters I have to break free of the computerisation

tools that I have used previously in the past, ideas well addressed in my learning outcomes for part B. It is from my feedback from part B that I have drawn these conclusions and will aim to build on my computational approach.

The roof form is still something I am drawn to, for its relation to the sun-path diagram of Copenhagen. However I would like to abstract further and develop the idea of creating the most efficient form of winery roof, developed with the analysis of sun radiation, coupled with the current system informed by the sun path.

The outcome proposed in part B is a conservative but solid base from which to build a more informed, and parametric design. However further abstraction and development will produce a more complex and intriguing design. The feedback from such a proposal has really adding to my understanding and desire to explore the breadth of possibilities that exist with this form of design process, the brief and the material system and concept I have chosen.

[ 1 3 ][ 7 4 ]

C O N C E P TD I S C u S S I O N

[ 7 5 ]

D I S C u S S I O N

In reviewing the site and the associated documentation, including the LAGI brief it is obvious at many levels that the current design concept needs refinement and in many places needs to be changed. In considering the fabrication and realisation of such a project too other components of the design need to be altered.

One of the most inspiring aspects of this form of design, as discussed in Part A of this project is the integration of design ideation through to fabrication. It is the tangible reality of design, to see something built in the flesh, beyond paper architecture is one of my goals for this semester. As with a project such as winery, paper architecture will not do for me. I really want to push this roof design to the point of structural integrity and intriguing palpable form.

With that in mind, although the current design proposals informing shape shall stay, I want to manipulate it further for fabrication and solar energy capabilities.

In relation to fabrication I see the ideas I was pursuing in those 50 iterations in Part B being integrated into a more multifaceted design outcome. I want to use a series of the most intriguing of these examples of the sectioning material system to bring a complex geometry an even more complex assemblage and composition.

This will involve laying and connecting a series of section profiles of a complex geometric surface to form a lattice like structure for the winery roof. All with different roles within the structure, some will be purely for aesthetics, some for structure and some again for the harnessing of solar energy.

The hope with this is the resolve competing profiles of geometry into one cohesive design. They cannot all end at the one point. I want the geometry to fray and build and descend with a graceful elegance and respect for a sculpted landscape and roof form.

With this I hope to consider the human experience on the site. Although this is an experiment in how computational tools can be made to create this solar power-generating roof. The human experience will draw more on the aesthetics of the design outcome as well as the assemblage, beyond a simple render.

The simple lofted curved geometry that forms the Part B design proposal will be rejected in favour of pursuing higher levels of algorithmic thinking and parametric design. I hope to use image sampling informed by vineyards to develop a surface, from which sun radiation analysis will indicate the most efficient form to apply the material system to.

I m A g E S A m P l I N g

P R E C E D E N T [ B A N q R E S T A u R A N T & S w A N S T O N S q u A R E ]

Image sampling in architecture is used commonly in current architectural and artistic discourse, applied in a variety of ways, from the image sampling style seen to the right page and on the side of the M1 passing the Werribee Zoo, to the new Swanston Square building evoking the image of an indigenous elder staring intently down Swanston Street.

For me, image sampling has become sort of an interesting experiment.

The image to the side is an interpolated image sample of Dr David Runia, the Master of Queens College. I used his image to form the basis of a t-shirt design for a group of seniors for our College Day last month. Something he didnt really appreciate

This experimentation is what drove me to explore grasshoppers ability to providing intriguing and dynamic design outcomes and how this could be applied in tandem with a series of other parameters to create an energetic roofing system.

The imaging sampling algorithm employed for the final design proposal is based off an

algorithm potentially utilised for the Banq Restaurant in Boston. It projects, based off an image a series of points, agitated by changes in the images depth. With certain parameters such as the degree of charge, the sensitivity of the charges and the amount of charges can be altered. I remained quite conservative with my application of these parameters to create more of a smooth and elegant form. I saw a form like this as more aesthetically pleasing, as well as being more translatable into a fabricated design.

An image of a vineyard was utilised in this case. With the image projecting under the right parameters an almost definable row of vines. Interesting nonetheless for its application, regardless of how closely it resembles the image. Image sampling provides an opportunity for abstracting a geometry or image, in the case of Dr Runias image, it was abstracting a photo, in the case of the final part C design proposal it was to create an abstracted geometry. A clearly definable link to the image of a vineyard is important, and key in driving this projects link the viticulture imagery and precedent.

[ 7 6 ]

[ 7 8 ]

T E C h N I q u E D I A g R A m

v I N g R D E N

an initial base plain is produced at a relevant scale, 1:100. With the approximate dimensions of the footprint of the winery.

This is an expression of that final series of cut sections, extruded and developed into

a 3-dimensional form.

an image sampling algorithm is run to set point charges up to project a surface, with these charges influencing a dynamic geometry.

[ 7 9 ]

T E C h N I q u E D I A g R A m

v I N g R D E N

Sun radiation analysis shows the angle of the roof sets it in the best possible position to receive sun light throughout the year.

The geometry before being cut down with the sun path geometry. A flowing and

elegant form .

Section profiles are run utilising the same techniques that developed the sectioned

profiles in the part b proposal. By running an offset off a curve. With the series

creating cut sections through a geometry

Four altering section profiles will be used for structure, , aesthetics and solar

radiation harnessing. So that these sections can be fabricated an offset of

the geometry needs to be made for each profile.

The form created by utilising a series of point charges over a sun path diagram is used as a trimming object for the new image sample produced parametric geometry. This trim will be applied once the areas are sectioned with line work.

STRAIghT fRAmE

CuRvED fRAmE

CROSS-BRACINg

SOlAR STRIPS

[ 8 0 ]

T E C h N I q u E T O C O N S T R u C T I O N D I A g R A m

The straight crossing frames will form the basis of the structure of the entire roof. They are a series of long linear sections of the roof made to provide a rigid fame to the structure in tandem with the cross bracing applied later on. Aesthetically they provide the first degree of framing, however are not the most prominent component of this designs composition. Instead they are designed to display and hold the solar strips above and the long curved frame below.

The curved frame forms a more complex geometry through the structure, especially underneath and at the fraying ends of the roof. With a primarily aesthetic purpose these frames create ebb and flow to a primarily linear set of frames. Initially in the early stages of applying this multi-frame approach, like these frames the straight frames originated from a curved series of offsets. However the intersections of these paths would have been too hard to resolve. However in keeping the curved frame towards the bottom a more dynamic design is facilitated, by drawing a focus to the underside of the roof.

The cross bracing provides additional rigidity to the structure by creating a continuous line of bracing across the straight frames that the solar strips can cover and the curved frame cant hold rigid. They add to this fraying effect towards the edges of the roof to form pavilion and pergola like areas around the winery roof. Primarily a structural frame, this bracing will also help in the fabrication of the design by holding the base straight frame in place.

These solar strips are the basis of this entire supporting frame. They are made to harness the sun with a series of solar panels lining the entirety of the top of the panels, aimed towards the sun at an ideal angle of around 30 degrees. They also create an intriguing translation of the original geometry as well as structurally tying the straight frames adding to the work of the cross-bracing.

[ 8 1 ]

T E C h N I q u E T O C O N S T R u C T I O N D I A g R A m

P R O P O S A l[ 8 2 ]

P R O P O S A l[ 8 3 ]

The final design is the amalgamation of a series of frames all based of the offset sections profiles of a complex geometry informed by sun radiation and image sampling. It is truly parametric, with one component at the beginning of the algorithm changing everything to the very end of the algorithm. A fabricated design, this is not going to be just paper architecture. Really disproving and resolving this idea that computational design cant produce anything in reality.

[ 8 4 ]

The jointing and structural assemblage of this roof is a highly important consideration and parameter placed on such a design such as this.

To test these components I decided to base the first of my exhibition models on addressing these problems. At a 1:50 I would detail in this model how to resolve a series of questions that relate to the structural integrity of this frame, really testing its rigidity and potentially showing how it may be applied to a 1:1 scale.

A series of slits run at the intersections of each of the frames, offset so these intersections dont completely cut through a frame compromising the continuity of a piece.

Continuity was only lost where fabrication restrictions on dimension applied, with this applying to the 1.8m long straight frames and even longer curved frames. Sticking these pieces together became such a pain as I never considered how just using simple adhesives would not be enough for the frame to hold itself let alone the series ofother frames that would

be resting on it. An alternative system had to be sought out. This was the use of a brace and bolting system. A series of holes were drilled though the end of each opposing piece, with them bolted together with a frame, fixed with the aid of PVA glues to allow both for a flexible and rigid connection.

Negotiating the curved frames has to be factored as part of considering the qualities of the material being used in the assemblage of a model of this scale. The 3mm thick MDF board used for the frames for its strgnthm, low cost, uniformity and ridgity would not be possible to use to negotiate the degree of curve asked in the aesthetic beams. Instead antoher cheap alternative would be used, that being 1mm thick

The order of assemblage would run as follows. The fixing of the straight frame to its cross bracing. Then the laying out of the solar strips and after that the laying thorugh of the curved bracing underneath, made from a non-structural boxboard.

P R E S E N T A T I O N m O D E l

j O I N T I N g & S T R u C T u R E

[ 1 0 ][ 8 5 ]

[ 3 ][ 8 6 ]

P R E S E N T A T I O N m O D E l

O u T C O m E S A N D R E f I N E m E N T

The outcome of this 1:50 presentation model prototype was a series of common errors that could be ameliorated at the fabrication level, with only a few errors requiring editing of the original computer model.

The placement of the outlining small solar strips didnt always intersect with the straight bracing that was designed to hold it up. This could have been altered at the final editing stages of the 3D model. However aesthetically was not a big deal in the end, there was only 6 small strips that could not be attached at all. The effect was not noticeable.

The use of 1mm thick boxboard for the curved bracing at the base of the model should have been considered as needing a greater level of structural integrity, as it would need to carry the enormous weight of the series of frames that were all made out of 3mm MDF board. They ended up being crushed under the weight of the roof.

The connections between the curved sections that required breaking to be nested and fabricated needed refinement as these ridged joints created a flexed corner at a specific point. A separate system could have including proving for an overlap to smooth out the joint, or perhaps seeking alternatives at the 3D modelling stage in order to prevent such a joint being necessary at the 1:50 scale

with that particular material. Simply taping, gluing or creating tabs for these sections aesthetically did not prove successful.

This compares to the connections between large straight elements, which ended up strong, rigid, but flexible enough to ensure the structural integrity of the joint over then entire roof frame. A success in the end, determined by experimenting with simple glue joints, which could barely support the weight of the members themselves, let alone other members.

The fixing of the frames in the pre-determined order worked fine, up until the curved frame needed to be glued to the underside of the straight framing. This meant that the entire roof needed to be flipped; even though his proved to be fine it was nevertheless nerve-racking. The frame did not survive being flipped back over. With the curved members being constructed with a weak, but malleable material, being crushed or pulled from the frame.

It is obvious that for the exhibition model at a 1:100 scale, many of these issues would be resolved. A continuity of materials would reduce the need for joints and connections in continuous members. In addition to this the use of lighter weight material would mean the curved box board underneath the plywood frame would not be crushed.

[ 8 7 ]

[ 8 8 ]

[ 8 9 ]

[ 9 0 ]

[ 9 1 ]

E x h I B I T I O N m O D E lf A B R I C A T I O N

[ f I g . 7 ] [ f I g . 8 ]

The goal of the exhibition model was to translate the culmination of both my 3D modelling software model, the presentation model I had produced as a prototype, materiality, scale and the site into one form of communication.

This model would be done at a 1:100 scale, taking into account the cost and size of material that would be needed at any larger scale, and the loss of information that may occur at a smaller scale such as 1:200.

The main frames and solar strips are made out of 1.5mm Laser Plywood, with the curved frames again assembled with 1mm

thick Boxboard, in order to resolve some of the issues associated with the 1:50 sized model.

The site context was restricted to a 900mmX600mm MDF board, however this makes up a clear two thirds of the site area, creating a visual connection between how the roof would sit into a sculpted landscape on the pier into the water.

The landscape was sculpted again with image sampling, with the same image used to create the roof. The aim was to have significant south facing slopes to grow rows of grapes in optimum sun light conditions.

[ 9 2 ]

E x h I B I T I O N m O D E lf A B R I C A T I O N

[ 9 3 ]

[ f I g . 9 ]

[ f I g . 1 0 ]

With this model I aimed to show a greater deal of materiality, and provide context into the composition of the roof on site. The use of laser cut ply implies the use of a timber construction evoking the oak barrels used in wine making. They of course being strapped together with steel straps, translated into the curved bracing on the underside of the roof.

We this scale of model on site I was able to really assess light and internal and external spatiality in relation to the roof. The assenting and dissenting of the structure, its flex would relate closely or

reject the landscapes projection. Light penetrates deep and variably through the entire structure, creating a dynamic spatial arrangement in a constant state of change evoking seriously its connection the sun path.

Its success is in this rich and raw materiality that provides an abstracted analogy to viticulture. With rich textures and flowing form this model is a success for it effective communication of the idea of a Danish winery, as well as fitting well within the requirements of the LAGI brief.

[ 9 4 ]

[ 9 5 ]

E x h I B I T I O N m O D E l[ 9 6 ]

E x h I B I T I O N m O D E l[ 9 7 ]

[ 9 8 ]

[ 9 9 ]

[ 1 0 0 ]

[ 1 0 1 ]


P A R T [ C ]

[ 1 0 2 ]

Considering this as a journey of 12 weeks in the context of 3-4 years of studying design it is interesting to consider the unexpected acceleration of learning and the pressure applied in this subject. This was probably my hardest and most daunting subject Ive taken at university so far, why? Because in Studio Air we were asked to not only apply academic understanding, but design/architectural understanding as well as developing new computer skills. No other subject I have done as asked such a multifaceted task.

I firmly believe that the skill in the designer comes from their ability to assess logically and systematically what the right questions are. The 12-week semester places extreme pressure on this process and successful students are those who understand that perspective is what allows them to present a competent proposal at the end of those 12-weeks something I have always been able to do and think I have achieved again with Studio Air.

In regards to the learning objectives I am proud to say I have achieved my best. My final


P A R T [ C ]

[ 1 0 3 ]

[ f I g . 8 ]

exhibition model is probably one of the most amazing pieces of work I have ever produced. Trumping any report, essay or even design I have ever done before.

By interrogating the brief I determined a creative and unique approach. A winery was something not seen before with this brief. I came to this idea as I was asked to approach the brief with something I was interested in. Seeing as I am 21 years old my biggest interest is still in alcohol. However viticulture is an extension of that interest and I do have

a curiosity in that agricultural and industrial process. I saw opportunity in this brief, to move to anything really. Inspired by such rich, textured and refined architecture in wineries today I felt it an appropriate place to start.

I quickly developed my algorithmic thinking but remained stuck for a great deal of time in attempting to integrate this new understanding with other design theory. Part B was the manifestation of this confusion, with my first design detailing how computerization was holding me back from applying my strong

[ f I g . 1 ][ 1 0 4 ]

[ 1 0 5 ]

understanding of computational design shown in Part A. However Part C developed a more intrinsic use of computational tools and integrated my Part A understanding into an outcome developed with a series of iterations and explorations only enabled by computational tools. The final proposal was the amalgamation of a series of iterations and form making exercise done through Part B, resolved after my feedback from the original Part B proposal proved so negative.

This feedback resolved my approach and drove that amalgamation and integration. Pursuing higher the degree of integration between media as well. From developing and justifying a geometry to applying a material system and on to fabrication. My final design adequately projects this newfound understanding. This is exciting for me as an application of the academic understandings I developed in Part A.

In terms of making a case for proposals the proof in the diagrams explaining the algorithmic process I took to come to the final designs in Part B and C. They show a logical approach to a brief focused on sun energy and applying parametric principles from the very start to finish component

of an idea. This creates the persuasive argument for the design I have produced as it shows an effective application of computational design for its integration of ideas to the realization of such ideas.

This is what excites me the most about this subject. Twelve weeks ago I definitely wouldnt have been able to create what I have now. With only a solid knowledge of Rhino, grasshopper has been a revolution in my software repertoire. Everything is streamlined, integrated. One small change at the start can make difference right to the end. That is algorithmic thinking that is an integrated design process, which I now see as an exciting architectural discourse.

The central goal of this course is to introduce students to the approaches of digital architectural design. To understand it as a significant driver of change in the architectural profession, something which has undoubtedly been proven to me over the past twelve weeks. The analysis of precedent and architectural theory, coupled with the application of this theory and precedent over the past twelve weeks has strengthened these sentiments.

S T u D I O A I R h A S P R O v I D E D m E w I T h A N A P P R O A C h T O D E S I g N T h A T I w I l l T A k E O N w I T h m E w E l l I N T O T h E f u T u R E . I T E N C O u R A g E D l O g I C A l P R O C E S S A N D m A D E m E A C k N O w l E D g E A N D j u S T I f y m y A P P R O A C h T O A R C h I T E C T u R A l D E S I g N . I h A v E A N E w D I S -C O u R S E A N D A S E R I E S O f N E w S k I l l S , v A l u A B l E I N E v E R y S E N S E O f T h E w O R D

[ 1 0 6 ]

[ 1 0 7 ]

w I T h S P E C I A l T h A N k S T O m y T u T O R B R A D . I R E A l l y A P P R E C I A T E T h E S u P P O R T A N D A D v I C E y O u g A v E m E T h R O u g h T h E S E m E S T E R . I T m A D E w h A T w A S S u C h A D A u N T I N g T A S k S O E N j O y A B l E . C h E E R S !

s t u d i o a i r _ a n d r e w m a r a s a _ s e m e s t e r 2 , 2 0 1 4 _ t u t o r i a l 2

Studio Air Final

Documents

e s t e r

c o n t e n t s

p o s i t i o n g e

p r e s e n t

r e s p o n s e

u s i o n s

i n t r o d u c t i

e t c h e s