`

P E L I N A S AS T U D I O A I RS E M E S T E R 1 , 2 0 1 5

T u t o r S o n y a P a r t o n

`

CONTENTS

Previous work/Introduction

Part A. Conceptualisation A1. Design Futuring A2. Computation A3. Composition/Generation A4. Conclusion A5. Learning Outcomes A6. Algorithmic Sketchbook References

Part B. ConceptualisationB1. Research FieldB2. Case Study 1.0B3. Case Study 2.0

B4. Technique: DevelopmentB5. Technique: Prototypes

B6. Technique: ProposalB7. Learning Outcomes

B8. Algorithmic SketchbookReferences

Part C. Detailed Design C1. Design Concept

C2. Tectonic Elements and PrototypesC3. Detailed Design

C4. Learning Outcomes

1

3 5 7 9 11 12 13 15

17192125293539414345

4751556173

A canopy for the graduation ceremony

Another benefit of parametric design is being able to see the changes on the design instantly.

That was why I tried to use Grasshopper in this project to adjust where the branches split up, and their and the panels’ angle to ensure the most shade according to the changing sun during the ceremony, but the script

was not working as I envisioned, and I needed to tweak many parts in Rhino.

Redesigning the food gallery of Frist Student Centre

Prev ious Work

One of the good sides of Grasshopper that helped me a lot in my first design subjects was to give me forms that I had not even imagined, thus helping

me to refine my design. But, still it’s not a free inspiration; even the random components in Grass-

hopper relies on some parameters the designer chooses.

In this project I marked the most walked paths and used the Voronoi component in Grasshopper to generate the shapes of the tables and their ar-

rangement in the rest of the space.

1

2

I am a third year study abroad student from Princeton University studying civil engineering and architecture with a certificate in urban studies. As my academic interests would show I’m into every-thing in urban environment, which is the reason why I wanted to study abroad in Melbourne; to run

away from the smallness of Princeton where I had suddenly found myself after living in a human-mess of 15 million that is Istanbul.

My first ever computational design course was also my first ever design course. I struggled, quite hard, through it, hated it sometimes, and what helped me the most throughout was some Grass-hopper tutorials on vimeo.com that was posted by some people at the University of Melbourne.

Somehow I ended up here, one year later, at the very studio these videos were made for— I did not even realize this until after the first lecture.

It was not until when I took my first studio the semester after that I saw I actually learned some things in that course, and loved Grasshopper and parametric design. Starting from the first assign-ment I couldn’t stop using it when I wasn’t even asked to, and started to hate my love of it because sometimes I was forcing myself to use it even if it might have been easier with other methods. I still have a long way to go in computational design though, for instance learning to decide which ideas

are made for algorithmic design, and I think Studio Air is going to help me a lot to cover some of that distance.

Figure above is from an exercise of movement we made with our bodies for the third year studio. The project was to design a chair.

2

3 Conceptualisation

Conceptualisation 4

PART A. CONCEPTUALISATION

5 Conceptualisation

Micro-computed tomography of a potato beetle (Leptinotarsadecemlineata) elytron. 1 And this is whereThe starting point for the 2013 pavilion of the Institute for Computational Design. it ended:

1. Achim Menges and others, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 (Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, 2013) <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [accessed 16 March 2015] 2. David Benjamin and others, <http://biocanvas.net/post/77015393190/bands-of-cellulose-in-xylem-cells-of-arabidopsis> [accessed 16 March 2015]3. Achim Menges, ‘Material Computation’, The New How, Princeton University School of Architecture, 19 November 2014.

These two projects do not, yet, represent a full grown move-ment in architecture, but are sure-ly members of a growing trend.

As with many innovative design proj-ects ICD’s process started with a problem. They had been working on such biomimetic structures for the last two years, yet their weight had

complicated the manufacturing and placement. To be able to find the in-spiration for this 50 m2 structure they collaborated with biologists and pa-leontologists, who looked into much

And the image below that shows bands of cellulose in xylem cells of Arabidopsis thaliana was used to help generate designs with better structural performance by David Benjamin and his team at The Living. 2

Fig 3. Bands of cellulose in xylem cells of Arabidopsis thaliana

Fig 1. Micro-computed tomography of a potato beetle elytron Fig 2. ICD research pavilion 2013-14

A1. D E S I G N F U T U R I N G

Conceptualisation 6

Fig 4. The final iteration of a chair generated with this xylem algorithm that is 70% lighter than a solid chair. Fig 5. Bio-Computation, David Benjamin and Fernan Federici, 2013.1

4. Achim Menges and others, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 (Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, 2013) <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [accessed 16 March 2015]5. David Benjamin and others, <http://biocanvas.net/post/77015393190/bands-of-cellulose-in-xylem-cells-of-arabidopsis> [accessed 16 March 2015] 6. David Benjamin, ‘Bio-design’, The New How, Princeton University School of Architecture, 12 November 2014.7. University of Pennsylvania, David Benjamin < http://www.design.upenn.edu/architecture/graduate/events/david-benjamin-adaptation> [accessed 16 March 2015]

David Benjamin and his lab, The Liv-ing, on the other hand, works with even smaller things in their designs: bacteria. Again collaborating with bi-ologists his team investigated the xy-lem cells; the cells found in stems of plants that transport the water in the earth to the rest of its system, due to their lattice shapes that strengthen the cells’ structure (Fig. 3) 5, and turned their form into a 3D wireframe model to gather data about the bar thick-ness, angle and dimension. When fed into a computer program developed for the project they could create an equation for a ‘xylem-like algorithm’

to form shapes, and thus created a new design tool: “biological algo-rithm” that could be used to design an object as simple as a chair to more complex things like buildings; just by changing the starting conditions of the lattice thousands of designs with different structural performance and weights can be produced(Fig. 4), and in some of their other projects The Living tried to create biological build-ing materials from crop waste from the farms to produce more sustain-able and high strength materials. 6

Architecture is always considered to

be connected to many other disci-plines, but it has never been that in-volved with natural sciences. These projects display the new, amazing results that can be achieved with col-laboration of fields that are thought to be so far from each other, and to take this one step further, imagine the product if the findings from for instance David Benjamin’s material research were brought together with ICD’s architectural and engineering research; an even more environmental and higher performance design made with the most sustainable materials.

much smaller things; the beetles. By comparing different types of beetles they found the model they needed for a lightweight yet strong structure in the protective shell for their wings and abdomens; the solution was a double layered system with continu-ous fibers that connect the upper and lower segments of a shell. To be able to apply the results of this biomimetic research and to build a robotic fabrica-

tion method they developed compu-tational design and simulation tools for the project, and the final modules of the pavilions, each different from the others similar to the trabeculae in the beetle shell, were made with glass and fiber reinforced polymers. 4

What is remarkable is that each deci-sion seem to be taken after careful analysis; the beetle shell analogy for

strength and light weight, material choice for high performance and the ability to create the differentiated and complex forms taken from the nature, robotic fabrication process for less formwork and more geomet-ric freedom. And still, the end prod-uct has a great aesthetic and nothing of excess. This project offers many important findings in every step of its process to be taken as models.

1. Find a part in the initial shape that is similar to the left side of one of the rules.

2. Find how you can change the left side of that rule to make them identical.

3. Apply those transformations to the right side of the rule.

4. Replace the new shape from the rule with that part of the initial shape.

5. Repeat this process until none of the rules can be applied anymore.

I was first introduced to shape gram-mars at a talk titled Visual+Computation by Terry Knight, and was totally fas-cinated. It was still computation, but without computers, that basically fol-lowed the same process as a Grasshop-per script, except with a pen and paper: take a shape, apply a rule to it to form another, and iterate this process. It sounded quite simple, but the forms that could be created with this process were amazing, and even more importantly,

you could easily see the steps and how the shape changed in each of them.

The idea of shape grammars in design was introduced by George Stiny and James Gibbs in a paper submitted to In-ternational Federation for Information Processing conference in 1971. 9 They are not known to directly influence compu-tational design methods today, however if the topic was the ‘precedents’ to com-putational design I think a discussion on

shape grammars could not have been overlooked as they reflect one of the most basic grounds of computational design; that very complex forms that cannot be easily imagined can be created with sim-ple algorithms. Although they started with a much narrower sense; Stiny and Gibbs initially presented it as a method to develop a different aesthetics in painting and sculpture, as Knight states the poten-tial of shape grammars is much further:

Initialshape

Rule 1.

Rule 2.

Rule Shape Result

1

2

3

4

7 Conceptualisation

Definition

based on “Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture”8 by George Stinyand James Gibbs (1971) 1

8. Stiny, G. and James Gibbs. (1971) “Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture”, in paper submitted to IFIP Congress.9. Ibid.

A2. DESIGN COMPUTATION

Fig 6. and 7. Tile 1 and 5, Processing drawings, Subdivided Tiles. Michael Hansmeyer, 2005. 1

10. T.W. Knight, Shape Grammars in Education and Practice (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000) <http://www.mit.edu/~tknight/IJDC/> [ac-cessed 7 March 2015]11. Ibid.12. T.W. Knight, “Visual+Computing’, Craftwork, Princeton University School of Architecture, 10 April 2014.13. Michael Hansmeyer, 2D Subdivision Processes (2005) < http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/flash/2D_subdivision_b.html> [accessed 7 Match 2015]14. Ibid.

as Knight states the potential of shape grammars is much further:

“Shape grammars can compute almost anything… A number of graduate stu-

dents and researchers with these abili-ties and interests continue to push the boundaries of shape grammar theory.

However, there is a wider population that can enjoy, learn from, or use shape

grammars very profitably that needs to be reached.” 10

“The approach is simple enough to be grasped by nontechnically-oriented designers, yet rich enough to serve as the starting point for complex, so-phisticated designs;” 11 this is the power of shape grammars; they are very easy to define, yet can describe

many things. By simplifying complex goals into basic rules they make it easier to convey such intricate ideas. Terry Knight further went on to show in her presentation that shape gram-mars have been used by her students in architectural designs, and to record and teach vernacular art techniques. 12

An algorithm that is as simple as shape grammars to follow would make it easier to describe a design to ‘non-designers’ as opposed to presenting a complete building. They would have access to the start of the idea, each of its steps and transformations, and the final results; some of the most important things to ‘read’ a design that people mostly do not get, and then are told to ‘experience’ it.

“The aim of this project is to use a very simple process to generate hetero-geneous, complex output;” 13 Michael Hansmeyer does not reference the shape grammars at any point of Subdi-vided Pavilions that he describes as such, yet their similarities are clear in that both reflect how results, or solutions, complex

in appearance can be reached by a com-bination of simple steps. (Fig. 5 and 6)

Hansmeyer is known for the complex forms he creates through algorithmic processes, and although most of them are called ‘architectural’ his work would best be described as technological art works with Vermeer-like attention to detail and a Renaissance complexity. He argues that simple processes, as they are more controllable, are thus also predict-able, and can be more easily refined in each step of the algorithm. 14 Yet, this does not take anything away from their power to produce substantial results. This idea is probably one of the most important to keep in mind during com-putational design process as mostly it is

the connection of the simplest compo-nents that creates the desired product.

What would be even more interesting is to see all those projects discussed to connect to each other. (For instance fab-rication methods developed through the building of the ICD pavilion can help to build the daring Subdivided Pavilions.) As seen from the progression from the shape grammars to Subdivided Pavil-ions to ICD’s research pavilions and The Living’s projects they advance dif-ferent aspects of computational de-sign, yet can be used to build on each other for even more remarkable results.

Conceptualisation 8

Fig 8. Odawara Municipal Sports Complex, Shoei Yoh, 1991. 1

15. Bryan Lawson, “ ‘Fake and Real Creativity Using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger” in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition (New York: ACM Press, 1999), pp. 174-179.16. Rivka and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture, (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-8.17. Tim Abrahams, “Computers in Theory and Practice”, The Architectural Review, 26 April 2013. < http://www.architectural-review.com/essays/computers-in-theory-and-practice/8646960.article> [accessed 18 March 2015]18. Shoei Yoh+Architects, <http://www.japan-architects.com/en/yohshoei/projects-3> [accessed 17 March 2015]19. Canadian Center for Architecture, Archaeology of the Digital, <http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/exhibitions/1964-archaeology-of-the-digital> [accessed 17 March 2015]20. Benoit Palop, Fathers of teh Digital Architecture are Reunited in a New Exhibition, < http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/the-fathers-of-digital-architecture-are-reunited-in-a-new-exhibition> [accessed 17 March 2015]

The claim that computation in design might lead to ‘fake creativity’ 15 is quite short sighted. When architecture is al-ready abundant with it that has been created without computation, and is being appreciated, to single out a method of designing is impractical. An architect that would create a fake creativity would create it anyhow; one that would not would spot it in compu-tation too— if there is such a thing. In fact, I would argue that computational design would help with the creativ-ity of those so-called fake creativity designers. To start with, there are so many different aspects of generative design (form generation, material and structural performance, fabrica-

tion 16 that it cannot be criticized in just one of its aspects (form genera-tion) as being inhibitive to creativity especially when it can be seen that its other areas, such as performance and materials and fabrication, are some of the best tools today for ‘creativity’ that is established on coherent mo-tives, and not only aesthetics. (We can take the two projects discussed in A1 as good examples of that.)

Shoei Yoh is considered to be the first architect to incorporate parametrics in his design. 17 Some of the first de-signs, Odawara Municipal Sports Com-plex and Galaxy Toyama Gymnasium, in which he used this approach was

made at the beginning of 1990s. 18 In about 25 years one would expect this mode of design to at least become a more widespread knowledge, yet the sheer fact that computation is still a very differentiated design method that is researched and applied by special-ized groups of people prove its limited use. Yoh’s primary reason for choosing this method was to optimize the per-formance of the structures; he would try different lengths of the members of the roofs and find the best iteration for a sculpted roof form that also had a high performance19 and responded to the changing outside forces. 20 (Fig. 8) Yet, still today generative tools are not

9 Conceptualisation

A3 . COMPOSITION/GENERATION

Fig 9. Parametrically driven digital sculpting through boolean subtrac-tion, Mark Burry, 1994

being preferred 21 during the design process, and structural analysis is only carried out after the entire de-sign is already conceived, not leav-ing out enough room for changes.

One interesting application of com-putational design is to connect tradi-tions to today with it. In a way it is ironic that this shiny new technologi-cal method also helps to build on the past. When Mark Burry and his team first started working on the comple-tion of Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia they needed to test surfaces graphically for fit with what is left from Gaudi’s origi-nal documents, make 3D models made to check, and then iterate this physical process till they arrive at a satisfac-

tory solution. 22 With the emergence of parametric software in 1990s their job got a bit easier however Burry ar-gues that these software, which were not as functional back then as well, has not improved enough, and did not get easier for architects to use 23, which is probably one of the reasons why it has not grown enough extensively.

As much as these new tools have their ample advantages they are not free from some rational complaints, and the recent work on Sagrada Familia has been criticized as well. 24 Figure 9 shows a recent photograph of the ca-thedral, and the incongruity between the organic spires of Gaudi’s original work and the abrupt triangles of the

facade can clearly be seen. David Ben-jamin, as much as he uses parametric software a lot himself, warns against the “cold-blooded efficiency” 25 that might come from trying to use the computational optimization to its ut-most potential and ignoring disregard-ing other architectural values, which might have been the factor here. There is a great prospective of utilizing to-day’s modern tools to learn from and develop on traditions, however the context should never be overlooked. Both the parametric design software and architects who use them still have a long way to go before this rather new and exciting design technique can be used to its utmost potential.

1

21. Kostas Terzidis, Algorithmic Architecture, (Boston: Elsevier, 2006), p. xi.22. Mark Burry, Computational Design Thinking, ed. by Achim Menges and Sean Ahlquist, (West Sussex: John Wiley&Sons, 2011), p. 112.23. Ibid. p. 113.24. David Kohn, “Gaudi’s Sacred Monster: Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, Catalonia”, The Architectural Review, 25 July 2012. < http://www.architectural-review.com/gaudis-sacred-monster-sagrada-familia-barcelona-catalonia/8633438.article> [accessed 17 March 2015]25. David Benjamin, ‘Bio-design’, The New How, Princeton University School of Architecture, 12 November 2014.

Fig 10. Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, Spain, 2010.

Conceptualisation 10

For the beginners it always feels as if computational design is a very recent development as it is not yet at the forefront, and we mostly get stuck with only one side of it when it has so much more because it is quite hard to get comfortable even with that one little part. Part A strove to present the life of algorithmic design from its early precedents to today, with a lot of gaps in between, as well as to show the many faces of it from using it for better and faster iterations for performance optimization to generating the most complex forms.

As I progressed from shape grammars to the example of utilizing parametric design software for a structure as old as Sagrada Familia I was fascinated by how computation helped ‘the old’ to connect to the pres-ent by giving it a medium to be carried on more eas-ily and thrive. I think I would like to explore this side of computational design more because I had never even considered it as I was learning about and try-ing to apply algorithmic design in my projects. Yet, now it feels like a great instrument to bring out the culture that seem to be mostly overlooked in today’s rapidly growing and globalizing architecture world through the very methods that in a way symbolize the modern day’s advances. We tend to forget it on our daily routines, but architecture and design can offer a lot to bring it back and make it relatable to today.

11 Conceptualisation

A4 . C O N C L U S I O N

Although I had started to learn a bit about differ-ent conputational design tools and how to use them before writing this first part of the journal helped me realize that I had not considered the dif-ferent directions I could take my projects to as I had focused too much on just learning whatever I needed for the assignments from the software.

Thinking about all the varied uses of computational design gave me further ideas on some of the pre-vious studio assignments where it had never occurred to me to refer to parametrics to solve the problems I was having with my design. For instance, the project for our studio last semester was to design a chair, yes, that simple, it seemed at first. But as my partner and I were going over how we wanted our chair to behave we realized that we were not sure at all whether it could stand at all once we made the one-to-one scale model. We had focused on just one model too m uch and had not tried different variations to see which one would work at all, as we thought that we would need to make a physical model for all. If we were more com-fortable with parametric design tools we might have been able to make it more sound and test the per-formance of different iterations and also the fabrica-tion methodsinstead of wasting time with the wrong plans during the manufacturing of the final model.

Conceptualisation 12

A5. LEARNING OUTCOMES

Patterning

Gray Black White, Linda Halcomb, 2010.

https://lindahalcombfineart.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/gray-black-white-1.jpg

Pattern of circles drawn according to the brightness of this artwork

projected onto the sponges

The sponges are places according to a random grid, and each one is slightly different from each other, like the sea

sponges in real life.

This is an algorithm for creating syconoid-like sponges with varying profiles. The Grasshopper script for each sponge is clustered for easy repetition, and the parameters were adjusted separately.

Parameters

The location of sponges The length of each sponge At how many points along the height of the geometry the radius changes At which heights the radius changes The radii at those points

Modelling Sea Sponges

13 Conceptualisation

A5 . ALGORITHMIC SKETCHBOOK

To be able to create the almost random and com-plex appearance of this sponge a basic building block on one branch was repated many times at

different points along the main branch.

Parameters

The length of each branch The angle of each branch The points at which the smaller branches spring from their mother branch

Conceptualisation 14

1. Achim Menges and others, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 (Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, 2013) <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [accessed 16 March 2015] 2. David Benjamin and others, <http://biocanvas.net/post/77015393190/bands-of-cellulose-in-xylem-cells-of-arabidop-sis> [accessed 16 March 2015]3. Achim Menges, ‘Material Computation’, The New How, Princeton University School of Architecture, 19 November 2014.4. Achim Menges and others, ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion 2013-14 (Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, 2013) <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [accessed 16 March 2015]5. David Benjamin and others, <http://biocanvas.net/post/77015393190/bands-of-cellulose-in-xylem-cells-of-arabidop-sis> [accessed 16 March 2015] 6. David Benjamin, ‘Bio-design’, The New How, Princeton University School of Architecture, 12 November 2014.7. University of Pennsylvania, David Benjamin < http://www.design.upenn.edu/architecture/graduate/events/david-ben-jamin-adaptation> [accessed 16 March 2015]8. Stiny, G. and James Gibbs. (1971) “Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture”, in paper submitted to IFIP Congress.9. Ibid. 10. T.W. Knight, Shape Grammars in Education and Practice (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000) <http://www.mit.edu/~tknight/IJDC/> [accessed 7 March 2015]11. Ibid.12. T.W. Knight, “Visual+Computing’, Craftwork, Princeton University School of Architecture, 10 April 2014.13. Michael Hansmeyer, 2D Subdivision Processes (2005) < http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/flash/2D_subdivision_b.html> [accessed 7 Match 2015]14. Ibid. 15. Bryan Lawson, “ ‘Fake and Real Creativity Using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger” in Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Creativity & Cognition (New York: ACM Press, 1999), pp. 174-179.16. Rivka and Robert Oxman, Theories of the Digital in Architecture, (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 1-8.17. Tim Abrahams, “Computers in Theory and Practice”, The Architectural Review, 26 April 2013. < http://www.architec-tural-review.com/essays/computers-in-theory-and-practice/8646960.article> [accessed 18 March 2015]18. Shoei Yoh+Architects, <http://www.japan-architects.com/en/yohshoei/projects-3> [accessed 17 March 2015]19. Canadian Center for Architecture, Archaeology of the Digital, <http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/exhibitions/1964-archaeol-ogy-of-the-digital> [accessed 17 March 2015]20. Benoit Palop, Fathers of teh Digital Architecture are Reunited in a New Exhibition, < http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/the-fathers-of-digital-architecture-are-reunited-in-a-new-exhibition> [accessed 17 March 2015]21. Kostas Terzidis, Algorithmic Architecture, (Boston: Elsevier, 2006), p. xi.22. Mark Burry, Computational Design Thinking, ed. by Achim Menges and Sean Ahlquist, (West Sussex: John Wiley&Sons, 2011), p. 112.23. Ibid. p. 113.24. David Kohn, “Gaudi’s Sacred Monster: Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, Catalonia”, The Architectural Review, 25 July 2012. < http://www.architectural-review.com/gaudis-sacred-monster-sagrada-familia-barcelona-catalonia/8633438.article> [accessed 17 March 2015]25. David Benjamin, ‘Bio-design’, The New How, Princeton University School of Architecture, 12 November 2014.

Images

1. <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [accessed 16 March 2015] 2. <http://icd.uni-stuttgart.de/?p=11187> [accessed 16 March 2015] 3.<http://biocanvas.net/post/77015393190/bands-of-cellulose-in-xylem-cells-of-arabidopsis> [accessed 16 March 2015]4.<http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2014/09/10/whats-a-software-company-doing-buying-an-architecture-firm/> [accessed 19 March 2015]5. <http://syntheticaesthetics.org/residents/federici-benjamin> [accessed 16 March 2015]6. < http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/flash/2D_subdivision_b.html> [accessed 7 Match 2015]7. < http://www.michael-hansmeyer.com/flash/2D_subdivision_b.html> [accessed 7 Match 2015]8. <http://www.japan-architects.com/en/yohshoei/projects-3> [accessed 17 March 2015]9. Mark Burry, Computational Design Thinking, ed. by Achim Menges and Sean Ahlquist, (West Sussex: John Wiley&Sons, 2011), p. 114.10.<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Sagfampassion.jpg/800px-Sagfampassion.jpg> [ac-cessed 20 March 2015]

15 Conceptualisation

REFERENCES Conceptualisation 16

PART B. C R I T E R I A D E S I G N17 Criteria Design

Criteria Design 18

B1. R E S E A R C H F I E L D

M a t e r i a l P e r f o r m a n c e

Enhancing the performance of the material or utilizing the material prop-erties to inform the design; the idea of material performance is mostly explained with the former definition, however a second approach is emerg-ing with the aid of parametric design tools. The properties of the material are being researched not necessarily to improve them, but to take advantage of them in the form finding process itself. Achim Menges describes this method as :

“Computation provides a powerful agency for both informing the design

process through specific material behaviour and characteristics, and

in turn informing the organisation of matter and material across multiple

scales based on feedback from the environment.“ 1

He calls this approach ‘morphoge-netic design’, that is material forming its shape in time2 What this kind of approach brings to the design is that the structure/form is shaped by its environment thus bringing together a better-informed biomimetic design. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert criticizes the method in climate-re-sponsive architecture that it depends totally on the usage of technical equip-ment to perform according to the de-signer’s goal when the systems in the environment achieve this only through the structure of the material. 3 Being inspired by biomimetic design Skylar 1. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert. ‘Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphoge-netic Design’, Architectural Design, 82 (2012).2. Ibid.3. Ibid.

Tibbits too recently started to look into this potential of materials from the nature in what he calls ‘4D printing’: “self-assembling non-mechanical sys-tems that are actuated not by a power source per say but rather by a mate-rial’s inherent properties and its pro-grammable form,”4 where the fourth dimenstion is the time.

Two years ago one of the graduate stu-dents in the Civil and Environmental Engineering department at Princeton, Alex Jordan, chose to work on a similar research of material performance and parametric design, yet picked quite a different material; chocolate, which he described as: “This exploration of material proves important to choosing forms that express structural and aes-thetic values, not just for Willy Wonka, but for designers who wish to engage in material-driven design exploration. 5 Maybe an actual building out of choco-late is not viable, yet, but I think what his research demonstrates is different potential every material inherits and can be used to wards inspiring the de-sign. He made different prototypes out of chocolates of different composition with different methods of form-finding such as hanging hanging cloth, saddle and inverted branch, thus integrating design and construction.

Working with wood in previous proj-ects with ICD Achim Menges argues that “Material information should be-4. Skylar Tibbits, 4D Printing, <http://www.biomimetic-architecture.com/2013/skylar-tib-bits-4d-printing/> [accessed 24 March 2015]5. Alexander Jordan et al, ‘Material Driven Design for a Chocolate Pavilion’, Computer-Aided De-sign, (2013).

come a generative driver rather than an afterthought in design computa-tion.” 6 As stated in A4. Conclusion to part A I am interested integrating the culture/traditions with computational design.

One of the main aspects of vernacular architecture is the attention given to and exploration of materials. An im-portant part of that was the usage of different woods for different purposes: different parts of a house, different furniture and tools. If it was not for the myriad chemicals and process-ing methods today timber structures and object would be changing all the time. This would be seen as a design flaw, but maybe by manipulating them with the parametric design tools such natural properties of materials can be utilized for the design rather than be-ing an impediment to it.

6 Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert. ‘Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphoge-netic Design’, Architectural Design, 82 (2012).

19 Criteria Design

Fig. 2 4D printing: self-folding strand into 3D cube, Self-Assembly Lab, MIT and Stratasys.

Fig. 1 Chocolate Pavilion, Alexander Jordan, 2013.

Criteria Design 20

B2. C A S E S T U D Y 1 . 0

Vousso i r Co loud , IwamotoScot t

Voussoir Coloud is an installation made by the Los An-geles-based practive IwamotoScott for the gallery of the Southern California Institute of Architecture.

The goal was to explore a structure un-der pure compression and ultra-light mate-rial system. The design was inspired by the works of Frei Otto and Antonio Gaudi, who used hanging models for form-finding. Simi-lar methods were also used in this project. 6

The grasshopper script of the design only takes in a couple of points to form the start-ing points for a cell diagram and applies spring forces on lofts created with these cell curves to form the shape of a ‘relaxed’ spring.

Fig. 4, 5, 6. Voussoir Coloud, IwamotoScott, 2008.

21 Criteria Design

parameter: initial loft

parameter: number and placement of vaults

original project

after forces are applied

top view

mesh

spring forces on mesh edges

upwards force on vertices

mesh when spring edges reach their rest length

In the original projects vaults are created by applying spring and an upwards force on a pyramid-like structure.

Criteria Design 22

parameter: spring forces

Incorporat ing other pro jects ; The Morning Line, A ran da Lasch

Using geometries from previous algorithmic sketches

23 Criteria Design

In my first iterations I tried to see how different shapes would change when the same forces are applied to different lofts.

The first trial only changes the number and location of the points from which the vaults are created. In the first two iterations the shape does not differ greatly from the original project, but as can be seen from the third iteration when points get too crowded the meshes get distorted and form an unbuild-able structure. However, in the first two iterations too having a denser structure would create a dif-ferent experience when people walk through the vaults and the light pattern formed by the voussoirs would completely change.

The second trial changes the initial geometry from which the final vaults are made, however starting from an independent loft by itself as opposed to curves from a voronoi diagram that is connected makes it harder to connect the lofts. The easiest solution to this problem I could find was to bring the lofts closer to each other which made them overlap. The last two iteration was made by starting with different geometries (a hexagon and circle instead of a rectangle) to form the lofts that are placed at exact distances that they connect. As much as these lofts created interesting structures it is hard to play with the number of vaults as their distance and rotation from each other need to be carefully adjusted one by one.

For the next trials I used a similar shape to the original form, but added a curve pattern on it to use as an extra spring force with different stiffness and rest length. For instance, it can be seen that in the second trial where the spring is less stiff ends up at a more ‘relaxed’ structure. However, decreasing the stiff-ness and rest length too much ends up at a mesh like the third one that is completely distorted where the mesh edges stray too much away from each other.

I furthermore tried to apply those forces on completely different structures, first on Aranda Lasch’s Morning Line fractal geometry and then on a geometry I had created in a previous algorithmic task. As this project is about material performance a tessellation structure like the Morning Line did not fit it, however a rounder structure as opposed to the polygons on the previous page ended up in a shape that is very different after the forces are applied.

As my research field is material performance I think the most important criteria is to modify with the forces applied on the structure as much as possible. As much as the forms when I added new forces are not as ‘legible’ and ordered as the others, I think as I learn Kangaroo more they can be pushed to different limits.

Criteria Design 24

B3. C A S E S T U D Y 2 . 0

Large-Sca le Deep Sur face , Sean Ah lqu i s t , 2011

For case study 2.0 I did not pick one project but rather the general work on Sean Ahlquist, who works on tensile structures and membranes.

I mainly worked on to create a form similar to the diagram above; as-suming that I had some meshes in place of the elastic fabric Ahlquist mainly uses and lines that act as the ropes that connect the fabric struc-tures to each other as well to some point on the perimeters of the room.

Building on case study 1.0 I used similar spring force phys-ics with Kangaroo add-on to Grasshopper to simulate the ten-sile forces that deform would deform an elastic material.

25 Criteria Design

polygon

numberof sides

offsetradius

distance

loft mesh

lines for ropesthat pull the meshfrom vertices of the mesh

length

direction

spring forces on mesh edges and ropes

stiffness

rest length

run the iteration until springs reach their rest length

anchor points - ends of cables

Second Mesh

distance

angle

move and rotate the inital polygon

loftandmesh

ropesspring forces

run the iteration

direction

add connection points of meshesto anchor points

Algorithm

Criteria Design 26

Create lines through the vertices of meshes to act as ropes

Improving the algorithm

Create a third mesh with the same algorithm

add spring forces on ropes between the meshes

run the iteration until springs reach their rest length

Different iterations by changing the length of ropes between the meshes

27 Criteria Design

To make the outcomes of the algorithms more similar to the membrane experiments of Sean Ahlquist I added lines that connect the meshes that make the meshes pull on each other as they move.

This created the affect that the fabric had on Ahlquist’s projects as they do not have some stable anchor points and pull an push on each other by strecthing the fabric and the ropes.

Criteria Design 28

B4. TECHNIQUE: DEVELOPMENT

To further investigate the algorithm from case study 2.0 I experimented with different forms and forces.

First, I started with a completely different, two di-mensional mesh and applied an upwards force as well as the same spring forces from case study 2.0, and tried different iterations by changing the rest length and stiffness of the spring, the length and stiffness of the ropes that pull on the meshes and the length of the ropes that connect the meshes to each other.

In the experiments on the next pages I kept th eforces the same but changes the form and integ-rity of the initial geometry to see how the open-ings in a structure might change the deformations.

The experiments that I found the most successful are the ones on the left and the next page that all use the same initial form, but has different amount or type of forces because I think that by focusing on one, simple structure I could better come up with a form that deform a lot. similar to the outcomes of case study 1.0. Furthermore, as the time step diagrams show some of these structures keep mov-ing and deforming in time, and some of them do not even come to a stop. I think by using this kind of an algorithm I can better simulate morphoge-netic design that I explored in B1 as these iterations also seemed to have the fourth dimension of time.

29 Criteria Design

parameter: rest length

time steps

rest length

0.4 (of the initial length)

0.6

0.9

Initial shapeafter the forces are applied

parameter: length and stiffness of ropes

Criteria Design 30

parameter: stiffness of the springs

parameter: location of the meshes with relation to each other

time steps of the last iteration

stiffness 100 500 750 1000 1250

time steps of the last iterationwith 1250 stiffness

31 Criteria Design

Starting with a planar mesh

Different number and location of anchor points

Criteria Design 32

parameter: stiffness of cables and geometry

top view

33 Criteria Design

Criteria Design 34

meshes with different size of openings to see if deformations would differ

more experiments with the third and fourth iterations

B5. TECHNIQUE: PROTOTYPES

As the case studies I had investigated are about ma-terial performance I tried to experiment with differ-ent material and documented how they deformed when the forces on them and their shapes changes.

The photos on the next page show the differ-ent force experiment. I created a string-chain to simulate the meshes I had the case study two on put different kinds and numbers of coins on it to change the weight and the location of the force to see how the deformation differed in each trial.

With the same type of string I created shapes simi-lar to Sean Ahlquist’s project and changed the loca-tion of the strings that pulled on them to see how they deformed and interacted with each other. Then I experimented with an elastic fabric to simu-late the plane meshes that had different shapes and number of holes to experiment if the openings change the deformation. There were subtle dif-ferences however, especially, when compared the coin experiment, the change was not that visible.

What I have been experimenting in the previous case studies and these prototypes was to find the ge-ometry and force that led to the biggest changes in the initial shape. Therefore, I find the experiments with the string chain to be the most successful as also the photos show how much the string deform.

35 Criteria Design

Criteria Design 36

37 Criteria Design

Criteria Design 38

B6. TECHNIQUE: PROPOSAL

The site that I will be working on for part C project is the start of the walking path where Yarra River and Merri Creek meet. The reason why I chose the area was totally irrelevant to the technique I have been de-veloping throughout the case studies. I chose this site because the point where Yarra River and Merri Creek met was where the Treaty between the indigenous Australians and John Batman was signed, and I think that more than everything Merri Creek lacks a con-nection to Wurundjeri people who were the local tribe living in what is now Melbourne. However, walking around this area and further contemplating this topic helped me find an exact site that I feel that I would be able to able the material performance investigations.

The site that can be seen on the map on the next page is one of the points where the Eastern Freeway and Merri Creek get closer to each other, thus narrowing the green areas on the banks of the creek. Yet, still, as the photo shows, there are many trees in the area. But, more important than their number these are Manna Gum trees, from which the name Wurundjeri comes from.

Bringing together my experiments in different materi-als and forces I want to create rather an ‘art installa-tion’ more than an architectural structure, and I think those eucalyptus trees can form the site boundaries as much as some of the forces that affect the structure.

39 Criteria Design

The fact that those trees are what the local people are named after to me they imply a silent presence of the indigenous in the area, but I want to emphasize how their presence changed and diminished over time with a structure that is ‘morphogenetic’, that is shaped by the outside forces; rain, wind, people, that make people stop and have a different experience that empha-size the change from the environment of these eucalyptus to the freeway that passes right by it.

Some of the iterations in part B4 that I liked the most were the ones that kept moving with the spring and unary forces on them and never came to a stop. I would also like this structure to move and change constantly, and its ultimate end would be to disintegrate under the influence of all those forces

Criteria Design 40

B7. LEARNING OUTCOMES

As my main concentration of study is civil engineer-ing and architecture I always try to integrate the two areas, and I feel that learning about how mate-rial performance can be simulated through com-putational design tools and influence design pro-vided me a new area to explore to further bring together the physics of engineering and the art of architecture, and continuing with the material per-formance as my main focus in part C project will be another way to incorporate engineering into art.

One of the main problems I had throughout part B was to get comfortable with Kangaroo, which I had not used so intensively before, but I feel that I improved myself from B2 to B3 and was able to apply to to a wide array of geometries with more varied forces that produced better outcomes. Yet, to move onto part C more confidently I think I need to improve my grasp of the computational design tools we ar eusing even more, as the focus I chose for part C will require a more carefully thought-out algorithm and a better physics simulation that is closer to real life since the meaning and experience I want it to create is more sensitive.

41 Criteria Design

Criteria Design 42

43 Criteria Design

B8. ALGORITHMIC SKETCHBOOK

Parameter

Grid Size

Cull Pattern

Voronoi cellswith smaller radii

Patterning components

As can be seen from the cull patterns i and iii even one difference can create two very different patterns.

The patterns on this lofted geometry (first three images left to right) were created by using different list compo-nents such as jitter and cull pattern to change the curves created with Interpolate component. The fourth surface

was created with Surface Morph component to apply the surface from the initial exercise on the left page on the

surface of the geometry.

Criteria Design 44

25 Criteria Design

REFERENCES 45 Criteria Design

1. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert. ‘Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design’, Architec-tural Design, 82 (2012).2. Ibid.3. Ibid. 4. Skylar Tibbits, 4D Printing, <http://www.biomimetic-architecture.com/2013/skylar-tibbits-4d-printing/> [accessed 24 March 2015]5. Alexander Jordan et al, ‘Material Driven Design for a Chocolate Pavilion’, Computer-Aided Design, (2013).6. Achim Menges and Steffen Reichert. ‘Material Computation: Higher Integration in Morphogenetic Design’, Architec-tural Design, 82 (2012).6. < http://www.iwamotoscott.com/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD>

Images

1. Alexander Jordan et al, ‘Material Driven Design for a Chocolate Pavilion’, Computer-Aided Design, (2013).2. < http://www.selfassemblylab.net/img/MIT_4D%20PRINTING/Stratasys_MIT_Cubefolding_Combined.jpg>3. < http://www.iwamotoscott.com/VOUSSOIR-CLOUD>4. < http://www.evolo.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/iwamotoscott-cloud-4.jpg>5. < https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQH8SxEVtGmATUOGl2y0OyfCL0JHyhMSgs81gjdw1Ge1oftMKan>

Criteria Design 46

PART C. D E TA I L E D D E S I G N47 Detailed Design

Detailed Design 48

49 Detailed Design

Tim Leura Tjapaltjarri and Clifford Possum TjapaltjarriSpirit Dreaming through Napperby Country (detail)1980

Mapping in 3D

Conceptual abstraction of place through planar mapping is informed by profound cultural and metaphysical concepts.The circle-path iconography - a primary signifier of meaning - is inherently linked to archetypal cartographic designs that are incised on tjurunga (sacred objects).Such coded mapping of Country, aestheticised with innovative colour fields of dots, has moved from the periphery to mainstream.

From the National Gallery of Victoria Australia Indigenous Art: Moving Backwards into the Future exhibition

Detailed Design 50

C1 . D E S I G N C O N C E P TLooking into material performance and tensile structures throughout part B was an important process to learn many skills in computational design and Grasshopper, yet it was hard to try to incorporate it into the design /brief/ I was certain I wanted to follow; to bring some presence to the indigenous culture. By the time of the interim presentation I was cer-tain of the design /brief/project I was pursuing; but didn’t have a ‘form’ used the principles of material perfor-mance that I could achieve this with. My vague idea was ‘a sort of ten-sile structure hung between the trees’ that didn’t get anywhere.

I had presented my idea as an art in-stallation, but one critique was that it still required an architectural pur-pose along with the learning objec-tives of this studio. A useful feed-back that got me thinking that I got in the interim presentation was how people were going to experience it; do they need to look at it from a distance or does it pull people in?The answer was that it needed to be a sort of a ‘distraction’ and ‘disrup-tion’ and required interaction. Archi-tectural purpose is to create a sense of the place/space, to distract from the noise but bring attention to it at the same time, to make people stop at that point and interact with some-

thing that represents the indigenous.

Our tutor Sonya’s cell study exer-cise helped me bring together my ideas and knowledge and observation of the site and work for a solution:

Identify main conditions of the site: groups of eucalyptus trees with wide open spaces in between, bordered by Eastern Freeway with

fence, noise from the freeway, shade from the trees, high above the creek,

no benches, on a slope

Identify parameters: loca-tions of the trees and paths, their sizes

I kept working on similar Kangaroo exercises from part B:

However, being a cumbersome process Kangaroo seemed to inhibit the possibilities of the design when it came together with the intricate Aboroginal experience I wanted the piece; for instance I tried to incorporate symbols used in indigenous art and create them with Kangaroo forces, but this requires a much more complex Kangaroo script than tensile force simulations.

A visit to the indigenous art exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria and the National Gallery in Canberra had brought to my attention how the in-digenous artists represented the plac-es in their paintings and how their art always had a relation to the place. In a way they map the spaces with their

paintings. Thus, it was suitable that I had chosen the characteristics of the site; the location of the trees and the paths, as the parameters of the design, and I could create a ‘map’ that fol-lowed the ideas of the Aboriginals in a new way and represented and brought forth this site. In a way combining the

patterning and material performance fields I used force fields to represent those forms, trees and paths, on the site; after all they too were ‘forces’ making people go in certain directions.

51 Detailed Design

Technique

Algorithm

Detailed Design 52

Trees as points

Paths as lines

point charge

spinforce

linecharge

mergefields

fieldline

measure strength of field at the location of trees

remap the values

circles

radius

location

I narrowed down the site I had chosen to an area that had an adequate amount of tree and paths that could simulate an Aboriginal painting as much as possible but not be too complex when implemented in Grasshopper. The trees and the paths are marked with a number of points and lines respectively according to their sizes, and these points and lines are plugged into the algorithm below.

map onthe mesh

Create a vertical surface the size of the site

surfacemesh

apply spring force and gravity

relaxed mesh

When brought together these forces influence each other and create a pattern by drawing lines through the direction of the tensor vector. Drawing a circle at the location of the trees according to the force field places them on ‘the map’, accurate to the their sizes as because there were more points in place of bigger trees the force is bigger. As much as the main part of the algorithm that creates the design is about patterning and force fields in Grasshopper the next big point is about how it will behave once this pattern is fabricated, where I can use the previous Kangaroo tensil structure experiments. I envision that it will be created out of a material like string and making further use of the trees at the site hung in between the trees for the people to ‘play with’ and expereince it.

Start with the boundary strings on three sides

Print the patternto scale

Tie the strings according to patternon the paper

Circles as joints

Ensure all the strings stay in their placesthroughout

Construction Process

To give different lineweights to the strings more structural ones such as the border line will be made out of several in-terwined strings.

This is the first result of an experiment with few points and lines.

As can be seen from this diagram the Grasshopper algorithm results in too many lines and the end result is not structural by itself, therefore I will need to clear the pattern and add patch lines to make sure it has a sound skeleton by hand.

Depending on the structurethinner patch strings in between might be needed, but might give a too ordered look compared to the rest

The circles that denote the trees can also act as joints for the strings to attach to. They can be fabricated in several ways:

Make them with interwined strings like the boundary to set them apart from the pattern strings

3D print them as joints with hollow arms to put the ends of the strings through

Laser cut them with mdf or similar mate-rial to glue the strings onto

or laser cut them as two layers, put the strings in between, and tie the end inside the circle

As this is to be a tensile, movable structure I think its main pattern will need to be created by hand as opposed to computa-tional methods. I plan to use strings for the lines, which can also give more a sense of connection to indigenous art as weaving is important in Aboriginal crafts.

53 Detailed Design

I have been referring to my project as a ‘blanket’ that separated the natural/cultural side with the European/mod-ern freeway: a grand, vertical blanket that comes on the way of people, and incorporates the part B material per-formance/tensile structures studies.It is to be hung onto the trees in the site I have chosen across one of the walking paths, thus forc-ing people to interact with it.

Detailed Design 54

C2. TECTONIC ELEMENTS & PROTOTYPES

55 Detailed Design

These are different patterns created by changing the parameters of the different force fields one by one; such as the charge of the point and lines forces, decay of charge, radius of the spin force, grouped by the force that was changed. My criteria was to come up with a pattern that looked the most organic with different curves and simulated the site the most.

Design Development

Detailed Design 56

I decided on the bottom, left-most pattern on the opposite page; it showed a clear separation the line forces, the paths, create and the spaces created where the trees are.

Circles with centers as the tree points and radius as the remapped value of the force field at that lo-cation created the joints where the strings can be tied for a more sound structure and clear separa-tion of the strings for the pattern.

I cleaned out some lines in places where it got too crowded and would not be feasible when fabri-cating, and connected the lines to the circles to create the structure.

I continued until all the lines were connected to either a joint or an-other circle making sure not the change the pattern too much from the Grasshopper outcome.

57 Detailed Design

FINAL PATTERNAfter having produced the final pattern I edited it further to create the structural parts of the design.

The top diagram on the opposite page show the final ‘blanket’ with the circles turned into prop-er joints with arms for the strings to attach to.

The diagram below shows how it would behave when hung vertically from its corner modelled with Kan-garoo when the only forces on it are its own weight and gravity, when it is not pulled by a person or wind.

Detailed Design 58

JOINTS

1

The joint is 3D printed as a whole because the void in the joinr arm would be filled with support ma-terial for an object of this size.

The arms are carved out to fit in the strings, and the strings are glued into.

The problem with this option is that although it is fast to 3D print the joints the carve out each arm of every joint would be time con-suming. Moreover, as only a bit of the tip of the arm can be carved without damaging the edge the strings cannot be attached very firmly. Also the 3D print mate-rial contrasts too much with the organic look of the string.

59 Detailed Design

2

A second way to fabricate a 3D printed joint would be to model it as upper and bottom halves.

The string is placed and glued inside the arms of one side, and the other half of the joint is glued on top.

This method helps to attach the strings more firmly as all length of the arm is hollow.However, it is again time con-suming to make sure the two sides of all the joints are at-tached properly and firmly.

Detailed Design 60

3

The third option is to laser cut two mdf copies of the joint. The ends of the strings are knotted and glued to ensure they woud not come apart and glued onto the arms of one side. The other half is glued on top.

The method had the strongest hold of the strings as their ends inside the joint had knots that pre-vented them from coming out even if they moved in between the mdf pieces. The colour of mdf also fits the string better and gives an overall more organic look.

61 Detailed Design

C 3 . F I N A L M O D E L

As much as the main premise of this studio is about computational methods I feel the final model that was a mixture of manual and digital fabrication meth-ods justified this juxtaposition. For instance, joints keep the whole structure firm and together, but a force on one of the strings affect all the rest of them. If a string is tied to tight or loose in one place it af-fects the rest, and pulling from side corner moves all the structure. The mdf joints keep it down, but the light strings make it very easy to move. It can easily be moved by people, wind, and shaped by any force.

As it is easily affected by outside forces its shape changes in time too. When pulled or folded the shape of that area changes a bit, and as more forces is put onto it in time it would probably keep that shape it got, thus giving it a morphogenetic aspect that I had studied in part B; the structure forms its own de-sign in time. Moreover, the strings and joints would also be affected by conditions like rain and humid-ity, getting swollen and disintegrating in parts.

Detailed Design 62

63 Detailed Design

Another artifact that had attracted me at the Na-tional Gallery was the hand-weaved baskets by the indigenous people. I tried to incorporate some of the techniques I observed on the model to further connect it to the indigenous culture.

FABRICATION DETAILS

Detailed Design 64

To make the boundary strings as seen on the top photo I used three strings to differentiate it from the pattern strings. The first string is kept straigth and the second string is coiled around it spirally similar to the arm of the weaved basket on the opposite page. Then the third string is again wrapped around the two strings firmer than the second one.

To make the circle that had formed in the middle of Grasshopper force field pattern I followed the same method as shown on the bottom photo.

65 Detailed Design

Detailed Design 66

67 Detailed Design

Detailed Design 68

69 Detailed Design

Detailed Design 70

71 Detailed Design

Detailed Design 72

73 Detailed Design

C 4 . LEARNING OUTCOMES

As with most other people in all my previous stu-dios we had given the brief and the specific site, and was supposed to design that particular struc-ture; whether it is a canopy or a building. I think the main skill I developed in this studio was to ‘inter-rogate the brief’ and the site, and changing the brief instead of just following the task given to me.

Among the learning objectives of the studio that I feel I had developed greatly is ‘the ability to gen-erate a variety of design options’. In previous de-sign studios too I almost always change my proj-ect after my very first proposal and other small changes are constantly made to the design too, but I had never considered so many different itera-tions and options for one project as in Studio Air.

I had come with some knowledge of computational design and Grasshopper, but I definitely improved my skills a lot in these aspects too. To try to create a whole project with computational software instead of just creating some small parts of it was a new challenge too, and I think this studio helped me greatly to see what I can do with those tools and where I can take them.

Detailed Design 74