Deklee joseph 550060 partb

1STUDIO AIR

DESIGNSTUDIO AIR 2014

JOSEPH DE KLEE

2 STUDIO AIR

CONTENT

The section looks at ana-lysing a particular material system through a selected project. The elected project is Voussoir Cloud by Iwamo-toScott Architecture.

Case Study 1.0 looks at the selected project in Research Field and looks at how it was developed computationally.

Case Study 2.0 looks at working out the algorith-mic definition behind a computational project.

With in Technique: De-velopment we refine our working selection criteria and focus on a more direct approach to our project

B.1

- PAG E 6 - - PAG E 8 - - PAG E 1 2 - - PAG E 1 8 -

B.2 B.3 B.4

- Research Field - - Case Study 2.0 -- Case Study 1.0 - - Technique: Development -

3STUDIO AIR

Within this section we are exploring the parameters of our own prototypes and developing an understand-ing of how to bring our project into reality

Nearing toward the end of part B we now are bring everything we have togeth-er to propose a solid design argument for are project, SiT.

Over the past 4 weeks a set of algorithmic tasks have been set on rhino and this is the results of the 3D sketches

B.5

- PAG E 2 0 - - PAG E 2 4 - - PAG E 3 4 - - PAG E 3 8 -

B.6 B.7 B.8

- Technique: Prototypes -

- Learning Objectives and Outcomes -

- Technique: Proposal - - Appendix -

Having received feedback this section is a reflection and a chance to focus our project before moving for-ward into part C.

4 STUDIO AIR

PART B. CRITERIA DESIGN

Criteria design is the exploration of many fields to then be selective of a finite few to manipu-late and refine to meet expectation. In Part B as a group of three; Joseph de Klee, Nick Love and An-tony Maubach hope to use this idea of criteria design to bring us closer to the design mission we set down in Part A in order to have a solid proposal for the LAGI competition in Copenhagen. The initial statement was as follows, a naturally oscillating mesh system aid-ed by human interaction creating electrical energy through kinetic motion.

5STUDIO AIR

PART B. CRITERIA DESIGN

6 STUDIO AIR

RESEARCH FIELD

As a team we looked at a selection of material sys-tems that could express our mission, through computational design. The system that best suited are intent of our project is Tessellation. Tessella-tion is the repeated use of a single unit to create a big-ger more encompassing form. This is clearly illustrated by the precedence we have decided to too look at in detail, IwamotoScott with Buro Happolds, Voussoir Cloud1. What tessellation does is break down a more complex surface into a more manageable state for fab-rication purposes, not only is it for fabrication reasons but what tessellation achieves is the creation of or-nament through functionality. As highlighted by Far-shid Moussavi who wrote, ornament is the figure that emerges from the material substrate, the expression of embedded forces through processes of construc-tion, assembly and growth2. Why this is important to our project is it gives what we foresee as a mesh base project a chance to effect the emotion of the users and spark human interaction with the space through ornament/tessellation. As well as making a complex surface constructable though tessellation which is a key element to the selection of this material system, another benefit to tessellation is the tessellated unit can be performative adding to the idea of functional ornament. A statement that sums these notions up is written by Branko Kolarevic and Kevin R. Klinger, Dec-oration is increasingly seen as performative as well, as it can produce effects that can directly affect an emo-tional response3. Having understood the design im-plications of tessellation the opportunities are clearly eminent, we can now explore any organic form know-ing that fabrication is possible through tessellation of selected units. All of the above information is perfectly demonstrated by the Voussoir Cloud; Penalisation, re-petitive elements breaking up a complex surface and ornament through structural function. For case study 1.0 the computational algorithm that will be used is that of the VoussoirCloud.

7STUDIO AIR

B.1.1, B.1.2Voussoir Cloud. IwamotoScott with Buro Happold, SCIArc Gallery, Los An-geles, 2008

8 STUDIO AIR

CASE STUDY 1.0

Stnrand A: original voronoi cloud model with settings: X,y,z forces set to 0. slider a 0.42, slider b -7.16

A5: slider A to 0.85


A1: no changes from original voronoi cloud model


A2: z force changed to 78


A3: x50 y50 z78Stnrand A: original voronoi cloud model with settings: X,y,z forces set to 0. slider a 0.42, slider b -7.16

A4: slider A changed to 0.42

9STUDIO AIR

Species 1

Species 2

Species 3

Species 4

Species 5

Species 6

10 STUDIO AIR

Having now explored the parameters of the al-gorithmic definition that enabled the Voussoir Cloud and as a group we tried to extrapolate them from the original design, we have developed a series of iterations to formulate the next step in our design process, the continual refinement. In response to the LAGI design brief and our initial statement we developed a set of criteria to analysis each iteration and select the four most viable to further develop with prospects of architectural application. The crite-ria is broken down into five key aspects that look at the iteration as an all encompassing form. The criteria is as follow;

1(TOP LEFT) The first of our iterations selected takes an unusual form and tiles it with hexagons making prospects of fabrication its key quality. It would also make for an interesting instillation for hu-man interaction.

2(TOP RIGHT) The second Iterations best aspect is how atypical it is and thus would draw people to visit it out of intrigue. The other aspect to its design is it as a collection of focused points where we could theoretically locate buoys.

3(BOTTOM LEFT) This iteration is the most organic of the selection making its perceived oscillation capacity to relatively high if fabrication were to occur. As well as having very interesting voids that we shall look into developing in an occupational sense.

4(BOTTOM RIGHT) The final iteration sees the most typical of forms yet the most occupiable. As well as a strong possibility for manageable fab-rication. Its best attribute is the elevated spikes that make it an interesting form to explore.

a naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical en-ergy through kinetic motion

- How occupiable the iteration could be. - Viable points for buoys (wave energy).- How atypical the form is. - Possibilities of fabrication. - Oscillation capacity.

11STUDIO AIR

Kalay, This in an intuitive step, in which the designer finds an arrangement of forms .........that come together into a holistic ensemble, where the parts support one another and have

an intrinsic structure of their own.4

.Selection.

Occupiable >>>>Points for Buoys >>Atypical/Typical >>>

Fabrication >>>>>Oscillation C. >>>

Fabrication >Oscillation C. >>

Occupiable >Points for Buoys >>>>Atypical/Typical >>>>>

Occupiable >>>>Points for Buoys >Atypical/Typical >>>>

Fabrication >Oscillation C. >>>>>

Fabrication >>>>Oscillation C. >>>>

Occupiable >>>>>Points for Buoys Atypical/Typical >>

12 STUDIO AIR

CASE STUDY 2.0

The Constructive Geometry Pavilion by The Fac-ulty of Architecture, University of Porto (FAUP) was developed and fabricated in 2011/125. The project focuses on dome structures and how they can be interpreted and redeveloped using computation-al methods. The structure itself is made of an array of cardboard hexagons that as a whole are self-sup-porting. The design intent behind it was to construct a rational self-supporting structure that uses mass cus-tomisation6 to allow for the most fabrication-al possi-bility. As well as designing a pavilion that allows light in, ventilation and meets the aesthetic criteria of the designers. The project to its credit has been successful in meeting its goal. One aspect of the project that is in-tuitive is the hexagonal panels that have varying cen-tral voids depended on heigh on the structure , not only does this allow light but aid structural integrity. The most important success to take from this forward into Part B is the possibility of fabricating a compu-tational structural model by breaking it down into a smaller more manageable components.

B.3.1 B.3.2

13STUDIO AIR

B.3.3

14 STUDIO AIR

15STUDIO AIR

Create lofted surface using a selection of curves

Divide surface by Hexagons

No. Of Hexagons

Extrude

Magnitude and Direction

Hexagon cells into frames

Combine the two

Offset Hexagon centre distance

.Reverse Engineering.

16 STUDIO AIR

B.3.4

B.3.5

17STUDIO AIR

Having now reverse engineered the construc-tive geometry pavilion. We now have a better understanding on how it was created. What it enabled is the basis for a style of fabrication for a multitude of different forms. When doing the engi-neering there were many hurdles and discoveries. The simplest and most accomplishing way the goal was achieved is highlighted on the previous page, howev-er the largest hurdle was focusing on panelling a sur-face rather than extruding a hexagonal frame. Overall the form has remained similar, the hexagonal panels are present and allow light into the structure but there is still room for change. The two aspects that were not achieved were varying central voids on the hexago-nal panels and secondly the extrude of the hexagonal walls are only vertical not arrayed outwards perpen-dicular to the surface.

.Analysis.

In consideration with the team we looked at several case studies to reverse engineer. One that is important to highlight is that of the, Green Void7 by LAVA. Green Void was a project in 2008 in Sydney that used digital design to optimise a confined space. It had the slo-gan, to create more with less8 so using green lycra as there selected material they were able to fill the space algorithmically, that they maximised use of space with the least amount of material. Why it is important to consider this project is referring back to our criteria we chose, the result that best suit-ed our project for further development was the organ-ic form of the Green Void. What we hope to do is take this algorithmic definition and expand on it and try re-develop an unrecognisable form that will give us the basis of our oscillating mesh. An idea that arose within the group was later with in the project we could use what we have learnt with tessellation to fabricate the organic form that we hope to develop.

18 STUDIO AIR

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

19STUDIO AIR

TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

The development of case study 2.0 is represented in this table of iterations. Now to refine our new selection of iterations further our design crite-ria has to be revisited. Our initial five aspect of design criteria have remained the same however with more consideration to the LAGI design brief and what our personal aspirations are for the project. These new considerations are as follows; a space for social inter-action, area for an aquatic amphitheatre, a jetty for accessibility and space for community surface. These more social aspects of design are features of the fi-nal form so when looking at these iterations they are important to consider. The four highlighted iterations are what we as a group will achieve these criteria. So the next step in our design process is to move these iterations forward and refine them to the brief.

20 STUDIO AIR

TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

21STUDIO AIR

TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

Having now reacted the stage before prototyp-ing we must consider how this is viable, we turn back to are preconceived ideas of tessellation to look for a solution to creating this large scale or-ganic form manageable and possible to create. This diagram hopes to analysis this strategy, we also dis-covered a precedents by Kokkugia, Morphogenetic Lattice that is conceptually similar to what we are try-ing to achieve with panels on a micro scale making up the organic form on a macro scale (B.4.1).

B.4.1

22 STUDIO AIR

.Prototypes.The first of our prototypes was due to be a 3D print of how we could attach an oscillating mesh to a buoy. Thus we developed a ball and socket joint to facilitate for the natural movement that we hope to achieve in the mesh. The ball and socked was cho-sen as it allows a full range of movement unlike most two dimensional joint. This prototype though not yet made is still our most promising. Having a group of these made would enable a structural frame that can move as well as being load bearing on to the allotted buoys.

Prototype 2 is a representational model that looks at how we can create a mesh that is self support-ing yet still able to oscillate under tension and compression. The prototype is made up of many ca-ble ties of different scales all strung together to form a tunnel like structure that can be seen on B4 iteration. The Prototype was to a degree a success iterating that such a form is possible we just need to discover a way to enlarge its scale.

1

2

3

This resin based Prototype looked at how if we use a hexagonal skeleton how the structure would come together. This design itself allows for rotational movement in several directions how-ever come reality the model did not work as the fine mechanical aspects (connection points) were not present. This prototype is promising yet needs to be fabricated differently.

23STUDIO AIR

4

Prototype 4 is another way of subdividing the larg-er scale form into connectible/manageable units . what these units also looked at is the possibility of a second energy production with a rotational pan-el on the inside turning a small turbine. In practicality they could connect end to end and allow movement but not length to length restricting the meshes overall movement if installed. The central dynamic panel was functional and was an idea we decided to pursue for further development.

5

This prototype looked at the materiality of the mesh and how it could be draped/manipulated to fit over a skeletal structure on a larger pro-spective scale. This highlighted the trouble we were facing with fabricating such a complex organic form and making it retain its structure.

The final prototype is again looking at the design at a large scale and how it would fit on to our site. What this prototype enabled was for us to get a grasp on what we were trying to achieve and how a skeletal frame might be applied on top of the energy generating buoys. The frame gives us some direction on how we are going to achieve this fabrication as it suggest we may need some solid structure to enable an oscillating structure.

6

24 STUDIO AIR

TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

of social interaction as number 1. What we hope to achieve is not only a energy generating structure but and educating site to motivate peoples consciences in the idea behind renewable energy. As well as cre-ate a domain where people are drawn to come visit and interact with the site so that Copenhagen has an architectural symbol of its progressive nature of the future. Thus we developed SiT, The Social Interaction Terminal the holistic project that combines renewable concepts with human activity.

A naturally oscillating mesh system aided by human interaction creating electrical energy through kinetic motion.

We have now reached a stage were as a group we can propose our idea and what we hope to achieve. We know how we want to pro-duce energy, we know the social aspect we want to achieve at the site and we have come to an agreed architectural form. Starting with how our site will pro-duce energy the previous aspects will be explained. The three types of renewable energy that we hope to utilise is wind, wave and kinetic energy. On the large scale wave energy is our primary energy source how this works is that our mesh structure will sit on top of a selection of buoys and when it oscillates due to human activity the buoys will oscillate with the struc-ture moving up and down creating energy. On a micro scale we also would like to include wind and kinetic energy from peizo pad path ways and wind turbines that make up the greater mesh. Having established the energy source the next key aspect to us as a group is the social side to the project. Since the beginning we as a group have selectively ratted the importance

25STUDIO AIR

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL SiT

B.6.3B.6.2B.6.1

B.6.4

26 STUDIO AIR

JETTY

COMMUNITY SURFACE

SOCIAL HUB

AQUATIC AMPHITHEATRE

BUOY LOCATIONS

27STUDIO AIR

.Macro Development..design intent.

ENERGY SYSTEM

OSCILLATION

LEISURE

EDUCATION

28 STUDIO AIR

29STUDIO AIR

.Micro Development.

SiT SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

30 STUDIO AIR

PIEZO CONTACT PADS

31STUDIO AIR

.Component Strategy.

TURBINES

32 STUDIO AIR

.Design Proposal.SiT

SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

33STUDIO AIR

34 STUDIO AIR

OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES

Having now presented and received construc-tive feedback our project will be refined fur-ther. What we as a group have managed to do is let our ideas run and not centralise them, with and outside perspective on the project it is now clear we have to much going on and are trying to include to many aspect. How we hope to proceed with this is going back several stages and solely focusing on pro-ducing the one organic form as a whole, aside from breaking it up into micro panels that also produce en-ergy that added to the complication of the strategy. Over we need to simplify the structural components and focus more on how we may include leisure areas and amphitheatres that may not oscillate which could lend itself to giving us a structural design solution.

Having now completed part B upon reflection I feel that i have come along way in understand the design processes and selection processes of computational design. Part B has defiantly confirmed to me that com-putational design very much includes the designer and is not down to the computers creativity to reach the aspired goal, as there is so much input on my be-half to gain what I hope to achieve. The algorithms lead you to new discoveries but you the designer i feel dictate the direction. I still feel inhibited when gener-ating an algorithm due to my lack of experience but that is a matter time and learning to develop my skills. In part C i hope to only further my learning on compu-tational design but focus on refining and developing a solid LAGI submission.

35STUDIO AIR

SiT SOCIAL INTERACTION TERMINAL

OBJECTIVES & OUTCOMES

36 STUDIO AIR

1. Voussoir Cloud, IwamotoScottArchitecture, last accessed 1 April 2014, http://www.iwamotoscott.com/filter/INSTALLATIONS/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD

2. Moussavi, Farshid and Michael Kubo, eds(2006), The Function of Ornament (Barcelona: Actar), pp.5-14

3. Kolarevic, Branko and Kevin R. Klinger, eds(2008), Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture (New York: London: Routledge), pp 6-24

4. Kalay, Yehuda E. Architectures New Media: Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

5. Construction Geometry Pavilion @ FAUP, SuckerPUNCH, last accessed 15 April 2014, http://www.sucker-punchdaily.com/2012/08/09/constructive-geometry-pavilion/

6. Construction Geometry Pavilion Investigates Dome Structures Through Mass Customisation, Lidija Grozdanic, eVolo, Published 13 August 2012, http://www.evolo.us/author/lidija/page/7/

7,8. Green Void, LAVA, last accessed 22 April 2014, http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/green-void/

B.1.1, B.1.2. Voussoir Cloud, by IwamotoScott with Buro Happold, ARCHIVENUE, published 22 September 2009, http://www.archivenue.com/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott-with-buro-happold/voussoir-cloud-by-iwamotoscott-with-buro-happold-5/

B.3.1, B.3.2, B.3.3. Construction Geometry Pavilion Investigates Dome Structures Through Mass Customisa-tion, Lidija Grozdanic, eVolo, Published 13 August 2012, http://www.evolo.us/author/lidija/page/7/

B.3.4, B.3.5. Green Void, LAVA, last accessed 22 April 2014, http://www.l-a-v-a.net/projects/green-void/

B.4.1. Morphogenetic Lattice, Kokkugia, last accessed 8 March 2014, http://www.kokkugia.com/

B.6.1, B.6.2, B.6.3. A Field Guild To Renewable Energy, Land Art Generator Initiative (LAGI), http://www.landartgenerator.org/LAGI-FieldGuideRenewableEnergy-ed1.pdf

.Refrences.

37STUDIO AIR

38 STUDIO AIR

APPENDIX

39STUDIO AIR

40 STUDIO AIR

41STUDIO AIR

Documents

Deklee joseph 550060 partb