ARCHITECTUREDESIGN STUDIO AIR

VALERIA CORALLO 540721

JOURNAL

2

1.1 Architecture as a Discourse1.2 Computational Architecture

1.3 Parametric Modelling1.4 Algorithmic Explorations

1.5 Conclusion1.6 Learning Outcomes

1.7 Notes

CONTENTS

11223032333435

PART 1 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST I

2.1 Design Approach & Argument

2.2 Case Study 1.02.3 Case Study 2.0

2.4 Technique Development2.5 Technique Prototyping

2.6 Technique Proposal2.7 The Inspiration and Focus

2.8 Learning Objectives2.9 Notes

40

4750557173818283

PART 2 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST II

3.1 Design Concept3.2 Tectonic Elements

3.3 Final Model3.4 Final Concept

87110115120

PART 3 PROJECT PROPOSAL

4.0 The Final Presentation122

PART 4 FINAL PRESENTATION

5.1 Final Presentation Response5.2 Reflection

5.3 Notes

142143144

PART 5 LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

3

Welcome to my journal.Corallo, valeria, 2013

4

PART 1EXPRESSION OF INTEREST I

5

1.0CASE FOR INNOVATION

6

"Architecture is like a language. It talks to me. Architecture is an insight into the mind of an architect.."

CORALLO, VALERIA (2013). THIRD-YEAR aRCHITECTURE STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

7

Hello there! My name is Valeria and I am 20 years old, styding third year of Bachelor of Environments, and majoring in Architecture. I was born in Mel-bourne and have grown up in the city my whole life. My love for travelling

started every since I was very young, but it probably kicked off the first time I travelled overseas to China, Hong Kong and Italy. Travelling around Europe,

including Spain and France, and other parts of the world has inspired my interests in Architecture. I don’t really know what it is about Architecture and design, but when I see it, automatically it talks to me. Architecture surrounds

me wherever I go.

ABOUT ME

"A is for architecture”

Over the past couple of years, I have been able to use a range of Architec-tural tools. Hand-sketching and computer modelling programs have been used

as valuable materials as a part of my designs. “Rhino” (in particular the “Pan-elling Tools” plug-in), was used extensively as a design tool for Virtual Environ-ments in year one. Moreso, “Autocad”, with the help of “Rhino” modelling,

were used for second year’s Design Studio: Water. My knowledge of computer modelling is very limited, however now that digital architecture is taking over hand-sketching in the design industry, it would be an essential tool for me to

learn throughout my University studies. Therefore, I look forward to, and hope, to master the skills of digital design so that I am able to broaden my knowledge of digital architecture and create structures which would otherwise be impos-

sible to create using solely hand-drawing.

The brief for this Vitual Environents subject in-volved the design and fabrication of a lantern based on a natural process.

My design concept explores the process of sound; in particular how it travels, how it can be represented, how it travels, how it can be repre-sented, and most of all how it takes on different forms and intensities.

The curved surface and “worm-like” form portrays the varying levels of sound using geometrical shapes. I interpreted the ascending form of the

“worm-like” patter to represent sound’s inreasing wavelength. Moreso, I explored the “distortion” of sound by looking at old sound speakers. This gave me the inspiration to further elaborate my lantern and create interesting forms. Hence, it repre-sents the evolution of sound from the surrounding environment (ie. the input), to a chaotic level of intensity or distrotion (ie. the output).

The study of prototypes broadened my creativity in design. In particular, the “Metropol Parasol” in Seville, Spain by Jurgen Mayer H. Architects. The interlocking geometry of the “honey-comb” or “waffle-like” wooden structure pushed me to use panelling tools and create interesting patterns for my lantern design. I wanted to generate a new prespective on design using complex geometries. This is where my experience to computer model-ling and digitial architecture initiated.

8

PREVIOUS PROJECTTHE LANTERN PROJECT 2011

9

This Studio: Water project in-volved designing a new boat-house in Studley Park, Kew. It had to follow the “formal rules” of famous Architect, Mies Van Der Rohe. The design of the boathouse uses some of the most significant “Miesian rules.”

My boathouse encourages all people to experience the architecture which is sur-rounded by the abundant landscape.

Inspiration came from my favourites of Mies’ works- such as Farn-sworth House and Barclona Pavilion. With these precedents, I was able to produce a flexible piece of architec-ture that took advantage of the natural surrounding

landscape and its vistas.The “High Line” Project in New York (2009) by Diller Scofidio + Renfro was an outside-of-Mies-precendent, as it inspired me to create the Roof Garden.

Therefore, with the use of Digital Modelling, I was able to de-velop from a “beginner” de-signer to an “amateur” with the capability of generating simple

notions into complex structures. With the tools learned, I was able to experience the chal-lenges involved, and so learn about the digital architecture theory. Studying the works of famous architects- such as M. Van Der Rohe, A. Gaudi, J. Mayer H. Architects and F. Gehry, it makes sense now as to why digital computer modelling has become so important to

digital Archi-tecture. It has encouraged me that study-ing precedents can be a useful tool in starting the Gateway Design Project, ie. an “exciting, eye-catching installation that inspires and enriches the municipality”. It will be useful to use the success of “Seeds of Change” and “House in the Sky” to set the benchmark for this assignment.

PREVIOUS PROJECTTHE BOATHOUSE 2012

10

"Parametric modelling represents change...they are the first truly active medium...computers can present almost limitless kinds of tools."

Woodbury, Robert (2010). “Elements of Parametric Design”. (London: Routledge), pg. 1.

11

1.1

“Discourse” comes from the Italian word, “discorso”, mean-ing “speech” or “conversation”.But why do we need to relate “discourse” to Architecture? Architecture is not just art and design, but also a discourse of issues related to society and how we live in it.

As Williams states, “We expect [architecture] to be legible as images...as a single sign...to be revolutionary in some way...a kind of greatness...aesthetic bril-liance” and yet “we are disap-pointed when buildings do not achieve it.”1

Therefore, Williams suggests that architecture must be thought of less as a set objects or materials, but rather as a “range of social and professional practises that something, but by no means always, lead to buildings.”2

We must always question Architecture to know about its existence.......

If we turn to Greg Lynn’s article, “Blob Tectonics, or why Tecton-ics is Square and Topology is Groovy”, we see another kind of article. Instead of talking about Architecture as a discourse, he discusses the development of

architecture using the “blob” metaphor, which is like a mech-anism to free up and develop the design process.

Lynn states, “Blobs suggest al-ternative strategies of structural organisation and construction that provide intricate and com-plex new ways of relating the homogenous or general to the heterogenous or particular”.3

Their spatial organisation in-terests Lynn, how they “slither” or “creep” and move through space as though “aqueous”.4

Lynn focuses on Blob Construc-tion, and in particular discusses the overrated notion between humans and Architecture.

However, as Lynn tries to ex-plain, many architects are now starting to “think outside the square” and explore alterna-tive ways of designing using the “blob” modelling. Just now the “blob” has been introduced into Architectural language, and the concept seems to be used most often in roof con-structions.5

An example that immediately comes to mind is the roof design of “Southern Cross Station”: corner of Spencer and Collins Street, Melbourne, Australia

(2006) by Grimshaw Architects (and others).

The design focus of the sta-tion is the “wave-like” roof that blankets over an “entire city block”.6 With the assistance of computer modelling, the de-sign of the roof symbolises the movement towards sustainable architecture to endure the hot external Melbourne climate and the need for internal cooling via natural ventilation. Therefore, the roof geometry is made in such a way to allow for the ar-chitecture to ventilate itself.7

These two discussions relate to the Gateway Design Project as we need to use these ideas to create a new, eye-catching installation that will illustrate architecture as a discourse and the movement of architecture towards more complex, innova-tive forms relating to the topol-ogy of the surrounding land-scapes.

ARCHITECTURE AS A DISCOURSE

"D is for discourse”

12

PERSONAL FAVOURITESLA SAGRADA FAMILIA- ANTONIO GAUDI

Antoni Gaudi’s “La Sagrada Familia” in Barcelona, Spain (1882-present) was always, and will always be my favourite piece of Architecture. The archi-tecture is too overwhelming to describe, that one must expe-rience “La Sagrada Familia” to understand the emotions it engenders. Why else do I like it? Well, it just represents the genius of Gaudi and his skill for inno-vation using both nature and complex geometry.

The style represents a “warped Gothic style” which is obvious when observing the site. The “rippling contours of the stone facade” give the impression that the church is “melting in the sun”; and the towers are “topped with brightly-coloured mosaics” that portray “bowls of fruit”.8 Gaudi’s influence is emphasised in the architectural landscape of Barcelona. We see “Gaudi” when we think of Barcelona. We see the use of strong colours and imagina-tion and very detailed fea-tures. Gaudi established a new architectural language, which is evident throughout Barcelona.9

Gaudi’s way of thinking by using organic architecture and natu-ral shapes as his basis for design, is clearly seen in his masterpiece and other works. For example, using the “tree” to form a hy-

perboloid vault in the nave of the Church; and the innovative “leaning columns” that Gaudi uses to form the structure of La

Sagrada Familia’s Temple are previously seen in Parque Güell (1900-1914: Gaudi’s park for Barcelona aristocracy).10

“ an unfinished masterpiece”

La Sagrada Familia, Antonio Gaudi, Barcelona, Spain 1882-present

13

The structure has become such an iconic building in Barcelona. It is a landmark for the Spanish city and sets a high benchmark for the complexity of Architecture around the world. Everyone- from locals to tourists around the globe- want to experience this architec-tural space. Not only the space, but the words that are illus-trated outside the structure itself, “The Truth

is Inside”. His study of nature and his greatest inspirations from past experiences visiting moun-tains and caves translated into a complex use of ruled geometrical forms. This is seen in the exterior and interior; for example the hyperbolic parabo-loid, the hyperboloid, helicoids, cones, catenary curves, and other very complex shapes.11 Gaudi states in relation to ruled surfaces “Paraboloids,

hyperboloids and helicoids, constantly varying the incidence of the light, are rich in matrices themselves, which make ornamentation and even modelling unnecessary”.12

His scale model for the Church was used to calculate structures. For example, he used strings with small filled bags, hung the strings, record-ed the geometric curves produced and recorded them to define the out-line of the church.13 This is what makes this structure so sig-nificant: the ever-so-detailed mosaics to the detail of the ceiling and every pillar, Gaudi recorded every single detail of the building: archi-tectural, stylistic and decorative.

La Sagrada Familia resolves and revists all of the structural difficulties Gaudi faced and the errors he committed in previous projects.14

Was it Gaudi’s destiny that it was to be his great-est work, and yet he was not even able to see it finish?

La Sagrada Familia, Antonio Gaudi, Barcelona, Spain 1882-present

La Sagrada Familia, Antonio Gaudi, Barcelona, Spain 1882-present

La Sagrada Familia, Antonio Gaudi, Barcelona, Spain 1882-present

14

PERSONAL FAVOURITESMETROPOL PARASOL- JURGEN MAYER H. ARCHITECTS

My love for Spain and its diverse Architecture continues in Seville. The Metropol Parasol (2005-2011) by Jurgen Mayer H. Architects is extraordinary.

Their waffle-like crown structures incorporating a sequence of undulating parasols make up the world’s largest wooden structure. This project relates to the Gateway Project in the way that this structure sets a new, innovative icon, and a “place of identification” for Seville.15 Nonetheless, it has played a role in driving Seville to become one of the world’s “most fascinating cultural destinations”.16

This influence of organic archi-tecture, as seen “to death” by Antoni Gaudi, has been used to establish a new, fashionable, modern-day urban centre that the Plaza de la Encarnacion

has become. Why do I like it? It achieves what the brief outlines; that is, a unique, organic urban space within the dense fabric of the medieval city centre of Seville to allow for a variety of public activities to be per-formed. It has become a social and cultural “hub” where resi-dents, visitors and tourists are able to collaborate and “gather” under the architectural “crown-like waffle.”

As Jurgen Mayer H. Archi-tects states, the contem-porary landmark defines “a unique relationship be-tween the historical and the contemporary city”.17 What I most like about it is that it is not just an archi-tectural feature to the city, but it has so many functions. For example, it includes an archaeologi-

cal museum, a farmers market, an elevated plaza, multiple bars, restaurants and a pan-orama terrace.18 Its flexibility in its use and its imposing timber “waffle-like” timber structure landmarks a dymanic develop-ment for culture and commerce in the heart of Seville.19

Metrpol Parasol, Jurgen Mayer H. Architects, Seville, Spain, 2005-2011

Metrpol Parasol, Jurgen Mayer H. Architects, Seville, Spain, 2005-2011

15

Jurgen Mayer H exhibits his inspiration that de-rives from “Seville’s expansive cathedral...without walls...that ...is democratic...and by the...trees already in the square.”20

It is so significant to the design scheme of the city as it offers shade, which is considered a valuable “service” in Seville during the hot summer days. The high-performance polyurethane resin, which is used to construct the architecture, is tested to ensure even the highest of temperatures could be endured.21

In a way, Jurgen Mayer H has represented a piece of art. His former studies in art reflect his elements of art and sculpture in his architecture. He is stating something about architecture: ie. That architecture and art are similar, and that both represent the interrelationship of “hu-man and space”.22 Complex geometric and sculptural-like shapes of inconsistent elements create a space and a land-mark; and it is computerized design and construction that make it possible.

What makes it so appealing to me is that timber polyurethane-coated interlocking parasols can create such a monumental piece of art or architecture, which also provides for shade and the game of light and shadows. Different sensations are experienced at all angles of the structure as it undulates within the landscape of the

cityscape and provides a fluid movement of space.23 Not only is it fluid in its undulating move-ment, but its neutral tone harmonises the stark contrast of the “ultra-modern structure with the medieval surrounds of Seville”.24 The Metropol Parasol has introduced a sleek contemporary landmark, into a city with such rich history and unique medieval architecture, and has defined its iconic cultural role.25

Why can’t we have more of this “sculptural land-scape” in the heart of our cities?

Metrpol Parasol, Jurgen Mayer H. Architects, Seville, Spain, 2005-2011

Metrpol Parasol, Jurgen Mayer H. Architects, Seville, Spain, 2005-2011

1.2 COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE

16

"C is for computation ”We ride along the line of continuum of Architecture by talking about Computation in Architecture. What does it mean to use computation? The previous examples in fact fall under this category. They both adopt computational techniques in order to achieve such outstanding outcomes. Without the use of such technology, we would simply not have the ability to produce these structures.

The evolution of CAD and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) have opened up many new oppor-tunities in architecture by allowing the production and construction of very complex forms. It is only re-cently that this advance has played a role in building design and construction, but as a result, a new digital continuum has formed. As Kolarevic states, “A new digital continuum, a direct link from design through to construction, is established through digital technologies.”26 Therefore, digital technology is not just a tool we use later in the design process to “finalise” our designs ready for manufacturing, but it is used from start to end - from the generations of ideas right through to the final stage.

Why is CAD used so extensively? Have architects just become lazy now that they don’t have to think for ideas independently? Through using CAD, designers or architects are missing an important piece in the design puzzle. Digital technology is not creative like the human brain. As Lawson states, “CAD might conspire against creative thought...by encouraging “fake” creativity.”27 Is this true? Is computa-tion just a “tool” for creative design? John H. Frazer seems to think so as he states, “design computa-tion is still only seen by many as “just a tool” and remote from the real business of creative design”.28

Left: Guggenheim Museim, Frank Gehry, Bilbao, Spain,1997

17

Computers are analytical machines.29 They follow a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.30 They represent reports, tables, charts, anything can be produced fautlessly, yet, they are unable of mak-ing up new instructions and “lack any creative abilities or intuition”.31 Considering this, why then are we still using computers for design? 1) Com-puters excel at recalling past history; they have supurb rational and search abilities.32 2) Humans have creativity and intuition.33 What is 1) + 2)? A “symbiotic” design system.34

Computer-aided design over the years has ranged from:1) Drafting and modelling systems, such as draw-ing lines and such;2) Analytical systems which provide rational ap-praisal of designers’ solutions, for instance, cost, acoustics, fire egress, and so forth;3) “Intelligent” design systems that can propose design solutions for further development.35

Therefore, systems have been developed as to help human designers communiate with each other.

Design to me is a significant and purposeful ac-tivity aimed to achieve a well-defined goal. The search for effective general methods of design began with the Ancient Greeks, but now, comput-ers help us.36 We see a change in architectural design, ever since the concept of professional practice commenced in the 1450s in Italy.37 It was the architects who invented the design methods, for example, scale drawings. It was the Masons and Carpenters that were the two major crafts needed to construct a building. During this time, architects moved from being technicians to be-ing designers, for example, Leon Battista Alberti. Through him, there was made the separation between the conception of a new building and its construction.38 A new drawing language was developed as architects used plans, sections and elevations as design representations. But in order for architects to experiment with alternative design solutions, they had to test alternatives on paper before they were committed to construc-tion.39 These drawings marked the importance for scale models, 3D volumetric manners of showing a building.40 Thus, scale drawings became a sig-nificant tool for planning and design of structures.

The Torus

Torus House, Preston Scott Cohen, Old Chatham, New York, 2001

18

It is amazing to imagine this development through a timeline. It was not too long ago that this original method of design was followed. The design information became part of a long pro-cess of four phases: ie. an anlalytical process, the creative phase, evaluation phase, and finally communication.41 Nowadays, “the design infor-mation is the construction information”, whereby more complex and direct designs through digi-tal architecture is possible, and information can be recalled, tranformed, and used with greater facility and speed.42 Nonetheless, computer-aided design has moved to this sudden interest in “blobby” forms. Why is this the case? Well, it has to do with the 3-dimensional digital modelling based on NURBS and the offers it brings. Accord-ing to Kolarevic, this form has opened a new world of complex forms, that until CAD and CAM,

we would find very hard to achieve, manufacture and represent.43 It is a new phenomenon that can create new, undulating sinous “skins” feasible to architecture and construction.44 This geometry of continutity of curves and surfaces is now fea-tured prominently in contemporary architecture.

We see, for example, the “Mobius House” (1995), by UN Studio/Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, and “Torus House” (2001) by Preston Scott Cohen- examples of projects that have been named after their topological origins (ie. the Mobius Strip and the Torus).45 This use of topological forms, as new shapes and forms, is been made possible with the use of digital modelling software. It is through this technology (CAD, CAM and CATIA), that designers are able to bring these complex forms into architecture and give them more con-trol of the building process.46

Conceptual digram of the Mobius House, UN Studio / Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Het Gooi, the Netherlands 1995

Mobius House, UN Studio / Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Het Gooi, the Netherlands 1995

Mobius House, UN Studio / Ben Van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Het Gooi, the Netherlands 1995

19

The shipbuilding industry has been considered pioneering in using digital technology from the design to the construction stage. As Kolarevic states, ships are just like buildings in many ways: “Ships, just like buildings, are objects of consid-erable techincal complexity...[they] are large objects, with similarly complex service systes and interconnected spaces inhabited by people...and serving specific functions...both rely on similar principles, methods and processes of design, analysis and production.”47 Shipbuilding has elimi-ated the drawings from design and the contruc-tion of the ships, and are instead using 3-dimen-sional modelling right through from design (start) to production (end).48

This is where the term “computation” comes into practice. Computation is redefining the practice of architecture. It is now just easy to say that most architects, now, apparently use computers. Com-putation means the process of using a computer to process information through an understood model expressed as an “algorithm”.49 This con-trasts with the term “computerization”, ie. where processes already in the designer’s mind are placed into a computer, are manipulated and

then stored in the system.”50 Further, architects are using the computer as the virtual drafting board as it is more convenient to manipulate and edit any possible changes to sketches, whilst main-taining and enhancing their precision.51 However, computation in some cases are considered “generally limited”.52 How is it limiting though? Are we just limited by our own knowledge of the soft-ware? According to Terzidis, our creativity is being limited by these very softwares that are suppos-edly supposed to “free” our minds.53

We see many examples however, of designs that are generated using the computation process, ie. using an “algorithm” to create form and gener-ate design options. The Khan Shatyr Entertain-ment Centre, Astana, Kazakhstan (2010), is a recent project by Foster + Partners. It comprises of a cable-net structure that was generated using an algorithm. This algorithm formed part of the parametric model which was then used to further develop, manipulate and define the building form.54

NatWest Media Center. Future System / Amanda Levette Architecture, London, UK, 1999

20

Consequently, architects are able to design beyond the limits of 2-dimensional drawings or scale models, and are able to adopt a new language of archi-tecture of much more complex, continuous curved geometries and forms. Computation allows the exploration of new ideas and increases the capability of solving more complex issues.55

Take a look at Frank Gehry’s work. Let’s talk about the Gug-genheim Museum in Bilbao. This building celebrates digital technology in creating com-plex geometric forms, which are not only captivating to the human eye, but are fully func-tioning pieces of architecture that work in a cohesive manner. The production would not have been possible to contruct with-out the evolution of local steel

and the shipbuilding industry.56 The impact of innovative tech-nologies in such industries was phenomenal. This movement developed into a reinvention of how products were designed and made.57

What about Gehry’s Fish Sculp-ture (1992), Barcelona, Spain. It clearly illustrates the use of com-putation as a means to ensure high-degree precision in fab-rication. Digital design makes the complex geometries that make up its form describable and producible.58 Nonetheless it is the 3-dimensional digital models that were used not only in the design development, but also for structural analysis, and a source of construction information.59 The structural solution to this architecture was Computer- Aided 3-Dimensional

Interactive Application: CATIA. A 3-dimensional modelling and manufacturing software devel-oped for the French aerospace industry.60 Why is this fish-shaped pavilion so significant to the computation in architecture? Well it seems to be that it was one of the first projects to be ex-perimented using a “paperless” process of digital production.

Not only this idea of the “paper-less” process was significant, but it was also the notion of the structural skin. Gehry adopts this new method in his subsequent projects that are seen around the world. For example, Expe-rience Music Project or Walt Disney Concert Hall. New ideas, new materials and new geom-etries of curves and folds formu-late into a form that enable a line of continous skin.61

Guggenheim Museim, Frank Gehry,Bilbao, Spain, 1997

21

We also see this motion from digital computer design to digital physical modelling. For example, Frank Gehry’s Nationale-Nederlanden Building (1996). This was possible with the introduction of digitally-driven machines that digitally cut the irreguar glass panels covering the frame of the structure behind it.62

Therefore, it is obvious to see how far the design process has actually come. We have come from a world of drawing ideas on paper to virtually drawing ideas on computers. Digital technology has definitely allowed for complex forms that would be very difficult, even impossible to con-struct using the manual human hand and paper, and it has made our progress to design produc-tion much faster.

Despite its advantages, digital architecture does not have the freedom and mind of a human

brain. Computation is limiting our freedom as designers and architects, to create structures that we would like to eventually be able to produce in the external world. However, digital technology allows for this creation to be accurately formu-lated into a cohesive, constructable whole.

What will the future of Architecture be? Will be in favour of computation? Will we get a choice? Will all architects just have to accept a system?

We now see that the visual programming lan-guage has increased and is still increasing in the designer professional practice. We are in an era moving from “architects using software” to “architects creating software”.63 This Gateway Project is using one of these languages, ie. Robert McNeel * Associates’ Grasshopper. We are learn-ing new pathways to architectural design where new possibilities-more complex possibilities- are available for us to discover and explore.

Nationale-Nederlanden Building, Frank Gehry,Prague, Czech Republic, 1996

Fish Sculpture, Frank Gehry,Vila Olimpica, Barcelona, Spain, 1992

Computer-modelling: Fish Sculpture, Frank Gehry,Vila Olimpica, Barcelona, Spain, 1992

1.3 PARAMETRIC MODELLING

22

"P is for parametric ”We hear the word “parametrics” now emerging in our language, but I have never really under-stood what it meant. So what is “parametric”. Parametric can be defined as “a set of equations that express a set of quantities as explicit functions of a number of independent variables known as ‘parameters’”.64 Some say that parametric is change, like design changes. Woodbury mentions that “parametric modelling represents change” and that parametric modelling has introduced this fundamental change.65 Designers are now able to “add, erase, relate and repair” with the use of paramentric modelling, rather than being constrained to only “adding and erasing”.66 There are so many different terms for parametric - is it “change” as Woodbury defines? Is it “design”? Or is it “scripting”? Or “parametricism”? It is probably all of them!

Burry uses the term “scripting” to refer to how com-puter programming is becoming part of the design process. Its langage is synonumous with the pro-gramming language as it is the means which the user gives highly specific instructions to the com-puter.67 This, in turn, makes the tool designer (de-signer) the new toolmaker (software engineer).68 It is also a form of design. But what is design? Design is the exploration of an idea through to an in-tended outcome. It seems like Burry agrees to this too. It seems though, that we need to be “part designer part computer scientist, and part math-ematician” in order to help us as designers relaise the potential for the ‘“parameter” in their work using the ideas of geometry and computer pro-gramming.69 Therefore, it is definitely safe to say that the parametric medium is highly complex. It combines so many elements including thinking mathematically and algorithmically.70

A digram of parametric modelling as a graph. A collec-tion of nodes (ideas) are joined by links (arrows) to form

a relationship.

The Parametric Design software “Grasshopper”. Para-metric modelling using this software is used to construct

such complex forms as shown.

PARAMETRIC MODELLING

23

But does parametric modelling have any ad-vantages to assist in design? We see parametric through design when referring to Gaudi’s scale model for La Sagrada Familia as I previously dis-cussed. His concept originated from physics and was able to create a form using the scale model of hanging chains inverted that created curves. This has to do with parametric design because parametric modelling allows designers to think mathematically and algorithmically. As Wood-bury states, mathematics becomes an “active” part of parametric systems and a means and strategy to the ends of design.71 It involves graph-dependent “nodes” and expressions, which is able to be changed by the user.72 This falls under one of the advantages: that parametric mod-elling is used because it is in the control of the user. Using La Sagrada Familia again, designers used CARTIA as a spreadsheet model software. From this, they were able to make changes to the design when desired without the need for constant re-starting.73 Even the most tiny changes

- like moving the positioning of the window just 5mm - could be so difficult and time-consuming in a conventional process, however it is easy with parametric modelling tools. The effect of learn-ing the software can change one’s relationship with the computer. This is the case with Burry as he was working out solutions to turn 2D hyper-bola curves into 3D hyperboloids. He states, “The effect of learning to script [for 3D hyperboloids] changed my relationship with the computer”, the problems that had encouraged to “step outside the box” stimulated his need to rid himself of repetitive work that was boring and inclined to human error.74 Which brings me to my next point: that parametric modelling generates shapes that are possible to achieve when constructing them. Hence, it is involves precision using parameters or algorithms. For example, the joining of hyperbolas for fabrication may be just too difficult or even impossible by hand. However, are designers be-coming too reliant on computers? Can we trust that a computer never faults?

Left: “Dermoid” - the large-scale archi-tectural installation produced in collabo-ration with SIAL, RMIT, CITA, Royal Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, Co-penhagen and RMIT Fashion and Textiles.

24

Further, parametric modelling involves efficiency. Making changes can always be a problem in the later stages of the design process if done in the “traditional” sketching and drafting process. It can be difficult and also time-consuming. How-ever, parametric modelling aims to address these limitations of the 1980s conventional tool concept so called as the “copy, cut and paste”.75 None-theless, the designer is thus able to explore for more ideas because of the reduction of “tedium” rework.76 Referring to the “Dermoid” as an exam-ple, designers did not know where this structure was intended to sit in context or what it was go-ing to look like. They spent so much time focus-sing on the detailing of the structure and eventu-ally came to a favourite result using parametric modelling. If parametric modelling can be used to change form whenever desired, why should designers have to know what it is they are design-ing is going to look like? It seems like parametric modelling is like a “scribbling board”. Instead of using paper to “doodle” ideas, they just use parametric modelling! Also, parametric modelling allows tasks to be divided, or as Woodbury calls it “divide-and-conquer” strategy.77 We are able to organise parametric designs into cohesive parts; parametric modelling is clear and explainable as we are able to even name the “nodes: that define our algorithm providing our parametric design.

Despite some of the advantages, there are also issues related to parametric modelling. Firstly,

parametric modelling involves notions (nodes) and links: it is a relationship. Whatever you do to one variable will affect the other. Therefore, it requires the need for careful planning of the independent and dependent variables before starting to model.78 Secondly, making changes to parametric modelling, for example in Grass-hopper say, may not be as easy as it may seem. Backtracking to find which node linked to which relationship to that intended change can be time-staking and confusing. Especially with all of the wiring of the “links”. Thirdly, sharing paramet-ric modelling can be very difficult with other users as it is only the control of one person who creates the relationship. Unlike conventional architecture, where concepts derive from the designer’s ideas onto bits of paper (like Frank Gehry), parametric modelling is not able to see the relationship from the first inital idea of the designer. But sharing ideas is important to design because it allows us to learn from the existing, and create new things from our experiences.

I always question parametric modelling and what it will bring to architectural society in the future. Schumacher’s notion that “parametricism will be the unified style of architecture of the 21st cen-tury” is far beyond my view. That is going way too far. I will be discussing a couple of key examples adopting parametric modelling such as the Museo Soumaya and National Bank of Kuwait Headquarters.

Scale Model for Guell Chapel, La Sagrada Familia, Antonio Gaudi, Barcelona, Spain, 1882-present

Parabolic curves from the scale model, Guell Chapel, La Sagrada Familia, Antonio Gaudi, Barcelona, Spain, 1882-

present

25

NATIONAL BANK OF KUWAIT HEADQUARTERS -FOSTER + PARTNERS

INTEGRATED PARAMETRIC MODELLING

The National Bank of Kuwait Headquaters offers a perfect example of Foster + Partners’ design of complex geometry. Not only is in complex in form, but it is also complex in the way it is also designed to be environmentally responsive.

The design concept of the new skyline was influenced by the local climate. For example, the verti-cal structural fins protect the eastern and western facades of the tower; the fins open to the north to introduce natural light and vistas.79 It is amazing to see how not only is design becoming important in architecture, but nature is also a significant aspect of design, in making the architecture fully function-al and responsive to the world.

So why does this structure fall under the parametric modelling topic? Well, Foster + Partners adopted a design system analyst in the Specialist Modelling Group (SMG) in the early stages of the design pro-ces in order to develop a parametric model that was capable of “integrating various performance parameters while continuing to investigate geometrical solutions”.80 Various “scripted tools” including Bentley Systems’ GenerativeComponentsTM (GC) was used to quickly produce various options that were then further explored by the design team.81

The major elements to achieve the intended environmental response was produced using parametric models. For example, the orientation of the fins, profile of the fins, saw-tooth cladding between the fins, and the arc forming the north facade.82 The parametric model was useful in producing specific geometrical descriptions of the construction of the fins and involves engineering input through linking

National Bank of Kuwait Headquarters. Foster + Partners, Kuwait City, Kuwait, 2007-presentThe parametric model enabled the design team to quickly produce various options and multiple prototypes.

26

to a data spreadsheet.83

But this is not all. The fins were examined for buildability through experimentation of the level of curvature of the elements; “and through deriva-tion of elements with possible repetition, [while] maintaining its shape”.84 Precision was a key principal in this design. The fins of each side of the building had to become joined and form continuous arches at the peak, while simultaneously framing the view to the sky. Moreso, the glazing between the fins had to be carefully positioned independently according to its “special rule” that allows it to change position whilst re-maining planar.85 The northern facade comprises of an undu-lating shape and is scaled ac-cording to a specified ratio.86

Therefore, it is obvious to see the relationship between de-sign and parametric modelling. Parametric modelling was used

to link the complex geomet-ric relationships between its elements. It invoved complex geometries, mathematical techniques and other means to assist in the process to result in a successful outcome. It is particularly useful in this project as “trial-and-error” accellerated the design outcome. The para-matric model was used in order to generate multiple variaions of the building shape; from these, the designers could develop these for rendering and prepare prototype models and for cal-culating solar, wind and acous-tic analysis.87

So what if these designers did not have parametric model-ling? Would they have been able to still produce this de-sign? This form? A structure that stands whilst also being aestheti-cally pleasing, fully functionional and environmentally respon-sive?

No I don’t think so. The relation-ships created in parametric modelling achieved exactly what the designers had intend-ed. They achieved the beautiful structure as well as all of the ele-ments mentioned. If parametric modelling wasn’t the case, I do not believe such bold, complex geometries would be able to be contructed so rapidly, smoothly, so precisely; and work in a way that is very functional. However will all designs now be trying to copy this intent? It seems like many designs (especially commercial high-rise buildings), are adopting this technique in achieving “environmentally-driven designs”. I agree that new architecture should take this into account because it is bringing sustainablility into soci-ety, but I feel as though it is driv-ing our architects into designing forms that are too complex. Why not be simple? I like com-plex, but I also like simple!

Left: National Bank of Ku-wait Headquarters. Foster

+ Partners, Kuwait City, Kuwait, 2007-present

The bold skyline and its complex geometry are

driven by the local climate.

Right: National Bank of Kuwait Headquarters. Fos-ter + Partners, Kuwait City,

Kuwait, 2007-presentThe various levels of devel-opment - from wire-frame

to strctural elements, clad-ding and glass; and solar,

wind and planarity analysis.

27

MUSEO SOUMAYA - FERNANDO ROMERO + ARMANDO RA-MOS (FERNANDO ROMERO ENTERPRISE “FREE”)

INTEGRATED PARAMETRIC MODELLING

How can design allow for new possibilities of building form?

The Museo Soumaya was given two tasks: to host one of the largest private art collections in the world, and to reshape an old industrial area of Mexico City.88 It was a big challenge as Mexico did not have any designs as complex as this. Various teams collaborated; and laser scanning, parametric modelling and other algorithmic tech-niques were tools that helped design and model the structure into three dimensions.

The aim of the project’s facade was to be com-posed of hexogonal aluminium panels.89 Digital models were used to ensure the curving columns making the form of the structure and the horizon-tal sttel rings lay on the design surface, The com-plex 3-dmensional structure comprises struts that are independently adaped to the local surface conditions - hence, there is no repetition. So how did the designers achieve this?

A design team was able to select free-form space-frame solutions for the facade structure in order to support the facade panels. But there

was an issue. The facade structure was alredy decided upon and being assembled, so there was limited room for manipulations.90 “Each node in the facade structure held the centre of gravity of a single hexagonal panel and three incoming struts”.91 Therefore, there comes the issue raised before, that whatever happens with one node affects the relationship with the other nodes.

The designers wanted to have a consistent gap between each of the surface panels, and this geometrical solution involved complex analysis. Hence, Gehry Technologies was used to cre-ate “families” whereby the surface could be divided into two zones to carry out the desired outcome.92 Further, Gehry Technologies created shop drawings for the hexagonal panels using their Digital ProjectTM 3D Modelling tool.93 Other custom computer programs were simaltaneously used to extract each panel from the 3-dimension-al model and create many 2-dimensional shop drawings. The mechanical elements were able to thus be aligned, detailed and coordinated using a central 3-dmensional model.94 Therefore, there is the advantage of “rapid production”; quick de-cisions were able to be made at crucial stages of

“A structure of this complexity had never been attempted in Mexico”

Left: Museo Soumaya, FREE, Mexico City, Mexico, 2011Structural diagram illustrating the inner columns of the park-ing grid; steel columns; concrete belt; steel bracings (lateral

forces); concrete core (gravity forces).

Xavier De Kestelier and Brady Peters, Computa-tion Works: the building of algorithmic thought

AD, in Architectural design reader (John Wiley & Sons LTD, 2013), p. 67

28

Museo Soumaya, FREE, Mexico City, Mexico, 2011

29

the design process.

The important thing is that the whole team was able to continue their work throughout the construction phase based on this digital 3-dimensional model. What was the use of this? Well, each team member was able to access and communicate accurate in-formation about the structure at any time; and it was organised in such a way that was easily understood by each team mem-ber.79 Nonetheless, different elements of the design could be designed simaltaneously, many iterations of the design were able to be quickly studied, and the graphic definiti-tion of the variables provided a very clear, visual picture of the design intent.95

Would this structure have been possible without the use of parametric and 3-dimen-sional digital modelling devices? Surely not!Traditional 2-dimensional drawing and de-sign process would not have allowed for the project to be designed in such an interated, holistic way where all of the complex rela-tionships between each element is visibly clear.

Would the traditional design “mode” have allowed designers to produce every alu-minium hexagonal cladding panel which is consistently spaced by a particular degree? No! And surely not would designers have been able to create a curved form from these individual aluminium panels. Surely not would have this extraordinary piece of iconic architecture have been possible with-out the use of such techniques, especially parametric modelling.

Architecture is now becoming so much more complex so a simple, integrated process to communicate this complexity is essential. Communication is definitely im-portant for the design team, but communi-cation between the design team and the parametric model is just as important. Every single variable in the design affects the other variables. This is like parametric model-ling - it is like a human relationship. So com-plex, so intricate and so flexible.

Where would architecture be without this tool?

Museo Soumaya, FREE, Mexico City, Mexico, 2011Aluminium hexagonal cladding panels

Left: Museo Soumaya, FREE, Mexico City,

Mexico, 2011Exploded axonometric

detail of fcade with tridesic structure as

support structure for hex-ogonal panels.

Below: Museo Soumaya, FREE, Mexico City,

Mexico, 2011The complex detailing

of various layers making the facade.

1.4

30

Using the software Rhinoceros and Grass-hopper Plug-in, I was able to explore the world of computation and parametric design. Undertaking research related to these topics confirmed that a lot of architecture, is now adopting this form of process. Participating in the tutorials and researching other material allowed me to self-teach the complexities of design that are possible using this software. It is very difficult to adapt to, and there are many elements that need to be revised. A slow step-by-step process will hopefully result in more expertise into the programs so that I, as a designer, will be able to take that step further into design.

I included these explorations because they illustrate my out-of-class self-learning using the tutorials to learn Grasshopper software. I was amazed by all of the forms that could be created using this plug-in; how a relation-ship between nodes and links can result in a range of different outcomes. These illustrations demonstrate the various tools I have learned in the early-learning stage of the assignment. They represent all of the new ideas that can be explored, and the interesting thing is, I - the user - am in full control. I tell the computer what I want, and it provides it to me. Say, I want to loft a series of circles together; I simply load the “loft” command and connect it to my geometry.

These algorithmic sketches confirm that com-putation and parametric modelling is a new and inventive way of design. It allows for not just one idea, but a series of ideas that can be repeated with further developments and ad-justments, until the desired outcome appears.

ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS

31

ALGORITHMIC EXPLORATIONS

32

33

Do I agree that the 21st century sees architec-ture as the era of parametricism? No. Do I see a fast moving advancement in technology with architecture as a reflection of this notion? Yes. Schumacher’s view that “parametricism” is a style of the 21st century is plain silly. Do people even know what style is? He says that we have been waiting and searching for a new concept of design and finally this new “style” so-called “para-metricism” offers it. He says that it is a great new style for post-modernism. But was post-modernism even a style?

I think parametricism is definitely not a style, but it is a geometrical model type that employs functions of parameters to create a relationship, thus a ge-ometry. I believe that some architects are starting to believe that parametricism is the new way of ar-chitecture, but I do not believe all architecture has to now be parametric. I believe that it should be used as a tool if desired to create complex forms that would otherwise be too difficult to crete using conventional methods.

But this gateway project is related to the archi-tecture discouse of parametric design. I believe that this is the right track to take to ensure that the brief and expectations of the competition can be achieved. Researching on many successful proj-ects confirms that architecture has the capability to ecourage discourse. I believe that architecture has many purposes, but I feel as though its main purpose is for the public to experience and see the architect’s mind, and see their design intent.

I believe that in undertaking the project via this track, Wyndham will be seen as the “beginning” of a development in architecture, ie. an architecture that portrays the transition to new digital technol-ogy. Also, it is a project in which one visualises and experiences the purpose of being there; and this purpose is established by the architect.Aqua Tower, Studio Gang Architects, Chicago, USA,

2009

1.5 CONCLUSION

1.6 LEARNING OUTCOMES

34

My understanding of architectural computing has definitely expanded. My attitude was disin-terest in digital architecture, but most of this was purely to do with my lack of understanding of the field. I came into the subject saying “why do we have to learn this? Why do people always try and make things harder? What is the point of all of this? And no one actually uses these programs in the real world!”

Well, I guess most of these questions have been answered, and although some of my views have not changed, I think it is important to know that research in the theories and practice of architec-tural computing have actually changed some of my understanding. It turns out that in fact, many successful firms utilise the process of com-putational architecture and digital architecture to produce the architecture that is in our world. Now I know the information occurring behind the scenes in architecture. Computation has become so wide-spread in our world due to the rapid development of technology, and archi-tecture is definitely representing that movement. Curvy shapes, complex geometries, environmen-tally-responsive buildings are now more common in architecture and it has to do with this ad-vancement. I have realised that computer-aided technology is a great tool for reducing the time of the design process.

Researching into these theories however makes me somehow concerned that the architecture will all reflect similar design intent. I am afraid that the computer is taking away the creative nature of the human mind. And I am afraid that archi-tects will now be forced into adopting a new technique which they do not necessarily want to use. That is why I still am in favour of sketching on paper with pencil in the inital stages because I feel as though a designer has more freedom when sharing their mind to other people. The thing I do like about computation and computer technology is that it allows the capability for more organic architecture, which I personally love, because I feel as though the architecture speaks the mind of the architect’s intention.

However, computer-aided technology is a great tool for developing these ideas. The useful thing is that we are able to make changes late in the de-sign process without the need for “re-sketching” or “restarting”. The computer is smart; it has a big brain and definitely a big memory span. Looking back at past projects, I realise just how simple the tools I used then were compared to what I am learning now. How did I ever think that what I was doing was so hard?!

I guess it has to do with the learning process. You will never find anything easy when you are learn-ing something completely new.

LEARNING OUTCOMES 1.7 NOTES

35

1

23

456

7

89

101112131415

1617181920212223242526

27

28

29

30313233

Richard Williams, “Architecture and Visual Culture”, in Exploring Visual Culture : Definitions, Concepts, Contexts, ed. by Matthew Rampley (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 102-116 (p.105).Ibid, (p. 108).Greg Lynn,“Why Tectonics is Square and Topology is Groovy”, in Fold, Bodies and Blobs: Collected Es-says ed. by Greg Lynn (Bruxelles: La Lettre volée, 1998), pp. 169-182. (p.169).Ibid, (p.171).Ibid, (p.178).Grimshaw, “Southern Cross Station”, (Grimshaw, 2011), <http://grimshaw-architects.com/project/southern-cross-station/>.Hamish Lyon, “Australian Design Review: From the archives: Southern Cross Station”, (Niche Media 2013), < http://www.australiandesignreview.com/architecture/833-from-the-archives-southern-cross-station>.“Basilica de La Sagrada Familia”, < http://www.sagradafamilia.cat/sf-eng/index.php?lang=0>.Wikipedia, “Sagrada Familia”, (Wikipedia, 2013), < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia>.“Basilica de La Sagrada Familia”IbidIbidWikipedia, “Sagrada Familia”“Basilica de La Sagrada Familia”Marcia Argyriades, “Metropol Parasol, The World’s Largest Wooden Structure”, Architecture: Yarzer, (2011), < http://www.yatzer.com/Metropol-Parasol-The-World-s-Largest-Wooden-Structure-J-MAYER-H-Architects>.IbidIbidJ. Mayer H., “Metropol Parasol”, < http://www.jmayerh.de/86-0-Info.html>.IbidMarcia Argyriades, “Metropol Parasol” IbidJ. Mayer H., “Metropol Parasol”Marcia Argyriades, “Metropol Parasol” J. Mayer H., “Metropol Parasol”IbidBranko Kolarevic, “Introduction”, in Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 3 - 28 (pp. 3-4).Bryan Lawson, “Fake’ and ‘Real’ Creativity using Computer Aided Sesign: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger”, in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ed. by Ernest Edmonds and Linda Candy (New York: Acm press, 1999), pp. 174-179.John H Frazer, “The Generation of Virtual Prototypes for Performance Optimization”, in GameSetAnd-Match II: The Architecture Co-Laboratory on Computer Games, Advanced Geometries and Digital Technologies, ed. by Kas Oosterhuis and Lukas Feireiss (Rotterdam: Episode Publishers, 2006), pp. 208-212.Yehuda E. Kalay, “Introduction” in Architecture’s New Media : Principles, Theories, and Methods of Computer-Aided Design, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 5 - 25, (p.2).Ibid, (p.2).Ibid, (p.2).Ibid, (p.2).Ibid, (p.2).

36

34353637383940414243444546474849

5051

5253

54

55565758

5960616263

64

656667

686970717273

7475767778

79

8081828384

Ibid, (p.3).Ibid, (p.4).Ibid, (p.6).Ibid, (p.6).Ibid, (p.8).Ibid, (p.9).Ibid, (p.9).Ibid, (pp.9-13).Branko Kolarevic, “Introduction”, (p.7)Ibid, (p.6).Ibid, (p.6).Ibid, (p.7).Ibid, (p.3).Ibid, (p.8).Ibid, (p.8).Xavier De Kestelier and Brady Peters, “Computation Works: the Building of algorithmic thought AD”, in Architecture Design Reader, (John Wiley & Sons LTD, 2013), pp. 1-142, (p.5). Kostas Terzidis, “Algorithmic Architecture,” (Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2006), (p. 11).Xavier De Kestelier and Brady Peters, “Computation Works: the Building of algorithmic thought AD”, (p.5).Kostas Terzidis, “Algorithmic Architecture,” (p.11).Kostas Terzidis, “Algorithms for Visual design using the processing Language” (Indianapolis, In: Wiley, 2009), (p. 20).Xavier De Kestelier and Brady Peters, “Computation Works: the Building of algorithmic thought AD”, (p.5).IbidBranko Kolarevic, “Introduction”, (p.9).Ibid, (p.9).Branko Kolarevic, “Digital Production”, in Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, (New York; London: Spon Press, 2003), pp. 28 - 62, (p.31).Ibid, (p.31).Ibid, (p.31).Ibid, (p.39-40).Ibid, (p.33).Xavier De Kestelier and Brady Peters, “Computation Works: the Building of algorithmic thought AD”, (p.5).Eric Weisstein, “CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathetmatics”, Second ed., (Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2003), (p.2150).Robert Woodbury, ”Elements of Parametric Design” (London: Routledge, 2010) pp. 7-48, (pp.1-5).Ibid, (p.5).Mark Burry, “Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming”, (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), pp. 8 - 71, (p.9).Ibid, (p.9).Robert Woodbury, ”Elements of Parametric Design”, (pp.1-2).Ibid, (p.47).Ibid, (pp.33-34).Ibid, (p.34).Daniel Davis, “Introduction to Parametric Modelling”, (Faculty of Architecture: University of Melbourne, 2013), Lecture.Mark Burry, “Scripting Cultures: Architectural Design and Programming”, (p.30).Robert Woodbury, ”Elements of Parametric Design”, (p.24).Ibid, (p.24).Ibid, (pp.28-29).David E. Weisberg, “The Engineering Design Revolution: The People, Companies and Computer Syste that Changed Froever the Practice of Engineering” (2008), <http://www.cadhistory.net/>.Xavier De Kestelier and Brady Peters, “Computation Works: the Building of algorithmic thought AD”, (p.34).Ibid., (p.34).Ibid., (p.34).Ibid., (p.35).Ibid., (p.35).Ibid., (p.35).

37

8586878889909192939495

Ibid., (p.35).Ibid., (p.35).Ibid., (p.35).Ibid., (p.67).Ibid., (p.68).Ibid., (p.68).Ibid., (p.68).Ibid., (p.68).Ibid., (p.68).Ibid., (p.69).Ibid., (p.69).

38

PART 2EXPRESSION OF INTEREST II

39

2.0design approach

40

2.1 DESIGN FOCUS

"B is for biomimicry”“ innovation inspired by nature”

Biomimicry happened to be the favoured research stream as a basis for design devel-opment. We only had a very small hint of what biomimicry meant, and before choosing the stream, we did a ittle bit of research. It immediately capti-vated our attention.

So what is biomimicry and where did it come from? Bio-mimicry comes from “bios” meaning life, amd “mimesis” meaning to imitate.1 The sci-ence established in 1997, with the book “Biomimicry: Inno-vation Inspired by design” by Janine Benyus explains its defini-tion.2 Biomimetics is the exami-nation of nature; in particular its modules, systems, processes and elements to emulate or take inspiration from, in order to solve human problems.3

But why has it become such an important part of design? The notion of Biomimicry is that na-ture has solved many problems in life itself; for example, it has provided energy through food production, climate control,

non-toxic chemistry, transporta-tion and packaging.4 Hence, biomimicry is adopted into the design field because it operates on the principle that in the 3.8 billion year history of nature, it has itself, already found solu-tions to many of the problems we are still trying to solve. So why not use nature as an inspi-ration? We, as designers, are always trying to solve design and structural solutions in mak-ing things work smoothly.

Janine Benyus set up the proj-ect “AskNature”, which explores how nature’s organisms can in-spire designers and teach them the principles of design.5 In other words, it is the “digital library of nature’s solutions”. Animals, plants and microbes act as the “engineers” as they explore what works, what is appropri-ate and what lasts on Earth.6 Nature is obviously doing some-thing right to have survived for so many years and brought so many resources to the world.

Nature has been regarded as a model, measure and a mentor in design. For example, it acts as

a model as we are emulating nature’s forms, processes and its systems to solve our own prob-lems; it acts as a measure as we are evaluating our designs and solutions against those of nature; and finally it is a mentor because it is creating a relation-ship between designers and na-ture.7 Instead of humans being a separate part of nature, we are included in it and behave accordingly.

Studying biomimicry questions our current method of design. Can design be as efficient, simple and sustainable as found in nature?

In 2008, the Biomimicry Guild (1998), formed a permanent connection with the global architecture firm HDK.8 This expanded the mainstream ap-plication of biological-inspired design in the firm’s projects.

But why is it being used in the design field?

The integration of biomimicry is a beneficial “tool” in the design process for architects and de-

41

signers. The so-called “design spiral” acts as a guide which assists in biologizing “a challenge, query the natural world for inspiration, then evaluate to ensure that the final design mim-ics nature at all levels” - ie. form, process and ecosystem.9 This “spiral form” or “design spiral” helps to emhasise the reiterative nature of the design process.

This field provides two different design ap-proach paths:1. Design to nature; and 2. Nature to design.

The first approach illustrates how designers identify a design problem, and turn to nature to find a solution; the second approach looks at studying nture and imagining human appli-cations for nature’s designs.10

Now, biommetics seems to appear in architec-ture and product design as in fashion, car-de-signing and buildings.

For example, “Biomimetic Heels” by Ratsma and Spatro experiments with biomimicry in fashion to make the heels look like “bones.”11 We also see this though the design of the Opel GM and Mercedes Benz, where an organic structural solution using the inspiration of na-ture’s trees and bones has resulted.12 What about “HygroScope” at the Centre Pompidou in Paris? Reichart and Menges create an instal-lation which is climate-responsive to architec-tural morphology.13 Architecture has evolved to the stage where the structure is able to re-spond to climatic conditions. In this installation, the structure opens and closes in response to the fluctuations in relative humidity.14

Thanks to computation, designers are able to produce virtually any form they like. I will be discussing this further on.

Why do I like biomimetics? I find that nature has much potential in the inspiration of a designer’s design space. Not only is biomimetics aestheti-cally pleasing when combined with design, but it is also functional. It establishes a framework for design. As I questioned previously, why not use nature as an inspiration to answer the prob-lems we as designers are stil trying to solve? Why not use materials that make up structures as machines in order to adapt to the environ-ment?

Left: “Biomimetic Heels”, Dutch designer Marieka Ratsma and Architect Kostika Spatro,2012.

Below: “Building Cars like Bones” Opel GM and Mercede’s Experimenta-tion, 2009.

Bottom: “HygroScope: Meteorosensitive Morphol-ogy”, Achim Menges with Steffen Reichert, Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2012.

42

RESEARCH PAVILION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART- ICD / ITKE

INTEGRATED BIOMIMICRY

This architecture aims to integrate performative capacity of biological structures into architec-tural design by testing spatial and structural ma-terial-systems at a full scale. It was established with biological research collaboration beween the Institure for Computational Design (ICD) and the Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE), as well as student input.15 But what does this structure show in terms of bio-mimicry? It demonstrates just how far design has come in creating a marriage of computation and biomimicry. The idea originated from analy-sis of different biological structures. This analysis lead to a particular interest to the plate skeleton morphology of the sand dollar - a sub-series of the sea urchin.16

The skeleton that makes up the shell structure is a modular system of polygonal plates, joined together by finger-like calcite protrusions.17 This structure achieves something extraordinary. How is it possible that such a light-weight mate-rial would be able to make up this form, with so many undulating joints and edges that are so accurately combined?

Nature has inspired not only the design, but also the structural solution. Very thin (6.5mm) plywood sheets create this domed structure; and the structure use the same principles a sea urchin’s shell plates notch into one another in order to find a structural solution.18 The geometri-cal arrangement of the plates allow for high bearing capacity, and the transfer of normal and shear forces is feasible due to the three plate edge meeting at one point.19 This design principle is therefore able to be applied to many types of geometry, allowing for the con-struction of such light-weight structures.

However, other properties of the biological structures wereapplied hroughout the compua-

Above: The Sea Urchin’s skeleton

Research Pavilion, ICD / ITKE, University of Stuttgart, 2011.

43

tional design process. For example, heterogene-ity: the cells are not constant, but they adapt to the local curvature and discontinuities; anistropy: the structure is directional, so the cells stretch and orient themselves according to mechanical stresses; and hierarchy: the pavilion is organised as a trio-level hierarchical structure to ensure flex-ible edges are all levels.20

What help was there to construct this project? You guessed it. Computer-based design and sim-ulation methods, as well as computer-controlled manufacturing methods for its building implemen-tation were tools to make this design possible.21

It offerred designers opportunities to investigate methods of modular bionic construction by using free form surfaces to represent different geomet-ric characteristics.

This project is successful with integrating biomim-icry in creating an innovative structure. It demon-strates how nature and design create innovation and so many possibilities.Complex morphology can be built exclusively with the use of extremely light-weight materials and yet still function effec-tively.

Research Pavilion, ICD / ITKE, University of Stuttgart, 2011.

44

MANGAL CITY - CHIMERA DESIGN TEAMINTEGRATED BIOMIMICRY

This project also falls under biomimicry as the design approach. It was designed by the team as a thesis proposal for Master of Architecture in Parametric Urbanism Program at the AA School of Architecture in London.

The designers became inspired by the “complex ecosystems created by the mangrove trees”.22 But what was the purpose of the project? Its aim was to create a series of futuristic spiraling skyscrapers for London, which defined an urban ecosystem whilst also supporting housing and cultural programs.

It promotes flexibility, in particular flexible building systems in the way the structure works. For example, the building comprises of modular pod capsules that continue shifting to adapt to the surrounding environ-ment and its contextual conditions.23

A twisted latice frame forms the biomimetic char-acteristics, with the structure modelled after a mangrove tree, spiraling plant growth patterns and the interaction of natural ecosystems.24 Hence, the relationship between design and nature are revis-ited with the leaf-like residential pods that rest on “branches”. These branches twist towards the sun to maximuse warmth and sunlight.25

So how far more can design reach? We have seen design through biomimicry, but what is next? Will architecture become more “alive” just as nature is alive? Will buildings now all start to move according to our desire?

Well it seems as though this statement is confirmed by these past projects, and amongst others, whereby biomimicry is being used as a design approach. Using nature as an inspiration has provided many av-enues for architects to explore the design space and search for design solutions that nature can provide.

“DESIGN + NATURE = SUSTAINABILITY + INNOVATION?”

“Mangal City Skyscraper”, Chimera Design Team, London, 2011.

45

2.1.1 THE ARGUMENTWHY BIOMIMICRY? WHY THIS APPROACH FOR THE

GATEWAY PROPOSAL?

After carefully analysing biomimicry and its development in the design field, it is confirmed to be a suitable and very flexible de-sign approach for the Western Gateway Installation.

Firstly, biomimicry provides innovation in architectural practice. We have seen through looking at past projects, that nature can be combined into design. This outcome allows the structure of the design to become the design itself. In other words, using nature’s modulars, systems, processes and elements, we are able to create a structure. This structure makes up the design solution, hence be-comes a cohesive whole. We can therefore say, that the notion of using a biological structure as a design solution provides the archi-tecture itself. Design and structure is therefore no longer separate, but it is morphed together.

This relationship correlates to the new architectural discourse fo-cusing on computational design. Design information is becoming construction information, and this is achieved through the use of computer technology - in particular computation and parametric modelling. With the help of these “tools”, we are able to create many interesting, complex geometries - not just basic geometries, but geometries based on the idea of biomimetics. It is said that biomimicry is a great source of innovation. “Biomimicry is just one of the best sources of innovation to get to a world of zero waste because those are the rules under which biological life has had to exist”.We are able to demonstrate the underlying structures that make up nature in our structure. What is it that makes up nature? Is it cells? What happens to these cells?

Secondly, biomimetics is a stream that can be directly incorpoat-ed as part of the design brief for Wydnham. As well as providing a new discourse with the study of the “recent” idea of biomimetics in design, we are able to further expand this discourse in the grow-ing municipality of Wyndham. Can we promote this new discourse through a new Gateway Proposal? Sure we can. But how? Cells that make up a structure could potentially act as a metaphor for the growth of the suburb. Wyndham City has been growing at a rapid rate - from 8,000 to 10,000 residents every year; and it is expected to become a city of more than 430,000 in the future. Similarly, nature has been alive and evolving for so many years.

“Seeds of Change”, Thompson Berrill Landscape Design, Victoria, Australia,

2004

46

Hence, cells that make up the growth of nature can be integrated into design to reflect the “growing municipality” of Wyndham in Vic-toria. If nature has been alive and evolving for so long, it is obviously doing something right. So we can use it as a design basis and inspira-tion to solve our own structural and design solutions.

Finally, nature that exists today have faced the natural selection process which involves finding the “survival of the fittest”. In other words, what we see surrounding us is the secret to survival, but fossils are inticators of failure. Therefore, by reflecting optimaal solutions as found in nature, we as designers are able to also create something so-called “optimal”. But what is optimal?

Using biomimicry as a design stream allows us to imitate an optimal behaviour has demonstrated by nature. This is also significant in per-formative design; for example, we may want to create something that produces energy in the most “optimal” way, and perhaps by analysing the process of photosynthesis in leaves, would we be able to achieve this intent.

Therefore, we are able to refer to nature as not only an initial de-sign inspiration, but we are able to link it to the structure as well. It is demonstrated that nature plus design can create so many possibili-ties, in partuclar innovative possibilities. This is what we are trying to achieve, a proposal whereby we are able to create a discourse, using computation and parametric modelling as our “push”in order to create something “innovative” and functional. Something that will define Wyndham as a growing municipality, and promote its ex-istance through an interesting an “innovative” design.

If we are able to achieve a biomimetic design through computation and parametric modelling, why not use it for Wyndham?Let’s ex-plore our possibilites and open our “design space.”

“Melbourne Gateway”, Denton Corker Marshall, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2000

47

2.2 CASE STUDY 1.0

We used the defitnition provided by the VoltaDom by Skylar Tibbits and SJET (2007) in order to explore the possibilities in Grasshopper.

We initally thought we had a large design space to work with, how-ever it seemed as though we were restricted in moving forward once we hit only a couple of steps. Yes, we played aound with the sliders and enabled/disabled the inputs to investigate their function, but we felt as though we were constrained into someone elsee’s definition, rather than our own. It felt as though the cones restricted our possibilities.

Therefore, we came up with our own idea to use some of our own inputs but still use some of the ones provi-dided - like the cones for example. We wanted to extend our design space by creating voronois, an input that immediately drew to our atten-tion due to its irregular form. There-fore, we explored our possibilities with this parameter.

But then we came to a dead end. Our selection critera involved cones, grids, voronois, metaballs, meshes etc. becaused we wanted to explore the interesting forms that grasshop-per allows us. By “playing around” with this case study, we considered an idea of trying to achieve “growth” and “movement” in its form as this is part of our main argument on choos-ing Biomimicry for the Wyndham freeway installation: moving towards growth in a natural environment.

VOLTADOM - SKYLAR TIBBITS & SJET

“VoltaDom” Installation, Skylar Tibbits and SJET, MIT Campus, 2007 2011.

48

We did not settle on a final version as we took this opportunity purely and simply as a learning tool. It was an opportunity to explore the possibilities in Grasshopper and try and create as many 2-dimensional iterations as we could from the inputs available. Perhaps our outcomes, or one can be applied as part of our new Gateway Design Project to find an ap-propriate form? A design that looks at growth of particles in a small community. However, it tends to only really focus on one thing the more I look at it - ie. aesthetics. The form may “mimic” nature’s nature, but we need to look deeper into the theory. Further research on biomimicry and why it is “optimal” is our next step. We need to focus on a few ideas in order to make this “exploration” actually purposeful and useful for our future design.

49

2.2.1 DESIGN FOCUS- REVISITED

After the tutorial, we were pleased to have received feedback that our “argument” was reasonable and had full potential to develop. What they did want to know was, however...

WHY IS BIOMIMICRY OPTIMAL?

Our argument seemed to be so focused on the notion of biomimicry being “optimal”, but why? We realised that this was an opportunity to do more research. Explore the possibilities with biomimicry, since it is such a complex design approach. We had our three main arguments, but how can we expand them and think deeper into the idea?

50

2.3 CASE STUDY 2.0SPANISH PAVILION - FOREIGN OFFICE ARCHITECTS

At the same time we were exploring various outcomes and doing futher research, we also attempted to re-engineer an existing project - the Spanish Pavilion at the 2005 World Exposition by Foreign Office Architectts. It is considered the most captivating out of all of the 65 pavilions build to exhibit themselves.26 It consists of walls of irregular hexagons of mixed colours - the colours that match are of the same hexgonal composi-tion. Hence, it is colour-coded which also adds a striking expression to the architecture. These “outer skin” walls are separated to the inner pa-vilion to portray a “half-in-half-out” space.27 The hexagonal grid enables each edge to precisely

fit to the according hexagonal edges. It is interesting to note how some of the hexago-nalfaces are closed, and some are open - what was the reason behind this? It is important that we break down the steps of the facade design to attempt to re-engineer in Grasshopper.

I feel as though it was a successful design in that it not only creates a functional space, but it is simple, yet complex in its inner structure, and cre-ates a gesture with its use of colour, irregularity, openness and closure, and geometry. It reflects the colourful, creative aesthetics of the Spanish culture, in particular Gaudi’s input to the Spanish culture.

“Spanish Pavilion”, Foreign Office Architects,Nagoya, Japan, 2005 Expo

51

52

We worked out that the wall panels consisted of a hexagonal grid, therefore we created the hexonagl grid, with its size according to the num-bers set on the nuber sliders.Setting them into a panel frame and extruding the frame and panel allowed me to create a 3-dimensional form. How-ever I wanted to take a step further and explore how I can create varying offset heights. Con-necting the parameter to random enabled me to set a domain of the heights. Therefore, I was in control of the height levels of the hexagons.

However we reached a dead end. Our limita-tions of grasshopper constrained us in achieving the desired effect. We were unable to create the “opening and closing” pattern that the actual project creates. We expect it to do with the bool-

ean parameter, however we were unsuccessful. This held us back in our re-engineering experi-ment.

We went back to the provided definition to see how they attempted to produce the product. It did not make sense to us and we found that it took too many steps to produce this piece of geometry. Was there an easier way to reverse engineer this project?

Online tutorials helped us extend our grasshopper explorations. Therefore we took these into ac-count to grasp more Grasshopper opportunities and attempt to mimic the same principles as the Case Study.

53

2.3.1 CASE STUDY 2.0 REVISITED

We revisited the Case Study and attempted again. What can we do differently to produce such an effect like the Spanish Pavilion? It seemed as though we got stuck again after we figured out how to “cap” the holes.

I guess the benefit of the exercise was that we were pleased to see that we could produce in-teresting geometries; for example, the hexagonal cells making up the structure’s facade. Nonethe-less it gave us a starting point for further Grass-hopper development in our own exploration. I felt we were limited in the design space be-cause we felt as though it was going to be an easy task to achieve, but in the end it was not.

Irregularity of the hexagons and capping of only some faces was not able to be achieved and due to the time constraints, decided to move onto our own form.

We did, however, want to take a step further and produce some more iterations with the skills learned. This demonstrates that parametric design is not necessarily a linear process, but it comes from all different directions. Every change the user makes affects the definition, and thereby affects the form. Generative design is all about exploring what can be done, and using compu-tation to develop many ideas until a solution is found.

54

55

2.4. TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

With the further steps, we explored the vari-ous grids we could create and from these pro-duced prototypes. First, we used the hexagonal face grids and then we explored the traingular grids to create 3-dimensional models. The main reason for this step was not purely as a design intent but more a structural and “exploration” intent - investigating how some shapes and elements may fit together and if they are suc-cessful or unsuccessful. This was a useful time to use the Fablab. It had been a while since we had used that tool, so it was interesting to revisit the experience. We developed the “unrolling” method using only Rhino because at that stage, we did not know any grasshopper definitions for unrolling existed! It was such a time-consuming process to unroll and delete some of the unnec-essary curves that rhino was producing. Using ivory card enabled a light-weight, flexible and quite structural material to produce the puzzle pieces for construction. Using the FablLab at an earlier stage of the design process we thought would be beneficial for us to become famil-iar with the process again and explore what materials they have available for us. In the end, it made us realise that unrolling in Rhino is very tedious, and we look foward to comparing it to Grasshopper - will it be easier?

56

In the meantime, more explora-tions were produced using the similarities I saw when compar-ing the past “biomimic” projects. Hence, I focused my explorations around:

• Repitition• Form• Opening and closingGeometries made in Rhino were able to be linked into Grasshopper, and after many attempts, we worked out how to create a more random list - by using the “dispatch” pa-rameter and setting a boolean.

Morphing different geometries applied the pattern to the lofted surface.

I hence used other param-eters such as polygons set to a surface, voronois, dividing the surface into polylines, and using hexagonal grids to enhance my explorations.

57

1. 2.

58

3.

59

4.

1. 2.

3. 4.

After exploring some of the inputs inspired by the terms explained, we came to question our-selves....

Was this actually useful for what we want to achieve for our project? It was useful playing around with grasshopper, but we wanted to get straight into our design, on something we want-ed to achieve for Wyndham.

I guess each iteration were simply unexpected results, as we were simply exploring. So it is never really a waste when you explore. We did find however, that we should really knuckle down into our own gateway proposal design and begin thinking about how we might want that to eventually look like.Because frankly, these iterations seemed “unsuccessful” in terms of the Wyndham design intent and our argument.

60

After undertaking these couple of re-engi-neered projects and researching more into the meaning of Biomimicry, I thought to myself, is this actually biomimic what these projects have dem-onstrated?

I honestly do not think they do. Yes, perhaps the designers took their design inspiration and form in-spiration from nature, but it has been used purely as an aesthetic. There is no point using Biomimicry as a design apporach if the design is purely mim-icing nature’s form to make it a designer’s own form. Biomimicry is so much more than that, and this is what we wanted to achieve in our Gate-way proposal.

“Spanish Pavilion”, Foreign Office Architects,Nagoya, Japan, 2005 Expo

“VoltaDom” Installation, Skylar Tibbits and SJET, MIT Campus, 2007 2011.

biomimic? really?2.4.1 BIOMIMICRY REVISITED

61

BIOMIMICRY REVISITED

So I interviewed a Biomimic Specialist at an Architectural firm. In essence, after a long discourse, I can say that Biomimicry is used as a life principle where “life creates conditions condusive to life”. But why is it optimal?

This diagram above answers my question. Biomimicry:• Evolves to survive• is resourceful (material and energy efficient)• Adapts to changing conditions• Integrates development with growth• is locally attuned and responsive• uses life-friendly chemistry supporting life’s processes.So many things can be explored by using this diagram as a basis. The challenge however for designers is:

how does nature do that?

“Biomimicry 3.8”, (Biomimicry Group Inc., 2012)), <http://biomimicry.net/>

62

"P is for performance”This took me back to the lecture relating to “Performance Driven Design” where I was able to revisit what design was.

Is it:• Performance-oriented?• Performance driven?• Performative?• Optimally directed?Michael Hensel believes that “performance as a paradigm enables the study of nature and the built environment as active agents, rather than as passive context”28 Therefore, we reiterated our point that nature and its processes can be used as a mentor, measure and a model to performa-tive design.

We can look at performative design in terms of many things, in particular structural optimiza-tion, embedded material propertes, fabrication and optimisation of passive performance via accurate use of climatic data.29 We can experi-ment these using interdisciplinary outcomes and constrain the developing outcomes to meet an eventual criteria. For example, look at Frei Otto’s “Form Finding” projects that uses computa-tion to produce a structure that follows a load path whereby the material informs the form. This produces a design outcome which the designers were satisfied with.

We can use computation to allow for experimen-tation and produce something efficient; perhaps something made of cheap, readily-available materials which are also structurally stable, func-tional and perhaps aesthetic; for example, the “Voussoir Cloud.”

It made me think, biomimicry favours all of the criteria explained, so what performative criteria will we be able to set our project for Wyndham? Can we set a good example to the city?

“Train Station” Project, Frei Otto, Stuttgart, Germany, 2000

“Munich Olympics Grounds”, Frei Otto, Munich, Germany, 1972

“Voussoir Cloud”, IwamotoScott Architects, L.A, USA, 2008

63

2.4.2 THE ARGUMENT- REVISITEDWHY BIOMIMICRY?

Let’s revist the reason behind our argument as to why we chose biomimicry as a design approach. Thorough research and a lot of thought sumarise our conclusion. A few simple diagrams will illustrate our thoughts from start to finish...

64

"O is for optimal”2.4.2 THE ARGUMENT- REVISITED

WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES THESE ORGANISMS OPTIMAL?

Our design focused on the idea of nature being “optimal”, hence biomimicry be-ing an “optimal” design approach. A quote by Leon Megginson inspired us:

"It is not the strongest of the spe-cies that survives, nor the most in-telligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.."

Ginatta, Carlos (2010). “Architecture without architecture- biomimicry design”. (Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & co. KG).

65

2.4.3 DESIGN FOCUS - (AGAIN?!)

We decided to study the tree - in particular itsrings and how they are pure evidence of how a tree grows and adapts to surviving in its environment. So, our research focused on various things that make a tree adaptable.

"A is for adaptable”

“Heliotropism” refers to a leaves “strat-egy” to maxmise their amount of solar radiation by tracking the sun.31 They lay horizontally to increase their solar intake, and vertical to reduce their solar absorp-tion.32 Hence, leaves respond to the sun preventing their leaves from burning. We can apply this to design as the sun impacts on the degradation of materi-als through direct exposure. This can be avoided by orienting to retain the aeth-etics of the material and ensure an “eye catching” nature of design.

This is a structural adaptation in trees that ensures the attachment of branches to their trunks. The formation of the layer-ing and interlocking of tissue is what pro-vides the branch and tree connections structural integrity.30 This may be appli-cable to our design as the interlocking of various component can assist in creating a rigid structural system.

Cross-section of a tree:“The evidence of growth” and markers of life, Each year, a tree grows a “new coat of wood” over the older wood, and hence changes in diameter.33 The outer layer is dead and provides the tree with protection against the environment. Drier environmental conditions lead to smaller ring produc-tion; larger rings represent good growing conditions.34 Hence, layering and growth can be seen as an analogy to the grow-ing population in Wyndham.

ORIENTING

INTERLOCKING

LAYERING AND GROWTH

66

67

2.4.4 PRECEDENTS RMIT DESIGN HUB- SEAN GODSELL & PTA

“ SMART SKIN DESIGNED AS A CLIMATE-RESPONSIVE ORGANISM”

This Hub by Sean Godsell and Peddle Thorp Archi-tects (2012) includes an outer skin of automated sun shading devices (16,000 sand-blasted glass cells - photovoltaic cells) that become transparent in the rain and automatically track the sun to help provide shade.35 Hence, low evaporative cooling, optimal fresh air intake and improved internal air quality and building running costs are achieved.36 It demonstrates that improved design and multi-disciplinary design can lead to innovation; that is, sustainability for the environment and its occu-pants It is not only sustainable, but it is aesthetically pleasing and demonstrates performative design where adaptability occurs through change.

“RMIT Design Hub”, Sean Godsell and PTA, Melbourne, Australia, 2012

68

2.4.4 PRECEDENTS THE MORNING LINE- ARANDA/LASCH

“ A MUTABLE STRUCTURE”

“The Morning Line”, Aranda/Lasch, Schwarzenbergplatz, Vienna, 2012

The concept was to construct a ruin and monu-ment through an exploration of open cellular structures.37 Its geometry forming a “universal bit” is formed by a truncated tetrahedron, intended to reproduce its ability to shrink and grow as well as

attach back upon itself.38 This defines the structure into 3-dimensional fractals. Computation allowed this project to be achieved, especially through studying the language of cells and lattices found in crystallopgraphic construction forming the idea of “growth.”39 Inspiration came from the “orga-nising” of crystal structures which allowed the, architecture to perform as a moduated structure through its simple principles and unfolding sym-metries. This project tells us, however that biomim-icry in architecture responds to the environment to provide unique, innovatie solutions to design. It allows a multi-functional structure, not just a static structure.

How do these projects relate to our project? Well, they demonsrate how multi-disciplinary design can use strategies to “optimize” their buildings or structures. It demonstrates how architecture can change to enhance its function; and hence result in both an optimal design and an “engaging” piece of architecture.

69

2.4.5 TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENTTHE PURSUIT OF A RELEVANT TECHNIQUE...

We took our design focus back into Grasshopper and ex-plored ways in which we could represent “interlocking”, “layer-ing” and “orienting”. Continuing dividing curves into segments and eventually merging the lofted forms established this intent. We were very happy with this outcome, as we knew we were on the right path to what we wanted to achieve. This form also somehow demonstrated a “wooled” surface.

70

2.4.5 TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT

We then took our design even further, exploring differ-ent attractor point techniques to create something that cre-ates its form by attracting to a certain point. This is what we want to achieve when we refer to “orienting”, like the leafs ori-ent themselves according to the sun’s rays. Hence, the sun is the attractor point. Here, we used the parameter “vector 2 point” and found it very useful in creat-ing this effect.

1.

2.

1.

2.

71

2.5 TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPINGWith these ideas, we thought about producing them into 3-dimensional sketch models. In a way it was useful because what you may think works on Grasshopper may not neccessarily be constructable in real-life! It was use-ful to also experiment ways in which the elements could fit together. For example, prototype 1 uses a “back-ing strip” that ties the orienting planes into a growth movement - where one

point is attacting the plane’s orientation. A structural ele-ment to hold this was built using a thin wooden material (a skewer). It also happened to fit into the design of the model quite well, considering it was made of a contrast-ing material! The structure would not have been able to stand up without this “tensile-like” element. Similarly with prototype 2, the orienting planes were connected through a thin, malleable wire which allowed flexibility to form a particular shape. The wire acted as a structural support but could even be considered as part of the architecture. I liked how two constrasting materials were used for fabrication because I thought it prevented a monotonous outcome and instead represented a more “engaging” structure with a play of materials. I do not however think that we will be ending up using plain card as a material - very plain and simply used more for sketch models to experiment how connections can be made, and if any additional elements need to be assembled to ensure structural integrity. It is also interesting to see how the structure conveys different lighting effects due to its form.

1. 2.

72

2.5.1 FABRICATION TECHNIQUES

It is interesting to find examples of past projects employing fabrication to produce 3-dimensional models. Moreso, it is interesting to see how these examples above relate to our “terms” that we want to focus on - ie. layering, interlocking and orienting. They achieve this by different connec-tion methods and materials. We noted how some examples use screw-ins to enable a flexible or a rigid joint. Will we maybe be able to employ these kinds of methods for our final design? Perhaps!

These examples we favoured not only because they reflect our three criterias, but they also “en-gage” with viewers in their form. They encapsu-late a kind-of movement and frame that creates a dynamic, eye-catching installation.

73

2.6so...what’s the deal?

what does wyndham city want?how do we place this on site?

Revisiting the exact requirements made by the Wyndham City Council, this is what we extracted:

"an exciting, eye catching installation at Wydham’s Western Gateway [that] inspires and enriches the municipality...[that considers] the

high speed movement of traffic..."

Through the experience of driving past “Seeds of Change” by Thompson Berrill and “Melbourne Gateway” by Denton Corker Marshall, what is compelling is how they are not literal in their intent - they are abstract - but they somehow engage with the drivers. This is what we are in-

tending to do, and through more development and refinement of ideas, we will eventually reach this point. Hence, this diagram summarises our techniques that we wish to apply to the Gateway Proposal to fulfil the criteria made by the Wynd-ham City Council.

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

INTERLOCKING

LAYERING

ORIENTING

74

2.6

Using our thorough research under Biomimicry as a design approach and applying the considerations made my the Wyndham City Council lead to a pathway of approach. How will we integrate Biomimicry ideas and the freeway context to produce an “optimal” design? What parameter do we focus on in order to achieve our intentions?

FINALLY A RELEVANT / WORKABLE TECHNIQUE...

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

75

2.6"A is for attractor point”Using the attractor point as a main parameter enabled this functionality. This will be applied to create these effects to create an eye catching and engaging gateway entry of Wyndham city. Its innovation derives from the complex ideologies based on biomimicry, in particular the growth and adaptation of the tree through three main processes to produce an “optimal” organism adaptable to survive.

Wyndham is a rapidly growing population and encompasses a wide urban landscape ideal to designers to enhance. We feel as though our project proposal is a smart, complex idea yet put in simple form, notion that has full potential as a not only a gateway proposal, but an installation that looks deep into nature and its functions to make it optimal. Nonetheless, the installation will fit well into the growing municipality and create a new discourse that looks at biomimicry as an

innovative design. How? The evolution of biomim-icry and its structure can be used as a model, mentor and measure to establish a design solu-tion that makes a cohesive whole. This discourse is enhanced with the evolution of new technology- such as Grasshopper and Rhino, and fabrication techniques.

Nature has worked itself out for so many years in order to survive, but the main challenge for de-signers is establishing the idea. How do we emu-late nature? How does nature do something we cannot do as humans to survive?

These drawbacks are part of the design process, and we must draw on all of what nature has come up with in order to “think biomimically” and produce a design strategy.

We humans are also a part of nature, we are not separate entities; and we must respect that.

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

76

2.6how do we do it?

Using a mapped and divided curve and connecting it to a point attractor allowed us to create three-dimensional planar panels that aligned in a certain orientation occording to where we wanted them to be aligning. We felt in control at this stage as this was our own definition and we could control the number of panels we wanted, the distance between these panels, the thickness and its size. Nonethe-less, we are able to control the location of the attractor point, ie. the sun, in the coordinate space. Wherever the location of the sun will affect the orienta-tion of the panels. A bottom-up approach illustrates how one el-ement affects other parameters in the coordinate space.

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

77

78

2.6.1We decided to produce another prototype that imitates the final outcome at this stage. We had actually sent three different types of materials to the FabLab for laser cutting (one of which being plywood), but unfortunately it was not cut properly, so we used what we had. This was polypropylene - a lightweight, translucent plastic material. Polypropylene was used for the panels which was fixed onto thicker wire. Holes were produced for the FabLab to perforate, which made the building process much faster as all was required was piercing the wire through the holes. This enabled a flexible joint whereby we could orient the panels in a certain orienta-tion. We did not, however, consider how the panels might orientate themselves to form a “twisted” shape as produced by the grasshopper file. Perhaps we will need to find another solution whereby the joints are completely non-rigid thus allowing the panels to orient more flexibly, like the leaves of a tree orient themselves according to the sun’s rays.

We were happy with the polypropylene as a light-weight, yet structural material that also conveyed a sort-of ornamental effect. It was translucent, so allowed the light to penetrate through the material and create interesting light-ing effects.

A problem we faced however was the wire. Clearly it is not a very appropriate material because it becomes too distorted and created “kinks” which makes it hard for the panels to be

TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPING

79

2.6.1inserted in a regular, smooth curved shape.

Overall, we were excited to see our exploration become built in front of our eyes. Nonetheless, it conveyed the elements we wanted it to convey. However we were not pleased with the optical illusion it created as the material was perhaps too rigid to work with, and perhaps it did not collabo-rate well to create a structural form.

This is all a part of the design process and learning process. When we enter our next stage, we will be developing our ideas and becoming familiar with more materials and techniques to produce a more appealing piece of art that we, our tutors, and the whole community want to see alongside the freeway in Wyndham City.

TECHNIQUE PROTOTYPING

80

2.6.2THE OUTCOME

TECHNIQUE PROPOSAL

Dev

elop

men

t with

growth

Evolve to survive

Adapt to

changingconditio ns

Lesson’s from N atur e

BOTT

OM

-UP

Operating Conditions

81

2.7THE BACKGROUND NATURE

THE INSPIRATION AND FOCUS

82

2.8Our mid-semester presentation went better than expected. Our strong argument succesfully engaged the viewers into why our ap-proach is successful in terms of designing a new gateway proposal for Wyndham City. They seemed to be so hapy with the argument, but a bit surprised with the final outcome. They were expecting to see that strength in the design, but to them it was not shown.

I feel as though they took the outcome as an actual “final design” and did not consider the next stage of development. However we will take their feedback into consideration and develop it further to produce better work. We know now the technique and process that we want to apply, but it is now a matter of further skill-enhancing in grasshopper to produce a more engaging, eye-catching installation for our final de-sign.

The studio classes enabled us as a group to get together and discuss our objectives. We were then able to deliver these objectives to other studio members as well as our tutors to receieve useful feedback. Class groups are very useful as one cannot simply learn independently; one learns from others. It is especially useful in this subject as we are intro-duced into a new computation spectrum and a new program, with absolutely no experience of how it works!

In regards to parametric modelling, it was definitely a huge struggle trying to learn the program, better still apply our imagination into the program and try to reproduce it. However in the end, we were happy to where we got to because we achieved something we intended to, and now we have a clear path of direction. We are now in control of our inputs and our design, so we are able to create, manipulate and design using parametric design. We have demonstrated our successful and sometimes unsuccessful outcomes, however most of all we have demonstrated our skills in parametric modelling.

I am very happy with our argument, as it demonstrates that hard work through deliberation and research can pay off! Nonetheless, continu-ous amounts of explorations in grasshopper can lead to unexpected outcomes, and some of these outcomes can lead to a design intent. Resarch into biomimicry and researching some past projects accelle-rated our design approach. Prototyping different outcomes also put the project into realistic perspective and gave us the opportunity to prob-lem solve any structural assemblies as well as explore different materials.

The next part will look at how we consider our design on the actual site. Using the tutorial feedback and our own opinions, we will try our very best to improve our Grasshopper skills and beome more developed de-signers so that we can eventually conceive an optimal, engaging and eye-catching freeway installation for Wyndham.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

2.9

83

The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute, “AskNature”, (The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute, 2013), < http://www.asknature.org/ >.“Biomimicry, ” (designboom, 2010), < http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/biomimicry.html>.The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute, “Biomimicry 3.8,” (Biomimicry 3.8, 2012), < http://biomimicry.net/>.The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute, “AskNature”“Biomimetic Architecture”, (Biomimetic Architecture, 2013), < http://www.biomimetic-architecture.com/what-is-biomimicry/>.The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute, “AskNature”designboom, “Biomimicry”.IbidIbidIbidEhsaan, “Biomimicry Shoe by Marieka Ratsma Kostika Spaho”, Biomimetic Architecture, (2012), < http://www.biomimetic-architecture.com/2012/biomimicry-shoe-by-marieka-ratsma-kostika-spaho/>.Ehsaan, “Buidling Cars like Bone”, Biomimetic Architecture, (2009), < http://www.biomimetic-architec-ture.com/2009/build-like-a-bone/Ehsaan, “Biomimicry Shoe by Marieka Ratsma Kostika Spaho”.Ibid.“Dezeen Magazine: ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart”, (Dezeen Limited 2010), <http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/>.Bridgette Meinhold, “Amazing Bionic Resarch Pavilion Explores the Sand Dollar’s Skeleton Morphol-ogy”, (Inhabitat, 2013), <http://inhabitat.com/amazing-bionic-research-pavilion-explores-the-sand-dollars-skeleton-morphology/>.Ibid.“Dezeen Magazine: ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart”.Ibid.Ibid.Bridgette Meinhold, “Amazing Bionic Resarch Pavilion Explores the Sand Dollar’s Skeleton Morphol-ogy”.“Mangal City spiraling skyscraper to define urban ecosystem for London”, (ESHI Internatioan PTE LTD, 2010), < http://www.designbuzz.com/mangal-city-spiraling-skyscraper-to-define-urban-ecosystem-for-london/>.Ibid.“Mangal City Skyscrapers by Chimera”, (Archivenue, 2013), < http://www.archivenue.com/mangal-city-skyscrapers-by-chimera/>.Green Futures, “Mangal City: A Mangrove Inspired Skyscraper Design by Team Chimera”, (Architec-ture for Humanity, 2012), < http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/011319.html>.Simon Glynn, “Spanish Pavilion 2005 World Exposition Aichi Japan,” (Galinsky, 2005), < http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/spainaichi/>.Ibid.Hensel, Michael (2011). ‘’Performance-oriented architecture and the Spatial Material Organisation Complex.” FoRmakademisk, vol. 4 issue 1, pp3-23.David Lister, “Introduction to the Design Project: Public Art and Motorways”, (Faculty of Architecture: University of Melbourne, 2013), Lecture.Erv Evans, “Tree Anatomy”, (NC State University, 2000), < http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/con-sumer/factsheets/trees-new/text/tree_anatomy.html>.Wikipedia, “Leaf Angle Distribution”, (Wikipedia, 2013), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_angle_distri-bution>.“Heliotropic Leaf Movements in Plants”, (University of Maryland, 2013), < http://www.biol.umd.edu/Forsethlab/leafmovements.htm>.

1

2345

67891011

12

131415

16

1718192021

22

2324

25

26

2728

29

30

31

32

NOTES

84

Erv Evans, “Tree Anatomy”.Museum State Illinois, “How Do We Know? Tree Rings.”, (Illinois State Museum, 2000), < http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/forest/htmls/how_tr.html>.Sean Godsell Architects, “RMIT Design Hub”, < http://www.seangodsell.com/rmit-design-hub>.Ibid.Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary, “Matthew Ritchie with Aranda/Lasch and Arup AGU - The Morning Line”, < http://www.tba21.org/pavilions/49/page_2?category=pavilions>.Ibid.Ibid.

3334

353637

3839

85

PART 3PROJECT PROPOSAL

86

3.0THE PROPOSAL

87

3.1HOW CAN WE IMPROVE OUR DESIGN? HOW CAN IT RELATE

TO THE SITE ADEQUATELY?

After the mid-semester crit, we were lucky to hear that our argument was strong, however encouragement to “get our hands dirty” in grass-hopper was strongly emphasised. We wanted to achieve a structure that answered the brief provided by the Wyndham City Council, ie. a pro-posal that is not only eye-catching, but also that can engage with the drivers and thus provide experience. By utilising the current technology- scripting in architecture- from the early design stages right through to fabrication, it is important that our design generates a new discourse. We were prepared to give this next stage our very best to achieve what we as designers wanted to achieve, what the tutors and guests wanted to see, and most importantly what Wyndham City Council was asking for.

DESIGN CONCEPT

88

Nonetheless, it was important to revisit the site and explore what possibilities there are. Three sites were available, and integrating all the above points to the site would require some conceptual site analysis. Surroundings, sun paths, and wind patterns and path of circulation were considered.

Three sites were feasbile, so it was up to us to make the final decision as to where to position the project whereby viewers are able to view this new discourse and gain a memorable experi-ence from it.

3.1.1 SITE ANALYSIS

89

We continued to conceptually reposition the possible location for the gateway and explore the various opportunities. An important aspect at this stage was to consider the relationship with the driv-ers.

We thought that the dividing site - ie. site B - would be most appropriate as it is where the road di-verges into two segments, a time where drivers are most likely to slow down when emerging the divi-sion towards the service station. Nonetheless, it is also not as large zone as compared to site A, and therefore will not be perceived as too distant from viewers. Site C was considered too small and short to provide an experience, plus it was in between two service roads - not main roads- and therefore the traffic outbound or inbound lose the purpose of the installation.Hence, we chose to develop our form using “spot number 2 “as shown in the oppo-site diagrams.

1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

Three curves

Point

Line to points

Pipe

Planes to point

90

3.1.2

The idea of interlocking, orienting and layering were so important for our design argument, that we decided to further explore these ideas.

This is the outcome of the first iteration. The idea involving creating three curves, setting the curves to grasshopper, dividing the curves multiple times and creating line segments, lofting the line segments and piping the horizontal struts, and merging the segments into a solid union. Vector to line was used which allowed the placement of

the point to control the orientation of the vertical planes.This idea was way too simple, and in terms of “creating a new discourse”, it is definitely not the most elegant of forms. So we took this merely as a play around...perhaps aspects to this defini-tion may come in handy further on.

ITERATION 1

91

3.1.3

This brought up the idea to go back to basics. What did we want to achieve? We wanted an elegant form that achieved the notions of biomimicry we were focusing on dur-ing our thorough research. The tech-niques that a tree adopts in order for it to adapt and therefore survive- ie. through interlocking, layering and orienting. In order to achieve this, we revisited the design conceptu-ally through the use of hand-drawn diagrams.

ITERATION 2

Point

Circles on rectangular grid

Circles scaled via division and minimum distance from point

Curve

Align planes accord-ing to vector between point and curve. Create bounding boxes.

92

3.1.4Taking our conceptual ideas, we translated them into grasshopper. We also wanted to achieve a dappled light effect, and effect that the leaves on a tree provide when affected by the wind patterns of the environment. The mottled light affect we thought would further contribute to the beauty of the freeway installation. Rather than have plain vertical planes layered and oriented according to a speci-fied point, we mapped a pattern on the surface which were then trimmed from the surface plane. We thought that in reality, when the sun penetrates through the panels, that they would create a dappled light effect. So the perforations through one surface would show upon another and create an interesting pattern. The image be-low captures the result of this definition.

ITERATION 3

93

This idea was inspired by researching existing sculp-tural forms, especially using the material corten steel. The images display the various uses of corten steel

Why corten steel? Well it has become an increas-ingly popular material for manufacturers and design-ers; for example, “Lump Studio”. According to them, corten is a very different material to mild steel and was originally designed to be used in construction of shipping contain-ers.1 The natural layer of rust cre-ates its own pro-tective barrier so that the material underneath it will not further dete-riorate over time.2 The natural rust appeal is affected by weather condi-tions; but it cre-ates an aestehtic appeal whereby changes and pattern and colour occur with age. Its look can be controlled, for exam-ple, it is able to change back to its natural state if desired, or even remove the rust it forms. 3

At Lump Studio, they produce many projects using this mate-rial, including urban art projects and installations - from small-scale to large-scale projects.

When looking through these installations, it appears that the material is flexible to use, it is durable, self-adaptive, but also extremely aesthetically appealing. Its change in time actually creates a natural beauty. And this change is able to be finished in many ways as shown.

3.1.5

Urban Art Projects and Installations in various contexts by “Lump Studio”. Material is applied to railways stations, dome

structures, screens, scultpures and cladding.

MATERIAL EXPLORATION

94

3.1.6This idea was further developed into a form that came over the highway and allowed drivers to experience the gateway whilst driving under it.

We therefore had to consider the mini-mum clearance height for vehicles, ie. 4.6m and an appropriate scale that would span across the two roads falling underneath.

The idea of interlocking was achieved through the panels criss-crossing at a point and within them holding the ori-enting panls with the pattern mapped to their surface. We thought that the lighting effect would be more interest-ing if placed over-head

Our criticisms to this design however was that it did not look elegant at all. The side panels were too thick and taking over the whole design. The form looked too bulky in relation to its site and did not create a aesthetic ap-peal. How could we develop this de-sign so that it would be elegant, but still achieve what we wanted to in relation to the systems encountered through studying biomimicry?

ITERATION 3 (continued)...

95

3.1.7The fact that we were not fully satis-fied with the product enabled us to further explore the idea of the mottled light through the orienting panels. The result was as pictured opposite. What we were trying to achieve was some-thing that caved over the highway to ensure the mottled light effect and cre-ated an interesting lighting effect on the highway. Nonetheless an orienting structure that operated like louvre sys-tems according to the position of the sun’s rays. Layering one structure upon another created an overlap of mottled light and a more enclosed.

We got quite criticised from our tu-tors and we understood why. We had worked so hard to produce all of these iterations, and to be told it was not good enough was heartbreaking. We had two weeks to create a final form, and we were panicking. Does the de-sign show grasshopper? Does it create the new discourse for Wyndham city? No! It looks more like a real louvre sys-tem you would have seen a few years ago It was time to really get our head around things and start to REALLY dig deep into grasshopper.

ITERATION 3 (continued)...

Genome: it is the entire information defined by the sliders. The more slid-ers, he larger the search space for Galapagos tp search for the optimal solution.

Fitness: placing a single parameter provides a fitness value which attepts to maximise or minimise the value as Galapagus runs.

96

3.1.8"G is for galapagos”

Our tutor earlier had mentioned “galapagos”, but we had no idea what role it played. Since our tutors told us to really get into grasshopper now that we had only 2 weeks left, we decided to really dig deep and explore the op-portunities Grasshopper provides. So, we rediscovered “Galapagos.” What is it? Well it basically mimics the theory of evolution through trial-and-error and arrives at an optimized result.4 When automated for specific parameters and results, this becomes a tecnique to drive designs to prouce optimized parameters resulting in a form of piece of data that meets a design criteria. Not just a basic criteria, but the best.5 Therefore, it is an evolutionary solver.

Exploring its use, we found a way of find-ing the smallest possible volume and the most optimal volume for the shape to fit.

Spending a lot of time on it did not achieve much of what we wanted to achieve. Our lack of idea of form restricted our use of the program. Perhaps if we knew we wanted to use volumetric geometry - like the Tetrakaidecahedrons and Dodecahedrons used by randa Lasch, the param-eter would come into great use. However, we thought we’d give it some thought and in the meantime keep exploring.

It was interesting to explore the possibilities outside of the usual basic parameters learned.

REDISCOVERING GRASSHOPPER

Fitness Editor: Galapagus searches for the optimal solutions. We are in con-trol of which solution we select.

The smallest possible vol-ume of the shape.

The position of the brep depends on the rotational value of the sliders.

Rotational values.

97

Branching structure: A code defines the LSystem (or the branching structure).

Branches: Exoskeleton used as a line thickener.

Delunay Mesh: Creates the “canopy” or mesh panels.

Angle Increment

Length Scale

98

3.1.8"R is for rabbit”

Another mention from the tutor was plug-in “Rabbit”. Since we were still rediscovering some grasshopper parameters, we decided we may as well explore this plug-in.

It was really interesting to see what the actual program did. Basically, it is a new plug-in that uses biological processes as a form-finding and analy-sis tool developed by MORPHOCODE.6

A form finder? That would be handy! Many itera-tions were developed using the tool.

We learned that the plug-in incorpoates pattern

formation, emergence, self-organization, I-sytems and cellular automata. A particular code is what drives its form. We found that manipulating the length scale made the scale of the system larger, and the angle increment formed more of an enclosed mesh shell if increased. Extra mesh edit plug-ins where installed to enhance the structure.

We also discovered another plug-in - “Exo-skeleton” and “Topologizer”. One acted as a “clean-up” whilst the other is used as a wireframe thickener. Therefore, it turned a network of lines into solids. The effect of this tool was quite cap-tivating, as it mimiced the structure of the tree branches.

REDISCOVERING GRASSHOPPER

99

We found that we had potential with the exoskeleton tool, as it somehow created a nice aesthetic appeal to the structure. Could it be applied to another form? As we played around with rabbit, it seemed as though the plug-in lim-ited us into only creating branches and meshes that completely mimiced trees. We did not want to limit ourselves to these structures and systems. If there was a way whereby we could use rabbit to create an eye-catching, engaging freeway installation, that would be useful! How-ever we would lose our touch from our strong argument on biomimicry and we would simple by mimicing the structures produced by rabbit. This exploration did have a very useful benefit to our future design, as will be explored later on.

1. Basic rabbit definition.2. Changing the number of tube sides, tube radius and the number of steps.3. Using exoskeleton to make the branches rather than tubing. Varying the “turtle” param-eters and extruding the mesh surfaces in the Z direction.4. Uses exoskeleton like 3. Varying the “turtle”parameters and creating a YZ plane rather than the default XY plane to the mesh. Extrustion of the surface.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Export: Export the mesh into Ecotect.

Insolation calculations: Calcu-lates incident solar radiation levels over objects within the model.

Object Request: Imports the cal-culated attributes from objects for solar access analysis and lighting analysis. Extract parameter for Melbourne city climate.

Surface: Surface referenced from Rhino for Ecotect to calcu-late from.

100

3.1.8"G is for geco”

All of the previous explorations were useful in getting deeper into grasshopper, howev-er they were not completely relevant to our strong argument. Thus, we rediscovered the tool “Ecotect,” or in Grasshopper language, “Geco”. Ecotect is an environmental analy-sis tool that allows designers to simulate a building’s performance from a very early stage of the design process.7 Thereby, de-signers are able to visualise and similate the building’s perfornace within its contextual environment. In particular, solar radiation can be calculated via ecotect whereby a city’s climate is entered and automatically provides a visualisation of the incident solar radiation of surfaces over any period of the day. As the tutors had mentioned, the sun path is not linear (as we had shown in our designs), but they are curved and change throughout the day.

Therefore, we came up with the idea of using Geco and Ecotect - especially Melbourne’s sun path - to drive our form.

Geco plug-in was used in grasshopper to es-tablish a live link between Rhino/Grasshopper and Ecotect.

Exploring the program was the first step to developing our form. What we did like about the solar radiation is that it created a gradient effect on the surface. The lighter the colour of the surface, the more exposed to the sunlight it was, and vice versa. Various shapes were tested for their performance.

REDISCOVERING GRASSHOPPER

101

Testing for various types of surfaces us-ing Geco provided us with the idea that curved surfaces provided the most change of gradient and incident solar radiation. The flat surface, however, would receive one plain surface with the same amount of solar radiation.

This gradient effect brought us to the idea of thermochromic materials. They are heat-reactive materials that change state or colour when exposed to temperatures above ambient.8 Thermochromic materials can change at relatively low temperatures; and their pigments can be incorpoated into many materials like paint, fabric, film and glass.9 Could this be the answer to our form? Could the sun really produce an opti-mal gradient effect that is gradual and pro-duces a colour change and thus a change whilst driving past the structure? Geco is an optimal tool that responds to the sunlight from any angle at any time of the day. Therefore, provides the notion of change in response to the external conditions.

SITE B: This site was chosen for our Freeway installation as the dividing traffic inbound Mel-bourne CBD and towards the Service Center would capture the object from two sides. Our designs from this point take advantage of the curved form of the site, as well as the growth from a narrow point to an expanding zone.

102

3.1.9REVISITING THE SITEDESIGN CONCEPT

103

3.1.9

It was crunch time at this stage and we were desperate for ideas and a final form. Thankfully, our explorations with Rabbit (especially exoskeleton and topologiser) and Geco came into good use.

Maintaining the idea of the “optimal” adaptation of the leaves orienting in respose to the sun to maximise their solar exposure in cool climates, and minimise its exposure from burning in hot climates, brought us into researching Melbourne’s sun path.

Therefore, we created multiple surfaces and oriented them according to the sun’s path. We knew from our Geco testing that curved surfaces created this gradient effect, and to create this ef-fect, we oriented the panels so that they gain maximum exposure to the sun, to a gradual change to minimised exposure.

ITERATION 4DESIGN CONCEPT

MEA

SUREMEN

T IN W

h/m2

900 +

720

600

420

300

104

3.1.9

Smoothing the surface provided one single smooth surface whereby the gra-dient effect is undulated and continu-ous. If the surface was to be separate, the panels would appear too separate from each other, not providing that cohesion of structure and elegance in form.

Proving that the form is ideal in Geco led us to the idea of representing this gradient effect of the solar exposure in reality. This would be achieved through using a thermochromic finish to the sur-face. The change of colour meant that a change of mood would occur when driving from one end of the gateway to the other. Thus, a change of sunlight affects the heat of the surface, which in turn affects the colour it exposes.

ITERATION 4

DESIGN CONCEPT

Populate Geometry: Produce points on a surface.

Divide Curve: Divide the curve into even segments.

Cross-Reference: Cross-refer-ence the data.

Topologiser: Clean up the network.

Exoskeleton: Thicken the wire-frame with exoskeleton. Adjust the radiusm node size, knuckle bumpiness and distance.

105

3.1.9

In order to further develop this concept, we thought about the tectonic system, especially the supports. They needed to act as a structural sys-tem to stablise the structure, whilst simaltaneously look aesthetically appealing as a symbol and as a design idea.

We returned back to the notion of interlocking - as demonstrated by the tree branches. The inter-locking of branch tissues is a structural adaptation in trees that ensures the tree trunk attachment to its branches. The strength of the branch connec-tions thus depends on the formation of the layer-ing and interlocking of branch tissue.

Therefore, to achieve the structural solution, we revisited the idea of dividing a curve into even segments, and cross-referencing the divisions to the divisions made on the surface via “populate

geometry”. Topologising the data cleaned the system, which ensured a clean an efficient out-come set by exoskeleton.

Why exoskeleton? The outcome produces branch-like structures that look as though they are a type of “growth” from the ground into the surface. Nonetheless, another intruging outcome of the exoskeleton is that the connections are revealed. In other words, all of the “branches” come together into several nodes. As the branches draw towards the node, they thicken and interlock into the central system, enabling a continuous structural system. It nonetheless reflects the nature of trees and their interlocking branches, and reproduces them int a complex geometry.

ITERATION 4DESIGN CONCEPT

106

3.1.9

The results of the definition opposite. The structure is somewhat sculptural in its form. It portrays a dynamism and movement through its curved form The exoskel-

eton produces an effective branch-like structure which crosses to the other side of the surface, which expresses a sense of “growth”.

ITERATION 4DESIGN CONCEPT

107

"W is for weaver bird”

Weaver Bird? What’s that?! Our inital results of the exoskeleton as shown demonstrated a non-uniform, branch-like form which we were happy with. However, thinking about the fabrication matters made us double-think this path. The fact that the branches we passing through the panel was not intentional, and we did not want the structure to look messy, but rather we wanted it looking elegant. The meshes the exoskel-eton produced were too uncontrollable to use and therefore difficult to eventu-ally fabricate. We could not control their thickness and wanted to ensure that they were not too thin and thus broke apart during the fabrication process. Therefore, we turned to Weaver Bird as a solution.

Weaver Bird was used to “split mesh into

3.1.9

quads”. This calculated a new mesh, formed of only quads. Although it may look similar to the original form, it is dif-ferent in that it is welded. Therefore, we can say that Weaver Bird assisted in the process as a topological moulder. In-stead of advancing into complex scripts to simplify the geometry, the Weaver Bird plug-in did it for us by reconstruct-ing its shape, sub-dividing the mesh, and helped us in preparation for fabrication.

It goes to show how these new advanc-es in computation are so useful, espe-cially in the final stages of the design process. Imagine our difficulties if this plug-in were not available?

ITERATION 5

DESIGN CONCEPT

Weaver Bird: Smoothen the final mesh.

108

3.1.9ITERATION 5

Above: Transformation of the structure using cross-referencing lines to the surface using exoskeleton.

Below: Weaver Bird’s role in smoothing the“branches” providing the structural support and complexity of the scultpure.

FINAL DESIGN SOLUTION

109

3.1.9ITERATION 5

We were pleased with what these plug-ins had given us, but during this time we were also thinking about the structure. This included the best way for the surface to maintain its curvature, as well as the construction and transport processes. The solution to this issue introduced creating panels of triangular tessellation on the surface. The diagonal line, unlike a square or circular panel, allows for more flexibility through the curvature of its edges. The edges can be easily joined and interconnected to form one large panelled surface.Nonethe-less, the tessellated panels act as a thermochromic cladding to the aluminium panel and il-lustrate the gradient change of temperature as the curved form changes through its colour.

Above: Smoothing out the surface into one smooth surface and applying the thermochromic material allows for a gradual gradient change.

Above: Applying triangular panelled tessellation to the surface allows for the curved form and for thermochromic cladding.

DESIGN CONCEPT

110

3.2Our initial idea of the structural olution came from the Beijing National Aquatics Center (“Wa-ter Cube”). It uses a steel space frame with ETFE cladding that acts as extremely thin “pillows”.10 The reason for that material for clad-ding is that it allowed for light and heat penetration (moreso than glass) and hence a decrease in energy consumption and costs.11

Therefore, in our structure, we decided the most efficient way to contruct the tessellated panel would be from aluminium, as it is solid, light-weight, maintenance-free, malleable, reflective, and readily availlable and reasonably affordable. The aluminium tessel-lation could be pre-fabricated into divided pieces and then joined together on-site. This would therefore avoid the isssue of transporting such a large surface in one go, but also reduce fabri-cation processes and costs. The aluminium, because of its proper-ties, will enable the reflectivity of the colour gradient change when a thermochromic finish is applied to it.

The other structural issue was the “branches”. Revisiting the ideas used by the “Water Cube”, they use a truss-like, lightweight rigid structure constructed from inter-locking struts in a gemotric pat-tern.12 This system was possible to construct in a short space of time, yet again, due to the accurate 3-dimesional CAD modelling.13

Beijing National Aquatics Center (“The Water Cube”), PTW Architects and oth-ers, Beijing, China, 2004-7.

Above: The CAD Model of the structural system.Below: The outerwall ETFE cladding and steel space frame based on the

Weaire-Phelan structure.14

TECTONIC ELEMENTS

111

3.2These ideas took us to the idea of lattice structures - similar to that used for the Aquatic Center. The structure incorporates “links” that combine into a node.

The tectonics therefore of the “branch” structure derives its struc-tural solution from the principles of a lattice-type structure. The key elemets of the tectonics of this struc-ture are the nodal spheres made of steel into which connects a whole series of steel rods and varying orientations and planes. To ensure their durability whilst exposed to the external conditions, they would be galvanised.

These skeletal structures are schrowded with polyester injected molding to form a skin. We expect there will be between 20-30 differ-ent molds of various radii and form, and these will be placed to create the irregular pattern They are gener-ally two halves so that they basically clip around the skeletal steel struc-ture. The internal lightweight frame holds the skin to its form.

Why steel? It is easily pre-fabricated and assembled on-site, and is lightweight. Why polyester-inject-ed molding? It has the ability to achieve the free-forms we want to achieve. Plus, it has high heat resistance, good imapct strength, minimal shrinkage, good toughness, good electrical properties, good dimensional stability, among other properties that make this material ideal for this type of structure.15

Above: The structural solution as demonstrated by the lattice structure comprising of nodes and links.

Above: The structural solution highlighting the nodal points.

TECTONIC ELEMENTS

900

900 Ø NODAL SPHERE

150 Ø STEEL PIPE

PACKERS

POLYESTER INJECTED MOLDED SKIN

BRACING

SECTION DETAIL OF NODAL CONNECTION1:20 @ A3

112

3.2.1 DETAIL MODEL

113

3.2.2

In order to create a similar effect of the real model, we decided to construct a detail of one of the nodes of the “branching” structure.

Foamboard was used as a formwork to cre-ate the base geometry. Then, plasticine was used to create the free-form web-like skin around the formwork. A matte` finish

was sprayed onto the plasticine which assisted in sealing the model together.

In reality, the construction of these pieces will require pre-fabrication and then assembled on-site. It involves a simple process with low-cost, readily-available materials and processes,

hence an optimal struc-tural solution.

Although the components are relatively small and can be transported to site via truck and assembled on-site, issues may still arise. The roads will need to serve as a free service road for the heavy ve-hicles, which may incon-veniently require closing of lane(s).

DETAIL MODEL

114

3.2.2 DETAIL MODEL

Below left: 230mm Aluminium Flashing from Bunnings used for backing.

Below right: The file prepared for the FabLab laser cutting. Each triangular panel was unrolled and organised into cut and etched lines through different layers. Each panel was also numbered to enable a more efficient fabrication

process.

115

3.3

We decided to construct three models (including the detail model of the node) to illustrate our intentions as designers and to il-lustrate the construction solutions.

A 1:100 scale model of the triangulated “ther-mochromic” surface was constructed via the FabLab. The length of the material boards available dictated our scale decision, thus for such a large-scale structure 1:100 was our minimum.

Hence, we sent our file to the FabLab for laser cutting the triangular panels with 2mm black perspex. The black perspex was light-weight, readily available, could be laser-cut, and gave a good resemblence of what the real project would look like. Black was chosen because it is the most appropriate colour for

the reaction we were after, and also because we can switch it totally off into a dormant state. The backing sheet was a thin aluminium flash-ing sheet which gave us the malleability to form the warped surface we were trying to achieve. The laser-cut panels were simply fixed onto the flashing using strong glue.

The triangulated panels- although extremely tedious to work with - enabled the warped surface to maintain its shape on the flashing backing.

We were thus able to create the effect of reflectivity, malleability and structural stability through these materials in our model.

FIRST FINAL MODEL

FINAL MODEL

Images of the final 1:100 model of the Thermochromic surface.

116

Below: The mesh file prepared for the 3D print. Scaled down to appropriate size and converted into an STL file.

117

3.3.1SECOND FINAL MODEL

3D printingThere was another model we wanted to con-struct - of course - of the whole structure! We decided earlier on that we would experiment with 3D printing. We had never worked with 3D printing before, and to discover a new fabrica-tion technique was extremely mind-opening.

The 3D printer was used purely and simply be-cause we wanted to evoke the nature of the final design as close to the computer-model as possible. The irregular and skeletal, “branch-like” structure’s form would not have been able to be achieved through other means other than 3D printing.

Even though we had sent our model to the FabLab with just under a week to fabricate, they notified us on the day of submission that

they doubt they would be able to complete the printing in time, but to submit it anyway and hope for the best. The most stressful time of our lives came into play, but thankfully I found another company elsewhere that of-fered their professional service. The final product was amazing. We had to scale the model right down to 1:500 since it was to fit within a certain volume as directed by the printing company. It may be small and expensive, however it defi-nitely achieved what we were after; a complex, irregular, dynamic freeway installation. The white powder material was carefully cleaned; and to protect its form we sent another file to the FabLab to be laser cut. A clear perspex box was fabricated for the 3D model to fit comfort-ably but still be easily seen from the outside.

It goes to show that 3D printing is a new, effec-tive and moreso innovative way to fabrication of small-scale products.

FINAL MODEL

Images of the final 1:500 3D printed

model.

118

119

NSITE PLAN1:1000

Our design for the Freeway installation as men-tioned previously sits within Site B so that the divid-ing traffic towards the Service Center and the Melbourne CBD would capture the object from two sides. The zone in which it sits is not too large, and hence there is no great distance between the project and the viewer. The traffic entering the service lane will experience the growth of the curved form and gradient effect of the thermo-chromic surface; whilst the inbound traffic will experience the growth with not only the curved form but also the structural skeleton attaching itself to the surface which creates a certain dis-course of unique complexity.

120

3.4in Wyndham

FINAL CONCEPT

121

122

PART 4FINAL PRESENTATION

123

4.0FINAL PRESENTATION

124

BIOMIMICRY

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

900

900 Ø NODAL SPHERE

150 Ø STEEL PIPE

PACKERS

POLYESTER INJECTED MOLDED SKIN

BRACING

SECTION DETAIL OF NODAL CONNECTION1:20 @ A3

135

136

137

N

SITE PLAN1:1000

138

139

140

PART 5LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

141

5.0LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

142

5.1Despite some of the uncertainty from our tutors throughout the semester on lack of “in-depth” exploration and skill, our final project presentation went extremely well.

I sensed that the tutors were relieved to see a final form that portrayed the idea of parametric design - one that was com-plex, elegant and fit well into the landscape. The 3D printed model fascinated them, and they were pleased to see the other model of the thermochromic surface and how it was constructed using flashing. They thought it was a smart solu-tion to forming the curved form. What they would have loved to see, however, was a kind of gradient finish to display the effects of the thermochromic material - or even the actual thermochromic finish on the model! However they understood we had time constraints and there was not enough time to produce that effect. If we did have more time to complete the project, perhaps we could have created that effect.

Other comments were made about the sun and how we re-ally only addressed the sun’s effects at one time. There should have been more exploration of the effects of the installa-tion during various times of the day where the sun orienta-tion changes. In addition, they would have liked to have seen more perspective views from varying distances on the highway to capture the various views if someone were to be driving from a distance compared to a driver closer to the structure.

Structure was the other issue. If we had more time to review our final form, there would have been more time to consult with our tutors regarding structural solutions. Their comments included that the materials we chose may be “too difficult to produce” - for example, the steelwork and the molding. For the future, it would be useful to research the materials and structures earlier on in the design process, deliberate the ideas with the tutors, and apply various techniques to the project. This would prevent any issues occurring at the fnal stages.

Overall, the panel were very pleased with the presentation itself, its layout, our final form and especially our strong argu-ment. They definitely saw a transition from our weak grasshop-per skills to more advanced. The feedback was very positive, encouraging, supportive and definitely motivating for us to continue our discoveries.

FINAL PRESENTATION RESPONSE

143

5.2Honestly, of all of the design studios I have completed, this one was by far the most difficult. However, I think I learnt the most. I have come to appreciate that parametric techniques, when used appro-priately, can create architecture that is “out-there”, a unique type of architecture not seen in the past. The notion of “creating a new discourse” was definitely achieved through using Grasshopper.

I had many difficulties throughout the semester with the program, however the digital culture surrounding Grasshopper helped a lot. The online community enabled us to see other people’s work (who had gone through or are going through the same journey as us), explore their knowledge of the program, and ask for help or tips. The many online sources available enabled a wide exploration into the possibilities of parametric design.

Finishing the subject has made me think reconsider my opinion about using computation in the design process. Initially I was afraid that our reliance on computation would become so extreme that our role as designers would be lost. However, now I understand and appreciate the reason why so many are using it. It provides a more free-flowing design process and is time-efficient; for example for form-finding, ef-ficiency of a design, and its fabrication. I am happy to say, that I am able to create, manipulate and design using parametric modelling; I am able to create this form in a physical model, and I am able to resolve tectonic issues.

Through thorough research and thorough Grasshopper explorations, together with collaboration with group members, we were experienc-ing Generative Design. We transformed from very poor beginners of Grasshopper to improved beginners. We produced a project where-by Grasshopper found our form - something that we were eventually happy with and the tutors and guests were happy with.

I seriously do not know how I, as well as our group, got through this subject despite all of the problems arising throughout the semester. Our thought process focused on positivity and striving endlessly until we reached an optimal design solution.

I was very happy with my group. Without team collaboration, the sub-ject would not have been achieveable. I am not sure whether I will use Grasshopper in the near future, however I will definitely take this subject as a significant learning experience. Who knows? Perhaps (as a practicing architect hopefully!) I will be utilizing parametric design in my own designs?!

REFLECTION

144

5.3Lump Sculpture Studio, “Urban Art Projects and Installations”, (Lump Sculpture Studio), < http://www.lump.com.au/architectural/5/urban-art-projects-and-installations/59884/>.IbidIbidAweida, “Evolutionary Form Finding with Grasshopper and Galapagos”, Responsive Skins, (2011), < http://yazdanistudioresearch.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/evolutionary-form-finding-with-grasshopper-galapagoes/>.IbidMORPHOCODE, “RABBIT: Tools for Grasshopper by MORPHOCODE”, (Morphocode, 2009), < http://morphocode.com/rabbit/>. Autodesk, “Autodesk Ecotect Analysis”, (Autodesk, 2013), < http://usa.autodesk.com/ecotect-analy-sis/>.OpenMaterials, “Thermochromic Materials”, (OpenMaterials, 2012), < http://openmaterials.org/2011/06/06/materials-101-thermochromic/>.Ibid.Wikipedia, “Beijing National Aquatics Center”, (Wikipedia, 2013), < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bei-jing_National_Aquatics_Center>.Ibid.Tristram Carfrae, “Engineering the water cube”, ArchitectureAU, (Architecture Media Pty Ltd, 2013), <http://architectureau.com/articles/practice-23/>.Ibid.“Birds Nest and the Water Cube”, Emchina 2010, (Wikidot.com, 2010), < http://emchina2010.wikidot.com/bird-s-nest-water-cube>.Precision Custom Products, Inc., “Polyester Injection Molding”, (Precision Custom Products, Inc., 2013), < http://www.pcpiplastics.com/materials/polyester.html>.

1

234

56

7

8

910

1112

1314

15

NOTES